 |
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
Sure it is. Repeated experiments independently with same results is a proof, but it isn't a gurantee that the theory is correct. |
Proof *is* a guarantee that a theory is correct. Experiments provide evidence, but not proof. To prove something is to show that it must be true. That is what proof is, and what distinguishes it from something that is supported, but not necessarily completely correct.
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
I just wonder why you doesn't demand the same standards for religious statements - that is theory setup, experimental evidence and most important independent confirmation. |
Look at it this way, falsification is about throwing evidence at something and seeing if it stands up, and if it doesn't, adapting it. Now, the fact that millions of people still believe something after 2000 years, and a lot of evidence, has been thrown at something, means you can't discount it completely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Proof *is* a guarantee that a theory is correct. Experiments provide evidence, but not proof. To prove something is to show that it must be true. That is what proof is, and what distinguishes it from something that is supported, but not necessarily completely correct.
|
No, proof is that under current knowledge and with independent testing, current theory are to be considered fact, but not indisputable - quite contrary - it's a part of science that it questions itself.
quote:
Look at it this way, falsification is about throwing evidence at something and seeing if it stands up, and if it doesn't, adapting it. Now, the fact that millions of people still believe something after 2000 years, and a lot of evidence, has been thrown at something, means you can't discount it completely. |
This is pure BS. Just because millions of people belives something doesn't make it true in any way. If that should be true, then the earth should be flat and the sun circling the earth. Science (including prechristian) has proven that it's the earth whom is circling the sun.
Apolgize my bad english 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seeker
|
 |
London Ontario
Jan 1970
time: 00:30
|
|
"Those are concerned with real spiritual growth and enlightenment."
WTF? Is that code for 'making people feel good about themselves'?
One would think that REAL 'spiritual growth and enlightenment' should at least encounter the idea of veracity somewhere along its mystical acid-trip journey.
My religious rankings:
1. Agnosticism: obviously because it makes the most sense to me, not because it necessarily makes me 'feel better' than forcing myself to beleive in some delusion. Aristotle wanted truth, not happiness.
2. Hinayana Buddhism: The original Buddhism described in the dammapadda, nowadays only in Thailand, and only kinda. Buddhism without all the saints and gods and magic and crap. Basically, it's only problems are: a. Does Nirvana exist? b. Why should anyone want it/does it make you feel good? c. Can anyone actually attain it permanently?
3. The Catholic heresy of Teilhard de Chardin: For feel-good philosphy that kinda makes a little sense, you can't beat it.
4. Epicureanism: Let's just give up on the search for truth and make ourselves happy. Given that most people are psychologically normal, this should involve making others happy too.
5. Vague 'spirituality' pap, Taoist-esque stuff: If you ever felt that Freud just didn't 'get' what he described as the 'oceanic feeling' or feeling of eternity in chapter 1 of Civilization and its Discontents, this is for you.
6. Metaphysical Naturalism: The strict materialism philosphies. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be an emotionally fullfilled non-selfish materialist. This is, IMO, a courageous viewpoint, but it ignores 'the grey areas' of our inaccessible subjective experience of reality.
7. Paganism (including unitarians, they're effectively pagans/universe worshippers IMO): Nature and spirit. Sounds great. Where's the beef?
8. Mainstream religion (includes Mahayana): Wheee....guilt, fear, philosphical cowardice and a heapin' helpin' of inertia! But I suppose it gives people a framework to come together and help others, sometimes. That's about the only thing postive about it.
9. the Bad News Bears: 'nuff said. Cults. Scientology. Calvinist Presuppositionalist Hypercalafragulistic Whatevers like CivNation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
The purpose of religion, so far as I am concerned, is morality. Understanding and codifying natural law and the urge to altruism. Ergo amoral religions, or religions which posit ineffectual morals, are worthless. Ditto for philosophies which talk about what's "good" or "bad" without stopping to tell us why we should care to be either to begin with. Without a God, there is no moral truth, and the chief value of truth in any case is that it is conducive to a happier or more productive life. Truth for its own sake is just a stingy God who can't even offer heaven as a compensation, only the smug satisfaction that you are right. That sort of idea-"I'm right, factually, and that vindicates my sufferings"-almost presupposes a sort of God in the form of posterity, assuming that history will remember your sacrifice (which is hardly a given) and that the legacy will be beneficial to you somehow (which is nonsensical, you'll be dead at the time and there's no reason to believe the dead eat accolades in the afterlife). If you wish to establish a religion where good is measured by the number of groupies one attains, that's your business, but it's not "reason."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Nope, mathematics can be communicated but is not subject to the scientific method. Similarly with anything based in an artificial construct.
