Religion

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
RWStanding
Posts: 384
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:23 pm

Religion

Post by RWStanding »

Religion
The Human Rights Act with regard to freedom of religion is so hedged about by provisions, that it has little actual meaning. We may say we are Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, or whatever, but that merely signifies using a different name and concept for ‘god’. We may believe in any god that does not contravene human rights. Those term democracy is employed, and yet there are different ideas as to what that signifies.
Human rights legislation has no evident basis other than current fashion and human vanity. It is necessary to get to the root values of ethics or there is no meaningful foundation. Perhaps the term religion is itself redundant. A ‘democracy’ may indeed have a broad ethic that allows for eccentricities and allow for conflict of opinion, even hurtful opinion, but does it have a positive attitude to society or merely permissive. Most religion appears to treat ethics as between individuals, and little more than being ‘nice’. Ethics with respect to society is more about how its institutions work and unite that society, despite much human nature.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

RWStanding wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 7:43 am Human rights legislation has no evident basis other than current fashion and human vanity.
You should read Locke on this. He's got the only grounded rationale for human rights, which is why both the Declaration of Independence and the UN Charter on human rights quote him. They haven't got anything better either. Locke's got the best we've got.
It is necessary to get to the root values of ethics or there is no meaningful foundation.
Absolutely.
Perhaps the term religion is itself redundant.
No, it's just bad.

It's like the word "thing": it covers so many disparate entities that its use doesn't actually end up describing anything informative. The word actually has a history, and has come to be really an Atheist word, a sort of collective pejorative of dismissal. ("Oh, that's 'religion'...") The term implies that there's not a significant distinction to be made among all the various beliefs, since they're all delusional anyway...or so thinks the Atheist.
Most religion appears to treat ethics as between individuals, and little more than being ‘nice’.
No, that's just a very Western phenomenon. Since we're more wealthy, sheltered and indifferent to the vicissitudes of life, it's easier for us to think that these issues just don't matter beyond our personal consumerist tastes. "Let's all make nice" may be the first and last commandment of a Western post-Protestant ethos, but it's not reflective of most of the world.
Ethics with respect to society is more about how its institutions work and unite that society, despite much human nature.
Human nature is a key issue.

Beliefs can remain private and not have any implications for public life only if human nature is essentially good, and so can be left to its own devices. But if human nature contains (or even essentially is) evil, then we need laws and good public policies to keep the excesses of one citizen from harming others. And that would raise the question of how we find truly "good" laws and public policies.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Univalence »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 2:39 pm Beliefs can remain private and not have any implications for public life only if human nature is essentially good, and so can be left to its own devices. But if human nature contains (or even essentially is) evil, then we need laws and good public policies to keep the excesses of one citizen from harming others. And that would raise the question of how we find truly "good" laws and public policies.
If human nature is inherently evil, who is going to find; or enforce the "good" laws?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Univalence wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 2:46 pm If human nature is inherently evil, who is going to find; or enforce the "good" laws?
Well, three things would follow: one, if there is also any good in human nature, we might try to maximize it rather than the evil. But this is problematic, because how do you guarantee that the good is sufficiently strong to overcome the evil? Also, how is it that the evil in human nature exists at all and hasn't been eliminated already, if the good is strong enough to achieve this? Finally, given our history, we have very little success in suppressing evil human tendencies, at least on any permanent basis. So it all looks like a very dodgy project.

Worse still, we might wonder how effective our consciences are as a guide. Maybe we do have a general sense of what good is, but it's a bit like an unreliable compass -- sometimes our conscience fails to alert us to the presence of evil when it should, and sometimes it sends us confusing signals about what's good and what's not. An unreliable moral compass can actually be worse than no compass at all, because it can point you in the wrong direction AND give you false confidence that you're heading in the right one. So if evil is in part of our nature, it's not safe for us to think we know when its messing with our moral compass and when it's not.

