Another Exciting Post On Religion...

Remove all ads!

It's the fact that it comes from God that helps me stick to it and not be swayed by someone that wants me to abandon parts of it that inconvenience them. If I accept something simply on personal views, they could be swayed by arguement. By accepting God, that solidifies my code, letting me live, rather than have to decide how to live. Further, when you buy a car do you buy the whole care or just two tires, a transmission and a pair of cup holders?

BTW, I'm still waiting on my definition of Moral Progress. I fail to see how changing morality to permit more things is progress...

 

Russell was a Victorian, and basically, by "moral progress" I believe he means things getting better for us, in a general sort of way: fewer massacres of innocents, less racism and other mindless prejudice, more rational behavior, that sort of thing. I don't think he would regard more topless bars as Moral Progress. You can check his writings for more specific examples.

 

Cernak - If by "moral progress" he means "people becoming more moral", then I completely don't understand how "Christian religion has been and still is" it's "principal enemy".

 

Arendil - as you can see from what Cernak wrote, Russell didn't mean "becoming more moral". Russell maintained the position that a moral code is a tool for humanity and not vice versa. Accordingly, "more moral" doesn't mean "more rules" or "weirder rules". Morality is supposed to better the life of people; so, we can measure the degree of usefulness of a given morality in terms of, say, peace, health and happiness. If we switch from one morality that leads to wars and honour killings to one that leads to joy and modesty, then this is what Russell would have called "moral progress".

 

I have nothing against religion per se. I have the utmost respect for people who believe in someting greater than us, afterlife, and that good actions will be rewarded. I admire greatly all those who have commited their lives to improve other's quality of life by offering spiritual counsel and help.

It is organised religion what I will never believe in, especially our beloved Catholic Church, which is the one under which shadow I was raised and the one I know the best.

It is like a company promoting a product destined to a wide variety of people of all ages, genders, and cultures. A product that this company says it will only unlock its full potential when the customer dies. Yet, it cannot prove that the product will even work then, or that it will work in the way they say it will. In fact, it can't even prove that the product works while the customer is alive.

Every now and again, this company changes the format of the product, and tells its clients that the product does not work in the way they have been using it, and that it has always been meant to be the way it's now. When confronted about this, the company's answer is that one cannot fully understand the original designer's intent, yet they claim to speak for him.

Some of the company's decisions seem to go against the user guide. The user guide is never ammended to reflect the changes, though.

The company discriminates against married people joining their ranks. Yet, one of their their product's key features is marriage and family management. Part of the product's key requirements is that the customer must abide by the family management policy specified in the user guide. Curiously, this policy is quite different in the first chapters and the last ones of the guide. When the company is confronted about this, they say that their managing director will always have the final word in the matter. The managing director is known not to have any wife or children of his own, though.

This company also has a sexist employment policy. Women are only supposed to fill a particular position within it, and will never be allowed to climb higher in the company's hierarchy. The main reason given is that there are no records of women working in the designing team when the product was first manufactured, and none again in the first revision.

The same company has kept a policy of protecting corrupt members of their staff. Scandal upon scandal (including corruption and sexual abuse) has been uncovered, and yet, the company has been late to apologise, and when done so, it has not brought the appropriate satisfaction to the afflicted parts, or taken appropriate measures to takle the issues.

The product is said only to work when minimum requirements are strictly met and maintained (like the family policy), to ensure that the product will work in the end. Yet, when a user has performed an "illegal operation" while using the product, or if the requirements haven't been met for a while, they can always talk to a company's male representative and have all fixed. This does not work if the company representative is female, though.

And finally, they allow drinking at work.

Not my type of business, I tell you.

Edit: spelling

[ June 17, 2005, 17:22: Message edited by: Colthrun ]

 

@Colthrun

Interesting analogy. I do agree with your basic pricnipal though - that I have nothing against spirituality or the belief in God, but I have serious doubts if any organized religion is useful for meeting that end.

 

Sorry, I've been umming and arring over this one, but after a couple of beers have decided to reply. Although obviously aimed at RQ, this fits my general ethos in respect of the fact my Moral Code is not based on religious principals. I wouldn't descibe myself as an Atheist however, I prefer Jonathan Miller's (English Philosopher) approach in the series "A Brief History of Disbelief" Anyway, I digress.

