Religion and Morality
-
brianwelsch wrote: It is a necessity for us to feel as though we are a part of humanity, as though we count in some way Going along with your thoughts: You don't think this human story with God up there is just a way for us to justify life? That there is a rhyme and reason to it all? There is a definite need for that I think. I find it sad, not in a pitying way, that some of us need to be told the reason, that we cannot find it ourselves, or rather create it ourselves. brianwelsch wrote: it provides a place for people link themselves to the human story. It gives us a sense of history, a sense of belonging to something much greater than ourselves I like that. Sounds just the kind of thing us humans would do :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul WatsonPaul Watson wrote: Going along with your thoughts: You don't think this human story with God up there is just a way for us to justify life? That there is a rhyme and reason to it all? There is a definite need for that I think. I consider myself Agnostic, but I lean towards the truth being that there is a much more powerful being than ourselves. I do have trouble imagining that a more powerful being would have any more interest in me than I do my cat. So God's involvement in my life is sporatic at best. The rhyme and reason of life is fairly minimal. Which is just fine by me. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
-
brianwelsch wrote: It is a necessity for us to feel as though we are a part of humanity, as though we count in some way Going along with your thoughts: You don't think this human story with God up there is just a way for us to justify life? That there is a rhyme and reason to it all? There is a definite need for that I think. I find it sad, not in a pitying way, that some of us need to be told the reason, that we cannot find it ourselves, or rather create it ourselves. brianwelsch wrote: it provides a place for people link themselves to the human story. It gives us a sense of history, a sense of belonging to something much greater than ourselves I like that. Sounds just the kind of thing us humans would do :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul WatsonAaahhh ... the double-edged sword of being a self-aware conscious being. People are scared of death - and believing in religion (and henceforth some form of afterlife) helps people get through the day. A Christian friend of mine (yes, it's true!) tells me unless he had his beliefs he wouldn't see any point in getting up in the morning. Fair comment. He isn't a bigot either, which is refreshing. I have my own wooly-hippy-new-age beliefs, but I have come to my own conclusions - which helps me get through the day too. I generally don't knock religion, because if someone really believes in something, and it helps them be a better person, then more power to them. Respect is due, etc. I have a problem if someone preaches to me or tries to tell me that I am in some way worse off than them for not believing (judgementalism?). Obviously, there is a LOT of ambiguity with most religions - and this often causes people to do things in the name of their relgion that I don't think the religion ever intended. If Jesus (and I am not doubting that a very special - and moral - person called Jesus once existed) were to be resurrected and see what had been done in the name of Christianity (killing and outright bigotry) I think he would be outraged. This could run and run.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
In the thread "I hate Politics and Religion" Stan Shannon claims that Religion will never "fizzle out" because once you have successfully dismantled one source of moral authority another rises immediately to take its place. Now, I am an Atheist and I don't actually think that I have a problem with Morality. Do we have to credit religions for Morality?, couldn't people agree on certain points of civilized behaviour without having to believe in Jahve, Krishna or Santa Claus?. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: Do we have to credit religions for Morality?, Well, they do teach great morals... jan larsen wrote: couldn't people agree on certain points of civilized behaviour without having to believe in Jahve, Krishna or Santa Claus? No. Maybe a small minority of people, but not the general population. Jon Sagara The world is my burrito.
-
In the thread "I hate Politics and Religion" Stan Shannon claims that Religion will never "fizzle out" because once you have successfully dismantled one source of moral authority another rises immediately to take its place. Now, I am an Atheist and I don't actually think that I have a problem with Morality. Do we have to credit religions for Morality?, couldn't people agree on certain points of civilized behaviour without having to believe in Jahve, Krishna or Santa Claus?. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
My point is that religion's primary purpose is to serve as a source of moral authority. If you remove formal religion, you have removed religion in name only. Any source of moral authority essentially serves as a religion. To me this has always been an interesting subject. Being by nature an athiest myself, I cannot imagine how one would derive a morally stable culture based upon individually derived codes of moral conduct. For example, try to persuade me, as an athiest, why it is "immoral" to believe that Jews should be gassed or that blacks should be slaves, or whatever other "evils" you might think of. What does morality even mean in such a culture? The word "moral" carries the weight it does precisely because of its traditional association with religion and the concept of absolute and unconditional morality. No, we must have sources of moral authority. If the church does not serve that purpose than the state will be more than happy to step in and fill the void. Without the Church, what is the point of having seperation of Church and state? The State necessarily must become the church at that point - i.e. the source of all moral authority. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
jan larsen wrote: Do we have to credit religions for Morality?, Well, they do teach great morals... jan larsen wrote: couldn't people agree on certain points of civilized behaviour without having to believe in Jahve, Krishna or Santa Claus? No. Maybe a small minority of people, but not the general population. Jon Sagara The world is my burrito.
