It's not about "feeling superior," it's about what's a stronger moral foundation. What is more likely to crumble at any moment: inward desire to do right for practical purposes of collaboration (our evolution) or fragile strings of religious belief for reward/punishment?
I'm not saying it's impossible for the latter to be effective. It's just not connected to reality.
There's no known cure for lots of things. Doesn't mean there aren't treatments and more or less effective methods of managing.
No one is harming Christians here. We're discussing ideas. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference.
I suppose that your argument is something not connected with reality cannot change by context, so it's obviously superior way to build a lasting morality set?
This is not a question of whether something is superior morally but more reliable. And the way it's enonciated here is actually not very strict because you're amassing every potential belief into an afterlife "punishment" or "reward" into the same package disregarding the understanding of each individual on how those are obtained. Disconnected by reality means that reality cannot disrupt it as easily. Religion is almost never disconnected with reality, it's a social pressure and a political tool all at once.
I think we probably agree in the essential part of your assesment but the formulation is sloppy and unnecessarily biased against spiritual beliefs.
Hm. If something is more reliable, it would seem superior to me. Of course you could go into a lot more nuance with individual cases, but I'm taking it a bit more broadly.
I see that as a bad thing. Inability to adapt is very problematic. Especially in evolutionary terms.
Sure, but in the religious perspective there is always at least some sense of morality being "handed down by God," separated from its practical reality. The Christian perspective is not "we need to behave well because that's what keeps society functioning and helps us collaborate effectively." No, it's not practical at all. It's we have to behave well because God said so and of course there's these things called "sin," "heaven," and "hell." You can't deny that those things are manipulative and have effects on people who are raised with it from an early age. I grew up in fundamentalist circles, so I know. Even more moderate circles certainly have some semblance of this. I'm not straw-manning.
I really don't think morality is typically something that is based in philosophy. It's more instinctual for most people and we just use philosophy to rationalize it after the fact. For people who instinctively lack morals we have deterrent systems in place to regulate their behavior.
Well, we are delving into what I believe is where we agree. Because for me the problem is precisely that religion isn't really "abstract enough", people need a framework in order to relate with God, it's not just about getting vertical knowledge.
Religion can help build up that framework of thought and morality or it can dumb it down and display drastical contradictions. In either case the problem comes from the capacity and the willingness of the individual to create a valid ethical framework to interact with the world. Most religious communication IS manipulation (from a pragmatical standpoint), but some people aren't willing or able to construct a framework by themselves, so they need to be coerced into accepting others to do that work for it. Manipulation is still going to happen despite religion.
So there is one value and one distressing issue with religion at that point:
The advantage: Religion doesn't try to be entirely pragmatical. It adds a different layer of interactions that simply go beyond having a functional society.
The disadvantage: It adds fluff. Scripture can be an stimulating tool for improving upon your own morality and questioning your previous knowledge. Or it can add nothing at all and waste a time better spent in teaching people how to be good.
I agree... That's why I don't see the problem with this guy being motivated by a fear of hell let's say. He clearly lacks the kind of instinctive moral impulses I referred to earlier. So if a deterrent system works in it's place then I see that as a worthy solution. Of course I'm not at all confident that with therapy and meds he can come to feel the instinctive form of morality... And if he isn't deterred by jail then an atheistic world view honestly has nothing to offer in the way of motivation via deterrence.
The reason I didn't add that it's because it come from the interpretation of religion so I wouldn't say it's intrinsical (faith will always be interpreted). But you do make an insteresting point: pretending that religious teachings are all encompasing despite the fact tradition obviously couldn't have considered everything leads to potential inconsistencies. Religious morality needs to have a non religious counterpart on the side, because faith cannot consider every potential outcome of injustice at any given time. It's meant to serve as a base and never as an absolute.
"Faithless" morality compliments religion and it's, for people of faith, a necessity.
I'll bash them: f*ck lent. I had pepperoni pizza's on Friday's. Boom!
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 3rd, 2019 07:28 AM
