Guff: Americans Drift From Organized Religion In Record Numbers

[PeterMP]

There is plenty of research on happiness that shows why we are justified in saying that good parts of the bible are actually good.

And yes, our world would be a better place if more people followed good parts of the bible.

 

You didn't think taking over the Crimea made Putin happy?

 

He did it to feel miserable?

 

I'll bet Putin feels pretty happy about out maneuvering the West and NATO from a geopolitcal perspective.  I think Putin likes winning alot, and he likes rubbing people's faces in it even more after he's won.

 

Or does the research on being happy doesn't apply to Putin and his desire for taking over the Crimea?

 

(The Bible isn't really about being happy in the modern context of doing what makes you happy.  The modern world is what you get when you apply those types of concepts.  The things I listed in my initial post aren't really related to individual happiness in many cases and some times are counter to it.)

[alexey]

...

Or does the research on being happy doesn't apply to Putin and his desire for taking over the Crimea?

(The Bible isn't really about being happy in the modern context of doing what makes you happy. The modern world is what you get when you apply those types of concepts. The things I listed in my initial post aren't really related to individual happiness in many cases and some times are counter to it.)

I think "individual happiness" is forcing too narrow of a view here.

How does a human mind work? How should we organize our political system? What kind of laws should we have? How should we regulate our commerce? How should we tax and how should we prioritize our investments in basic research, medical research, space exploration, infrastructure development? How should we organize our schools? What curriculum should we use? How can we improve the way our children learn? How can we ensure that adults can find fulfilling and well paying jobs?

This is but a tiny subset of questions that are relevant in the modern world.

[Renegade7]

When it seems like there's more time is spent arguing between the denominations about what they don't agree with versus practicing what they do agree with, people on the outside looking in have a tendency to just want to throw they hands up and try to do their own thing. I see a lot of tolerance and asking not to judge people in New Testemant, but that's not something I see very often practiced.

I'm literally in the process of trying to understand what it means to be a Christian as opposed to just saying I'm one. But it seems to be impossible to get a clear-cut, reasonable interpretation of the bible that matches the actions of any particular denomination (like last day vs first day Sabbath or believing some dead South Korean guy is the second coming of Christ).

What I cannot stand are different donomination trying to use faith against people when it comes to not agreeing with their interpretation of the bible. I don't know about anyone else, but it makes me feel like no matter what I do, someone has me going to hell anyway. I'm not interested in hearing how someone is hiding information from me because they are being influenced by the devil, which is why I cross-reference a lot of what I learn and feeling I understand with historical backing and universally accepted interpetations among the Biblical Scholars, other denominations, as well as family and friends.

I feel its worth it, but it's a lot of work. I can't expect people to have the time or patience for all that, because it feels a lot harder then it needs to be. That's just my opinion. I don't feel organized religion in general is wrong, but after 2000 years I'm fearful that they are just never going to ge it right.

[PeterMP]

I don't feel organized religion in general is wrong, but after 2000 years I'm fearful that they are just never going to ge it right.

 

Humans are not perfect.  There are always going to be people that try and manipulate the system for their own personal gain.

 

And that will affect every and any human organization or endeavor.

 

And that includes "organized" religion.

 

It is a fact of life.

 

Your choices though are realistically to withdraw from human society or to be a part of the process with the understanding being "we" are never going to get it right.

 

The best we do is continue to try.

[Destino]

You can't have a moral discussion and avoid the individual questions because they are inconvenient. How we "should" do anything starts there.

[PeterMP]

I think "individual happiness" is forcing too narrow of a view here.

How does a human mind work? How should we organize our political system? What kind of laws should we have? How should we regulate our commerce? How should we tax and how should we prioritize our investments in basic research, medical research, space exploration, infrastructure development? How should we organize our schools? What curriculum should we use? How can we improve the way our children learn? How can we ensure that adults can find fulfilling and well paying jobs?

