Originally posted by Nephthys
Exactly, and you said that becuase of the things you don't like, you prefer to follow a higher being.
But...Wow... I just gave you logical reasons for why I don't like it, for why I don't think it will ever work. Moral Relativism is a joke. I don't like porn either, does that mean I'm against it?
Btw I'm going to bed, I'll respond manana.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
In regards to ethical monotheism, all 3 religions follow the 10 commandments. THAT much is universal. There are a lot of other laws each religions follow, and a lot of differences, sure. However, you can't make up random bullshit in religion to justify what you're doing. I mean you [b]CAN but that would be like saying "I have a different opinion, therefore everything is relative!" [/B]
As a secular humanist I would find the following commandments to be universally acceptable:
12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
13 You shall not murder.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
While the last one there could use a little reworking to modern day terms, I think almost everyone could agree with these laws. One interesting thing to note, is that a society that didn't follow these laws wouldn't function very well. As a secularist I see these as survival commandments, laws set up by the ancient Hebrews as basic survival rules which were in turn given a religious justification to add more weight to them. This was fairly common in the ancient world.
Looking at it as a secularist, I can agree with these commandments based on the assumption that happiness is good and that a well functioning society generates happiness. In my opinion, God is not necessary for these commandments to have value.
Now, while all three of the Abrahamic faiths follow these commandments, there are rather varying differences in more specific rules. Such as: what to wear, when to have sex, how to have sex, who to have sex with, what to eat, when to eat it, how different sexes should act etc. The list goes on and that is where my issues begin. Its the social laws that bother me, because for most of them I see no reason for. They might have had a purpose when they were written, but that was thousands of years ago.
Not to mention, that we haven't even gotten to the Dharmic faiths yet.
Originally posted by Autokrat
As a secular humanist I would find the following commandments to be universally acceptable:While the last one there could use a little reworking to modern day terms, I think almost everyone could agree with these laws. One interesting thing to note, is that a society that didn't follow these laws wouldn't function very well. As a secularist I see these as survival commandments, laws set up by the ancient Hebrews as basic survival rules which were in turn given a religious justification to add more weight to them. This was fairly common in the ancient world.
Looking at it as a secularist, I can agree with these commandments based on the assumption that happiness is good and that a well functioning society generates happiness. In my opinion, God is not necessary for these commandments to have value.
Now, while all three of the Abrahamic faiths follow these commandments, there are rather varying differences in more specific rules. Such as: what to wear, when to have sex, how to have sex, who to have sex with, what to eat, when to eat it, how different sexes should act etc. The list goes on and that is where my issues begin. Its the social laws that bother me, because for most of them I see no reason for. They might have had a purpose when they were written, but that was thousands of years ago.
Not to mention, that we haven't even gotten to the Dharmic faiths yet. [/B]
All three religions have differences, I agree. They all borrowed from Judaism but in the Torah, the non Jews are commanded to form their own standards, and that Judaism isn't the only path to God.
My last question before I go to sleep is this Veneficus. As a secular humanist, don't you have to believe in man's goodness? I mean isn't that the underlying principle of this belief? And if so, when a person commits a crime, you've held the belief that he is morally responsible. However, if a man is basically good, how can he commit a crime? You would have to blame socioeconomic forces rather the man, wouldn't you? Anyways, food for thought, goodnight.
Discuss. Maybe. Plz.
Originally posted by NephthysAwesomesauce.
http://vimeo.com/8742604Discuss. Maybe. Plz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPCSAAtyLW8
I CANNOT WAIT.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
While I can agree with most of this, I can also argue that depending on what need the humans have, we can break any of those and justify it as being "for the good of all." Religion doesn't work that way.
Can you give me an example of something like this happening. I suppose I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Have you ever met a religious jew? Or an immoral religious Jew? While you claim these principles have no purpose, they help us lead healthy, moral lives. They help us with personal development and self awareness. I think they are necessary, and I don''t think mankind could come up with something better. But again, your logic does seem sound.