So we're going to need help. We're going to need an objective metric -- a reliable compass by which we can correct our faulty moral intuitions. And essentially, that's what both ethics and moral revelation set out to do. Ethics tries to do it by some sort of formula we can all trust -- consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, pragmatism, something. But none of these works, and they all contradict...at least, so far. So the only remaining option is some kind of revealed truth. And only God could have that.

So if there's no God, we're all in serious trouble for ethics/morality. We're in the woods with a broken compass...and if we're Atheists, with no compass at all, since even conscience would be merely a contingent evolutionary artifact of no certain reliability. We're going to need God to speak. Or we're cooked. We'll never know what truly "good" laws are, or how they ought to be asserted.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Univalence »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:13 pm (blah blah blah blah)
So we're going to need help. We're going to need an objective metric. We're going to need an objective metric -- a reliable compass by which we can correct our faulty moral intuitions.
Who is going to invent it?

How would you know if it's pointing in the right direction?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:13 pm And only God could have that.
That's all good and proper, but who is God going to communicate this information to and how?

It's not like he has phone number, e-mail address or Skype.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:13 pm We're going to need God to speak.
We keep waiting. What do you suggest we do until then?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Univalence wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:13 pm (blah blah blah blah)
Not interested?
Who is going to invent it?
If morality is objective, we don't "invent" it. We "discover" it.

If we "invent" a morality, it has no more strength or durability than the person who invented it can muster. And it would be arbitrary anyway, so there'd be a question we would have any reason not to dodge it.
How would you know if it's pointing in the right direction?
As I say, only God could possibly know.
That's all good and proper, but who is God going to communicate this information to and how?
It would have to be in some propositional form. it would have to be some form of revelation, probably in fixed (written) form.
A mute God is of no help to us.
Very true. If He were mute, then His existence would have no possible implications for our actions, and we'd have no possibility of discovering any moral precepts, so there'd be no basis for an ethic.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Univalence »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:24 pm If morality is objective, we don't "invent" it. We "discover" it.
Where ought we look for it?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:24 pm It would have to be in some propositional form. it would have to be some form of revelation, probably in fixed (written) form.
Even if it were in a fixed/discoverable form - how would you verify the authenticity of the author?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:24 pm Very true. If He were mute, then His existence would have no possible implications for our actions,
Well, if he wasn't mute, but we couldn't authenticate his messages the same thing would happen.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:24 pm and we'd have no possibility of discovering any moral precepts, so there'd be no basis for an ethic.
Nothing prevents us from discovering them. You will have no way of authenticating them. So they are as arbitrary a basis for an ethic as any other.

None of this matters. Much more important question: Why do you need/want ethics?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Univalence wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:24 pm If morality is objective, we don't "invent" it. We "discover" it.
Where ought we look for it?
As I said, it would have to come in some sort of propositional revelation.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:24 pm It would have to be in some propositional form. it would have to be some form of revelation, probably in fixed (written) form.
Even if it were in a fixed/discoverable form - how would you verify the authenticity of the author?
Again, God would have to provide us the certification.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:24 pm Very true. If He were mute, then His existence would have no possible implications for our actions,
Well, if he wasn't mute, but we couldn't authenticate his messages the same thing would happen.
Also true. That's why He'd have to provide the certification too.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:24 pm and we'd have no possibility of discovering any moral precepts, so there'd be no basis for an ethic.
No. You will discover them. [/quote]
Only if by "discover" you mean "perhaps stumble across, but never know you stumbled across anything."
None of this matters.
Oh, I would say it's absolutely foundational.
Much more important question: Why do you need/want ethics?
If human nature is, or contains, evil, then we need ethics/morals to make sure the worst parts of our inclinations are not actualize over the good. If we want to maximize that which is truly good (and good for us, as well), then we would need some say of interdicting or preventing evil from being actualized.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Univalence »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:39 pm Again, God would have to provide us the certification.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:39 pm Also true. That's why He'd have to provide the certification too.
This is recursive. How would you verify the authenticity of the certification?