This is but a tiny subset of questions that are relevant in the modern world.

 

1.  I'm not the one that brought up happiness.  You brought up research on happiness, which generally talks about individual happiness.

 

2.  I think the majority of those things were issues 2,000 years ago (obviously not the space exploration stuff, but much of it).

 

3.  Science isn't really going to address most of those issues, and in the context of the real world conversations in many cases you've skipped some steps.

 

Science can't tell you that WE should ensure that every adult can find a well paying and fulfilling job (in fact, I'm pretty sure that the science of economics says that's impossible depending on your definition of well paying (i.e. somebody has got be the janitor.)).  Science can't tell you what it is important to teach.  

 

Should we require students do community service?

 

Science can tell you what the out comes are in general, but it can't tell you the out comes are "good", "bad", or "valuable".

 

And you know all of this because we've discussed it before, and you've ended up admitting it.

Look, alexey I'm not going to chase you down the same rabbit hole having the same conversations.

 

It is pointless.  In your heart, you know your argument about what science can do is wrong.

In your heart, you know that the Bible delivers important messages about today's problems as it did over 1,000 years ago.

 

You've already essentially admitted the latter in this thread, and I can quote posts for yours admitting the previous in other threads without going through 100 posts in this thread with you.

 

Quit misrepresenting what science is and what it can do in your mind, heart, and on this board and try going from there and see where you end up.

[alexey]

How can we ensure that adults can find fulfilling and well paying jobs?

Science can't tell you that WE should ensure that every adult can find a well paying and fulfilling job

I acknowledge the difference between questions about goals (should) and questions about means (how). This is why I phrased those questions as "how" questions.

Is the bible useful for answering any of those questions? How do you use the bible to answer "should" questions? How do you respond to people asking "why should I do what the bible says"? How do you use the bible to answer "how" questions?

In your heart, you know that the Bible delivers important messages about today's problems as it did over 1,000 years ago.

The bible contains some good ideas and some bad ideas. How do you determine which ones are good and which ones are bad?

[Renegade7]

 

Humans are not perfect.  There are always going to be people that try and manipulate the system for their own personal gain.

 

And that will affect every and any human organization or endeavor.

 

And that includes "organized" religion.

 

It is a fact of life.

 

Your choices though are realistically to withdraw from human society or to be a part of the process with the understanding being "we" are never going to get it right.

 

The best we do is continue to try.

 

That's more then fair, and backed by history. I don't expect it to be perfect and I whole-heartedly believe that not everyone involed with organized religion is full of ****. I'm not looking for someone to 100% agree with me, just trying to understand to make sure this is something I'm truely comfortable with.

This is more a personal frustration with trying to have this converstation with someone who isn't uncompromisngly biased in their definitive interpretations of topics, verses, and parables that not everybody agrees with.

I'm 26 years old. Most people my age I run into don't care and most people I run into older then me already have their minds made up.

[No Excuses]

Who said anything about people falling apart? Is individual morality even required to keep it together? No, I'm certainly not saying any atheist out there is going to go mad trying to decipher simple right from wrong. Culture exists as a guide and a framework with or without religion.

I will add though that there is nothing lazy about following a code, doing so has proven extremely difficult throughout history. It's certainly harder than making the rules up as you go. Don't you agree?

 

I must have misinterpreted your original post. It seemed to me as if you were stating that sacrifice, giving and similar virtues are impossible to achieve without religious code.

 

My opinion on drawing morality from religion is two parts. Firstly, I think it is foolish to discount that religion has had a significant part in imposing good morals on society. Even as an atheist, a lot of my own morality is drawn from the teachings of my religious parents. But then there are clear moral questions, on which I deviate from my parents (and religion) and draw from personal experience and knowledge. 

 

From an atheist/agnostic standpoint, you can remove the concept of supernatural or divine, understand morality in context of societal and cultural well being and make decisions based on personal experience. Quite frankly, I don't see how that is much different than what religious people tend to do as well (besides the supernatural/divine portion). It's quite evident in our political and cultural system on many issues.

