Back to a proper discussion

[Raithere]

A quick explanation for everyone:

This is something of a wandering topic that Tiassa and I have been discussing through several topic areas and in various digressions. Any constructive input is welcome (not that I can do anything about non-constructive input). In particular, it is an effort to address the larger issues regarding various paradigms of reality and morality and their functional relevance rather than nit picking at their specifics.

The dialogue is already in progress, if you'd like to review some of the background you can look to the these topics:

http://sciforums.com/t8799/s/thread.html
http://sciforums.com/t8263/s/thread.html
http://sciforums.com/f22/s/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8467&pagenumber=3

Regarding Morality

…one needs to establish an objective reason that murder is wrong. If you can show me that, then I'll accept that the morality and/or ethics people employ in their lives, when free of theistic suggestion, is any less arbitrary than the morality/ethics of people who are subject to theistic suggestion.

I can find several possible explanations that are not completely arbitrary. I also wouldn't go so far as to say that Theistic morality is completely arbitrary just that it can't be proven to be mandated by God and is often filled with politically motivated insertions or (using your word, which I find preferable) accretions.

1. Utilitarianism: "All action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."

2. Social Contract: We agree to standards of conduct, the "rules of society" in order to gain the advantages of society. Which is quite similar to Utilitarianism.

3. Naturalistic: "…any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. . . . " - Charles Darwin

4. Empathy and Consideration of Effect: Humans have the ability to comprehend another's experience, feelings, etc. Using this ability one can consider whether one's actions will be "correct" or "good" by the person(s) affected by such action. Such consideration of effect prior to action is part of any rational direction of one's actions.

5. Chaos Theory and Consideration of Effect: I find that the implications of Chaos theory as it applies to morality are profound. Consider what is commonly known as "The Butterfly Effect", that is the fact that in a Complex Dynamic System small changes in input can cause profound changes. The basic implication is that any action taken may have drastic consequences. Responsibility, even if only to oneself, therefore demands that consideration as to the impact of one's actions be given.

I think that Einstein stated it fairly well, "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

I mean, I see murder being wrong as pretty damn self-evident, but I largely base that against my conclusion that the purpose of life is perpetuation and progress of species.
…
I can objectively show it if one accepts the evidence of the living world to suggest that individual members of the species, by their actions, lend toward or against the progress of the species.

I find relatively few problems with this basis. I would equate it to what I termed as Naturalistic.

Various reasons; on the one hand it depends on the religion; to the other that "larger sense of God" seems to be an expression of that ineffable basis for right and wrong--those things that cannot be expressed objectively.

But I don't find that the basis for right and wrong are ineffable. They seem quite natural and explainable to me. I don't know that you can classify them as objective. But then again, isn't morality inherently subjective?

should I ask why some people find it necessary to make morality and purpose solely about the self?

I believe that, ultimately, everything can be reduced to certain subjectively reasoned assumptions. However, I find this to be self-defeating; I cannot prove that my mind is not in a vat or super-computer somewhere and that everything I experience is being directed by some alien or mad-scientist but a presumption such as this leads only to futility. As you have stated, at some point it is necessary to put one's foot down. I find the pantheistic and transcendental notions of God to be similar in reduction. Yes I could assert that everything existent is directed by or is God itself but what exactly does this imply? How does this change the methods I would use to determine truth or a basis of morality, for instance? It may be there, authorized by God but without revelation how is it perceived? If it is perceived through the workings of existence how does this approach vary from observation, science, and logic? At this level of reduction I do not see the difference between "it is because God is" or "it is because existence is".

Religion being such a unique, presumptory phenomenon, you'd think it would show unique symptoms more often.

This is a point where I feel that subjectivity becomes apparent. Fact is; religion is not truly unique. As you point out it is quite similar to notions of state and other tribalistic ideologies, economic presumptions, etcetera. Realizing this, I come to the conclusion that most of these similarities are derived from some commonality. What then is that commonality? One possibility is God. Another is the fact that there are areas of experience common to all humans.

Regarding Buddhism

But since you object, perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out your objections to this particular life is suffering idea:
…
Is it possible you're setting too dramatic a standard for suffering? I mean, I know you prefer your own definitions of words, but sometimes it does pay to stop and think that maybe, just maybe, the author's trying to communicate something you don't already know.

Actually, I've spent quite a bit of time studying Buddhism. I find quite a bit of the philosophy and even some of the practice useful. And yes, some of my objections come from problems with its translation to Western though and, specifically, English; particularly regarding the Fourfold Truths. Note this passage from your reference about The Truth of Suffering:

The cause of human suffering is undoubtedly found in the thirsts of the physical body and in the illusions of worldly passion. If these thirsts and illusions are traced to their source, they are found to be rooted in the intense desires of physical instincts. Thus, desire, having a strong will-to-live as its basis, seeks that which it feels desirable, even if it is sometimes death. This is called the Truth of the Cause of Suffering.
If the desire, which lies at the root of all human passion, can be removed, then passion will die out and all human suffering will be ended. This is called the Truth of the Cessation of Suffering.

The translation, however, is lacking. Specifically regarding two primary terms. Dukkha, is usually translated to suffering in English, yet it is incomplete. More properly dukkha is the suffering inherent in finite existence, the only escape from which lies in escape from finite existence to the infinite. This is accomplished through avoiding or letting go of tanha, another problematic term, which is often translated as desire and/or passion but more fully indicates an egoistic desire for superficial fulfillment. Note here that finite existence itself is considered superficial. Initially Buddhism comes across to the western mind as freeing the mind of desires and passions. Upon deeper study one realizes that it is the self that must be let go of.

I find this to be a more complete synopsis:
http://www.easternreligions.com/text/buddhatruths-t.html

Now I don't claim to have achieved Satori but I do think I understand this fairly well. And this is where I find the orientation towards suffering problematic; it holds an inherently negative perspective regarding finite existence. Now I could argue the concept of finite existence itself upon other grounds but let's accept this and continue. I must wonder why, if existence inherently causes suffering, we are here. And in this aspect I find it similar to the Christian notion that we are inherently evil (or at least prone to sin and separation from God). Most of the mainstream religions seem to focus upon this type of negativity as a central tenet of belief.

Essentially, the question becomes; If existence is a negative condition to which the solution/salvation is re-union with the original state of super-existence why is there is division in the first place? I can come up with two answers that I find acceptable (perhaps someone else can come up with more): 1. The separation is illusory. 2. The experience itself is valuable.
But now, given some possible answers, why insert the negative value to existence? If the separation is illusory then one only needs to perceive this. If the experience is valuable then shouldn't we enjoy it, take pleasure in it?

If you find the idea of God to be so vague that it's unnecessary, than I would say it's far too vague for you to really have any valid criticisms of.

I agree. But I must also wonder how such an idea is useful or from where it is derived.

Anyway, I hope this is a start towards something more constructive and less combative.

Sincerely,
~Raithere

 

[Adam]

I'll start by re-posting something from another thread (Why should we be good?):

My reasons:

As in another thread I'll provide the quote: "Honous is virtue's reward". Now, I'm not 100% sure about what these are, but I'm trying to do it anyway.

As for letting other people carry burdens, letting problems be handled by other people... What would you do if you saw some guy trying to rape a woman? Let someone else handle it? Hope someone else handles it? Walk on by? Not me. Important tasks or burdens are not for "other people".

But still, why?

I could say it boils down to "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." But to me, although a good general rule, it seems selfish. Like we should only behave in a civil manner because that's what we want for ourselves from others. So that old maxim doesn't cut it for me.

I think, in the end, what it comes down to for me is my personal belief in humanity and the advancement of humanity. We can either remain animals, clubbing each other over the head for a deer corpse, or we can be civil and reach the stars. Does that mean law and order? No. Law is for people who can't control themselves. What it means is living up to that ideal, of leaving behind the clubs and reaching for the stars, and making it your own personal responsibility to contribute in some way toward that future. Even if your contribution consists of merely refusing to be the worst of what humanity has to offer.

