ethics and faith

You are really annoying, buddy. I hate when I have to state the same things over and over again, simply because someone refuses to comprehend my answer.

"Why is it unethical to standardize any morals whether religious or not."

Because religious morals are built upon a foundation of unverifiable claims, which are by their very nature meaningless and false. Please read that for a second time so that I don't have to type it again?

"Lets say that someone believed that rape was ok and the government standardized that as morally correct. You believe that rape is not inherently wrong so why would standardizing it's "ok'ness" be unethical?"

Legalizing rape is wrong, because it is not constructive to a civil society. Because rape may have been constructive for the evolution of our species does not make it constructive or complimentary for a civil society.

"Secondly why should ethics "be designed to benefit the individual human rights of all people in a civil society"?"

Because it is constructive to a civil society!

This debate has been diverted from its original question . Its not the history of mankind and how religion has changed over the centuries its how faith intereacts with secular society in our modern world. My statement that faith led morals are stagnant, i still maintain that is true.I repeat who in the vatican honestly believes their stance on contraception is not doing harm in Africa , who in the CE dont realise their position on homosexuality is not splitting their church in two..The fundamentalist exert their power at every opportunity to influence their opinions on abortion ,birth control and experiments on embryos..It is all down to their inability to change their dogmatic doctrine to logical debate..

If that is what was meant, which is fine, then xris should be more clear with his words: to say that "religious doctrine stagnates" is something quite different than saying that "religious doctrine stagnates socio-political progression". However, even the later thesis is demonstrably false: you might look to Dr. Martin Luther King's example, a socio-economic reform founded upon religious principle.



Actually, those ancient Gods are taken seriously: Wiccans still exist and they most certainly take the Earth Mother seriously; traditional Native American traditions still survive and thrive in the Americas.

Further, there is no "trash heap" called mythology: being mythology in no way diminishes the spiritual credibility of the tradition. For example, the Bible is packed full of mythology and is still taken seriously; the Bhagavad Gita and the larger Mahabarata from which it is taken are both mythology and still taken seriously; the Tao Te Ching is mythology and still taken seriously.

Also, the claim that "Specific religious doctrines do not change as much as they are replaced by a whole different religion altogether" is also untrue. The development of a "whole different religion" takes time: Buddhism was a Hindu reform movement and was not taken to be a disinct faith tradition for centuries after the Buddha's death - even to this day you can find images of the Buddha at Hindu shrines.



Many times, actually. Have you forgetten about the King James Version? And the New King James Version? And the countless other editions in English which are literally different. Include other languages, and the number is probably in the thousands.



Sorry you are so pessimistic about my intentions.

I have to disagree with this assertion. Introducing the history of theology is evidence that faith is not independent from logic. As logic is a method which humans employ to gain understanding, logic has a great deal to do with faith. Historically, theology employs logic.



Yes, we have been through this before, and will probably wind up here agian so long as you make assumptions about God which are, theologically, rarely if ever advanced.

God is not a being. God is an idea, but the idea points to an ineffible reality beyond human language: it is that ineffible reality which man encounters and organizes with the idea of God. Thus, man does/can experience, not only the idea of God, but the truth to which the idea points. Unless, of course, every mystic and spiritual seeker is a boldface liar; of course, to suggest that they are all liars is nonfalsifiable.

Perhaps it is worth pointing out: even if you assented that my arguments here are sound and accurate, there would be absolutely no reason for you to believe in God. My goal is not to convert you to anything, only to end the unnecessary strawman arguments against certain faith traditions and theological notions.



Except that you can verify that people report the experience of aforementioned ineffible truth.

What you quoted me stating in bold says right at the end "or not" meaning standardizing societal morals unrelated to religion as in based off of personal opinions of morals.

I'll move away from religion in my response because you seem to only think that's what I'm referring to.

