How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

I don't want to give the impression that sociology research is a total waste but I think much of it is ineffective because of the working premise of science as applied to humans.

The scientific method is ideal for understanding the physical world around us. But if you start with the assumption that humans are nothing more than advanced primates, I don't think we will find the answers to what is wrong with this society through sociology research.

Some religions are doing some good works to help the sufferings brought on by society's sickness but they haven't dug deep enough for the cause either.

I am conflicted about the degree to which studying sociology help us in our prescribing a course of action for social problems. I suppose it might help to give some quantitative data (between two already decided on courses of action) that might help with determining which is the better to pursue.

But I get the hesitation. I think the conflict is resolved only personally. Just like there are some folks who need religion to ‘set them straight’, so I think some people need a brand of sociological priest to give them a reason for their morality and purpose. We came first, not sociology. So, we ought to be able to understand ourselves without recourse to codification? Then again, a lot of our understanding of ourselves is based on complete nonsense. And so maybe sociology is best used for debunking, if not for giving us a proper coherent proscription for psychological or social action. To whit, there are lots of folks who have no training in this regard and understand human behavior very well and are good, moral people. Maybe being a good moral person is the most important prerequisite, by which I mostly mean someone who doesn’t condemn others for the way they are..

That also brings up another of the points you made about looking at us as ‘only’ advanced primates. I’m not sure what ‘only’ means. We are what we are. It helps me, gives me a point of departure if you will, for understanding human behavior by comparison to other animals (not just primates). Maybe it’s not strictly necessary, but the framework it gives based on other primate behavior holds true, even if it is unnecessary for developing actions to help resolve societal or personal ills. I mean, the Harlow studies? Do we really need that to tell us that isolation is bad for humans? Maybe we do, maybe we don’t. Maybe some people do. In any case, the results are compelling at some level? Yes? No? (Never mind the ethical question of using the monkeys in the study).

At the very least, I would say that saying we are ‘only’ or ‘just’ primates carries with it the nonsense of saying we are ‘only’ atoms in motion. No one knows what atoms are, so the statement is a non sequitur. No one knows exactly what we are, never mind what a primate is either. So the default answer is yes, we are ‘just’ a primate – heir to all of that definition we know and all that we don’t know (which is way more than we do). But if the valuation and assumptions that are brought to that table assume we have full knowledge of what a primate is, then no, we are not ‘just’ a primate. This is a matter of straightening out what assumptions are made in that statement.

It can be difficult for many people to perceive the value of sociology or ethics for many reasons. It is said by some people it starts with empathy and others think empathy is naïve and I would say they are correct understanding the reality that we live in when many antisocial people will exploit empathy when they can.

If the church could change in just one way I would say it should teach that it is OK to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and bad. Moral Philosophy
There were reasons that slave masters did not want the slave to question their mores.

But we are the product of our 'codification.' We learn right and wrong early in our childhood from our parents and when we first attend school.

Yeah, I guess I wasn't clear what I meant by 'resorting to codification'.

What I was referring to was the more formal codification of the subject at hand: sociology. This is a provincialized version of our codifying specific behaviours.

What this boils down to is: Do I need to write down, to articulate not to murder in order for people not to murder? Perhaps some, but the argument isn't about whether we need to for all people, its whether some people don't need this articulation (is that a better term here than codification?).

The answer is clearly that some people don't. They don't need to be told the reasons why not to murder, they get it from the development of empathy which has many sources (watching others, doing things to others and noting the response etc).

I understand that it can be difficult to tease out the sources of what we have learned when we are young, so for all behaviours and codes I take this probable. But the point about sociology stands. I don't need Harlows monkey isolation studies to tell me that raising children in isolation is bad. There are many social studies that only confirm what to most seems obvious.

Again, I am not saying it isn't worthwhile. I would imagine the answer to that depends on the study in question and you may get as many answers as people looking at it..I just think sociology is one way to get at something, not the only way and perhaps not necessary or as critical as it might seem in regards to getting our social ship together..?

Yeah, I get it..I just don't know the answer. There's part of me that wants to say the answers can all be found in sociological study and that having a 'primate' frame of reference is necessary to fully understand our behavior and maybe the latter is true..

But for proscribing solutions to our society? Sociologically educated people are one voice, there are others not so that have every bit a legitimate voice in providing solutions for what ails our society. I would say your moral and ethical attitude that you bring to the table is more important than any formal education you have. And if it seems that sociologists are more interested in what you might consider valid social solutions, to me that says that they went into sociology because they already had a 'proper' moral and ethical bent to begin with..

We already have laws against antisocial behavior. That is codifying specific behaviors.

Antisocial behavior seems to be subjective, just like all other concepts. We hear about it daily but little time is spent trying to find and solve the reasons for it. Instead we act as if we know how to deal with it.

Many antisocial behavior have been codified as crimes by federal, state, and local laws. Whether those laws are enforced is a whole different matter.

One of The best codifying of behaviors I know of:

I agree. Unfortunately, even in this country, all are not treated equally.

Oh the irony. Papyrus is gold? Golden? Spiritual? Nay! Say you are with me that actions speak louder than political symbols whose manifestation on pulped wood make it only fit for fire..from whence the reality? From people! Symbols on crushed wood non withstanding! The paper is there for the ride..

What a world we live in where statements like this cause a stir in us as if those rights 'never existed' before. Why? Because they are not rights. They exist until they don't. They prove true until they don't or prove false until they are made true..every nation has some version of this platitude, though perhaps to us, not as poetic..

The paper doesn't say that rights can't be violated. But that they exist, gives us grounds for recognizing them then correcting and preventing that violation.

And how the hell do you get the idea that anyone said they 'never existed before' from the text that starts out 'We hold theses truths to be self evident...'.

Rights endowed by our Creator clearly goes back before 1776.

Would this include slavery?

Slavery and bigotry of every color.

Violations of rights happen. It doesn't mean those rights don't exist.
But I repeat myself.

What is your point?

Read carefully! I said "as if". It wasn't a statement about fact when I said "..cause a stir..as if they never existed before". It was commentary on the psychological state of people who were now 'granted' that right. It was meant to be ironic. Its like when people are treated badly for a long time and their tormentors give them something good, which would normally be 'normal', but takes on a heightened flavor due to the past abuse..

I think you have to be careful about these things. Clearly the rights given in that paper were provincialized to a select group of people. And clearly many had to fight for those rights. How did the paper effect this? Does it really give 'grounds'. Did it give grounds? What were the grounds before the paper? Did the early American's have paper 'grounds' for emancipation from the British? Did they need paper grounds? Did Lenin have paper grounds for Russan emancipation? Do you really need to point to a piece of paper to get your rights given? Clearly no.

And a thought experiment. Say shortly before slavery ended, early 1800's, a huge meteor took out America. And the 'progress' of humans continued upon similar lines today. And let's say that several hundred years later from the 1800's, say in our current century sometime, we dug up the remains of that America and were able to exactly reconstruct the America of that time. What would our judgment be? None of those bad things would have had time to be corrected. They would have been a permanent stain on American life. A contradiction never resolved. The Africans, the Indians, the poor white people, all abused of their 'inalienable' rights..

In time, in time, in time..yes, indeed, in time..hindsight is always 20/20. Perhaps in time National Socialism would have got its act together or perhaps morphed into something good..? There is danger in projecting an ideal onto something in retrospect because of current progress..

Er, that's the point in question. Rights do not exist by simply being written. They exist 0nly in actual practice. Tell that to a slave circa early 1800's (or even through the 1900's..):

"Hey your rights exist in theory, on paper. But don't worry, see your ancestors will have those rights in a coupla hundered years. Now, how many lashes was that? I lost track, better start over.."

You see "on paper" without practice is to divorce the reality from the symbol (the words). You no longer have a proper referent that makes the words true..they are then worth nothing..again, ask the people of that time what they thought of how well that paper garnered them rights..It took actual people fighting, not paper..and if that paper didn't exist, you'd still have the fighting. People don't need paper, it is only either a valid or invalid reflection of what is acutally occurring..ask all the folks who get away with crimes because they are rich or important..Mr Nixon..

You seem very smart, you are able to explain your thoughts very well. I hope you stick around so that we can all learn from you.

I don't think I've ever had to repeat myself more time than on this question.

What part of
do you not understand?

It was not that piece of paper that gave those rights, is was our Creator (God, for those who don't know who that is). If it were not for that, there would not be a basis for opposing slavery or any other injustice. Science will not help you out. If humans are just more intelligent animals, What right do we have for enslaving them, using them for food, imprisonning them in zoos for our entertainment? Is it 'intelligence? What is the cutoff point of IQ for granting rights?

If God is not the source of our rights, then there is no basis for them.