My moral code stems from one main concept,
"Only do to others as you would have them do to you." I'm reasonably sure there is a biblical context for this somewhere, but it is the single clause that strikes a cord with me - though I don't deny there are other useful things to gain from the religion there is also a lot which inflames hatred and violence.

Obviously as I don't want to be murdered, stolen from, be cheated on, lied about etc, etc, then my moral code means I won't do this to others or tolerate this being done to others. It also means that I fully respect the right of people to live any way they choose. Necesarily, this carry's one large caveat: They do not try an do any of these things to others.
Chev once stated something along the lines of "So should the only thing to be untolerated is intolerance itself? My point is that I tolerate just about anything that does not have a direct impact on myself, and by the extension of my moral code, on other people. For instance, a frequently cited theme on here are the religious folks attacking homosexual practices. I can not possibly see how the private intimacies of two consenting and mature adults in their own home has any impact on anyone elses lives. As I have the right to say that I'm in a happy loving relationship with my girlfriend, so they have the right to say the same thing - it doesn't impact directly on anyone else. In a nutshell, I will not tolerate people trying to dictate how I should live my life and therefore, through my own moral code, how other people want to live their lives.

Of course this isn't offering proof in any way, but feel free to go back through my other posts. I think I've been reasonably consistent in my moral approach.

 

...

Seriously, rest of your post is a very good and reasonable explanation.

Now if you could prove to me the second part,
that MINE "moral code is built on subjective personal experience and knowledge."

 

dmc - Yes, your explanation is reasonable, but...

Not quite. It is called a "natural law", and no matter where you were born, and what you are taught from an early age, you'll agree with some statements, like "thou shall not kill". It can become twisted at some point, but exist anyway.

Second, no matter what you were taught as a child, as an adult you have the ability to nearly (sic!) completely change your moral code. And no matter what, you become a true christian when you decide that you want to be one. I'm christian not because I was taught, but because several years ago I decided that I want to. There are few people I know, at my age, that were taught christianity much better than I was, but are not christians anymore.

Back to the point...I can't have "objective point of view", but something like that exist in Catholic Church (yes - sadly, it works only for catholics). I can always confront my feelings, problems, doubts and such with few constant statements, seek help of other people that know and/or experienced more than I. And I believe in many things that I didn't try and don't know much about.

Example : I don't take drugs not because of my experience, or because I know from many sources it can be very dangerous, but because I believe it's wrong and sin. Knowledge is important, but on the second place.

This post is becoming too long, so I'll stop here...

 

I can see Arendil's point.

Those of us who may not be very religious believe you are a product of your experiences -- that our moral compasses are set by the decisions we make and the people that influence us. We develop our conscience over time.

Many religions teach we are born with a conscience. This conscience is a gift from God to help guide the way back to him. Our ability to determine right from wrong is equal in everyone in the beginning (with some exceptions for the mentally challenged) -- it is through our actions and influences of others that this conscience can be either fortified or distorted.

Hence, it is impossible to prove to a person whose beliefs include that the conscience is a gift from God, that morals and values are learned. The opposite is true concerning the athiest. The precepts of the arguements are diametrically opposed and cannot be resolved. This is just one of many instances where we simply need to accept that another persons beliefs are different than our own (or ridicule and attack the person).

 

If the person in question is a hot member of the opposite sex, I like to accept their differences and move on to more interesting matters, such as a debate on the relative value of a variety of kissing styles.

If the person in question is ugly, I vote for ridicule

If the people in question are the awesome folks of SP, then I also tend to accept the differences, as finding people with similar interests these days is rather difficult.

 

My personal belief is that as a social animal we are born with an innate sense of "us" and "them". We are hardwired -- somewhat -- to be kind to "us".

However, all people must be taught how inclusive "us" can be. How they accomplish this is highly variant. Many do not accomplish this or only partly.