|
But mathematics is still a model, an abstract construct to be experienced like colour. That it is more "valid" than, shall we say, biology, is merely because it rests on more proven solid assumptions.
quote:
Not quite, Popper even stated his texts were about science and the definition, not just it relating to dismissing the verification school. Indeed, he went into far more depth than just falsification, and his words about the scientific method and what it was would necessitate anything that was proven, ie. objectively true, being unscientific.
|
Umm, that's exactly what I said 
quote:
Knowledge can be true, and communicable, but not be scientific. Indeed, and thus, not be scientific.
|
Again not addressing the point categorical/hypothetical. Knowledge, if it is categorical or communicable is subject to scientific method, but subjective knowledge is object to scientific method... iow, the hypothetical. The difference between the description of pink as "red+white" and the actual experience of pink, which one cannot replicate, verify or communicate.
quote:
"So long as you harm none," or whatever, is not explained and in fact incompatible with the rest of it.
|
Not so, Satanism |= solipsism. If Satanism accepts that others exist and act accordingly, any prescriptive view has to account for that, and thus "do as you will as long as you don't harm" becomes a consistent point of equilibrium.
quote:
As to "real religion," I'm inclined to think of religious belief in a hierarchical structure of desirability from my POV. "Real" religion consists of the mainstream elements of most major faiths, including the RCC, Buddhism, Hinduism, the large portions of Islam that do not fly planes into buildings, etc. Those are concerned with real spiritual growth and enlightenment. I stick agnosticism and paganism in the next tier down. Agnosticism, in the sense of open-minded indecision or lack of faith, is laudable enough for its honesty and openness. Paganism drugs the spiritual portion of humanity with the style of religion but none of the substance. Lots of junk about scratching yourself with a hazel twig under the full moon, but no moral contemplation, nothing definite or useful. It's useless, but harmless, so I'm inclined to put it just under agnosticism.
|
You're own point of view with premises only in your own personal preference... some arbitrary idea of "moral progress" for one.
Why spiritual growth and enlightenment? Buddhism does not concern itself with theism nor morality per se, and I could think of a dozen differing concepts of enlightenment to play with here, not least an atheistic one. The substance of religion? Who is to say that the bible, that churches, priests, crucifixes etc, are not junk? One mans junk could be another mans idol. I'll come on to your point about moral contemplation later, but you say useful... why? Is it useless to the people that derive pleasure, understanding, or peace of mind from it? Frankly yours is a ridiculous contention that borders on offensive  .
quote:
Next I rank atheists. I consider atheism a pigheaded stupidity and a state of spiritual death, counterproductive to positive moral growth
|
Why is the theory of "there is no god" pigheaded stupidity? Whether people believe or merely concur with it, it's a perfectly logical inference or deduction, respectively. By your logic, we would see atheism being a necessary condition to "immoral" behaviour, whereas history shows that religion is guilty of some of the worst atrocities in human history, atheism or agnosticism is an escape from such dogma and allows people to embrace humanism. Spiritual death? Well what about the Buddhists and others who do not hold theism? Do you need theism (mono/poly/pan) *not* to be pigheadedly stupid?
Now regarding moral progress. Take the Nietzschian view of moral relativism, or a subjectivist view of morality based in human emotion, or just plain nihilism (all of which fit with atheism as an advancement from the concept of absolute morality). They regard moral progress as superficial where it could be argued, and ultimately delusory, morality itself being a falsehood, and yet you would say they exist in a state of spiritual death? How can you make that assertion? What basis?
Many people have a spiritual side, how it manifests itself differs per person. Some may believe in a God(s), others may worship nature, some may fulfill it in humanistic works... some may have a side devoted to themselves and others, but none of them have died a spiritual death.
You have this very black and white view of "moral progress" that seems to me quite naive... you would think we have moved forward, evolved in our sensibilities, since the days of our club-bearing ancestors no?
quote:
Satanism is below that, being a dangerous code of intellectualized antisocial behavior in addition to a puerile adolescent rebellion.
|
Well you've obviously paid no attention whatsoever to any of the arguments present; quite simply stating your conclusions will not make them so, you have to show how you have come to them. A dangerous code of intellectualised antisocial behaviour? Then you would think that "intellectual satanists" (to distinguish from the genuine sociopaths who worship Satan in the Christian sense which is completely different to how Satan is otherwise represented), are also antisocial, puerile adolescent rebels?
quote:
The purpose of religion, so far as I am concerned, is morality. Understanding and codifying natural law and the urge to altruism.
