Religion, reality, and morality.

[Dark Jaguar]

I'm making this thread as a response to some of the ideas presented in the "The problem with atheists" thread. I'll quote what I said there.

One thing I've found is that very often religious sorts think of the laws of physics as "moral inspiration". When I was a religious type, they used to drag in thermodynamics as reasons for this or that sort of moral behavior. I mean, they used the idea of things in any state of motion tending to stay in that state as some lesson about laziness! They used a thermos and it's ability to keep hot and cold things hot and cold as some lesson about, something or other (I forget). They used the fact that dark is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat to say something like "evil is simply the absence of good". So, of course they would assume that EVERYONE thinks in the same terms. All physics does is outline what moral stances are POSSIBLE to maintain, not WHETHER they should be held. I stopped using physics to justify moral stances a long time ago, but apparently these people can't imagine separating the two. So yes, to them, it would be the logical extension that IF evolution is true, one MUST base their morality around that. I don't see why that's needed. Why not just fly in the face of evolution in your moral stances even if you accept it happened? I know I do.

As has been pointed out many times, evolution is not a statement about how we should behave. At best, it's a statement on WHY we behave the way we do on average. It's neither good nor evil, it just is an observation about reality. There's no worry about offending the holy evolution god if you decide that certain aspects are essentially evolutionary mistakes (misfirings, as Dawkins puts it) and that further, they can and probably should be corrected by interfering with the process. Evolution is not some "replacement dogma", which is probably another place where this misconception stems. It's just an observation. There's no sin in going "against" it by saying "I can do better" and then putting the optic nerve connection on the back of the retina.

I thought this should have its own thread as it's sort of its own topic. Any thoughts on this odd need to gather one's morality from the nature of reality around them, and in such (frankly) ridiculous ways as the poor analogies of laws of motion and laziness? I think part of it may stem from the need to get morality from "something greater than us" so it doesn't seem so arbitrary. Though, in this case it still seems pretty arbitrary to me. Further, as I've often wondered before, what makes the fact that a god handed down morals make those morals "right"?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Further, as I've often wondered before, what makes the fact that a god handed down morals make those morals "right"?

Because the creator and/or maintainer of something gets to set the rules. Why is it wrong to move one's rook diagonally? Why is it wrong to kick the puck into the net? Why can't we say "fk" around here?

 

[Phil]

The morals god handed down were not right when they were "handed down" and they're not right now.

God's way too extreme, man. He's over the top. He's like Paulie Shore. He got a laugh once, but wound up paying cops to punch him to relive the magic.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The morals god handed down were not right when they were "handed down" and they're not right now.

God's way too extreme, man. He's over the top. He's like Paulie Shore. He got a laugh once, but wound up paying cops to punch him to relive the magic.

Just to play tag for a moment, I am curious what is "not right" with "love thy neighbor as thyself."

Or is it all of the extras that you're not to keen on?

I'd suggest that "go forth, be fruitful, and multiply" was not an admonition to get with the math, but rather a suggestion to "get busy." Then again, Bill Cosby remarks that this directive was a curse, not a blessing . . .

DR

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Creator gets to set the rules eh? If we had a CHOICE in the matter that would be one thing, but we're essentially enslaved from birth according to Christian dogma. That's not tolerable in today's society. If a child is being abused, we tend to remove the child from the custody of that parent (ideally). Still, what of the other things I bring up there?

 

[Tricky]

Just to play tag for a moment, I am curious what is "not right" with "love thy neighbor as thyself."

Their tastes may differ. How about just "respect thy neighbor". And even then, it depends on if thy neighbor is a slimy philistine who keeps boiling goats in their own milk or something. That's hard to love, man.

Or is it all of the extras that you're not to keen on?

The devil is in the details.

I'd suggest that "go forth, be fruitful, and multiply" was not an admonition to get with the math, but rather a suggestion to "get busy." Then again, Bill Cosby remarks that this directive was a curse, not a blessing . . .

And as the old joke goes, two snakes were left in the bottom of the ark crying. "Didn't I tell you to go forth and multiply?" said Moses. "We can't," they sobbed, "We're adders."

 

[Kopji]

I'm making this thread as a response to some of the ideas presented in the "The problem with atheists" thread. I'll quote what I said there.

I thought this should have its own thread as it's sort of its own topic. Any thoughts on this odd need to gather one's morality from the nature of reality around them, and in such (frankly) ridiculous ways as the poor analogies of laws of motion and laziness? I think part of it may stem from the need to get morality from "something greater than us" so it doesn't seem so arbitrary. Though, in this case it still seems pretty arbitrary to me. Further, as I've often wondered before, what makes the fact that a god handed down morals make those morals "right"?

I don't disagree with anything there.

I would think though, that we evolved socially and physically - can we ever divorce the two? We are the way we are, diversity and all, because of still little understood evolutionary pressures that influence our survival on more than an individual level.

Although 'morality' is ultimately subjective, it makes sense as a set of shared values - similar to the way an island's ecology is to the things living in it. We hold similar values because the systems we live in have evolved to survive that way. Is that a wrong way to think about it?

 

[Kopji]

The deeper question of 'the golden rule', is: 'what is it that I should rightly want for my neighbor?'

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Creator gets to set the rules eh? If we had a CHOICE in the matter that would be one thing, but we're essentially enslaved from birth according to Christian dogma. That's not tolerable in today's society. If a child is being abused, we tend to remove the child from the custody of that parent (ideally).

