Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 04:04pm PT
|
The reason why I come across as a know-it-all to some people is because I'm so smart.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 04:25pm PT
|
"I am often asked what will replace organized religion. The answer, I believe, is nothing and everything. Nothing need replace its ludicrous and divisive doctrines—such as the idea that Jesus will return to earth and hurl unbelievers into a lake of fire, or that death in defense of Islam is the highest good. These are terrifying and debasing fictions."
Sam Harris,
Waking Up, Chapter 1
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 05:00pm PT
|
The idea that the loss of religion will leave some kind of moral hole through which society will plummet is a bit dated, given that the U.S. is one of the last religious holdouts (and number 1 in fundamentalism) in the 1st world.
Scandinavia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, France, Holland - these failed states are half as religious as the U.S.
In contrast, the 3rd world is heavily religious for the most part.
Interesting correlation there.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 05:37pm PT
|
So .....
In your next life you'll reincarnate as a homo to understand it has nothing to do with your true self ......
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 06:07pm PT
|
I think I'm already a homo sapien.
You?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 07:18pm PT
|
You think.
Thus your guessing.
You're always guessing.
You don't even know what you really are ......
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 08:21pm PT
|
I could always be wrong about that.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 08:23pm PT
|
obviously a lot of what people once believed is demonstrably incorrect... which has no point but to say that since no proof or disproof of God or any such thing is possible, in the end one is going with a belief. These beliefs have a lot of support from various sources, and lately, given the recent fallibility of human witness, the claim of first person testimony is viewed more skeptically than it once was. To presume that such weighty matters as one's eternal disposition, or the rightful origin of an ethical system, rests on the word of so-and-so, well, perhaps, but it is, for me, a hard pill to swallow.
Now of course, we all swallow different pills, and those other pills may not be any easier to swallow.
But given that the status of the existence of God is reduced to a matter of personal belief, one could also decide that there is no God. And that would also be a belief, and one no more or less demonstrable.
Now if for God one substitutes some universal ethic system, a definition of "good" and "bad" we are at the same place, that is, a belief that cannot be proven or disproven.
That is, we can construct an argument that accepts both possibilities and in that construction make that resulting explanation completely consistent with what we know.
So given that, assuming there is no such universal ethical system, or equivalently (in the context of this discussion) no God, one is left to ponder what our ethical system is based on. And for that one can look at the evolution of behaviors as a part of our heritage, at least. Certainly what we take to be an ethical system isn't recognized in other similarly successful species.
Take ants for instance. We have rough parity in terms of total bio-mass, which is a measure of success, you have to take the many species of ants, there is only one current species of humans. And we share another attribute with ants, we are social. Our societal constructs are very different (at least we perceive them to be) but the advantages bestowed by social behavior are probably at least a part of the reason for the success.
Now one can ask, do we perceive any ethical system in ants?
Probably not that we would generally recognize.
Would that mean that "ethics" is a particular social construction of humans? probably, but perhaps it could be spread out among mammals to varying extent...
It is hard to generalize our own concepts of "ethics" much beyond human situations in this case. One could ask the question then, why would we assume that we could universally generalize those systems? Some observations of great ape behavior, and even of other mammals, seem to reveal behaviors that we could associate with ethical behavior... but there is no agreed upon way to establish the existence of a general "ethical system" extent without the presence of humans.
In the end we'd conclude that those ethical systems are totally human based and convey no "deeper" authority than the one or two million years of the existence of our species... (or even expand it to one or 2 hundred million years of mammals, it's a short, recent period compared with the history of life on this planet, and a tiny fraction of the age of the universe). However, that heredity may be all that is needed.
I know there is a desire for some definition of absolutes. But swallowing this pill doesn't get us there. But would it be a bad thing? If this is the correct pill, we humans have come up with a great way to develop a ethical system, attribute it's origin to an unprovable entity, and have large number of people believing.
It would seem not such a stretch that we can change the story and achieve the same results.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 08:32pm PT
|
in the end one is going with a belief.
No it isn't.
No sane person would bank on belief only.
There must be and there is Absolute proof.
The science for this is there just as the science for the material nature is there ......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 08:39pm PT
|
There must be and there is Absolute proof.
then what is it?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 08:41pm PT
|
That is your life's work to find that ......
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 09:01pm PT
|
Universal ethics is not observed across various human societies. Take Papua New Guinea's system of revenge killings, for example. When a person there commits a revenge killing, they feel no remorse - just the opposite; They feel good. Even within our own society, ethical norms in gang culture differ sharply from 'law abiding' society. Mormons, polygamists, the Amish, a combat unit in Afghanistan - the variety of ethical systems within American culture is nearly limitless. And we're only 5% of the world's population.
That one group claims ultimate ethical legitimacy is an unsupportable notion. It assumes some absolute basis, but, given all such bases are based on belief, and beliefs vary widely, there is no way to keep subjectivity out of it. Is the Koran less legitimate than the Bible? It was written more recently. There is no question at all about the well documented life of its main prophet - unlike Christ, who remains a mysterious figure by comparison. Objectively, were I to choose the more 'legitimate' faith, it would probably be Islam. Religious absolutism is not a winning strategy. With regards to deistic religions, the Hindus do a much better job of inclusiveness and flexibility. Hindus avoid the inherent pitfalls of "my way or the highway". Were i to require deistic religion in my life, Christianity wouldn't even get an interview, but Hinduism? I might look into that.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 09:58pm PT
|
It assumes some absolute basis, but, given all such bases are based on belief, and beliefs vary widely, there is no way to keep subjectivity out of it.
Seriously, and I mean this kindly. Really I do. But you are completely ignorant on this subject, so you would do far better to keep such babbling to yourself.
As you yourself said, in this forum sort of context, people will not tolerate lengthy posts. So, I'm not going to even try! All I will say is that you are "arguing" for subjectivism/relativism, but modern professional ethicists have abandoned subjectivism/relativism because it is simply a rationally unsustainable ethical perspective. Mackie was the last of the great subjectivists. Today, ethicists are objectivists.
You are spouting off what feels good to you, but you are doing it out of complete ignorance of the subject.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 10:15pm PT
|
Situational Ethics: God's Word Situational Ethics, though it may be well meaning, is wrong. It is best not to transgress God's Law under any circumstance, regardless of your motive. God knows best and instituted His Law for a purpose. He has not given permission to any man to transgress His Law. If you will suffer because of keeping His Law, rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for so the Prophets suffered before you, and great is your reward in Heaven. If you can save a loved one from suffering by breaking God's Law, do not. For you are taking away their opportunity to persevere and receive blessings from God. Furthermore, you are breaking God's Law, bringing His displeasure upon yourself. To break God's eternal Law for a temporal concern is to focus upon things of this world and to ignore eternity. - See more at: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/situational-ethics.htm#sthash.oTpkK6Hr.dpuf
Sure. Totally objective and not a matter of belief
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 10:31pm PT
|
if you consider relationships to be governed largely by economic factors (that is, the acquisition of the stuff necessary to sustain and reproduce life)
then all these ethics can be reduced to the considerations of game theory and the calculation of the various Nash Equilibrium... which could be codified into an "ethic system"
probably the best bet at an "objective" ethical system, where that system simply describes the outcome of those economic considerations.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 10:53pm PT
|
Christians that do immoral things, regardless of their perceptions, are wrong, just as is anybody else doing immoral things.
I agree that attempting to absolve oneself of bad behavior by claiming "God told me to do it" is outlandish.
However, don't single out "mainstream Christians" for special condemnation in that regard. PEOPLE find endless excuses and justifications for their bad behaviors... I'm sure yourself included.
Ah, but I don't claim that it is alright to violate Commandments, because God told me there was an exception (murdering Abortion doctors)
If I do some immoral thing, I cannot go into the confessional, and just have it wiped off the slate for eternity. I have to live with it.
You don't like the "God talks to me" idea, but that's only because you have already decided that there is not God that could do the talking. However, clearly it is NOT "nutty" to believe in God, as that would make virtually all of humankind through history "nutty," and the "nuttiness" would include many highly-educated people in all academic disciplines even today.
It's pretty ironic that you would sweepingly label huge swaths of human beings "nutty" on the mere basis that you disagree with what they themselves perceive! Talk about an us/them mentality!
You completely misread my comment about "nutty", and reversed my meaning. I am saying that mainstream Christians are NOT nutters.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 11:14pm PT
|
Ok, time for some facts and figures from an expert:
Robert Putnam, Harvard Professor, who has studied the issue of religion in America at great length. I've heard him in person, and some of his information is quite surprising:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM4WMjHQN44
This 7 minutes will open some eyes.....
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 08:31am PT
|
ignorant nazi babbler here.
i wouldn't spend my life with someone who believes homosexuality is a sin. why would i want to spend eternity with one? thats a gift i dont need.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!