on discussing god and religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:04 pm

Mr. Fun Then I'm Done wrote:


Note to felix, Bob, Ierrellus, phyllo and all the other God World members here:

What have you got to say to that?

Might I suggest an intelligent and civil exchange between you and Mr. Fun to explore it?

But please create it in a new thread. This thread still exists primarily for those who are on a religious and spiritual path to connect the dots [existentially] between morality on this side of the grave and the fate of "I" on the other side of it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 15, 2021 3:59 pm

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet

The relationship between religion and morality has long been hotly debated. Does religion make us more moral? Is it necessary for morality? Do moral inclinations emerge independently of religious intuitions?


Of course my own preference here is not to focus in on the answers someone might give, but on how they came to arrive at the answers themselves. The extent to which their own personal opinions are more the embodiment of dasein than in answers that actually can be pinned down as more or less rational...more or less "correct".

These debates, which nowadays rumble on in scientific journals as well as in public life, have frequently been marred by a series of conceptual confusions and limitations. Many scientific investigations have failed to decompose “religion” and “morality” into theoretically grounded elements; have adopted parochial conceptions of key concepts—in particular, sanitized conceptions of “prosocial” behavior; and have neglected to consider the complex interplay between cognition and culture.


Debates about God and religion and morality in scientific journals? Conceptual confusions and limitations? Decompos[ing] “religion” and “morality” into theoretically grounded elements...?

I'd certainly be interested in links to those. Given that most scientists tend to steer clear of the is/ought world altogether. Let alone focusing in on ultimate explanations.

On the other hand, I'm all about the "complex interplay between cognition and culture." Cognition and cultures rooted in historical variables that in many crucial respects could not possibly be more at odds when it comes down to sustaining "rules of behavior".

We argue that to make progress, the categories “religion” and “morality” must be fractionated into a set of biologically and psychologically cogent traits, revealing the cognitive foundations that shape and constrain relevant cultural variants. We adopt this fractionating strategy, setting out an encompassing evolutionary framework within which to situate and evaluate relevant evidence. Our goals are twofold: to produce a detailed picture of the current state of the field, and to provide a road map for future research on the relationship between religion and morality.


Hmm, let me think...

What's missing here? Of course: contexts!

Let's see if they are to follow.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Wed Dec 15, 2021 7:20 pm

Thanks for posting that article. It's interesting from my point of view. I'll follow this thread to see if they do supply a concrete experiential context as you hope.

"The Origin of the Species"functionally replaced "Genesis" in our intellectual culture. Secular society generally believes in the lower causing the higher instead of the higher causing the lower as it did according to the perennial philosophy. So for us moderns information produces knowledge and wisdom does not exist. Matters of ought and value have no objective reality.

Traditionally wisdom is more ontologically primary than knowledge which in turn is more ontologically primary than information. What we call knowledge, Plato called opinion. It's the basis of our technoscience. Who among us is not under its spell? After all, I'm sending this message on my phone.

But, by ceding centered intelligibility to technoscience, humanity has brought itself to the worldwide crisis of the present moment. The Faustian bargain was made before we were born. It's part of the facticity of our collective Dasein. Will it save us? I think we need to rediscover wisdom for that to happen.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Lorikeet » Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:16 pm

Hellenic asceticism...unlike Abrahamic or Buddhist asceticism - nihilistic asceticism.
Hellenic asceticism self--denial is a means to an end....in nihilism it is the end.
It can only contradict its own principles - self-decieve, lie - to survive in a world it denounces and denies.
See how Christianity makes-up a rule against suicide, which follows from tis own "logic".
See how the Buddhist monk must rely on the generosity of his fellow man if he is to survive his self-denial.
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 16, 2021 7:44 pm

felix dakat wrote: Thanks for posting that article. It's interesting from my point of view. I'll follow this thread to see if they do supply a concrete experiential context as you hope.

"The Origin of the Species"functionally replaced "Genesis" in our intellectual culture. Secular society generally believes in the lower causing the higher instead of the higher causing the lower as it did according to the perennial philosophy. So for us moderns information produces knowledge and wisdom does not exist. Matters of ought and value have no objective reality.

Traditionally wisdom is more ontologically primary than knowledge which in turn is more ontologically primary than information. What we call knowledge, Plato called opinion. It's the basis of our technoscience. Who among us is not under its spell? After all, I'm sending this message on my phone.


Only here once again all I can do is to ponder "what on earth" you mean by this. Why? Because it is not intertwined in a context that would enable you to describe more clearly what you mean by the lower causing the higher and the higher causing the lower. Lower and higher in regard to what?

And how is your understanding of that intertwined in turn to the manner in which you connect the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality there and then. The reason that I had begun this thread in the first place.

Same with distinguishing knowledge and information from wisdom. Given what situation in which one person makes this distinction such that it comes into conflict with how another person does.

And matters of ought and value are still embedded in contexts in which there are facts that all sides can agree on. And my point is that objective reality may well exist here. But that this would be rooted in the actual existence of a God, the God, my God. Or a secular facsimile.