Some day I'll figure all this out thoroughly and write it down or something.

-------------

That's the same a "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you". My problem with it is that it seems to imply that you should do good because you want other to do good to you. Why would we need that reason to do good? Why not just be good because it's right?

-------------

I believe that fear of consequences is indeed a major driving force in most people. I'm a cynic. However, I also believe we do not have to be that way, and that we should all try to be more than that, as explained in my first post in this thread.

That thread I find quite relevent.

As mentioned in many threads, I find Hamilton's Rule to be integral to an understanding of human morality and behaviour. Sociobiology explains a lot for me, but it does seem a greatly speculative field, as Xenu pointed out. (Research Hamilton's Rule yourself for more, you should get more out of it by learning it yourself.)

I can't find the exact quote or the words used, but in Othello one of Shakespeare's characters said that all people are guided by an internal balance or scale; on one side is what we want, and on the other side is what we think we can get away with. Personally I find this notion rather shallow and self-serving; perhaps it was said by Iago.

More later, gotta go out soon.

 

[Tiassa]

Just a quick note ....

Raithere

Just to let you know I see it, and am thinking about it.

I'll have a more detailed response at some point, but a tip toward the first things I'm thinking about:

I can find several possible explanations that are not completely arbitrary. I also wouldn't go so far as to say that Theistic morality is completely arbitrary just that it can't be proven to be mandated by God and is often filled with politically motivated insertions or (using your word, which I find preferable) accretions.

[i}Arbitrary[/i], I admit, is a hard word for the circumstance. But when we cut down to the objective nitty-gritty, there comes a point where one simply puts their foot down and stands on right and wrong.

For instance, when I look at your list of five theories/paradigms/principles, I agree that, according to any one of them we can achieve the desired effect. But, when we get right down to it, neither you nor I can demonstrate that the theory/paradigm/principle is "correct" because right and correct are often in the eye of the beholder, and on this occasion right/correct definitely seems to be left to the beholder.

I agree with the theories insofar as I can go through them and achieve a certain desired result, but none of these theories/paradigms/&c (can I just use "theories" for the moment?) can be established as factual in the sense that it is demonstrably, irrefutably true. The objective foundation is seemingly as hard or impossible to attain as "God".

The rest of it I'll get to when I've figured out the above ...

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Adam
I could say it boils down to "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." But to me, although a good general rule, it seems selfish. Like we should only behave in a civil manner because that's what we want for ourselves from others. So that old maxim doesn't cut it for me.

It also suggests that one force one's morality and decisions upon others (I believe Cris pointed this out somewhere). The problem becomes apparent in the old joke/riddle; What happens when a sadist and a masochist try to apply the golden rule? This is why I suggested empathy, the understanding of another rather than the golden rule.

What it means is living up to that ideal, of leaving behind the clubs and reaching for the stars, and making it your own personal responsibility to contribute in some way toward that future. Even if your contribution consists of merely refusing to be the worst of what humanity has to offer.

Just to play Devils Advocate; How does one make such a decision and what about the consideration that other people's idea of what mans' future should be might be different, even directly opposed, to yours?

As mentioned in many threads, I find Hamilton's Rule to be integral to an understanding of human morality and behaviour.

It definitely demonstrates how genes promoting altruistic behavior promote their own survival. But does this imply then that there is no fundamental morality, that we have this sense of right and wrong simply because it is a self-promoting trait? Or is there some more fundamental basis on which we can base morality.

I'd also suggest that, aside from Hamilton's Rule, Game Theory provides a basis for cooperation from an individual standpoint. Note that even Zero Sum games take on a different aspect when played consecutively.

http://wings.buffalo.edu/soc-sci/pol-sci/courses/psc102/webpage/pdgame/pdframe.htm

and in the context of the Social Contract:

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/430/modality.pdf

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Originally posted by tiassa
Arbitrary, I admit, is a hard word for the circumstance. But when we cut down to the objective nitty-gritty, there comes a point where one simply puts their foot down and stands on right and wrong.

And I don't have a problem with that, except that the point must be otherwise valid. So provide that the actual "putting of the foot" is arbitrary how does one determine a rational, valid placement?

because right and correct are often in the eye of the beholder, and on this occasion right/correct definitely seems to be left to the beholder.

And we're right back to inherent subjectivity.

I agree with the theories insofar as I can go through them and achieve a certain desired result, but none of these theories/paradigms/&c (can I just use "theories" for the moment?) can be established as factual in the sense that it is demonstrably, irrefutably true.

I agree, I don't know that there is such a thing as an absolute moral truth. It's situational and in most cases you can come up with some hypothetical situation that brings any moral absolute into question.

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

Raithere (sorry, I'm lacking titles for the moment, well, good ones anyway)

Raithere

One of the things that crushes me about almost any religious discussion is that when we start cutting away sentiment and looking more directly toward the actual controlling factors of any human endeavor, we can see the situation clearly and simply.

For instance, the portion that I had thus far commented on ... we are back to a very simple dichotomy. Perhaps this can be demonstrated:

And I don't have a problem with that, except that the point must be otherwise valid. So provide that the actual "putting of the foot" is arbitrary how does one determine a rational, valid placement?

I agree with you entirely here. As I wrote over two years ago, I don't see my theology as being anything different from an atheist's perspective, except that I use different words to describe certain things, and that I might seek a different aspect of an object or an event. I still hold by that, in general. Unfortunately, the reality that belies such generalizations as I used to write on behalf of atheism is that very few people set such a standard. For instance, as I've been thinking of late about generalizations, we can look to the topic to which I've referred you and see one of my biggest generalized blunders when I wrote, The atheist starts with no assumptions when viewing the cosmos. Instead of holding the miracles of the Universe up as works of God, and thus going forth, the atheist looks at the Universe and simply goes forth. I can only apologize for the generalization; it seems that some atheists don't even bother looking at the Universe, and it is unfair to extend such a generalization to them.

Of those, however, that do look to the Universe and the world around them, I still hold that the difference is mere vocabulary.

In terms of the putting of the foot, one of the things that is important for me to make clear to atheists in these debates is that when you cut away the names of the baseless ideas that motivate people to put the foot, it's all essentially the same.

At some point, we put down that proverbial foot. The difference between saying because God says so and because that's the way it is equals exactly zero. Just as some reduce God to a miniscule tragic farce with huge ramifications, so do some reduce "objectivity" to a similar tragic farce.

Take the word "God" out of it, for a moment:

• It is right or wrong because (subjective assertion)

or

• It is right or wrong because (subjective assertion)

Whether it is right or wrong because God says so or because I say so or because statistics indicate such-and-such and thus suggest such-and-such, there is no objective peg upon which such an assertion can safely hang. This much, it seems, we are either agreed upon or close to.

For some theists, and I'll happily exploit Christianity (it is, after all, undeniably my favorite target and most frequent source of stimulus to my reactions in such matters), that point at which the foot comes down is too difficult to quantify. Hence they rely on a particularly narrow version of God to manage their perspective.

For other theists, it's not nearly that simple. The idea of God is something so large and vague that it becomes almost a non-factor. God does not sit on high, does not sit in judgment, does not concern itself with the petty concerns of people, does not hurt when a child dies. The idea of God comes to represent that principle which motivates the putting of the foot, so to speak.

For instance, Adilbai Kharkovli notes: (T)he Sufis are operating in the field of religion: which means that they are committed to belief in a meaning for human life, the existence of a divine power and a transmission of the knowledge of that meaning, that power, and certain opportunities for mankind.

I've pointed this one out before, in a couple of other topics, but come back to it here because it is an excellent point suited for this particular discussion.

