Religion

[saztronic]

west, sociaty does not belong in philosiphy. It is just, stupid. In philosiphy we are trying to find truths to the world, and sociaty biasses these truths into a lie. Saying that we do something becaus it is sociably acceptibal is just stupid.

becaus sociaty changes.

In the mideavle ages, it was sociably acceptable to burn wemon at the stake becaus they were "wiches"

You say you aren't saying what is sociably acceptible. I may argue that you are saying sociabally acceptibal but that will take to long...... so i will say it in a different way.

In the mideavel ages, it was good for the social unit to kill 'wiches', to get on the good side, or the Sociabally accesibal side(you can acces the sociaty of(it's something i just made up.) to the catholic curch.

You don't understand - Human relations, "right" or "wrong", no matter the philosophy, are based around social interaction. To try to separate religion, philosophy, laws, morality, or anything else from society is ridiculous. These things are all around BECAUSE humans organize themselves into groups. If we were all loners, if there were only one of us, we wouldn't have any of those things. Philosophy tries to understand our place in the universe, how we should treat each other, etc. None of these would be necessary without society. Humanity as we know it would not exist.

But philosophically (and I'm coming dangerously close to agreeing with Pie about something, which freaks me out, so let me just say that I think the Bible is risible as a historical document, whatever one happens to believe about its utility as cosmology or code of conduct), the central debate has always been between a socially relative and utlitarian model, like the one you propose... and a completely different model, which posits some external, objective standard against which all actions are judged. John Stuart Mill was the greatest proponent of utilitarianism -- i.e., that if something promotes the general welfare of everybody, then it's "good" -- while Immanuel Kant was the greatest proponent of the other tack (I think he called it categorical imperative, where if lying is wrong, it's always wrong, no matter the cirumstances, societal or otherwise).

The utilitarian model has some gaping flaws, is all I'm saying. Let's say you're German and it's 1943. Do you lie to the authorities and hide the Jews in your basement? Your society -- probably even a majority of people in your close-knit social unit -- is telling you it's best to get rid of the Jews, but you're bucking that trend, and lying to do it. Right or wrong, socially acceptable or socially inacceptable, according to your social model of morality? "Yeah, but, lying to prevent murder is OK." Well, we're talking about state and societally sanctioned murder, of someone who has been classified as belonging to an "Other" group.

Dostoyevsky used to say that if there is no God, then everything is permitted. If there is no objective moral standard outside of our socio-psychological framework, against which our actions can be judged and to which we will ultimately be held accountable, then why should I give a rat's ass what society thinks of what I do? I can be a serial killer, a cold-hearted back-stabber, a lazy glutton, whatever -- and you have no basis for arguing that any of it is wrong. Sure, you can say it's "anti-social" and take whatever steps your society allows. But you can't realistically argue that any of it is "wrong", without that external, objective standard. Dostoyevsky was a Christian, I'm not, but he's got a point.

That was the point I was trying to make.

[formerly known as hf]

The utilitarian model does have some gaping flaws.
But it has a strength which an objectively based model lacks.
- It lays responsibility no where else than ourselves.


Objective morality is deeply dangerous. Because it removes responsibility for deciding morality away from individuals and societies, and into the hands of those who control the interpretation of what the objective morality is.

I'm sure you are as disgusted by me as to some of the things done 'in God's name'. Many abhorrent things done 'in God's name', arise because those doing them perpetuate a belief that their morality is based on something other than the society in which they live. That is a deeply dangerous position.

Religious texts, which is how people supposedly relate to a God's objective morality, are notoriously interpretable. They are not objective texts. We can not percieve them objectively.

The Bible, as the prime example, can be, and has been, used to jusitfy a whole range of abhorrent actions, by calling upon it to describe those actions as objectively moral.

There is no objective morality.
But, if there were, we, as humans, would never have anyway of knowing that objective morality.
It is deeply dangerous to try and base a morality upon an objective truth that we could never know, even if it existed. Especially if the ways in which we get close to that objective truth are through elite echelons of religious hierarchies, that clearly have their own agendas.



A utilitarian model accepts the reality of the situation. There is no universal morality, there can never be a universal morality. We can only ever hope to achieve a loose consensus.

But, at least, when a socially-based morality emerges - it is justified much more deeply than just saying 'it is God's will'.

When an individual develops a personal morality based on what they observe and percieve of the society they live in, it is much more stable, shows a deeper understanding, than regurgitating a position fed to them by a paternal religious figure.

[saztronic]

There is no objective morality.
But, if there were, we, as humans, would never have anyway of knowing that objective morality.

These sentences contradict each other. If we, as humans, have no chance of knowing what objective morality is, then we also have no chance of knowing whether there even is an objective morality. In other words, you can't say "There is no objective morality" because you have no basis for making that claim.

It is deeply dangerous to try and base a morality upon an objective truth that we could never know, even if it existed. Especially if the ways in which we get close to that objective truth are through elite echelons of religious hierarchies, that clearly have their own agendas.

True enough. It's equally dangerouss to base a morality on a utilitarian model, which is no purer than its alternative -- such a model is just as susceptible to distortion, manipulation, and interpretation as is its couterpart. Trafficking in morality is a dangerous proposition no matter how you slice it or define it.

A utilitarian model accepts the reality of the situation. There is no universal morality, there can never be a universal morality.

Again, simply insupportable. If I say to you "There is a God," I have no way to prove it. If you say to me "There is no God," you have no way to prove it. There may be a universal morality, but given the human condition, there is no way for that morality to be universally known. This is critically different than saying categorically that there is no universal morality -- a statement which by your own argument cannot be proven.

When an individual develops a personal morality based on what they observe and percieve of the society they live in, it is much more stable, shows a deeper understanding, than regurgitating a position fed to them by a paternal religious figure.

Again, I really can't agree. If an abused, degraded, unbalanced individual devleops a personal morality based on his experience, it's not likely to be more stable or more deeply understood than someone who develops a personal morality devleoped in the context of a perceived relationship with a higher power. There have been heroes and villains of both stripes (religious and non-religious), and always will be.

I think you come across as angry for some reason that's not clear to me -- I'm not trying to jab you or call you out or anything, just trying to point this out. You seem angrier with the person who claims to believe in God, but does something terrible "in God's name," than you are with someone who just does something terrible. Presumably because in your personal moral judgment, the former is not just a villain, but also a hypocrite -- while the latter may just be an ignorant villain, or at least a villain whose worldview and actions are internally consistent? I don't really get why the one should be any worse than the other in the long run. Both are equally bad.

As for the central question here -- whether it's possible to "know" with 100% certainty what an objective morality might be -- no, I don't think so. As someone wiser than I am whose name I forget once said, Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who claim to have found it.

But although I am an agnostic -- I don't think we can know the truth -- that's an epistemological question only, it doesn't answer any questions about what we might believe, despite the fact that we are unable to know. I tend to believe in a higher good and a higher evil, and that we can, if we are careful and circumspect, arrive at a closer understanding of what those are over time. It's a dangerous business, a process fraught with humility and as many steps backward as forward (if not more), but I do believe there is such a thing as progress in that regard. Perhaps I am mistaken. I hope I am not.

[Pie]

If you will not accept any philisophical line of lodgic supporting jesus's resurection, than I will not try to debait this. It's a wast of time. Also, if you won't take my argunments at face value, than I will stop trying to debait this, for it will then also be a wast of time. Also, if you keep on slinging mud, I will stop trying to debait this, for it will be a wast of time.

Your line of 'philosophical logic' has one great gaping whole.

You start your 'logic' from the assumption that what the Bible has written in it, is truth.
If what the Bible says is true - yes, Jesus was resurrected, people did martyr themselves, the apostles, yada yada.


But what is written in the Bible is not true. It is not verifiable fact. You are, yet again, chasing your tail. You are using examplars from the Bible, to verify itself.

And not to mention the government of the romans are told in there, not to mention the names of the prelates and the government officials and the like. alot of archeological proof also. such as, it has been taken against the bible in past debaits that there weren't any villages near enough to the dead sea (or wichever sea it was) for there to be pigs to drop over a cliff into it. Buuuut... there was one found. Also, it has been taken against the bible that IRL, there is no mentioning of a government official named a prelate... or something of the sort. Buuut, they found it.

Yet again, I know there is a lot of historical detail in the Bible.

I do not dispute that.

But just because a story is written that includes historical characters - doens't make it a documentary.

Much of Shakespeare's works were written about historical figures, set in factual historical locations.
They weren't 'ture stories' though.



And, yes, the Illiad is more fully backed by archaeological evidence than the Bible.
Spurious bit of the bible are verified by archaeology.

That Troy existed, that there was a large war waged, the large settlements in Greece which shipped soldiers there have been found, some islands and certain temples described have been excavated.

Yes, there is some archaeological evidence for the Bible.
But, if I said that the archaeological evidence for the Illiad meant the Zeus, Athena and the others were for-real Gods, and had miracle powers.