And then from my frame of mind you really soar up into the clouds...

felix dakat wrote: But, by ceding centered intelligibility to technoscience, humanity has brought itself to the worldwide crisis of the present moment. The Faustian bargain was made before we were born. It's part of the facticity of our collective Dasein. Will it save us? I think we need to rediscover wisdom for that to happen.


This [to me] is in the general vicinity of MenoSpeak.

Note more specifically what you mean by "our collective Dasein". In the sense that Heidegger construed it? And save us...how? Note contexts here where this might unfold.

Then, to the extent that you believe we can "rediscover wisdom", how might that be understood given the manner in which you connect the dots between morality and immortality?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 16, 2021 7:52 pm

Lyssa fArts religion wrote:Hellenic asceticism...unlike Abrahamic or Buddhist asceticism - nihilistic asceticism.
Hellenic asceticism self--denial is a means to an end....in nihilism it is the end.
It can only contradict its own principles - self-decieve, lie - to survive in a world it denounces and denies.
See how Christianity makes-up a rule against suicide, which follows from tis own "logic".
See how the Buddhist monk must rely on the generosity of his fellow man if he is to survive his self-denial.


See how none of this actually pertains to a set of circumstances where the intellectual contraption Hellenic ascetic and the intellectual contraption Abrahamic and Buddhist ascetics and the intellectual contraption nihilist actually discuss what they mean by means and ends given a particular context most here will be familiar with.

How about in regard to suicide and subsistence?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 21, 2021 5:33 pm

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet

The question of whether or not morality requires religion is both topical and ancient. In the Euthyphro, Socrates famously asked whether goodness is loved by the gods because it is good, or whether goodness is good because it is loved by the gods.


Okay, discuss this in regard to your own God of choice. Given, say, a particular context. Indeed, even in regard to the either/or world it can be asked: Did God create the laws of matter because he chose them or did He choose them only because the laws of matter themselves offer no alternative.

At least that way if might be argued that God created our planet with its gruesome natural disasters, destroying countless human lives because He really had no other option. The laws of matter simply are what they must be.

Although he favored the former proposal, many others have argued that morality is dictated by—and indeed unthinkable without—God: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted” (Dostoevsky, 1880/1990). Echoing this refrain, conservatives like to claim that “declining moral standards” are at least partly attributable to the rise of secularism and the decline of organized religion.


Of course here we have an actual existential quandary. If a God, the God, your God loved goodness as encompassed in His Scripture, what of all the other Scriptures...where goodness might be construed in very different ways regarding the very same behaviors. Then [ultimately] we are back to the OP here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=197537

Only, again, given your own God of choice.

But I am inclined to at least accept that in the absence of God all things are permitted. Either given the nature of conflicting fonts or from the perspective of the sociopath.

The notion that religion is a precondition for morality is widespread and deeply ingrained. More than half of Americans share Laura Schlessinger’s belief that morality is impossible without belief in God (Pew Research Center, 2007), and in many countries this attitude is far more prevalent.


Well, that's certainly in sync with my own set of assumptions. No God, no morality. Or, if a mere mortal morality, one that is derived from hopelessly conflicting fonts. All of which would seem to lack in both omniscience and omnipotence.

And that's the whole point of linking God and morality: He knows all so there is no getting away with it. And His reward is up and His punishment down. And for all of eternity.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:22 pm

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet

In a series of compelling recent studies, Gervais and colleagues have demonstrated strong implicit associations of atheists with immorality. Although these associations are stronger in people who themselves believe in God, even atheist participants intuitively view acts such as serial murder, incest, and necrobestiality as more representative of atheists than of other religious, ethnic, or cultural groups.


Here of course the discussion can shift to purely sociopathic behaviors. What sociopath is going to pursue mayhem in his or her interactions with others if he or she believes in a God fully capable of sending them to Hell for all of eternity? But with sociopaths it can often come down to this: the extent to which their behaviors are "thought through" philosophically or religiously. Some can basically become thugs, interested only in stomping on anyone that comes between them and their own self-gratification. But others can become entirely more sophisticated in their rationalizations. Think Nietzsche's Ubermen. A whole philosophy concocted in order to make that crucial distinction between the masters and the slaves.

And I am certainly one of those who does conclude that ultimately this does come down to God and religion...or religion but No God. For some, why would they not justify all behaviors if there is no omniscient/omnipotent transcendent able to hold them accountable. Instead, they shift gears from "don't do that" to "don't get caught".

Unsurprisingly, atheists explicitly disavow this connection, with some even suggesting that atheists are “the moral backbone of the nation . . . tak[ing] their civic duties seriously precisely because they don’t trust God to save humanity from its follies”. Other nontheists have taken a softer line, arguing that moral inclinations are deeply embedded in our evolved psychology, flourishing quite naturally in the absence of religious indoctrination.


Please. The only way atheists can become the moral backbone of any nation is in treating atheism itself as a religion. Once the moral backbone itself becomes one or another objectivist font, the next step is invariably "one of us" [the righteous] vs. "one of them" [the wretched].

As for the softer line, okay, note a moral inclination of your own that you are convinced is deeply embedded in your own "evolved psychology". This mentality is what those like Satyr use to justify their racism, their sexism and their heterosexism.

Even though all human behaviors must be natural because human beings themselves are an inherent part of nature, some are more natural than others.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:50 pm

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet

Although there is no shortage of lively polemic, scientific investigations of the connection between religion and morality have so far produced mixed results. The interpretive difficulties are exacerbated by imprecise conceptions both of “religion” and “morality.”


More to the point, is it even possible to come up with precise conceptions in connecting the dots between religion and morality? Let alone when we take our existential leaps off the conceptual assessments and focus in on the world of actual human interactions that conflate religion and morality.

Again, the easiest to understand is the "Thou shalt not" approach from those who embrace a God, the God, my God given one or another actual Scripture. Although even here these Scriptures are, to say the least, open to interpretation.

But what of connecting the dots involving religious paths that revolve instead around Buddhism or pantheism or deism?

And science itself is said to revolve around the "scientific method". How exactly would that be employed in probing the connection between religion and morality. What mixed results in particular?

It is not clear that these terms are used in the same ways by those between, or even within, seemingly opposing camps.


Yes, that would be my point. Only I would suggest that in order to at least attempt to clarify any possible disputes, we zoom in on actual "situations" where there are conflicting assessments. Even though for some here that has absolutely nothing to do with "serious philosophy".

To make progress on this issue, we require a more precise specification of which human virtues are under consideration and which features of religion might be thought to influence their expression. Our aim in what follows will be to sort out some of the conceptual confusions and to provide a clear evolutionary framework within which to situate and evaluate relevant evidence.


With plenty of actual existential contexts? We'll see.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 11, 2022 4:01 pm

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet

Many authors have attempted to identify the fundamental elements of religion. Saroglou, for instance, has put forward a detailed psychological model of the “Big Four religious dimensions,” providing an illuminating taxonomy of core components of religiosity that integrates numerous previous formulations in the psychology and sociology of religion. In brief, for Saroglou, to be religious entails...

Believing: Holding a set of beliefs about transcendent entities (e.g., personal gods, impersonal life forces, karmic principles).


And, for many, recognizing that if morality is to have any lasting relevance in our lives, believing in God is almost beyond all doubt the starting point. With [most of them] we have both omniscience and omnipotence. And how can morality be pinned to the objectivist, ontological assessment without that? If you can get away with doing the wrong thing and never be punished for it what kind of a morality is that?

Bonding: Having self-transcendent, emotional experiences, typically through ritual (whether private or public, frequent or rare), that connect one to others and to a deeper reality.
Behaving: Subscribing to certain moral norms, and exerting self-control to behave in accordance with these norms.
Belonging: Identifying and affiliating with a certain community or tradition.


What are these in turn but emotional and psychological states that we all have the capacity to experience because the human species, as with many other animal species, are preprogramed by nature to embody them in our interactions with others. But, unlike any other species, the moral dimension here is applicable to us in a way that it is not for these other species. There isn't even really any comparison in terms of how individual members of the human species can be all up and down the behavioral spectrum. Which is merely to point out the obvious: Memes R Us.

Note that any one of these dimensions could pick out phenomena that would not ordinarily be classed as “religious.” For instance, “Father Christmas” is a person who manifestly transcends ordinary physical laws, yet few would describe belief in this supernatural being as “religious”. Much the same could be said about ritual, which is often understood to be a religious trait but is also prominent in nonreligious (e.g., military) settings (and, as Bloom, 2012, notes, even ardent atheists seek out transcendent experiences, whether through drugs or meditative practices). Moreover, Saroglou himself points out that religious affiliation is just one of many ways people can satisfy a need to “belong.”


Yes, that's how it works. Given particular historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts [rooted in dasein] how each of us as individuals react to these things can be truly "vast and varied".

How isn't that exacly my point about your own value judgments? It is only the religious objectivists among us who insist that it's their path or doom.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:02 pm

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet

...according to a prevailing conception in moral psychology, morality—perhaps like religion—comprises a suite of largely independent mechanisms that, although often connected by narratives, doctrines, songs, and other culturally distributed networks of ideas, are the outcomes of quite distinct psychological processes and functions. Thus, both religion and morality can be endlessly assembled and reassembled in culturally and historically contingent ways. Like the constellations of the astrologer’s imagination, these assemblages of psychological and behavioral traits and tendencies may be artificial, contingent, and arbitrary, rather than grounded in any stable underlying regularities.


Isn't it then obvious why supposed "insights" like this are ever and always bundled up in a "world of worlds"? In "conceptions"? In "general description intellectual contraptions"?

After all, you tell me: how, given a particular context, do you intertwine "doctrines, songs, and other culturally distributed networks of ideas" that you're familiar with, with "outcomes of quite distinct psychological processes and functions"...given actual experiences from your own life.

On the other hand, this part...

"...both religion and morality can be endlessly assembled and reassembled in culturally and historically contingent ways..."

...makes sense to me as soon as you do begin to connect the dots between a "world of words 'conceptual' assessment" and the sheer convoluted complexity of all the ever evolving and changing variables tangled up in the life that you live.

Thus, when those like Fixed Jacob come here and start in with their "conceptual assessment" of astrology how is this...

"Like the constellations of the astrologer’s imagination, these assemblages of psychological and behavioral traits and tendencies may be artificial, contingent, and arbitrary, rather than grounded in any stable underlying regularities."