I should have phrased myself better. I have nothing against the Jews following the laws in Torah and I can understand why they would do so for cultural and religious reasons. My statement was probably better geared towards Christians since last I checked Jews don't tend to preach. A great deal of Christians believe it is their duty to spread Christian morals and social standards (excluding moderates and liberal Christians). While, as a secularist I can agree with the basic moral teachings of Jesus (the golden rule etc) I don't agree with laws on sexual morality and how women should act. If Christians desire to practice them, that's cool, but when they become social mores, I have an issue. They have become social mores because America is very much a Christian “themed” nation.
A lot of people have argued that this is simply the result of the fundamentalist fringe, but I would argue that the fundamentalists are not a fringe. Consider the following Pew Poll from 2005: http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=118
44% of the population believes that God created the Earth in six days.
The belief in Young Earth Creationism is not a moderate belief (I know plenty of Christians that believe in Old Earth Creationism), but a literal one. Almost half of America's adult population believes in YEC. That would indicate that about half of the adult population takes a literal view of Christianity or at the very least is ignorant of what they actually believe. As as secularist this worries me, because I believe that these people affect social mores in a way that could be discriminatory towards people that may not necessarily agree with specific Christian values.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
All three religions have differences, I agree. They all borrowed from Judaism but in the Torah, the non Jews are commanded to form their own standards, and that Judaism isn't the only path to God.
I was unaware that the Torah said this, but then I highly suspect you and I received very different interpretations of the OT.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
My last question before I go to sleep is this Veneficus. As a secular humanist, don't you have to believe in man's goodness? I mean isn't that the underlying principle of this belief? And if so, when a person commits a crime, you've held the belief that he is morally responsible. However, if a man is basically good, how can he commit a crime? You would have to blame socioeconomic forces rather the man, wouldn't you? Anyways, food for thought, goodnight.
I don't believe that humans are inherently good so much as I believe social cooperation is a biological fact. I believe that working together is an aspect of the human condition, that being said, we are not without issues. Ideally, humans function best in small groups of no more than say a hundred and fifty and for awhile, this small tribalism structure worked fine. However, when early humans discovered agriculture, they were able to settle down in one spot and generate surplus. The moment surplus was generated, two things happened which as an economics major you are probably familiar with. With surplus came specialization and hierarchy.
Because there was food to spare, people could learn specific service skills and specialize in something, while hierarchies were created because the surplus in food wouldn't be evenly distributed. This probably sounds like some Communist lead in, but that's not what I'm trying to say. What I am trying to say, is that once human settlements began to grow, social order had to be imposed on a positive scale, or a positive law as its called in philosophy. The old tribalism was no longer sufficient to govern human behavior, so instead the social contract was developed. This is why in modern day, we have laws, because its part of basic social knowledge that laws keep society intact.
You asked if I had to believe in the inherent goodness of humans for this work and I would say that no, I don't. If humans were inherently good, then we wouldn't need laws or a social contract. That being said, I don't believe humans are inherently evil either. Consider our ingrained unwillingness to kill a member of our own species. http://www.killology.com/art_beh_problem.htm
A great deal of Boot Camp is devoted to breaking down this block. If it is natural for humans to kill each other, then why is specialized training required to help soldiers overcome the psychological resistance to killing?
To sum this up, I see human beings as while not being inherently good or evil, as understanding that a greater social entity is needed to preserve civilization. When I consider criminals, I would yes want to know their socioeconomic condition, but that doesn't mean I would excuse the criminal. I would punish the criminal while then looking for ways of minimizing the source. Since a lot of socioeconomic factors are based on a division of wealth, I would argue that the division of wealth needs to be rebalanced. I don't believe in complete equality because that's impossible. You will have rich and poor, but I believe that the curve shouldn't be as sharp as it is. I'm pretty certain Alan Greenspan himself talked about this although I don't have a link to any specific quote so I'm going on memory there.
Originally posted by Autokrat
Can you give me an example of something like this happening. I suppose I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.
