CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: Public displays of religiosity

[BigBoxaJunk]

I believe the word you're looking for is "understatement."

I know, that was the first word I used, but then it just didn't seem to carry the literary "weight" that I thought my point deserved.


I'm not sure anything has interested me more about human nature than the concept of a secular morality. I remember hearing Dr. Laura Schlesinger (yeah, I admit it, I used to listen) and it was her belief that history shows that it's just not possible. But, I'm convinced that there is no other possibility for humans to survive in a global society BUT with a secular morality (I guess the one other possibility would be one religion controlling the world). There's no other way for people of widely differing beliefs and morals to form any kind of meaningful bond or societal structure than with an agreement, truce, treaty, or whatever that would amount to a form of secular morality.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm not sure anything has interested me more about human nature than the concept of a secular morality. I remember hearing Dr. Laura Schlesinger (yeah, I admit it, I used to listen)...

Hey, we are all allowed our youthful indiscretions.

...and it was her belief that history shows that it's just not possible. But, I'm convinced that there is no other possibility for humans to survive in a global society BUT with a secular morality (I guess the one other possibility would be one religion controlling the world). There's no other way for people of widely differing beliefs and morals to form any kind of meaningful bond or societal structure than with an agreement, truce, treaty, or whatever that would amount to a form of secular morality.

I think what is necessary is to have realistic goals.

Fundamentally, the world will never be truly united. Even the Federation of Planets had the Maquis. But that's not bad - the diversity thing, armed rebellion is bad... except when it is good.

And, unity of morality is not a requirement of governance. The separation of church and state is a solid foundation for allowing secular and parochial morality.

People with widely differing beliefs can still connect at a personal level and respect each other's right to be different. I see evidence of that every day.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Hey, we are all allowed our youthful indiscretions.

I don't mind saying that I did take away some good stuff from her.

People with widely differing beliefs can still connect at a personal level and respect each other's right to be different. I see evidence of that every day.

Some might call that a kind of secular morality, but I guess it could also be though of as holding to another tenant of one's religious morality. I see it as more secular, given that many religions seem to not stress the importance of recognizing other religions as being equally valid and in some cases deserving to exist.

 

[deal me in]

I believe the word you're looking for is "understatement."



I'm interested in this idea that morals come from collective human experience. Personally, as a history hobbyist, I think the totality of human experience nets out as amoral overall. It is only by the influence of a belief in a higher authority that brings morality.


Curious. Science might disagree.
Do Animas Know Right From Wrong?
Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

You and Science might be right. Regardless, while I think exploring morality in the animal kingdom is interesting, we're probably better off sticking to human morality for the purpose of this discussion.

So, if I understand you correctly, your position is that because Christian morals have evolved/are evolving, the evolution is disconnected from the religion. In other words, because the Christian sense of morality has changed, the morality is inherently human - not Christian? I'm not arguing, just making sure I understand. That could be a provocative position to explore.

(TWSS)

Yes, that's accurate and well stated.

Who decides what is necessary and unnecessary suffering?

We do.

Well, regardless what was said above - that is certainly provocative!


Again - just so I'm clear - you're adopting an objective standard of morality (that is somehow non-religious) and applying it to Christianity?

Since I'm not religious, it's the only standard I have. And yes, I am.

To explore this a bit, I think we can agree that there are certain fundamental realities. Let's call one "evolution." Is survival of the fittest amoral?

To some extent, we've collectively decided that survival of the fittest is amoral. That's why we make sacrifices to ensure that the "unfit" do, in fact, survive. We constantly debate as a society how far we should go to undermine "survival of the fittest" with government policy.

Although my posts and questions may be provocative, they're entirely meant in the spirit of civil discussion and I want to say thanks for your questions and comments.

 

[T.Lex]

Some might call that a kind of secular morality, but I guess it could also be though of as holding to another tenant of one's religious morality. I see it as more secular, given that many religions seem to not stress the importance of recognizing other religions as being equally valid and in some cases deserving to exist.

A bit of nuance to my own position on that. I think some religions probably have some details wrong. As in, truly, absolutely, how-did-they-even-come-up-with-that, wrong. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to exist.

I believe God instilled part of His divinity in each of us. Due to human imperfections, it is not always expressed, explored, or discovered. My hope is that people who have things "wrong" will eventually connect with that divinity in a proper way.

