Religion is a matter of perspective

[Jocariah]

Each religion carries with it its own perspective. A view of how the individual fits into the scheme of things, and indeed, even what the scheme of things actually is, according to that particular religion or belief system.

Perspective then, entails a specific agenda, which then goes on to set the stage for whatever it is that one may encounter.

Beliefs systems are neither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong. They simply are a system utilized to establish an overall operating system if you will, for the individual.

As operating systems go, Windows, Unix, Linux and Apple, all have their quirks and intricacies. They all perform much the same function, and depending on the application at hand, one may or may not be better suited for a specific task.

If it is that anyone can convey an ‘alternative perspective’, then this perspective is no better or worse than any other perspective – it simply is an ‘alternative’ to what one may have previously encountered.

There really is nothing new under the sun, simply different ways to discuss and perceive those same things that have existed previously, and no doubt will continue to exist. It really is about our understanding of what exists that changes – after all, things are what they are – regardless of whether or not we understand them, and regardless of which belief system one might use to interpret them.

.

 

[Cris]

Jocariah,

Religion is a matter of perspective

Of course.

If it is that anyone can convey an ‘alternative perspective’, then this perspective is no better or worse than any other perspective – it simply is an ‘alternative’ to what one may have previously encountered.

Your argument has a major flaw. You assume all these perspectives are passive but this not what is observed. Once a belief is considered true then most try to live accordingly. There have been cults (alternative perspectives) that have actively kidnapped and ruthlessly brainwashed their ‘converts’, yet others agree to mass suicides.

What if I have the perspective that Eve, as a representative of womankind, was truly evil for eating the apple and nagging Adam to eat as well and hence all women must be killed/punished as a result?

Your argument is a variation on a theme that tries to treat all religious beliefs as simply intellectual curiosities and that we should all be tolerant of these varied ideas. But that can’t and doesn’t work. When people act out their convictions then real harm can be the result.

 

[okinrus]

Your argument has a major flaw. You assume all these perspectives are passive but this not what is observed. Once a belief is considered true then most try to live accordingly. There have been cults (alternative perspectives) that have actively kidnapped and ruthlessly brainwashed their ‘converts’, yet others agree to mass suicides.

What happens when someone's faith tells them to do good things?

What if I have the perspective that Eve, as a representative of womankind, was truly evil for eating the apple and nagging Adam to eat as well and hence all women must be killed/punished as a result?

Of course we could go into what if's on any current event that occurs...

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by okinrus
What happens when someone's faith tells them to do good things?

You've avoiding the point.

 

[okinrus]

You've avoiding the point.

...That there exist a few people in religious cults are brainwashed. On the other hand with all those school shootings maybe we better we'd be better off believing and doing nothing.

 

[ScrollMaker]

Okinrus,

If nobody ever told you that God existed you would never even imagine there was a God. Now that your parents have brought you up telling you that there is a God even though they have no proof.... that would be brainwashing.

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

What happens when someone's faith tells them to do good things?

It’s called a lucky guess.

But if we use reason then we have no need to gamble on faith, and we can be sure of the outcome.

 

[okinrus]

If nobody ever told you that God existed you would never even imagine there was a God. Now that your parents have brought you up telling you that there is a God even though they have no proof.... that would be brainwashing

I don't think my parents brought me up to believe in God anymore than anyone else. They really haven't forced anything on me. Of course this issue works both ways. If my parents said that there wasn't a God I'd be "brainwashed". Their damned if they do and damned if they don't but I'll take the One with hope.

It’s called a lucky guess.
But if we use reason then we have no need to gamble on faith, and we can be sure of the outcome.

Reason doesn't give us any hints at what is good besides what is logical and even that is in question. Using only reason can never tell us if there is a God or isn't and so we are left with indecision.

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

I'll take the One with hope.

The better advice would be to seek the truth and don’t be impatient to believe what you want to believe because it is nice.