...not basically my own point? Astrology, like religion is just another font to anchor the Real Me in. And "the celestial bodies" become just another God to yank your own responsibilities farther away. God and these heavenly bodies pull our strings in ways that are just "beyond our control".

One notable feature of Saroglou’s model of religious dimensions is that it categorizes morality as a key dimension of religion: “Religion not only is particularly concerned with morality as an external correlate but also includes morality as one of its basic dimensions”. This stipulation implies that any inquiry into the effects of “religion” as a whole on “morality” as a whole may be a circular, and therefore futile, enterprise.


The point I often come back to. In other words, that historically, culturally and personally, religions are invented precisely in order to provide us with that font we can attach objective morality to "in our head". But by no means futile if you simply sweep the "circular logic" under the rug and think yourself into believing that this is only the case with their Gods and their religions...not yours.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:51 pm

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet

Descriptive Ethnocentrism

If moral psychology is to contribute to the psychology of religion, it will have to describe a moral domain as expansive as that of the Gods.
—Graham and Haidt


On the other hand, given a particular moral conflict relating to a particular set of circumstances, where exactly does moral psychology end and the psychology of religion begin. Human psychology in a free will world clearly revolves around trying to figure out what any specific thing means in the context of grappling with what everything intertwined into the "human condition" means.

And, even given our own tiny slice of that, the relationship between them is going to be murky at times to say the least.

In fact, how do you make that distinction yourself given a situation in which your own moral convictions were challenged?

When a newspaper headline reads “bishop attacks declining moral standards,” we expect to read yet again about promiscuity, homosexuality, pornography, and so on, and not about the puny amounts we give as overseas aid to poorer nations, or our reckless indifference to the natural environment of our planet.
—Singer


The bishop of course is the very embodiment of the psychology of religion: a God, the God, my God. But where does his moral psychology fit into my own assumption regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? In other words, "politics" is but one more contributing factor to our collective "failure to communicate". Maybe God should have thought that part through more when He created us.

And here's how far that "failure to communicate" can go:

In a recent interview, the Hon. Rev. Fr. Simon Lokodo, Ugandan Minister of Ethics and Integrity, indicated that he viewed the heterosexual rape of young girls as preferable to consensual homosexuality:
Lokodo: I say, let them do it but the right way.
Interviewer: Oh let them do it the right way? Let them rape children the right way? What are you talking about?
Lokodo: No I am saying, at least it is [the] natural way of desiring sex.


What objective moral truths would you impart to him in order to change his mind? After all, are there or are there not those among us who argue that rape is, in fact, perfectly "natural"? And God has been used to rationalize everything from slavery to genocide.

Consider:

https://emergencenj.org/blog/2019/01/04 ... ne-slavery
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family ... -holy-war/

So, where exactly does one draw the line between moral psychology and the psychology of religion here?

From a contemporary Western liberal perspective, there is a chilling irony to the fact that Lokodo’s ministerial portfolio involves upholding moral values and principles. What could be more immoral than the rape of a child, a manifestly harmful act? Is it conceivable that Lokodo’s opposition to homosexuality is morally motivated?


You tell me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 01, 2022 5:25 pm

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet

One obstacle to a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between religion and morality is the tendency of researchers to privilege their own cultural perspective on what counts as a “moral concern.” Opposing such ethnocentrism is not the same as advocating cultural or moral relativism: We need take no stand here on whether absolute moral standards exist, or whether it is appropriate for citizens of one society to judge the moral standards of another. Our concern is with descriptive rather than prescriptive ethnocentrism.


We need take no stand until those who oppose our own "moral concerns" put us in a position whereby, in challenging particular behaviors of ours, there are actual consequences. Think clitorectomies and sharia law and those who refuse to allow their children to be seen by medical professionals. Any number of moral objectivists [God or No God] are adamant in going beyond description to proscription.

Think this "clash of cultures" from Michael Novak's The Experience Of Nothingness

"Jules Henry:

"Boris had trouble reducing 12/16 to the lowest terms and could only get as far as 6/8. The teacher asked him quietly if that was as far as he could reduce it. She suggested he 'think'. Much heaving up and down and waving of hands by the other children, all frantic to correct him. Boris pretty unhappy, probably mentally paralyzed. The teacher quiet, patient, ignores the others and concentrates with look and voice on Boris. After a minute or two she turns to the class and says, 'Well, who can tell Boris what the number is?' A forest of hands appears, and the teacher calls on Peggy. Peggy says that four may be divided into the numerator and the denominator."

"Henry remarks:

"Boris's failure made it possible for Peggy to succeed; his misery is the occasion for her rejoicing. This is a standard condition of the contemporary American elementary school. To a Zuni, Hopi or Dakota Indian, Peggy's performance would seem cruel beyond belief, for competition, the wringing of success from somebody's failure, is a form of torture foreign to those non-competitive cultures."


"Stands" will either be taken given contexts of this sort or they won't. Describing human interactions given conflicting cultural approaches to religion and morality doesn't make Boris's misery go away. Only efforts to actually change the culture to one less competitive will.

