mdk said
Where we differ is, you're dismissing these shortcomings on account of the ultimate ideal; while I'm dismissing the ultimate ideal on account of the shortcomings. I don't think we're 'on a path towards full understanding of the cosmos,' not in the least.

-shrug- People, the source of the shortcomings, are temporary, and changeable. I'm not saying that in ten years everything will be perfect, but in the long (very long) run, the shortcomings that plague this and most other aspects of human existence will be outsmarted and adapted around.

EDIT: That's just what we do.

HeySeuss said
So I have to pretend that it's true; there's a big father in the sky enforcing the law in order to answer the question?No thanks. I'm going to point out that absent the certainty that there is divine retribution, placing faith in it as a means of stabilizing society is definitely like sailing in a leaky vessel. I suppose if you're arguing that it's cool to gull people into believing there is a great father in the sky thundering down on wrongdoers for political purposes, I certainly agree -- though I find the practice dishonest. Of course, I'm also not in politics.

Or you tell them that they won't be punished if no one sees them. Sailing in a vessel with no bottom. Every moral argument or instruction you would otherwise give is the same: Behavior X hurts others, causes Y societal malady, etc. You are just adding incentive.

No society which has categorically rejected a higher power has been the better for it. Not revolutionary France, not Russia, not China, not North Korea, not Cambodia, not Vietnam. Not a single one, for how many trials? Talk about being unscientific, why would we try it again?

So Boerd said
Talk about being unscientific, why would we try it again?

I didn't invoke science. I personally recommend sticking people with what they said, not trying to get them to shoulder responsibility for what someone else said.

And considering how the Enlightenment era was over previous eras by progressively removing religion further from absolute power to the point where you have secular constitutions and law, there's more than enough room to actually argue the merits of secularism; that is, if one is perfectly willing to not restrain themselves to the narrow range of regimes you're trying to confine this argument to; we're treading awfully close to a few of the fallacies on Sukisho's list here.

So Boerd said
Or you tell them that they won't be punished if no one sees them. Sailing in a vessel with no bottom. Every moral argument or instruction you would give is the same: Behavior X hurts others, causes Y societal malady, etc.

No society which has categorically rejected a higher power has been the better for it. Not revolutionary France, not Russia, not China, not North Korea, not Cambodia, not Vietnam. Not a single one, for how many trials? Talk about being unscientific, why would we try it again?

Are we talking about categorically rejecting higher powers? I know I'm not. You still have said nothing to refute the fact that training ourselves to be empathetic, even if we have faith in a higher power, would lead to ruin.

Of course we should be empathetic. I am just saying faith in a higher power should not be discouraged.

:) And I agree, but that wasn't the original focus of the argument. No one is advocating for forcing everyone to be secular in all their dealings.

EDIT: What I'm saying is that all people should be able to look at a piece of dogma, and determine which parts are moral and which parts are immoral, based on universal values that should be true no matter your faith.

To use some (EDIT: very basic) Christian examples:
-Turn the other cheek: moral
-Love thy neighbor, and thy enemy: moral
-Stone adulterers: immoral
-Decry homosexuality as an abomination: immoral

I would concur to decrying stoning adulterers as immoral if it was made today. But they stopped being the rule 2000 years ago. I don't have enough information to be able to make a moral judgment at the time they were enacted. What the acceptance of a higher power does is create an afterlife which must be factored in to our utilitarian views.

I assume you mean "an afterlife which has punishments for immoral behavior", such as the Christian Heaven/Hell dichotomy. But what if your views of the afterlife include no such provisions? Is that wrong?

EDIT: What I mean is, "an afterlife" is separate from morality in the observable, physical (as far as we know) universe, unless it has those provisions.

Of course it isn't wrong. I believe it to be incorrect, but not wrong.

But for example, stoning adulterers may have been the good thing to do at the time because contraception didn't exist, so they might bring a child in to bad circumstances that may cause it to learn immoral behaviors. I don't know. It isn't my job to guess the mind of God.

They might do that. So that means that every person who chooses to remove themselves from arranged marriages based on the trading of sheep and money for young women is going to raise immoral children, and thus must be executed?

:( That doesn't sound very moral to me, even for the time. In fact, it's quite brutal and incredibly misogynistic, both things that I don't believe any form of benevolent higher power to be. Right now, if you were married, Boerd, and your spouse cheated on you, would you advocate for your spouse's execution? Of course not!

And that's what I mean. Regardless of whether you hated your spouse's guts, or how many times your spouse was unfaithful to you, you would be able to look at the line in the Old Testament that talks about adulterers and say "I refuse to stone my adulterous spouse." And that sentiment is part of the universal, secular moral code. Looking at something unjust, and saying "that is unjust", no matter who is telling you to do it.

I don't pretend to be smart enough to know the mind of God. What I do know is that which remains in force today, that which God expects me to obey, is unquestionably moral.

On the subject, what are you basing your morality on? Utilitarianism?

Empathy, as I've already stated. Not taking actions you know will harm others, attempting to understand the perspectives of all sides, and purposeful self-reflection that allows you to see where your actions are hurting others. It isn't perfect, but it's a start.

When do my interests supercede others?

:) That is an excellent question. The obvious philosphical answer is, "never", but I'm not quite comfortable with that. When your interests do no harm? There's a whole other can of worms there, with the definition of "harm". It's a difficult process... Perhaps it reduces to aptitude. If I, knowing myself, my limitations and my aptitude, am able to help someone, my morality tells me that I should. As a corollary, I need to always be self-reflecting, refining my aptitude so that I am able to help others.

But, I suppose I should ask you the same. When do your interests supercede others?

Morality is a system which we developed through our evolved sense of social necessities and varies from culture to culture, though the basic premise tends to be the same: That which hurts the overall society is immoral. We are social animals. Murder, rape, and so on, damage the structural foundation upon which we form social ties to our compatriots. As we grew more intellectually aware of the environment around us and of one another, so too did our morality evolve to compensate for the greater sum of knowledge into codes of law and so on.

Many animals (especially pack animals who are also social creatures) display the foundations for "morality" as well, through empathy and sympathy, which enables them to perform tasks which are utterly illogical for self-survival. For instance: A dog running into a burning building to drag its master to safety, or a wolf defending its cubs from harm instead of simply abandoning them to their fate of being devoured by whatever predator is stalking them (even if said predator is larger than the mother wolf), and so on.

It's why our morals today make the morals of centuries past look utterly barbaric and savage. We grew more aware, and thus, our morality advanced.

If anything, intellectual discourse and being willing to view the world as a subjective landscape instead of being "hard coded" one way or another has been far more enabling of social progress (including morality) than a hard code (such as the Bible) ever has been or will be.

So many interesting ideas in this thread. I'm glad I got it un-deleted.

Imperfectionist said The question is biased to begin with, because it says nothing of the history of "you".

Here's a better one: If, in your life, there were no authority figures or peers of any sort who exposed you to the idea that certain actions harm others and that those actions are therefore bad, would you, as a rational adult, be able to assign that negative quality to those actions on your own?

I understand and agree with what you're saying here, but it's not what that question was trying to address.
It's not trying to argue that "You don't need to be taught things like murder is wrong by something", humans are born as empty slates. Everything they do and think has to be taught or at least influenced by something.

It was trying to argue that Religion does not need to be what teaches this lesson.
For example let's look at your average religious person, believes in God, goes to church, spreads the word of God and the Bible etc. If suddenly one day this person was given undeniable proof that God doesn't exist and their religion is false, and this proof and evidence is accepted by the individual would they now abandon all their morals? Without God would they then murder, rape etc? If no, then there is something telling/teaching them not to that is not Religion. Therefore, although some morals like murder and rape is wrong may need to be taught, it is not Religion that is needed for it.

Imperfectionist said (do you still prefer people to call you Gwazi?).

I'm fine with either.
Though I actually did ask to have my name changed back to Gwazi anyways because everyone still calls me that anyways.
But some Mod/Admin closed it without even giving a reply... So I doubt that name change will happen. :(

Imperfectionist said There are large numbers of people who do find their spiritual experiences through the structure of an organized religion, and there's nothing wrong with that.

And I'm not trying to argue that, I'm arguing the belief that you do need Religion in order to be Spiritual or have an Spiritual experience. Neil deGrasse Tyson actually describes what he would consider to of the same spiritual feeling religious people feel, except his was from the wonders of science.

Imperfectionist said What's needed is a universal, secular moral code, one that builds from, but is not bound to the traditions of the various world faiths.

I agree that we need a universal, secular moral code. But not one that is necessarily built from faith.
All of the morals from Religion that we today see as moral are did not originally come from Religion, they were already examined, debated and evaluated by humans before then to be accepted as human morals. But where morals that where later taken in and adapted by Religion to gain more followers. So if we created a universal moral code without faith we'd still get all the same moralities from Religion that are in fact moral. But allowing faith to slip in and take a hold of influence just opens the door for others to also get in that's not as moral, such as say homosexuality is wrong. That despite being commonly agreed to be a very immoral practice and way of thinking is a mindset commonly accepted by Christian society.

So Boerd said It isn't my job to guess the mind of God.

If you ever wish to ask any question then yes it is. God is meant to control, predict and rule everything. To ever ask anything is to guess God because you are then questioning something he willed and allowed.
Questioning things is also the mandatory thing required for learning and science, so without questioning anything you are not learning anything.

-----Continued PM debate with mdk-----

So originally when this thread as closed I had still wanted to respond to some of mdk's arguments, so I PM'd my response to him and he in turn PM'd another reply (one that I could not get to until now because of other obligations). But now with the thread re-open I'll just reply to them here, and also make sure to quote my original replies to him so people are not lost as to what mdk is replying to.

