Five Things All Atheists Should Know About Religion

TalkLet's Talk Religion

Join LibraryThing to post.

Five Things All Atheists Should Know About Religion

This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.

1timspalding
Dec 2, 2014, 1:46 pm

Five Things All Atheists Should Know About Religion
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/12/02/five-things-all-atheists-should-kn...
I’m an atheist who engages in secular activism and is active within the atheist community. I’m also doing doctoral work in the cognitive science of religion, and I’m sad to see so many atheists who have misguided and ignorant views about religion. Here are five things I wish more atheists knew.
Discuss.

2rrp
Dec 2, 2014, 6:52 pm

I didn't see much there to find issue with, but the site seems an interesting source. Thanks.

However, I did read on by clicking on this link

10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About Atheism

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/03/18/10-things-i-wish-everyone-knew-abo...

and came across several points where I stumbled (maybe the two authors should get together and work it out.) But the joke at the end was OK.
A Jewish atheist hears that the best school in town happens to be Catholic, so he enrolls his son. Things are going well until one day the boy comes home and says, “I just learned all about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” The boy’s father is barely able to control his rage. He grabs his son by the shoulders and says, “Joey, this is very important, so listen carefully. There is only ONE God — and we don’t believe in Him!”


3jburlinson
Dec 2, 2014, 9:37 pm

Seems pretty straightforward and self-evident.

One thought: the author of the article describes himself as a "secular activist" with a link to a blurb about The Secular Coalition for South Carolina, which is described as fighting "against religious privileging". Although he does not state it explicitly, there seems to be the implication that only atheists or "nontheists" (his preferred term) advocate such a principle. I don't think this is the case; many religious people feel the same way about separation of church & state. So maybe there's a sixth thing.

4Jesse_wiedinmyer
Dec 2, 2014, 10:39 pm

Every time I click on the link at >1 timspalding:, it takes me to an article listing 10 things about atheism.

5JGL53
Dec 4, 2014, 9:43 pm

Are there atheists who do not know these five things or are confused in some way about them?

Maybe very young atheists - teenagers and 20 year olds. But then such people in general have many uninformed opinions about many things.

The article is a useless waste of time.

Thanks, ts. Once more you come through for us in the usual way. As usual.

6amysisson
Dec 4, 2014, 10:13 pm

I never believed any of those five things.

I would, however, prefer to re-state #4, which says "Religion is not the root of bigotry", so that it says "Religion is not the root of all bigotry." Of course it's not the only root, but it sure as heck is the root of a lot of it.

I have to say, I found the piece a bit condescending somehow.

7nathanielcampbell
Dec 5, 2014, 9:48 am

In my experience, most of the atheists who participate in this group are quite well-acquainted with the nuances and complexities for which the author pleads. The problem seems to be that in certain, heated, polemical situations, that nuance flies out the window. (I'll note that the theists in the group are equally liable to that loss of nuance in the heat of the argument.)

Moreover, the most public of the "New Atheists" (e.g. Dawkins, Harris, sometimes the late Hitchens) seem to revel almost constantly in that polemical moment, thus giving the impression that they lack such nuance.

8rrp
Dec 5, 2014, 5:29 pm

>6 amysisson: No. The original was correct. Religion is not the root of bigotry. Bigotry is intolerance shown by one group of humans of the beliefs of another group. Intolerance of conflicting beliefs is part of a group's social identity. Social identity is the root of intolerance and bigotry. The dynamics of social identity are complex. Religion is merely one aspect, a part of some groups' social identity. It is not the root.

9southernbooklady
Dec 6, 2014, 8:58 am

>7 nathanielcampbell: the most public of the "New Atheists" (e.g. Dawkins, Harris, sometimes the late Hitchens) seem to revel almost constantly in that polemical moment,

The curse of the gadfly is that you only notice them when they are biting.

10rrp
Edited: Dec 6, 2014, 9:28 am

The curse of the birds in my tree is that I only notice them when they crap on my car.

11JGL53
Edited: Dec 6, 2014, 3:31 pm

> 6 "...I have to say, I found the piece a bit condescending somehow."

No fucking shit?

- As to the charge of polemics - if one directs one's polemics toward pious ignorance, superstition, cruelty, hypocrisy, exploitation, disingenuousness and fear, etc. - the worst impulses within the human psyche - then "polemics" are not only justified but necessary.

One man's criticism is another man's polemics. E.g, if Dawkins points to some aspect of religion and makes the case that it is a bad thing that we humans best discard in the dustbin of history as it was an unnecessary impediment to moral and/or scientific improvement, then that is a good thing. It is to be expected that the pious in defense of their moribund and narcissistic ideology will accuse Dawkins, Harris, etc. of engaging in mere polemics, at a minimum.

> 9 "The curse of the gadfly is that you only notice them when they are biting."

Oh? I would say it is more the case of babies crying when you spank them. If the pious wish to avoid being upset then they should not engage, just stay home and suck their thumbs.

lol.

12southernbooklady
Dec 6, 2014, 6:15 pm

5 things I wish atheists knew about religion:

Doctrine does not equal faith
Just because you can't identify with a belief doesn't mean you can't identify with the person who holds it.
Irrationality is often a matter of perspective.
Most believers want to be good people.
Belief in God is not necessarily motivated by fear.

5 things I wish religious people knew about atheists:

Rejection of faith is not a kind of religion
Just because you can't identify with godless existence doesn't mean you can't identify with the person who does.
Irrationality is often a matter of perspective.
Most atheists want to be good people.
Non-belief in God is not necessarily motivated by selfishness.

13rrp
Edited: Dec 6, 2014, 6:50 pm

>12 southernbooklady:

That's a great set of "things", entirely appropriate and sound.

The only two I would ask for clarification are the first in each list. Why "doctrine is not faith" (obviously true to me) paired with "rejection of faith is not a kind of religion”. In my experience it seems that there are as many forms of atheism as atheists. (If that is what you meant, I agree). But not all atheists characterize their worldview as a rejection of faith. And everyone, including all atheists, have faith in some truths that form the foundation of their worldview, and those things they take on faith, even when not a kind of religion, play the same role in their worldview.

14jburlinson
Dec 6, 2014, 6:56 pm

>12 southernbooklady: 5 things I wish religious people knew about atheists:

Nice list, although I'm not sure I understand what the irrationality thing has to do with what theists don't know about atheists. I would have thought that a stereotypical theist would believe that a stereotypical atheist privileges rationality, possibly to a fault.

15timspalding
Edited: Dec 6, 2014, 9:22 pm

I think SBL's list is, like the original list, mostly true but has a grain of truth. There are some people whose religion does indeed approach mental illness. And there are certainly some people for whom rejection of faith has many of the characteristics of a religion. The problem is in generalizations from the most egregious cases.

With >14 jburlinson:, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the irrationality part.

If I might embellish the original list I'd add some brass tacks:

1. Most religious believers are not fundamentalists. They just yell the most, and get all the press.
2. Religious expression is not primarily an intellectual experience, but one of community, solace, aesthetics, connection, etc. That isn't to say that believers don't believe it. It's just that--for most--abstract questions take a psychological back seat to singing in the choir, praying, helping the poor, etc.

16Jesse_wiedinmyer
Dec 6, 2014, 9:24 pm

That isn't to say that believers don't believe it. It's just that--for most--abstract questions take a psychological back seat to singing in the choir, praying, helping the poor, etc.

I think that would probably be a bug/feature discussion for some people.

17timspalding
Dec 6, 2014, 9:51 pm

Meh. I think that, although they deny that atheism is a religion, atheists often think that religion is atheism. By and large atheism isn't any of those things. It's about the question, not about the community, the aesthetic traditions, the actions the faith requires, etc., because atheism doesn't have much of that. (It sometimes has a community, it does't have the rest.) It's easy to imagine that, if being against religion is matter of hashing out issues online, or whatever, religion must also be that. It just ain't.

Being against religion and belonging to a religion is more like being against or belonging to France. The French will defend themselves if needed, and have some sort of idea that being French isn't illogical, or whatever, but being French is a much larger experience than advocating for the defensibility of Frenchness.

18Jesse_wiedinmyer
Edited: Dec 6, 2014, 10:00 pm

Well, precisely. I think that quite a few "atheists" are much closer to apatheists. They see the issue as largely otiose. Even JGL, as, ummm, vituperative as he may become, seems to have no qualms with deism and the like. What's the old saw?

"Do you believe in God?"

"I'm an apathetic agnostic. Don't know. Don't particularly care."

For many people, it's not even as remotely as interesting a question as "Are you kind?"

The intellectual exercise of "religion" itself can seem to be unnecessary at times.

19southernbooklady
Dec 6, 2014, 11:02 pm

>14 jburlinson: . I would have thought that a stereotypical theist would believe that a stereotypical atheist privileges rationality, possibly to a fault.

My point, jburlinson, is that things like irrationality, fear, selfishness, goodness, hope, (or cruelty, despair) are not endemic to religion or philosophy. They are endemic to people.

20John5918
Dec 6, 2014, 11:45 pm

>12 southernbooklady: Thanks, Nicki.

>15 timspalding: Religious expression is not primarily an intellectual experience, but one of community, solace, aesthetics, connection, etc. That isn't to say that believers don't believe it. It's just that--for most--abstract questions take a psychological back seat to singing in the choir, praying, helping the poor, etc.

>16 Jesse_wiedinmyer: I think that would probably be a bug/feature discussion for some people.

Definitely; see some of the discussions in the Catholic Tradition group!

21amysisson
Dec 7, 2014, 1:00 am

>8 rrp:

Religion is not the root of bigotry. Bigotry is intolerance shown by one group of humans of the beliefs of another group.

I disagree. I agree that bigotry can be "intolerance shown by one group of humans of the beliefs of another group," but I also believe that that intolerance is often caused by or at least fueled by religions that state "oh, and everybody else is wrong -- save them or shun them."

I also don't think that's the only definition of bigotry. According to M-W, a bigot is " a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc."

22southernbooklady
Dec 7, 2014, 8:28 am

>15 timspalding: With >14 jburlinson: jburlinson:, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the irrationality part.

One of the most common complaints I've seen from religious people on this forum is that atheists regard their beliefs as irrational, when in fact their faith makes entirely rational sense to them.

Conversely, one of the things atheists are often accused of by religious people is ignoring evidence --evidence of god, of a non-empiric nature. In effect, of behaving irrationally by dismissing evidence that doesn't fit with their world view.

It's a pointless exercise. If you believe something is true, you can hardly be expected to pretend it is not. Likewise, if you are convinced something is true, you can't really spend your time thinking that it isn't.

23JGL53
Edited: Dec 7, 2014, 5:11 pm

The scientific-minded and the religious-minded are different in kind and not just in degree. Though, technically, we're all human, I suppose.

Science is based in the premise of observed facts, theorizing, testing and drawing objective conclusions, always open to further review regarding verification or possible refutation. It is a process of a continual drawing closer to the great truth while narrowing down the gaps of ignorance.

Religion's premises are different. One decides what one wishes, then bends the facts to that wish. A "conclusion" is thus its own father.

As opposed to science, testing and verifying and comparing one theory to another has nothing to do with religion. Naked authority suffices, as it always promises that all desires will be (ultimately) fulfilled. One must just take its word for it, the word being propounded as the word of the one true god. It's basically a "Fuck the Damn Buddha and Screw Empiricism - my desires WILL BE fulfilled." Very adult - NOT.

Science is concerned with reason - just the facts, mam.

Religion is concerned with rationalizing, mainly post hoc, and a "what's in it for me?" attitude.

Pick column A or column B. No sharing - that would just be an even bigger fuck-up than pure superstition itself.

24BruceCoulson
Dec 7, 2014, 4:12 pm

"Science is based in the premise of observed facts, theorizing, testing and drawing objective conclusions, always open to further review regarding verification or possible refutation. It is a process of a continual drawing closer to the great truth while narrowing down the gaps of ignorance."