Right, because the family exists as a subset of a larger organisation of whose rules the parents find themselves in violation. Taking the God premise, there is no higher authority. He is the end of the line. The buck stops there. It may suck big hairy gopher balls, but that's how it works.

Still, what of the other things I bring up there?

Meh. It's Christian silliness, sure, but it makes sense given the premises they've already accepted: that there is a God who created the world for human beings and all of creation reflects his purposes.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I don't disagree with anything there.

I would think though, that we evolved socially and physically - can we ever divorce the two? We are the way we are, diversity and all, because of still little understood evolutionary pressures that influence our survival on more than an individual level.

Although 'morality' is ultimately subjective, it makes sense as a set of shared values - similar to the way an island's ecology is to the things living in it. We hold similar values because the systems we live in have evolved to survive that way. Is that a wrong way to think about it?

Nothing wrong with seeing it that way at all. The problem comes from those who interpret that to mean we "evil evolutionists" must believe that this justifies this or that.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

The deeper question of 'the golden rule', is: 'what is it that I should rightly want for my neighbor?'

I've heard the golden rule and there are many cases where it applies just fine, but if you are a psychopath who doesn't care about personal consequences and thinks it's just fine for both you to kill others and others to kill you, then it fails.

The platinum rule, treat others as they would have you treat them, works pretty well too. It also has problems though, in terms of what if they would have you worship them or coddle them or otherwise infringe on your rights? Then it too fails.

Personally I balance it between them in a manner of speaking but really I just try not to hurt people. An all purpose "rule" really just doesn't seem to work with morality.

 

[CapelDodger]

The deeper question of 'the golden rule', is: 'what is it that I should rightly want for my neighbor?'

The next question is "How much I should let that impinge on what I get for myself?". None of us are perfect. Of course, "neighbour" is a far more artificial concept than "family". As is "individual". Is there a "golden rule" that applies equally to a "neighbour" as to a relative?

 

[Meadmaker]

Their tastes may differ. How about just "respect thy neighbor". And even then, it depends on if thy neighbor is a slimy philistine who keeps boiling goats in their own milk or something. That's hard to love, man.

 

[Merko]

I don't like those golden rules because these are completely impossible standards. No one ever got close to living up to it. And doing so would be sick, in my opinion. Everybody would be constantly suffering, just so they could be improving the lives of some other suffering people. What would be the point?

No, I think it is very good to help each others, and we do it far too little. But there is nothing wrong in putting ourselves first most of the time.

 

[Phil]

Just to play tag for a moment, I am curious what is "not right" with "love thy neighbor as thyself."

Or is it all of the extras that you're not to keen on?

I'd suggest that "go forth, be fruitful, and multiply" was not an admonition to get with the math, but rather a suggestion to "get busy." Then again, Bill Cosby remarks that this directive was a curse, not a blessing . . .

DR

Nothing is wrong with it. It's just that some morals supposedly handed down by god, like 'love thy neighbor', are in stark contrast to others, like discovering your wife is not a virgin on your wedding day and stoning her to death.

 

[Tricky]

I live for that.

 

[RandFan]

I guess there are different views of the golden rule. To me it is not about specifics. I like rum and coke so I'll buy all my neighbors a round of rum and coke. That's not the golden rule. I would like to be treated fairly and I would like others to consider my feelings and my wants and desires.

I don't know too many people who don't want those things.

 

[Meri]

Any thoughts on this odd need to gather one's morality from the nature of reality around them, and in such (frankly) ridiculous ways as the poor analogies of laws of motion and laziness?

Not sure if this is exactly the kind of thing you're talking about, but in a religion class last semester we were reading Emerson, and the idea that nature obeys God's rules, such as the ten commandments, came up. I took the position that it was fairly obvious that nature doesn't obey any moral rules, but one girl in particular was very adamant that if we only knew more about god and nature, we would see god's rules in nature. As far as I could tell from the argument, she just couldn't conceive of the idea that the whole world doesn't follow the rules laid down by the creator.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Not sure if this is exactly the kind of thing you're talking about, but in a religion class last semester we were reading Emerson, and the idea that nature obeys God's rules, such as the ten commandments, came up. I took the position that it was fairly obvious that nature doesn't obey any moral rules, but one girl in particular was very adamant that if we only knew more about god and nature, we would see god's rules in nature. As far as I could tell from the argument, she just couldn't conceive of the idea that the whole world doesn't follow the rules laid down by the creator.

Actually that really has a lot to do with what I'm talking about. That's pretty interesting. I get the idea that it's this sort of things which leads them to logically extend that the "beliefs" of the evolutionists must be the same.

 

[Kopji]

I've heard the golden rule and there are many cases where it applies just fine, but if you are a psychopath who doesn't care about personal consequences and thinks it's just fine for both you to kill others and others to kill you, then it fails.

The platinum rule, treat others as they would have you treat them, works pretty well too. It also has problems though, in terms of what if they would have you worship them or coddle them or otherwise infringe on your rights? Then it too fails.

Personally I balance it between them in a manner of speaking but really I just try not to hurt people. An all purpose "rule" really just doesn't seem to work with morality.

Yes, I agree with that. This is one of those ideas I hold loosely though (maybe abstractly is a better word). It is good to ask these questions of ourselves, and also good to not expect that there are always 'rules'.

Beauty is an idea we judge by, defend, and act upon - but often defies definition. It has aspects that are objective and many that are not. It asks questions more like 'what do I stand for?'