You would tell me that archaeological proof does not proove that part of the Illiad.
The same way archaeological proof of parts of the Bible, does not proove Jesus was the son of God, does not proove the miracles etc etc.



And 'sociological' proof.
Pray, tell, what do you mean by this? Have you even an understanding of sociological inquiry and research, and how it relates to the Bible?
I doubt it, because, if you did, you would know that 'sociology' has quite little to say about the Bible and events therein - that a lot of sociological inquiry that could be done, cannot, as the records required to make any firm conclusions are very scarce.


The things you read that claim to be based on 'sciology' - are misusing an academic term to give weight to unscientific, non-academic musings.

Did you read those links i gave?

And the bible has given us many more things, than just "this city existed". It gives us "this city existed and this is how they acted and this is how there juditial system worked and this is how they interacted with each other and this is how there dayly life was"

When i said sociological proof, i ment that it gave us dayly lifestiles that they had back then.

Your line of 'philosophical logic' has one great gaping whole.

You start your 'logic' from the assumption that what the Bible has written in it, is truth.
If what the Bible says is true - yes, Jesus was resurrected, people did martyr themselves, the apostles, yada yada.

Actually, I use outside sources to prove that jesus lived and died. I use outside sources to prove that the apostles lived and myrterd themselved. I use a philisophical line of lodgic to linke the myrterdom of the apostles makes jesus's resurection true, and that the gosples in themselves are true, at least the basic events are.

[west]

Saztronic -

My point was that often what is "right" or "wrong" has nothing to do with objectives, and everything to do with society. I was not claiming to promote a utilitarian social morality, merely explain it.

As to whether there's an objective morality, that's trickier work. If there is no God, no higher power, then there really is no reason for there to be an objective morality mandated from above.

That doesn't mean we can't espouse an 'objecive morality'; I do. "Do unto others" is a pretty good one, and well-nigh universally expounded, if not followed. I like "don't be a dick" personally.

One of the best things about the idea of an objective morality is that it enables acts of supreme nobility, self-sacrifice and altruism, for example not telling the authorities of the Jews in your example.

Indeed, and this may seem a bit contradictory, I believe that if there's any morality there's objective morality, for precisely the reasons I explained in explaining a utilitarian model. I think we're on the same page.

I don't trust authoritarian morality, because I don't trust people in authority to define morality, especially when they usually don't live in any sort of ethical way.

I do believe in living ethically, whether or not a higher power dictates.

[Pie]

If you will not accept any philisophical line of lodgic supporting jesus's resurection, than I will not try to debait this. It's a wast of time. Also, if you won't take my argunments at face value, than I will stop trying to debait this, for it will then also be a wast of time. Also, if you keep on slinging mud, I will stop trying to debait this, for it will be a wast of time.

Your line of 'philosophical logic' has one great gaping whole.

You start your 'logic' from the assumption that what the Bible has written in it, is truth.
If what the Bible says is true - yes, Jesus was resurrected, people did martyr themselves, the apostles, yada yada.


But what is written in the Bible is not true. It is not verifiable fact. You are, yet again, chasing your tail. You are using examplars from the Bible, to verify itself.

And not to mention the government of the romans are told in there, not to mention the names of the prelates and the government officials and the like. alot of archeological proof also. such as, it has been taken against the bible in past debaits that there weren't any villages near enough to the dead sea (or wichever sea it was) for there to be pigs to drop over a cliff into it. Buuuut... there was one found. Also, it has been taken against the bible that IRL, there is no mentioning of a government official named a prelate... or something of the sort. Buuut, they found it.

Yet again, I know there is a lot of historical detail in the Bible.

I do not dispute that.

But just because a story is written that includes historical characters - doens't make it a documentary.

Much of Shakespeare's works were written about historical figures, set in factual historical locations.
They weren't 'ture stories' though.



And, yes, the Illiad is more fully backed by archaeological evidence than the Bible.
Spurious bit of the bible are verified by archaeology.

That Troy existed, that there was a large war waged, the large settlements in Greece which shipped soldiers there have been found, some islands and certain temples described have been excavated.

Yes, there is some archaeological evidence for the Bible.
But, if I said that the archaeological evidence for the Illiad meant the Zeus, Athena and the others were for-real Gods, and had miracle powers.

You would tell me that archaeological proof does not proove that part of the Illiad.
The same way archaeological proof of parts of the Bible, does not proove Jesus was the son of God, does not proove the miracles etc etc.