I should have phrased myself better. I have nothing against the Jews following the laws in Torah and I can understand why they would do so for cultural and religious reasons. My statement was probably better geared towards Christians since last I checked Jews don't tend to preach. A great deal of Christians believe it is their duty to spread Christian morals and social standards (excluding moderates and liberal Christians). While, as a secularist I can agree with the basic moral teachings of Jesus (the golden rule etc) I don't agree with laws on sexual morality and how women should act. If Christians desire to practice them, that's cool, but when they become social mores, I have an issue. They have become social mores because America is very much a Christian “themed” nation.
A lot of people have argued that this is simply the result of the fundamentalist fringe, but I would argue that the fundamentalists are not a fringe. Consider the following Pew Poll from 2005: http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=11844% of the population believes that God created the Earth in six days.
The belief in Young Earth Creationism is not a moderate belief (I know plenty of Christians that believe in Old Earth Creationism), but a literal one. Almost half of America's adult population believes in YEC. That would indicate that about half of the adult population takes a literal view of Christianity or at the very least is ignorant of what they actually believe. As as secularist this worries me, because I believe that these people affect social mores in a way that could be discriminatory towards people that may not necessarily agree with specific Christian values.
I was unaware that the Torah said this, but then I highly suspect you and I received very different interpretations of the OT.
I don't believe that humans are inherently good so much as I believe social cooperation is a biological fact. I believe that working together is an aspect of the human condition, that being said, we are not without issues. Ideally, humans function best in small groups of no more than say a hundred and fifty and for awhile, this small tribalism structure worked fine. However, when early humans discovered agriculture, they were able to settle down in one spot and generate surplus. The moment surplus was generated, two things happened which as an economics major you are probably familiar with. With surplus came specialization and hierarchy.
Because there was food to spare, people could learn specific service skills and specialize in something, while hierarchies were created because the surplus in food wouldn't be evenly distributed. This probably sounds like some Communist lead in, but that's not what I'm trying to say. What I am trying to say, is that once human settlements began to grow, social order had to be imposed on a positive scale, or a positive law as its called in philosophy. The old tribalism was no longer sufficient to govern human behavior, so instead the social contract was developed. This is why in modern day, we have laws, because its part of basic social knowledge that laws keep society intact.
You asked if I had to believe in the inherent goodness of humans for this work and I would say that no, I don't. If humans were inherently good, then we wouldn't need laws or a social contract. That being said, I don't believe humans are inherently evil either. Consider our ingrained unwillingness to kill a member of our own species. http://www.killology.com/art_beh_problem.htm[//quote]
I don't believe humans are inherently good or evil. I DO however believe that it is much easier to make the wrong decision than make the right one. But this is what I thought was the fundamental flaw in secularism. I thought secularists believe humans are inherently good. Maybe you don't but I suspect most secularists do.[quote]A great deal of Boot Camp is devoted to breaking down this block. If it is natural for humans to kill each other, then why is specialized training required to help soldiers overcome the psychological resistance to killing?
To sum this up, I see human beings as while not being inherently good or evil, as understanding that a greater social entity is needed to preserve civilization. When I consider criminals, I would yes want to know their socioeconomic condition, but that doesn't mean I would excuse the criminal. I would punish the criminal while then looking for ways of minimizing the source. Since a lot of socioeconomic factors are based on a division of wealth, I would argue that the division of wealth needs to be rebalanced. I don't believe in complete equality because that's impossible. You will have rich and poor, but I believe that the curve shouldn't be as sharp as it is. I'm pretty certain Alan Greenspan himself talked about this although I don't have a link to any specific quote so I'm going on memory there.
However, when early humans discovered agriculture, they were able to settle down in one spot and generate surplus.
The first is that it is factually incorrect: sedentary (or totalitarian) agriculture is an extremely new invention; only in the last ten thousand years or so has it been an important lifestyle. There are about three million years of (biologically) modern humans that foraged that would object to your characterization of sedentary agriculture as an early invention.
The second is that you've made the mistake of thinking that humanity set about farming, while it is in fact only the members of a particular culture (one that can be identified by this very trait) that did so. This caters to the common assumption that humans farm instinctively (as beavers build instinctively). Such an idea is false. Farming is a socially heritable trait, not a genetic one.
This is important when considering the book Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. I suggest that you all read it immediately.