• Meaning for human life: Jeffrey Burton Russell, in what appears to be a harsh criticism of "secular progressivism", notes: If no absolutes exist that transcend humanity, then nothing exists that could possibly be drawing humanity in any particular direction, and we are in random motion. Without a goal, motion is meaningless. If Portland is your goal you can make progress by driving a mile down the road toward Portland, but if you have no goal, then driving a mile in the direction of Portland or in any other direction is meaningless motion, not progress. That "man sets his own goals" is an evasion, because human goals shift frequently and radically. One may make progress in terms of this or that limited goal, but unless there is a general and final goal, it is not possible to speak of progress overall.

It's a bit harsh, but such is the limitation of the Christian scope. Removing such an idea from Dr Russsell's immediate considerations of Lucifer/the Devil/evil, we can still find some application for the idea.

• I tend to find peace to be "progressive".
• What is this progress relative to?
• The purpose of life seems to be the perpetuation and proliferation of the species.
• Warfare destroys human beings for very simple and arguably inadequate reasons.
• To end the human tradition of warfare can create circumstances by which humanity can secure its place in the Universe (e.g. eliminating one mortal threat to the species) and help ease the process of proliferation (as the causes for warfare diminish--e.g. poverty, illiteracy, &c.--humanity will not be wasting 100-million lives in a war).

All of it: rights, individuality, equality before the law ... we strive toward those because they reduce the immediate challenges to each individual's life, allowing them to function according to their inclination and potential. To suspend those rights, those equalities, and that individuality, returns us to a contrived structure designed to benefit the smallest portions of humankind, and at the expense of the human species in general.

Conceptually, I admit, it sounds easier than application will prove.

But how is peace progressive if the purpose or meaning is random, individual, or otherwise? People can set whatever goals they wish, there's no doubt about that. But if that goal transgresses, for instance, conventional law, well, just don't get caught while pursuing it. If, for instance, I set a goal that is simply to live and feel as good as possible, I run the risk of eventually hurting someone. Why are murder and rape wrong? There have been many a time when I thought killing someone would help a situation; it's one of the reasons I'm pacifist these days. Rape? Come on, I'm not talking the fine-line distinctions of date-rape and such, but really .... To wit, I had the opportunity to laugh at a friend of mine; he complained about his ex-girlfriend. He respected her, he loves women, he tried to be good to her, ad nauseam, fill in the blanks to eternity .... Of course, in reality, he believes that there are times that a woman needs to be bent over and given one whether she wants it or not. He's one of those people who "loves women" in order to have as many of them as he wants. Good to her? Hey, comparatively, sure. But basing a relationship on hash and fellatio while two people completely ignore each others' real needs does not point toward an appreciable result. Sure, he reached a goal: he got to bang a super-hottie chick that everyone he knew wanted to bend over and give one, but hey, he got to do it, and the fact that we all just watched them both go through eight hellish months in which the only goal attained was a new degree of vitriol speaks to the price he'll pay to get it. Progress? Felony? We're not entirely sure, since she's more upset about not being able to do cocaine around him than she is about anything he may or may not have visited upon her person.

So where were we ... ah, yes, the putting of the foot.

I put my foot down in response to a notion of progress. It's fairly easy because life has a purpose.

I can't speak toward the point that individualists put the foot. During my most individualistic phase, that point was basically Thelemic.

Funny that. It's still Thelemic.

But there's a couple of cents on the putting of the foot.

And we're right back to inherent subjectivity.

I know. I have no comment, smartassed or otherwise, which might shed further light on that.

I agree, I don't know that there is such a thing as an absolute moral truth. It's situational and in most cases you can come up with some hypothetical situation that brings any moral absolute into question.

Well, part of that is that most moral absolutes are far too narrow in their consideration.

That is, the absolutes are restricted by accretions.

Think of yourself as a human throughout history.

• You're on the savannah: what is the process of life?
• You're with a nomadic clan: what is the process of life?
• You're with a tribal community: what is the process of life?
• You're with a cosmopolitan community: what is the process of life?
• You're with a modern society: what is the process of life?

In the earliest, eat, sleep, shit, reproduce.

And then you developed some obligations to others.

And then more obligations to even more others.

And then even more obligations to still more others ....

(Need I go on with that?)

At each stage, a newly-accreted obligation. Originally, only yourself. Then, perhaps, your kin. Then your local community, and the process grows ever greater.

And these accreted obligations, and how we respond to them, in part determines the scope of our perspective, such that almost anything we declare as absolute will be false.

I'm thinking of a bad episode of the color-TV Twilight Zone when the aliens come, give a vague speech, and the UN scrambles to achieve peace, pulling it off in 24 hours only to find out that they've accomplished the wrong goal: humans were invented as warriors, and in a peaceful state, they're useless.

There is no one aspect of that to pull out. Almost any that you come across will hopefully be food for thought.

And that's it, for the moment.

Of Buddhism, I'm trying to find the most polite way to point out that I'm aware of the translational problems of dhukka and other words, and furthermore that I find the notion of life as suffering to be more observational and therefore realistic. For instance, it's easy to get upset when something goes wrong, but how significant does an event have to be that "goes right" before you devote the same amount of energy to your expression? In that sense, the differentiation of sensation that makes life what it is may be invested in the negative. If I stub my toe on the stairs, I'm sure to say a couple of things about it. And if I hit myself in the face with the door as I mumble on out to the street from there, I'm sure to have a couple of sentiments about that. But I certainly don't devote such energy to the occasions that I descend and exit without incident.

There's more, I'm sure, but I haven't put those parts together yet.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[overdoze]

To haltingly chime in...

I'm almost afraid to ruin the discussion with my incursion, and I hope I don't deflect the epic train of thought here. But just a few thoughts that I vaingloriously imagine might cut closer to the heart of the matter (at least from an atheistic perspective.)

One inherent weakness of absolute morals is that they do not change (by definition) whereas the world around them does (demonstrably.) From such perspective, absolute morals at any point in that evolution are inviting their own extinction by failing to adapt.

A related weakness of absolute morals is that they typically lose the thought process behind them. IOW, some human came up with a moral via some argument. However once the moral is enshrined and absolute, the original argument is lost. If the original argument were preserved, then as the world changes the argument could be applied again to see if the outcome is still the same -- hence preserving the flexibility of the moral. Moreover, if there is a reasoned argument behind the moral it would be easier to propound the moral in the first place.

Aside from flexibility, absolute morals make it harder to shape social policy. If morals are based on argument rather than a decree, then policymakers can apply this argument to formulate a plan of action. Thus you could form logical inferences of the sort that if we do x then y will occur leading to z which is desirable/undesirable, and hence we must/must not do x. If such arguments are based on physical data and are well reasoned, they would be sufficient to convince the populace and give it direction -- very importantly regardless of the populace's diversity of religious views. Hence absolute morals are counterproductive for a secular government.

As to subjectivity, then of course anything that comes out of a human mind is subjective. However, that which I can combine with independently confirmable observation and a valid chain of inference to convince anyone else of my position, is objective. With limited knowledge, the chain of inference I deem valid may be in fact flawed; however, the ultimate outcome of applying my recommendations is once again objective and hence will point out whether I was correct or not. Morals, then, can be objective and yet not absolute at the same time, evolving in an ongoing experiment of society. Of course, this can only be well defined (I think) when the morals are goal-oriented, IOW, applying vs. not applying them has demonstrable tangible consequences for the participants.

If one views morals as such an evolving framework of tenets within a human social context, then if one assumes that the fundamental nature of humans does not change then eventually the moral framework must converge toward an optimum "fitness" as applied to human societies. Of course, to determine fitness one must have a set of criteria on which to judge it. So what are the criteria for judging morality?