Jon Sagara wrote: Well, they do teach great morals... so do people without religion. -c
“losinger is a colorizing text edit control” -- googlism
-
My point is that religion's primary purpose is to serve as a source of moral authority. If you remove formal religion, you have removed religion in name only. Any source of moral authority essentially serves as a religion. To me this has always been an interesting subject. Being by nature an athiest myself, I cannot imagine how one would derive a morally stable culture based upon individually derived codes of moral conduct. For example, try to persuade me, as an athiest, why it is "immoral" to believe that Jews should be gassed or that blacks should be slaves, or whatever other "evils" you might think of. What does morality even mean in such a culture? The word "moral" carries the weight it does precisely because of its traditional association with religion and the concept of absolute and unconditional morality. No, we must have sources of moral authority. If the church does not serve that purpose than the state will be more than happy to step in and fill the void. Without the Church, what is the point of having seperation of Church and state? The State necessarily must become the church at that point - i.e. the source of all moral authority. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: If the church does not serve that purpose than the state will be more than happy to step in and fill the void. Without the Church, what is the point of having seperation of Church and state? The State necessarily must become the church at that point - i.e. the source of all moral authority. Has any country tried this? That of removing the Church and becoming the moral authority? (I may be wrong but didn't they do this in the USSR?) What happened? Stan Shannon wrote: I cannot imagine how one would derive a morally stable culture based upon individually derived codes of moral conduct This conflict will always exist I reckon. Is there a morally stable culture anywhere on earth? Also, me being young and full of zeal, this can be very difficult to accept at times. Does it get any easier to accept the cultural moral decision over your own personal moral decision as you get older?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson -
Stan Shannon wrote: If the church does not serve that purpose than the state will be more than happy to step in and fill the void. Without the Church, what is the point of having seperation of Church and state? The State necessarily must become the church at that point - i.e. the source of all moral authority. Has any country tried this? That of removing the Church and becoming the moral authority? (I may be wrong but didn't they do this in the USSR?) What happened? Stan Shannon wrote: I cannot imagine how one would derive a morally stable culture based upon individually derived codes of moral conduct This conflict will always exist I reckon. Is there a morally stable culture anywhere on earth? Also, me being young and full of zeal, this can be very difficult to accept at times. Does it get any easier to accept the cultural moral decision over your own personal moral decision as you get older?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul WatsonPaul Watson wrote: Also, me being young and full of zeal, this can be very difficult to accept at times. Does it get any easier to accept the cultural moral decision over your own personal moral decision as you get older? Its really been a question I have pondered through out my life. It has always made sense to me that if I volutarily choose to be a member of a civil social order, that at some level my own personal moral preferences must be subordinate to those of the culture itself. Would I tolerate an exterme violation of something I felt very strongly about? I would hope not. But, if I reserve that right for myself, how do I, for example, fault those who shoot abortion providers? Isn't that just an experession of their own moral limits? I do feel that having a healthy religious community provides for a healthy culture. Religious people may have a tendency to be hypocrits, but that may be because they are the only ones with a morality to be hypocritical of in the first place. It is easy to avoid hypocricy when you believe in nothing. That is why I try to hold myself to a Christian code of moral ethics - so that I have something to by hypocritical of. BTW, I have not found that anything gets easier with age. ;) "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
In the thread "I hate Politics and Religion" Stan Shannon claims that Religion will never "fizzle out" because once you have successfully dismantled one source of moral authority another rises immediately to take its place. Now, I am an Atheist and I don't actually think that I have a problem with Morality. Do we have to credit religions for Morality?, couldn't people agree on certain points of civilized behaviour without having to believe in Jahve, Krishna or Santa Claus?. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