|
You say so far as you are concerned, then you must accept that religion or philosophy means different things to different people. For some it is to come to terms with their mortality, to try to understand where they come from either culturally or historically. Some view it as a social grouping to some altruistic end, others may engage in it for a personal source of wisdom. Crucially, for some it is therapy... philosophy or religion to understand their own existence or pain, and that can lead them in the direction of any theism, or atheism (as in my case) and who the hell are you to say which path is superior?
quote:
Ditto for philosophies which talk about what's "good" or "bad" without stopping to tell us why we should care to be either to begin with.
|
So, nevermind whether or not it is sound, if you don't like the conclusion you can consider it worthless? That's a particularly vile form of intellectual dishonesty .
quote:
Without a God, there is no moral truth, and the chief value of truth in any case is that it is conducive to a happier or more productive life.
|
Firstly, morality is false but that statement need not mean there is no path to a happier or more productive life. Secondly I think Kant would have something to say about no atheistic moral truth. I happen to disagree with Kant, but he successful shows that you can have logically valid morality with no god.
quote:
Truth for its own sake is just a stingy God who can't even offer heaven as a compensation, only the smug satisfaction that you are right.
|
Again with the intellectual cowardice; are would consider any philosophy "wrong" unless it served your own purposes, nevermind if it happened to refute the reasoning to that purpose  . Wishful thinking
quote:
That sort of idea-"I'm right, factually, and that vindicates my sufferings"-almost presupposes a sort of God in the form of posterity, assuming that history will remember your sacrifice (which is hardly a given) and that the legacy will be beneficial to you somehow (which is nonsensical, you'll be dead at the time and there's no reason to believe the dead eat accolades in the afterlife). If you wish to establish a religion where good is measured by the number of groupies one attains, that's your business, but it's not "reason."
|
Some people want to be remembered, yes it is true. Remembered as the person who "killed God"... well let's work with that for a second.
Does that mean that in their desire to be remembered they presuppose an afterlife? Other than in the memories of those they have touched, no.
Does it presuppose a kind of "God" continuum in which they and their work will continue? No.
Does it require god to act in order to be remembered positively when you die? No, only love.
Does love require god? No.
Odin 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
The purpose of religion, so far as I am concerned, is morality. Understanding and codifying natural law and the urge to altruism. Ergo amoral religions, or religions which posit ineffectual morals, are worthless. Ditto for philosophies which talk about what's "good" or "bad" without stopping to tell us why we should care to be either to begin with. Without a God, there is no moral truth, and the chief value of truth in any case is that it is conducive to a happier or more productive life. Truth for its own sake is just a stingy God who can't even offer heaven as a compensation, only the smug satisfaction that you are right. That sort of idea-"I'm right, factually, and that vindicates my sufferings"-almost presupposes a sort of God in the form of posterity, assuming that history will remember your sacrifice (which is hardly a given) and that the legacy will be beneficial to you somehow (which is nonsensical, you'll be dead at the time and there's no reason to believe the dead eat accolades in the afterlife). If you wish to establish a religion where good is measured by the number of groupies one attains, that's your business, but it's not "reason." |
The prurpose of religion was primarily to explain the unexplainable (lightning hitting a tree etc), later natural catastropes like flodings and more recently controlling people. In that way you are right in claiming that it is about morality, but it is nonetheless under control of thecurrent regime and what is current acceptable.
Religion can in no way define what kind of morality is acceptable - if it should be so, slavery would still be allowed.
I agree that several kinds of religion partly gives inspriration to general moral and ethic behaviour, but to claim that religion is the only source is redicously. Religion may have made people like the europeans more curious and thereby explore the world, but did they do it to spread peace ? No way, it was convert or die. Nice religion.
I strongly disagree that without a god, then there is no moral. I guess that you thereby also claim no ethics. That isn't true unless you have total anarchy. Todays society may be build upon old religious beliefs, but would it have been that much different if it was based upon other religions ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
Well I guess the issue is, do you believe there can be such things as subjective truths? |
If we assume that there is an objective reality, and our sensory input closely approximate our surroundings, the answer is no. "Subjective truths" are just personal interpretations of external events.
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
If I saw, for example, a dragon, or Krishna, or whatever, why should I take the word of a scientific/professional consensus, which is shifting and fluid and is built up in the end of other individuals sense impressions, that it was a hallucination? |
That depends on whether you want to find out the facts or use a singular event to support your religious or superstitious views.
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
I've never seen a convincing arguement why a groups observations are better than any one individual at a basic level. |
I think the term you are looking for here is "repeated observations." After all, you can draw an infinite number of lines through a single point.