I do not profess to know all the permutations of the "proper" way.

Although my posts and questions may be provocative, they're entirely meant in the spirit of civil discussion and I want to say thanks for your questions and comments.

You're welcome.

In retrospect, "provocative" has a potentially negative connotation, to provoke. That's not what I meant, and that's on me. I meant intellectually provocative, provoking thought. So, good on you for that.

Who decides what is necessary and unnecessary suffering?

We do.

Who is we? Secularists? I'm racking my brain and can't come up with any totally secular society that achieved any degree of objective morality. Without something like that, I think your idea is as much a mythology as mine.

To some extent, we've collectively decided that survival of the fittest is amoral. That's why we make sacrifices to ensure that the "unfit" do, in fact, survive. We constantly debate as a society how far we should go to undermine "survival of the fittest" with government policy.

In terms of morality, why do we do that? In Murrica, I believe >51% of us are still religious. (I'd be very curious to know how much of the voting population is religious. I suspect it is a significant majority.) Doesn't that undermine the position that those policies are based in secular morality?

To address the idea that the doctrine of original sin is amoral, I can see how you might think that. But, it is more a reflection of human nature IMHO. People have base motivations. If left to their own devices, most humans would make choices that are bad, perhaps REALLY bad. With God - or an appeal to some other higher authority like "natural rights" - people can be induced to overcome those base motivations.

 

[HoughMade]

TL-DR

Have we cleared up the use of the term amoral yet? It does not mean immoral, it means no morals.

...and just because it seems to fit the thread title:

 

[deal me in]

A bit of nuance to my own position on that. I think some religions probably have some details wrong. As in, truly, absolutely, how-did-they-even-come-up-with-that, wrong. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to exist.

I believe God instilled part of His divinity in each of us. Due to human imperfections, it is not always expressed, explored, or discovered. My hope is that people who have things "wrong" will eventually connect with that divinity in a proper way.

I do not profess to know all the permutations of the "proper" way.


You're welcome.

In retrospect, "provocative" has a potentially negative connotation, to provoke. That's not what I meant, and that's on me. I meant intellectually provocative, provoking thought. So, good on you for that.


Who is we? Secularists? I'm racking my brain and can't come up with any totally secular society that achieved any degree of objective morality. Without something like that, I think your idea is as much a mythology as mine.



In terms of morality, why do we do that? In Murrica, I believe >51% of us are still religious. (I'd be very curious to know how much of the voting population is religious. I suspect it is a significant majority.) Doesn't that undermine the position that those policies are based in secular morality?

To address the idea that the doctrine of original sin is amoral, I can see how you might think that. But, it is more a reflection of human nature IMHO. People have base motivations. If left to their own devices, most humans would make choices that are bad, perhaps REALLY bad. With God - or an appeal to some other higher authority like "natural rights" - people can be induced to overcome those base motivations.

When I said we, I meant all of us, religious and secular. I think you're making it more difficult than it is. Identifying uneccessary suffering usually isn't very difficult.

I disagree about most people having base motivations. I think most people are "good". I do agree that religion has been used to control human behavior. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes not.

 

[T.Lex]

When I said we, I meant all of us, religious and secular. I think you're making it more difficult than it is. Identifying uneccessary suffering usually isn't very difficult.

I somewhat agree. Identifying "necessary" suffering is the hard part.

So what are we arguing about? That secular morality is possible without religious influence?

You said "we" includes the religious. Let's limit it to secular moralists. How does a group of secular moralists decide whether suffering is necessary or unnecessary? (That sounds like a setup to a joke!)

I disagree about most people having base motivations. I think most people are "good". I do agree that religion has been used to control human behavior. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes not.

Fair enough.

Has some version of secular morality as a philosophy ever been a controlling factor for a group of humans that netted out positively?

 

[rambone]

Please re-read my post, I have argued no such thing.

I'm not sure what you're even arguing now, ram, unless you're trying to straw man me.

You asked "by what standard does an atheist call anything 'evil'".

I responded that we are equipped, by evolution, to assess the situation and decide what is "evil" independent of how others behave (within certain boundaries), by comparing the possible outcomes of the various actions within our own mind, and determining which is is more likely to result in a more desirable outcome for each individual. By using this basic standard we are able to set a base (better/worse) and work from there to (best possible/worst possible). The rest is a matter of application, through physical and social necessity.

