CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: Public displays of religiosity

[deal me in]

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?


What reasoning?

Are you really asking why we value an individuals life/well-being over your desire to speed? It's based on the premise that you have a right to your life and those who would take that right away through negligence or malfeasance are doing you harm and not acting morally. As far as the risk of driving even within the speed limit laws, it's just a risk we accept for convenience. We try to mitigate the risk as best we can though driving rules and regulations.

 

[T.Lex]

Are you really asking why we value an individuals life/well-being over your desire to speed?

Yes. It is unclear to me how a secular approach works in this regard.

It's based on the premise that you have a right to your life and those who would take that right away through negligence or malfeasance are doing you harm and not acting morally.

Progress.

It appears that a secular approach sees risk as immoral. An action that produces less risk is more moral than an action that produces more risk.

So is procreation immoral? There is substantial risk to the mother, not so much for the father. In that regard, the father creates the risk, with almost no risk to himself.

From another angle, why should I have any regard for the risk to others? All those other people clearly have no respect for the risk to me. They shouldn't be walking on the street.

 

[deal me in]

Please present your scientific evidence for this statement.

Everything I have observed about raw human nature indicates otherwise.

I really don't know where to start with this. All of human history is my scientific evidence. From man's origins we've found it beneficial to work together. A group of hunter-gathers had a much higher chance of survival than an individual. As farming, and subsequently, civilization grew we found it beneficial to work together to allow specialization like doctors. If you want to argue that we aren't social, co-operative animals from an evolutionary standpoint, I really don't know what to say. On a side note, I just find it astonishing that the same person I agree with so much on the proper role of government would have such different beliefs than me on religion. I would never have guessed that you were a theist. Just goes to show that making assumptions about people's beliefs is a mistake.

 

[deal me in]

Yes. It is unclear to me how a secular approach works in this regard.



Progress.

It appears that a secular approach sees risk as immoral. An action that produces less risk is more moral than an action that produces more risk.

So is procreation immoral? There is substantial risk to the mother, not so much for the father. In that regard, the father creates the risk, with almost no risk to himself.

From another angle, why should I have any regard for the risk to others? All those other people clearly have no respect for the risk to me. They shouldn't be walking on the street.

Morality is relative, we do balance risk against benefits in almost everything, including procreation. You should regard the risk to others because you want them to have the same regard for you. I believe Christians call this concept the golden rule.

 

[T.Lex]

Morality is relative, we do balance risk against benefits in almost everything, including procreation.

Which comes back to - how can someone define "evil" without reference to religion or religious principles? Because, you complete the circle by reference to....

You should regard the risk to others because you want them to have the same regard for you. I believe Christians call this concept the golden rule.

Absolutely. I don't see the questions as, "Can the Golden Rule be practiced by non-Christians?" - clearly non-Christians in the Western World do so on a daily basis.

I believe the question is more, "Can a moral purely-secular society exist without the Golden Rule?" I do not believe it can, partly because it never has.

 

[steveh_131]

If you want to argue that we aren't social, co-operative animals from an evolutionary standpoint, I really don't know what to say.

I should have been more clear in my question. In the context of evolution and natural selection, how does evolution decide between self-interest and selfless interest? Why have we developed moral standards such as these while other species have developed very different ones?

On a side note, I just find it astonishing that the same person I agree with so much on the proper role of government would have such different beliefs than me on religion. I would never have guessed that you were a theist. Just goes to show that making assumptions about people's beliefs is a mistake.

I try to dispel this assumption, but we haven't been allowed to discuss the subject for so long that it became rather difficult. My understanding of scriptures has led me to believe that the only behavioral changes that matter in any real sense are those that come from within. Government can't do that, and only tramples on us when it tries. There is only one who can make those changes, as He did in me. One of the many wonderful things about individual liberty is that I am free to tell people about Him.

 

[deal me in]

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.

Yes, someone else pointed out that I was not using amoral correctly. Another site or device I used in the past didn't recognize immoral and would correct it to amoral so I wrongly assumed amoral was the correct word. Just a dumb mistake, I don't enjoy being ignorant any more than anyone else, so thanks to both of you for pointing it out.