Magic Magnum said You'll get both Religious and non-Religious people who want to help people and those who would rather have no part in it, it's just that one side has a title/group to do the act's under while the other doesn't.

mdk said Well it's not *just* that, but yes, that's probably a part of the PR side. At some point in his life, every single mormon man (because they're weird about gender) goes on a mission to underprivileged areas and does humanitarian work, because . Most christians 'tithe' (donate) a minimum of 10% of their personal income, because that's part of the teaching. Muslims are the same way -- Hezbollah, the extremist suicide-bomber factory, also builds hospitals and schools and orphanages, because the Quran says as much. There is an directive to be charitable, in every major religion, and atheism has nothing comparable to that. Can't, because as you say, atheism is the opposite of 'directives.' Now certainly there are charitable, decent people (millions of them) who don't go to church, and don't need to be told to do good things. You may remember that Jesus quote, On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

That's not so much chosen, individual or willing morality though but forced/required morality. If an atheist is out donating to the poor it is never for the sake of any God, but most of the time it can be purely for kindness of their heart (Mostly because there is still the chance of doing it for attention, impressing something they're attracted to etc.) But when it's something like a church ran charity or event, how many of them are doing it because they honestly care, how many are doing it because they feel they must due to god or what a church higher up says?

Now, this is not to say Religious people are not good people. I'm not implying that at all, but these kinds of things due help lead to the misconception that religious people are more moral/nicer people. Partly that some simply do them out of obedience to a church or God and this is mis-seen as a good act, other times kindness from Religion merely seems more common because most of the time a religious person does it they praise their God and/or church in the process, drawing attention to it. But if an atheist does it, there is no God or Church being praised, so no attention is going anywhere. It's simply easier to give attention to people who are spouting their reason about, than those who are simply helping for the sake of it and not due to anything greater. And for the very reason that there are many religious people are moral people, no one is going to assume that a person is atheist simply because they are not spouting a God or under the name of a Church when they help people.

Magic Magnum said Now, that study aside though I know what you're trying to get at. Science can be used for evil

mdk said What I'm getting at is, 'science' is not anything special. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. We can play the No True Scotsman game all day, if we must, it won't change the real situation.

Science is the best method we have though to learning things, discovering the truth, understanding our universe and correcting flaws and holes in our thinking.

Magic Magnum said Religion either will not question it because that is questioning God, or simply divide into another branch of _______ Religion.

mdk said That's just not true. We ask questions all the time, hell, half of the story of Jesus is about fighting the church. You can probably give me plenty of examples of religious people who don't question their own conclusions, and I could probably give you just as many atheists who are full of themselves.

Granted, but this usually leads to simply dividing into more Religious branches, not a Religious re-write (Especially when considering despite popular claim the Bible never actually dismissed the OT).
And this also leads to the glaring hole/contradictions when say God claims to be all powerful, all knowing and his rules shall always be obeyed, but then only a few thousand years later these must be re-written.

Yeah, I still think you are forcing a false dichotomy there, the opposite of what de Botton's point was. You do not need to see "Religion", the monolith, as an inherently negative force, as you seem to. You, as a rational person can look at the words of Muhammad, who said to give to the poor, and Buddha, who preached kindness to all, and Jesus, who said to treat your enemy as your friend, and say "Though I do not believe in your divinity, I highly admire these just sentiments." That doesn't make you a bad atheist, and it definitely doesn't make you a bad person. You can, through rational thought, discern the just from the unjust, and attempt to explain your conclusions to others, without making them defensive or insulting their beliefs.

Religion is part of human culture, part of our past and our present, and everything we do is built on those who came before us. Just because a moral code has its base in a tradition of faith, that does not mean it is inherently bad. That's what I think you aren't getting. :( You don't have to be so negative about it in order to persuade people to be secularly moral.

EDIT: Just to say this, the grandfather that I mentioned at the beginning of the thread, the one with the Doctorate of Theology who assists people in their lives through secular means... He does nothing but question. There are thousands of religious scholars throughout history and today who do nothing but question, and have stronger faith because of it.

EDIT 2: They look at the contradictions, the problems that arise from humans attempting to understand the will of an unknowable being, and they ponder that. They justify their faith through reason.

EDIT 3: Last one, a question: what is your goal, Gwazi? What do you truly want to change by arguing this?

Gwazi's goal is the same as that of any inquisitor: To prove his own belief by somehow disproving someone else's belief.

It's one thing to occasionally banter about philosophy. It's another to try so hard to validate your own beliefs that you open with one of the most frustrating and classic double logical fallacies of all time: A loaded question that also presume's the opponent's answer.

I said it once Gwazi. Gonna say it again. Stop being intellectually dishonest. It doesn't help your case. At all.

I don't think he's being dishonest at all, and that's what I want to get at. I believe there is some entirely legitimate reason for him to fervently argue like this, and I don't know what it is. I feel like, if I don't understand him as a person, I cannot understand the context of his arguments... Thus, the question.

I would greatly appreciate a thesis statement, if you will, that puts things into your perspective, Gwazi. And then, I will see what I think, and respond in kind.