[s0crates]

I see a lot of tolerance and asking not to judge people in New Testemant, but that's not something I see very often practiced.

I'm literally in the process of trying to understand what it means to be a Christian as opposed to just saying I'm one.

. . .

I appreciate the kind of soul-searching you're doing. You inspired me to throw in my two cents. Hope it helps, if not then take it for what it is worth.

Following Russell, we could define "what it means to be a Christian" in three ways:

1. You believe all the creeds and dogmas, and take scripture as literally true to the letter. For example you believe a man was born of a virgin, walked on water, raised the dead, performed other miracles, died on the cross, was resurrected and arose into heaven, and that this somehow absolves humankind of sin and grants us eternal life.

2. You believe Jesus was good and wise, and we should follow his example. So you believe we should give to the poor, practice nonjudgment and nonviolence, and love our neighbors and enemies.

3. You believe in being good. We sometimes hear the word "Christian" used as a synonym for "good," as one may be said to have "Christian sensibilities," or to have committed "an unchristian act."

Russell says the first definition is too narrow, and the third is too broad, so he uses the second. I'm happy to follow him on this point, to me a Christian is simply a follower of Christ's teaching, which is essentially a message of love.

So I think that the essence of Christianity is less John 3:16, and more Matthew 22:36 (also Mark 12:28, Luke 10:25, John 13:34).

Love one another and love God. That is the greatest commandment. That is the essence of Christianity. Well that's my take anyway.

I agree that Christians in general need to work on loving one another, but you can find examples of Christians from nearly any denomination who seem to get it. Consider people who fight for justice like the Quaker Susan B Anthony or the Baptist Martin Luther King Jr. ("justice is what love looks like I'm public"). Christianity, to me, is (or at least should be), more Salvation Army and less Westboro Baptist.

Since you seem interested, I'd also like to point you in the direction of two of my favorite Christian theologians:

1. Process theologian John B Cobb Jr., who says "God is creative-responsive love." He is one of the first Christian ecologists.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Cobb

2. The Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who teaches the consistent life ethic, Christian love "from womb to tomb." He has a certain courage of conviction and intellectual consistency which I admire.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bernardin

[s0crates]

That is one way of looking at it. I think the "unconscious" part is misleading though.

I've found that way of looking at it to be quite fruitful.

I am not sure how to address an argument that limits the modern model of the world to 2 people who lived 300 years ago. I am taking a much wider view here. Social sciences, for example, made huge progess recently.

Those are examples not limits, although I think they are good examples. Newton and Locke provided much of the philosophical foundation upon which the edifice that is the modern worldview stands. Do you disagree?

This question answers itself if you define "law of nature" and "lawmaker".

The answer isn't as obvious to me. Could you explain?

I feel like I have an important point here, and you've dodged it.

I do understand the traditional is-ought perspective... but I think it is good enough for science to tell us what we value (e.g. happiness research) and how to get it...

I agree it is good for science to describe, but I disagree that it is "good enough." Science cannot prescribe, and value judgements remain necessary. Science can tell us what makes people happy, but it cannot tell us that people should be happy.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Einstein

Science can (and does) indeed help us lead the good life, but it alone cannot tell us what the good life is or why we should lead it.

So it is with science. "In its place it is grace," but when it overreaches we get things like eugenics, nuclear weapons, climate change, etc. Let's not pretend everything is coming up roses for us secular scientific moderns.

[PokerPacker]

Suddenly the ethics course I have to take has conversational relevance. No, science does not impose a set of morals, as science is about facts and not opinions. Religion can say something to say about morality, but the problem there is that the reasoning for the morality stops at "because <insert religious something or other> says so", which leaves no room for reason.