 

Thanks Cernak. There is something of a valid point there. Individuals in religious organization have been known to incite their followers to violence in the name of their God (from the Crusades to 9/11). While the core doctrine preaches one thing, it falls to guarantee that an individual that preaches will preach the right things.

I believe that Colthrun's satirical post was more accurate than he realizes. The blessings that come with obedience to religion only come through obedience. I recently paid money to download a plug in for Windows Media player to allow me to actually watch DVD's on my computer. It does nothing when I don't put the DVD in the drive. The same with Religion. The teachings are there, but you don't get the rewards unless you live the teachings...

No, you are not confused. Morality, whatever morality youy choose, is a learned behaviour. Just as we learn to walk, read, count, write or use the bathroom, we also learn right from wrong. And just as some people have parents that are devout members of a religious community, you find an increasing number of non-believers that teach their spin on morality.

Again, I'm not so sure. Sure children are given a gift to help them learn right from wrong, but if they don't use it, then there's no guarantee that they'll develop the moral code that God intends them to develop, and they may need to learn for themselves right from wrong.

 

Gnarf: Perhaps you should read my entire post instead of just arguing for the sake of claiming the tainted one is wrong....

 

I wasn't saying you were wrong this time, but merely reconsiling two seemingly opposed view points.

 

Lets see, I PERSONALLY KNOW I don't want *it* to happen to me, therefore I won't do it to other people. Is that enough on the knowledge part?

On the experience/emotional side, you're right - too often people talk about right and wrong and don't explain why they feel as they feel - either on a physical or emotional level. It's all to easy to refer back to something taught - as it doesn't show a personal touch. The problem is that it usually comes accoss as if they haven't given the topic enough emotional thought. It's getting up close and personal, which I guess makes some people uncomfortable but as I've always been fairly open, here goes. (I'll try not to bore you)

Being Faithful/Marriage. My parents went through a very long and messy break-up. I don't know if this was the cause or a symptom, but I saw the torment and anguish it put them through. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. They stayed together "because of the children" but it was an incredible relief for everyone concerned when they actually split - it would have been better all round if it had happened sooner. The Morals gained? Cheating on someone hurts both you and them. Staying in an unloving marriage hurts you, them, and the children.
I've been in a loving, monogomous and sexual relationship for over seven years. It's been the absolutely best seven years of my life, and keeps getting better. Morals? Monogamy works for me, I have no need to be married.

Children/Contraception.
I'm not hurt by other people not having children so I don't think I hurt anyone else by not-having them. Quite the opposite in fact, it's a fact that the world is overpopulated and getting worse - this means more hardship, maninly caused by food and water shortages leading to starvation. These generally result in diseases sweping populations as they start to use poluted sources.
Use of contraception has not damaged my relationship. I don't give two hoots if other people use contraception. Knowledge of something should not be a harmful thing. Only the thing itself can be harmful.
I was adopted, while I'm exceptionally happy with my life I also recognise that in the great scheme of things I'm pretty damn insignificant to anyone other than those close to me. If my life had been prevented through either contraception or abortion I wouldn't have known any different, and neither would those others. In the end, the only ones who are directly affected by a pregnancy are the mothers and (to a lesser extent the fathers)

Murder.
More difficult as I've not experienced it. However, it results in unexpected death. I've experienced this recently with my step-father. Surprisingly enough it's not a nice experiece, a lot worse than the expected death of my Gran a year earlier, despite the fact I was closer to her. All in all I'd rather people didn't die unexpectedly so no murder. I like my life, I wouldn't want it to be terminated earlier than necesary.

Stealing. I could make something up, but in all honesty I've never had anything pinched from me. However, my Gran's place was broken into and all of her jewelry was stolen including some very precious items she was given by her deceased husband. She was very hurt by it. Does this count?

Sexual Preference.
When I grew up there wasn't any teaching about it. It was all school-boy whispers and homosexuals were something seen as dirty, unnatural and just plain wrong. I was definitely a homophobe as a teenager. Then I went to University and actually got to know people who were gay. Then came the realisation that they weren't actually all that different, and that the homophobia was just that - an irrational fear of something different. In my eyes that is exactly the same as that which fuels racial hatred and religious intollerance.

My lunch break is up, let me know if you want more.