That's the ideal, yes. The practice can be quite different.

25nathanielcampbell
Edited: Dec 7, 2014, 4:41 pm

>24 BruceCoulson: "Science... is a process of a continual drawing closer to the great truth while narrowing down the gaps of ignorance."

That man revels in a "gap of ignorance" who thinks that many religious people don't engage in the same process.

26JGL53
Edited: Dec 7, 2014, 5:17 pm

> 24 "...That's the ideal, yes. The practice can be quite different."

Of course. All humans are fallible and furthermore have no guarantee that they have or will ever have access to all pertinent data regarding the ontological question or other lesser concerns. Otherwise we humans would be gods and thus in no need of another god, would we not?

All the above should go without saying, nevertheless you said it and I reiterate it.

Further clarification - To state the obvious, the words "religion" and "god" have their various definitions.

I am certainly not referring to the "higher" formulations of religion which occurs in some few peoples minds. I find no need to debate the Gautama Buddhas, the T. Jeffersons, the R. Ingersolls, and the Bishop Spongs who rise up at times. Ditto even ye old Meister Eckharts, I suppose.

When I pound the ideas of "religion" and "god" about the head and neck I am strictly referring to the worst of the worst - popular or folk religion - the religion and god of the masses, both washed and unwashed - clericalism, ecclesiasticism, animism and medievalism - you know, the crap MOST people define as their religion and their idea of god.

I've tried to make the above clear in the past. I suppose I must remember to post these qualifications at the beginning of all my ranting posts concerning "religion" and "god".

Clear enough?

27jburlinson
Dec 7, 2014, 7:27 pm

>22 southernbooklady: if you are convinced something is true, you can't really spend your time thinking that it isn't.

But there is much to be gained by trying, so it's well worth the time spent on it.

28southernbooklady
Dec 7, 2014, 7:30 pm

>27 jburlinson: Winston Smith might disagree with you.

29quicksiva
Dec 8, 2014, 6:48 pm

>23 JGL53:

What "great truth" could science be bringing us closer to?
You would have jumped all over this expression if >25 nathanielcampbell: had used it first.
"The opposite of a great truth is another great truth."

30JGL53
Dec 8, 2014, 7:08 pm

> 29

The truth that the universe is not an artifact. Apparently that would come as a great truth to many who, to date, have bought into the normal shitload of logical fallacies promoted by religion and its minions.

31prosfilaes
Dec 9, 2014, 3:58 am

>25 nathanielcampbell: That man revels in a "gap of ignorance" who thinks that many religious people don't engage in the same process.

Then why does science look so different from religion? Why does science seem to converge on certain things, whereas the Buddha-Paul-Mohammed disagreements rage on?

32jburlinson
Dec 9, 2014, 12:05 pm

>31 prosfilaes: Why does science seem to converge on certain things

Because science occupies itself with things that can be measured. Religion does not. If one believes that everything can be measured, then there will be conflict.

33timspalding
Edited: Dec 9, 2014, 12:28 pm

>32 jburlinson:

One answer is that convergence tends to happen within traditions. But the space between the core presuppositions of traditions prevents much cross-convergence.

Another answer is that taking questions seriously and working deliberately to improve understanding characterizes many other human activities which don't converge to the extent science does. Progress is made in government, for example, but it happens within certain paradigms and it is always a two-steps-forward-one-step-back thing. Ditto other activities that have something unmeasurable or contested--the pursuit of justice, for example.

So it's true that science and religion have different premises. It's not true that the premise of science is "one decides what one wishes, then bends the facts to that wish."

34southernbooklady
Dec 9, 2014, 1:26 pm

>31 prosfilaes: Why does science seem to converge on certain things

One reason would be that one of the rules of science is that its principles work everywhere. If it is discovered that they don't, then they are understood to be flawed, everywhere.

That's not a rule as easily or usefully applied in other spheres, like "what is beauty?" "what is good" or "what is justice?"

>33 timspalding: Ditto other activities that have something unmeasurable or contested--the pursuit of justice, for example.

Or what should be included under the heading of "human rights."

35timspalding
Edited: Dec 9, 2014, 2:24 pm

That's not a rule as easily or usefully applied in other spheres, like "what is beauty?" "what is good" or "what is justice?"

Well, exactly. And this is why radically reductive, science-only views of the world so easily lead the denial that there is beauty, good and justice. If you expect everything to be proven scientifically, and every question must have a scientific answer, or be meaningless, then you simply cannot hold onto such will-o-wisps.

It is unfair that some theists assume that those whose philosophical system renders the reality of such concepts impossible actually behave that way, that is without concern for beauty, good of justice. But it is not entirely surprising. Fortunately, materialists--as theists--seldom live out the full implications of their beliefs.

36southernbooklady
Dec 9, 2014, 2:28 pm

What is the difference between an abstract concept, like "love" and a "cluster term" like....love? Isn't that essentially the difference between the moral realist and the relativist?

37timspalding
Dec 9, 2014, 3:13 pm

No, I don't think so. There's a difference between a necessarily imprecise label and a concept with no existence outside of opinion.

38southernbooklady
Dec 9, 2014, 3:46 pm

But isn't that difference largely a matter of faith? :-)

39timspalding
Dec 9, 2014, 4:52 pm

Booo! :)

40prosfilaes
Dec 9, 2014, 6:38 pm

>33 timspalding: One answer is that convergence tends to happen within traditions.

Like what? It would have to be pretty tiny traditions, since Christianity doesn't seem to be converging to anything, nor does Islam from what I can tell.

But the space between the core presuppositions of traditions prevents much cross-convergence.

I would be hard put to respect an astronomy that differs on the number of gas giants in our solar system, but is converging on their details.

Progress is made in government, for example, but it happens within certain paradigms and it is always a two-steps-forward-one-step-back thing.

Two steps forward and one step back is still progress. 19th century government is a pretty different picture from 20th century government. Not only that, taking questions seriously and working to improve understanding seems to be more true of the science of government; the fact that the practice of government lags behind the theory is no surprise, nor does the fact that political science can be bent to many different goals.

"one decides what one wishes, then bends the facts to that wish."

It's not that deliberately deceptive, but e.g. part of the reason I left Christianity is that from my reading, Jesus was incredibly leftist; he damned the rich to Hell, for example, and Southern Baptists (the SBC being the largest Protestant body in the US, and the second largest Christian) don't seem to worry about that. The clearest intrusion of facts seem to be when science is accepting them and religion can get on board or slide into obsolescence. Society seems to have that force, as well; there were a lot of religious forerunners in slavery and racial equality, but again e.g. the Southern Baptists have changed their position on slavery without changing any of the theology underlying their passionate claims that slavery was God's mandate.

41nathanielcampbell
Dec 9, 2014, 8:09 pm

>40 prosfilaes: "part of the reason I left Christianity is that from my reading, Jesus was incredibly leftist; he damned the rich to Hell, for example, and Southern Baptists (the SBC being the largest Protestant body in the US, and the second largest Christian) don't seem to worry about that."

It didn't occur to you to explore the much larger Christian tradition--Catholicism--in which "leftist" principles of social justice are embraced?

Isn't your method kind of like saying that you refuse to eat at any restaurant because McDonald's serves crappy food?

42socialian
Edited: Dec 9, 2014, 8:23 pm

>prosfilaes

The Southern Baptists are completely out of the mainstream of the majority of Christians in the world, as well as the majority of Christian thought throughout history. I'll plug this secular history of Christianity because I find it quite comprehensive. Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years

Beyond Western Christianity, there are Eastern Christians such as the Orthodox, Miaphysites and Nestorians (although the remaining latter are being extinguished by ISIS as we speak...) which don't hold to fire and brimstone interpretations of Christianity and have upheld in certain historical periods, a "leftist" understanding of Christianity. The Orthodox Byzantine Empire, for example, invented the modern concept of a "hospital" and of "Universal Healthcare".

I am a centre-leftist to far-leftist (Social Democrat-Anarchist communist) Christian, and I don't find major contradictions in my religious practice as a aspiring Orthodox Christian.

43nathanielcampbell
Dec 9, 2014, 8:23 pm

>42 socialian: Welcome to LibraryThing! It's always nice to see new people join in and bring new perspectives.

I presume you meant to reference >40 prosfilaes:, which was in response to >33 timspalding:. (Just a quick tip: typing > followed directly by the post number will automatically create the link with the name of the person who wrote the post you are referencing.)

44socialian
Dec 9, 2014, 8:36 pm

Oh, the post number. I understand. This website is book nerd heaven, a place where I belong. :)

45timspalding
Edited: Dec 9, 2014, 9:13 pm

Like what? It would have to be pretty tiny traditions, since Christianity doesn't seem to be converging to anything, nor does Islam from what I can tell.

Well, it makes progress. Within Catholic-Orthodox theology, for example, any number of contested and contestable issues were hammered out over time, closing certain issues off and opening new ones, not unlike what science does. I'm thinking, for example, of questions of Christology or church organization. At one point it was possible to believe that either Darwin or Lamarck might be right; eventually that question was settled and new ones opened up. So too at one point a Christian might believe that Jesus was somehow less than God, fully God and fully man, or not a man at all; that question was closed and new ones opened up.

"Progress" is also made, for example in attitudes toward government, Jews and slavery. At the same time, there's a centripetal tendency, particularly since Protestantism entered the fray with its pseudo-scientific method.

Two steps forward and one step back is still progress. 19th century government is a pretty different picture from 20th century government. Not only that, taking questions seriously and working to improve understanding seems to be more true of the science of government; the fact that the practice of government lags behind the theory is no surprise, nor does the fact that political science can be bent to many different goals.

Your Southern Baptists may not have made progress—although I think they have—but Christianity as a whole has made progress much as government has. Indeed, it's been a push-pull for centuries, with government sometimes leading and religion sometimes leading.

>44 socialian:

Yes, welcome @socilian.

46prosfilaes
Dec 9, 2014, 9:25 pm

>41 nathanielcampbell: It didn't occur to you to explore the much larger Christian tradition--Catholicism--in which "leftist" principles of social justice are embraced?

Last time I checked, a lot of the Catholic bishops are basically endorsing Republicans. QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS condemns most firmly any concept of the equality of man, so the Catholic tradition is very questionable on leftist principles of social justice.

Isn't your method kind of like saying that you refuse to eat at any restaurant because McDonald's serves crappy food?

No, it's a lot like being raised on a diet of McDonald's and after escaping that world, being unimpressed by the claims that Burger King is massively better.

>42 socialian: The Southern Baptists are completely out of the mainstream of the majority of Christians in the world

Yes, yes, yes. What part of the largest Protestant body in the largest majority Christian nation in the world did you miss? How about the largest Protestant body in my country?

Nestorians (although the remaining latter are being extinguished by ISIS as we speak...)

It's amazing how you can dismiss the Southern Baptists as not being majority and yet traditions that have around a quarter million believers are so important.

47southernbooklady
Dec 9, 2014, 9:30 pm

>41 nathanielcampbell: It didn't occur to you to explore the much larger Christian tradition--Catholicism--in which "leftist" principles of social justice are embraced?

You know, I'll bet that if someone decides to give up a life long affiliation with a church, it isn't done lightly, but probably involved some serious soul-searching.

Isn't your method kind of like saying that you refuse to eat at any restaurant because McDonald's serves crappy food?

Or maybe that you've decided you prefer the benefits of cooking and eating at home.

48socialian
Edited: Dec 9, 2014, 9:41 pm

>46 prosfilaes: prosfilaes

The largest Protestant group in the world are the Pentecostals now. And one group among thousands of Protestant denominations isn't saying much.

"It's amazing how you can dismiss the Southern Baptists as not being majority and yet traditions that have around a quarter million believers are so important."

They are vastly more important historically than Southern Baptists who began in the 1700s.

>45 timspalding:

"Within Catholic-Orthodox theology, for example, any number of contested and contestable issues were hammered out over time, closing certain issues off and opening new ones, not unlike what science does."

Orthodox theology actually doesn't hold that view. Nothing new ever developed according to Orthodox thought, it's all the same faith, just different expressions of the same faith. The Trinity existed prior to Nicaea; Did the Hypostasis not exist prior to Nicaea? Hypostasis isn't an addition to doctrine, but a new manner of speaking of the same unchanging doctrine. Orthodox reject the so-called development of doctrine idea.

49southernbooklady
Dec 9, 2014, 9:58 pm

I'm beginning to think I need to rescind my #1 suggestion for atheists, "doctrine does not equal faith." :-)

50JGL53
Edited: Dec 9, 2014, 10:27 pm

1. The concept and experience we label "love" exists.
2. Ditto the concepts we label "beauty", "the good" and "justice" and a whole lot of other unmeasurable yet highly impressive concepts or experiences.
3. Therefore god and other immaterial spirits exist. - So as to account for the above.
4. Science and secularism are thus secondary and subordinate to religion because there can be no such concepts within their closed systems.

Gee, it is all so obvious to me now. What a fool I have been. Must have been a lack of spiritual discernment on my part - until now.

Anyways, thanks for clearing all that up for me, GENIUSES.

Uh, Saints be praised.

51timspalding
Edited: Dec 9, 2014, 11:26 pm

>50 JGL53:

No of course not. The existence of immaterial realities—beauty, moral truth, etc.—do not by any means prove that God or spirits exist. But philosophical materialism does not admit of them; that is, they cannot exist in such a situation.

I'm sorry if you think rehashing some rather basic ideas from philosophy—ideas some contest, of course!—is the work of either geniuses or fools.

52John5918
Dec 10, 2014, 4:40 am

People experience God as a relationship and so in a sense it is always subjective. They also experience God in the context of their own culture, language, geographical location, historical era and existing religious narrative. People with broadly similar experiences form faith communities.

I do think that, despite the obvious differences, there is more convergence than some would like to concede, particularly at the deeper level. One of the examples I often recall is when I was on the fringes of an inter-faith dialogue between Catholic Benedictine monks and Buddhist monks from the Dalai Lama's community. When they talked theology they had nothing in common at all; when they shared their experience of contemplative prayer they found they understood each other perfectly.

53Jesse_wiedinmyer
Dec 10, 2014, 10:18 am

The existence of immaterial realities—beauty, moral truth, etc.—do not by any means prove that God or spirits exist. But philosophical materialism does not admit of them; that is, they cannot exist in such a situation.

I seem to know of quite a few materialists that would disagree with that.

54jburlinson
Dec 10, 2014, 12:31 pm

>51 timspalding: The existence of immaterial realities—beauty, moral truth, etc.—do not by any means prove that God or spirits exist. But philosophical materialism does not admit of them; that is, they cannot exist in such a situation.

I don't think that's entirely correct. Cognitive scientists are now exploring the ways in which these things are manifestations of brain activity. Their success, if they ever do succeed, however, will do nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God.

55timspalding
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 1:25 pm

>54 jburlinson:

Cognitive science can show that there's an area of the brain that's programmed for empathy, or whatever, and thus (perhaps) explain why humans tend to shrink from certain practices. No science on earth can claim that anything is in fact wrong.

Put another way, science can explain what happens, predict whether something may happen or explain why something happens. It has nothing whatsoever to say about whether something ought to happen. Questions of "ought" are completely beyond scientific inquiry, and indeed pure materialism, which accepts as real only what physically exists, does not allow for "ought" concepts. Enormous amounts of obfuscation and misunderstanding happens here. Sam Harris, for example, believes that he can get out of the is/ought distinction by redefining right and wrong as a question of "human flourishing." But that just moves the problem around; nothing in science tells us that "human flourishing" ought to happen, only that humans probably aim for it to happen.

56southernbooklady
Dec 10, 2014, 1:50 pm

>55 timspalding: No science on earth can claim that anything is in fact wrong.

Which suggests that "right" and "wrong" are not things unto themselves, but only useful in context.

Questions of "ought" are completely beyond scientific inquiry, and indeed pure materialism, which accepts as real only what physically exists, does not allow for "ought" concepts.

Meaning, again, that "ought" is a matter of faith, not fact.

57jburlinson
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 2:03 pm

>55 timspalding: Questions of "ought" are completely beyond scientific inquiry, and indeed pure materialism, which accepts as real only what physically exists, does not allow for "ought" concepts.

I'm not so sure. For example, researchers are now publishing results on some of the first fMRI studies to examine the decision phase in a decision-based cognitive dissonance paradigm. This might point the way to a neurological description of something like self-discrepancy theory, which includes "ought" as one of the subject's self-regulatory systems.

>56 southernbooklady: "ought" is a matter of faith, not fact

Not if the studies mentioned above lead anywhere. Then it would be a matter of fact.

58timspalding
Dec 10, 2014, 2:00 pm

Which suggests that "right" and "wrong" are not things unto themselves, but only useful in context.

Right. They're useful when trying to influence someone not to kill you. They may have some aggregate use for a society. But I think most people think certain things are actually wrong. As we've discussed before, almost everything you write about justice and fairness is completely undermined if morality is not actually true, but just "useful in context." You know what's useful in context? Keep blacks down and gays in the closet (or worse). Proven useful and effective for millennia by societies the world over. Want to change that? How can you justify moral suasion without a concept of morality? It empties it out.

59jburlinson
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 2:12 pm

>56 southernbooklady: Which suggests that "right" and "wrong" are not things unto themselves, but only useful in context.

But within any given context, concepts of right and wrong are intrinsically stable in determining the presence or absence of positive or negative outcomes. In that way, they would be things unto themselves, things which play the same role within any possible context.

60timspalding
Dec 10, 2014, 2:13 pm

Right. So it was right to lynch blacks in 1940. And it was wrong to lynch them in 1970.

61southernbooklady
Dec 10, 2014, 2:14 pm

>58 timspalding: almost everything you write about justice and fairness is completely undermined if morality is not actually true, but just "useful in context."

Yeah, I don't get that at all. Especially since we are limited by our very physical nature to what's "useful in context." Was Augustus "wrong" when he enforced peace at the expense of Republican values and freedoms? The question doesn't even make sense without thinking about context.

How can you justify moral suasion without a concept of morality?

By having good reasons for why you think your position makes for a better result than someone else's.

62southernbooklady
Dec 10, 2014, 2:16 pm

>60 timspalding: Right. So it was right to lynch blacks in 1940. And it was wrong to lynch them in 1970.

Meaning, the people who did the lynching thought they were justified. But the people who thought lynching was wrong, were also justified in protesting.

63timspalding
Dec 10, 2014, 2:21 pm

By having good reasons for why you think your position makes for a better result than someone else's.

What on earth can those reasons be grounded on? Better vocabulary? Gesturing?

Meaning, the people who did the lynching thought they were justified. But the people who thought lynching was wrong, were also justified in protesting.

Right. It's a wash. Nobody was right, because nobody could be right.

64jburlinson
Dec 10, 2014, 2:25 pm

>63 timspalding: What on earth can those reasons be grounded on?

Shared perceptions on the valence of an agreed-upon outcome.

65southernbooklady
Dec 10, 2014, 2:32 pm

>64 jburlinson: Shared perceptions on the valence of an agreed-upon outcome.

Just so. I don't see how the idea of right or wrong can ever be anything but this

66timspalding
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 3:02 pm

>64 jburlinson:

So if there's a shared valence that Jews should be gassed, Jews should be gassed. If there's a shared valence that blacks should be kept from full citizenship by legal and illegal means, that's how it should be. And that's your idea of morality?

I don't see how the idea of right or wrong can ever be anything but this

If all there is is the physical world, with no meaningful references to anything outside of it, then you're right. Also, your concept of morality is a joke.

67southernbooklady
Dec 10, 2014, 3:13 pm

>66 timspalding: So if there's a shared valence that Jews should be gassed, Jews should be gassed. If there's a shared valence that blacks should be kept from full citizenship by legal and illegal means, that's how it should be. And that's your idea of morality?

"Shared valence" is never 100%, is it, so change is always possible--even inevitable.

your concept of morality is a joke.

Not a very convincing argument.

68JGL53
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 3:19 pm

Apparently my best sarcasm didn't dent the steel plate so, backing up, I will now reference a book I have just read by Julian Huxley entitled "Religion without Revelation".

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Without-Revelation-Julian-Huxley/dp/B000H4LOCW/re...

(The three reader reviews there pretty much sum up the book.)

In a nutshell Huxley makes the case for religion to be understood as part of human psychology, IOW understandable in psychological terms, i.e., a very human process with no need to assume the need of some ultimate divine/mundane dichotomy.

To me, Huxley's take on religion makes the most sense, as opposed to that of ts, JTF and others here who seem to be somewhat more, er, conservative on the subject.

69nathanielcampbell
Dec 10, 2014, 3:19 pm

>67 southernbooklady: "so change is always possible--even inevitable."

Precisely -- what was wrong yesterday is right today, and what was right yesterday is wrong today.

It's like the weather -- don't like today's morality? Just wait a bit, and you can get something different!

70southernbooklady
Dec 10, 2014, 3:26 pm

>69 nathanielcampbell: don't like today's morality? Just wait a bit, and you can get something different!

Yes, well, I suppose I think "morality" is something we define in ourselves, not something we allow others to define for us.

71JGL53
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 3:31 pm

> 69

That is why the christian bible is useless as a moral guide. It is all over the place. No consistency.

72jburlinson
Dec 10, 2014, 3:56 pm

>66 timspalding: if there's a shared valence that Jews should be gassed, Jews should be gassed.

But, of course, there's not such a generally shared perception. Among the subpopulation that did (or still does) share such a perception, the moral issue would be all too evident.

And that's your idea of morality?

Hasn't history taught us that?

73jburlinson
Dec 10, 2014, 3:58 pm

>70 southernbooklady: I suppose I think "morality" is something we define in ourselves, not something we allow others to define for us.kl

But doesn't this self-constructed morality depend on the infrastructure of beliefs prevalent in our culture? As the President once said, "You didn't build that!"

74southernbooklady
Dec 10, 2014, 4:00 pm

It does. And precisely because I'm aware that it is based on my own cultural influence (in my case a largely Judeo-Christian set of values), I am also conscious that it needs to be constantly questioned and tested.

75timspalding
Dec 10, 2014, 4:12 pm

I am also conscious that it needs to be constantly questioned and tested.

Why? How can you possible assert that you ought to do anything? And if it ought to be questioned and tested, against what?

76jburlinson
Dec 10, 2014, 4:24 pm

>75 timspalding: How can you possible assert that you ought to do anything?

Self-discrepancy theory would suggest that it is the consequence of a perception of the presence or absence of negative outcomes. If you do something and you perceive a negative outcome, you "ought" to have done something differently. Interesting article:

Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems

77timspalding
Dec 10, 2014, 4:33 pm

Right. If you don't like what happened, you should have done something differently. For example, the woman we raped ended up going to the police. We should have killed her.

Keep the quotes around "ought." You haven't discovered how to make the is/ought barrier go away.

78jburlinson
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 4:42 pm

>77 timspalding: If you don't like what happened, you should have done something differently.

It's not just a question of evaluating what already happened, but also of projecting what might happen. If we rape or kill the woman, we might go to jail or worse, so we ought not to do those things. No quotes needed.

ETA -- The theory predicts that "a concern with avoidance is greater for ought than ideal self-regulation".

79timspalding
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 4:42 pm

If we rape or kill the woman, we might go to jail or worse, so we ought not to do those things. No quotes needed.