You seem to be responding that I have argued that the definition of good and evil come from society. I am not. Good and evil come from within...both the source, and the definition, and both can be found without outside intervention.

I feel I have failed to make my point...and am only making it worse.

I did not mean to intentionally mischaracterize you. Thanks for clarifying. Your theory in summary is: morality comes from within, not society and not God; it is a product of evolution.

Now, granted that you say morality "does not come from society," both your posts say that morality has to do with fitting into society. You spoke of "social creatures" seeking "desirable outcomes" and avoiding "dire consequences" -- all of which are the determined by the standards of a given society.

So, I am still wondering, what about (most) societies where oppression is a valued institution? Monarchies, dictatorships, tribal cultures, kingdoms and empires; on and on. Aren't people going to use their internal "morality" mechanism to fit into society? History shows that they will. Like you said, people want best outcomes for themselves. They will do what it takes to survive and thrive -- often to the detriment of innocent people.

And if morality is an evolutionary trait, that leaves us with so many more questions. Clearly it is not a trait shared by everyone; why? Are immoral people less evolved? Evil even appears in siblings that share the same DNA and the same parents; why? Better yet, how can an entire society turn to evil, if evolution was a factor?

The obvious conclusion is that without God, morality is completely flexible, from culture to culture. Without God, morality has no universal standard. The Americans and the Nazis share the exact same level of "evolutionary" development.

And frankly, even if morality were as you described, it is still meaningless without God. We have no souls, we have no futures, we have absolutely no consequences for our earthly behavior. There is absolutely no logical reason to feel bad about doing anything "evil" aside from getting caught and punished by society. If you can get away with stealing and killing, why wouldn't you? After all, human life is not special; there are plenty more left if one dies; we are only animals anyway. Having a moral conscience is actually a hindrance to gathering earthly riches and pleasures. Morals are just figments of our imaginations.

 

[indiucky]

Uh-oh...you're in hell!

Wait...

If you're here....and I'm here....Does that mean I'm in hell too?

I am in the "Special kind of Hell", No popcorn, corn, peanuts, seeds of ANY kind (even sesame seeds!!!!), beans etc.......

Good news is the wound has officially closed up and my scars look like Aussie Aboriginal drawings from the Dream Time period.......(I asked the surgeon for less "Pagan" looking scars but he didn't listen)....

The one in the middle (vertical) looks like a Shepherd's Hook and the (horizontal) one looks like an Aboriginal carving of a Komodo Dragon walking towards the Shepherd's hook...Maybe St George slaying the Dragon....

 

[indiucky]

Without God, morality has no universal standard. The Americans and the Nazis share the exact same level of "evolutionary" development.

Very well said Rambone....The whole post was well written but this sums it up perfectly......There is nothing in the evolutionary process that would make someone want to "do good"....Totally the opposite actually as you so eloquently pointed out........

 

[deal me in]

I somewhat agree. Identifying "necessary" suffering is the hard part.

So what are we arguing about? That secular morality is possible without religious influence?

You said "we" includes the religious. Let's limit it to secular moralists. How does a group of secular moralists decide whether suffering is necessary or unnecessary? (That sounds like a setup to a joke!)

99% of the time it's obvious, like in the case of violent crimes. I can give an example where suffering is deemed necessary. We've decided that children aren't capable of making their own decisions on many subjects. Generally, we agree that parents should make those decisions for their children. However, an exception is refusal of health care (that is deemed necessary by medical professionals) for the survival of the child. We impose suffering in the form of possibly painful and unwanted medical procedures on the child and we deprive the parents of their normal rights. We've made a secular decision that the child's right to life is more important than the parents right to make decisions regarding their children. Whether you agree with the outcome or not, it's an example of secular reasoning regarding suffering and morality.

Fair enough.

Has some version of secular morality as a philosophy ever been a controlling factor for a group of humans that netted out positively?

Going back to our earlier discussion, I don't think there is a religious morality and a secular morality. We've decided on certain moral principles based on our overall experience as human beings. Some of it was influenced by religion to greater or lesser degrees and some was from secular philosophy. Some issues, like abortion, are still hotly contested regardless of religious belief. I know atheists who are against abortion on moral grounds and Christians who support a woman's right to chose on pragmatic grounds.

