Originally posted by Stigma
This does not refer to the notion of afterlife, however.This refers to the fact that morality is our way to try to attain an ideal that is a transcendent notion in itself.
Peterson is right 馃憜
That doesn't mean that god has to bring you there or it the influence of a god. It could just as easily be for cooperation's sake. The mutual benefit of working together to progress. no God needed.
Originally posted by socool8520
That doesn't mean that god has to bring you there or it the influence of a god. It could just as easily be for cooperation's sake. The mutual benefit of working together to progress. no God needed.
Cooperation is the way in which the ideal may have been realized. Say, for thousands of years by trial and error humanity got better and they reached a certain moral system.
It may be the case, sure. 馃憜
What is said though, is that a moral ideal was a faundation for the process of developing that morality. Thus, this ideal is transcendent in itself.
Again, Peterson does not argue for the existence of God. He basically says that you can call this ideal transcendence, or an ideal in a Platonian sense, or God, or gods.
Originally posted by socool8520Oh, I know.
I would simply call it ideal brought about by necessity of survival.
He also points out that this must have occured at the very edge of when an ape became human. So cannot be attributed to animalistic tendencies, at least not entirely.
Originally posted by socool8520
Even what Peterson is describing then doesn't really point to a fault in Atheism. At least I don't see how it does.
Originally posted by socool8520
I'm for religious freedom whether I think it rubbish or not. Outside of it's moral guidelines (at least the basics), I think it's unnecessary especially given basic morality is already generally accepted anyway.
TBH there is a very good case to be made that in pre-historic times morality and religion grew together.
Originally posted by socool8520
We are a species put on this planet to survive and progress just like everything else. We have basic laws of morality and behavior that we all share for a mutual benefit. The fact that we are capable of critical thinking allows us to modify our morality slightly given our surroundings. Nothing supernatural about it. I don't need anything more nor do i see evidence of it.
You used the term "put on this planet", who put us?
You also claim "basic laws of morality" as if it was something predeterminated in every organism.
I ask you now. If we are but an outcome of nature, why should we then act different from it?
For instance killing. Killing is considered immoral, yet there is nothing unnatural about murdering!
If there is no God. If we are but outcomes of nature! Beings whose sole purpose is to find the best way of survival, in such aspect a thing like killing would be okay.
Let's say I have a store, and this other guy also has a store. He is a direct competence of me! Nature would say that i get rid of my competence in order to increase my possibilites of survival (Just like a Lion would kill any other Lion who represents a threat/burden to his survival).
Again you realize morality isn't a natural thing! It isn't something we possess but something WE OBTAIN THROUGH OUR IDEOLOGIES! Morality could even be considered an Ideology!
Religion is an Ideology! Morality was founded on the Ideology of Religion.
Originally posted by Stigma
Oh, I know.He also points out that this must have occured at the very edge of when an ape became human. So cannot be attributed to animalistic tendencies, at least not entirely.
It does. New Atheism operates under the illusion, Peterson says, that once you remove transcendence, then the structure based on the notion of transcendece remains intact. Not so.
I don't think anyone has argued that have they? From the debate between Harris and Peterson I watched in the other thread, all Harris argued is that morality exists without religion. Any other argument Peterson is debating would be one he made up himself.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
You used the term "put on this planet", who put us?You also claim "basic laws of morality" as if it was something predeterminated in every organism.
Let's not play word games okay or I'll have to point out that "predeterminated" isn't even a real word. Whether it was microbes placed on Earth by an asteroid at least know that I don't mean god.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I ask you now. If we are but an outcome of nature, why should we then act different from it?
For instance killing. Killing is considered immoral, yet there is nothing unnatural about murdering!
If there is no God. If we are but outcomes of nature! Beings whose sole purpose is to find the best way of survival, in such aspect a thing like killing would be okay.
Let's say I have a store, and this other guy also has a store. He is a direct competence of me! Nature would say that i get rid of my competence in order to increase my possibilites of survival (Just like a Lion would kill any other Lion who represents a threat/burden to his survival). [/B]
All of this boils down to critical thinking. Something you are clearly are not doing. It is actually quite natural for organisms to come together and cooperate for a mutual benefit. It's why the majority of us don't kill each other. We are not just walking murders without religion. Watch a documentary every once in a while.
Killing each other is considered immoral and in a lot of species, is not done without some cause (bloodline dominance, territory, etc.) Hey, that kind of sounds like us except with our critical thinking, and thanks to religion, we found another reason to kill each other.
Lions don't think critically. Do you not get that? It actually makes more sense to band together for survival then it does to kill each other.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Again you realize morality isn't a natural thing! It isn't something we possess but something WE OBTAIN THROUGH OUR IDEOLOGIES! Morality could even be considered an Ideology!
Yes it is. It is natural for us as social creatures to find a way to work together for a mutual benefit. Basic morality plays in to this quite well.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Religion is an Ideology! Morality was founded on the Ideology of Religion.
Saying it with exclamation points and all caps doesn't make your point any more valid. It makes you seem radical and obnoxious.
Originally posted by Surtur
I just wanna say...whenever I see a video of Jordan I just think that we are never truly going to have the people who should be running for office actually running.
I mean, imagine if Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and the like were MPs or Prime Ministers. Seriously, a world would be a better place with calm, collected and highly intelligent people in charge.
Originally posted by Stigma
Yeah, woudn't it be nice.I mean, imagine if Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and the like were MPs or Prime Ministers. Seriously, a world would be a better place with calm, collected and highly intelligent people in charge.
I could agree to that. As long as they didn't push their religious or anti-religious beliefs onto others as policy.