The data strongly suggests that you won't go to jail. Some clearly find it enjoyable, and it's clear that rape is evolutionarily adaptive. Rape on, bro. Scientific morality has spoken.

80jburlinson
Dec 10, 2014, 4:51 pm

>78 jburlinson: Evidence strongly suggests that you won't go to jail.

Going to jail, for many people, is such a disagreeable proposition that its mere possibility outweighs its statistical lack of probability. The negative outcome is not only the possibility of actually going to jail, but the much higher likelihood of worrying about going to jail. Worrying about Mom and Dad cutting off your allowance once you're tossed out of school is something else on top of that.

some clearly find it enjoyable

Some may. Others may find it daunting.

It's also quite clear that rape is evolutionarily adaptive.

It's not at all clear that contemporary environmental conditions in certain societies are at all conducive to to its reproductive success.

Scientific morality has spoken.

No. Scientific morality is still speaking.

81quicksiva
Dec 10, 2014, 5:11 pm

>79 timspalding:

The data strongly suggests that you won't go to jail. Some clearly find it enjoyable, and it's clear that rape is evolutionarily adaptive. Rape on, bro. Scientific morality has spoken.
========

Well, isn't this what God repeatedly tells His people to do to others in the Old Testament.

82timspalding
Dec 10, 2014, 5:21 pm

Well, isn't this what God repeatedly tells His people to do to others in the Old Testament.

I'm unclear why you think this helps the point.

83southernbooklady
Dec 10, 2014, 5:40 pm

>77 timspalding: If you don't like what happened, you should have done something differently.

Your concept of morality seems fear-based.

84AsYouKnow_Bob
Dec 10, 2014, 9:24 pm

>77 timspalding: You haven't discovered how to make the is/ought barrier go away.

NEITHER HAVE THE RELIGIONISTS.

Tim, your argument seems to be based on the idea that "religion" gives believers some objective basis to build a morality upon.

It's obvious that pretending that you're building on bedrock doesn't actually give you a solid foundation.

Scratch any religionist and if honest they'll tell you: "There IS divine truth, but we have no actual idea of what it is. What we DO have is a long history of PEOPLE REASONING about what the Divine Truth SHOULD be."

To pick one example: for several millennia, Jehovah was completely down with slavery. Then suddenly, teams of (human) theologians discovered that Hey! Christian morality ACTUALLY contradicted the plain words of the Holy Writ, and slavery is now a bad idea.
How 'bout that! Our objective basis for morality was completely wrong all along!

Religious morality is ever bit as derived from other humans as is the morality of any godless materialist; your team is just less willing to apply human reason to the problem.

85timspalding
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 9:46 pm

Tim, your argument seems to be based on the idea that "religion" gives believers some objective basis to build a morality upon.

On the contrary, I haven't mentioned religion per se at any point. Surely believing in the supreme value of evidence ought to have some sort of kissing-cousins relationship to caring that you have none.

I am only concerned with non-naturalism. Plato believed in morality. Plato didn't really believe in a "religion," and certainly not in "Jehovah." Ditto any number of others. As a theist I cannot entirely separate anything from God, but I wouldn't propose "religious morality" anymore than I'd propose "religious physics."* There are theists who understand morality as essentially "decreed"; I'm not one, nor is this question about the sources of morality, only whether morality can actually exist or not.

I get how this works, with you and the others who keep repeating these points, brandishing random Biblical tidbits in what is actually a philosophical debate. Now, we are all familiar with fundamentalist Christians unable to recognize when Bible tidbits are not answering a question. But they're idiots. We can't expect those who subordinate even reason to their interpretations of a book to care about non sequiturs. But you'd think such a basic logical fallacy wouldn't pass muster among those who carry on about "applying human reason."

Your concept of morality seems fear-based.

Why?


*FWIW, my highest allegiance isn't to theism, but to anti-materialism and what it allows--things like morality being real, and not dependent on whether I or my neighbors are Nazis. If God doesn't turn out to exist, I'd be very sorry. (Fortunately, I'd probably never find out.) But discovering that the natural world was all there was to reality would be far more devastating. Or wouldn't, because, as consciousness cannot exist in such a world, no one would suffer pain because of it.

86Jesse_wiedinmyer
Dec 10, 2014, 9:46 pm

but to anti-materialism and what it allows--things like morality being real

And again, this isn't what most materialists argue.

87nathanielcampbell
Dec 10, 2014, 9:46 pm

Since I've just finished another semester teaching the Euthyphro, I'd recommend the following essay from a few years ago in the NYTimes' philosophy blog, on the Euthryphro problem and moral atheism: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/?_r=0

It might help move us past this facile attempt to claim that moral realism = Abrahamic religion.

88southernbooklady
Dec 10, 2014, 9:46 pm

>85 timspalding: Why?

Because a statement like "If you don't like what happened, you should have done something differently" suggests a defensive approach to life.

It's possible that we're conflating some things here: "Conscience" -- our ability to distinguish right from wrong -- and "morality" -- the code we create to enforce "right behaviors."

Our conscience is a highly personal construct--developed by experience, learning, and our progress into maturity. It's individualistic and probably more elastic than the rules we decide to live by.

Moral codes, though, are systems designed to enforce conformity, not individuality. They are flawed by default, because they are a kind of lowest-common-denominator expression of the collective notion of right and wrong.

Personally, I think if there were really such a thing as an objective good, or an objective evil, then what we call "moral dilemmas" wouldn't exist. But they do, because we are never really sure where "good" and "evil" are located--it seems to depend on where we are standing at the moment.

89nathanielcampbell
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 9:49 pm

>86 Jesse_wiedinmyer: "And again, this isn't what most materialists argue."

And thank goodness they don't! It's why you, and AYKB, and Nicki, and the rest are still good people -- you've chosen to act as if morality does exist, even if the materialist worldview logically precludes it. (ETA: Which makes you no different from most humans, who will simultaneously claim a given worldview and then make quotidian actions at odds with it.)

90AsYouKnow_Bob
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 9:49 pm

(Edit: in reply to >85 timspalding:)

OK, then:

if you say that morality can't derived from the material universe (...which many would dispute...); and you say that morality ISN'T derived from religion, what the heck ARE you on about?

91nathanielcampbell
Dec 10, 2014, 9:51 pm

>88 southernbooklady: "Because a statement like "If you don't like what happened, you should have done something differently" suggests a defensive approach to life."

I think Tim was caricaturing jburlinson's suggestions of a neurological moral reality, rather than making a bona fide statement that his own moral realism is based on fear of negative consequences.

92Jesse_wiedinmyer
Dec 10, 2014, 9:51 pm

you've chosen to act as if morality does exist, even if the materialist worldview logically precludes it.

Then again, the only people that seem to be arguing that materialism precludes morality are the religionists in this thread.

93AsYouKnow_Bob
Dec 10, 2014, 9:52 pm

>89 nathanielcampbell: ...even if the materialist worldview logically precludes it.

Huh?

(Which is funny, because all my life I've thought that being handed a look-up table of "Thou Shalt Nots" and "Thou Shalls" was not an actual human morality, either.

94Jesse_wiedinmyer
Dec 10, 2014, 9:56 pm

If the human race manages to exterminate itself, one wonders what happens to morality. Does it simply apply only to unembodied souls? The rocks and the trees? Puppies and elephants?

95nathanielcampbell
Dec 10, 2014, 9:58 pm

>93 AsYouKnow_Bob: "Which is funny, because all my life I've thought that being handed a look-up table of "Thou Shalt Nots" and "Thou Shalls" was not an actual human morality, either."

Do please read the article linked in >87 nathanielcampbell: before continuing the ridiculous charade that presumes that all of the "religionists" in the thread adhere to Divine Command Theory, whereby morality is entirely predicated upon God's power to command, rather than being an independent quality valued by God because it is in the nature of God to value the good.

It's rather pointless to continue in this conversation if the actual philosophical claims being made in favor of moral realism are simply ignored, trumped by an illusory strawman about Thou Shalt Nots.

96Jesse_wiedinmyer
Dec 10, 2014, 10:00 pm

Says the man who just insisted that all materialists assume that morality is logically precluded by materialism.

97nathanielcampbell
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 10:04 pm

>96 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Yeah, I should probably nuance that: a materialist worldview that may logically preclude moral realism.

ETA: Though I'd also point out that atheism and materialism are not synonymous; that is, one can be an atheist but not be a materialist. (Heck, that's why Socrates was put to death!)

98JGL53
Dec 10, 2014, 10:04 pm

The materialist world view precludes moral reasoning?

Where do religionists get this shit?

Apparently out of their asses.

99Jesse_wiedinmyer
Edited: Dec 10, 2014, 10:05 pm

>97 nathanielcampbell:

Gee, ya think? What happens to your moral realism once we cease to exist? Is that still an objective feature of the universe?

100Jesse_wiedinmyer
Dec 10, 2014, 10:17 pm

Going the other way... You're accepting of evolution. Before "we" became humans, what was the state of moral realism? Did neanderthals have souls?

101socialian
Dec 10, 2014, 10:29 pm

>100 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Neanderthals had souls. Animals have souls. Genesis mentions God created all organisms with Nefesh or Psyche (depending on the Masoretic or Septuagintal versions).

102southernbooklady
Dec 10, 2014, 10:29 pm

>87 nathanielcampbell: That article still seems based on the idea that morality is an objective thing, independent of...not only God, but any human being that enacts it. In that sense, the argument for "D.I.T" rather than "D.C.T." seems basically one of semantics and rationalizations.

But it dismisses a personally created and crafted ethics (it might not be accurate to call it a morality) as nihilistic in nature and thus not a...workable strategy, I guess. And yet, her conclusion comes to rest on the moral sense that is individualistic and personal:

Some people thing that if atheism were true, human choices would be insignificant. I think just the opposite -- they would become surpassingly important.


That idea--that we only have ourselves to look to for what it is to be good or bad, what counts as good, what counts as bad--sounds "nihilistic" to me.

103Jesse_wiedinmyer
Dec 10, 2014, 10:39 pm

>101 socialian:

Does our morality apply to neanderthals? Are/were they held to a different standard than us? Will there be neanderthals in Heaven?

104nathanielcampbell
Dec 10, 2014, 10:41 pm

>103 Jesse_wiedinmyer: I won't presume to answer for socialian, but on my own merits as a theologian, I would say that the best answer I can give to each of your questions is, we don't know.

105socialian
Dec 10, 2014, 10:58 pm

According to Orthodox "ouranology" animals, plants and other organisms will be in heaven. Held to a different standard? You'd have to be more specific on that bit.

106JGL53
Dec 10, 2014, 11:03 pm

> 105

Plants go to heaven? I was under the impression that bad plants go to hell.

lol.

But I guess theology is like that - i.e., rather subjective.

107Jesse_wiedinmyer
Dec 10, 2014, 11:36 pm

Held to a different standard? You'd have to be more specific on that bit.

Do neanderthals need to obey the ten commandments? Are they capable of murder...? There's any number of questions that could be asked here...

108AsYouKnow_Bob
Edited: Dec 11, 2014, 1:03 am

>95 nathanielcampbell: Do please read the article linked in >87 nathanielcampbell: before continuing the ridiculous charade that presumes that all of the "religionists" in the thread adhere to Divine Command Theory, whereby morality is entirely predicated upon God's power to command, rather than being an independent quality valued by God because it is in the nature of God to value the good.

I live in a universe without invisible spirits, so none of that paragraph carries meaning for me.

Yeah, I read the article you link to; and the author carries on about the consequences of "abandoning god". Far from being a "ridiculous charade", it's more that I don't find such talk meaningful.

And you call it "Moral Realism"???
From here it looks more like its opposite: "Thoughts that I have in my head MUST have Objective Existence". That's not Realism, that's wishful thinking.