I believe the ultimate criterion is selfishness. I want to have a nice life free of violence and full of pleasant interactions with others. To that end, I must follow such a set of rules as to maximize the match between the life I actually lead and the life I desire. In connection to that, the others ought to follow a possibly different set of rules so as to satisfy me. But since everyone is selfish, we all bring the same demands to the table, hence making the set of rules symmetrical (IOW, "universal".) The degree to which all of society participates in forging the moral framework determines how biased the framework is. For example, if it is generated mostly by males then of course it is likely to suit their desires better and may potentially go against the desires of females. The fullest participation guarantees the fairest system overall. Altruism does play a role, but not all are expected to care for the needs of others. Overall, it's selfishness. IMHO

 

[Cris]

Overdoze,

Very nicely said.

 

[Adam]

Adam dons his silly black ninja outfit, and hides in the shadows, awaiting his opportunity...

"HAH!" Adam strikes, sword slicing cleanly through Tiassa!

Ninja Adam pisses on the corpse from the shadows, as a head rolls across the sciforums floor...

 

[overdoze]

Originally posted by Cris
Overdoze,

Very nicely said.

Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you very much!

*bows and curtsies*

 

[Raithere]

Re: Raithere (sorry, I'm lacking titles for the moment, well, good ones anyway)

Originally posted by tiassa
Of those, however, that do look to the Universe and the world around them, I still hold that the difference is mere vocabulary.

Perhaps, but it's a vocabulary loaded with thousands of years of assumption, inconsistency, cultural bias, and error. Why maintain a dependence upon such a biased vocabulary? Particularly when common understanding most often includes these accretions.

The difference between saying "because God says so" and "because that's the way it is" equals exactly zero. Just as some reduce God to a miniscule tragic farce with huge ramifications, so do some reduce "objectivity" to a similar tragic farce.

The Sufis are operating in the field of religion: which means that they are committed to belief in a meaning for human life, the existence of a divine power and a transmission of the knowledge of that meaning, that power, and certain opportunities for mankind.

As it applies to these "large and vague" conceptions of God, I tend to agree. However, this is not the common perception of God. Why add the assertion of "divine power" with all its problematic accretions? To me, it speaks to a desire for authority or validation of the other ideas. "These things are true because of God." rather than evaluating the ideas upon their own merits and failings in comparison to other ideas. This is why religion is so prone to accretions; the merit, or lack thereof, of the idea is superseded by authority.

Absolutes

If no absolutes exist that transcend humanity, then nothing exists that could possibly be drawing humanity in any particular direction, and we are in random motion. Without a goal, motion is meaningless. … That "man sets his own goals" is an evasion, because human goals shift frequently and radically.

Well, part of that is that most moral absolutes are far too narrow in their consideration.
That is, the absolutes are restricted by accretions.

And these accreted obligations, and how we respond to them, in part determines the scope of our perspective, such that almost anything we declare as absolute will be false.

There are no absolutes, only temporary conditions. Most so-called "absolutes" rely upon arbitrary foundations and classifications, which are not absolute. Others are based upon conditions that are transitional and may be applicable for a particular, temporary situation but become erroneous as the situation changes.

The insistence of absolutes results from an emotional and perhaps intellectual dependence upon order, which is a result of perception and wishful thinking, not reality. The author in your quotation belies his own prejudice against the inherently chaotic nature of the Universe, striving for control that does not exist. A plea for the Universe to be orderly, reasonable, understandable, perhaps even compassionate… these are some of the basic drives that cause people to hide their heads in the sands of religion.

Why is "man sets his own goals' any more arbitrary than "God sets man's goals"? Particularly when it is man who decides what God's goals are? Human consciousness is the unit of measure here. I find that it is the author's argument that is evasive. If an overriding, absolute "goal" existed it would be implicit and readily apparent. Infinite regression would not be possible for we would come up against this "absolute", the philosophical "unmovable object". Largely, I find the reliance upon an external mandate to be lazy and irresponsible. It eliminates the need to one to define, measure, and compare alternatives. Locked into an authorized morality or goal one avoids responsibility by refusing to acknowledge the choices they make; insisting the choices are mandated by God.

By your beliefs in singularities, in granular absolutes, you deny movement, even the movement of evolution! While you cause a granular universe to persist in your awareness, you are blind to movement. When things change, your absolute universe vanishes, no longer accessible to your self-limiting perceptions. The universe has moved beyond you. - "Heretics of Dune"

We depend upon absolutes and seek finite limits because we can't handle the rigors of terrible decisions. We cling to one-eyed visions of the universe because the alternatives terrify us. You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgement of your existence. - "Children of Dune"

Progress and Purpose

One may make progress in terms of this or that limited goal, but unless there is a general and final goal, it is not possible to speak of progress overall.

I tend to find peace to be "progressive".
But how is peace progressive if the purpose or meaning is random, individual, or otherwise?

I put my foot down in response to a notion of progress. It's fairly easy because life has a purpose.

Peace simply as a state of "non-war" is one thing; as an absolute it is entirely something else. Chaos is what we are adapted for; such is the nature of the Universe.

Progress is also a loaded assumption; one must ask "Progress and purpose as determined by whom and by what measure?" Even if you define the purpose of life as perpetuation of the species based upon reasonable observations this purpose would constrain certain activities. They would wind up having no meaning in this paradigm.

Society and Freedom

All of it: rights, individuality, equality before the law ... we strive toward those because they reduce the immediate challenges to each individual's life, allowing them to function according to their inclination and potential. To suspend those rights, those equalities, and that individuality, returns us to a contrived structure designed to benefit the smallest portions of humankind, and at the expense of the human species in general.

At each stage, a newly-accreted obligation. Originally, only yourself. Then, perhaps, your kin. Then your local community, and the process grows ever greater.

These added "obligations" restrict the individual in some ways while opening up new freedoms at the same time. We can accomplish more as a group than we can as individuals but the larger the group the larger the number of necessary restrictions to individual freedom. As a society, it is the tradeoff we must examine to make sure the balance does not tip too far in either direction and to make sure that we restrict only what is absolutely necessary.

Buddhism

I find the notion of life as suffering to be more observational and therefore realistic. For instance, it's easy to get upset when something goes wrong, but how significant does an event have to be that "goes right" before you devote the same amount of energy to your expression? In that sense, the differentiation of sensation that makes life what it is may be invested in the negative.

But this is exactly where I think several of the Eastern Philosophies/Religions get it wrong. If one is capable of conscious control over the perception of experience (i.e. letting go of "desire") why not take it to a more positive outlook? That is, despite the immediate physical or emotional perception of pleasure or suffering, experience of existence can be perceived as a positive thing. Suffering provides contrast to pleasure; it provides us with motive to surmount the problems that cause it. It is the impact of reality upon ourselves.

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

Overdoze

I'm almost afraid to ruin the discussion with my incursion, and I hope I don't deflect the epic train of thought here. But just a few thoughts that I vaingloriously imagine might cut closer to the heart of the matter (at least from an atheistic perspective.)

Ruin away

Actually, I'll echo Cris' sentiment.

I am, in fact, unsure of where to begin. So just some commentary to begin:

One inherent weakness of absolute morals is that they do not change (by definition) whereas the world around them does (demonstrably.) From such perspective, absolute morals at any point in that evolution are inviting their own extinction by failing to adapt.