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
People should only deal with, use, and interact with ideas from the empirical arena, but that doesn't me that in the personal, subjective, non-communicable sphere that you have to tell yourself "I am hallucinating. There is no X". |
The difference is whether you want to verify there really is X or you are satisfied with convincing your own self.
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
Thus we can say, for example, 'the literal God of the Bible is bunk', because the bible makes many empirical claims that are demonstrably false...but we CANNOT say to the believer who claims to 'feel God in his heart' (or equivalent statement) that he is wrong, incorrect, because we cannot enter his subjective experience of reality. |
If you were to make a statement that is only true for yourself, what is the point? When somebody tells you that he feels a god, it is highly unlikely that he is relying a subjective experience to you. Rather, he is trying to convince you there is a god in the objective reality by conveying his story. This is called "Argument from Religious Experience."
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
So that, in a nutshell, is why all religious debate is ultimately futile. |
Not so, as the purpose of religious debate is to establish whether there is objectively a deity. Thus, subjective experience is useless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
I also don't believe religion needs to be. Unlike science, religion doesn't have the requirement to be proven. |
So, why did we get all these Ontological Argument, Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, etc., etc. from a whole host of Church thinkers such as St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas?
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
If you don't like those rules then don't play, but don't pretend you inablility to prove or disprove religion should shake someones faith. |
Ooo, that sounds bitter. Did we strike a nerve?
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
I don't expect my faith to dislodge someones blind allegiance to their scientist clergy. |
It appears that you don't understand science, afterall.
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
I am pretty sure all of the do, except for the current ones in the process of being proven wrong. |
First thing first. As it has been pointed out repeatedly before, you don't prove anything in science, either right or wrong. That's just logic and maths.
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
Care to mention a theory that has not been discarded or modified since inception, or is not subject to the same in the future. |
The greatest strength of modern science is it is self-correcting. So your statement is either meaningless, fallacious, or both.
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
They are after all only theories. Or do you have faith that the ones you believe are infallible? |
I don't recall science has ever made the proclamation that any of the theories are infallible. This can't be said about religions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Proof *is* a guarantee that a theory is correct. Experiments provide evidence, but not proof. To prove something is to show that it must be true. That is what proof is, and what distinguishes it from something that is supported, but not necessarily completely correct.
|
Not quite, you're looking at something that corresponds with a model, using empirical observation to induce the accuracy of that model.
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Look at it this way, falsification is about throwing evidence at something and seeing if it stands up, and if it doesn't, adapting it. Now, the fact that millions of people still believe something after 2000 years, and a lot of evidence, has been thrown at something, means you can't discount it completely. |
You cannot use the general acceptance of something to argue that it is true... you might have said the same about anti-semitism in the early 20th Century whereas we both know that the reasons for the longevity of that, and the concept of God, is more to do with sociology and the exploitation of peoples' fears. The bible provides a pre-fab religion complete with morality and a selection of churches which naturally gives it a false sense of gravitas.
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
No, nothing is provable by science. It can just be shown to be increasingly unlikely to be false, as it stands up to more evidence. |
Not quite. (Ignore relativity here, you can use it in place later but I want to avoid complexity for the minute) If I drop a coin at just under 10 metres above the earth, it will take one second to hit the earth. Now there is a very slight chance that the coin will bounce off at or above escape velocity and leave the Earth's gravitational influence but that is an infinitesimally small possibility. The reason is causal.
All you are doing with Newtonian mechanics or any scientific theory is modelling the causal influence over given phenomena; in other words mapping the premises for an event such that if you do it perfectly you can model it perfectly. That can't happen because you'd need to be aware of every particle in the universe, it's position and velocity. That's ruled out by uncertainty principle and common sense. However it still remains in the remit of scientific method to account for more and more influences to determine exactly what will happen, say in my example, the wind, air pressure, local grav. acceleration etc. There is a probability then that the coin won't behave exactly like Newtonian mechanics predicts it should, which accounts for gravitational acceleration and height in this case because there are other premises it leaves out. This does not render scientific method a matter of probability, it merely describes the series of assumptions that underlie each experiment.
A scientific proof, it is true as previously discussed, is not absolute and infallible; a valid theory (i.e. sound logic and valid assumptions, which is what distinguishs the model from pure logic) falls to the same issues of perception and subjectivity that you or I have when accepting the existence of the outside physical world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
Yawn. Ethics is a rationalization of what is properly called morality. People want to believe in right and wrong, but without a God, or some form of cosmic truth beyond the empirically known, there's no sensible reason for it. So they invent one that begs the question anyway. Why do you care whether people remember you when you die? You'll be dead. Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling that humanity, in theory, will think of your rotting corpse as a just such-and-such? The preservation of society? Eh. Again, you'll be dead. Posterity and the like are false gods with promises proven to be empty. Nor is "serving your conscience" a logical justification for morality; aside from raising the question of why we should choose to obey it without answering that question, the conscience is quite frequently drugged by the rest of the mind to give bunk advice in accord with self-interest.
Assuming other people have feelings, thoughts, recliner chairs, etc., why should the Satanist respect that, aside from fear of retaliation? There's no morality at the heart of his philosophy. He acts in his own interests, and the general trend of arguments within Satanism is to ignore others until they hurt you, then to destroy them to teach them a lesson. It's one of those stupid eleven truths or whatever. And if you discard what LaVey cooked up, or stole and clumsily incorporated, there's nothing left of the "philosophy" but generalized egotism. That's not to mention that society depends on a certain amount of altruism, of "love thy neighbor," which Satanism unequivocally rejects. I do consider LaVey a form of rebellion, I'm ignoring the teenage garbage entirely here.
If a philosophy does not explain why we should be moral before it says what is or is not moral, it is by definition NOT sound. There's no intelligent reason to listen to it at all if it has no purpose. It is built on empty air. My rejection has nothing to do with whether I like the conclusion.
I am aware that religion means different things to different people. I am merely stating my opinion that all those different things are complicated or tangled versions of moral growth, pointing to the same thing in the long run. I don't believe humanity has progressed at all from a moral perspective. Moral improvement is achieved on a personal basis, not applied to society as a mass.
UR: I don't believe I'd commit any "atrocity"; the chance of vengeance is too great. Sin is more than just outward behavior.
BC: The majority of early abolitionists were preachers, genius. Theology is a complex system of reasoning, not just doing what the book says. Get a clue.
Sorry for the tangled response, I probably missed a lot. I have to go to breakfast now.
EDIT for clarity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
Okay, I'll treat that as BC's argument, given that he supports it. I'm not talking about societal norms, I'm talking about morality. Morality is inward reflection just as much as it is outward behavior. Jealousy, envy, pride, lust, vindictiveness, all grow within the individual until they overwhelm those societal norms and wreak havoc. It is "sensible" in a sense to suppress those emotions to that end, but nobody I know of behaves for the express purpose of continuing human society. I disagree with a lot of what B.F. Skinner said, but I acknowledge that people act to gain pleasure and avoid pain. Morals involve a great deal of the opposite.
Gotta go, class. I'll pick this up later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Jealousy, envy, pride, lust, vindictiveness, all grow within the individual until they overwhelm those societal norms and wreak havoc. It is "sensible" in a sense to suppress those emotions to that end, but nobody I know of behaves for the express purpose of continuing human society.
|
Presumably, this is why people codified what were felt to be generally acceptable modes of behaviour into laws, governing what was and was not permissible.
I suppose Hammurabi just sat down and thought,
'Hey! I have five minutes to spare, and I know how to annoy all the would be rapists, thieves, and burglars in society...'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Yawn. Ethics is a rationalization of what is properly called morality. People want to believe in right and wrong, but without a God, or some form of cosmic truth beyond the empirically known, there's no sensible reason for it.
|
Well again you're completely ignoring Kant here, who only takes as his assumption that other people exist. As MB says as well, there is morality as an end in itself, and morality as a means to an end (if one is to accept noumenal morality itself), what makes the latter less valid by the conclusion that you find distasteful?
quote:
Why do you care whether people remember you when you die? You'll be dead. Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling that humanity, in theory, will think of your rotting corpse as a just such-and-such? The preservation of society? Eh. Again, you'll be dead. Posterity and the like are false gods with promises proven to be empty. Nor is "serving your conscience" a logical justification for morality; aside from raising the question of why we should choose to obey it without answering that question, the conscience is quite frequently drugged by the rest of the mind to give bunk advice in accord with self-interest.
|
You've ignored what I said previously in that the atheist is not motivated by mere logic in your presupposed absense of a spiritual side which I again dealt with above. Love and emotion are as human as anything and in terms of our motivation, for both morality or some kind of posthumous posturing. The absense of God does not mean the absense of a spiritual side, the absense of love, or the absense of emotion.
Posterity however is not a false God if you accept, shall we say, the love and benefit of those left behind after you die, or perhaps some love for humanity; at least no more so than anything we love can take on some kind of "faith" aspect. How does this invoke theism? It looks to me more that you are using a word that is inappropriate here to support your argument with wordplay.
quote:
And if you discard what LaVey cooked up, or stole and clumsily incorporated, there's nothing left of the "philosophy" but generalized egotism.
|
Trimming the fat, as I am attempting to do, results in a descriptive materialist concept that could be called existentialist by some, called nihilist by others, but is essentially the same thing. It is not mere egoism because it stresses rationality over faith as being positive. Having said that, it is a descriptive philosophy, it is not a prescriptive religion so it is not fair to compare it in that respect to one like Christianity which has elements designed for social control and cohesion... the more transcendent philosophies are aimed at the individual, i.e. therapy.
quote:
I do consider LaVey a form of rebellion, I'm ignoring the teenage garbage entirely here.
|
Then you must also reject Taoism, some sects of Tibetan Buddhism and also say that atheism and agnosticism itself are all forms of "rebellion".
quote:
If a philosophy does not explain why we should be moral before it says what is or is not moral, it is by definition NOT sound. There's no intelligent reason to listen to it at all if it has no purpose. It is built on empty air. My rejection has nothing to do with whether I like the conclusion.
|
Well morality is by definition prescriptive, something one should follow. In that sense, a single moral system cannot, by it's absolute nature, allow for any others. Certainly it's compatible with theism, it's also compatible with atheism, as is moral relativism/nihilism, but to establish a morality it is given that it should be followed, the reasons why are provided internally... consider virtue ethics as the best example of that.
quote:
I am aware that religion means different things to different people. I am merely stating my opinion that all those different things are complicated or tangled versions of moral growth, pointing to the same thing in the long run. I don't believe humanity has progressed at all from a moral perspective. Moral improvement is achieved on a personal basis, not applied to society as a mass.
|
Well then you must accept that either transcendent moralities or moral nihilism (allowing for subjectivism) is not "based on air", because one may achieve progress on a personal level. If you think in absolute terms you cannot also purport a subjectivist approach, so you would effectively define moral growth by your own absolute terms.
quote:
BC: The majority of early abolitionists were preachers, genius. Theology is a complex system of reasoning, not just doing what the book says. Get a clue.
|
But the theism is the premise for all of it which colours the rest of the arguments, and if I may say so, yours; by introducing terms such as moral progress is inherently religious, unless you concur with Kant which I doubt, seeing as you have ignored his introduction into this argument.
quote:
I should probably take this opportunity to remind Molly that he's on my ignore list, if by any chance that recent barrage was addressed to me. I won't elaborate on the reasons to avoid degenerating into flames, but I hope he bears in mind that none of his arguments are reaching me.
|
Forgive me if I am prying into areas that are none of my concern, but if he's on your block list for anything other than personal reasons, isn't that slightly immature?
quote:
Okay, I'll treat that as BC's argument, given that he supports it. I'm not talking about societal norms, I'm talking about morality. Morality is inward reflection just as much as it is outward behavior. Jealousy, envy, pride, lust, vindictiveness, all grow within the individual until they overwhelm those societal norms and wreak havoc. It is "sensible" in a sense to suppress those emotions to that end, but nobody I know of behaves for the express purpose of continuing human society. I disagree with a lot of what B.F. Skinner said, but I acknowledge that people act to gain pleasure and avoid pain. Morals involve a great deal of the opposite. |
That's quite an oppositional approach is it not? If one rejects absolute good and evil, then the "good stuff" and the "bad stuff" inside us ceases to conflict and we are able to advance our understanding of ourselves beyond a theological battleground.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
GC: No, I believe atheists "have morals," I just think those morals are justified by very awkward rationalizations cooked up to avoid the unpalatable idea of being taken in by some religion. They can feel on some level that there is an ultimate good, but they have associated belief in anything supersensory with ridiculousness, so they concoct something truly ridiculous instead and call it their reason. Have one's cake and eat it too, as they say.
Whaleboy: I've not read much Kant, and my books aren't available since I'm at college. I'll see if I can dig up some wikipedia on it and get back to you, but you also imply that Nietzsche is worth reading so I'm inclined to treat what you say with a bit of suspicion. Then there was this other bit you linked to in another argument, not Kant, which you said provided an example of non-theistic morals but which ultimately failed the test I have named. With no personal offense meant, I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for digging through pages and pages of philosophy-speak (it resembles algebraic notation to me, I seem to remember Kant being particularly fond of it, and I hate deciphering it) to find out I was misled. Based on the assumption that "other people exist," there appears to be no reason to be moral right there. I smell another glossover buried under vocabulary.
Morality as a means to an end is faulty. I have never heard an end that would be the entire reason for everything moral. Acting for the cohesion of society, for example, tends to ignore the misfortune or sorrow of individuals in favor of not disturbing the herd. Compromises between the individual and the group, as in utilitarianism, are impossible unless you know all circumstances and all possible consequences, which is never the case in real life. You never know who is really hurt or affected the most by things, only your own feelings and impressions, which are all you have to act on.
On that note, I dismiss acting according to emotion because emotion is by convention the absolute enemy of reason. It undermines and sabotages reason on a regular basis. Furthermore, "acting on emotion" is humanity's most primitive state, the way we would behave with no inhibitions, which is most certainly not morality. Aside from what I judge to be paranoia about conspiracies of domination (would you dismiss capitalism because lots of businesses violate antitrust laws?), it makes more sense with any body of knowledge to obtain a group consensus. Moral decisions must be made on the spot by the individual, but morals/ethics are at least partly interpersonal in nature depending on one's school of thought, so a "personal set of ethics" is not very valuable to me.
I can appreciate that I am limited by my perspective, but so is anyone. And I have chosen my perspective from all the alternatives, or so I think, though I was raised in it so who knows. My senses revolt against atheism. I cannot express why concisely, or politely as you have seen, but there is something inexpressibly wrong with the whole worldview, and it's always on the tip of my tongue. At any rate, there is no reason to suppose that you are not similarly "blinded" by the beliefs you have chosen, or were brought up in. I am trying to express myself in terms of my inclinations of judgment more than my beliefs, if that makes any sense.
Satanism endorses rationality over faith largely in the name of egotism. They support rationality just because it lets them do what they please. The rebellion is obvious, just look at the name; they have deliberately chosen a symbol that is in opposition to the norm. No, they don't "worship the devil," but their symbol is of defiance, not positive in nature. I have studied Taoism briefly, and it posits a certain overwhelming design or purpose in the totality of nature. The Te is indeed "strength," not virtue, but there is ostensible harmony outside one's own ends in the form of the Tao. It seemed to me nothing like Satanism's absolute justification of the individual. I do not view agnosticism as rebellion, only atheism can be so in a very minor sense (I think of atheism in the sense of "hard" agnosticism, positively stating that there is no God as opposed to expressing lack of knowledge, which is the literal meaning of agnostic), within the bounds of our society where theism or deism is the norm.
Incidentally, have you ever read any Orthodox theology? I know this is a tangent, but time and time again I've come to realize that we are extremely different from what most people think of when they hear the word Christianity. During my eastern religions class last semester, I was struck by the similarity of many of the tenets of buddhism, hinduism, taoism et al to my own faith. I handed Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Way to my teacher, who is something of an ecumenist, and she agreed that there was a striking similarity in approach and feel. And I get the sense that you are arguing against something that I don't believe in. Briefly, the original Greek word we translate sin means literally "missing the mark." We think of the Fall as the clouding of the portion of our souls, the nous, which enables us to perceive God. We think of Grace as the uncreated energies of God, not a deliberate intention of thought. This all is not apparent on casual observation, but it is at the heart of our theology. We are far more "transcendent" than you think, or so it seems.
As to Molly, I'm not sure what would NOT be a personal reason for putting someone on one's ignore list, but I put him there simply because my temper is not sufficient to bear his uniquely aggressive rhetorical style. I can't argue with Molly except by flipping him the bird, all he ever seems to do is attack with the same sarcastic talk about invisible unicorns on the moon that I hear from all atheists, all the time. That, and lots of obscure historical references I can't appreciate, and appeals to the dictionary definitions of words which trip me up without clarifying the discussion in any way. I can respect MB's tremendous education and evident intelligence, but no good has ever come from my conversations with him. So I leave him be until one or both of our natures has changed enough to allow reasonable discussion, though how I will know when that day arrives is beyond me. Call that childish if you want, I think it's better than an eternal Agathon-and-Asher style sniping match.
I'm not sure how to reply to your final point. To acknowledge evil as anything less than an enemy would appear to be an abandonment of morality altogether. To talk about the light and dark sides of human nature in a balance is simply to redefine good and evil as "balanced" and "unbalanced." Plus, in my experience it encourages moral/ethical laxity by discouraging direct accountability, but that's another story. What do you suggest as an alternative?
EDIT: I read the relevant sections of Wikipedia's entry on Kant. It seems to be a lot of words to say fairly little to me, but no matter. Why does Kant say we should be moral? Why should we universalize? I'm not you, why should I care what you feel? His answer, from what I could discern, was morality as a God. Morals are a "categorical imperative," and sufficient reason in themselves, determined by following these rules. Which is to say (my reading) that ours is not to question Morality, but to obey. Have I read wrong?