109nathanielcampbell
Dec 11, 2014, 10:46 am

>105 socialian: "According to Orthodox "ouranology" animals, plants and other organisms will be in heaven."

It's called the New Heaven and the New Earth -- the idea of the end of time as a new creation is pretty standard Christian theology going back to, well, the New Testament (or even the Hebrew scriptures, depending on how you want to read e.g. parts of Isaiah).

110nathanielcampbell
Edited: Dec 11, 2014, 11:11 am

>107 Jesse_wiedinmyer: "Do neanderthals need to obey the ten commandments?"

Given that the Decalogue wasn't given until some 20,000 years or more after homo sapiens neanderthalensis had gone extinct, the question doesn't even make sense.

Are you even thinking through what you're writing? Are you giving any logical thought whatsoever to this conversation?

111southernbooklady
Dec 11, 2014, 11:18 am

>110 nathanielcampbell: I think Jesse's point, Nathan, is that if morality is understood to exist objectively, then it wouldn't matter whether a person knows about it or not. They would be constantly conforming or failing to conform to an objective standard in the same way we follow the rules of gravity. Of course, "gravity" is a little easier to obey because our physiology, our material existence, requires it.

But that moral standard that supposedly exists is more opaque and sneaky. Different cultures have different things they consider "good" and some of them not only don't agree--they are in conflict with each other. Shall we hold such cultures to account when they fail at our moral standards, even if they could never have learned what those are?

It's not an idle question. It has both trivial and severe implications. After all, isn't that why Dante doomed Vergil and the great classical figures to Purgatory, even when they were obviously "good" people?

112AsYouKnow_Bob
Edited: Dec 11, 2014, 11:56 am

110> Are you giving any logical thought whatsoever to this conversation?

Where exactly does "logic" enter into the conversation? Amongst the things we're talking about is the question of whether the world is a material place amenable to analysis by reason and logic - or whether we inhabit a world haunted by invisible demons and spirits, who some believe torment us for their own unknowable purposes.

(Oh, and before this conversation turns even nastier, I'd like to thank nathaniel for his kind words at >89 nathanielcampbell: above.)

I also enjoy these little chats....

113Jesse_wiedinmyer
Dec 11, 2014, 11:55 am

Given that the Decalogue wasn't given until some 20,000 years or more after homo sapiens neanderthalensis had gone extinct, the question doesn't even make sense.

Morality is morality, brother. Timeless and objective, no?

114quicksiva
Dec 11, 2014, 1:09 pm

>110 nathanielcampbell:
"Given that the Decalogue wasn't given until some 20,000 years or more after homo sapiens neanderthalensis had gone extinct, the question doesn't even make sense."

======

Maybe Neanderthals were remembered as “giants” in the Bible.

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Genesis 6:4 The Holy Bible; King James Version (KJV)

115jburlinson
Dec 11, 2014, 1:31 pm

>91 nathanielcampbell: I think Tim was caricaturing jburlinson's suggestions of a neurological moral reality

Gee, that doesn't sound like a very nice thing for Tim to do. It also doesn't do much to advance one's argument by caricaturing an alternative.

>85 timspalding: Your concept of morality seems fear-based. -- Why?

Don't be afraid of advancing a fear-based concept of morality. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." -- Proverbs 1:7

116jburlinson
Dec 11, 2014, 1:40 pm

>108 AsYouKnow_Bob: I live in a universe without invisible spirits

Don't you dream?

>112 AsYouKnow_Bob: Amongst the things we're talking about is the question of whether the world is a material place amenable to analysis by reason and logic - or whether we inhabit a world haunted by invisible demons and spirits, who some believe torment us for their own unknowable purposes.

Why is it an either/or? What goes on in our heads is made up of both. The "material place" we experience subjectively is made up of the same material stuff as the invisible demons and spirits we experience subjectively.

117jburlinson
Dec 11, 2014, 1:50 pm

>111 southernbooklady: isn't that why Dante doomed Vergil and the great classical figures to Purgatory, even when they were obviously "good" people?

According to Dante, they weren't even in purgatory, but rather in the first circle of hell. Which only goes to show that, at least for Dante, hell isn't necessarily all that bad.

"If they before
The Gospel lived, they served not God aright;
And among such am I. For these defects,
And for no other evil, we are lost;
Only so far afflicted, that we live
Desiring without hope."

"Desiring without hope" describes a lot of good people.

118ElliottShifmanL
Dec 11, 2014, 2:23 pm

I think all of these ideas are good but I also think that everyone has the right to know what they want to know.

119southernbooklady
Dec 11, 2014, 2:39 pm

>117 jburlinson: "Desiring without hope" describes a lot of good people.

Kind of the opposite from what the story of Pandora's Box teaches us, yes? Hope is a given (that is, a gift) that only makes sense in a world with suffering.

120quicksiva
Dec 11, 2014, 3:54 pm

“In very early times, certainly in the Neolithic Period, the Egyptians believed in some kind of a future life, and they dimly conceived that the attainment of that life might possibly depend upon the manner of life which those who hoped to enjoy it led here. The Egyptians "hated death and loved life," and when the belief gained ground among them that Osiris, the God of the Dead, had himself risen from the dead, and had been acquitted by the gods of heaven after a searching trial, and had the power to "make men and women to be born again," and "to renew life" because of his truth and righteousness, they came to regard him as the Judge as well as the God of the Dead. As time went on, and moral and religious ideas developed among the Egyptians, it became certain to them that only those who had satisfied Osiris as to their truth-speaking and honest dealing upon earth could hope for admission into his kingdom. When the power of Osiris became predominant in the Under World, and his fame as a just and righteous judge became well established among the natives of Lower and Upper Egypt, it was universally believed that after death all men would appear before him in his dread Hall of Judgment to receive their reward or their sentence of doom.”

E. A. Wallis Budge. (2008-01-11). The Egyptian Book of the Dead (Kindle Location 5). MacMay. Kindle Edition.

“The code of Osiris—the formula for a happy afterlife—was spelled out in chapter 125 of the "Egyptian Book of the Dead." This "book" is actually an amalgam of writings used to help secure a happy afterlife, and the writings span millennia. But with chapter 125, which shows up in the second millennium BCE, we see a clear example of a morally contingent afterlife.

This chapter tells the deceased exactly what to say when arguing for his soul's salvation before a court of gods overseen by Osiris.

For example:
‘I have brought about no evil.
I did not rise in the morning and expect more than was due to me.
I have not brought my name forward to be praised.
I have not oppressed servants.
I have not scorned any god.
I have not defrauded the poor of their property.
I have not done what the gods abominate.
I have not caused harm to be done to a servant by his master.
I have not caused pain.
I have caused no man to hunger.
I have made no one weep.
I have not killed.
I have not given the order to kill.
I have not inflicted pain on anyone.
I have not stolen the drink left for the gods in the temples.
I have not stolen the cakes left for the gods in the temples.
I have not stolen the cakes left for the dead in the temples...
I have not diminished the bushel when I've sold it.
I have not added to or stolen land.
I have not encroached on the land of others.
I have not added weights to the scales to cheat buyers.
I have not misread the scales to cheat buyers.
I have not stolen milk from the mouths of children...
I am pure.
I am pure.
I am pure.
I am pure.’

“Here, thousands of years before the birth of Christ (and for that matter long before the birth of Abrahamic monotheism), is Judgment Day in a fairly Christian sense of the term. There is a reward for moral behavior—eternal happiness—and maybe a second, more immediate reward: release from the sense of immorality itself—the sense of sin, the sense of impurity. One funeral spell found inscribed on a coffin was intended to liberate the soul of an Egyptian who had been trapped in ‘incrimination, impurity and wrongdoing’ while on earth.”

The Evolution of God by Robert Wright

121quicksiva
Dec 11, 2014, 4:32 pm

>97 nathanielcampbell:
one can be an atheist but not be a materialist. (Heck, that's why Socrates was put to death!)
=======
I just read the Euthyphro, and Socrates seems to believe that the charges against him are "corrupting the young" and "introducing new gods".

122AsYouKnow_Bob
Edited: Dec 11, 2014, 4:48 pm

>116 jburlinson: Don't you dream?

Sure - and there WAS a time when people thought that dreams were real, and that dreams were an actual reliable path to knowledge.

We've outgrown that.

Now dreams are thought of like any other voice in the head: a delusion, and not as reliable knowledge about the world. We now know that a person who hears voices is more likely to be mentally ill than in communion with god; what baffles me is that people are still willing to give credence to other people's delusions and hallucinations.
Revealed religion is no longer a reliable path to knowledge - especially unreliable are other people's alleged revelations.

>116 jburlinson: Why is it an either/or? What goes on in our heads is made up of both.

*Sigh*. Yet another religious argument for solipsism: "How do you know ANYTHING is real, man? Maybe it's ALL illusion!"

123jburlinson
Dec 11, 2014, 5:14 pm

>122 AsYouKnow_Bob: *Sigh*. Yet another religious argument for solipsism:

*Sigh*, yet another fallacious allegation of solipsism. And it's hardly a religious argument; it's more of a respectful acknowledgment of cognitive science.

"How do you know ANYTHING is real, man? Maybe it's ALL illusion!"

If you and I agree on the existence of something, I'm willing to call it real. I'm just not willing to say that we (or at least I) know exactly what it is. But I'm not going to go on and on about it anymore. Even I get weary wearing the same shabby dress.

124AsYouKnow_Bob
Dec 11, 2014, 8:35 pm

Fair enough.

125rrp
Dec 12, 2014, 12:52 pm

>57 jburlinson:

I meant to link this in response to jburlinson's faith in neuromania.

126JGL53
Edited: Dec 12, 2014, 6:43 pm

As I understand the basic "serious" christian theory the following categories of human beings make it to heaven upon (bodily) death:

1. christians (true christians, whatever the hell that is)
2. abortions
3. babies and children under 6 yrs. old or so
4. people born with mental disabilities making them incapable of thinking above the level of a three year old.
5. pre-Christian era persons who are arbitrarily given a break by god, e.g., Moses, the old testament prophets, David, Solomon, etc. (Adam and Eve?)

The BILLIONS of the rest of us are in hell or headed for hell, from Attila the Hun, Stalin, and Pol Pot to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and the Dali Lama.

I.e., "works" by themselves without the TRUE FAITH don't mean shit to the triune god. Nice try but no cigar, fuckfaces.

Of course god MIGHT let a few others in that don't fall into the five categories but that is his arbitrary business and not any of our business. This is the "liberal" line.

Finally, if christian universalism is true, then WTF necessity is the religion we call christianity? It would make no effing difference if all humans eventually make it to heaven and hell is some sort of retarded fantasy. Just be a good Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or deist or pantheist, etc., and you're in like Flint.

(Christ on a crutch - attempting to make sense out of pure insane BULLSHIT is fun, isn't it? And like any hobby or purposeless entertainment it is its own justification.)

127AsYouKnow_Bob
Dec 12, 2014, 7:30 pm

Re: the "What about dogs/Neanderthals?" subthread - the Pope has chimed in:
Dogs in Heaven? Pope Francis Leaves Pearly Gates Open

128nathanielcampbell
Dec 12, 2014, 7:43 pm

>127 AsYouKnow_Bob: And again, Pope Francis didn't say anything about the New Heaven and the New Earth and the eschaton as recreation that hasn't been a part of Christian tradition for two millennia. (You wouldn't know it to read the media reaction to the dog quip, though -- they're so convinced that Francis is a secular liberal that they can't be bothered to understand what he's actually saying.)

See http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2014/12/12/tin-foil-hats-at-nytimes-as-fa... and http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/12/pope-discusses-new-heaven-and-new-...

129prosfilaes
Dec 12, 2014, 8:06 pm

>47 southernbooklady: You know, I'll bet that if someone decides to give up a life long affiliation with a church, it isn't done lightly, but probably involved some serious soul-searching.

