Religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for morality

[Hans Blaster]

Christianity is following Christs teachings which is biblical. Christs teachings are followed by all Christian denominations

Certainly they all claim to follow the teachings of Jesus.

and consistent such as don't murder, don't steal, don't bear false witness,

Pretty basic to all societies. Your god is not needed for these.

don't abuse kids,

I don't remember this being a teaching of the bible. I remember "obey/honor your parents". And I remember a lot of Christian leaders actually abusing kids.

be just,

Citation needed.

life is sovereign,

Don't even know what this is supposed to mean. (I thought God was sovereign.)

anti-discrimination (there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free we are all equal to God), love others as you love yourself,

Finally a couple that are unique or original and seem good.

don't commit adultery,

I'm not sure why that's anyone's business.

there is only one God etc..

More of a claim and not a moral teaching.

All Christians must strive to be Christlike.

what does that even mean (was never sure). Don't ever sin? Sacrifice all that you are? Resurrect?

But I think you will find that these core morals well at least most of them are consistent across all religions and scientific research supports this where they found that babies and infants displayed similar core morals like fairness, equality and treating others kindly regardless of belief or cultural upbringing.

Not all of them, but yes the ones that aren't particularly original are essentially universal and intrinsic to humans. Those are also the ones that are the most useful to a species living in groups and cooperating. Divine command or inspiration is hardly needed.

I think regardless of what religion even no religion or in isolated tribes around the world people will object to certain behaviors within the community. Like stealing, it has no racial or religious boundaries. People don't want their stuff taken. It seems a breach of trust and respect and undermines the community by breading resentment and distrust.

It's almost like we have several millions of years evolving in small bands as a social species. Hmmmmm.

 

[Ken-1122]

With all of that said, it's good to know that since I'm allowed (by you) to hold my private morality, you'll see it as merely different from your own rather than being decisively inferior ...

Naww I believe my moral views to be superior to all others. Heck; if I thought your moral views were superior to mine, I would adopt your moral views as my own!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Naww I believe my moral views to be superior to all others. Heck; if I thought your moral views were superior to mine, I would adopt your moral views as my own!

It's so wonderful to know that we have a mutual understanding ...

 

[stevevw]

Certainly they all claim to follow the teachings of Jesus.

The point is they claim to follow the teachings of Jesus because that is the agreed was of Christianity regardless of denomination. Its like footy teams we have different teams which people identify with but they all follow footballs rules and the spirit of the game.

Pretty basic to all societies. Your god is not needed for these.

As I said we all know the moral truths as they are naturally inherent in us. These truths have been tried and tested over 1,000's of years and their roots can be traced back to religious and spiritual belief as far as laws and codes are concerned. They all more or less say the same thing.

The point is if they are just basic to all societies by relative morality it suggests a coincidence beyond just many happening to align themselves with the same morals. That seems to contradict relative morality where there are many moral truths.

I don't remember this being a teaching of the bible. I remember "obey/honor your parents". And I remember a lot of Christian leaders actually abusing kids.

Well we know where those leaders are going to end up. Christian morals are more than the 10 commandments. We have the teachings of Jesus who after all was the fulfilment of the Old testament laws. Like the Sermon on the Mount. But also in parables and teachings He did along the way. Jesus often had children around and enjoyed teaching them. He mentions that of anyone even led these little ones astray let along harm them it was a grave wrong.
Mathew 18: 6
whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[a] it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mathew 18:10
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

Citation needed.

Really, are you sure you have read the bible. Jesus mentions justice many times. For example

Luke 11:42
“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Paul also mentions justice and kindness
Colossians 3:25
For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.

Even the old testament mentions justice.
Isaiah 1:17
Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.

Don't even know what this is supposed to mean. (I thought God was sovereign.)

Yes God is divine sovereignty and as we are made in His image humans are also individual sovereignty and value. This is important as it makes the individual unique and valuable and not just who they associate and identify with which seems to be how modern society see people today as identity groups and not individuals.

Finally a couple that are unique or original and seem good.

Actually 'loving others as you love yourself' sums up all morals as if you do this you will not be treating people badly. I think this truths extends beyond Christianity and in most beliefs. Its really so simple that its like a universal law that has been floating around forever. Anti discrimination and everyone is equal under God is just another way of saying love others as you love yourself.

I'm not sure why that's anyone's business.