And 'sociological' proof.
Pray, tell, what do you mean by this? Have you even an understanding of sociological inquiry and research, and how it relates to the Bible?
I doubt it, because, if you did, you would know that 'sociology' has quite little to say about the Bible and events therein - that a lot of sociological inquiry that could be done, cannot, as the records required to make any firm conclusions are very scarce.


The things you read that claim to be based on 'sciology' - are misusing an academic term to give weight to unscientific, non-academic musings.

yea. I just gave it a name, to explain it better... don't think it was quite apropuriat...

what i ment, is that, the illiad just gives us "this city existed" but the bible gives us "this city existed and this is how they thought and this is there judicial sytem and this is the name of there goviner and this is there day to day lifestile and this is how they got money and this is how there government worked and this is how there military worked"

do you disagree?

But what is written in the Bible is not true. It is not verifiable fact. You are, yet again, chasing your tail. You are using examplars from the Bible, to verify itself.

I am using outside sources to varify that jesus liveda and died, and also that he had a large effect on the world, and that the apostled spread his teachings, and I use a philisophical line of lodgic to say that since the apostles were myrterd and they were eye witnesses of jesus being resurected, that he WAS resurected.

I also use outside sources to prove that the apostles were myrterd.

[Pie]

The utilitarian model does have some gaping flaws.
But it has a strength which an objectively based model lacks.
- It lays responsibility no where else than ourselves.


Objective morality is deeply dangerous. Because it removes responsibility for deciding morality away from individuals and societies, and into the hands of those who control the interpretation of what the objective morality is.

I'm sure you are as disgusted by me as to some of the things done 'in God's name'. Many abhorrent things done 'in God's name', arise because those doing them perpetuate a belief that their morality is based on something other than the society in which they live. That is a deeply dangerous position.

But they were commited... becaus the pope wanted the money frome all of the pilgrims going to jerusilem. (HAHAHA!!! I JUST NOTICED SOMETHING!!!)now, you say that "Objective morality is deeply dangerous. Because it removes responsibility for deciding morality away from individuals and societies," BUT, the actions made by the catholic curch were made by INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIATYS!!! HAH!!!So thus, I can say that putting responsibility on the individual and sociatys is a dangerous thing, becaus the sociaty might turn into a destructive religion, or a natzy facist regimin, or some other verry dangerous sociaty. Becaus the catholic church was a sociaty, and the pope is an individual, and they were the one who made the decitions to do all those little horibal things to the muslims.

Becaus the pope din't have any "objective morality" He chose to be greedy and evil and to sign the death warrents of thousands of people.

and thus, objective morality is a better way to keep people from doing evil and greedy things, becaus sociaty changes, and to give any responsibilty to sociaty is just stupid, becaus as we have seen in history, sociaty can change, and if you give sociaty any power, than it will become corrupt (ever hear the saying "power corupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutly") and the only way to change this is to base it off of something that is objectively biassed, such as the constitution that the U.S. has, or the bible, wich, being objectibally biassed, won't change in the way that sociaty will.

also, just to prove this, If you read the bible, the ten commandnments, and in jhon chapter 16(I believe it was) than you will see that those acts are clearly against god's will ("If he exists")

that was fun.

[west]

what i ment, is that, the illiad just gives us "this city existed" but the bible gives us "this city existed and this is how they thought and this is there judicial sytem and this is the name of there goviner and this is there day to day lifestile and this is how they got money and this is how there government worked and this is how there military worked"

do you disagree?

Have you read the Illiad? it actually says, to take your words, "This city existed and this is where they were located (The Troad region of Asia Minor) and this is how they thought (in a Hellenic fashion) and this is their king (Priam) and this is their history and this is how they got their money (Mediterrenean commerce) and this is how their government worked (Monarchy) and this is how their military worked (Pretty well, until the Greeks cheated)"

And keep in mind this is a mostly mythologized document. Any historical fiction will have corraborative historical details without necessary being true in the actual story it is telling.

[Pie]

ah, but what is the age frome the happening to the writing of it? (900 years)

And also, dealing with good and bad, my oldest brother (no, not joel) came here and he said that you all have really horibal ideas.

Universal truths do exist. To prove this, i will ask you this. Do you exist?
If you say yes, than clearly universal truths do exist, and that truth is existance. In some way, some how, on some levle, you exist. that is a universal truth. So why not a good and bad? we all know that some things, are bad, right? no matter how sociaty tryes to explain it away, (like, you say that things that are good for the sociaty unit are good, than that means that killing muslims on a crusade is good, right? killing Jews is good, right? Becaus it gets you on the good side of the catholic church, and is thus good for the sociatal unit, right?) So some universal truths do exist.

and, becaus universal truths do exist, there has to be a source for these universal truths, correct? and admitting this, means that there is, in a sence, some sort of universal truth, or moral, giver, correct? so, in a sence, are you not saying that god, or some supernatural entity, does exist, right?

pleas, answere those questions one by one, not the whole paragraph.