Honestly, it was a bit different. I didn't spend long in the church, but they were formative years; my family joined when I was maybe 8, I was baptized of my own free will when I was 10, and was drifting away under the siren call of Asimov and Sagan by the time I was 14. I moved out and got to stop going to church when I was 16, and I've spent a lot of time with my increasingly religious father since then.

As for objective morality, I don't get it. As a non-practicing mathematician who tends towards Platonic views of mathematics, sure, there's a function m(t) => R such that it gives a positive value for moral actions in some sense that Tim is thinking of at time t and negative for immoral actions. There's also a function w(t) => R such that it gives the most likely change in body weight (in grams) for actions Tim is thinking of at time t, and functions that give values based on what Jonathan Edwards, Plato, Carl Sagan, or Jugashvili thought were moral actions. There's also an infinity of functions that are on a path between two functions, or give arbitrarily small changes. I don't know of any nonsubjective way of separating them.

130AsYouKnow_Bob
Edited: Dec 12, 2014, 9:57 pm

>128 nathanielcampbell:

Shrug. Yeah, whatever.

...they're so convinced that Francis is a secular liberal that they can't be bothered to understand what he's actually saying.

Or: maybe what he's saying might have been cogent "two millennia ago"; but just maybe it's that the things he says make no sense at all to secular liberals in the 21st century.

131JGL53
Edited: Dec 12, 2014, 11:27 pm

Plus, Pope Frank is into exorcisms. That's right - exorcisms.

If he actually believes in that shit then he is a certified dumbass and lunatic.

If he is merely promoting such shit to suck up to the masses of ignorant uneducated catholics - the majority worldwide - then he is showing, uh, lack of leadership.

But it was nice, I suppose, that he allowed for cats, dogs, trees, potted plants and atheists as all going to heaven one day along with the pious.

Speaking on behalf of soulless beings everywhere, I suppose I should thank him for that. I guess.

132John5918
Dec 13, 2014, 12:22 am

>130 AsYouKnow_Bob: the things he says make no sense at all to secular liberals in the 21st century

In one sense yes, because he is speaking from within the Christian religious narrative, so if you are not within that tradition it might well make little sense.

On the other hand, the "secular liberal" media and rather a lot of people from all traditions across the world, including atheists, do seem to be rather excited by this man.

133quicksiva
Edited: Dec 13, 2014, 2:18 am

>122 AsYouKnow_Bob:
“We now know that a person who hears voices is more likely to be mentally ill than in communion with god; what baffles me is that people are still willing to give credence to other people's delusions and hallucinations.”
========
“SOCRATES: He brings a wonderful accusation against me, which at first hearing excites surprise: he says that I am a poet or maker of gods, and that I invent new gods and deny the existence of old ones; this is the ground of his indictment.
EUTHYPHRO: I understand, Socrates; he means to attack you about the familiar sign which occasionally, as you say, comes to you. He thinks that you are a neologian, and he is going to have you up before the court for this.”
Plato (2012-05-12). Euthyphro (p. 11). . Kindle Edition.

Socrates told everyone that He got his ideas from a "demon". Both Apuleius in The God of Socrates and St, Augustine in The City of God wrote on Socrates’ “demons".

If Socrates were alive today, he would be trolling Lt and on medication. Given Socrates' way with people, I would not be surprised if Euthyphro didn't later join the Athenians who voted him off the Island.

134quicksiva
Edited: Dec 15, 2014, 7:42 am

BTW, Did Apuleius coin the phrase "familiarity breeds contempt"?
parit enim conversatio contemptum, raritas conciliat admirationem
'familiarity breeds contempt, rarity brings admiration"

The works of Apuleius, comprising the Metamorphoses, or Golden ass, the…

In The Golden Ass, this Early Afro centric Platonist author boasted that he would write better Latin than the Romans. Two millennia later, he's still popular, and funny.

135quicksiva
Dec 13, 2014, 7:07 am

BTW, What is a "neologian", and why was it a crime to be one?

Coming soon! Attack of the Neologians ;)

136AsYouKnow_Bob
Dec 13, 2014, 9:19 am

>133 quicksiva: If Socrates were alive today, he would be trolling Lt and on medication.

Well, same for most of the Old Testament prophets, too.

I've known people who have one-sided conversations with a god whom only they can hear. Hardly anybody gives credence to their revelations these days.

Yeah, and brooding about >128 nathanielcampbell: - - -

The New York Times doesn't report on the theological subtleties of the Pope's position, not just because they're the evul New York Times -- but at least partially because they know their audience.

137southernbooklady
Edited: Dec 13, 2014, 9:38 am

>136 AsYouKnow_Bob: The New York Times doesn't report on the theological subtleties of the Pope's position

Just out of curiosity, how many religions can be said to have "doctrine"? Is the codification of beliefs a requirement to be considered "a religion" or is such codification primarily an artifact of the Abrahamic religions (which seem to go a little mad over it)? When the Pope says animals go to heaven, is he changing doctrine?

138John5918
Edited: Dec 13, 2014, 10:49 am

>122 AsYouKnow_Bob: We now know that a person who hears voices is more likely to be mentally ill than in communion with god

>136 AsYouKnow_Bob: I've known people who have one-sided conversations with a god whom only they can hear.

Yes, of course such people exist, but to be fair, that's not how most religious people see it. Most religious people situate themselves within a religious tradition made up of other people who interpret reality in light of their experience of God in much the same way as they do, and in line with a long tradition.

139nathanielcampbell
Edited: Dec 13, 2014, 1:42 pm

>130 AsYouKnow_Bob: "Shrug. Yeah, whatever."

And you wonder why someone would have trouble taking you seriously, when you're reaction to a complete distortion of what someone is saying is, "Shrug. Yeah, whatever."

If that's you're reaction here, then you give up any legitimate right to complain when someone looks at your complaints about how religion completely distorts what you see as reality, and responds, "Shrug. Yeah, whatever."

ETA: It turns out that Pope Francis never even said the line about pets in heaven upon which the entire NYTimes/Guardian/and-other-news-outlets built their case: www.religionnews.com/2014/12/12/sorry-fido-pope-francis-not-say-pets-going-heaven/

Major newspapers outright lied about what the Pope said, and your response is, "Shrug. Yeah, whatever."

140quicksiva
Dec 13, 2014, 1:49 pm

Are you saying that there is an anti papal conspiracy afoot?

141nathanielcampbell
Edited: Dec 13, 2014, 1:54 pm

>140 quicksiva: I'm saying that the state of modern journalism is ashambles when the Grey Lady herself can't be bothered to fact-check headline quotes from a major international leader. It's not such conspiracy as it is apathy.

142southernbooklady
Dec 13, 2014, 2:34 pm

>139 nathanielcampbell: Major newspapers outright lied about what the Pope said

It might be better to say that major newspapers outright repeated other newspapers about what the Pope said. Although I have no idea how major the Italian paper Corriere della Sera is. But that seems to have been the source of the confusion.

The corrections seem to be making their way through the Internet now. There are corrections on the NYT article and on USA Today.

143AsYouKnow_Bob
Edited: Dec 13, 2014, 3:40 pm

OK - unlike some, when the information I have changes, I am happy to change my view. SBL says (and I have confirmed for myself...) that the Times has issued a correction; I hereby retract my NYT link as no longer bearing on the early discussion above on the souls of plants, animals and Neanderthals.

Happy?

HOWEVER: my >130 AsYouKnow_Bob: "Shrug. Yeah, whatever." was NOT in response to this link being a misquote, as you're trying to claim at >139 nathanielcampbell: ;

rather, my offhand dismissal was in response to your simpler claim at >128 nathanielcampbell: that the NYT had missed the theological subtleties involved.

Because apparently at that point you hadn't done enough research EITHER; I assume that you would have mentioned the Times' error earlier if you had.

If there's a "Gotcha!" to be played, it looks a lot like it got you, too.

144jburlinson
Dec 13, 2014, 4:30 pm

>137 southernbooklady: is such codification primarily an artifact of the Abrahamic religions (which seem to go a little mad over it)?

There's a movement within at least one Abrahamic religion that is determinedly non-doctrinal.

"Progressive Christianity is an approach to the Christian faith that is influenced by post-liberalism and postmodernism and: proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as Christ, Savior, and Lord; emphasizes the Way and teachings of Jesus, not merely His person; emphasizes God's immanence not merely God's transcendence; leans toward panentheism rather than supernatural theism; emphasizes salvation here and now instead of primarily in heaven later; emphasizes being saved for robust, abundant/eternal life over being saved from hell; emphasizes the social/communal aspects of salvation instead of merely the personal; stresses social justice as integral to Christian discipleship; takes the Bible seriously but not necessarily literally, embracing a more interpretive, metaphorical understanding; emphasizes orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs); embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas; does not consider homosexuality to be sinful; and does not claim that Christianity is the only valid or viable way to connect to God (is non-exclusive)." -- Kissing Fish: Christianity for People Who Don't Like Christianity by Roger Wolsey

145John5918
Dec 14, 2014, 1:37 am

>144 jburlinson: Elements of "Progressive Christianity" can be found within many of the major Christian traditions, such that I would not give it a capital letter as if it is something distinct; I see "progressive" as simply an adjective describing the attitude of some Christians and some groups within the broader community.

146quicksiva
Dec 14, 2014, 7:02 am

In On the God of Socrates, the pagan Apuleius wrote:

“ Moreover, there are certain divine middle powers, situated in this interval of the air, between the highest ether and earth, which is in the lowest place, through whom our desires and our deserts pass to the Gods. These are called by a Greek name daemons, who, being placed between the terrestrial and celestial inhabitants, transmit prayers from the one, and gifts from the other. They likewise carry supplications from the one, and auxiliaries from the other, as certain interpreters and saluters of both.”

How are these “divine middle powers” different from “angels” as commonly known in western thought?

147jburlinson
Dec 14, 2014, 4:54 pm

>145 John5918: Perhaps there's a small "p" progressive and a capital "P" version. There's likely a "progressive" wing of almost any tradition -- there's even something called “progressive pentecostalism”. What I was thinking of is more like capital P -- the sort of thing associated with http://progressivechristianity.org/

148John5918
Dec 14, 2014, 11:42 pm

>147 jburlinson: Thanks, yes, it's probably both/and rather than either/or. The capital P of that website represents the institutionalised version, maybe?

149quicksiva
Dec 15, 2014, 6:46 am

It's good to see that I am not the only neologian aboard. You guys are arguing about someone who joined a church one week and was an atheist a week later. He was young, but still.

150paradoxosalpha
Dec 16, 2014, 9:42 am

>137 southernbooklady:

"Doctrine" is just a highfalutin' word for "authorized teachings." Pretty much all religions teach something, for better or worse. In Abrahamic religions, such teachings generally ground their authority in scripture, transmission from prophets, or more proximate revelations.

In my religion, I'm often at pains to point out that since we do not police consciences, our doctrines simply give structure and insight to the things we collectively think about, rather than setting limits to what we are entitled to think.

151southernbooklady
Dec 16, 2014, 9:52 am

>150 paradoxosalpha: such teachings generally ground their authority in scripture

I suppose conflicts always come down to a question of authority, no matter what the doctrine -- secular or religious.

152John5918
Dec 16, 2014, 10:29 am

>150 paradoxosalpha: we do not police consciences

Arguably, neither do we.

Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism


Joseph Ratzinger in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II ,Vol. V., pg. 134 (Ed) Herbert Vorgrimler, 1967.

153southernbooklady
Dec 16, 2014, 10:51 am

>152 John5918: Arguably, neither do we.

I think what that means in practice is "arguably, neither can we."

But really, it's the sort of statement that only works in theory, isn't it? Having authority implies the ability or right to enforce it.