It commandment is actually is 'don't covert your neighbors wife' which is more or less the same thing. Its everyone's business. How often do we hear arguments about what makes the best relationship and family structure. When trust is breached in a monogamous marriage or relationship it can have devastating effects on the family and society with the fall out. The stable family is the foundation of a strong society. Incidentally research also shows that children from stable monogamous marriages do better across a number of socio areas.

Jesus actually said not only was adultery/fornication in the physical act wrong by even lusting in your heart over a married person is wrong. This shows how Jesus fulfilled the old testament law with the spirit of the law in that it wasn't just about the end result behavior but the heart and mindset which can lead to sin. That there needs to be a change of heart if a person is to be moral.

More of a claim and not a moral teaching.

Well the commandment is to 'not worship false idols' from memory. That could be anything. God was claiming to be the only God so worshipping idols meant you could not have two masters. I think this has always applied especially today where money and processions is concerned. There is a truth about the type of idol you make god and the level of sacrifice you make in how this can effect your life for better or worse.

what does that even mean (was never sure). Don't ever sin? Sacrifice all that you are? Resurrect?

If you read Paul on this he explains it well. I think in Romans and Gelation's. Basically by accepting Christ you are born again of the spirit and not the flesh. So you have put to death your sinful nature and now Christ resides in your heart. Therefore you want to please God and this is done by striving to be more Christlike. Its a battle of the flesh and spirit. I describe it as taking on a God consciousness or spiritual awakening. Everything is seen through the lens of God.

Not all of them, but yes the ones that aren't particularly original are essentially universal and intrinsic to humans. Those are also the ones that are the most useful to a species living in groups and cooperating. Divine command or inspiration is hardly needed.

Well the majority of people disagree and I think for good reason. I don't think we have been gazing up at the night sky just to look at the stars and planets. We intuit something greater than ourselves behind things and it doesn't just come down to some delusion. It is real and this is seen in how entangled our lives have been with belief and spirituality throughout history.

It's almost like we have several millions of years evolving in small bands as a social species. Hmmmmm.

Yeah that's part of it but I don't think its just about survival and cooperation. I think when we reduce morality down to natural mechanistic processes we lose some essence of morality which extends beyond that. There are many anomalies associated with morality, agency and free will which conflict with evolution. I think we have to address these before we can make and claims one way or the other.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As I said we all know the moral truths as they are naturally inherent in us. These truths have been tried and tested over 1,000's of years and their roots can be traced back to religious and spiritual belief as far as laws and codes are concerned. They all more or less say the same thing.

The point is if they are just basic to all societies by relative morality it suggests a coincidence beyond just many happening to align themselves with the same morals. That seems to contradict relative morality where there are many moral truths.

And this isn't evidence for god or religion being necessary for morality. It is perfectly compatible with the idea of evolved moral instincts due to our social nature.

Well we know where those leaders are going to end up.

Dead, like we all will.

Christian morals are more than the 10 commandments.

Did I say otherwise?

We have the teachings of Jesus who after all was the fulfilment of the Old testament laws.

Whatever that means, but it is not important to morality.

Like the Sermon on the Mount. But also in parables and teachings He did along the way. Jesus often had children around and enjoyed teaching them. He mentions that of anyone even led these little ones astray let along harm them it was a grave wrong.
Mathew 18: 6
whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[a] it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mathew 18:10
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

Evidence of the teachings of Jesus provided. Let's call that progress.

Really, are you sure you have read the bible.

Did I ever say that?

Jesus mentions justice many times. For example

Luke 11:42
“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Paul also mentions justice and kindness
Colossians 3:25
For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.

Even the old testament mentions justice.
Isaiah 1:17
Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.

Citations!

Yes God is divine sovereignty and as we are made in His image humans are also individual sovereignty and value. This is important as it makes the individual unique and valuable and not just who they associate and identify with which seems to be how modern society see people today as identity groups and not individuals.

Other than this "divine sovereignty" thing, not sure what this has to do with christianity.

Actually 'loving others as you love yourself' sums up all morals as if you do this you will not be treating people badly. I think this truths extends beyond Christianity and in most beliefs. Its really so simple that its like a universal law that has been floating around forever. Anti discrimination and everyone is equal under God is just another way of saying love others as you love yourself.

Again, a new formulation of the "golden rule", which has been around so long it can hardly be evidence of god.

It commandment is actually is 'don't covert your neighbors wife' which is more or less the same thing.

Thought crimes.

Its everyone's business. How often do we hear arguments about what makes the best relationship and family structure. When trust is breached in a monogamous marriage or relationship it can have devastating effects on the family and society with the fall out. The stable family is the foundation of a strong society. Incidentally research also shows that children from stable monogamous marriages do better across a number of socio areas.

Jesus actually said not only was adultery/fornication in the physical act wrong by even lusting in your heart over a married person is wrong. This shows how Jesus fulfilled the old testament law with the spirit of the law in that it wasn't just about the end result behavior but the heart and mindset which can lead to sin. That there needs to be a change of heart if a person is to be moral.

Isn't that the same Jesus who can't tell the difference between a lustful look and a lustful act?

Well the commandment is to 'not worship false idols' from memory. That could be anything. God was claiming to be the only God so worshipping idols meant you could not have two masters. I think this has always applied especially today where money and processions is concerned. There is a truth about the type of idol you make god and the level of sacrifice you make in how this can effect your life for better or worse.

What if I think all worship is bad? But, even if I don't, how is worship of something a moral issue? (This "God" character clearly states that it is "jealous" and does not like worship of alternatives.)

If you read Paul on this he explains it well. I think in Romans and Gelation's.

While I've probably absorbed a lot of Paul, I don't know Paul from not-Paul. I tried reading Romans, but have to give up after the first chapter given the errors in the text and its rather repulsive message.

Basically by accepting Christ you are born again of the spirit and not the flesh.

But I don't believe in spirits.

So you have put to death your sinful nature and now Christ resides in your heart.

That doesn't sound healthy. It could cause blockages.

Therefore you want to please God and this is done by striving to be more Christlike.

Again "Christlike" is not defined.

Its a battle of the flesh and spirit. I describe it as taking on a God consciousness or spiritual awakening. Everything is seen through the lens of God.

Maybe I'd like to have my own perspective.

Well the majority of people disagree and I think for good reason. I don't think we have been gazing up at the night sky just to look at the stars and planets.

Maybe you are seeing signs there, but I look at the stars to figure out how they work.

We intuit something greater than ourselves behind things and it doesn't just come down to some delusion. It is real and this is seen in how entangled our lives have been with belief and spirituality throughout history.

Intuition is a bad source of evidence.

Yeah that's part of it but I don't think its just about survival and cooperation. I think when we reduce morality down to natural mechanistic processes we lose some essence of morality which extends beyond that. There are many anomalies associated with morality, agency and free will which conflict with evolution. I think we have to address these before we can make and claims one way or the other.

Finally something that might be interesting.

 

[Kylie]

I do understand the concept and I am not saying subjective morality doesn't exist. I am saying its insufficient for explaining morality. Its an impossible and self defeating concept to support. You just proposed an objective claim that the objective truth is that morals are subjective. See how it is self defeating. We can't help but appeal to objectives when it comes to morality.

And once again you make the mistake of thinking that if we can say the objectively true statement, "Morality is subjective," then that must mean that moral positions must have some objective value to them. This is wrong, and I've told you this countless times.

I might as well say that since we can objectively claim, "The issue of whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better is a subjective issue," then there must be some objective measure as to which one is better. Because that's the exact same error that you are repeatedly making.

Yes there is you just expressed an objective about morality. There is no better evidence that comes from the person who refutes objective morality. If you want to now claim that you didn't mean objective in those terms then your argument that there is only subjective morality falls down. Proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Look, you're making that error again.

Christianity is following Christs teachings which is biblical. Christs teachings are followed by all Christian denominations and consistent such as don't murder, don't steal, don't bear false witness, don't abuse kids, be just, life is sovereign, anti-discrimination (there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free we are all equal to God), love others as you love yourself, don't commit adultery, there is only one God etc.. All Christians must strive to be Christlike.

But I think you will find that these core morals well at least most of them are consistent across all religions and scientific research supports this where they found that babies and infants displayed similar core morals like fairness, equality and treating others kindly regardless of belief or cultural upbringing.

I think regardless of what religion even no religion or in isolated tribes around the world people will object to certain behaviors within the community. Like stealing, it has no racial or religious boundaries. People don't want their stuff taken. It seems a breach of trust and respect and undermines the community by breading resentment and distrust.

Almost like those ideas came from somewhere other than religion, and yet religion is trying to take credit for them!

I read this a couple of times and cannot see what you mean. You have just contradicted yourself. Saying its objectively true is saying its the case beyond subjective opinions. Otherwise you have just introduced a new meaning of objective truth. It sort of defeats the idea of objective truth so you can't really make any claims.

Even if it meant the actual system of morality as to whether its subjective or objective requires a determination. If someone claims that there is no objective morality but rather only subjective morality then unless there is an objective determination its a pointless and baseless claim because there's no way to tell either way. It then becomes a declaration or a self projected psychological state.

And you are making that same error again.

Do you want another example? Fine.

It is objectively true that a preference for chocolate over vanilla is subjective.

The statement about the preference can be objective without the preference itself needing to be objective.

How many times do I need to explain this to you?

I know what you are implying...

No you don't, you literally just said, "I read this a couple of times and cannot see what you mean." I'm still talking about the same thing, you know. If you tell me you understand the thing which just a moment ago you said you couldn't understand, then you are lying. Either you are lying now when you say you understand it, or you were lying before when you said you couldn't understand it. But they can not both be true.

... I just cannot see any valid reasoning. You can't make the claim that 'better' can be determined by the subjective/relative because its a contradiction in terms. When someone claims that Star Trek is better they have already made an objective claim full stop. Introducing subjective/relative morality into this situation just undermines their own claim otherwise.

No, saying that Star Trek is better is making a statement about their own subjective opinions.

We are getting back into the same pedantic and childish wordplay nonsense we ended up in before where you seemed to think that people had to spell out precisely their exact meaning in language so detailed that it would make a lawyer light headed. I'm not playing those stupid games with you.

You can say I objectively like Star Trek over Star wars. But that is just acknowledging that you own psychological state exists. I think your conflation the category of what morality is with the actual claims within the category.

Oh, look, now you seem capable of understanding that what is phrased as an objective statement is actually a subjective one, despite the fact that you were playing stupid wordgames to make it the exact opposite just a moment ago.

 

[stevevw]

You think you have good reasons, but they rely on presumptions I am not making.

It doesn't matter what presumptions you make because its fact. We can examine the similarities of all religions and find these common beliefs.

Can we?

Yes, have you ever heard of comparative religious studies. Its not hard we just examine each belief and extract out the common factors. We can find evidence to support this such as research that shows religions have certain common core beliefs.

People assume this about their own gods, but tend to think other peoples gods aren't real so they can't give any "truths".

Yes and that is another common factor in beliefs between most religions. So in doing so we find that the truth that god represents the truth is inherent in all belief. Therefore the truth as usually represented would mean we have a conflicting situation where if there is truth about god there can only be one truth. In other words 99% are wrong and there's only one truth that God or others gods represent.

What thought experiment? Your arguments seem far to tied to your own god beliefs.

We have been arguing about a hypothetical situation of God/s and truth. You have been going along which means you are buying into this hypothetical. I am not using my own beliefs because we are talking about common beliefs to all religions.

This assumes that the "god" in question is truthful and not deceptive or cruel. While a great many religions assume this about their god, non-adherents have no reason to trust other peoples' gods and the claims made by the adherents about the truthfulness of them. For anyone to determine (rather than assume) a particular god is truthful requires an examination using external, non-god dependent, criteria.

Nothing is being assumed. The idea that God or gods represent truth is widely acknowledged. We are assuming that there is a God or gods to determine whether it makes sense that many gods can represent the truth about morality at the same time. So for this thought experiment there are no non-adherents. I am saying that the very definition of truth excludes there being many gods all claiming the truth.

It doesn't assume God is not truthful but deceptive or cruel because its widely acknowledged that this is not how God/s work. That would undermine the idea of god being truth and the qualities associated with most gods such as morality, love, honesty ect. A cruel God/s is not a loving god.

I don't feel that your discussion is particularly "hypothetical" and mine only appears so as to not run afoul of any board restrictions on attacking a particular god concept.

Well your buying into so you seem to be going along with it. We are not condemning any religion but doing a meta analysis of common aspects of religious beliefs to actually see if religions really differ that much when it comes to morality. One of the arguments used against objective morality is that there are different religious beliefs about what is moral. I am saying there isn't that much difference when you look at it.

Now we move in to your "touchy-feely" language about "god"...

You are apparently projecting again. While *you* may find these characteristics to be properties of your god, that doesn't mean that they are so universally with all gods, or even those that seem to follow your god. How many times have we heard Christians talking about "God-fearing" people, etc. If "God" is to be "feared" then how is it synonymous with "love" or "kindness".

Now where getting into semantics of what people say or what you are interpreting what people say. I am just sticking with the facts about what people claim about their god. What they own god (assuming there is a God/s) claims about themselves to extract the common attributes of belief generally. Its not a case of what I find are the characteristics because we are using what is commonly acknowledged as the representations of each religion. From this we can extract some universal aspects of religious belief (cross cultural psychology).

The abstract phenomena -- yes -- associated with gods, not necessarily so.

Saying "X is the god of love" or peace is one thing, but saying "X is love" nonsensical. It's a "deepity", a seemingly profound statement that is empty and meaningless.

OK to make it simpler and more acceptable to you God/s represent these qualities/morals and this is well acknowledged by all. More importantly its inherent in each belief. But saying God is love is part of belief because the nature of belief is that God/s represent creation of the world and everything in it. Not only the material world but all the abstract and transcendent phenomena like love, justice, morality stems back to God.

So its logical that God/s are those things as they come from God/s. That is the nature of belief, it makes profound claims. We are trying to establish whether these attributes of religious belief have commonalities which are naturally inherent in all people regardless of their meaning.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I would have said the same thing about "God is Love" being mushy nonsense when I *did* believe in your god. Perhaps this is my practical nature, perhaps it is just a cynical counterreaction to the fuzzy nonsense of the prior generation.

Regardless this is a well recognized representation of God not because its mushy but because all things come from God including love. Perhaps you are being a bit cynical and skeptical. That's to be expected from someone who no longer believes.

Again, "god is love" is nonsense in the same way that "music is love" is. It is not a denial of seemingly immaterial properties of things.

Not if all things including love emanate from God/s. Music has are not God/s. Its human created.

At this point, I'm not sure what you are responding to below. (I see my statement, but can't scroll back to what I was responding to 3 messages back.)

That's because you came into a discussion between Kylie and myself. My basic point was I disagreed with 'just because there are many religions doesn't mean there is one truth among those religions or beliefs we have. That we can derive some common moral truths and attributes of a god as we normally define God/s.

This then may show that there are common beliefs and knowledge of morality naturally inherent in everyone. Now we have to determine why we have such commonalties.

Whatever connection to the real world you're trying to get out of, QM will not help you.

That at the fundamental level what we see the material world is but a reflection of something deeper that does not conform to our material world but rather to something beyond space and time. That the interpretations of QM that make the observer (consciousness) a fundamental best explain things. That this points to our direct experience being foundational in how we understand reality and morality for that matter as this is a direct result of our experiences rather than any material reductionist explanation.

I have no idea what kinds of experiences you are referring to or what they matter to the nature of morality.

Our experiences is all we have. Some they matter to everything we do including morality. Perhaps especially morality. Some discount our experiences as irrelevant or unscientific because they are subjective. But everything is subjective to begin with even science and its application. It comes down to epistemology (how we should know reality). You say its science and I am saying this is more indirect than experience because science is a socially derived concept and may just be measuring some interface that represents some deeper more fundamental reality that is not materially based in time and space according to some interpretations of QM.

So many are now looking at our direct experience and what truths they reveal which includes belief and morality. Just like in science where we can derive objectives from the interface our conscious experience may reveal more transcendent truths about reality that are every bit as real and lawful as objective reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I thought you already replied to this old message. Oh, well, we'll take a look at part of your reply...

It doesn't matter what presumptions you make because its fact. We can examine the similarities of all religions and find these common beliefs.

Yes, have you ever heard of comparative religious studies. Its not hard we just examine each belief and extract out the common factors. We can find evidence to support this such as research that shows religions have certain common core beliefs.

Yes and that is another common factor in beliefs between most religions. So in doing so we find that the truth that god represents the truth is inherent in all belief. Therefore the truth as usually represented would mean we have a conflicting situation where if there is truth about god there can only be one truth. In other words 99% are wrong and there's only one truth that God or others gods represent.

What's the point of this? Are you claiming that "comparative religious studies" are looking for the true, common core of all religions?

If they can achieve this (assuming it is their goal), then is that the only part of religion/god that we can assume is true? Are the rest of tenets of any (and all) religion not sound? What are the implications? Have you thought about them?

If I understand correctly, one part of comparitive religion studies is the sociology of religion and that is about understanding why religions do what they do. I'm not sure you want to use that aspect to support your particular faith, but what ever works for you.

 

[black-pawn]

Both Christianity and Islam have produced successful cultures. But today, both fail. Islam failed some time ago and Christian nations are in obvious decline today. So what changed? The religious texts and early writings have not changed. I believe that intelligence and morality has dropped for both cultural and genetic reasons.

Someone with a good heart but a dysfunctional brain is not able to distinguish between good and evil. And religion cannot fix this. One needs intelligence to properly apply religious teachings. And one needs a moral sense to even care. Modern culture promotes stupidity and immorality both through how children are raised and through dysgenic selection which lowers the quality of the human gene pool.

I have written about these issues at length on my Arkian website. I have posted about this to a Mennonite forum and a Muslim forum. Now I hope to get general Christian feedback here.

There is no such thing as a Christian nation. It never was and never will be, so your understanding is wrong from the get-go. On top of that, you confuse religion which is man-made (e.g. Islam, Catholicism, and some versions of false Christianity) with a full life that God offers for free because He is that good.

The answer to evil is found in Yeshua, the Messiah of all creation, however, unless one is born again, he cannot see, understand, or enter the kingdom of God. Nicodemus had the privilege of speaking about religion with the Lord Jesus, but he was confounded when the Lord did not talk to him about theology, but about being born all over again so that he could begin the road to eternal life. God came down seeking us who are lost so that He could introduce us to a brand-new way of living. The end is eternal life which cannot be earned by personal effort. It can only be received by faith in Christ.

Below is a sample of how religion clashed with heavenly beauty:

John 3:1-8 (LSB) "Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear its sound, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.”

Use your heart to understand this, otherwise, you will remain as lost as everyone else.

 

[stevevw]

I thought you already replied to this old message. Oh, well, we'll take a look at part of your reply...

I may have as I am trying to respond to several people at the same time. Must have sparked some interest lol.

What's the point of this? Are you claiming that "comparative religious studies" are looking for the true, common core of all religions?

religious studies and cross cultural psychology look for commonalities and differences. From that we can derive common beliefs.

If they can achieve this (assuming it is their goal), then is that the only part of religion/god that we can assume is true? Are the rest of tenets of any (and all) religion not sound? What are the implications? Have you thought about them?

Yes I have studied this. I think you will find that all tenets trace back to the core common beliefs like loving others as yourself, , don't kill or steal, don't lie and divine concepts like a creator and law giving god, life after death of some sort, and being moral according to God/s laws for some sort of eternal life beyond this one. But there may be differences in how these are applied but that doesn't change the fact they are similar in principle.

If I understand correctly, one part of comparative religion studies is the sociology of religion and that is about understanding why religions do what they do. I'm not sure you want to use that aspect to support your particular faith, but what ever works for you.

Can you elaborate as I am not sure what you are implying.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes I have studied this. I think you will find that all tenets trace back to the core common beliefs like loving others as yourself, , don't kill or steal, don't lie and divine concepts like a creator and law giving god, life after death of some sort, and being moral according to God/s laws for some sort of eternal life beyond this one. But there may be differences in how these are applied but that doesn't change the fact they are similar in principle.

So religions just take the basics and fundamentals of what is needed for society and bolt on some supernatural beliefs. Not sure how that is an argument for gods.

 

[Kylie]

So religions just take the basics and fundamentals of what is needed for society and bolt on some supernatural beliefs. Not sure how that is an argument for gods.

Pretty much what I said back in post 304.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Pretty much what I said back in post 304.

I think we're caught in a temporal loop. I'm going to transmit the number 3 in to the next loop.

3
3
3
3
3

 

[Kylie]

I think we're caught in a temporal loop. I'm going to transmit the number 3 in to the next loop.

3
3
3
3
3

I'm decompressing the main shuttle bay.

Okay, now my husband is running out of the room and calling me gross.

 

[stevevw]

And once again you make the mistake of thinking that if we can say the objectively true statement, "Morality is subjective," then that must mean that moral positions must have some objective value to them. This is wrong, and I've told you this countless times.

I actually clarified that. I said that even if we want to isolate the moral system (objective and subjective systems) from the morals themselves making a claim about which moral system is the true way in which we determine morality is still an objective claim. Its a judgement call in which someone claims epistemically that there is only one way to know morality which is subjectively.

This can also be applied to moral acts themselves when someone claims that an act is wrong and another is right. Each demands a judgement call of either a right or wrong or true and false determination. So its more about how we should know morality rather than what morality is. But there is a connection between epistemology and ontology so if someone claims the only way to know morality is subjectively then all determinations of moral behavior will have to be subjective otherwise it contradicts the epistemic claim.

I might as well say that since we can objectively claim, "The issue of whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better is a subjective issue," then there must be some objective measure as to which one is better. Because that's the exact same error that you are repeatedly making.

I am not making that error because that is not what I am saying. Refer to above. But this analogy is wrong categorically anyway. You are conflating personal (psychological state of the subject) which cannot be right or wrong with a concept such as morality that by its very nature demands a right or wrong determination.

Look, you're making that error again.

Actually objective claims don't have to apply to morals themselves. Making an objective claim about the moral system is still making on ontological claim about what morality is. You can't claim a moral system is subjective without also claiming morals themselves are subjective.

Almost like those ideas came from somewhere other than religion, and yet religion is trying to take credit for them!

Let me guess would that be evolution. This is known as the genetic fallacy. That explaining the origins of morality somehow also account for how this happens. There is conflicting evidence against evolution being the sole source of morality let along claiming any truth about the originals of morality by evolution.

The problem is evolution takes free will and agency away from humans and we are subject to nature. Like we are what we are because of our genetics and NS. So the fact that different isolated peoples share common morals must be a big coincident. Yet the evidence shows that its more than nature. As subjects we have a degree of control over our own life and evolution. Stuff like belief, morals, transcendent truths like love, justice, kindness are abstract entities that cannot be reduced to genetics and NS.

It makes more sense that we all know of these moral truths regardless of race, belief, culture and upbringing because they exist beyond naturalistic causes like laws beyond space and time.

And you are making that same error again.

Do you want another example? Fine.

It is objectively true that a preference for chocolate over vanilla is subjective.

The statement about the preference can be objective without the preference itself needing to be objective.

How many times do I need to explain this to you?

Oh no not another example lol. Difference is that objective statement only applies to you. Morals apply to others. Because it only applies to you there is no right or wrong determination. But because morals apply to others there needs to be an objective determination. Applying this to your example would mean that someone can claim how we know morality is only subjective. It follows that moral acts themselves must be subjectively determined. Otherwise if it didn't then the claim that we can only know morality subjectively fails.

No you don't, you literally just said, "I read this a couple of times and cannot see what you mean." I'm still talking about the same thing, you know. If you tell me you understand the thing which just a moment ago you said you couldn't understand, then you are lying. Either you are lying now when you say you understand it, or you were lying before when you said you couldn't understand it. But they can not both be true.
No, saying that Star Trek is better is making a statement about their own subjective opinions.

There's a difference between understanding what you were trying to say and the meaning of what you said. Because you are conflating two different things this confuses things. I clarified the difference above. Your example is a false analogy as TV shows don't work like morals so your example doesn't work in the first place. But I also clarified how we can make objective claims about ways of knowing morality and how this relates to the acts themselves. But this won't apply to TV shows. So perhaps this is the source of your confusion

We are getting back into the same pedantic and childish wordplay nonsense we ended up in before where you seemed to think that people had to spell out precisely their exact meaning in language so detailed that it would make a lawyer light headed. I'm not playing those stupid games with you.

I don't think its word games just clarifying things otherwise people can get the wrong message. That's just basic communication ensuri9ng the receiver gets the same message the sender is giving otherwise communication breaks down. Semantics, epistemology, ontology and language are important factors in determining what people say and mean especially when it comes to morality. That is why these are a big part of studying ethics.

Oh, look, now you seem capable of understanding that what is phrased as an objective statement is actually a subjective one, despite the fact that you were playing stupid wordgames to make it the exact opposite just a moment ago.

As I said I think the confusion comes from conflating subjective preferences etc. with morality. They are categorically different. That's why meaning is important, epistemics and how we can know morality as opposed to subjective thinking.

 

[stevevw]

I think we're caught in a temporal loop. I'm going to transmit the number 3 in to the next loop.

3
3
3
3
3

No its not number 3, its number 9 lol.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No its not number 3, its number 9 lol.

I agree with Lennon on religion. (And if you got my reference, you picked a funny way of showing it.)

 

[Kylie]

I actually clarified that. I said that even if we want to isolate the moral system (objective and subjective systems) from the morals themselves making a claim about which moral system is the true way in which we determine morality is still an objective claim. Its a judgement call in which someone claims epistemically that there is only one way to know morality which is subjectively.

But that in itself is not a moral claim.

It's not a moral claim to say, "It is objectively true that moral claims are subjective in nature."

This can also be applied to moral acts themselves when someone claims that an act is wrong and another is right. Each demands a judgement call of either a right or wrong or true and false determination. So its more about how we should know morality rather than what morality is. But there is a connection between epistemology and ontology so if someone claims the only way to know morality is subjectively then all determinations of moral behavior will have to be subjective otherwise it contradicts the epistemic claim.

Not if morality is subjective.

I am not making that error because that is not what I am saying. Refer to above. But this analogy is wrong categorically anyway. You are conflating personal (psychological state of the subject) which cannot be right or wrong with a concept such as morality that by its very nature demands a right or wrong determination.

You are confusing a description of morality with the claims of that morality.

Actually objective claims don't have to apply to morals themselves. Making an objective claim about the moral system is still making on ontological claim about what morality is. You can't claim a moral system is subjective without also claiming morals themselves are subjective.

Have you not been paying attention to anything I've been saying? I AM claiming that the moral system is subjective, and I AM claiming that morals themselves are subjective!

Why do you think what you are saying here is a problem for me?

Let me guess would that be evolution. This is known as the genetic fallacy. That explaining the origins of morality somehow also account for how this happens. There is conflicting evidence against evolution being the sole source of morality let along claiming any truth about the originals of morality by evolution.

I've already explained HOW evolution accounts for morals. If you weren't paying attention then, I doubt you'd pay attention now, so I see no reason to waste my time writing out the explanation again.

The problem is evolution takes free will and agency away from humans and we are subject to nature. Like we are what we are because of our genetics and NS. So the fact that different isolated peoples share common morals must be a big coincident. Yet the evidence shows that its more than nature. As subjects we have a degree of control over our own life and evolution. Stuff like belief, morals, transcendent truths like love, justice, kindness are abstract entities that cannot be reduced to genetics and NS.

There is plenty of evidence for a genetic cause for much behaviour. Moral behaviour is no different.

It makes more sense that we all know of these moral truths regardless of race, belief, culture and upbringing because they exist beyond naturalistic causes like laws beyond space and time.

Unsupported claim.

Oh no not another example lol. Difference is that objective statement only applies to you. Morals apply to others. Because it only applies to you there is no right or wrong determination. But because morals apply to others there needs to be an objective determination. Applying this to your example would mean that someone can claim how we know morality is only subjective. It follows that moral acts themselves must be subjectively determined. Otherwise if it didn't then the claim that we can only know morality subjectively fails.

Rubbish.

If we go out to dinner and you have to go to the bathroom and I order desert for you, then if I choose chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla because that's my preference, then that is indeed me pushing my preference onto you.

Oh, and you messed up. You said that the OBJECTIVE statement applies only to me. My position that chocolate icecream is better than vanilla is NOT an objective claim, it's a subjective one.

There's a difference between understanding what you were trying to say and the meaning of what you said. Because you are conflating two different things this confuses things. I clarified the difference above. Your example is a false analogy as TV shows don't work like morals so your example doesn't work in the first place. But I also clarified how we can make objective claims about ways of knowing morality and how this relates to the acts themselves. But this won't apply to TV shows. So perhaps this is the source of your confusion

You never did any such thing. You just claimed they are different because... reasons.

I don't think its word games just clarifying things otherwise people can get the wrong message. That's just basic communication ensuri9ng the receiver gets the same message the sender is giving otherwise communication breaks down. Semantics, epistemology, ontology and language are important factors in determining what people say and mean especially when it comes to morality. That is why these are a big part of studying ethics

I've already made my position abundantly clear. You are playing word games.

As I said I think the confusion comes from conflating subjective preferences etc. with morality. They are categorically different. That's why meaning is important, epistemics and how we can know morality as opposed to subjective thinking.

Again, you claim they are different because... reasons.

 

[stevevw]

So religions just take the basics and fundamentals of what is needed for society and bolt on some supernatural beliefs. Not sure how that is an argument for gods.

Well if say divine concepts are needed for society then yes. I think its more the case that they build their culture and society from these core beliefs and knowledge. They then apply these to their culture which accounts for the differences. But those differences are just expressions of the same basic idea and core beliefs.

 

[stevevw]

I agree with Lennon on religion. (And if you got my reference, you picked a funny way of showing it.)

No I didn't check what it was referring to. It was a bit of humor. But Lennon was a spiritual kind of person. He even was a Christian at one stage which later morphed into New age beliefs. He was in and out of belief though still believing in some sort of transcendental truth to life.