I want you to give me a reason why it is inherently wrong to standardize something like "rape". Even if 99 out of a 100 people think that rape is ok does not make it inherently (naturally, innately) wrong. Again I am not referring to religion. We'll say that all 100 people are devout atheists. You quoted me above yet did not fully answer my question. You went on to mock me by asking me to re-read your answer to my question twice. The problem was your answer did not fully answer my question: "Because religious morals are built upon a foundation of unverifiable claims, which are by their very nature meaningless and false." That was your answer. I'm here to learn just as you are. I can't learn if people don't answer my questions or missunderstand the questions I ask.


So you are saying that morals are based off of what leads to a civil society?



So is a civil society then inherently a good thing? Is a civil society better then a non civil society?

So you say that murder should be stopped only because it inhibits societal growth. So if your barber gets killed your only gonna say "Crap, what a jerk that muderer was! Where am I gonna get my haircut now?"

Or how about this: For one reason or another your family has become the pivotol thing that either prevents drastic societal growth or downfall. If your family is killed then society will boom. If they stay alive then society will die out. Would you then have any problem with someone killing off your entire family as long as it benefitted society greatly?

It is inherently wrong because it violate a person's will to consent, and once again it is not complimentary to a civil society. Also I do believe that rape is inherently wrong, but I will move on to that in another topic that I'll start soon.

Yes, a civil society is inherently a good thing, because it is a beneficent ideal. A civil society is better than a non-civil society, but only because it recognizes the universality of the human condition, and attempts to use that universality to benefit all people.

If a debate over any topic is, in your words xris, "splitting their church in two" then obviously the action of a church splitting in two is evidence of something that is not stagnant. Perhaps the doctrine is stagnant on one side of the split, but it can't be stagnant on the other side. Else why would they be splitting if not over a difference of opinion on church doctrine?

Wouldn't you say that a "will to consent" is just a man made idea? If you believe that people do not have souls, (which I assume you do correct me if I am wrong) what makes someones body their own? I will compare a human body to a house. Neither have souls, both are made up of atoms. Your house, you own the deed to it. The law will protect your house from others to keep a society civil. But that does not make it "yours". All ownership of the house is man made. The deed is man made etc... There is nothing that presupposes the government, deed makers / everyone responsible for the creation of "your" house. When you purchased the house you purchased the protection of your house, by the law, from others from stealing it etc... There is nothing that makes it yours other then man made possesionship documents and enforcement. The only thing that makes 'your' body 'your own' is then the government that protects it. There is nothing that presupposes the goverments protection. Remember you don't have a soul you are just a "complex house".

So would you agree then that "will to consent" is just a man made idea? Also ownership and right to ones own body is also a man made idea? And that the idea was created by man to create a civil society?

So then if everything follows, you must believe that there is no innate "will to consent". Since there is no will to consent rape is only wrong because the government says it is. If that is true then rape is not inherently wrong. That only makes it wrong under the governments umbrella.





So you do believe that we are not closed off to absolutely no absolutes? :sarcastic:
Also I will be looking forward to your new topic. Ethics is why I'm interested in philosophy. It is most relevant to myself as I don't have philosophy friends to discuss things like metaphysics with haha. Ethics is the thing that everyone is interested in it would seem.

This debate has been diverted from its original question . Its not the history of mankind and how religion has changed over the centuries its how faith intereacts with secular society in our modern world. My statement that faith led morals are stagnant, i still maintain that is true.I repeat who in the vatican honestly believes their stance on contraception is not doing harm in Africa , who in the CE dont realise their position on homosexuality is not splitting their church in two..The fundamentalist exert their power at every opportunity to influence their opinions on abortion ,birth control and experiments on embryos..It is all down to their inability to change their dogmatic doctrine to logical debate..

If you read xris' first post on this topic I am sure that you knew what the discussion was about. You deny the dogmatic nature of revelation based religion because of your attachment to religious doctrines.

To deny the fact that revelation based religious doctrines stagnate intellectual progress is to deny what is right in front of you, especially if you live in the United States. While some Christians have come to accept evolution, every single Christian I know denies evolution striclty based on religious grounds, and human vanity. Any religious doctrine that is based on divine revelation has a dogmatic nature about it for an obvious reason.