Reason doesn't give us any hints at what is good

You are joking I hope. It is reason that allows us to know that we will die if we walk in front of a speeding car – would you like an endless list of where without reason you would most certainly be dead?

Using only reason can never tell us if there is a God or isn't and so we are left with indecision.

Your basic error lies in your unnecessary need to make a decision. Your statement is also false. If any evidence is ever discovered to support the existence of a god then reason becomes effective for supporting the assertion.

But the issue is about the ability to reason, i.e. to think logically. A belief is based on reason if there is factual support. If there is no such basis then no belief is warranted or justified. The outcome need never be a baseless belief (i.e. faith).

 

[okinrus]

You are joking I hope. It is reason that allows us to know that we will die if we walk in front of a speeding car – would you like an endless list of where without reason you would most certainly be dead?

Reason cannot tell us that walking in the front of a speeding car is good or bad. The only thing that it can tell us is the consequences of our actions. Thus reason cannot tell us if it good to die or bad but it can tell us ways to speedly reach one of these two outcomes.

Your basic error lies in your unnecessary need to make a decision.

I thought that unless if there is no choice it was indecision. Generally if the choice influences someone actions, like as you said religion, then that choice must be made. I consider choosing not to do anything a choice as well but this seems awfully similar to the other thread about belief.

Your basic error lies in your unnecessary need to make a decision. Your statement is also false. If any evidence is ever discovered to support the existence of a god then reason becomes effective for supporting the assertion.

It is impossible to find natural evidence that conclusively demostrates the existance or non-existance of God because if there is a God then everything is created by him. The workings of God and nature are then blurred. So reason cannot help us with this dilemna. Reason can only make God seem reasonable or unreasonable.

 

[Persol]

Reason cannot tell us that walking in the front of a speeding car is good or bad.
That's hillarious. I feel bad for all those godless immigrants who come to america and stand in the street to figure out if it's good or bad.

 

[thefountainhed]

You are joking I hope. It is reason that allows us to know that we will die if we walk in front of a speeding car – would you like an endless list of where without reason you would most certainly be dead?

Good is morality; Reason is not morality and the two may or may not affect each other. Reason may or maynot tell you what is good.


Whether belief systems are neither good or bad depends on the perspective one takes: consequence or the belief itself. Personally, I'd take the consequence perspective and simply say; belief systems can be either good or bad.

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

Good is morality;

Umm, not quite. Morality relates to principles of right and wrong in behavior, i.e. the ability to determine between good and bad.

Reason is not morality

This is true.

and the two may or may not affect each other.

And this is false.

To be able to determine what is right and what is wrong one must exercise an ability to judge and compare conditions that determine particular actions. That methodology is otherwise known as reason.

Reason may or may not tell you what is good.

Rational morality must be based on what man determines is good for man. He must be able to reason that food is needed for survival and poison is not. And so throughout all aspects of life, reason determines how to behave and survive.

Reason is the only mechanism that can be used to determine moral conduct. Hence, reason and effective morality are inextricably linked.

 

[and2000x]

What happens when someone's faith tells them to do good things?

What good things? Food pantries? Aid to Africa? The red cross has done more for anyone than any religion has. Furthermore, most of the strife is caused by religion in the first place.

 

[thefountainhed]

Umm, not quite. Morality relates to principles of right and wrong in behavior, i.e. the ability to determine between good and bad.

The principles of good and bad are morals. Morality is essentially the system governing this. What my original statement attempted to convey is simply this: the notions of good and bad exist only in the moral sense

This is true.

Glad you see it.

And this is false.
To be able to determine what is right and what is wrong one must exercise an ability to judge and compare conditions that determine particular actions. That methodology is otherwise known as reason.

Incorrect. Reason exists outside the sphere of morality. We can try and explain or understand these concepts rationally, but they are definitions in morality.

Rational morality must be based on what man determines is good for man. He must be able to reason that food is needed for survival and poison is not. And so throughout all aspects of life, reason determines how to behave and survive.

You preface morality with the word "rational". This changes the definition entirely.