154paradoxosalpha
Dec 16, 2014, 11:47 am

>152 John5918:

Arguably, indeed.

One of the things I liked in my recent read The Religious Case Against Belief was the author's defense of "doctrine" as something fecund, contrasted with the sterility of "belief."

155jburlinson
Dec 16, 2014, 11:59 am

>152 John5918: Arguably, neither do we. -- "Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else...

But isn't the word "conscience" in Ratzinger's quote defined doctrinally in the Catechism?

"Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths." Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 6.

That same voice, which calls a person to do evil while under the conviction that it is good, must be policed to ensure its integrity -- wouldn''t that be the case?

156Luchtpint
Dec 16, 2014, 11:59 am

With regards to the cognitive science of religion, I tend to feel there are some religious people around who explicitly want to posit a theory on why religion itself makes more sense on evolutionary grounds than the cognitive evolution from religions to secularized doctrine. These people would consider religion as an end station, so to speak. I rather think that the whole issue of religion and why it exists has to be fitted into a model that explains why on earth people tend to structure reality into a specific outlook of the world, which we may call - in one word - doctrine. IMO, doctrines are originally the byproduct of Mankind's natural instinct to make sense of a natural environment that is potentially dangerous and harmful to both the individual and the community and in which both have to find a strategy to survive. Basically, rituals are there to provide some control for a community to overcome uncertainties pertaining to their survival in the long run. The caveman had this ritual to control the environment by painting the animals he was hunting down. The human animal has been invested with an attribute that makes it distinct from other animals: a higher conscience that continually seeks to control the hostile environment the human is living in and that wants to mold it to its wishes, or to avert at least the threat of being wiped from the earth's surface by injecting essentially human morality into the natural world. Hence, all natural phenomenons that can't be explained easily and are perceived as threatening, have to be explained by the 'wrath of the (specific) gods', which has led the human being first to animism and polytheism, and ultimately to the metaphysical 'universal good vs. evil' tenet of - among others - Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity. Religion is - IMO - a natural tendency of the human animal to make sense of the world we are living in: ordering the chaos around us to alleviate our fears of having no control at all over the natural world. Last but not least, I also think that without the evolution from animism / polytheism to monotheism there would not be any parallel headway pertaining to philosophy, science, or even secular Enlightenment and the emergence of non-religious doctrine or politics. They all fall under the scope of the same evolution.

The key words in my mind are 'doctrine' or 'belief system', rather than 'religion'. There are too many religiously inclined people who tend to posit the notion that 'there can't be morality without religion', and by doing so they tend to deliberately overlook the excesses pertaining to religious doctrines that may surface. The reverse however also happens, as we well know: some secular doctrines tend to continually emphasize all the bad stuff to do with religious doctrines in order to name and shame religion specifically, while attempting to extol their own virtues or deny their own excesses, like totalitarian doctrines have done. In any case, fanaticism is not the way forward.

In my mind religions as we know them today are pre-modern ideologies or doctrines. Enlightenment, liberalism and socialism were modern ideologies / doctrines (and regrettably also Nazism / Communism). I suppose today, we may speak of post-modern ideologies / doctrines, like for instance environmentalism. The evolution of belief systems is such that we should acknowledge the value of all the stages in it, because in many ways they have contributed to a better understanding of what it means to be human in this day and age.

157southernbooklady
Dec 16, 2014, 12:05 pm

>156 Luchtpint: Hence, all natural phenomenons that can't be explained easily and are perceived as threatening, have to be explained by the 'wrath of the (specific) gods'

I think I'd quibble with this statement. Belief systems are not attempts to "explain" nature so much as attempts to understand our place within it.

158jburlinson
Dec 16, 2014, 12:24 pm

>156 Luchtpint: With regards to the cognitive science of religion, I tend to feel there are some religious people around who explicitly want to posit a theory on why religion itself makes more sense on evolutionary grounds than the cognitive evolution from religions to secularized doctrine.

There's a lot to your message and I want to thank you for posting it.

Just to take the first sentence, though, you seem to be setting up a distinction between religious and secular doctrine and then viewing the latter as some sort of evolutionary advance in cognitive terms from the former. I can't really go along with you there, not least because evolution is not a particularly purposeful process.

My own sense of the "cognitive science of religion" is that it refers primarily to a subjective experience of what might be called the sublime, or the spiritually pure: an experience, that has been reported universally throughout history and that pre-dates any doctrinal pronouncements about it. In fact, much doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with the subjective experience. This experience, when manifested in consciousness, is very complex, consisting of elements of aesthetics, morality, ontology, and many other things. Cognitive science seems to be an attempt to provide a physicalist or materialist accounting of the experience.

159Luchtpint
Dec 16, 2014, 12:29 pm

With regards to religion, it becomes quite apparent to me that a host of natural phenomenons have shaped the notion of collective 'guilt and redemption' as found within certain religions. In the Middle Ages for instance, the affliction of plague was regarded by the (Roman-Catholic) clergy as a punishment from God for the collective sins of the masses, or to put it differently, its 'collective immorality / depravity'.

In other words, religious people tend to project human morality in the natural world. (hence, there have also been less Enlightened thinkers who posited philosophies with regards to 'Natural Law', which depends on monotheist morality, mainly) Idiotically, no matter how many times the plague resurfaced throughout European history, the clergy used to be very quick off the mark to reemphasize this notion repeatedly. Which is just one example.

In polytheism, just about any natural phenomenon that occurred and that defied explanation at the time, could be interpreted as the wrath of a specific God for collective moral wrongdoing. Like for instance earthquakes, drought, volcanic eruptions, pandemic diseases, flooding,...and the likes.

160jburlinson
Dec 16, 2014, 1:01 pm

>159 Luchtpint: With regards to religion...

I hear what you're saying (I think), but you seem to continue to refer to religion as doctrine, or, more broadly, as the behavior of people within or on behalf of religious organizations.

Interesting as these things are, I don't think they are the focus of cognitive science, or at least of what has been referred to as neurotheology.

161John5918
Dec 16, 2014, 1:30 pm

>153 southernbooklady: I think what that means in practice is "arguably, neither can we."

Of course. Short of resorting to physical threats, they only have as much authority over me as my conscience chooses to give them.

Having said that, I know many bishops and priests who wouldn't dream of trying to exert authority over anybody. That's not what it's about.

>155 jburlinson: Well, one can argue about what conscience is. One can also argue that conscience needs to be coherent, and "formed" or "informed", ie it is not just what I take a fancy to doing today. But ultimately it is mine, and my Church teaches the primacy of my conscience for me.

162paradoxosalpha
Edited: Dec 16, 2014, 2:01 pm

>161 John5918:

I'm sure there are many such bishops and priests who thus understand "what it's about," but it's the other sort who get publicly noticed.

ETA: Moreover, it does seem that the practical use (if not the theoretical intent) of auricular confession has been to audit/police the consciences of Catholics for most of its history.

163southernbooklady
Dec 16, 2014, 1:57 pm

>161 John5918: I know many bishops and priests who wouldn't dream of trying to exert authority over anybody.

Well that's the point of having an office, isn't it? The position exerts the authority whether or not the person holding it is inclined to do so.

164paradoxosalpha
Edited: Dec 16, 2014, 2:08 pm

>163 southernbooklady:

No, I wouldn't say that "the point of having an office" is coercive power. Many offices are genuine expressions of service. An usher is someone in a ceremonial office.

Even offices identified with authority (which is the present context) are best fulfilled not through coercive tactics, although they can usually be abused in that manner, and depending on the system in which they are placed, may actually demand such tactics from office-holders as legitimating acts.

165southernbooklady
Dec 16, 2014, 2:15 pm

>164 paradoxosalpha: Many offices are genuine expressions of service. Sure. But they are also a method to impose order.

As you say, how well they fulfill their duties or purposes is very much in the hands of the office holder, and of course coercion is the least palatable of methods. But the very existence of the office is an embodiment of authority. Which is why we can say, as an example, that even if we don't like the current President of the United States, we still "respect the office" -- without such a statement becoming an absurdity.

166paradoxosalpha
Edited: Dec 16, 2014, 3:50 pm

>165 southernbooklady:

Yes, even an usher serves to facilitate "order." And, all other things being equal, a certain amount of order is necessary and desirable. It doesn't have to be an imposition.

ETA: Cynic that I am, I do suppose that 21st-century POTUS is an office that demands coercive actions to legitimate the office holder. Such demands can be resisted, but there's little evidence that they have been.

167southernbooklady
Dec 16, 2014, 4:01 pm

>166 paradoxosalpha: And, all other things being equal, a certain amount of order is necessary and desirable. It doesn't have to be an imposition.

It's not an imposition because it has the complicity of those that accept its authority. But that does mean that to some extent we only pay lip service to the idea that our own conscience is the ultimate authority. Certainly, the notion that a personal conscience is the highest authority is ultimately a theoretical position, rather than a practical one, when it comes to an institution like the United States Government or the Roman Catholic Church. Sooner or later your are going to have to deal with a person who's conscience is so far at odds with the imposed order that they forfeit their inclusion in your domain. If you are the US Government, you might end up throwing them in jail. If you are the church, you might declare them guilty of heresy. But in either case, it really comes down to imposing your authority over another's conscience.

168jburlinson
Dec 16, 2014, 5:26 pm

>161 John5918: my Church teaches the primacy of my conscience for me

That sounds consistent with the recent Final Report on the Apostolic Visitation of Institutes of Women Religious in the United States of America, which contains all kinds of praise for nuns who had previously been accused of having a "secular mentality".

Nonetheless, the catechism seems to imply that conscience is not an individual thing, but rather a voice within a person "ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil". This voice would be the same for everyone, I would think, or at least it would say the same thing, wouldn't it?

169southernbooklady
Dec 16, 2014, 6:16 pm

>168 jburlinson: This voice would be the same for everyone, I would think, or at least it would say the same thing, wouldn't it?

Would it?

170paradoxosalpha
Dec 16, 2014, 7:33 pm

>168 jburlinson:, wouldn't it? >169 southernbooklady: Would it?

Not according to my church's doctrine. ;-)

171weener
Dec 16, 2014, 9:25 pm

If it were from a single, external source, it would probably say similar things to everyone who heard it. Unless it were purposefully messing with us.

172John5918
Dec 17, 2014, 12:27 am

>167 southernbooklady: It's not an imposition because it has the complicity of those that accept its authority

Yes. The only authority people have over me short of physical threats is what I choose to give them. Even the physical threats are resisted by many more courageous people than me in the name of their conscience.

Certainly, the notion that a personal conscience is the highest authority is ultimately a theoretical position, rather than a practical one, when it comes to an institution like the United States Government or the Roman Catholic Church.

The two are not the same. The former can fine you, imprison you, torture you (sorry, use "enhanced interrogation" on you), execute you. The latter has no means of imposing authority.

Sooner or later your are going to have to deal with a person who's conscience is so far at odds with the imposed order that they forfeit their inclusion in your domain.

Of course. Some will choose to follow their conscience and withdraw their assent to the authority.

If you are the US Government, you might end up throwing them in jail. If you are the church, you might declare them guilty of heresy. But in either case, it really comes down to imposing your authority over another's conscience.

Throwing someone in jail may be imposing authority, but declaring someone a heretic because they follow their conscience is not imposing authority. If my conscience has put me so far at odds with the institution whose authority I had accepted, then I would presumably have withdrawn my consent to its authority.

173southernbooklady
Dec 17, 2014, 8:43 am

>172 John5918: The latter has no means of imposing authority.

Mmm. I beg to differ. Consider the practice of shunning among some religious groups. Forced exile from your community seems to me to be a very effective method of imposing authority.

declaring someone a heretic because they follow their conscience is not imposing authority. If my conscience has put me so far at odds with the institution whose authority I had accepted, then I would presumably have withdrawn my consent to its authority.

That sounds like a rationalization of the first order. "We cast you out because you have already cast yourself out." I suspect it is never that clean. People who in matters of conscience set themselves against the authority they are under -- religious or secular -- aren't doing so for trivial reasons. They see something wrong, something amiss in their community and they want to fix it. That goes for Luther refusing to recant his Ninety-five Theses (I don't think he actually nailed them to that church door, although it makes a good story), and for every pacifist that took off for Canada to avoid the draft during the Vietnam war.

But my point is that if conscience really were the highest recognized authority in a religious context, then "heresy" would be an absurdity -- there could be no such thing.

174paradoxosalpha
Edited: Dec 17, 2014, 9:51 am

>172 John5918: >173 southernbooklady:

Another "means of imposing authority" outside of physical force and social sanction is metaphysical coercion. Matthew 16:19 (and its reiteration at Matthew 18:18) has historically been the scriptural cornerstone of a popularized notion that the eternal post-mortem existence of individual Christians could be subject to the judgment of clergy. (I'm not saying that this sort of belief is common today, but it's demonstrably possible, and it has appeared in religious milieus both tiny and vast.)

175John5918
Dec 17, 2014, 10:33 am

>173 southernbooklady: But my point is that if conscience really were the highest recognized authority in a religious context, then "heresy" would be an absurdity -- there could be no such thing.

There's a difference between the mainstream narrative of a faith community, and the belief of each individual within it. Heresy refers to a fundamental divergence from the first. If it's that fundamental a divergence, then my conscience would probably already have led me away.

>174 paradoxosalpha: the eternal post-mortem existence of individual Christians could be subject to the judgment of clergy. (I'm not saying that this sort of belief is common today

It's not common today. And it's not about the judgement of clergy, rather the judgement of God, a God who is more merciful than we can ever imagine.

176jburlinson
Dec 17, 2014, 11:22 am

>169 southernbooklady: >170 paradoxosalpha: Would it or wouldn't it?

Well, if a voice were telling a person "to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil", then, as long as "good" and "evil" have any kind of universally understood and agreed-upon meaning, it would. Of course, that's really the question, isn't it -- is there good and evil in any objective, or at least inter-subjective, way?

In the Catholic catechism, there doesn't seem to be much confusion as to good and evil -- "man has in his heart a law inscribed by God". The law is immutable. The only difficulty might be an individual person's ability to discern that law rightly.

So the question becomes -- is the conscience the law, in which case the conscience is the same for all people; or, is the conscience the ability of an individual person to discern the law, in which case it's possible for people's consciences to differ on any given issue. But there's always the implication that, among all the possible differing consciences, only one is right, i.e. in accordance with the "law inscribed by God".

177paradoxosalpha
Edited: Dec 17, 2014, 12:43 pm

>168 jburlinson: >176 jburlinson:

Every man and every woman is a star. If conscience is a voice within a person "ever calling him...", then it is unique for each individual. "Good" is following the call, while "evil" is denying it. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

178southernbooklady
Dec 17, 2014, 2:17 pm

>176 jburlinson: Of course, that's really the question, isn't it -- is there good and evil in any objective, or at least inter-subjective, way?

It's one of those questions that seems to have an obvious answer, but dissipates like fog when I think about it more closely. Instinctively, you want to say "Of course there is good and evil! It's always evil to stick babies on spikes!"

But in the real world, we live among an endless series of moral choices and dilemmas. Is it moral to fight in a war you don't believe in because it is your duty to do so? Is it moral to lie to someone to spare them pain? Is it moral to take away another person's freedom of choice if it will save a life? Is it moral to manipulate someone for their own good?

None of these questions are easily answered, so I'm left with the conclusion that "good" and "bad" are ephemeral constructs that have little meaning outside the context of a given situation.

179jburlinson
Dec 17, 2014, 3:21 pm

>178 southernbooklady: "good" and "bad" are ephemeral constructs that have little meaning outside the context of a given situation

But within any specific situation, one can conceive of choices as being "better" or "worse", and, hence, "good" or "bad" -- even when it's the proverbial "lesser of two evils". The context, and the details, may change, but the notion of better or worse remains.

>177 paradoxosalpha: says that better or worse comes down to following an individual's unique call (as experienced moment-to-moment as the self-perceived will?) as opposed to denying that call and doing something contrary to it. But, if this is the case, does context determine will? Would a person's will demand one thing in one context but something different in a different context? Or is the will of the person fixed -- like a star?

180paradoxosalpha
Dec 18, 2014, 8:44 am

>179 jburlinson: as experienced moment-to-moment as the self-perceived will?

No. As arrived at through an arduous process of experiment, self-examination, and contemplative receptivity. Note also, not: "Do what I will shall be the whole of the Law." The call is unique to the individual, but it is not from the individual to whom it is directed. (For the biblically-disposed, see also: Luke 22:42.)

Would a person's will demand one thing in one context but something different in a different context?

Of course. All objects and events are relational and subject to context. Even stars.

181jburlinson
Dec 18, 2014, 12:42 pm

>180 paradoxosalpha: The call is unique to the individual, but it is not from the individual to whom it is directed

Just to be sure -- the "I" in "do what I will" is something or someone external to, or in some way differentiated from, the individual; is that right? If so, is the "I" the same for all individuals. If this is the case, does this "I" have a different, unique call for each individual? And if this, too, is the case, does the "I" ever call one individual to do something that is at odds with what another individual is called to do; or is the "I" controlling things in such a way that, if every individual answers their true call, all will be well?

Or is there a separate, unique "I" for each individual that is somehow distinct from the moment-to-moment subjective impression of the individual's self: like an "authentic self" as distinguished from a false self, or at least falsely perceived self?

182quicksiva
Dec 18, 2014, 1:12 pm

>144 jburlinson:
"One night, I went up to the room I was renting in a house I shared with four others. At about 2:00 a.m., I sensed a presence in the room with me. I then felt myself being held, slightly gripped even, and the whole thing sort of spooked me. So I left the room and lay on the floor of another room at the top of the steps. Again, I sensed a presence in the room with me. I felt myself being held, yet this time it was softer, more like being lovingly cradled. As I surrendered to it, I heard a voice. Whether it was external or internal, I couldn’t say. If there had been a tape recorder there I have no idea if it could have recorded it, but I heard it nonetheless. Neither male nor female, it was strangely familiar. The voice asked me: 'Do you know who I am?' Without having to open my mouth to speak, I said, 'You are God.'"

Wolsey, Roger (2011-05-20). Kissing Fish: Christianity for people who don’t like Christianity (Kindle Locations 936-938). Xlibris. Kindle Edition.

183paradoxosalpha
Edited: Dec 18, 2014, 1:41 pm

>181 jburlinson:

Please re-read: NOT "Do what I will," but rather Do what thou wilt.
So also shall he who invoketh often behold the Formless Fire, with trembling and bewilderment; but if he prolong his meditation, he shall resolve it into coherent and intelligible symbols, and he shall hear the articulate utterance of that Fire, interpret the thunder thereof as a still small voice in his heart. And the Fire shall reveal to his eyes his own image in its own true glory; and it shall speak in his ears the mystery that is his own right Name. (Chaldean Oracles as paraphrased in Liber V)

184nathanielcampbell
Dec 18, 2014, 3:04 pm

>183 paradoxosalpha: I think J is asking: is the "thou" the person who is doing the doing, or is the "thou" whatever y'all consider the divinity?

(This is something I've long misunderstood, I think -- whenever you drop that line about "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of Law," I had understood the "thou" to be the individual actor, i.e., "You there, the whole of the Law shall be what you will." But I'm starting to get the sense that I've been misreading this.)

185jburlinson
Dec 18, 2014, 6:19 pm

>183 paradoxosalpha: Do what thou wilt.

What >184 nathanielcampbell: said.

I had assumed that Crowley was saying that every person has a "true will" that is unique and is calling the person to act according to their true self. So the "thou" is directed at the reader and is asking the reader to act accordingly.

So perhaps I shoiuld re-formulate my question in #181 to be:

Does this "thou" have a unique call that is different from the call of all other "thous"? And if this is the case, does one "thou" ever get called to do something that is at odds with what another thou is called to do; or is there something else, external to all the "thous", controlling things in such a way that, if every individual answers their true call, all will be well?

186southernbooklady
Dec 19, 2014, 8:49 am

>179 jburlinson: But within any specific situation, one can conceive of choices as being "better" or "worse", and, hence, "good" or "bad" -- even when it's the proverbial "lesser of two evils"

Kind of like the notion of "fast" or "slow" --- they only have meaning from a given perspective.

187paradoxosalpha
Dec 19, 2014, 10:26 am

>184 nathanielcampbell: >185 jburlinson:

Your confusion is not unusual, in fact it's common among some who themselves affirm "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." There is no explicit doctrine where "thou" is defined in that sentence. But Crowley's deep biblical knowledge and ultra-Protestant background make it hard to dismiss the interplay with: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, let thy will, not mine, be done," so that "thy will" is the will of the Father.* There is thus a neo-Joachimist scheme according to which:
A. The Law (status Patri) was the Decalogue and priestly codes.
B. The Law (status Filio) became the Great Commandment (to love god and neighbor).
C. The Law (status Spiritui Sancto) shall be Do what thou wilt -- the ubiquitous divine will, ramified to each instant of human being.

Nevertheless, how does one then know the will of god? One must become god. There is no god but man.

*Note also, the divine Father is eclipsed in Thelema by the the divine Child, and both are understood as the type (for their respective ages) of the augoeides (or "Holy Guardian Angel"), which is unique for each person. The non-transitive character of the augoeides is more patent under the Aeon of the Child, because it is so easy to imagine multitudinous children of a single Father. (What better sums up the founding promise of Abrahamic devotion?) However, can there be one Child of multitudinous parents? Perhaps, but not as most might understand.

Does this "thou" have a unique call that is different from the call of all other "thous"?

The postulated answer to this question is yes.

And if this is the case, does one "thou" ever get called to do something that is at odds with what another thou is called to do; or is there something else, external to all the "thous", controlling things in such a way that, if every individual answers their true call, all will be well?

The latter is a premise of the theory of "True Will" as elaborated by Crowley, and presumably accepted by most Thelemites. This assurance is not found in the revelation of the Law itself, however, and the question is worthy of deep meditation and study, rather than pat response.

188jburlinson
Dec 19, 2014, 1:33 pm

>187 paradoxosalpha: the ubiquitous divine will, ramified to each instant of human being.

There seems to be at least two ways to consider this. One is that, the divine will being ubiquitous, anything and everything that happens is an instance of the action of the divine will, so that whatever an individual does is, or will be, in accordance with that will.

Another is that there's a ubiquitous divine will which can either be played out or not, depending upon the choices made by entities that possess some sort of personal agency. In such a scenario, even one deviation from the divine will being manifested would result in a sub-optimal universe. Alternatively, perhaps, I suppose it could be possible for the divine will to re-optimize the universe after every discrete decision event, thus, in some way, retroactively legitimating what might first have been considered a mistake or a wrong action.

This is obviously not an issue exclusive to Thelema, since it appears to deal with the free will idea. But I wonder how Thelema considers this state of affairs.

189paradoxosalpha
Dec 19, 2014, 2:26 pm

>188 jburlinson:

"Optimization of the universe" sounds like the bastard of Dr. Pangloss and President Business.

My own favorite meditation on free will continues to be section 19 of Beyond Good and Evil.

190quicksiva
Dec 25, 2014, 9:28 am

>144 jburlinson:
About; Kissing Fish: Christianity for People Who Don't Like Christianity by Roger Wolsey

On one page Mr. Wolsey boasts of his knowledge of Science. On another, he speaks of the “Winter Equinox”. Makes me wonder.

Merry Solstice!