Last edited by Elok on 16-03-2005 at 03:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Okay, I'll treat that as BC's argument, given that he supports it. I'm not talking about societal norms, I'm talking about morality. Morality is inward reflection just as much as it is outward behavior. Jealousy, envy, pride, lust, vindictiveness, all grow within the individual until they overwhelm those societal norms and wreak havoc. It is "sensible" in a sense to suppress those emotions to that end, but nobody I know of behaves for the express purpose of continuing human society. I disagree with a lot of what B.F. Skinner said, but I acknowledge that people act to gain pleasure and avoid pain. Morals involve a great deal of the opposite.
Gotta go, class. I'll pick this up later. |
Of course I support it, otherwise I wouldn't have given it a .
Your statement that it isn't possible to have inward reflections without a god is just rediculous. Those "sins" you mention has nothing to do with wether you belive in a divinity or not. Lots of religious people can't "control" them and lots of nonreligious people has no problem to do that - I'm one. Your problem is that you define morality as the one defined by your religion, and that is wrong - it's just one, and not one of the best. Moral does not in anyway imply that you have to reduce pleasure and highten pain - moral and ethic is a question about how you live your life and interact with other people, and there are no fixed definition - it changes constantly.
Talking about religion - I asked you to define what a "real religion" is - still miss the answer.
Ignore lists. Well, I have one or two times thought about setting some on the list, but they quickly became Mingced meat, so I haven't bothered (guess thats why we have mods). I think that it is pretty stupid to ignore someone just because they don't agree with me or has a harsh way to express it. If they are too lame, I just don't write counterposts. Anyway, I guess that I'm a candidate for your list since I also has used the unicorn argument - it's hard to avoid when someone claims that something written in a book is to be taken as truth.
Just a reminder : what is a "real religion" ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
I object to pulling out the stupid unicorn rant in response to everything, all the time. Moderate use is obnoxious and bad debate technique, but I won't ignore you for it unless you go out of your way to irritate me. MB is alone on my ignore list, I just can't get along with him. Now do drop it, as it's really none of your business.
I wasn't implying that you need religion to reflect per se, I meant that outward "morality," the reason for most of the stuff you quoted from Molly, is not the true nature of morals. That's more a matter of obedience to law, and very few "real religions," to use the phrase you love so much, are entirely concerned with legalistic obedience.
A "real religion" by my standards is one with a well-thought-out and internally consistent ideology of morals, regardless of whether I approve of the specifics of them. Paganism is exempted for offering basically no moral guidance beyond "do no harm." Wow, that's helpful. Must improve your life to no end to tell yourself, Do No Harm. The fanatical branches of true religions, like wahhabism or the evangelicals, are inconsistent in their application of beliefs, and appear to be the result of unsettled or unhappy time periods. They'll eventually die out, and be replaced by a different set of lunacies the next time a crisis occurs. Satanism is amoral, cults are, well, cults, and atheism obviously is not strictly speaking a religion. Simple enough, or so I think.
While I admit it is possible to reflect on your own morals without a god (maybe you do, I don't know you), I must say it seems unlikely. Without a creed forcing them to inspect themselves, people tend to act without care, which is to say not entirely good or bad most of the time. For me at least, religious belief is at least nine-tenths spiritual discipline. It's a very active process if you really put your heart into it (I admit I often fail to), much more than just stopping periodically to wonder if you're acting like an ass. Ideally, I am supposed to smother evil thoughts such as jealousy or self-congratulation the moment they happen. And that's the most superficial aspect. In every religion I've bothered to investigate, including my own, the ultimate goal is an altered state of consciousness of some sort. It's extremely hard to keep doing, which is why I'm very much inclined to doubt that you can do it without deliberate concentration and a creed that explains it. And you need faith for both. Look up some deeper theology than the 700 Club, or wherever it is you got your idea of my beliefs.
I don't know if you "need" religion to be moral/ethical, but "The Ladder of Divine Ascent" contains a lot more practical and useful advice than, say, what I just read of the writings of Kant in Wikipedia. Or Rousseau, or Mill. They're nothing but outward show. External behavior is bound to reflect inward being. Satanism is concerned with inward being, but in a very bad way. It preaches self-aggrandization, thinking entirely of your own gain, which very strongly discourages honest reflection. I do that sometimes, but at least I know I shouldn't, for crying out loud...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-03-2005 06:22
Don't take my vitriol too seriously, I'll try to tone it down.
|