 

[eldirector]

I should have been more clear in my question. In the context of evolution and natural selection, how does evolution decide between self-interest and selfless interest? Why have we developed moral standards such as these while other species have developed very different ones?

Several mechanisms may be at play. Quick summary on Wikipedia:
Altruism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even more interesting to this thread:
Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And:
Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, Wiki isn't exactly a "source". Hit some of the original sourced referenced in the article for much more in-depth information.

I studied this a bit in college. Mostly from a biological/behavior standpoint, though. Never took a Theology or Humanities-type course. Talk about some heated discussions!

 

[deal me in]

I should have been more clear in my question. In the context of evolution and natural selection, how does evolution decide between self-interest and selfless interest? Why have we developed moral standards such as these while other species have developed very different ones?




I try to dispel this assumption, but we haven't been allowed to discuss the subject for so long that it became rather difficult. My understanding of scriptures has led me to believe that the only behavioral changes that matter in any real sense are those that come from within. Government can't do that, and only tramples on us when it tries. There is only one who can make those changes, as He did in me. One of the many wonderful things about individual liberty is that I am free to tell people about Him.

Evolution doesn't "decide". The species who make the best adaptations to their environment prosper and those who don't die. It's the same for individuals within a species as well. Those who adapt best will thrive and those who don't, won't. It's not necessary to choose between self-interest and selfless interest, because their is no selfless interest or at least very little. When you help your sick parents as they near death it's not a selfless act. You want to live in a world where children help their old parents and you may want that same help some day as well. When you help an old lady across the street it's not a selfless act. You want to live in a society where people help old ladies across the street and you also feel better about yourself. When you give money to charity it's not a selfless act. You want to live in a world where people help those in need. You may want help yourself some day and you'll probably go ahead and take the tax break too.

On the role of government/scriptures I understand where you're coming from. I actually find it refreshing to talk to a Christian who shares many of my views on government, even though we reach that agreement from different starting points.

 

[steveh_131]

First of all, I appreciate the links provided by deal me in and eldirector. I read some of them, still have more reading to do.

I am finding a bit of it to be somewhat circular. Religious activities make us feel better. Feeling better makes us healthier. Therefore, religious activities enhance survival... and therefore, it is a product of evolution.

Why? Why do religious activities make us feel 'better'? Why do our emotions impact our physical health? By what naturally selective process did all of that evolve?

I suspect that we could go in circles about this just as we could any other subject of creation vs. evolution, and I doubt we'd get anywhere.

When you help your sick parents as they near death it's not a selfless act. You want to live in a world where children help their old parents and you may want that same help some day as well. When you help an old lady across the street it's not a selfless act. You want to live in a society where people help old ladies across the street and you also feel better about yourself. When you give money to charity it's not a selfless act. You want to live in a world where people help those in need. You may want help yourself some day and you'll probably go ahead and take the tax break too.

When I help the old lady, I get nothing tangible from it. I have no evidence that more people will help me in my old age simply because I helped her. But you're right, it's mostly not selfless. It makes me feel good about myself. Why? Aiding non-reproductive elderly people serves no evolutionary purpose. In fact, helping them serves the opposite purpose. They consume resources and offer very little.

So let's assume this desire is genetic. This desire causes me to expend finite energy and resources aiding people who are absolutely no help to me. How does this enhance my survival probabilities, thereby ensuring that this gene propagates to future iterations of my species?

 

[Denny347]

I should have been more clear in my question. In the context of evolution and natural selection, how does evolution decide between self-interest and selfless interest? Why have we developed moral standards such as these while other species have developed very different ones?

See post 80.

 

[indiucky]

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.

I disagree....Killing all of the competition can also benefit survival, impregnating all of the women you can so your DNA will be passed on can also benefit one's survival....I see very little evidence that humans have evolved to the point of working together...It seems we do the opposite....

IMHO of course....

 

[steveh_131]

See post 80.

Thanks Denny, I did read your links but wrongly attributed them to deal me in.

 

[deal me in]

I disagree....Killing all of the competition can also benefit survival, impregnating all of the women you can so your DNA will be passed on can also benefit one's survival....I see very little evidence that humans have evolved to the point of working together...It seems we do the opposite....