In regards to Martin Luther King, you fail to recognize that the bible was also used to justify slavery. King's social reformist ideas were based on the human desire for freedom and equality.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the mythology, but only in the same way that I enjoy comic books. I also believe that mythology has anthropological value. I do not, however, have some type of obscure spritual attachment to it like you do.

The fact that these stories are not true or literal does diminish the credibility of the claims that many believers make.

You come off as some sort of pan-religious mystic, but most believers do not have the obscure interpretation that you do. This obscure mysticism of Western religion is a reaction to scientific, intellectual, and philosophical advances that have been made over the last 500 years or so.

Historically, theology attempt to employ logic, but the arguments are not logical. Theology has now gotten to the point where people like you employ mysticism to make your argument.

I knew that you were going to say that. These are literary translations from one language to another, not actual changes to doctrine of the book.

Yes, new religions evolve off of other religions, but I'm not saying that it doesn't. I am simply stating that religious doctrines are replaced by different religious doctrines. For example, the Christian religion replaced the polytheist religions of Europe, and Christianity did not evolve from those religions; and even though Buddhism did evolve from Hinduism, these are two different religions.

I am so glad that we finally agree on something. God is not a being, God is an idea. The idea does not point to reality, it points to the unknown, which by its very definition is void of meaning or consequence. There is no truth about the unknown, other than the fact that it is unknown. Applying a three letter word to the unknown reveals some underlying knowitall nature of some human beings.

We once used Gods to point to natural phenomena like rain, lightening & thunder, and earthquakes, but now that we have verifiable ways to know how this phenomena comes about, we only have a God of the gaps that is continuing to fail due to the shrinking of the gaps. We are now forced to point to absolutly nothing and call it God.

Many fideists will eventually adopt an obscure, agnostic mysticism, and you are a sign of that future. Good thing that this will be a core minority that will no longer be taken seriously, much like the polytheists, wiccans and new agers are not taken seriously today.

No one has denied that certain moral premises cause harm to society; no one has denied that some harmful moral premises are promoted by religion. However, the generalization you draw from the examples of harmful religious based morals is illogical. You end up equating religious fundamentalism with religion.

There are examples of religious based morals which help society. Again, Dr. King, who based his efforts in Christian teaching, did a great deal for humanity. The same is true of Mr. Gandhi, who also based his social reform in piety.



You are making things up, friend. I have, not once, denied that religion has dogma.
As for your assumptions about why I make arguments (leaving aside the fact that you are pretending that I'm making arguments which I have not advocated), the claim is simply nonfalsifiable: you simply cannot know my motivations. More importantly, my motivations are irrelevant to the discussion.



There are instances in which religious notions lead to the stagnation of intellectual progress: I have never denied this. The mistake you, and xris, make is to generalize that because some religious people/notions do/believe X all religious people/notions must do/believe X. In the case of intellectual stagnation, there are countless religious intellectuals who work in every field imaginable: obviously, to be religious is not to necessarily stagnate the intellectual progress.

You mention every Christian you know: so what? You do not know all Christians. As you admit: many Christians accept evolution. Thus, the denial of evolution is not something inherent to Christianity. To blame Christianity is an error of logic: you have to be more specific. Try Christian fundamentalism, or simply religious fundamentalism: that thesis might gain some more traction.



I do not "fail to recognize" the fact that the Bible was used to justify slavery: I've read many of the famous examples of such arguments. But that isn't the point: you argued that religion stagnates social progress; Dr. King's movement is an example of religion promoting social progress.

Never did I argue that religion could not be used to stifle progress. Instead, I argued that religion does not necessarily stagnate progress, and can, in some cases, help to promote progress.



And I would never suggest that you should attach the same value to the texts. If some scripture does not work for you, that's fine. If you have no spiritual practice in the first place, there should be no surprise that you do not find spiritual value in the scripture. However, simply because you do not find spiritual value in something, it does not follow that others cannot find spiritual value in said thing.