In digital security this is called a trust anchor. At some point you have to place your trust in something.

Where and why?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:24 pm Only if by "discover" you mean "perhaps stumble across, but never know you stumbled across anything."
What is the difference between "discovering" a new continent and "stumbling across" a new planet?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:24 pm Oh, I would say it's absolutely foundational.
But it's not. It suffers from the same problem as every other foundational doctrine.

The foundation is an arbitrary choice. You choose to accept some writing (whose authenticity you are unable to verify) as the foundation for objective morality.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:24 pm If human nature is, or contains, evil, then we need ethics/morals to make sure the worst parts of our inclinations are not actualize over the good. If we want to maximize that which is truly good (and good for us, as well), then we would need some say of interdicting or preventing evil from being actualized.
If you have no innate moral compass how do you know you haven't mistaken good for evil, and evil for good?

What if God is the bad guy and Satan is the good guy?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Religion

Post by Scott Mayers »

Religion is an artificial construct by people wanting to EXCUSE their behavior in light of differences of condition that lack logical universal justice or practical fairness. If one is relatively well off (condition) and they WANT to conserve their present position of power in some way in an environment suspect of them of greed, by imposing upon others that their fortune is just a preferential favoritism of some unseen Nature, this keeps at bay the means of society to hold them accountable. For those less fortunate, and generally more populous, rising up against the societies that utilize the present system of laws as what is 'just' as a means to KEEP these people in chains by some measure makes them counter with seeking a super-morality of Nature that begs appeal to their empowerment.

Religion fills these needs in a real vacuous Nature that has no real 'favoritism' of anyone regardless of condition. But while this logically explains how it persists, it doesn't make religion something that actually MEANS anything other than an invention of people to SERVE themselves in this world by utilizing the factors of reality that are sufficiently excluded from proof but appeals to our emotions more universally. When empowered in lawmaking, the ones using religious appeals are to FAVOR themselves, their families, and their loved ones at the expense of those outside of their concerns.

Religious claims thus have to be treated as mere ART and should be prevented from gaining more power by people using it to offend others or defend themselves through laws. Because artistic license cannot be limited in any way in the mind, any expression of it is on par with any other person or group. Their is no difference between any 'kind' of religion for they are all EQUALLY unprovable and so equally as 'fair' as they can be 'evil'.

In light of how those who strongly believe in religious imposition in ruling, it makes this a dangerous TOOL.

And for Immanuel Can here, I must ask you this if I hadn't already: IF the Atheist is the ultimate fearful position you can think of for having no moral compass, imagine what those same atheists can do when behind the cultivation of fostering and creating religion rather than fighting it? In other words, your very appeal in strong favor of religion could mean that you are one of those clever Atheist WANTING others to BE easy to be (mis)led into thinking you ARE religious when you are not. I mean if you think Atheists are evil, wouldn't that be the best means of them to behave?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Univalence wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:45 pm At some point you have to place your trust in something.
Indeed so.
Where and why?
God would have to make it possible. So how about if He gave information through specific individuals who could write it down...or better still, how about if God Himself became a man, and attested to his own authenticity...say, maybe by doing a few miracles, like maybe healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and rising from the dead? He might also give some clarifications on moral instruction while He was at it...maybe something like "blessed are the meek," or "blessed are the humble..." You know, the kind of thing we wouldn't know ourselves, but strikes us instantly as morally better?

That would be good, wouldn't it?
What is the difference between "discovering" a new continent and "stumbling across" a new planet?
If you "stumble across" you may not recognize what you're seeing, and so not "discover" it at all. To "dis-cover" is not just to happen across something, but to "uncover" what its significance is.
If you have no innate moral compass how do you know you haven't mistaken good for evil, and evil for good?
Yes, that's the problem I raised.
What if God is the bad guy and Satan is the good guy?
The Gnostics kind of thought that. Of course, they didn't accept that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ was authentic, so they were pretty much cut loose to imagine whatever they felt like.

But that's a crucial question: what does one think of the character of God?
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Univalence »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 4:40 pm God would have to make it possible. So how about if He gave information through specific individuals who could write it down...
Well aren't you in luck! He gave me some info...
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 4:40 pm You know, the kind of thing we wouldn't know ourselves, but strikes us instantly as morally better?
So you already tell the difference between "better" and "worse" when it comes to morality?
How?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 4:40 pm If you "stumble across" you may not recognize what you're seeing, and so not "discover" it at all. To "dis-cover" is not just to happen across something, but to "uncover" what its significance is.
You've said nothing of distinction here. If we were to discover/uncover/find/invent morality. How would evil beings recognize its "significance"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 4:40 pm Yes, that's the problem I raised.
And you haven't solved it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 4:40 pm But that's a crucial question: what does one think of the character of God?
According to you - we can't have any moral opinions of his character. Because we have no ethic.

Well. You don't have an ethic. I do - and God is one evil son of a bitch.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 3:59 pm Religion is an artificial construct by people wanting to EXCUSE their behavior in light of differences of condition that lack logical universal justice or practical fairness. If one is relatively well off (condition) and they WANT to conserve their present position of power in some way in an environment suspect of them of greed, by imposing upon others that their fortune is just a preferential favoritism of some unseen Nature, this keeps at bay the means of society to hold them accountable. For those less fortunate, and generally more populous, rising up against the societies that utilize the present system of laws as what is 'just' as a means to KEEP these people in chains by some measure makes them counter with seeking a super-morality of Nature that begs appeal to their empowerment.
This is so conventional an Atheist telling of the way things seem to them that I think there's not much point in us dealing with it. It's been asked-and-answered a thousand times, but Atheists just aren't listening.

Really, it is time for some original thinking about this. The old Atheist canards have long ago begun to breed worms and stink. We know them, we've heard them, we've answered them...what's left? We've heard from Marx, Freud, Darwin and Nietzsche, considered their claims and found answers. We've provided those answers, and yet Atheists can's seem to find anything fresh to say. so they just keep the old stuff circulating. They really need a new hymn book.

As for their thought on this particular subject, the danger of just lumping everything belief-related on earth and calling it "religion" is that you no longer have any reason to look at particulars. The whole lot just looks like bosh. But the reasons for that are that the Atheist has simply obscured his own vision -- he's so urgent about dismissing it all, so as to assert Atheism, that he cannot see any distinctions or wisdom out of the whole mass. He actually knows nothing about "religion": he's just arbitrarily decided there's nothing for him to see.
And for Immanuel Can here, I must ask you this if I hadn't already: IF the Atheist is the ultimate fearful position you can think of...
It's not. I actually find it quite a "toothless tiger": it makes a lot of "roar," but when it comes down to it, it's got no bite.
... imagine what those same atheists can do when behind the cultivation of fostering and creating religion rather than fighting it?
There's no need to "imagine". We've seen it in reality.

Communism is a great example: it's Atheism + ideology. The combination has killed more human beings than any force in history. That is a worse combination than blank Atheism. But unfortunately, blank Atheism doesn't really hold: the problem is that the Atheist has no resources in Atheism for orienting his life, so he has to add them from some other ideology.

And that combination is indeed fatal, to the tune of well over 100 million in the last century alone.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Univalence wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 4:45 pm Well aren't you in luck! He gave me some info...
I wouldn't be being kind to you, or Christian, if I didn't caution you to be very, very careful what you say at this moment. You are dangerously into the zone of antagonizing the Creator by insulting His character. And in His revelation He has written, "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that he shall also reap."

Or to quote Beckett: "Put up your sword, lest you impale your soul on it."
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Univalence »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 4:58 pm And in His revelation He has written, "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that he shall also reap."
I feel like I am repeating myself here... How did you authenticate the origin of that message?
Post Reply