One of my themes is the examination of an idea as it relates to its living result. Example: Communism. Sounds reasonable on paper, but it would seem particularly difficult to pull off. We can even go so far as to theorize why, though by and large it seems that Marxism itself underestimates the force of the human individual.°

Christianity? I personally offer "original sin" as the first thing wrong there. Some of the rest of it is harder to figure out. But in the presumption of the state of a person as a sinner, even in sympathy (e.g. "we are all sinners in the hands of an angry God"), can lead to an almost instinctive mistrust of one's fellow human. Certain periods have demonstrated that mistrust: the indictment against the institutions which delivered Christianity forward to the present is long, and we need not revisit it here specifically. But it seems easy enough to point out that the myth of the devil found Satan first as an abstract idea (satan--stumbling block, Num. 22), as a tempter (1 Chr. 21), then as a holy servant (Job), and only in prophecy and the New Testament in the form most are familiar with.° And it seems easy enough to point out that Satan, in Christian history, was found first in the days of Jesus' ministry, to characterize fellow Jews during what was essentially a theocratic uprising (cf. the Bible). As Christian conversion moved into Roman pagan communities, so, too, did the Devil (cf. Pagels°). That is, the Devil, first found among the Jewish forces conspiring against Jesus, now found representation in the pagan gods and ideas which Christianity strove to counter. It would come that the establishment of an ecclesiastical order would also bring infighting, and soon enough the Devil invaded the Christian community, so that rival idealists would see Satan's machinations in each other. This unfortunate personification relies, at a certain level, on the presumption of sin, that people are vulnerable to such evil influence. In the modern United States, we argue much of recidivism among criminals. Yet our prison system works ineffectively at best toward the rehabilitation of the criminal, the restoration of societal potential, and people fear the sinful, that the criminal will return to crime. We see on at least one level the expectation of the worst, and a kind of catch-22 in which many criminals are expected to remain "evil", and are left no other options. Can we break this cycle without separating ourselves wholly from the myth of original sin? Perhaps, but I have not yet accomplished this condition. But to consider the vast implications of original sin, and to examine the course of Christian history, we see the idea at play throughout, and coloring situations for the worse. It is a fundamental error of the Christian perspective; anyone who wants to see what Christianity looks like when it is aware of this condition ought to check in with the Society of Friends, who have a little different take on it.°

In Communism and Christianity alike, very simple fundamental errors can be pointed out, and among them the idea that certain values are absolute. We see what happens when these absolutes are subjected to the weathering of time.

However, there still remains the question of whether or not any absolutes do exist, especially in terms of right and wrong. The extinction of humanity renders the point moot, so I would bank that somewhere in the midst of cataclysm incest might not so much become a good idea as the only gamble left.

But that's part of whence comes the idea that perpetuity and progress of species is an almost--if not soundly--absolute value that we can notch in the "good" or "right" column. Even in a Starship Troopers' sense, battling for species survival against the bug-creatures, is anyone going to pretend that the Universe really isn't big enough for everyone?

So it does seem that there's a place I put my foot down and declare an absolute, but I'm more than willing to bend, rethink, or otherwise withdraw that absolute if I can figure out why.

A related weakness of absolute morals is that they typically lose the thought process behind them.

Karen Armstrong° reminds us that not all religions are theistic. I think a non-theistic religion can fairly be said to be any non-theistic idea held forth as remotely absolute while unaware of the reasons (e.g. thought process) behind it. The same of theistic religions, though a metaphor is declared to represent that absence of reason or thought process. In a way, this is exactly the direction I'm trying to run with these ideas. The point only peripherally pertains to symptom containment, and looks directly toward curing the disease, so to speak.

if there is a reasoned argument behind the moral it would be easier to propound the moral in the first place.

I agree entirely, and hold this inherent in the idea of the flexibility of the moral; its diversity of application--e.g. its living result--determines its propriety as a moral (or, as some would have it, ethical) value.

Aside from flexibility, absolute morals make it harder to shape social policy. If morals are based on argument rather than a decree, then policymakers can apply this argument to formulate a plan of action. Thus you could form logical inferences of the sort that if we do x then y will occur leading to z which is desirable/undesirable, and hence we must/must not do x. If such arguments are based on physical data and are well reasoned, they would be sufficient to convince the populace and give it direction -- very importantly regardless of the populace's diversity of religious views. Hence absolute morals are counterproductive for a secular government.

Absolute morals make responsible social policy impossible. As an American, it seems self-evident to me when I say the last 22 years have shown this problem, but that state of being self-evident comes from a perspective that witnessed a president allowing AIDS to run unchecked in the country because of a religiously-derived moral judgment against homosexuals and a lack of human sympathy (somehow derived from the same religion) toward drug addicts; I've seen a Drug War fought at the expense and detriment of Americans everywhere, which has also exacted a higher toll from "non-whites" including clear indications of enforcement based on skin color; and an economy which has led to the current debacle among large American corporations.°

But I agree: logical is as logical does. It would seem that if people understood the reasons for morality, they might conduct themselves accordingly. To wit, I hope never to tell a daughter that it's "wrong" to have sex at whatever age, or otherwise. But I hope to be able to demonstrate in such a circumstance how utterly bad an idea it is; tripling your cervical cancer chance?° For an orgasm? Here, have a ... "back massager". You'll figure it out. But if I can give someone a reason for a particular behavior, then I would hope it seems more attractive than a vague threat of condemnation from a god, or less guilt-inspiring than a willful disruption of natural harmony, invocation of discord, or other abstractions. Abstractions should be left to the abstract.° Where we have reasonably reliable data to address the question directly, we ought not resort to superstition.

As to subjectivity, then of course anything that comes out of a human mind is subjective. However, that which I can combine with independently confirmable observation and a valid chain of inference to convince anyone else of my position, is objective. With limited knowledge, the chain of inference I deem valid may be in fact flawed; however, the ultimate outcome of applying my recommendations is once again objective and hence will point out whether I was correct or not. Morals, then, can be objective and yet not absolute at the same time, evolving in an ongoing experiment of society. Of course, this can only be well defined (I think) when the morals are goal-oriented, IOW, applying vs. not applying them has demonstrable tangible consequences for the participants.

I'm generally right there with you.

What, though, is the presupposition? In the moral question, it is an issue of right and wrong. For instance, in arguing right and wrong about warfare, there is one particularly delightful argument that one cannot prove warfare is wrong in the sense that killing off large amounts of the human population either locally or globally might have a beneficial effect for the species. Most often, this argument is applied by revisionists pushing apologetics for genocide and other repugnant ideas. However ....

However, how to confirm the valid chain of evidence? Disruptive selection? What about AIDS? Does losing X% of the human gene-pool to a disease strengthen the species? Well, there goes my absolute, since the "immune" portion of the population is ... rather small and difficult to determine.° The point being that it can be shown in history that "thinning the herd" can be profitable to a species. Living in the Pacific Northwest, we hear this frequently about the trees. We would take the idea more seriously if it hadn't been used as an excuse to clearcut.° Or, to restore some seriousness to the examples, bacteria and antibiotics. There's a war afoot there.

If one views morals as such an evolving framework of tenets within a human social context, then if one assumes that the fundamental nature of humans does not change then eventually the moral framework must converge toward an optimum "fitness" as applied to human societies. Of course, to determine fitness one must have a set of criteria on which to judge it. So what are the criteria for judging morality?

Can I split a hair? Please? Just one?

• Societies: Societies or society? That is, do we look forward to a fragmented species in disparate societies, or a more cooperative effort? I'm one for cultural preservation, but if I oppose a one-world government, it's only because I don't think the human species can figure it out properly, yet.

And I hope I'm not splitting a second hair ... I'll go so far as to assert that I'm not. But the presupposition seems to come with the idea of optimum fitness as applied to human societies. A Sufist counterpoint: Is the best we have the best we can manage? Beyond that, what becomes of the obligation to progress? But the issue I'm bouncing off here is a question of the reliability of those criteria.

I see many conditions which suffice, but many involve convention of the masses, which also seems, at present, to be spoken against in history. Manifest Destiny? Slave trade? Inquisitions? Vietnam? Britney Spears? CNN? When in Western history were the masses ever right? We can't even say in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence because it's become quite clear over the years that only the Framers knew exactly what they were talking about. Of course, looking forward to progress, this condition might change. It's a long road if it's to be traveled at all.