That depends entirely upon the nature of the claim being made. In the case of fundamentalists, who assert that the texts are true, the fact that said texts are mythology not only diminishes but demolishes the claim that the texts have truth: because the claim is that they are literally true. However, if we claim that the texts are mythology, the fact that the texts are not literally true does not diminish the credibility of the claim because the claim does not rest on the supposed literal truth of the document.

Simply stated: Spider-Man comic does not lose credibility because Spider-Man does not really exist.



Your history is inaccurate. Mysticism has always existed in Western religion. Fundamentalism is the religious backlash against scientific progress. The mystic wasn't troubled in the first place.


A logical argument is an argument which employs logic. The logic may be flawed, but a flaw in logic does not mean the argument lacks logic.
As for "people like me", which I take to mean people who take mysticism seriously: we have always been involved in theology. Many theologians were mystics, from the very beginning of Christianity. Aquinas and Augustine were both mystics.


The Bible does not contain Church doctrine: instead, Chruch doctrine is derived from the Bible.

You asked if there had been any literal changes to the Bible: and yes, there have been thousands. KJV is just one example thereof.


Christianity did evolve from the polytheisms and from Judaism, which evolved from being polytheistic into a monotheism. Buddhism and Hinduism are seem today as two distinct traditions - at the beginning, however, Buddhism was simply a reform movement within Hinduism. For many modern Hindus, the Buddha is an important part of their faith. They are distinct, yet at times the same.



You make this assertion but that's all you can do: assert over and over again. There is no argument here, only your preconceived notions about the matter. Maybe a reread of the Tao te Ching would do you some good.



You'll have a hard time, then, explaining how the Taoists came up with Tao when rain, lightening, et al were still physical mysteries.



More straw men from hue-man. I'm not a fideist. Also, polytheists and Wiccans are taken seriously. Maybe not by angry, militant atheists who refuse to even investigate notions of something other than their own comfortable water, but many people do take these faith traditions seriously. Heck, even if you vehemently disagree with these traditions, you should take them seriously: their numbers are swelling.

I never said you were a fideist!

Trust me; there is nothing about atheism that is initially comfortable.

I'm a fideist, but you guys make it sound dirty, like I've said the f word.:eek:



I don't doubt it. And this is exactly the problem, I think. It's like we all feel like it's necessary to defend our beliefs, or lack of beliefs, whichever. We're all made to feel this way by others. Unless someone is forcing their beliefs on others, then I don't think any of us should feel obliged, or be expected, to justify our beliefs.

Which brings us back to the point of the thread. If faith is going to play any part in societal rules and allowances, then those advocates had better be able to come up with a better argument for it than simply because the scriptures said so.

If you do not deny that religions are dogmatic then what is your point?!!

My point is that religion should play no role in public policy, and I'm not the first to realize this. Neither should any dogma play a role in public policy.

I am blaming religious dogmatism for intellectual stagnation and retardation. Any form of dogmatism leads to intellectual stagnation and retardation.

The fact of the matter is that Christianity does have a dogma. It is no coincidence that most devout Christians deny evolution. It's not that I have to be more specific, it's that you don't like when people criticize religion.

Augustine may have had mystical tendencies, but he literally believed in Judeo-Christian mythology.

I did not say that Christianity didn't evolve from some polytheists traditions!!! In fact, I was saying the opposite. What I said was that Christianity did not come from the original European polytheist religions, and it replaced them.

What am I saying that is only an assertion, Didymos?

That the unknown is unknown, and nothing more, because by its very definition it is meaningless? You are asserting that the unknown is some type of truth of God with your ridiculous brand of mysticism. Maybe a science book would do you some good.

I never said you were a fideist! I'm saying that fideists are dwindling, and that they are becoming more mystical (like you), because of the shrinking gaps in science. Actually, the numbers of church goers are decreasing, and secularism is increasing (globally), mainly in the developed world. Trust me; there is nothing about atheism that is initially comfortable. It's not as easy as believing in the existence of God and the afterlife, or believing in mystical metaphysics like you.