Same with God, morality and sex...

There are those who consider appropriate sexual behavior to be of paramount moral importance, and those, like Peter Singer, who think there are more pressing moral concerns. Whatever our ethical evaluations, however, a cross-cultural enquiry into the relationship between religion and morality must expand the moral domain beyond the typical concerns of individuals in Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies, and must consider the effect of religion on any domain that is accorded at least local moral significance. For our purposes, therefore, a moral behavior is not necessarily a behavior that we advocate, but a behavior that is undertaken on putative moral grounds.


Clearly, in any number of nations where "appropriate sexual behavior" is a major moral concern, religion plays a fundamental role in sexual politics. The theocracies for example. And even in the West any number of ultra-orthodox and evangelical communities impose religious strictures in the form of sexual taboos.

Only with God, religion and morality comes Judgment Day. Immortality, salvation...Heaven and Hell.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 09, 2022 5:24 pm

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet

Sanitized Conceptions of Morality and Prosociality

Ingroup generosity and outgroup derogation actually represent two sides of the same coin.
—Shariff, Piazza, and Kramer (2014, p. 439)


The "one of us"/"one of them" coin. And these coins have always been around throughout the entirety of human history. At times when different communities made contact with each other, and at times when, from within a particular community, conflicts arose over what exactly the "rules of behavior" ought to be even among our own.

Then it came down to the extent to which Gods and religious denominations were involved.

A frequent consequence of Western liberal ethnocentrism is a sanitized, “family friendly” conception of morality. If Simon Lokodo’s ministerial portfolio seems ironic, this may be because of a Western liberal tendency to equate morality with “warm, fuzzy” virtues like kindness, gentleness, and nurturance, in short, with “niceness.”


Yes, all of these things and more. But then the part where even within "our community" as a whole, these things were made applicable only to those we recognized as "one of us". In regard to, among other things, race, ethnicity, gender roles, sexual orientation, religion. And of course class.

Right now HBO is airing the series, The Gilded Age. Lots of "warm fuzzy" virtues shared among those who are just like us. Old money vs. new money. And ever and always race and gender. God not so much. At least not so far.

Thus, many scholars who write about the relationship between religion and morality frame the key question as “Are religious people nice people?” or “Does religion make you nice?”. In many situations, however, what seems the “right” course of action may not be particularly “nice” (e.g., is it nice to punish criminals?); moreover, in certain cultures (e.g., Nazi Germany), “niceness” may even be cast as a vice rather than a virtue. To identify morality with “niceness” is thus to ignore a plethora of moral concerns, motivations, and behaviors.


Yes, that's basically always been my point. There has never been a "one size fits all" niceness such that those like anthropologists or historians discovered that in community after community down through the ages certain behaviors were always deemed to be nice and there was no distinction made between "one of us" and "one of them".

I just go beyond the historical and cultural differences and focus more on how even our individual lives with their individual sets of experiences can result in assessments of "nice" that vary considerably.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:33 pm

pardon the interruption (moo) but ...

self=other
us=them

same same

Imperfect humans screw it up... That you can see it means there is a God that can fill your hole.

That's what She said.

k bye
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6115
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:44 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:pardon the interruption (moo) but ...

self=other
us=them

same same

Imperfect humans screw it up... That you can see it means there is a God that can fill your hole.

That's what She said.

k bye


Like I said, she must spend hours and hours days and days agonizing over each word in these "miraculous" posts. [-o<



Note to Meno:

Are you coaching her? :-k
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 16, 2022 5:30 pm

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet

To illustrate why such sanitizing is problematic scientifically, we note that the most prominent contemporary hypothesis in the literature on religion and morality is the “religious prosociality” hypothesis. Although many papers on “religious prosociality” appear to equate the notions of morality and “prosociality”, some imply that morality is a subcategory of prosociality, whereas others indicate that prosociality is a subcategory of morality.


'Prosocial behavior, or intent to benefit others, is a social behavior that "benefit[s] other people or society as a whole", "such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering". Obeying the rules and conforming to socially accepted behaviors are also regarded as prosocial behaviors.' Wikipedia


"What is religious Prosociality?
'...a religious principle associated with the protection of the religious group, and a supernatural principle associated with the belief in God, or other supernatural agents.'"
https://psycnet.apa.org

Again, as always, we need actual social contexts to make these distinctions clearer. Also, prosocial behavior would seem to be just as applicable in Humanist communities as religious ones.

And while many would argue that scientifically one is not able to differentiate moral from immoral behavior socially, politically and economically, how about philosophically? What would constitute the philosophical equivalent of the "scientific method" in establishing something like this?

The problem is that behavior that benefits certain others (and so is “prosocial” in this standard sense) may be detrimental to the wider social group. And conversely, behavior that benefits the group may be harmful to at least some of its members. For example, torture is a powerful mechanism for enforcing and stabilizing social norms, yet torture is often unambiguously detrimental to the recipient. The irony is that behaviors that are literally “prosocial” insofar as they further the interests of a particular social group may be “antisocial” in the standard social psychological usage (e.g., by harming the norm violator).


Though again with God in the Script there is a transcending font supposedly able to provide the flocks with the spiritual equivalent of "the final answer". Though even as it pertains to the same God, there can be conflicting interpretations of what constitutes being either "prosocial" or "antisocial". And even within the Christian tradition alone there are many denominations -- https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/youth/b ... 7545.shtml -- such that what might constitute being "prosocial" and "antisocial" might be different among them.

Then any possible squabbles among them as to how connect the dots between “religious prosociality” and morality. With respect to "the protection of the religious group, and a supernatural principle associated with the belief in God, or other supernatural agents".

Where do Roman Catholics and Evangelicals and Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses etc., overlap and where are they at odds...given particular sets of circumstances.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 23, 2022 6:00 pm

Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website

Most religious people think their morality comes from their religion. And deeply religious people often wonder how atheists can have any morality at all.


It's all about God. In fact, I've never been able to really understand how No God religious paths are able to connect the dots between "I" on this side of the grave and "I" on the other side. If there is no God to judge your behaviors here and now what exactly is it that determines your fate there and then?

No, seriously...how does that work?

And God because most Gods are said to be omniscient and omnipotent. There is no getting away with behaving immorally because God sees all. And there is no question of not being punished for choosing to live off the righteous path.

And while Humanism can concoct secular renditions of objective morality there is no transcending font to turn to when these renditions themselves come into conflict. And whatever justice follows you to the grave, you are still only on your way back to star stuff for all the rest of eternity. "I" is at one only with oblivion without God. Or with how No God religious paths bring about immortality.

And salvation?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 02, 2022 4:57 pm

Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website

I’m going to use Christianity as my example, not because it’s representative of religion in general, but because there’s a lot of research on Christians, and because many readers will likely be familiar with it.

Christians will often tell you that their morality comes from their religion (or from their parents’ version of it). And if you ask them about what their religion tells them about what’s right and wrong, it will likely line up with their own ideas of right and wrong.

But the causal link is not as clear as it first appears.


It can't be entirely clear because among ourselves here there are a wide range of Christians...some are very conservative and interpret God's Scripture as condemning homosexuality and abortion and pretty much in line with the policies of, say, Donald Trump. Other, progressive Christians, using the same Scripture, come to opposite conclusions.

Then there are those who put emphasis on the meek inheriting the Earth while others insist that God wants you to be rolling in the dough.

Some say that without God all things can be rationalized. But, apparently, with God, most things can be too.

And some put emphasis on Judgment Day...on Heaven or Hell...while others insist that their own "private and personal" Christian God forgives all.

Thus...

The Bible is complex, with many beliefs, pieces of advice and moral implications. Nobody can believe in all of it. Different branches of Christianity, and indeed every different person, take some things from it and leave others.


The part I root in dasein. Christianity is much like any other set of value judgments. You are indoctrinated as a child to believe or not to believe in it. You have experiences as an adult that bring you toward it or away from it.

So, in acknowledging this, how then are you able to determine beyond a leap of faith or a "wager", if the Christian God is the optimal [or the only] path to objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side?

Well, you tell me.

Many things in the Bible are unacceptable to modern Christians. Why? Because they do not sit right with contemporary moral sensibilities.


The part where morality [even religious morality] evolves over time historically and culturally. For example, with Christianity in the Feudal era, the Catholic emphasis on the afterlife and then, with the advent of capitalism, the birth of Protestantism in which the emphasis [for many] shifts to life on this side of the grave. It's still important to tend to the poor but it's also important to "live long and prosper".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 09, 2022 5:09 pm

Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website

Let’s take magic as an example. Many Christians don’t believe in magic, but even the ones who do, don’t think they should kill those who use it, even though one could interpret passages in the Bible to be suggesting exactly that.

What’s going on?


In a word: dasein.

Each Christian connected to the God of Abraham is no less connected through their own childhood indoctrination and their own uniquely personal experiences connected to Him subjectively, existentially, problematically.

In the case of the magic above, there is a moral behaviour advocated by the Bible that gets rejected by most people. Why? Because they think it’s morally wrong.

They ignore that part of the moral teachings of the Bible. Instead, they tend to accept those moral teachings of the Bible that feel right to them. This happens all the time, and a good thing too.


Indeed, just imagine if the truly preposterous stuff from the Old Testament were taken literally: https://lifelessons.co/spirituality/bible/

Or the things God endorsed: https://www.salon.com/2014/05/31/11_kin ... e_partner/

Or the mass killings: https://www.bethinking.org/bible/old-te ... s-killings

Clergy interprets scripture, and cultural practices and beliefs are passed down, many of which have little or nothing to do with the Bible, like the Catholic idea of having fish instead of meat on Friday a cultural tradition never mentioned in the Bible at all.

Basically, people take or leave religious morality according to some internal moral compass they already have. They might even choose which church to go to, according to how well the teachings of that church match up with what they feel is right or wrong.


And where does this internal moral compass come from if not from the manner in which I construe the self here as the embodiment of dasein? Especially in our "postmodern world" where interpretation is all the rage. For many, religion is just another cafeteria line from which to pick and choose the God least likely to impose actual onerous obligations on you. Religion-light as it were.