I believe the ultimate criterion is selfishness. I want to have a nice life free of violence and full of pleasant interactions with others. To that end, I must follow such a set of rules as to maximize the match between the life I actually lead and the life I desire. In connection to that, the others ought to follow a possibly different set of rules so as to satisfy me. But since everyone is selfish, we all bring the same demands to the table, hence making the set of rules symmetrical (IOW, "universal".) The degree to which all of society participates in forging the moral framework determines how biased the framework is. For example, if it is generated mostly by males then of course it is likely to suit their desires better and may potentially go against the desires of females. The fullest participation guarantees the fairest system overall. Altruism does play a role, but not all are expected to care for the needs of others. Overall, it's selfishness. IMHO

I'll raise a glass to that: selfishness, indeed. It's one reason why I'm intrigued with Sufism: the concept of "polishing the mirror", or refining oneself, until one looks in the mirror and sees God--a way of becoming one with God, a specific meaning of the idea, of achieving maximum perceptive and assimilation potential so that one can make the clearest moral judgments possible. Having not studied nearly enough Buddhism, I can't figure how to eliminate the idea of the self without spiraling into nihilism, but that's just me.

But selfishness is one of the reasons that I continually drag up a comparison of two theological creeds:

• An' thou harm none, do what thou will. (Witches' Rede)
ª Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. (Thelema)

What's funny is that they say the same thing. Not "essentially" or "virtually" the same, but the actual same thing. The Rede, in setting what appears to be a distinction, concretizes what is flexibly inherent in Thelema. The Rede bears an absolute that is impossible to work around until one does master teleportation and other rumored magicks which I've never seen and cannot assert to be real. (At what potentiality does conflict-avoidance, for instance, become absolutely effective? When one can absolutely avoid all conflict. The unfortunate aspect of this is that for some, merely existing is giving offense. )

Think of it this way: if you do what is best for yourself, that should, in theory, inherently reflect what is best for the community. Unfortunately, various accreted ideas and distracting paradigms have obscured this idea, so that people believe that what is best for their own self includes what is specifically and unnecessarily harmful to another.

Or, so says I, What makes common sense sensible?

Notes:

° Marxism: There are plenty of generalizations that can be lent with reasonable accuracy to the failures of Marxism. Another concept worth considering is the Communist overestimation of communitarian will among human individuals. While it can be reasoned that Marx envisioned an ideological state among the workers that would understand the necessity of communitarian will among individuals; it cannot be expected that people formerly starving in tyranny are going to pick at their foot for manners' sake. Such arguments, however, deserve their own topics of consideration, and are only put forth in illustration of an idea.

° Satan--familiiar: Well, okay. But it's the prophecies and the New Testament which form the basis for those ridiculous Devil-myths. In other words, it took hermit-philosophers and then Christians to raise the Devil.

° Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Vintage, 1996. (see Chapter V regarding pagan issues of early Christianity)

° Society of Friends: Also known as Quakers. See George Fox regarding what American author Jack Cady calls "original possibility".

° Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity & Islam. New York: Knopf, 1994. (see Introduction, pg. xix)

° Debacle: What's really sad is that Wall Street is taking this harder than I am. $3.8 billion? $12 billion? A few fraudulent loans? Come on ... people are getting hurt badly by this coming-apart, but what, really, is all that shocking about it except for how nakedly we get to watch it?

° Tripling: I heard that number once; I believe that for a woman to begin heterosexual activity at age 14 could increase the risk of cervical cancer threefold; that's at least ten years old, so the numbers might not reflect reality whatsoever.

° Abstractions to the abstract: Years of science-fiction in the general culture have already settled a future moral. A true artificial intelligence displaying comparative values and independent will (even if that will is proscribed by programming) stands as a living entity. Reality, however, will probably introduce that question to me at an earlier stage in the development than I envision. I will probably be heard in my lifetime to argue on behalf of certain AI's that are barely functional. I actually happened to be thinking about that just the other day because I happened across a TNN rerun of Star Trek TNG debating Data's status as a living, independent entity. It seems so simple to me, but I know I'm not entirely correct in that. Of course, just as an example.

° Immune to AIDS: I'm not going to bother pulling "immunity" statistics out of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome; it's a mess of words and it's only worth mentioning in the sense that while I even had professors at the University of Oregon talking about people being able to resist HIV, I never did hear a good source of data. Furthermore, there was a case in LA in the 1990s where doctors believe a developing immune system in an HIV+ infant somehow did its job and won the fight; as of the child's fifth birthday (sometime in '97, I think), the child consistently tested negative for HIV infection. We are the human species.

° Clearcut: At least a forest fire leaves plenty of material to fertilize the soil anew. So does a clearcut, but why stage-by-stage while claiming to be doing the forest a favor?

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Raithere

Perhaps, but it's a vocabulary loaded with thousands of years of assumption, inconsistency, cultural bias, and error. Why maintain a dependence upon such a biased vocabulary? Particularly when common understanding most often includes these accretions

Because beneath those accretions lie a number of assertions intended to reflect moral absolutes. However, without knowledge of that actual core--and, accepting on faith that any absolutes exist whatsoever--one cannot necessarily assert what it is. Certain aspects of the religious structure necessarily cannot be examined from without. If the asserted absolutes can be identified, they can be tested, and the conditions of their application can be noted. As absolutes crumble away beneath objective consideration, one or two might stand in some form long-since considered. The fundamental themes that motivated the superstitions that brought us to the scientific age deserve some credit, despite the abuse they've taken by the superstitious. Identifying those fundamental themes still has some value, even if only to undermine organized theistic religion. Temples of the familiar, religions of the experiences of the self will continue to thrive and flourish. Until spirituality itself can be resolved as one type of function or another in the brain, people will continue to explore its realms religiously. One must work to cure the diseases picked up along the way, to seek that element that practicality lacks which compels human beings along spiritual paths. Objectively speaking, the objectivist world in which religious ideas become truly extinct is so far beyond our present comprehension that belief in it constitutes a faith in and of itself. It is, in fact, utopiate; all of the questions which press us toward abstraction will have been answered. On the one hand I find this condition of utopia quite reasonable an expectation; to the other, I find the relative impossibility of its fulfillment what makes it a vision of utopia.

I find the notion of God to presently be a necessity of the human experience. This necessity does not require all to believe in God. But God will not die until enough of "God's business" is settled. That business is most easily settled once one finds a definition of God that they can accept; it helps make the examination more honest, in my opinion. Not only do I have something of a notion of what I mean when steering a theist in a particular direction, but I'm not lying by using the word "God". Everything beyond that becomes metaphor at best. But it's good to cover such fundamental bases.

As it applies to these "large and vague" conceptions of God, I tend to agree. However, this is not the common perception of God. Why add the assertion of "divine power" with all its problematic accretions? To me, it speaks to a desire for authority or validation of the other ideas. "These things are true because of God." rather than evaluating the ideas upon their own merits and failings in comparison to other ideas. This is why religion is so prone to accretions; the merit, or lack thereof, of the idea is superseded by authority.

The divine power, in this case, is as close to "God" as the author intended to get. What "God" is, what that "divine power" is, what the condition that represents the whole of what is true in the Universe actually is--it's a sticky issue among mystics. Especially so in the case of Sufism. The divine power speaks of whatever (be it a process, an entity, or a consciousness, ad infinitum) determined the condition of the Universe. The Big Bang--was it a uniform release or was there a local instability first? Nonetheless, what determined that condition insofar as what are the actual constraints? For example, I once heard a really bad argument that I can't quite reconstruct for its degree of absurdity, but it sounded like a really bad take on Hawking--because that's all we see. It pertained to the realm of elements. Now, I can accept that we can theorize this or that element at this weight, but how do we know there's not something heavier than the limit we've set? Such was the issue thirteen years ago, but in the meantime we can look at a theoretic condition of what is possible to exist in the Universe on such a fundamental scale. At some point, do we hit a limit? I'm prepared for a "no", but I've heard all my life when it came up that we're not going to find a whole lot more elements to add to the periodic table. So in terms of constraints, what sets that limit? Because from it all other things can be determined in a theoretical state. Every thought impulse, every molecule ... it sounds deterministic, but we're talking about a ridiculous knowledge and processing capacity by this point so it's almost irrelevant whether or not it's deterministic.

