religion and morality

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

Harbal wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:41 pm Some people believe in God, and wouldn't even consider doing otherwise, while others are determined to be atheists no matter what. But if you fall into neither of those categories, why even bother to come to a decision? We know the world, nature, the Universe functions according to consistent principles, or laws, what does it matter whether God put them in place or they came about some other way?
Well, most bother to come to a decision about these things because they have been indoctrinated as children to connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then.

Or, as adults, re dasein, connecting these dots becomes important.

After all, only God is able to supply that crucial teleological component to those "consistent principles, or laws", right?

Birth. School. Work. Death.

Why? For what reason? Is there an essential meaning and purpose to be derived from them? Or is there just the brute facticity of an essentially meaningless and purposeless universe.

We live, we die. Going all the way back to the profound mystery of existence itself.

So, sure, why not God as the explanation?

Only back again as well to what you believe about God "in your head" and what you are able to demonstrate is in fact true about Him.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: religion and morality

Post by popeye1945 »

Religion and morality are biological extensions, manifestations of human nature, religion did not create morality human nature did, so much for the magic man in the sky.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 3:30 am Religion and morality are biological extensions, manifestations of human nature, religion did not create morality human nature did, so much for the magic man in the sky.
Now all we need is a context. A set of circumstances in which to explore all of the conflicting assessments of human nature.

Human nature and abortion.
Human nature and guns.
Human nature and homosexuality.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: religion and morality

Post by popeye1945 »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 5:52 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 3:30 am Religion and morality are biological extensions, manifestations of human nature, religion did not create morality human nature did, so much for the magic man in the sky.
Now all we need is a context. A set of circumstances in which to explore all of the conflicting assessments of human nature.

Human nature and abortion.
Human nature and guns.
Human nature and homosexuality.

ambiguous,

Human creativity, as in its manifestations presently found in the world of objects.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:28 am
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 5:52 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 3:30 am Religion and morality are biological extensions, manifestations of human nature, religion did not create morality human nature did, so much for the magic man in the sky.
Now all we need is a context. A set of circumstances in which to explore all of the conflicting assessments of human nature.

Human nature and abortion.
Human nature and guns.
Human nature and homosexuality.

ambiguous,

Human creativity, as in its manifestations presently found in the world of objects.

Now all we need is a context. A set of circumstances in which to explore all of the conflicting assessments of human creativity.

Human creativity and abortion.
Human creativity and guns.
Human creativity and homosexuality.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: religion and morality

Post by popeye1945 »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:54 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:28 am
iambiguous wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 5:52 pm

Now all we need is a context. A set of circumstances in which to explore all of the conflicting assessments of human nature.

Human nature and abortion.
Human nature and guns.
Human nature and homosexuality.

ambiguous,

Human creativity, as in its manifestations presently found in the world of objects.

Now all we need is a context. A set of circumstances in which to explore all of the conflicting assessments of human creativity.

Human creativity and abortion.
Human creativity and guns.
Human creativity and homosexuality.
Whatever you find out there in the way of man-made systems, objects, institutions, machines, laws, norms. The institutions that express compassion, fear and hatred can be found in lesser or greater degrees where demographics indicate where the most wretched of cultures even within one country are. You looking for context, the world is your context local or global. You seem to wish to blow smoke over something that is rather straightforward.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:31 pmWhatever you find out there in the way of man-made systems, objects, institutions, machines, laws, norms. The institutions that express compassion, fear and hatred can be found in lesser or greater degrees where demographics indicate where the most wretched of cultures even within one country are. You looking for context, the world is your context local or global. You seem to wish to blow smoke over something that is rather straightforward.
No, in my view, it's philosophers who take God and religion and morality up into the intellectual or spiritual clouds that are blowing smoke. Especially the pedants.

God and religion eventually come around to this:

1] morality on this side of the grave
2] immortality and salvation on the other side

And how each of us out in a particular world understood in a particular way interact with others in choosing [existentially] to connect the dots between them.