Reason is the only mechanism that can be used to determine moral conduct. Hence, reason and effective morality are inextricably linked.

This is very incorrect. Morality preceeded what we call "reason". The notion that murder is ammoral, that sleeping with a child is ammoral, that thievery is ammoral, that disrespecting your elder is ammoral, that 'disrespecting' a king is ammoral, that belief and trust in a diety is moral, that care is moral....these are not seeped in reason. One must separate the two. Rational morality is not morality. This is your folly.

If you want the standard definitions, here they are:

Morality

Reason

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by thefountainhed
Incorrect. Reason exists outside the sphere of morality. We can try and explain or understand these concepts rationally, but they are definitions in morality.

Quite wrong. The field is called Ethics. "The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior." http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm

You preface morality with the word "rational". This changes the definition entirely.

Not at all. There are rationally derived moral codes and there are arbitrary or irrationally derived moral codes just as there are rational and irrational beliefs.

One must separate the two. Rational morality is not morality. This is your folly.

And base morality upon what; arbitrary or illogical beliefs? What then is wrong with these moral valuations:

"Yellow is evil."
"People who eat spinach are bad."

Please do show us how these are incorrect without resorting to logic.

~Raithere

 

[okinrus]

Yellow is evil."
"People who eat spinach are bad."

Please do show us how these are incorrect without resorting to logic.

I'll try to explain what I meant a little better. I did not say that logic should not play a role in our moral system, but that it is impossible to decide if something is good or evil only using reason. As to your examples, you can no more say that harming others is evil than you can say that yellow is evil. Morality is build upon axioms that have not proven. There all not entirely illogical though. Some might be self-evident such as the persuit of happyness. But in reality, we know what happyness is only by perspective and so any moral system is based upon our unique perspective.

 

[thefountainhed]

Quite wrong. The field is called Ethics. "The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior." http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm

You are confusing moral philosophy with MORALITY

Not at all. There are rationally derived moral codes and there are arbitrary or irrationally derived moral codes just as there are rational and irrational beliefs.

Moral codes are not rationally derived! The ethical code of a field or an organization, etc maybe, but this is not even always the code. Things like profit or company secrecy may play a role. A you seriously trying to suggest to me that the moral code that was Bushido was LOGICALLY derived?? Moral, mores, values--these are not derivatives of rationality

And base morality upon what; arbitrary or illogical beliefs? What then is wrong with these moral valuations:

You are asking me what moral codes should be based. I don't really care. The point is that societal morality are not the result of rational thinking. Through a culture, certain morals come into effect-- respect your elders, respect for the gods, etc.

"Yellow is evil."
"People who eat spinach are bad."

Please do show us how these are incorrect without resorting to logic.

Who cares about correctness??? You are confusing ethics and morality! They are not the same. You simply came up with an example of an ethical code or maybe even a subjective morality all your own. I don't care how you arrived at this for it is irrelevant.

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

Morality preceeded what we call "reason".

That isn’t possible. Without reason no effective morality could have arisen.

The notion that murder is ammoral, that sleeping with a child is ammoral, that thievery is ammoral, that disrespecting your elder is ammoral, that 'disrespecting' a king is ammoral, that belief and trust in a diety is moral, that care is moral....these are not seeped in reason.

Of course they are. These values have all been developed over time by direct human experiences as being of value to man. Man is fully capable of reasoning that certain behaviors result in value while others do not. These standards would not have evolved otherwise, even the invalid one you quoted concerning a deity.

Rational morality is a code of values required by man for his survival, well-being and happiness. Such a code must be based on the facts of human value and only reason can determine what is and is not of value to man.

Rational morality is not morality.

Morality not based on reason will not be conducive to the best interests of mankind.

The alternatives, as Raithere has indicated are likely to be irrational nonsense.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Cris
Morality not based on reason will not be conducive to the best interests of mankind.

Cris,
reasoning is again based on premises that are most probably linked to morality.