Philosophy offers some options upon which to contemplate morality with concepts such as Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, John Rawls' Social Contract, Act Utilitarianism, and Rule Utilitarianism and it gives you a place to contemplate morality from different philosophical standpoints as well as debate the logic of these constructs or build a new one to enter into discussion.

Perhaps you'll appreciate this, Socrates, if you recall our back-and-forth on the roles of science and philosophy where I argued against philosophy in that particular instance in favor of science.

[PeterMP]

I acknowledge the difference between questions about goals (should) and questions about means (how). This is why I phrased those questions as "how" questions.

Is the bible useful for answering any of those questions? How do you use the bible to answer "should" questions? How do you respond to people asking "why should I do what the bible says"? How do you use the bible to answer "how" questions?

The bible contains some good ideas and some bad ideas. How do you determine which ones are good and which ones are bad?

 

I acknowledge the difference between questions about goals (should) and questions about means (how). This is why I phrased those questions as "how" questions.

Is the bible useful for answering any of those questions? How do you use the bible to answer "should" questions? How do you respond to people asking "why should I do what the bible says"? How do you use the bible to answer "how" questions?

The bible contains some good ideas and some bad ideas. How do you determine which ones are good and which ones are bad?

 

Well, all of your how questions imply the should exist.  In addition, many of your how questions still have the same issues.

 

Yes.  How?  With compassion, understanding, humility, and when relevant forgiveness.

 

Using the same guide lines as the case for should and that doesn't normally include telling people that the basis for their belief system does not contain useful information for solving the world problems when it does in fact include multiple ideals that I'd like to co-opt.

 

Try looking at how the current Pope has actually addressed atheists.

 

Through logic, reasoning, and studying as proposed by the likes of St. Augustus long before the enlightenment and development of the scientific method.

[alexey]

Those are examples not limits, although I think they are good examples. Newton and Locke provided much of the philosophical foundation upon which the edifice that is the modern worldview stands. Do you disagree?

I'm talking about the apples and you are talking about the roots of the apple tree.

 

Socrates - So now consider: What exactly is a law of nature? Can there be laws without lawmakers?

alexey - This question answers itself if you define "law of nature" and "lawmaker".

Socrates - The answer isn't as obvious to me. Could you explain?

I feel like I have an important point here, and you've dodged it.

Law of nature is a repeatable observation. Lawmaker is a member of the legislative branch of government.

Seriously though, you can either demonstrate a lawmaker for natural laws, or you can define one into existence. I'm not dodging the question, I'm asserting that there is no question (or, if you prefer, that the question is not interesting).

 

I agree it is good for science to describe, but I disagree that it is "good enough." Science cannot prescribe, and value judgements remain necessary. Science can tell us what makes people happy, but it cannot tell us that people should be happy.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Einstein

Science can (and does) indeed help us lead the good life, but it alone cannot tell us what the good life is or why we should lead it.

So it is with science. "In its place it is grace," but when it overreaches we get things like eugenics, nuclear weapons, climate change, etc. Let's not pretend everything is coming up roses for us secular scientific moderns.

There is a lot here.

I am generally on the same page about philosophical limitations of science. However, note that if science is a tool, then it cannot "overreach". If science does not give us oughts, then it cannot be held responsible for things like eugenics.

Science may not authoritatively tell us what the good life is, but it can inform our decisions about that. It can tell us what kind of creatures we are, what kind of things we value, what kind of activities we find fullfilling. This does not cross the ought barrier into "and therefore we should do them", but it does make all interesting questions accessible to science.

Well, all of your how questions imply the should exist. In addition, many of your how questions still have the same issues.

Yes. How? With compassion, understanding, humility, and when relevant forgiveness.

Using the same guide lines as the case for should and that doesn't normally include telling people that the basis for their belief system does not contain useful information for solving the world problems when it does in fact include multiple ideals that I'd like to co-opt.

Try looking at how the current Pope has actually addressed atheists.

Through logic, reasoning, and studying as proposed by the likes of St. Augustus long before the enlightenment and development of the scientific method.