"Compassion, fear and hatred" given what set of circumstance? And how they are profoundly, problematically intertwined in vast and varied historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts.

Then the part I focus on in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Don't want to go there? Then don't.

But, if you don't, I'd steer clear of my posts here.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: religion and morality

Post by popeye1945 »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:52 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:31 pmWhatever you find out there in the way of man-made systems, objects, institutions, machines, laws, norms. The institutions that express compassion, fear and hatred can be found in lesser or greater degrees where demographics indicate where the most wretched of cultures even within one country are. You looking for context, the world is your context local or global. You seem to wish to blow smoke over something that is rather straightforward.
No, in my view, it's philosophers who take God and religion and morality up into the intellectual or spiritual clouds that are blowing smoke. Especially the pedants.
God and religion eventually come around to this: 1] morality on this side of the grave
2] immortality and salvation on the other side
And how each of us out in a particular world understood in a particular way interact with others in choosing [existentially] to connect the dots between them.
"Compassion, fear and hatred" given what set of circumstance? And how they are profoundly, problematically intertwined in vast and varied historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts.

Then the part I focus on in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Don't want to go there? Then don't.
But, if you don't, I'd steer clear of my posts here.
Well, first no one is going to accuse any of the desert religions of intellectual overdrive. Morality like every other meaning under the sun is the property of a conscious subject, any system of morality including those expressed by the desert religions of the west are biological extensions, are manifestations of human nature. You want to claim for religion the territory of sociology, it is already a science and has left behind what pasted for knowledge two thousand years ago. Compassion, compassion arises when one recognizes that the self in you is the self in all other creature, all capable of joys and sufferings, this is not gifted to us, it is the nature of our biology. Lastly you don't get to dictate where and how this dialogue is to proceed relative to your personal desires. This is a philosophical intellectual forum, not a church.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:27 pmWell, first no one is going to accuse any of the desert religions of intellectual overdrive.
Sure, if you wish to construe religion "intellectually". But, again, most come to religion through indoctrination as children. And that indoctrination revolves basically around men and women across the globe and down through history confronting the reality of their own existential demise and grappling to subsume it in one or another afterlife. Most through God. Or through "the Gods".

But God must judge you fit for immortality and salvation. And how to do that but to base it on the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave.

How is that not religion in a nutshell? Aside from the politics of religion, i.e. those like Marx broaching religion as the opiate of the masses. And then politicians and governments around the globe and down through history taking advantage of that.

For example, does anyone here really believe that Donald Trump is a devout Christian? As Lennon suggested, "keep them doped with religion..."
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:27 pmMorality like every other meaning under the sun is the property of a conscious subject, any system of morality including those expressed by the desert religions of the west are biological extensions, are manifestations of human nature. You want to claim for religion the territory of sociology, it is already a science and has left behind what pasted for knowledge two thousand years ago.
Once again, you take all of this up into the intellectual/spiritual contraptions clouds.

Please note a moral issue that is important to you. Describe a context and then note what your own moral convictions are in regard to it. How is it all connected to religion and God? Where does human nature [genes] end and human nurture [memes] begin in regard to your own chosen behaviors?
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:27 pmCompassion, compassion arises when one recognizes that the self in you is the self in all other creature, all capable of joys and sufferings, this is not gifted to us, it is the nature of our biology.
Again, compassion pertaining to what set of circumstances? Compassion for the unborn or compassion for the pregnant woman? Compassion for the gun lovers or compassion for the gun haters? Compassion as a biological imperative or compassion derived from the existential parameters of your life awash in memetic variables?
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:27 pmLastly you don't get to dictate where and how this dialogue is to proceed relative to your personal desires. This is a philosophical intellectual forum, not a church.
Huh?

What am I dictating here?!

I created this thread. To discuss the existential relationship between religion and morality.

Now, no one here is obligated to click on the thread. Let alone to read what I post. Let alone to respond to it.

