Sex: attitudes and philosophy

The hypothesis you people are proposing that that religion is responsible for societal restrictions on sexuality. The only "evidence" you have provided, that sexual restrictions are included in religious texts, is flaws in that sexual restrictions are also included in non-religious texts (meaning if the the problem is with literature, the religiosity of the literature doesn't matter).

To prove your hypothesis, you need to provide a example of a society without religion that doesn't have restrictions on sexuality. This is frustrating. When I provide examples of societies without religion that do have equivalent restrictions on sexuality, the response is to say that oh... of course... in this case politics is the religion (meaning that now we have to find a society without religion or politics).

You have also not answered another apparent problem with your anti-religious hypothesis. Do you, or do you not, think that the institution of marriage is a positive thing in society? What about the prohibition of incest?

Then again there is the possibility that there is an anti-religion bias here that will reject any evidence that doesn't match the "religion is bad" narrative.

I think you have misunderstood what I have said.
I have tried to prove that religion is not responsible for restricitons on sexuality. There are mixtures of religion and social behavior. And what I meant is that politics in certain countries have replaced religion.
I am far from anti-religious and I think that religion has done more good on this earth than bad.
Marriage is good for society. Prohibition of incests is good, which I already have pointed out and other rules and regulations.
I did my best to prove that this anti-religious bias was wrong, but it is clear that I did not speak out clearly enough.

I am very sorry Saab. I did misunderstand. I was conflating your position with that of Fresco even though they are quite different.

That´s ok, you are the only one I agree with here

ebrown

You miss my point. I am not claiming that religion functions as either a "good" or "bad" adjunct to social rules per se, only that it masquerades an as external authority in such matters. Now it may be the case that "religion" is an inevitable irrational construction resulting from the interplay between biological drives and human cognition, and the judgement of whether such myths aid or hinder sexual relationships is best determined by those who are affected by such "authority".

BTW saab
Are you aware that "incest" was re-defined by the church in order to acquire estates from females who wished to "keep it in the family", by marrying cousins.

Where you think religion comes from, Fresco?

Every society has values and beliefs. Every society has a narrative that explains an identity. Laws, customs, acceptable behavior and an understanding of right and wrong are all part of society. Religion is a way to express these values and beliefs. But, religion or no (we haven't really defined religion so it is unclear what a non-religious society means) every society has these beliefs.

It is incorrect to claim that religion is "external" to society (any more than language, or philosophy or literature is external to society).

I would also be interested to see how you define "rational".

Every society has a set of rules, values and beliefs that are just accepted without reason (and on social values, there never is any logical reason). There is no difference in this between "religious" and "non-religious" societies.

You use the word "religion" as if you want to differentiate between one set of subjective beliefs and another-- as if there are "religious" subjective (irrational) beliefs that lack the legitimacy of "non-religious" subjective beliefs.

Of course you might be against any subjective beliefs. The problem with that is that without them it is impossible to have a society.

I would argue that religion arises from the cognitive urge to "control". Where the limits of such control are reached a tempting assumption is made that a non-human control agency is operative. Since control implies "goal directedness" or "purpose", the concept of rationality is that which falls in line with such goals. For a "believer" rationality jumps the boundary between human goals and non-human goals, but for atheists breaching such a boundary is irrational.

Society has a basic need to control its members. This is not a cognitive urge, control is a fundamental basis of any society. Without the ability to ensure its members accept basic ideas of right and wrong and identity and follow basic standards of conduct, the society will be unable to function or to meet its basic needs.

You are trying to make a distinction between a "believer" who believes there is a God and an "Atheist" who believes there is no God. The word you keep using is "rationality".

Unfortunately, "rationality" doesn't help your case at all. The fact is that any human society is necessarily based on things that are accepted without proof. There is no objective rationality to values, or identity.

Take the idea that "all people are equal". This is a key value of most modern Western societies. It is the foundation to sacred ideas like human rights. Yet, there is no proof that "all people are equal". Not all societies have accepted this, in fact many thriving societies denied this. But, interestingly enough, in the founding Documents of the United States you see this ascribed to a creator.

Many people (including Atheists who deny the creator bit) accept equality as a matter of faith.