Can you demonstrate how the Bible or Jesus Christ provide a better moral guidance compared to, for example, Peter Singer?

[PeterMP]

Can you demonstrate how the Bible or Jesus Christ provide a better moral guidance compared to, for example, Peter Singer?

 

Well since I don't really know anything about Peter Singer that's hard for me to do.

 

Does his moral guidance include telling people that have belief systems that share many ideals that I want to co-opt that they have no value?

 

But I do think that leads to one obvious practical consideration.

 

I don't need to worry about educating about and even converting people to a Peter Singer based moral system.

 

That seems like it would likely save huge amounts of times.

 

You are the person after real solution, correct?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Does his moral guidance include telling people that have belief systems that share many ideals that I want to co-opt that they have no value?

Does yours?

[PeterMP]

Does yours?

No.

 

I've stated here many times, I don't claim to have all the answers.  I have a system that works for me, and  I don't claim it will work for anybody else.

 

And the question was a question specifically put to alexey, and if you do not understand why I asked the question, then you should read the larger thread.

[alexey]

Well since I don't really know anything about Peter Singer that's hard for me to do.

Does his moral guidance include telling people that have belief systems that share many ideals that I want to co-opt that they have no value?

But I do think that leads to one obvious practical consideration.

I don't need to worry about educating about and even converting people to a Peter Singer based moral system.

That seems like it would likely save huge amounts of times.

You are the person after real solution, correct?

I am having a hard time tracking your point.

Here is how we got here:

alexey - But religious texts are not a good source of information for building a model of the modern world and dealing with its problems.

Peter - I disagree 100%. Having compassion for others, sharing with one another, being slow to judge one another, and the Golden Rule are all great ideas in dealing with the modern world and its problems.

I fail to recognize these ideas as "sources of information"... and while I agree that these are good ideas, you are yet to explain how you picked these particular ideas out of the bible as good ones. I am not sure where to go from here.

[s0crates]

I'm talking about the apples and you are talking about the roots of the apple tree.

I mean to say that there is no tree without roots.

  

Law of nature is a repeatable observation.

Yes but what gets us from repeated observation to repeatable observation? Why the leap from experience to law?

For example: Kepler was the one who made observations. Newton was doing something else.

 

Lawmaker is a member of the legislative branch of government.

I was going to say a lawmaker is one who makes laws.

What I'm wondering is if it makes sense to talk about laws without lawgivers (and maybe it does, but you can at least understand the worry).

 

Seriously though, you can either demonstrate a lawmaker for natural laws, or you can define one into existence. I'm not dodging the question, I'm asserting that there is no question (or, if you prefer, that the question is not interesting).

I think it is worth noting that the universe appears to be rationally ordered, that it is obedient to laws. Don't you find that remarkable?

I'd also like to push the point about human rights here. The inventors of the notion of rights thought of them as God-given. If that explanation is wrong, then where do these rights come from?

There may be an answer to that of course, I'm just saying a little caution might be in order here.

 

I am generally on the same page about philosophical limitations of science. However, note that if science is a tool, then it cannot "overreach". If science does not give us oughts, then it cannot be held responsible for things like eugenics.

When I spoke of science overreaching, I was speaking to the propagating of the idea that there are no facts outside the purview of science. For example, I frequently encounter diligent students with devout scientific temperaments who allege there are no moral facts, no purposes or meanings, that such things are merely matters of dogma and opinion. Frankly I find this frightful.

I do not think that modern empirical science is a sufficient condition for eugenics, but I do think it is a necessary one. There is some danger in giving people great knowledge of the empirical "facts" while simultaneously denying the reality of principles beyond those.

Not to be too much of an alarmist here, as I think most of us have values and principles beyond the empirical facts, I just think it behooves us to take questions of values and principles seriously, and that begins with admitting that there is more to the world than what can be observed in the laboratory.