On the other hand, the fanatics...
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:00 pm

From the Philosophy Now forum....

iambiguous wrote:One thing we can conclude is that your own Christian God has yet to provide mere mortals with a Script that leaves no doubt whatsoever as to what constitutes evil behavior. And, given Judgment Day, you would think that might be important to Him.


Immanuel Can wrote: What? Because they continue to disagree with the "Script" he HAS given them? Why would the obduracy of man count as evidence against there being such a Script."

That doesn't seem to follow at all.


Are you telling me that the omniscient God of Abraham could not come up with a Scripture such that the terrible inquisitions, crusades, and wars fought down through the ages between Christians, Muslims and Jews over what God's words meant couldn't instead have been entirely avoided?!

And what of those born before the alleged birth of Christ? Those who never even heard of Christianity? What of those who go to the grave worshipping an entirely different God precisely because no one ever brought your God to their attention?

What of their fate on Judgment Day?

Also, it seems reasonable to conclude that since down through the ages historically, and across the globe culturally, and given all of the uniquely personal experiences any one individual might accumulate in his or her life, moral relativism would be all but inevitable.


Immanuel Can wrote:It doesn't at all seem obvious. An objective reality is always objective, regardless of the opinions or "personal experiences" people have. One's opinion about the laws of surface tension will not decide whether or not one can walk on water, and one's "personal experiences" do not invalidate the law of gravity.


Again, unbelievable. Gravity is applicable to all men and women down through the ages and across the globe. No exceptions.

But people born hundreds or thousands of years ago, and in countless cultural contexts producing any number of conflicting moral and political agendas...objective is objective here too?

Immanuel Can wrote: So if morality is objective, opinions are irrelevant to the moral facts. The only question is, "Is morality reflective of an objective moral truth, or is it merely a product of human imagination?" But if it's the latter (a product of human imagination) then it's not merely "relative," but rather "delusional," since it fails (in all its forms) to correspond to any objective facts at all.


Again, the only reason you are able to assert that here is because you merely assume that this objective morality is derived from a Christian God that you basically refuse to take here...

1] to a demonstrable proof of the existence your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path


...given a particular set of circumstances.

Immanuel Can wrote: You've said, "People accuse each other." Fine. How do we know what the value of those "accusations" is?


You ask them.


Immanuel Can wrote: No, that won't do.

Asking them if they personallly believe their own "accusations" is different from being able to show what the value of the accusations actually is. If I accuse you of murder, and believe you did it, that does not mean my allegation is in any way justified -- unless you actually did it, and I have good reasons to know you did.


Again, my point does not revolve around accusing someone of murder, but in establishing that the accusation itself is warranted because it can be established in turn that murder itself is immoral. And [of course] what you do here in order to "establish" that is to insist that such things ever and always go back to the subjective, rooted existentially in dasein assumptions you make about the Christian God! Around and around you go!!

Just as those who worship and adore an entirely different God will.

Meanwhile...

Where is this God? Are you able to produce Him? demonstrate to us why we should accept your own "private and personal" set of assumptions?

No, of course not. Instead, yours is just another leap of faith, another wager.

Instead, it's my point that in a No God world, Evil is merely that which someone believes exists "in their head".


Immanuel Can wrote: Right. In other words, it's a delusion. Nothing more.


But what isn't a delusion are the conflicting behaviors themselves.


Immanuel Can wrote: That behaviours "conflict" does not show them to be evil. The most it can show is that they are incommensurable. But they could both be good, or both evil, or both indifferent.


Again, let's bring this down to Earth.

Here are the scheduled executions coming up Texas.

https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr ... tions.html

Now, given your own understanding of the existential relationship between this behavior, objective morality and the Christian God, how are we to understand "incommensurable" here?

Now, from my frame of mind in a No God world, there does not appear to be a way for philosophers to establish if capital punishment is in fact either Good or Evil behavior. Instead, different individuals having led [at times] very, very different lives will be predisposed existentially to embrace conflicting political prejudices.

What say you?

Instead, you bring it "down to Earth" given a different context...

Immanuel Can wrote: Example: my desire to buy ice cream for a party and your insistence we should use the money for cake could be incommensurable: but they are in no way evil. They're just incommensurable if there isn't enough money for both.


Well, at least there is no mention of pixies and unicorns.

Immanuel Can wrote: In fact, an Atheist can't even coherently say that conflict among people itself is "evil." He could as easily think it's just the evolutionary process doing its usual work of eliminating some and allowing others to thrive at their expense.


More to the point [mine] atheists who subscribe to moral nihilism as I understand it do come to conclude that human conflict in a No God world that is essentially meaningless and purposeless, ending for each of us one by one in oblivion, is neither good nor evil.

Sans God, how could it possibly be either one?

On the other hand, this can be no less but somewhere in between an educated and a wild ass guess given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule.

I mean, given just how utterly insignificant "I" am in the context of "all there is", what could I possible really know about any of this.

It's just that I suggest in turn that this is applicable to you too. Indeed, that's why I suspect further it is so important for those like you to believe in things like Christian Gods. Something, anything to anchor I in.

Try this...