Again, you're not interested in exploring what consumes me in regard to religion and morality? Fine. Start your own thread in order to explore what interest you about it instead.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: religion and morality

Post by popeye1945 »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:33 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:27 pmWell, first no one is going to accuse any of the desert religions of intellectual overdrive.
Sure, if you wish to construe religion "intellectually". But, again, most come to religion through indoctrination as children. And that indoctrination revolves basically around men and women across the globe and down through history confronting the reality of their own existential demise and grappling to subsume it in one or another afterlife. Most through God. Or through "the Gods".
But God must judge you fit for immortality and salvation. And how to do that but to base it on the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave.
How is that not religion in a nutshell? Aside from the politics of religion, i.e. those like Marx broaching religion as the opiate of the masses. And then politicians and governments around the globe and down through history taking advantage of that.
For example, does anyone here really believe that Donald Trump is a devout Christian? As Lennon suggested, "keep them doped with religion..."
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:27 pmMorality like every other meaning under the sun is the property of a conscious subject, any system of morality including those expressed by the desert religions of the west are biological extensions, are manifestations of human nature. You want to claim for religion the territory of sociology, it is already a science and has left behind what pasted for knowledge two thousand years ago.
Once again, you take all of this up into the intellectual/spiritual contraptions clouds.

Please note a moral issue that is important to you. Describe a context and then note what your own moral convictions are in regard to it. How is it all connected to religion and God? Where does human nature [genes] end and human nurture [memes] begin in regard to your own chosen behaviors?
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:27 pmCompassion, compassion arises when one recognizes that the self in you is the self in all other creature, all capable of joys and sufferings, this is not gifted to us, it is the nature of our biology.
Again, compassion pertaining to what set of circumstances? Compassion for the unborn or compassion for the pregnant woman? Compassion for the gun lovers or compassion for the gun haters? Compassion as a biological imperative or compassion derived from the existential parameters of your life awash in memetic variables?
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:27 pmLastly you don't get to dictate where and how this dialogue is to proceed relative to your personal desires. This is a philosophical intellectual forum, not a church.
Huh?

What am I dictating here?!

I created this thread. To discuss the existential relationship between religion and morality.

Now, no one here is obligated to click on the thread. Let alone to read what I post. Let alone to respond to it.

Again, you're not interested in exploring what consumes me in regard to religion and morality? Fine. Start your own thread in order to explore what interest you about it instead.
Do you believe that spirituality is something devoid of intellect? It takes the intellect to realize that the tree of knowledge is not that of life, that spirituality is about being and being in the world, the scent of the boutique, ideally the experience of the rapture of being alive.
As to your bringing attention to people being indoctrinated into these various desert religions I quite agree it is a tragedy, both on an individual level and for society at large, it is a means of dividing the in and the out-groups.
To be judged for immortality and salvation this again is a masochistic manifestation of human nature and not at all a healthy worldview. The works of some depressed sheep herder over two thousand years ago still speaking to a form of society he/she could never have imagined.

Compassion according to what circumstances the man says, the circumstances of the human condition a relational empathy which is to be found in our common biology. According to what circumstances, the circumstances of all life forms, for the essence of life is the same across the board only differing in the structures and forms adapt to life niches, what is it like to be a bat, its to experience, to suffer, to feel joy and to feel pain it is to be.


How is that not religion in a nut shell, religion is a psychological program, and as Steven Hawkings stated it is for those who are afraid of the dark. Religion is irrational in that it is based upon ancient fantasies, it is an orientation for individuals living in a time of almost total ignorance, religion is the power of fiction and as we all know, fantasy can trump reality every time. "You're not interested in exploring what consumes me in regard to religion and morality," the man says. I am interested in both religion and morality you just have an aversion to irrationalism as such this is not the ideal place for you to express your irrationality, very bad choice, location, location, location. "Please note a moral issue that is important to you", the man says. Well, I go by one simple principle, is this behaviour I am about to do going to increase the suffering of others or is it going to decrease suffering. You can apply this to any and every human circumstance. I get the feeling you do not wish to be challenged on your beliefs but that is the very nature of this site, if you post your going to be challenged, and that isn't rude that is the given expectation. Is there a point i missed that you would like an answer to?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:52 pm Do you believe that spirituality is something devoid of intellect? It takes the intellect to realize that the tree of knowledge is not that of life, that spirituality is about being and being in the world, the scent of the boutique, ideally the experience of the rapture of being alive.
Again, bring this down to earth. Spirituality in regard to what set of circumstances? Described intelligently...how? The rapture of being alive, okay, but what about all the ghastly hellholes that so many are in.
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:52 pmAs to your bringing attention to people being indoctrinated into these various desert religions I quite agree it is a tragedy, both on an individual level and for society at large, it is a means of dividing the in and the out-groups.
And that is particularly the case in regard to religion. Denominations often claiming that only their own One True Path reflects the bonafide "in group". The rest will burn in Hell for all of eternity. You tell me why a God, the God isn't able to set the record straight with so much at stake.
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:52 pmTo be judged for immortality and salvation this again is a masochistic manifestation of human nature and not at all a healthy worldview. The works of some depressed sheep herder over two thousand years ago still speaking to a form of society he/she could never have imagined.
Hunman nature? And where did that come from if not God? Though, again, each denomination here will provide you with its own set of rationalizations.
Again, compassion pertaining to what set of circumstances? Compassion for the unborn or compassion for the pregnant woman? Compassion for the gun lovers or compassion for the gun haters? Compassion as a biological imperative or compassion derived from the existential parameters of your life awash in memetic variables?
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:52 pmCompassion according to what circumstances the man says, the circumstances of the human condition a relational empathy which is to be found in our common biology. According to what circumstances, the circumstances of all life forms, for the essence of life is the same across the board only differing in the structures and forms adapt to life niches, what is it like to be a bat, its to experience, to suffer, to feel joy and to feel pain it is to be.
What on earth does this "intellectual/spiritual contraption" have to do with my point above?
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:52 pmHow is that not religion in a nut shell, religion is a psychological program, and as Steven Hawkings stated it is for those who are afraid of the dark. Religion is irrational in that it is based upon ancient fantasies, it is an orientation for individuals living in a time of almost total ignorance, religion is the power of fiction and as we all know, fantasy can trump reality every time. "You're not interested in exploring what consumes me in regard to religion and morality," the man says. I am interested in both religion and morality you just have an aversion to irrationalism as such this is not the ideal place for you to express your irrationality, very bad choice, location, location, location. "Please note a moral issue that is important to you", the man says. Well, I go by one simple principle, is this behaviour I am about to do going to increase the suffering of others or is it going to decrease suffering. You can apply this to any and every human circumstance. I get the feeling you do not wish to be challenged on your beliefs but that is the very nature of this site, if you post your going to be challenged, and that isn't rude that is the given expectation. Is there a point i missed that you would like an answer to?
Note to others:

A little help here.

Given a particular context that most of us will be familiar with...situations in which moral and political and spiritual convictions often come into conflict...how would you imagine his "simple principle" being applicable.

You embrace the right of the unborn to live in order to prevent it suffering the fate of extinction. You embrace the right of a woman to choose abortion in order the prevent her suffering the fate of being forced to give birth...or being arrested and tried for murder.

You embrace the right of gun owners in order that they don't suffer a world in which their guns are taken. You embrace the right of gun haters in order that they don't suffer a world where guns slaughter thousands and thousands, year in and year out.