Science may not authoritatively tell us what the good life is, but it can inform our decisions about that. It can tell us what kind of creatures we are, what kind of things we value, what kind of activities we find fullfilling. This does not cross the ought barrier into "and therefore we should do them", but it does make all interesting questions accessible to science.

I think you make a good point here. This is a very Aristotelian way of thinking about Ethics, and I think there is a lot to be said for it. Let's talk about what kind of beings we are, what kind of world we find ourselves in, and then we can speak to what it is for us to flourish. There has been a fruitful revival of this brand of virtue ethics in recent decades.

I'll point out that this strategy does have its difficulties, for example I worry about what then becomes of the idea of human rights, but I do appreciate the merits of this virtue approach.

  

Can you demonstrate how the Bible or Jesus Christ provide a better moral guidance compared to, for example, Peter Singer?

I think this is a fair challenge (although I would have chosen John Rawls as my secular philosopher).

Maybe reason, rather than religion, should be our source of ethical principles. At this point I'll settle for an admission that we require principles beyond the empirical facts.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

I wasn't brought up with religion, and I'm fascinated with how everything in the Universe works. From partical physics to astrophysics, I always ponder about what is actually "going on".

Through all of my passionate research on subjects ranging from religion to the Big Bang, I've realized one important thing. The Universe is a free for all. However it got here, whatever its fate, there is no mercy, no prejustice, there is no plan, fate, or "everything happens for a reason." I do believe the Universe is ridiculously ancient, and we are a form of conciousness relatively new (humans).

The big question to me is: What is conciousness? Why am I me? Why am I an American, not a Peruvian? Why aren't I a tiger, or a bear, or a fish, or a creature on another planet?

The answer to that is beyond anyones understanding. You can hypothesize, or have faith, but nobody has anything close to truly hard evidence.

I like to think there is another level of conciousness after death. Do I think it has to do with pearly gates? Or any other ideas religions have put forth? No....

But I think the universe (and beyond) has an incredible amount of secrets to unravel. To die and see nothing, think nothing, for it to be a blank experience for eterinity would actually surprise me.

I am an athiest, but I keep my opinions to myself mostly. Stigma these days, I understand why. Lots of vitriol in that debate, athiests are loud.

I think it's because we want people to listen. Most of us keep up with space exploration, and partical physics. We are keeping up with the cutting edge of finding out what is truly going on. When we hear someone say they know exactly what's going on, it's considered the ultimate claim. It deserves to be tested, questioned, and debated to the highest degree. That's how you come up with conclusions.

If we were to ignore it, well then that's going against the entire spirit of investigation.

At the same time, aside from this great forum (the Tailgate), I keep quiet now. I think enough has been said, people are thinking for themselves, the information age is upon us.

That said, don't rule anything out. Think for yourself. I have some crazy hypotheses.

[alexey]

I mean to say that there is no tree without roots.

I agree that knowledge about the roots is important for understanding where the apple comes from. For other applications it may not be as useful.

Locke and Newton were invaluable for the eventual emergence of the modern world, but if you used them to learn about the modern workd, your understanding would be severely limited in many areas and mistaken in others.

 

Yes but what gets us from repeated observation to repeatable observation? Why the leap from experience to law?

For example: Kepler was the one who made observations. Newton was doing something else.

I was going to say a lawmaker is one who makes laws.

What I'm wondering is if it makes sense to talk about laws without lawgivers (and maybe it does, but you can at least understand the worry).

Physical law seems to be defined as "is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

I think this is about language. Let's do a thought experiment and call it something else. Let's call it "espap" - Expressed Statement of a Particular Phenomenon.

Does espap require a lawmaker? Does it make sense to talk about espap without talking about lawgivers?

 

I think it is worth noting that the universe appears to be rationally ordered, that it is obedient to laws. Don't you find that remarkable?

I find the whole thing very remarkable indeed... yet I do not see an alternative to us existing in the only kind of a universe where we could evolve to become what we are.