Originally posted by Stigma
Yeah, woudn't it be nice.I mean, imagine if Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and the like were MPs or Prime Ministers. Seriously, a world would be a better place with calm, collected and highly intelligent people in charge.
I'd love to see Jordan Peterson in an actual position of power in Canada. Seems they need that the way their legislation is going.
Originally posted by socool8520
Let's not play word games okay or I'll have to point out that "predeterminated" isn't even a real word. Whether it was microbes placed on Earth by an asteroid at least know that I don't mean god.All of this boils down to critical thinking. Something you are clearly are not doing. It is actually quite natural for organisms to come together and cooperate for a mutual benefit. It's why the majority of us don't kill each other. We are not just walking murders without religion. Watch a documentary every once in a while.
Killing each other is considered immoral and in a lot of species, is not done without some cause (bloodline dominance, territory, etc.) Hey, that kind of sounds like us except with our critical thinking, and thanks to religion, we found another reason to kill each other.
Lions don't think critically. Do you not get that? It actually makes more sense to band together for survival then it does to kill each other.
Yes it is. It is natural for us as social creatures to find a way to work together for a mutual benefit. Basic morality plays in to this quite well.
Saying it with exclamation points and all caps doesn't make your point any more valid. It makes you seem radical and obnoxious.
So you are attributing our existence to a natural process. 馃憜
It only makes sense so long it works.
Let's say i go and speak with the other guy! I tell him to band together, yet he disagrees. Then what? What stops me to follow survival of the fittest instinct?
We are humans and have critical thinking! However as YOU YOUSELF CLAIMED we are outcomes of Nature! Therefore CRITICAL THINKING would dictate that if i can't get what i want (The guy won't join me) I have to follow the best route for success.
Not really. If it was "NATURAL" for us to work together (band together in perfect communion) there would be no crime in the world. So you realize Morality doesn't exist without Religion.
What prevents me from following the best way to success? Nothing.
Morality can't exist without Religion. If there is NO GOD then WHAT HOLDS ME FROM DOING WHAT I WANT? It is that simple.
Sorry, i just tend to capitalize the things i want to highlight.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
So you are attributing our existence to a natural process. 馃憜It only makes sense so long it works.
Let's say i go and speak with the other guy! I tell him to band together, yet he disagrees. Then what? What stops me to follow survival of the fittest instinct?
Yes.
Critical thinking stops you from murder Josh. Come on man. That's not hard to follow. Also, banding together falls in line with survival of the fittest. Get the best group you can to be dominant. If that person doesn't want to follow, then find another person. You don't automatically go to murder. maybe you need god to make the call for you, but I can make that decision for myself.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
We are humans and have critical thinking! However as YOU YOUSELF CLAIMED we are outcomes of Nature! Therefore CRITICAL THINKING would dictate that if i can't get what i want (The guy won't join me) I have to follow the best route for success.
LOl. Your misconception of critical thinking is what leads you to this assumption. If you really are thinking critically, you can find many better alternatives than murder. Your if/then conclusions are ridiculous.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Not really. If it was "NATURAL" for us to work together (band together in perfect communion) there would be no crime in the world. So you realize Morality doesn't exist without Religion.
Nothing is perfect. who made that claim. This is another one of your outlandish if/then scenarios. They're getting pretty bad. Just because we gather in large groups doesn't mean there are no wrinkles. Even the religious have killed each other. Nothing you have stated lends credence to no morality without religion.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
[B] What prevents me from following the best way to success? Nothing.Morality can't exist without Religion. If there is NO GOD then WHAT HOLDS ME FROM DOING WHAT I WANT? It is that simple.
Good grief man. Your basic morality and critical thought give you the tools necessary to reason that you shouldn't do whatever you want. If that's not enough, there's the law.
Originally posted by socool8520
Yes.Critical thinking stops you from murder Josh. Come on man. That's not hard to follow. Also, banding together falls in line with survival of the fittest. Get the best group you can to be dominant. If that person doesn't want to follow, then find another person. You don't automatically go to murder. maybe you need god to make the call for you, but I can make that decision for myself.
LOl. Your misconception of critical thinking is what leads you to this assumption. If you really are thinking critically, you can find many better alternatives than murder. Your if/then conclusions are ridiculous.
Nothing is perfect. who made that claim. This is another one of your outlandish if/then scenarios. They're getting pretty bad. Just because we gather in large groups doesn't mean there are no wrinkles. Even the religious have killed each other. Nothing you have stated lends credence to no morality without religion.
Good grief man. Your basic morality and critical thought give you the tools necessary to reason that you shouldn't do whatever you want. If that's not enough, there's the law.
And what is critical thinking according to you? Thinking critically has nothing to do with morality Socool. Thinking Critically would be to realize that my attempts to socialize and negociate have failed. My business is suffering from economical problems. I have a familly to feed. Before I would earn $1000 now I earn $500 dollars and don't have enought to pay my daughter's school. What then? I am in problems, Critical Thinking points that I have to do something to survive. Since there is no God, then who prevents me from taking care of the problem?
Critical Thinking Definition:the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.
It has nothing to do with being moral.
Okay so what prevent us from "fixing the wrinkles" (Getting rid of the problem).
Except the Law was based on the Religious concept of morality. If i don't believe in God then I shouldn't believe in his commandments/doctrines!
In that aspect, the Law is but the way of thinking of other persons. What prevents me to follow MY OWN way of thinking?
Let me ask you another hypothetical question
Your wife is pregnant, however when your baby is born then you realize he is abnormal. Let's say he has a mental problem.
You know your son will NEVER be a normal person. You realize that you will have to mantain your baby for the rest of his life and that he won't be able to become independent. (As you can see this has nothing to do with banding together, it's a different concept).
What prevents you from sacrificing/killing your baby or abandoning him?