You have failed to show how the unsupported values of a hypothetical or real non-religious society are any more legitimate than the values of any religious society.

Anthropomorphic assumption! You are projecting psychological "control" onto a hypothetical sociological "mechanism". As far as religion is concerned, it de facto tends to reinforce the tribalism of primates despite its counter-claim to promote equality. (Catch 22 epitomises that point with the chaplain being ordered to pray for " a tight bomb pattern")

I will let you explain the difference between the two.



How do you explain the Reverend Martin Luther King? He was devoutly religious and his movement to tear down tribalism was steeped in religious ideas and values.

Of course there are examples where religion tends "reinforce tribalism". As religion is part of the human experience, of course there are examples. Then of course, there are example of non-religious things that reinforce tribalism including some rather brutal attempts to stamp out religion.

You have still failed to show the difference between religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs working in a society. Neither is based on rationality. Both of them can at times be positive (in ways we both agree are positive). Both of them can at times be negative. Both of them are sources of control (in that they affect the behavior of individuals in their society).

The difference between psychology and sociology is analogous to the difference between say physics and biology. "Explanation" operates with different parameters in the two realms. You cannot "explain" the behaviour of groups simply by reference to the behaviour of individuals unless an assumption is made of "shared needs" e.g "to defeat a common enemy".

I admit to knowing little about the Freedom movement in the USA. As a European, where "equality" seems to have taken a natural course (perhaps following in the philosophy of Ghandi and de-colonization) it seems to me that "religion" is a side issue. The fact that religion is still a "big deal" in the USA is something of a mystery to Europeans despite its original role in the history of US imigration. Quite frankly, I don't think the US had any "choice" (anthropomorphically speaking) with respect to the emancipation movement if it were to maintain its position as a "civilized nation".

...But we are now a long way from "sexual philososophy" which has its origins in the resolution of a conflict between biological forces and cognition.

No I am not religious and don't think sex should be reserved for procreation or that it should be exclusive to married couples.

I do, however, believe that it should be treated with a certain amount of respect and it should be reserved for people in relationships, I do adhere to people sleeping around and having sex for the sake of pure pleasure, I see this as quite revolting and as disrespectful both to the act and the people involved in the act.

This kind of sex for pleasure's sake is, for me, either done because of a need to affirm oneself due to some lack of belief in oneself, or because one sees some need to perform a self-destructive act.

Well, I didn't ask you if you were religious, but thanks for that additional bit of information.


Ah, well then, we seem to have different ideas about the definition of "pleasure" in this context. When you said that sex shouldn't be "utilised for the sole purpose of pleasure," what you meant was that sex shouldn't be practiced outside a committed relationship. That's a rather different meaning of "pleasure" than, I'm sure, a lot of people attach to that term. Would you agree, then, that inside the confines of a committed relationship, sex can be pursued solely for non-procreative purposes?

I do not think we have different definitions of pleasure; I did make sure to specify it was only if it was purely for pleasure, i.e. the only reason you're having sex is because you enjoy having sex.

Yes I agree it's perfectly fine to have sex in the confines of a relationship, it's not really the point I am trying to make though. I am saying that sex should be reserved for appropriate circumstances, one of which being in a relationship.

What are those circumstances?

Given your early posting history here, and that at that time you said you were studying theology at a university in Wales, combined with the information i was able to get about that university. . .

. . . i think you're lying through your teeth.

Even a casual perusal of rockpie's posts at this site show a continuing adherence to what can only be described as a religious world view, especially with regard to the issue of abortion. Rockpie seems to continue to be obsessed not simply with the "morality" of abortion, but the topic of morality altogether. Given his response to criticisms when he first showed up at this site, i can only assume that not only is he lying, but that he's lying in an attempt to deny his religious fervor and thereby avoid being branded as a fanatic.

You are as cranky as ever Setanta; but lay off the poor kid.

You can be in woman's studies without being a woman, and of course you can be in criminal studies without being a criminal....

A person gets to decide for themselves if they are "not religious".

((... although I think you yourself are, in fact, quite religious.))

And you can kiss my red Irish ass . . . he's been playing this stupid game since he first showed up here. Pointing that out is not a case of being cranky, it's a case of pointing out his dishonesty.