First of all, may I congratulate you on your taste in quotes :-) As you may be aware, I am a Christian. However, I do not believe that this gives me, or those who share my belief, an exclusive right to claim moral behaviour, and sadly many claim Christianity and live immoral lives. However, I think it IS true that a great many people are sheep and require a religious framework to help them make decisions on what is and is not right. In any case, morality is very subjective. Some ancient civilisations had temples to their gods that were basically brothels, sex was a means of worship. In our society 50 years ago, that would have generally been considered an abomination, nowadays it's more likely people would take a 'whatever gets you off' approach, by and large. What we call morality is simply the mores of our society. Yet morality is something that, even as it changes, is regarded as somewhat absolute. In the absence of a divine creator, who has the power and the right to say what is and is not moral, the word really has no meaning IMO, it simply means what seems acceptable to one person at one point in time. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
My point is that religion's primary purpose is to serve as a source of moral authority. If you remove formal religion, you have removed religion in name only. Any source of moral authority essentially serves as a religion. To me this has always been an interesting subject. Being by nature an athiest myself, I cannot imagine how one would derive a morally stable culture based upon individually derived codes of moral conduct. For example, try to persuade me, as an athiest, why it is "immoral" to believe that Jews should be gassed or that blacks should be slaves, or whatever other "evils" you might think of. What does morality even mean in such a culture? The word "moral" carries the weight it does precisely because of its traditional association with religion and the concept of absolute and unconditional morality. No, we must have sources of moral authority. If the church does not serve that purpose than the state will be more than happy to step in and fill the void. Without the Church, what is the point of having seperation of Church and state? The State necessarily must become the church at that point - i.e. the source of all moral authority. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Interestingly, seperation of church and state is not a biblical idea, although I agree it is absolutely necessary in order for freedom of religion to exist. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
Interestingly, seperation of church and state is not a biblical idea, although I agree it is absolutely necessary in order for freedom of religion to exist. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: Interestingly, seperation of church and state is not a biblical id Correct. In fact, religion was the state for very long through out our history. The irony is that in the abscence of religion, the state inevitably must resume the mantle of the church. We will have gone full circle. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
In the thread "I hate Politics and Religion" Stan Shannon claims that Religion will never "fizzle out" because once you have successfully dismantled one source of moral authority another rises immediately to take its place. Now, I am an Atheist and I don't actually think that I have a problem with Morality. Do we have to credit religions for Morality?, couldn't people agree on certain points of civilized behaviour without having to believe in Jahve, Krishna or Santa Claus?. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
A Codex of Morale is easy to follow, when it's easy to follow. However, a codex is made for times when it's hard to follow it. IMO religion gives this codex quite some stability.
skulls don't kiss for an explanation - wait for the vacation photos! [sighist]
-
Paul Watson wrote: Also, me being young and full of zeal, this can be very difficult to accept at times. Does it get any easier to accept the cultural moral decision over your own personal moral decision as you get older? Its really been a question I have pondered through out my life. It has always made sense to me that if I volutarily choose to be a member of a civil social order, that at some level my own personal moral preferences must be subordinate to those of the culture itself. Would I tolerate an exterme violation of something I felt very strongly about? I would hope not. But, if I reserve that right for myself, how do I, for example, fault those who shoot abortion providers? Isn't that just an experession of their own moral limits? I do feel that having a healthy religious community provides for a healthy culture. Religious people may have a tendency to be hypocrits, but that may be because they are the only ones with a morality to be hypocritical of in the first place. It is easy to avoid hypocricy when you believe in nothing. That is why I try to hold myself to a Christian code of moral ethics - so that I have something to by hypocritical of. BTW, I have not found that anything gets easier with age. ;) "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: BTW, I have not found that anything gets easier with age Oh come now, have you forgotten? Forgetting gets easier with age... ;) Stan Shannon wrote: It is easy to avoid hypocricy when you believe in nothing. That is a very good point actually. Often us non-religious types feel superior to religious types because we think we are not breaking morals or are not as bound. Yet that is simply because many of us start at nothing and end at nothing, which is no good at all. Anyway, thanks for the other thoughts :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson