Religion

[hazeh]

Where does it come from?

The process in which the neurotransmitors in our brain allow us to understand and perceive a wide variety of emotional, intellectual, and ethical thoughts and feelings.

[Alpha1]

The process in which the neurotransmitors in our brain allow us to understand and perceive a wide variety of emotional, intellectual, and ethical thoughts and feelings.

We posted almost at the same time.

 

Great minds think alike!

[potterwolf]

Where does it come from?

It comes from a set of evolutionary predispositions, along with more concrete standards that we form based on reason and emotion.

 

Great minds think alike!

 

No, average minds think alike. That's what makes them average. Great minds think uniquely.

[philpot123]

Your reasoning capabilities.

 

Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?

So one can reason what is right and what is wrong? But so many people have "reasoned" and arrived at different conclusions. So what is ACTUALLY right or wrong then??

 

 

 

What is morally good is reflective of God's character.

 

It comes from a set of evolutionary predispositions, along with more concrete standards that we form based on reason and emotion.

 

Emotions? There are those that "emotionally" believe honor killings and genocide are morally acceptable. Does that mean they are?

Edited March 6, 2012 by philpot123

[KageSora]

So one can reason what is right and what is wrong? But so many people have "reasoned" and arrived at different conclusions. So what is ACTUALLY right or wrong then??

Why does there need to be one universal right and one universal wrong? Can't more than one person be right in a different way about a situation?

 

Emotions? There are those that "emotionally" believe honor killings and genocide are morally acceptable. Does that mean they are?

 

To them, yes, they are. To others, due to the lack of a universal right and universal wrong, no, they aren't.

[TikindiDragon]

No, average minds think alike. That's what makes them average. Great minds think uniquely.

I think the other half of the 'great minds' comment is normally "Fools seldom differ.".

[philpot123]

Why does there need to be one universal right and one universal wrong? Can't more than one person be right in a different way about a situation?

 

 

 

To them, yes, they are. To others, due to the lack of a universal right and universal wrong, no, they aren't.

So who are you to tell me (like so many people do) that I should support things that go against my beliefs if my beliefs are just are right as yours? Who are you to put me in jail for murder if I've decided it's right?? What arrogant fool decided that murder is wrong for everyone in our nation? Ridiculous.

[Alpha1]

So one can reason what is right and what is wrong? But so many people have "reasoned" and arrived at different conclusions. So what is ACTUALLY right or wrong then??

 

Yes, because you can measure the amount of harm an action causes. There's obviously grey areas (e.g. "child"/"adult" distinction), but nonetheless, you still have a measuring stick.

 

What is morally good is reflective of God's character

 

How do you know which book is inspired by God? How do you know how to interpret it? For instance, we have one side saying the Bible doesn't condemn people for abortion, and the other side says it is wrong.

 

What's wrong with 9/11 then? There's no reason to get angry at radical Muslims if someone claims you can't reason this out.

 

 

No, average minds think alike. That's what makes them average. Great minds think uniquely.

 

You realize that it's an idiom?

[Kelkelen]

Why does there need to be one universal right and one universal wrong? Can't more than one person be right in a different way about a situation?

 

 

 

To them, yes, they are. To others, due to the lack of a universal right and universal wrong, no, they aren't.

I think maybe the ancient Greeks and Romans had a lot to say on this matter, especially as it pertained to making rules of government. Just look into the concept of "Natural Law." Eventually, American law was also based on this concept. Here's a starter on it, quoted from Wikipedia, but obviously wiki is an overview; many philosophers as well as lawmakers have delved into it.

 

Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature -- both social and personal -- and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Natural law is contrasted with the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus serves as a standard by which to critique said positive law.[2] According to natural law theory, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale)[citation needed]

 

Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[4] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

[philpot123]

Yes, because you can measure the amount of harm an action causes. There's obviously grey areas (e.g. "child"/"adult" distinction), but nonetheless, you still have a measuring stick.

 

 

 

How do you know which book is inspired by God? How do you know how to interpret it? For instance, we have one side saying the Bible doesn't condemn people for abortion, and the other side says it is wrong.

 

What's wrong with 9/11 then? There's no reason to get angry at radical Muslims if someone claims you can't reason this out.

 

 

 

 

You realize that it's an idiom?

So causing harm is the only thing that determines right or wrong?

 

 

I think we've gone over Bible stuff before. There are lots of reasons why someone would choose to believe in the God of the Bible and ascribe to Biblical Christianity. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis is a decent starting apologetic. I don't have the time or the knowledge to make an accurate defense.

 

According to the "everyone's right" idea, no one has any right to be mad at the perpetrators of acts of terrorism.

[Princess Artemis]

I think maybe the ancient Greeks and Romans had a lot to say on this matter, especially as it pertained to making rules of government. Just look into the concept of "Natural Law." Eventually, American law was also based on this concept. Here's a starter on it, quoted from Wikipedia, but obviously wiki is an overview; many philosophers as well as lawmakers have delved into it.

 

There is, of course, no religious requirement to observe natural law--whatever one thinks it came from, natural law is still largely the same.

[hazeh]

I feel things are right based on what I was taught and what I feel as a person is the least evil and most beneficial to those around me. I don't feel the need to thank a deity for my ability to measure the "rightness" or "wrongness" of certain actions or principles. I think the conscious is a biological trait that has come to being because of our evolutionarily enhanced brains and cognitive function and through thousands of years we come to accept and realize what certain things should or should not be done.

 

Everyone has their reasoning for doing something right or wrong. Honor killings may be right to the people who do them, but that doesn't mean it's right to everyone. I think there is a widely accepted view of right and wrong that somewhat differs in some ways, but that is not always received and exercised by other people. What is right to me may not be right to you. Is that okay? Perhaps. People follow the different versions of their moral standards according to how they naturally feel inclined to believe it. I don't follow Christianity because I don't feel a lot of things that are preached are right, as well as I simply don't feel the need to put my faith in something so obscure. But other people follow Christianity because they feel it is right. Okay, sure. I don't mind that at all. We can even agree on certain things that pertain to some "moral code".

 

In the end, I think we're all human beings and that's that. What's right and wrong isn't necessarily set in stone because there are too many variables and obstacles. If you believe it is, then good for you for following your set of rules. My set of rules comes from what I perceive emotionally as right and wrong according to how I feel others should be treated as an equal human being. I have nothing spiritual there to acknowledge.

[Rosedamai]

What is morally good is reflective of God's character.

 

Phil, I'm sorry, but as an atheist I must disagree. I have my pretty strong reasons as to why I would never seek out the Christian faith, but I have neither the time nor the effort to go into that.

 

You can think that what's morally good is reflective of God's character-I can think differently. Let's agree to disagree, eh? I see Jesus and his teachings as a less of a religious text and more of a philosophical text-same with Buddhism, etc- so if I do see them I may agree with them, but that doesn't mean that I'm a Christian or will convert to Christianity any time soon.

 

I feel things are right based on what I was taught and what I feel as a person is the least evil and most beneficial to those around me. I don't feel the need to thank a deity for my ability to measure the "rightness" or "wrongness" of certain actions or principles. I think the conscious is a biological trait that has come to being because of our evolutionarily enhanced brains and cognitive function and through thousands of years we come to accept and realize what certain things should or should not be done.

 

QFT. I also think that empathy and bonding is also a biological trait, considering the fact that we're group animals and those who truly lack empathy-such as psychopaths-are generally shunned by society, not embraced by them, as would be natural if we were biologically keyed to be herd animals.

 

 

[philpot123]

Phil, I'm sorry, but as an atheist I must disagree. I have my pretty strong reasons as to why I would never seek out the Christian faith, but I have neither the time nor the effort to go into that.

 

You can think that what's morally good is reflective of God's character-I can think differently. Let's agree to disagree, eh? I see Jesus and his teachings as a less of a religious text and more of a philosophical text-same with Buddhism, etc- so if I do see them I may agree with them, but that doesn't mean that I'm a Christian or will convert to Christianity any time soon.

 

And you're free to disagree. But if there really is a moral standard defined by God, what you think won't change it. I can think you're a 7 foot tall black man with a talent for basketball but that doesn't mean you can suddenly go play in the NBA. What I think about you doesn't change what you are, and what you think about morality wouldn't change what morality is, if such a standard exists.

[Rosedamai]

And you're free to disagree. But if there really is a moral standard defined by God, what you think won't change it. I can think you're a 7 foot tall black man with a talent for basketball but that doesn't mean you can suddenly go play in the NBA. What I think about you doesn't change what you are, and what you think about morality wouldn't change what morality is, if such a standard exists.

And if there isn't one, you thinking that won't suddenly make it pop out of nowhere.

 

Let's just say, in your world there is a moral standard defined by God, and in my world there isn't. That's about the closest I can get to a compromise between a standstill-our views are like parallels, they won't meet.

[Kelkelen]

There is, of course, no religious requirement to observe natural law--whatever one thinks it came from, natural law is still largely the same.

Right. I only wanted to point out that there is a common way of calculating a "universal" right and wrong -- whether or not one wants to attribute that right and wrong to a deity or not. Of course, there are differences of interpretation, and nuances, but it's a logical concept for ruling out things like "I think murdering people is okay, therefore it's just as right as you believing you shouldn't murder people." It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of any god/s.

[hazeh]

 

 

QFT. I also think that empathy and bonding is also a biological trait, considering the fact that we're group animals and those who truly lack empathy-such as psychopaths-are generally shunned by society, not embraced by them, as would be natural if we were biologically keyed to be herd animals.

There's actually a video I just watched like, ten minutes ago, about the biological differences in psychopaths and "normal" people. Their brain scans are actually notably different.

 

Now, I didn't watch it all the way through, but I'm pretty sure this video connects to the subject of morality and whatnot.

[Rosedamai]

There's actually a video I just watched like, ten minutes ago, about the biological differences in psychopaths and "normal" people. Their brain scans are actually notably different.

 

Now, I didn't watch it all the way through, but I'm pretty sure this video connects to the subject of morality and whatnot.

Veeerrry interesting. I love how science like this is used to try to find out thoughts about morality, society, and so on. Thanks for the vid!

[Princess Artemis]

Right. I only wanted to point out that there is a common way of calculating a "universal" right and wrong -- whether or not one wants to attribute that right and wrong to a deity or not. Of course, there are differences of interpretation, and nuances, but it's a logical concept for ruling out things like "I think murdering people is okay, therefore it's just as right as you believing you shouldn't murder people." It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of any god/s.

Yeah, I gotcha.

 

I, being religious, think it makes perfect sense that any absolute moral law created by God would be discernible without having to believe there is a god. Which, I am sure, any atheist who accepts the concept of natural law would think it makes perfect sense that a religion would incorporate some of that natural law : )

[loudwhitenoise]

Morality, to me, is defined by your society. If your society claims that a god has X set of morals and expects you to follow them (thou shalt not kill, anybody?) - I feel that to be societial as opposed to religious; though ofc both may come into play, someone doesnt have to believe in God to follow 'his' rules if the society inflicts punishments for transgressions against them.

 

I use Dwarf Fortress's system of morality/ethics in my head as a way of recognising different cultural values. Since DF has what TVTropes refers to as 'blue and orange morality' it can help us to realise that some societies, such as those tribes "way out woop-woop" may find things like canabilism (sp?) acceptable. Also comparable to the system in the olden days where things such as torture were sanctioned and thus acceptable, yet it is abhorrent today.

[TikindiDragon]

QFT. I also think that empathy and bonding is also a biological trait, considering the fact that we're group animals and those who truly lack empathy-such as psychopaths-are generally shunned by society, not embraced by them, as would be natural if we were biologically keyed to be herd animals.

Incidently those on the autistic spectrum also lack the ability to empathise. Sympathise, yes, empathise no. Our brain scans are likewise different

[potterwolf]

Emotions? There are those that "emotionally" believe honor killings and genocide are morally acceptable. Does that mean they are?

Perhaps in a perfect world, emotion wouldn't be a factor. But I think it's clear that some people's moral standards are based on the way that they "feel" about certain issues. Emotion comes into play all the time. I'm not going to pretend that we are all so logical and reasonable that we can make perfect moral judgments. But collectively, we can be fairly close.

 

I think the other half of the 'great minds' comment is normally "Fools seldom differ."

 

I didn't know it was a famous quote...I was just saying things. My bad.

Edited March 7, 2012 by potterwolf

[Marrionetta]

Morality, to me, is defined by your society. If your society claims that a god has X set of morals and expects you to follow them (thou shalt not kill, anybody?) - I feel that to be societial as opposed to religious; though ofc both may come into play, someone doesnt have to believe in God to follow 'his' rules if the society inflicts punishments for transgressions against them.

Here's the thing though, if you rely on societal norms and doing what's okay in the society, you end up with things like the holocaust where nazis herded innocent people into camps and folk let it slide because it was an okay thing to do. Considering Germany used to be the seat of power of the holy roman empire, it would seem that a strong tie to religion doesn't necessarily prevent atrocities.

 

Religion has its benefits though, don't get me wrong.

[Princess Artemis]

There was also nothing holy about the Holy Roman Empire. One of the worst things that ever happened to the Christian religion was being 'legitimized' by the state. Our kingdom is not of this world! That's spiritual but it also means it's not a kingdom that can be joined with the kingdoms--the governments--of the world.

 

That's why Christian Dominionism is such a horrid thing. That's why separation of church and state is so important. It's to keep the church out of the state, but also to keep the state out of the church. The church and the state can coexist but cannot be joined. From the outside, Amish and Mennonites look about how it might look with a more correct relationship between church and state...of course, the state keeps performing armed raids on their milk because it has nothing better to do than try to exert control over the church. (This is not to say that Amish and Mennonites are perfect, just that the relationship between church and state is better there than it is in many other places. No one is ever going to see the Amish try to take over the government. I'm just trying to put into perspective what I mean by coexisting kingdoms.)

[gravity404]

I don't really have any strong religious beliefs. My mother was raised to be a Catholic, but grew up feeling that she didn't really belong. My father was raised as a Jew and is now still a bit Jewish, but we both consider him to be half Buddhist.

I know that I believe in evolution and scientific theories over religious theories any day. I'm not exactly sure if I believe in God quite yet, and if I had to pick my "favorite" religion I'd say Buddhism. But who knows? I may end up being atheist, which is fine with me.