And on and on with all the rest of the "conflicting goods". What one side construes to be suffering the other side construes to be relief.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: religion and morality

Post by popeye1945 »

You've kind of overwhelmed me here with so many objections. The first thing that might straighten out things somewhat is you cannot make these irrational desert religions rational. They are not going to want to live in the here and now, their traditions are blueprints for societal function but of societies over two thousand years old. An imaginary magic man in the sky is still dictating the plan. If you really think that religion can present a rational blueprint for the morality of today, its a fool's gambit. Just as all man-made things in the physical world are his biological extensions, expressions of his human nature and its knowledge, these desert religions are the biological extensions of the ignorance of our ancestors. You seem to think in some of your protests to my reasoning that context is important, and it is, these old traditions need to be read through today's context to put things in a rational framework. If we hold onto these traditions as guides we might as well not have come down from the trees, just to tread these stagnate waters.

Religions in the past have had the purpose of giving the population an orientation to the world as they knew it, which didn't amount to much in the way of knowledge. In the beginning these religions were oral traditions and tended to change with the times but the printed word concretized the word, and ignorance became sacred. Morality in order to be rational must serve the self -interests of our common biology embracing all life forms, for it is only when one identifies one's self with the self in others does compassion arise which is the bases of morality. It is perfectly natural to assume that life in general is part of something larger than itself but to credit that something to something supernatural, a anthropomorphic god, that is not manifest in space/time can be considered insane even if it is being politically incorrect, seems crazy isn't crazy if the crazies have the numbers.

As to your concerns over the confusion of what is suffering across the board first, you must have a point of reference and that reference is our common biology. Certain generalizations can be made, it is after all are common carbon-based biology and its suffering which evokes compassion across the board. Where there is no compassion you have a psychopathic individual or a collective as found in the aggression of empires. Biology is the creator of all meaning in the world and the only possible, read rational reference point.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

Religion on the Brain
Researchers in a small but growing field search for neural correlates of religiosity and spirituality.
Emma Yasinski at The Scientist website
Functional strategies

Despite the slow start to making headway into pinpointing the neuroanatomical correlates of religion, interest in the field is “changing drastically,” adds Weissman, as researchers find new ways to probe the brain.
So, for those who follow these things, it then comes down to what the brain scientists are able to discover before they themselves tumble over into the abyss. And then find out [or don't] what is really on the other side.

If you're one of those who do keep up, keep us informed on any new developments.
Rather than studying where religious beliefs seem to live in the brain, many teams are seeking to understand religion’s role in complex behaviors such as reward processing and the risk of developing depressive disorders.

“Our brain can change according to different things that we do,” notes Svob. “So why would that not extend to religious practices?”
Especially in regard to religious practices. The back and forth between the brain and behavior can become an obsession for those who who are fiercely devout. The brain doing its thing, "I" doing its own thing. How are the two intertwined existentially in a loop? Given some measure of free will.
In 1982, Weissman started a study on risk factors for depression with a cohort of 220 patients who had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder. The researchers gave these patients and matched controls who did not have depression regular surveys about behaviors that might be protective against developing depression or experiencing relapse. Over the next several decades, the researchers recruited the cohort’s children, grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren into the study. One of the behaviors that correlated with lower risk of developing or relapsing into depression was placing a high importance on religion. “If you are at high risk for depression, believing in the importance of religion was protective for yourself, but it’s also protective for your children,” says Svob.
Indeed, I know that I would be considerably less depressed about living in an essentially meaningless and purposeless world that ends in oblivion if I could believe in a religious path to immortality and salvation.

But, does that demonstrate that religion -- yours and only yours? -- is in fact the real deal? Or, instead, that believing it is the real deal comforts and consoles you mentally, emotionally and psychologically?

Given what is at stake here don't be surprised at the majority conclusion.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by promethean75 »

"I know that I would be considerably less depressed about living in an essentially meaningless and purposeless world that ends in oblivion if I could believe in a religious path to immortality and salvation."

have you thought that through?

consider; in the latter - immortality and salvation - things can go terribly wrong, i.e., you could fail on the religious path and end up in eternal hell or whatever. in the former - oblivion - nothing can go wrong. moreover, you'd not know you weren't immortal and living in heaven.... so there is no suffering of this fact.

all the terms and conditions suggest that the logical choice would be nothingness because if you can't lose in betting on nothingness, but can lose in betting on eternal life in heaven, then clearly the better choice would be taking the option in which you can't lose.

Pascal's and his wager vs the zen samurai. we all know who wins that one.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:42 pm You've kind of overwhelmed me here with so many objections. The first thing that might straighten out things somewhat is you cannot make these irrational desert religions rational. They are not going to want to live in the here and now, their traditions are blueprints for societal function but of societies over two thousand years old. An imaginary magic man in the sky is still dictating the plan. If you really think that religion can present a rational blueprint for the morality of today, its a fool's gambit.
Yes, given my own particular existential trajectory in regard to God and religion, I have more or less come to think the same thing. But in regard to morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side, what exactly is rational or irrational? God is one possible explanation for why something exists instead of nothing. He is one possible explanation for why it is our something and not something else.

So, either through Kierkegaardian leaps of faith or Pascalian wagers, some will be able to include God and religion in their understanding of the human condition. I have met a few of them myself over the years. And they were not fools.

But, in my view, even to them it doesn't make this...

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


...go away.

They will either go there or they won't. Same with those here who, spiritually/religiously, believe in their own One True Path.
popeye1945 wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:42 pmJust as all man-made things in the physical world are his biological extensions, expressions of his human nature and its knowledge, these desert religions are the biological extensions of the ignorance of our ancestors. You seem to think in some of your protests to my reasoning that context is important, and it is, these old traditions need to be read through today's context to put things in a rational framework. If we hold onto these traditions as guides we might as well not have come down from the trees, just to tread these stagnate waters.
Old traditions, new traditions. To each I attempt to bring them around to answering this question:

"How, in a world teeming with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change, ought one to live?"

Morally. Righteously. In either a God or a No God world.

But [from my frame of mind] you keep it all up in the general description intellectual/spiritual clouds:
popeye1945 wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:42 pmReligions in the past have had the purpose of giving the population an orientation to the world as they knew it, which didn't amount to much in the way of knowledge. In the beginning these religions were oral traditions and tended to change with the times but the printed word concretized the word, and ignorance became sacred. Morality in order to be rational must serve the self -interests of our common biology embracing all life forms, for it is only when one identifies one's self with the self in others does compassion arise which is the bases of morality. It is perfectly natural to assume that life in general is part of something larger than itself but to credit that something to something supernatural, a anthropomorphic god, that is not manifest in space/time can be considered insane even if it is being politically incorrect, seems crazy isn't crazy if the crazies have the numbers.
Pertaining to what particular context?
popeye1945 wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:42 pmAs to your concerns over the confusion of what is suffering across the board first, you must have a point of reference and that reference is our common biology. Certain generalizations can be made, it is after all are common carbon-based biology and its suffering which evokes compassion across the board. Where there is no compassion you have a psychopathic individual or a collective as found in the aggression of empires. Biology is the creator of all meaning in the world and the only possible, read rational reference point.
Okay, above you focused in on the "simple principle" of suffering.

To which I noted:
Given a particular context that most of us will be familiar with...situations in which moral and political and spiritual convictions often come into conflict...how would you imagine his "simple principle" being applicable.

You embrace the right of the unborn to live in order to prevent it suffering the fate of extinction. You embrace the right of a woman to choose abortion in order the prevent her suffering the fate of being forced to give birth...or being arrested and tried for murder.

You embrace the right of gun owners in order that they don't suffer a world in which their guns are taken. You embrace the right of gun haters in order that they don't suffer a world where guns slaughter thousands and thousands, year in and year out.

And on and on with all the rest of the "conflicting goods". What one side construes to be suffering the other side construes to be relief.
Now references are made to our "common biology" and "compassion".

Okay, so how is my point above any less applicable to them? Common biology and compassion in regard to the unborn or the pregnant woman, to the gun lovers or the gun haters?

What I do here then is to note my own assessment of conflicting goods as the embodiment of dasein.
Post Reply