Religion and God [and Democracy]

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
RWStanding
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:23 pm

Religion and God [and Democracy]

Post by RWStanding » Wed May 24, 2017 11:18 am

Religion and God
These are terms which have involved almost every virtue and vice imaginable. What is probably the only common basic value is a deficient concept of loyalty. It is deficient where it does not essentially relate to other values. To say that 'God is Love' in the more particular end value of altruism, or to say we are an altruist democracy, is positive. Altruism has to be defined in contrast to the other end values of the servile state or theocracy and anarchistic individualism. An absolute terrorist would have no belief in any kind of social order.
Every person migrating to Britain, and everyone registering to vote, should be required to swear allegiance to altruistic democracy by some positive value definitions. Anyone under suspicion of so called 'extremist' beliefs, or returning from suspect activities in the Middle East should be tagged, with such intermittent checking as may be possible.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Religion and God [and Democracy]

Post by Science Fan » Sun May 28, 2017 2:28 am

Modern religions do not encourage altruism, if, by that, one means engaging in an action that is costly to oneself, and that benefits another. Take Christianity as an example. Doing good for another is based on an award to the giver -- if not in the present life, then in an assumed next one. Since the giver is expecting an award in an alleged afterlife, the giver cannot be said to be acting altruistically. The fact that altruism does exist without being endorsed by the world's major religions is partly why we know that morality exists independently of religion and the so-called God concept.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 944
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Religion and God [and Democracy]

Post by Gary Childress » Sun May 28, 2017 6:25 am

Science Fan wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 2:28 am
Modern religions do not encourage altruism, if, by that, one means engaging in an action that is costly to oneself, and that benefits another. Take Christianity as an example. Doing good for another is based on an award to the giver -- if not in the present life, then in an assumed next one. Since the giver is expecting an award in an alleged afterlife, the giver cannot be said to be acting altruistically. The fact that altruism does exist without being endorsed by the world's major religions is partly why we know that morality exists independently of religion and the so-called God concept.
I'm not sure about other religions but I believe there are sects of Christianity which don't necessarily believe that altruistic acts are a guarantor of one's reception in heaven. I believe, according to Calvinism, your salvation is determined before you are even born and no one really knows if they are among the "saved" or not and no amount of action in this life time can change that pre-determination.

also, what if I am atheist but sacrifice my own interests for someone else because it makes me feel exceptionally moral or somehow good about myself (up until I experience whatever tangible loss). Would the fact that I am getting some (any) form of satisfaction in return (even if only momentary) negate the condition of being "altruistic"? If doing something for any perceived benefit contradicts the definition of "altruism", then is anything "altruistic"?

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Religion and God [and Democracy]

Post by Science Fan » Sun May 28, 2017 11:08 pm

If an atheist is altruistic because it makes him feel good, then, I believe, according to Kant, the atheist would not be altruistic. I'm not sure why this is true, however. The atheist, if he incurs a cost to assist someone else without gaining anything in return, he is behaving altruistically.

The predestination concept rules out free-will, which is inconsistent with altruism. If one has no choice in the matter of helping another, then one is not engaged in altruism, merely acting like an automaton. Automatic actions are neither immoral or moral, they are amoral.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 944
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Religion and God [and Democracy]

Post by Gary Childress » Mon May 29, 2017 12:51 am

Science Fan wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 11:08 pm
If an atheist is altruistic because it makes him feel good, then, I believe, according to Kant, the atheist would not be altruistic. I'm not sure why this is true, however. The atheist, if he incurs a cost to assist someone else without gaining anything in return, he is behaving altruistically.
If altruism means doing something for another without any kind of gain for ourselves, then wouldn't it count as something gained if we derived whatever sense of satisfaction from it?

What if evolution has programmed us to feel some desire to be "altruistic" so that we will do things to help further our own species (sometimes at the cost of individual members of the species)? Would that be "altruism", responding to or quenching whatever desire programmed into us?
The predestination concept rules out free-will, which is inconsistent with altruism. If one has no choice in the matter of helping another, then one is not engaged in altruism, merely acting like an automaton. Automatic actions are neither immoral or moral, they are amoral.
Hmm. Good point.

Skip
Posts: 2497
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Religion and God [and Democracy]

Post by Skip » Mon May 29, 2017 6:18 pm

RWStanding wrote:
Wed May 24, 2017 11:18 am
Religion and God
These are terms which have involved almost every virtue and vice imaginable.
That's why it would be useful to be more precise. Which god, what religion? What do you mean by vice and virtue?
From whose point of view and to what ends?
What is probably the only common basic value is a deficient concept of loyalty. It is deficient where it does not essentially relate to other values.
What is the correct quantity of a concept? How can it be 'deficient'?
What makes loyalty a value and to whom should who be loyal?
To say that 'God is Love'
means nothing. That's the trouble with most slogans: they make no sense on close examination.
Love can be defined in many ways. God can be defined in many ways. If you compared a thousand people's definitions of each word separately, you would find very little overlap between the two lists, and quite a lot of contradiction.
in the more particular end value of altruism, or to say we are an altruist democracy, is positive.
Provisionally, okay. But why stick God into the same sentence? There is no evident connection.
And how do you form the link between altruism and democracy?
Democracy is simply one form, among several, of governance over large groups of people. A regime doesn't have to be kind, inclusive or fair to fit the category. And democracy doesn't exist in nature.
Altruism is a faculty of all or most warm-blooded animals, which allows them relationships: family and social life. It has nothing to do with models of human territorial organization; it requires no government.
Altruism has to be defined in contrast to the other end values of the servile state or theocracy and anarchistic individualism.
No, it really doesn't and can't be. Forms and styles of government can be compared to one another according to some stated criteria.
An absolute terrorist would have no belief in any kind of social order.
That's like saying 'an absolute boxer has no belief in any kind of sport'.
Terror is a method of maintaining power, opposing power or contending for power, through intimidation.
What's labelled a "terrorist" is any person perceived as using intimidation to achieve some desired outcome. In political conflict or war, it's a tactic generally employed by a weaker opponent against a stronger one. While anarchists may resort to that terror, its use does not define, describe or delimit the political ends of its user. And "terrorist" doesn't come degrees, let alone 'absolute'.
Every person migrating to Britain, and everyone registering to vote, should be required to swear allegiance to altruistic democracy by some positive value definitions.
How do you come with those definitions? And how do you tell whether an oath-taker is sincere?
How do you know if someone feels such deep loyalty to an ideology, faction, group or nation that they're willing to swear falsely in its service?
Anyone under suspicion of so called 'extremist' beliefs, or returning from suspect activities in the Middle East should be tagged, with such intermittent checking as may be possible.
What do you think the world's 953,548 spy agencies are doing?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests