Posted on 05/28/2005 7:21:59 AM PDT by voletti
In Europe religion doesn't rise to the level of burning away “in the open air”; in fact, it barely smoulders. Most European politicians would rather talk about sexually transmitted diseases than their own faith in God. The hugely bulky European constitution doesn't mention Christianity.
America's policymakers, by contrast, don't seem to talk about anything else. Look at the issues that have dominated the past week.
America's religious wars are only going to intensify. Fourteen moderate senators averted a nuclear explosion over conservative judges this week; but explosions over the issues which made those judges controversial seem all but inevitable. Just wait for the next Supreme Court ruling on abortion. Or for the next vacancy on the court to open up.
Forget today's crowing about the ceasefire in Congress. America's wars of religion will get a lot nastier before any long-lasting peace can be declared—if ever.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
So which is it? Are you defending a morality -- if we can call it that -- which is "never absolute", or one deduced from basic axioms?
As for those moral precepts which are common to all cultures, if there are any, they are determined by observation and comparison...and there origin is most likely to be found in genetics.
However, the violation of them must also be part of the range of human behavior you mentioned earlier. Otherwise why have a moral precept? If humans are truly genetically bound not to do something, morality doesn't enter the picture. The genetics in question can only be an inclination to become angry when others do it. But why should I care if it makes others angry? Because I'm afraid they might be angry enough to hurt me?
"The hugely bulky European constitution doesn't mention Christianity."
I should like to be shown the exact location in the US Constitution, which mentions Christianity.
Am I mistaken, wasn't Europe the continent, whereby a few scant decades back the Jewish RELIGION saw millions put to painful death, for sake of their religion, alone?
Did not the neighbor nations stand by, doing little or nothing about it?
Pot calling kettle black.
The US is at war with islam, as should be all thinking people. Muslim men are raping Danish women. Muslims are gunning down Dutch political figures.
The former. One which can and should be revised in the light of new experiences, new understanding, changed conditions.
However, the violation of them must also be part of the range of human behavior you mentioned earlier. Otherwise why have a moral precept?
Human beings seem to be genetically designed to try to get as much as they can but to become jealous if others obtain what they do not have. Morality is an attempt to limit both behaviors so that a society can function. There are lots of situations like this one.
But why should I care if it makes others angry? Because I'm afraid they might be angry enough to hurt me?
Sometimes. Sometimes you may genuinely care about the other person. Why? Well, that's part of your genetics. You might as well ask why you feel anything. Why you have two legs and not three.
It's pretty complicated...but so is the rest of reality.
This morality is not absolute either. It changes with changing axioms...and axioms are just basic assumptions.
ET replies:
On, this forum? Definately. Views other than Christianity are not accepted well. I think the reason this nation hasn't had an all out religion war is because it tries so hard to be tolerant.
Our tolerance is due to support for the Constitutional restriction on no laws respecting the establishments of religions, while encouraging the free exercise thereof.
I think we have had minor religion wars for some time now. I think abortion is a religion war. The right of a woman to murder her baby vs. G-d's Commandment against murder.
In the USA, juries decide who has committed murder, not religious edicts disguised as 'laws'.
Another religion war is the war between homosexuals and G-dfearing society.
Same principle; religious 'societies' in the USA have no power to legislate moral 'law' that infringes on an individuals rights.
Granted the only major bloodshed thus far would be the blood of the unborn (and that's no small number), but I think it's only a matter of time. Remember, the United States is an extremely young country when compared to Europe, Asia or the Middle East.
The US has the best & oldest functioning constitution in the world.
Let's hope it stays that way despite calls for religious 'wars' against it.
-- how can you claim to have explained morality in any sense, with or without the supernatural?
We all learn basic morality [the golden rule] at our mothers breast..
-- Don't bite the tit that feeds you.
All other variations on morality follow.. Nothing supernatural about it.
Should? Why should? Was the new version always better, and we just didn't know it? If so, there must be a common standard by which to judge -- and it is this standard which I mean when I say "morality". Please tell me which standard this is and how we may discover it with more specificity than you did above, since the meaning of experiences and conditions must be interpreted and understandings must be reached validly.
Also, please tell me if the rule against child molesting is, in principle, up for grabs based on "new understanding". And who decides.
Human beings seem to be genetically designed to try to get as much as they can but to become jealous if others obtain what they do not have. Morality is an attempt to limit both behaviors so that a society can function.
No, that's not what morality is. That's what law and social convention is. Morality stands over law and conventions and lets us judge them wrong and conclude they ought not to be as they are.
Sometimes. Sometimes you may genuinely care about the other person. Why? Well, that's part of your genetics. You might as well ask why you feel anything. Why you have two legs and not three.
I could ask what if I'm a sociopath, but as it happens I'm not. I do care about others. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. It is observation. Morality says I should care; if I actually do, well and good, if not, I ought to change.
Aside from your crudity, you leave unexplained why we have any reason to believe the lessons learned from our mothers are right, if both we and our mothers are merely primates evolved to fit a niche in the African savannah.
So far no society and no morality have yielded a perfect world...so people experiment. Sometimes the new is better than the old, sometimes it isn't.
Please tell me which standard this is and how we may discover it with more specificity than you did above
I can't.
Also, please tell me if the rule against child molesting is, in principle, up for grabs based on "new understanding". And who decides.
In a sense it is since different societies (and the same society during different periods) decide what constitutes child molesting...and they don't always make the same rules.
Obviously, the people who make up the society decide what is right.
There are two issues conflated here. One is the culture war, which is real enough. The other is judicial tyranny. It is judicial recklessness that has brought the religious controversies to the boiling point.
-- how can you claim to have explained morality in any sense, with or without the supernatural?
We all learn basic morality [the golden rule] at our mothers breast..
-- Don't bite the mammary gland that feeds you.
All other variations on morality follow.. Nothing supernatural about it.
Aside from your crudity, you leave unexplained why we have any reason to believe the lessons learned from our mothers are right,
You don't agree that the golden rule is "right"? How sad. Is that part of your 'supernatural' theory?
if both we and our mothers are merely primates evolved to fit a niche in the African savannah.
While its true that all us primates learn 'the rule', - you yourself demonstrate why we have so many problems with moral conduct. - To me it's self evident, - it's very immoral to bite the gland/hand that feeds you. 'Do onto others' is basic morality in my book.
Why do you object?
You think far too highly of yourself. You cannot read minds, neither apparently can you properly read texts.
I'm interested in how YOU claim to know that the Golden Rule is right. It is not self-evident. On the contrary, it is self-evident that what one random, meaningless collection of atoms does to another is meaningless and hence morally neutral.
Tell me a good reason for believing in the Golden Rule that isn't religious. No irreligious person ever has, yet they continue to believe in it. I would go further: they know that the Golden Rule is right, yet cannot mount a defense of it in terms of their worldview. This fact has implications.
Europe is essentially spiritually dead and we are not far behind them
I can't. --- liberallarry
I've followed this discussion rather closely. A.J.Armitage's claim in #79 to liberallarry that "If you cannot believe, let alone defend based on your worldview, that some things are simply right and others wrong, for all individuals and cultures, at least stop claiming you can explain morality without the supernatural," brushes past the excellent defense already put forth.
This defense included "personal experience, history, law, and science." Human greed for a better life and human curiosity combined with human capacity to communicate such desires and findings alone account for all morality.
But this overlooked defense was not necessary, as the burden of proof is not with proving a negative. The burden of proof lies with them that propose the positive (existence of a supernatural force). Which of course has not been offered as yet.
I found the "I can't" surprisingly unexpected, as the answer had already been covered quite clearly in general terms. A counter question would have been more productive, than "I can't." The counter question then is: What part of learning from "personal experience, history, law, and science" is there need for "more specificity" so that the answer can be understood?
Admittedly there are those who do not understand the basic building blocks of civilization. Or those who just purposefully choose to not understand.
-- how can you claim to have explained morality in any sense, with or without the supernatural?
We all learn basic morality [the golden rule] at our mothers breast..
-- Don't bite the mammary gland that feeds you.
All other variations on morality follow.. Nothing supernatural about it.
Aside from your crudity, you leave unexplained why we have any reason to believe the lessons learned from our mothers are right,
You don't agree that the golden rule is "right"? How sad. Is that part of your 'supernatural' theory?
if both we and our mothers are merely primates evolved to fit a niche in the African savannah.
While its true that all us primates learn 'the rule', - you yourself demonstrate why we have so many problems with moral conduct. - To me it's self evident, - it's very immoral to bite the gland/hand that feeds you. 'Do onto others' is basic morality in my book.
Why do you object?
You think far too highly of yourself. You cannot read minds, neither apparently can you properly read texts.
Your 'supernatural' opinions on my personality are pot/kettle amusing. Get real.
I'm interested in how YOU claim to know that the Golden Rule is right.
Because it has worked for me, and for those I've known in my 68 years.
It is not self-evident. On the contrary, it is self-evident that what one random, meaningless collection of atoms does to another is meaningless and hence morally neutral.
That's a nonsensical, and quite a sad statement about your own 'philosophy'. What we say & do to "another" is what this life is all about, imho.
Tell me a good reason for believing in the Golden Rule that isn't religious.
Pure self interest in having a good life leads rational people to treat others as they would be treated.
No irreligious person ever has, yet they continue to believe in it. I would go further: they know that the Golden Rule is right, yet cannot mount a defense of it in terms of their worldview. This fact has implications.
Two bits you are so convinced of your position that you will be unable to rationally comment upon, or refute, my self interest answer to your question.
What the heck is the author talking about? The closest thing to a religious war in the U.S. is forcing us Baptists to eat fish on friday! The only religious war we got going is against the left that doesn't believe in anything!
That's hardly an excellent defense. Quite frankly, the reason I passed over the claim thaty we can determine morality by refering to the law is that I have a tendency, when I see somebody say something stupid, to say so in terms highly insulting to my interlocutor and I should resist this, and that particular claim is remarkably stupid. I need not, I trust, explain why.
The others make no pretense at being normative. So why bother? They obviously can't provide what is needed apart from some additional element from elsewhere.
But this overlooked defense was not necessary, as the burden of proof is not with proving a negative. The burden of proof lies with them that propose the positive (existence of a supernatural force). Which of course has not been offered as yet.
You may have followed the discussion closely, but you have misunderstood it. Or maybe you would simply prefer to change the subject to something you think is more favorable to your side.
I haven't attempted a proof of the existence of the supernatural (or rather, the truth of the Christian religion, because that's what I would be interested in defending) because that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether a worldview which rejects the supernatural can account for morality. Here, the positive claim is that it can.
What part of learning from "personal experience, history, law, and science" is there need for "more specificity" so that the answer can be understood?
Other than law, how are we to derive normative content from these things? Hannibal crossed the Alps: how should this influence my conduct?
The USA, the only country willing to take a stand and do the dirty work to guarantee the sovereign lifestyle of all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.