Go here: https://www.sciencechannel.com/show/how ... ks-science

Watch a few episodes in order to grasp just how profoundly mysterious "all there is" is. See if you can connect them to your Christian God.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 15, 2022 4:32 pm

Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website

Right and wrong

Experimental evidence suggests that people’s opinion of what God thinks is right and wrong tracks what they believe is right and wrong, not the other way around.

Social psychologist Nicholas Epley and his colleagues surveyed religious believers about their moral beliefs and the moral beliefs of God. Not surprisingly, what people thought was right and wrong matched up pretty well with what they felt God’s morality was like.


Now ask yourself this: where do their opinions come from? How about this: through one or another complex intertwining of their religious indoctrination and their own distinctive, idiosyncratic experiences all jumbled up in their relationships with others and the particular sequence of information they happened to bump into through newspapers, books, magazines, movies and the like. Thus, as with fingerprints, no two minds here are ever really going to be alike.

On the other hand, that doesn't stop most from insisting that their own take on God has nothing to do with any of that. No, they have convinced themselves they really are able to capture God so as to capture precisely what God has commanded of us in our quest to choose a righteous path.

Then Epley and his fellow researchers attempted to manipulate their participants’ moral beliefs with persuasive essays. If convinced, their moral opinion should then be different from God’s, right?

Wrong. When respondents were asked again what God thought, people reported that God agreed with their new opinion!


Why might this be the case? My own conjecture here revolves around what I call the "psychology of objectivism". Once you come to invest the meaning and the integrity of I in a particular moral narrative, that becomes the source of your "comfort and consolation". And not even God and "persuasive essays" are going to come between you and that. You see what you already know. And with luck for your "peace of mind" all the way to the grave.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Mar 21, 2022 4:58 pm

Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website

So where do our morals come from, then, if not from religion? That’s a complicated question: There seem to be genetic as well as cultural components. These cultural components are influenced by religion, to be sure.


Yes, but which religion? Revolving around which alleged God over the length and breadth of thousands of years in communities that worshipped and adored every imaginable rendition of Him that, well, could be imagined. And then all of the No God facsimiles with their own [to me] wholly unintelligible No God immortality and salvation.

Then we pile on all of the No God Period secular fonts derived from the simple fact that when human beings interact there is no getting around the absolute necessity for "rules of behavior". Prescriptions and proscriptions which reward this and punish that.

And then when, re Marx, surplus labor derived from our more recent political economies allowed for the existence of philosophers, those able to concoct all manner of "philosophical" narratives, it still doesn't change that basic reality.

From or not from religion, nature more or less than nurture, morality comes from the very existence of the human condition itself.

Thus...

This equation happens even for atheists, who often take up the mores of their culture, which happens to have been influenced heavily by religions they don’t even ascribe to. So it’s not that religion does not effect morality, it’s just that morality also impacts religion.

Atheists don’t score differently than religious people when given moral dilemmas. Clearly, we all have morality.

Whether you’re religious or not, morality comes from the same place.


Of course, all I do is to explore that "place" given my own set of assumptions here. Though, unlike most, the "place" I've come to has resulted in my own moral philosophy having been deconstructed into a "for all practical purposes" fractured and fragmented sense of futility. I don't see the glass either half full or half empty...but having fallen to Earth and been shattered in a thousand pieces.

And all derived from the assumption that a God, the God does not exist.

Though, by all means, if you can convince me that He does, give it your best shot.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:56 pm

Why are people calling Bitcoin a religion?
The Conversation website
by Joseph P. Laycock
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Texas State University

Read enough about Bitcoin, and you’ll inevitably come across people who refer to the cryptocurrency as a religion.


Religion:

1] "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
2] "a particular system of faith and worship."
3] "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.


Given religion in its broadest sense there are any number of human behaviors that can be described as religious. Certainly some construe capitalism as a religion. Those like Ayn Rand worshipped and adored the almighty dollar by eschewing all "supernatural" components and insisting that philosophically a rational mind could defend capitalism as the most logical and epistemologically sound economy. And then all that follows from this in regard to social and political interactions.

Bloomberg’s Lorcan Roche Kelly called Bitcoin “the first true religion of the 21st century.” Bitcoin promoter Hass McCook has taken to calling himself “The Friar” and wrote a series of Medium pieces comparing Bitcoin to a religion. There is a Church of Bitcoin, founded in 2017, that explicitly calls legendary Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto its “prophet.”


Okay, Bitcoin is, what, a new currency? You use it as a means to purchase those things that then revolve around whatever you think yourself into believing the ends in your life should be. You might use it to sustain your religious beliefs or your political prejudices or your preferred "causes". Just as the accouterments of any particular religion are used to deepen your faith there.

But how then, as with traditional religion, is it more than a means to an end? How does it make sense to worship and adore Bitcoin as one would worship and adore a God or an ideology or a school of philosophy?

In Austin, Texas, there are billboards with slogans like “Crypto Is Real” that weirdly mirror the ubiquitous billboards about Jesus found on Texas highways. Like many religions, Bitcoin even has dietary restrictions associated with it.


On the other hand, where do the Bitcoin zealots come down on immortality and salvation? Bitcoin only on the other side?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46424
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Mar 27, 2022 5:59 pm

So… it’s the same idol it’s always been. The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

*all the volcanoes blow up*
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6115
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users