[Elros]

Would a population of 100 people lets itself die out of reluctance to have sex with the opposite gender? If they do, then the fact that the are predisposed to homosexuality and not heterosexuality is affermed. If they don't, then they reproduce despite thier prefferences to insure thier own survival; thus, the arguement that they are unable to propetuate life is nullified.

I said 100 men that are gay, no females.

[Talapus]

I said 100 men that are gay, no females.

Doesn't that kind of make your arguement a moot point? If you put 100 straight men on an island, they will also be unable to reproduce.

[Elros]

You start your 'logic' from the assumption that what the Bible has written in it, is truth.
If what the Bible says is true - yes, Jesus was resurrected, people did martyr themselves, the apostles, yada yada.


But what is written in the Bible is not true. It is not verifiable fact. You are, yet again, chasing your tail. You are using examplars from the Bible, to verify itself.

Just because something is not a verified fact does NOT mean that it is not true. That is a ignorant statement. There is also no proof that it is a lie, so it is left up to the person to have the Faith to believe in it, or to lack the Faith to believe it.

[Pie]

and, those places in the bible that don't have much proof... well... they don't matter (as much as jesus does) and.. they probably do have proof of them. we just havent found it yet.

[Elros]

Dostoyevsky used to say that if there is no God, then everything is permitted. If there is no objective moral standard outside of our socio-psychological framework, against which our actions can be judged and to which we will ultimately be held accountable, then why should I give a rat's ass what society thinks of what I do? I can be a serial killer, a cold-hearted back-stabber, a lazy glutton, whatever -- and you have no basis for arguing that any of it is wrong. Sure, you can say it's "anti-social" and take whatever steps your society allows. But you can't realistically argue that any of it is "wrong", without that external, objective standard. Dostoyevsky was a Christian, I'm not, but he's got a point.

This is exactly what I have been hitting at with F.K.A.HF and the others. I just couldn't describe what I was trying to say as clearly as the above paragraph does. If there is NO God then there is no higher authority to answer to or set your moral standards to. In this case, you can do whatever you want and its nobodys buisness or right to tell you what you are doing is wrong or that you need to stop doing it. I still am not describing it like I want, but the above paragraph does a pretty good job.

[Elros]

The utilitarian model does have some gaping flaws.
But it has a strength which an objectively based model lacks.
- It lays responsibility no where else than ourselves.


Objective morality is deeply dangerous. Because it removes responsibility for deciding morality away from individuals and societies, and into the hands of those who control the interpretation of what the objective morality is.

I'm sure you are as disgusted by me as to some of the things done 'in God's name'. Many abhorrent things done 'in God's name', arise because those doing them perpetuate a belief that their morality is based on something other than the society in which they live. That is a deeply dangerous position.

Religious texts, which is how people supposedly relate to a God's objective morality, are notoriously interpretable. They are not objective texts. We can not percieve them objectively.

The Bible, as the prime example, can be, and has been, used to jusitfy a whole range of abhorrent actions, by calling upon it to describe those actions as objectively moral.

There is no objective morality.
But, if there were, we, as humans, would never have anyway of knowing that objective morality.
It is deeply dangerous to try and base a morality upon an objective truth that we could never know, even if it existed. Especially if the ways in which we get close to that objective truth are through elite echelons of religious hierarchies, that clearly have their own agendas.



A utilitarian model accepts the reality of the situation. There is no universal morality, there can never be a universal morality. We can only ever hope to achieve a loose consensus.

But, at least, when a socially-based morality emerges - it is justified much more deeply than just saying 'it is God's will'.

When an individual develops a personal morality based on what they observe and percieve of the society they live in, it is much more stable, shows a deeper understanding, than regurgitating a position fed to them by a paternal religious figure.

You said that, "an individual develops a personal morality based on what they observe and percieve of the society they live in". Well in that case the paternal religious figuere that you spoke of in the following sentence, "t is much more stable, shows a deeper understanding, than regurgitating a position fed to them by a paternal religious figure" is the Society. So even with that basis of morality they still have a "paternal figuere" as you call it, which is Society. This figuere changes constantly, can be misentuperted by different people, and is not always right. Society has done many things that are not for the better good.