 

[deal me in]

Very well said Rambone....The whole post was well written but this sums it up perfectly......There is nothing in the evolutionary process that would make someone want to "do good"....Totally the opposite actually as you so eloquently pointed out........

False. Part of the evolutionary process for humans is recognizing the fact that working together is beneficial to survival. Part of working together is developing rules and guidelines for how we'll interact with each other.

 

[T.Lex]

False. Part of the evolutionary process for humans is recognizing the fact that working together is beneficial to survival. Part of working together is developing rules and guidelines for how we'll interact with each other.

Yeah, but governing is really disconnected from morality.

What is immoral about going 50 mph in a 20 mph zone?

 

[deal me in]

Yeah, but governing is really disconnected from morality.

What is immoral about going 50 mph in a 20 mph zone?

You're putting the lives of others in danger obviously. Again, whether you agree or not isn't the point, but that is the reasoning from a morality standpoint.

 

[indiucky]

Every now and again I am going to throw some Blind Boys from Alabama into the mix....They play Churches in the AM and fill concert halls in the PM...The songs for both shows have the same message and the audience claps and is moved at both shows...When I finally let the carpenter in (after arguing for YEARS as a Christian Apologist...)I came to Christ NOT from the New Testament but from Tacitus, Josephus, and various other secular/Jewish ancient historians..None of them DOUBTED He performed miracles, there was just debate from whence that ability came...Being "Born Again" is so very hard to explain to those who don't believe without coming across like a raving lunatic that most of us don't even try...We just sheepishly grin and say, "It's kind of hard to explain but yeah I am one of those people..."

"One day, one day I was walking along (Thank God Almighty I am free at last) when I heard a voice but saw no one (Thank God Almighty I am free at last)

Free at Last, Free at Last, Thank God Almighty I am Free at Last"

Traditional Gospel

I think there are a couple of songs that do explain it pretty well..."Amazing Grace" is probably the best known but the Blind Boys do a good job in a Bluesy/Gospel version of "Free at Last" so I thought I would share it with INGO.....

[video=youtube;2MUxpPAiTfQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MUxpPAiTfQ[/video]

[video=youtube;bCfqS7HgAY0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCfqS7HgAY0[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

You're putting the lives of others in danger obviously.

But by what morality is that a problem? Driving itself puts lives in danger. Why is the risk to them worth more than my timeliness?

Again, whether you agree or not isn't the point, but that is the reasoning from a morality standpoint.

What reasoning?

 

[rambone]

I think Christians need to defend Biblical morality before trying to cite it as the standard. The entire basis of Christianity is amoral. The belief that one is born with original sin and must accept a savior or face an eternity of suffering is amoral. What is moral about sentencing a person to infinite suffering for a "thought crime"? If we applied Biblical standards to secular life, everyone would start off in jail and only be released when they pledged their love and devotion to the government.

I think you're intending to say, "immoral." You believe Christianity is immoral because you cannot get God's rewards while rejecting God's commands.

Although you do admit that those two definitions have been a bit of a moving target (whats the opposite of hyperbole?), don't you?

Not really. For a Christian, "good" means obeying God's commandments and acting in faith in ALL things. ANY form of disobedience to God is evil. Falling short of Jesus in ANY way is sin. ANY lack of faith is sin. ANY attachment to material things of the world is sin.

"Anything that is not done in faith is sin." -- Romans 14:23

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." -- 1 John 2:15

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." -- Romans 3:23

For a Christian, there is no such thing as a "good person." Good is defined by God only.

 

[steveh_131]

Part of the evolutionary process for humans is recognizing the fact that working together is beneficial to survival.

Please present your scientific evidence for this statement.

Everything I have observed about raw human nature indicates otherwise.

 

[Denny347]

There is nothing in the evolutionary process that would make someone want to "do good"....Totally the opposite actually as you so eloquently pointed out........

Please present your scientific evidence for this statement.

Everything I have observed about raw human nature indicates otherwise.

Actually that is not what science is pointing to.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120410093151.htm

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/...lhttp://www.samharris.org/the-moral-landscape

Richard Dawkins explains this very well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9p2F2oa0_k