You're crazy for comparing a human being to a house. I wouldn't even compare a dog to a house . You don't need some type of ghostly soul for your body to be yours. A house in an inanimate object, empty of any volition, conscience, sensation, or emotion. You cannot compare the value of a human being to the value of a house.

Human rights are first, demanded by the people and then, granted by the state. When approaching the sub-field of ethics you must keep in mind that these are not objective facts in the same sense as physical facts. The idea of human values is an epiphenomenon. In order for these values to be universal they must adhere to the universality of the human condition.

The will to consent is a demand by the agent. The agent demands its consent, and it is either granted or not granted.

Also, do not assume that because something is man made that it has no universal value.

The development of human morals are a result of the ability to empathize and sympathize with another person. Our highly developed sense of empathy and emotional attachment is a result of evolution. These psychological developments were and are necessary for the survival of a social species like our own. If we didn't develop this common psychology our species would never have survived a week in the African Savannah. The concept of a civil society is a result of this psychology, and our desire to live better, more comfortable lives.

I believe in moral universalism, not moral absolutism, so no, I do not believe in moral absolutes.

Oh I believe I can or maybe it should be that you should believe you can. What is volition, conscience, sensation, and emotion? You would say that these are all things that can be physically viewed under a microscope. They are all broken down into atoms which have no feelings they just are. As Dawkins says: "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music" All we are is more complex organization of atoms. Do you agree that we are just atoms and nothing more? That everything about the human can be broken down and viewed under a microscope? If so then "emotion" is no different then human skin. So yes I do compare a house to a human. It is like comparing a Pollack work of art too a photo. They are both just ink on a paper in the end. A photo is easier to interpret but it just is ink on paper.

Please do answer the question though whether you think we are more then just atoms. If you agree that we are just atoms and everything about us is atoms then we are no different then houses. We are as I said earlier "complex houses"




So what a human demands is right? That doesn't give it a right. If a tree could speak it would say "leave me alone I wish to grow tall and die an old age" The carpenter says "you can't have a right to yourself you just are what you are." A demand does not guarentee a right. If I demand that your computer is mine it doesn't make it mine. You would ask me to prove that it is mine. You don't just assume that because I can demand it that it just is.

As to what you say in bold can you re word that so I have some idea what you are talking about?



Oh it has value but only created value under the umbrella of who ever enforces its value. The value of human rights goes as far as the goverment. Out side of the umbrella of the goverment people have no human rights.



So then you say that it is just evolution that triggers these universal morals. So then before things evolved then murder was not wrong. Hence it not being inherrently wrong.

I really don't feel like going through all of this right now, but you are confusing my statements with moral absolutism. I am not saying that there is an absolute, natural, metaphysical right that humans have. You asked me where do rights come from, and I said that they are demanded by the people and granted by the state. It is an expression of the human will.

While science can provide us with a deeper understanding of the nature of morality, it cannot make absolute claims about what is right and what is wrong. What you need to do is stop looking at ethics as a physical science. It makes you appear to be unreasonably rigid in your thinking. Morality is an epiphenomenon, the result of actual physical processes in the brain. There are no naturally inherited human rights that nature has bestowed on us. That is not what moral universalism is about. Approaching the system of values is not the same as approaching the system of physics.

it is all subjective. religious morals do change- have to change by passing time to not to disappear. it has to adapt to this changing world, including development of human. and in the end we wont need any laws or punishment- because everyone will meet in one point where everyone can express his/her own ethics and live it with thoose who agree with it.

It is inherently wrong because it violate a person's will to consent, and once again it is not complimentary to a civil society. Also I do believe that rape is inherently wrong, but I will move on to that in another topic that I'll start soon.

You said that earlier. Calling rape inherently wrong (meaning it has been wrong for the entire existence of everything) follows an absolute standpoint. You base it being inherently wrong based on human will to consent so I proceeded to question what you view as a "will to consent".



Though you say this in your above message:

There are no naturally inherited human rights that nature has bestowed on us.

So that would say that rape is not inherently wrong. Which is it?