IMHO of course....

We live in cities, states, and nations that were only made possible through massive co-operation. The resulting specialization has accounted for modern technology and medicine. It's not beneficial to kill off the competition because that means they're all trying to kill you too. How is having everyone trying to kill you a good way to maximize your chances for survival? Humans adopted monogamous relationships precisely to avoid conflict.

 

[indiucky]

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

I like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins...They are the Jim Baker and Oral Roberts of their Faith...Dawkin's kind of gets into the "Ancient Astronauts" Theory when talking about how life came to Earth and I have got to respect someone that has the guts to "go there" when explaining his Faith....


[video=youtube;SL7CCyuXAS4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7CCyuXAS4[/video]

Here is a scientist with another view.....

All good moral philosophy is ... but the handmaid to religion.

— Sir Francis Bacon

In The Advancement of Learning, book 2, xxii, 14. In Francis Bacon and Basil Montagu, The Works of Francis Bacon (1825), 252.​

​

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins...They are the Jim Baker and Oral Roberts of their Faith...Dawkin's kind of gets into the "Ancient Astronauts" Theory when talking about how life came to Earth and I have got to respect someone that has the guts to "go there" when explaining his Faith....


[video=youtube;SL7CCyuXAS4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7CCyuXAS4[/video]

Here is a scientist with another view.....

All good moral philosophy is ... but the handmaid to religion.

— Sir Francis Bacon

In The Advancement of Learning, book 2, xxii, 14. In Francis Bacon and Basil Montagu, The Works of Francis Bacon (1825), 252.​

​

Mmmm... Bacon.

 

[deal me in]

First of all, I appreciate the links provided by deal me in and eldirector. I read some of them, still have more reading to do.

I am finding a bit of it to be somewhat circular. Religious activities make us feel better. Feeling better makes us healthier. Therefore, religious activities enhance survival... and therefore, it is a product of evolution.

Why? Why do religious activities make us feel 'better'? Why do our emotions impact our physical health? By what naturally selective process did all of that evolve?

I suspect that we could go in circles about this just as we could any other subject of creation vs. evolution, and I doubt we'd get anywhere.



When I help the old lady, I get nothing tangible from it. I have no evidence that more people will help me in my old age simply because I helped her. But you're right, it's mostly not selfless. It makes me feel good about myself. Why? Aiding non-reproductive elderly people serves no evolutionary purpose. In fact, helping them serves the opposite purpose. They consume resources and offer very little.

So let's assume this desire is genetic. This desire causes me to expend finite energy and resources aiding people who are absolutely no help to me. How does this enhance my survival probabilities, thereby ensuring that this gene propagates to future iterations of my species?

I think you're discounting the importance of people expecting help when they're old. Social Security is a very popular program entirely based on the concept of the young and healthy paying for the old and sick and expecting the same when they get old. Part of the drive to procreate is the desire for you're children to come into a world where they will have a chance to maximize their happiness and well-being. None of us want to be "put down" when we're no longer young and healthy enough to be productive, so we sacrifice to help the elderly and we expect the same for ourselves.

 

[steveh_131]

I think you're discounting the importance of people expecting help when they're old. Social Security is a very popular program entirely based on the concept of the young and healthy paying for the old and sick and expecting the same when they get old. Part of the drive to procreate is the desire for you're children to come into a world where they will have a chance to maximize their happiness and well-being. None of us want to be "put down" when we're no longer young and healthy enough to be productive, so we sacrifice to help the elderly and we expect the same for ourselves.

And yet there is no part of me helping that old lady that contributes to myself having children, or those children helping me someday. There is no biological connection. So how did that genetic desire, if it mutated randomly, translate into me (the one with the mutated gene) having a better chance of survival?

 

[eldirector]

And yet there is no part of me helping that old lady that contributes to myself having children, or those children helping me someday. There is no biological connection. So how did that genetic desire, if it mutated randomly, translate into me (the one with the mutated gene) having a better chance of survival?

Because men you are "nice" are selected by women to father their children.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Because men you are "nice" are selected by women to father their children.

A-hem...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/385493-stay-classy-beach-grove.html