 

I'd also like to push the point about human rights here. The inventors of the notion of rights thought of them as God-given. If that explanation is wrong, then where do these rights come from?

I'll go with applied rationality.

 

When I spoke of science overreaching, I was speaking to the propagating of the idea that there are no facts outside the purview of science. For example, I frequently encounter diligent students with devout scientific temperaments who allege there are no moral facts, no purposes or meanings, that such things are merely matters of dogma and opinion. Frankly I find this frightful.

This does not seem like a big deal... unless of course this translates into immoral actions. I do not think it will. They are making a seemingly simple mistake. Just move the level of analysis up to a higher level of emergence. There may not be facts about meaning, but there are facts about what humans find meaningful, etc.

[PeterMP]

I am having a hard time tracking your point.

Here is how we got here:

I fail to recognize these ideas as "sources of information"... and while I agree that these are good ideas, you are yet to explain how you picked these particular ideas out of the bible as good ones. I am not sure where to go from here.

The religious texts (i.e. the Bible) are the source of information.

 

As clear from your initial post:

 

"But religious texts are not a good source of information"

 

What are the sources of the information?

 

The religious texts.

 

The Bible says those are things should be important in our lives.

 

Now, you might not think those ideas being important (which is what the religious texts indicate) is good information for dealing with the world's problems, but I'd disagree, and I think you do to.

 

In terms of why those, they seem to be the major themes of the New Testament of how we should treat each other-even Christians interacting with non-Christians (or for Jews interacting with non-Jews in the case of Jesus).

 

Now, I think the point you were really trying to make before you tried to go back is that I can get that those ideas are important from other sources.

 

But just because other sources say they are important doesn't invalidate the usefulness of other sources that say they are important (i.e. just because Peter Singer might say that compassion, humility, and slowness to judge others are important for solving the world's problem doesn't mean the Bible still isn't an important and useful source of the same information and since most people have never heard of Peter Singer, in terms of actually getting things done even MORE important).

 

If Peter Singer says those things are important, that's great!  And me and other Christians that think similar to me and him and his followers have a lot in common and we should be able to find common ground for actions.

[PeterMP]

Suddenly the ethics course I have to take has conversational relevance. No, science does not impose a set of morals, as science is about facts and not opinions. Religion can say something to say about morality, but the problem there is that the reasoning for the morality stops at "because <insert religious something or other> says so", which leaves no room for reason.

Philosophy offers some options upon which to contemplate morality with concepts such as Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, John Rawls' Social Contract, Act Utilitarianism, and Rule Utilitarianism and it gives you a place to contemplate morality from different philosophical standpoints as well as debate the logic of these constructs or build a new one to enter into discussion.

Perhaps you'll appreciate this, Socrates, if you recall our back-and-forth on the roles of science and philosophy where I argued against philosophy in that particular instance in favor of science.

 

I will say we can ask questions about religion and the corresponding moral code.

 

We can ask is a belief in god(s) reasonable.  We can ask is the specific belief system reasonable.  We can ask is the moral code that emerges from the belief system reasonable.

 

And in the process, we can use logic and reason.

 

Now, different people are going to judge the evidence in support of and not in support of those issues differently.

 

And all we can conclude at the end is if it is reasonable to a person.

 

The idea that we can't use reason, logic, and even the study of nature (e.g. science) in the context of examining religious beliefs and moral systems is false (and one that some religious philosophers rejected long before the Enlightenment and the advent of science).

 

And realistically, at the end of that's all we can do with any moral system whether it stems from a religion or another system and there is no real reason to believe that non-religious based moral systems are going to be more heavily supported than religious based one.

 

There is going to be variation in the population and different people are going to weigh different evidence/priorities differently.

 

All we can really address is, is it reasonable to me?

[KDawg]

This is an interesting discussion, and quite civil, to be honest.