Of authority or validation, though, I submit that it's more basic than that. In terms of superstition, it represents the unknown that is greater than human capacity to understand (e.g. one human at one time). In terms of aspiration, it represents the reasons why. The accretions are symptomatic of natural, social, and economic factors, as well as personal-variation mutations.

Of God vs. "comparison"--fundamentally I agree with you except that the "other ideas" have no independent merit of their own. What is the point at which one puts the foot down in order to give the ideas a pedestal to stand on?

Religion is superstition, first and foremost. Beyond that, religious (superstitious) representations of experience get compressed by necessity of disparate entities communicating. Somebody had to decide it was necessary to exploit superstition for profit or comfort. Because religion frequently anthropomorphizes the abstract representation of all reason and order in the Universe, religion is prone to seek leadership. Because of authority, there is fear. Because of data compression, fear is institutionalized. Any paradigm is only as strong as its weakest component. As it was, when people were comparatively ignorant, institutional religion accomplished much which could not otherwise be explained. You'll note that, despite all else, the real trouble started with the printing press. One would think it enough, for instance, to shake off the authority of the churches, but to bring that despotism into a newly-empowered, individualistic, selfish, god-fearing individual mind seems an invitation to disaster.

Nonetheless, behind Christianity, behind Judaism, behind Islam, apparent in Buddhism and Sufism, and generally admitted of Hinduism there exists a greater ideal toward which the religions aspired, and this condition has always generally been acknowledged to be beyond words. Watch almost any Christian erroneously violating expressed tenets; immediately the accretions are shaken and the Christian returns to a broader definition of God. It is this broader concept that has been dressed up with bells and whistles and nails in the wrists. Kind of like drama to a play. The play shows you what someone thinks drama is, much like the religion shows you what someone thinks God is. The question becomes "Why do they believe this is what God is?" In the case of Christianity, it is often simple to get to the bottom of it. In broader religions, it is much more difficult. Witchcraft, one of the simplest religions I know of, can be identified quite distinctly within its many forms by peculiar practices unique to this or that cultural expression of it. Furthermore, the myths employ different names, and take different routes to reach similar conclusions. But I have yet to find a single witchcraft that asserts that its pantheon constitutes the whole of existence in the same way the Judeo-Christian deity is asserted. Throughout the whole, even the contrived pseudo-revivals, there is generally an acceptance of the localization of deities. Certes, they might be held to rule the earth, but the concept of galaxies seemingly unknown to the primal religionists, we should not be surprised at a lack of gods governing the solar system itself, though we do in history see gods assigned to the stars and planets as their astronomical behavior was learned.

To put it bluntly, if you wish to eliminate religion, the best you might be able to accomplish for a good number of human generations is the returning of religion to its unique nexus of primal and "modern", the realm of the mystical. If you render it as passive as the large and vague conceptions of God necessitate, I think you'll find it less problematic in life. Beyond that, to shoot for a complete purging of religious elements in society, well, the quickest route is to strip away the accretions and let the core stand for itself. If it crumbles to smoke in the daylight--if it even exists at all--well, there goes religion.

There are no absolutes, only temporary conditions. Most so-called "absolutes" rely upon arbitrary foundations and classifications, which are not absolute. Others are based upon conditions that are transitional and may be applicable for a particular, temporary situation but become erroneous as the situation changes.

Is it that no absolutes exist because we haven't found them? Or are we ignoring the quickest route to what is considered absolute?

The author in your quotation belies his own prejudice against the inherently chaotic nature of the Universe, striving for control that does not exist. A plea for the Universe to be orderly, reasonable, understandable, perhaps even compassionate… these are some of the basic drives that cause people to hide their heads in the sands of religion.

My bad. I must have forgotten to point out that it is best to try removing such an idea from Dr Russsell's immediate considerations of Lucifer/the Devil/evil so that we can still find some application for the idea.

Whoops.

Mind you, my first reaction was to ask, Well, what did you expect of considerations of Christian myth? Then I realized my error.

Why is "man sets his own goals' any more arbitrary than "God sets man's goals"? Particularly when it is man who decides what God's goals are? Human consciousness is the unit of measure here. I find that it is the author's argument that is evasive. If an overriding, absolute "goal" existed it would be implicit and readily apparent. Infinite regression would not be possible for we would come up against this "absolute", the philosophical "unmovable object". Largely, I find the reliance upon an external mandate to be lazy and irresponsible. It eliminates the need to one to define, measure, and compare alternatives. Locked into an authorized morality or goal one avoids responsibility by refusing to acknowledge the choices they make; insisting the choices are mandated by God.

I think you're pinging too loudly off the Christian veneer that makes that Russell passage glint like a blade. He has a point, even if he doesn't know how to apply it. For instance, how is peace progressive if the purpose or meaning is random, individual, or otherwise?

I will pause here for a moment to point out that if you put aside the Christian glint for the moment, and put the above question in terms of the Russell passage, you'll be closer to the important issue.

For the record, that man sets his own goals is no more arbitrary than God setting man's goals. That's largely my point, though I'v been saying it the other way around, that "God sets man's goals" is no more or less arbitrary than "man sets his own goals".

If an overriding, absolute "goal" existed it would be implicit and readily apparent.

I find that presumptive. Especially in light of evolution, and the fact that humans had to evolve the capability to have the current discussion.

Infinite regression would not be possible for we would come up against this "absolute", the philosophical "unmovable object"

It's a big Universe. Might happen.

Largely, I find the reliance upon an external mandate to be lazy and irresponsible.

External mandate? Like the state?

The preemptive response to the rebuttal must necessarily be, so are gods, so are gods.

But to take it a little more seriously, I find the idea that one determine's one's own purpose to be arrogant to the point of being dangerous. History is filled with occasions of people pursuing their purposes at the direct and necessary detriment of others. The same can be said of religions. And of states. And of any other large myth affecting human conduct.

Nor should the godhead be the mandate, but the expression of the logical mandate. The godhead, being created by humans, ought to be the end product.

It eliminates the need to one to define, measure, and compare alternatives. Locked into an authorized morality or goal one avoids responsibility by refusing to acknowledge the choices they make

One needs no gods to eliminate such a need.

If such an abdication of responsibility was limited strictly to religionists and theists, and if such an abdication was uniform among them, your point would not only carry weight, but carry lethal weight. However, such statistical isolation cannot be shown to exist. The elimination of such a need can be filled by any number of presuppositions. Wherever one chooses, for instance, to put their foot down.

insisting the choices are mandated by God.

I isolated this particular portion of the sentence because it reflects what both you and I can agree is a fairly infantile approach to anything. To justify because God says, or its a patriotic thing, or just because it's right, damnit! one must still be able to show how God says so, or how patriotism, propriety, or other concept demands. To rest on the abstraction as the source of the mandate does, indeed, lead to obscene results.

But what I propose, in terms of my constant harping on anti-identification, is that people stop making this brand of religious faith important by devoting attention to it, but to transcend it by the necessity of the situation. Relying on God as a source of justification is useless. If we want those who argue from such a puerile platform to be of any use to human progress, we need them to transcend those justifications. Ridicule and condemnation is attention enough to keep them barking like circus seals. It is easy enough, in the end, to leave them out of the debate if the debate holds to a more responsible standard. Take the US, for instance. At some point, the people will look at the "religious right" and tell them to go jump. The hard-right of American Christianity is steadily making itself irrelevant, and will eventually cease to be of use to anyone at all. There's an example of the death of certain asserted absolutes.

Peace simply as a state of "non-war" is one thing; as an absolute it is entirely something else. Chaos is what we are adapted for; such is the nature of the Universe.

Humans are most effective as a cooperative. Optimizing that cooperative form and function may be crucial to continued human survival.

Progress is also a loaded assumption; one must ask "Progress and purpose as determined by whom and by what measure?"

My point exactly.

Even if you define the purpose of life as perpetuation of the species based upon reasonable observations this purpose would constrain certain activities. They would wind up having no meaning in this paradigm.

Such as? I'm unsure what activities would be constrained how, and thus cannot respond to the notion.

These added "obligations" restrict the individual in some ways while opening up new freedoms at the same time. We can accomplish more as a group than we can as individuals but the larger the group the larger the number of necessary restrictions to individual freedom. As a society, it is the tradeoff we must examine to make sure the balance does not tip too far in either direction and to make sure that we restrict only what is absolutely necessary.

I'm not going to disagree with a word of it. Although, in terms of "accomplishing more", how do we know it's progress? I mean, I have to admit, I would have been all for the elimination of the telephone sanitizers at the time.

If one is capable of conscious control over the perception of experience (i.e. letting go of "desire") why not take it to a more positive outlook? That is, despite the immediate physical or emotional perception of pleasure or suffering, experience of existence can be perceived as a positive thing. Suffering provides contrast to pleasure; it provides us with motive to surmount the problems that cause it. It is the impact of reality upon ourselves

The reduction of suffering involves its elimination wherever and whenever possible. And, in the process, it makes one more aware of the positive aspects of life. For instance, lying in a sunbeam, watching smoke twist and dance above you, feeling the lazy, lovely heat and not-quite-dozing in the haze of hashish, Nag Champa, and Peter Tosh--I'm quite aware at those moments that my suffering has been reduced greatly, and what I get from those periods of reduced suffering is perspective and tools by which to continually work toward the minimization of suffering.

Of course, there's eventually the question of material necessity and smoking dope, but that's for another day I would think.

And, of course, I'll continue to give it thought ....

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Adam]

Overdoze

One inherent weakness of absolute morals is that they do not change (by definition) whereas the world around them does (demonstrably.)

However, I see no problem with having an absolute set of values appropriate to any given situation or point in human development. But setting aside the idea that we can have moral absolute in any given point in our development, do we have any which have remained constant throughout our development? What about killing your own offspring? Has that ever been acceptable? It is done sometimes, but then so are murder and rape and war. But has that ever been morally acceptable?

A related weakness of absolute morals is that they typically lose the thought process behind them. IOW, some human came up with a moral via some argument.

I would suggest that any morals which might be absolute are based not on such arguments but on biology. This all stems from consideration of a highly speculative field, as Xenu suggests, called Sociobiology. Any absolute morals would not be based on arguments as you seem to imply, but on whether behaviours are pro or counter to human surivival and evolution. And since we are evolving creatures, our moral absolutes may also change with time, with the exception that they are always in accordance with the principles of survival and evolution.

Overdoze, I am in the process of writing an essay which I hope will demonstrate logically a moral absolute changing as humanity changes. Not sure when I'll be finished.

Raithere

There are no absolutes, only temporary conditions. Most so-called "absolutes" rely upon arbitrary foundations and classifications, which are not absolute. Others are based upon conditions that are transitional and may be applicable for a particular, temporary situation but become erroneous as the situation changes.

See above.

The insistence of absolutes results from an emotional and perhaps intellectual dependence upon order, which is a result of perception and wishful thinking, not reality.

Reality is, there is order in nature. All natural interactions occur according to fundamental principles. The motions of individual creatures and whole species are governed by natural conditions and evolutionary developments. Our thoughts, our free and individual thoughts, have been shaped greatly by such simply natural forces as storms and availability of food over millions of years. Yes, we have individuality. But as in every other field I see a balance, a yin-yang situation; we are govered by both our free, individual thoughts and by our history.

Largely, I find the reliance upon an external mandate to be lazy and irresponsible.

I could not agree more.

These added "obligations" restrict the individual in some ways while opening up new freedoms at the same time. We can accomplish more as a group than we can as individuals but the larger the group the larger the number of necessary restrictions to individual freedom. As a society, it is the tradeoff we must examine to make sure the balance does not tip too far in either direction and to make sure that we restrict only what is absolutely necessary.

Well said. Brief and succint. Humans exist as social creatures, we survived natural selection in groups. Everything about our evolution suggests we can accomplish more as groups than alone. Even now, go check out an engineering company or such. Same applies. To enable us to function together, we institute standards which govern our behaviour for the common good, so our groups can survive and function. Some people refuse to submit to those standards, and do things contrary to the health of the society, and often are punished by those standards.

Re: Life is suffering.
But this is exactly where I think several of the Eastern Philosophies/Religions get it wrong.

I believe some reilgious/philosophical orders in Europe, too, have taken this outlook. Sorry I can not recall any specifics of christian monastic orders and such.

Tiassa

I personally offer "original sin" as the first thing wrong there. Some of the rest of it is harder to figure out. But in the presumption of the state of a person as a sinner, even in sympathy (e.g. "we are all sinners in the hands of an angry God"), can lead to an almost instinctive mistrust of one's fellow human.

Damn right. One of my major problems with the entire christian mythology is the assumption that we are in need of redemption. When I find that we as a species are gods ourselves. We have the ability or at least can dream of the ability to master all we survey, and we have a habit of making our dreams reality.

Even in a Starship Troopers' sense, battling for species survival against the bug-creatures, is anyone going to pretend that the Universe really isn't big enough for everyone?

The universe should absolutely be big enough for everyone. However, not all people are driven by "live and let live". Necessity is not the sole motivating factor. As evidence the current manhunt in the USA for a child-rapist in Orange County.

Karen Armstrong° reminds us that not all religions are theistic.

Thanks very much. There has been a focus on theistic religions here at sciforums, with nary a mention of the non-theistic.

Absolute morals make responsible social policy impossible.

A moral absolute: Don't kill your offspring. Social policy: If you kill your offspring, you go to jail for ever. Is there a conflict?

More later maybe.

 

[Tiassa]

Really? Nary?

There has been a focus on theistic religions here at sciforums, with nary a mention of the non-theistic

Wow, nary a mention? You mean even I've ne'er mentioned myths such as state or economy? Nor cultish, seemingly-religious practices like patriotism? Damn, what was I thinking?

Actually, I do get what you mean, I think. I'll get back to you on the rest of it later.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

Re: To haltingly chime in...

Originally posted by overdoze
I'm almost afraid to ruin the discussion with my incursion, and I hope I don't deflect the epic train of thought here. But just a few thoughts that I vaingloriously imagine might cut closer to the heart of the matter (at least from an atheistic perspective.)

Your input is greatly appreciated, overdoze.

If one views morals as such an evolving framework of tenets within a human social context, then if one assumes that the fundamental nature of humans does not change then eventually the moral framework must converge toward an optimum "fitness" as applied to human societies. Of course, to determine fitness one must have a set of criteria on which to judge it. So what are the criteria for judging morality?

I would only note that the "criteria for judging morality" are in themselves moral criteria. Judgment itself implies a moral foundation, at least, of what is "right" and "wrong". This supports the argument that morality is essentially subjective which you and I agree upon.

Altruism does play a role, but not all are expected to care for the needs of others. Overall, it's selfishness. IMHO

Actually, there is some good data to support the argument of altruism. Both from a purely functional perspective regarding genetic evolution (i.e. Hamilton's Rule) and from an individual perspective via game theory analysis as such behavior applies to the outcome for the individual (i.e. Successive runs of the Prisoners' Dilemma, etc.). These suggest both a biological basis for an altruistic drive as well as demonstrating an individual benefit to such activity.

~Raithere