 

I don't remember who posted it, but I view religion as a moral code. I view religion as a practice of understanding that nonviolence, nonjudgmental people will translate to being happier people. I view many of the stories of the Bible as just that, stories. However, they each have a deeper point or meaning that they don't necessarily spell out. Much like stories that we share with our children. The point may not be in the truth of the story, or the lack of embellishment of a story, but rather the hidden meaning and the proper message that the story is attempting to convey. It's up to all of us to decipher that aspect of a story, truthful or otherwise, and pick out the true purpose as to why that story is being shared.  

 

There is much in religion I agree with. There is also much I disagree with, and the many different denominations of religion who argue its own points are of no impact to my beliefs. In that aspect, as far as the disagreements go, I view religion much like I view politics... People arguing because they believe whats been passed on to them. There is no grounds for reason, but rather parroting past views and ideals. I think all of us would be better off if we just looked at things with the mindset of "whats best for us as a whole, and not just my own personal interests".

 

I think religion can accomplish that. I believe in the key tenets of religion, but I'd be lying if I said I agreed with all of it. So I practice it the way that I believe is beneficial to myself, and therefore beneficial to the community. I don't stand on top of a rock and shout my religious beliefs. And to be quite truthful, I don't talk about it outside of this post. I have no agenda. I have no desire to push others to it or away from it.

 

And further, I find it difficult to believe that when God gave people free will that he wanted them to all fall in line with what his message conveys. To that end, people who don't believe, in my opinion, aren't doing anything that they're not supposed to do. People that do believe aren't, either.

 

I do, however, wish that people were more tolerant of each other's beliefs, and not as insulting as many come across when this topic comes up. If you believe in everything that's been written as 100% truth, then so be it and good for you. If you believe in the core tenets but have a hard time with other stuff, then so be it and good for you. If you don't believe at all, then so be it and good for you. It's not my responsibility to tell you what's right to believe in and what's not.

 

But I do feel it's all of our responsibility to live a positive life and one with tolerance and treating each other with respect. (Keep in mind, that doesn't mean we don't get angry, I just wish we [including myself at times] weren't so gosh darn judgmental about everything). Somewhere along the lines of technology's rise (which I view as a good thing, by the way) we've lost the respect piece to a large degree.

[gbear]

Destino,

I try very hard to live up to the code you put forth where

 

"something that defines good as sacrifice. Show me something that sees pursuing your own happiness at the cost of turning away from those that need you as evil. Defining evil as directly damaging others is childish, might as well demand devil horns, a cape, and an evil laugh. Evil as I see it starts in turning away from good, from duty, from sacrifice. Systems matter to me because that's how people work, there is no freeing yourself from it. We exist in community and create cultures."

 

My choices are outside religion, and I would describe myself as a spiritual agnostic.  In 2011, I wrote what I thought it meant to be a "good man" and you may note religion is nowhere in it. http://thelifewelllived.net/2011/11/15/a-good-man-2/  I still strive to live by these words:

 

A Good Man

A man is a lucky somebody who has grown out of the selfish myopic teenage years.

 

He is somebody capable of looking out at his world and what needs to be done,

what is being left undone by others be they capable or incapable.

 

A man is introspective enough to know his talents and his passions.

Once he has looked both inward and outward, a  good man may plot his path.

 

A good man never stops looking, both inward and outward for the only constant is change.

 

A good man is mindful of others and their perspectives.

 

A good man seeks solace and comfort in his efforts.

 

For if he can take comfort in his work, the fear of starting over need never discourage.

 

A good man is ever mindful of his footprints both in his family and community.

 

His life is marked by joys many who chose other lives never imagine much less enjoy,

whether it be pride in the path of those who follow

or the true company received only by the honest.

 

A good man does what he can, when he can, until he can’t.

 

At the end of the day, a good man can look in the mirror,

see the haggard face of any age and take solace in his life well lived.

 

I endeavor, though sometimes fail, to be the good man.

 

Don’t we all?