By their very nature, all religions, Buddhism included, embody a mystical prescription for spiritual redemption or final disposition, which is also the operating principle of your concept of god. So tell me again, how do the two essentially differ?
Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity,refused to endorse many views on creation and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering.
Rather, Buddhism emphasizes the system of causal relationships underlying the universe which constitute the natural order and source of enlightenment. No dependence of phenomena on a supernatural reality is asserted in order to explain the behaviour of matter. According to the doctrine of the Buddha, a human being must study Nature in order to attain personal wisdom regarding the nature of things. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Rather, Buddhism emphasizes the system of causal relationships underlying the universe which constitute the natural order and source of enlightenment. No dependence of phenomena on a supernatural reality is asserted in order to explain the behaviour of matter. According to the doctrine of the Buddha, a human being must study Nature in order to attain personal wisdom regarding the nature of things. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Where exactly do you see anything "mythical" in that synopsis? Not all god concepts include ideas of "redemption or final disposition". Neither does mine rely on either of these as an "operating principle".
How can a concept of god govern conscience without including god as an element in the concept?
Who said anything about "governing"? I specifically assumed a god does not exist, so there would be no entity to "govern" anything.
Moral relativism is most notable among the various concepts of god that have come and gone throughout the ages. You should be grateful that cultural evolution weeded out much of the depravity associated with those traditional concepts of god.
You need to learn something about moral relativism. It is not about the variety of morals, but only how those who espouse it approach questions of morality. Since you seem to be saying that you view these various moralities as equal, you do espouse moral relativism, but each of these moralities do not share your sense of equality. Moral relativism is how a person views all morals, not just those they espouse.
You only associate "depravity" with a concept of god because you conflate it with religion.
One of the implications of Kohlberg's theory (which is still one of the main theories of the development of moral reasoning) is that people on a lower stage cannot understand arguments from a higher stage (while those on a higher stage have difficulty relating to arguments from a lower stage). ...
This post is the best I have ever seen from you. And yes, I was fully aware of the natural hurdles of such a discussion. I do not really expect any atheist to get it.
If you think that we aren't understanding your idea properly, then perhaps you need to explain it in more detail. You've said several times that you believe that belief in God has something to do with the development of conscience. So how does that work? What do you take the relationship between belief in God and human conscience to be?
I see you have finally read enough of my posts in this thread to find "more detail" yourself, so I will address your comments to those below.
Do they? I don't think that I agree.Why is it those who do not understand a god concept have a strictly relative morality?
Why not? Is it not true that a large majority of atheists, who claim morals to be valid at all, assume that the basis for those morals are largely dependent upon circumstances and/or culture? Is this not how they view most moralities?
Now you may think that understanding a god concept is only coincidental, but that does not change the general trend.
I'm not convinced that's true. Human beings possess broadly similar consciences.Basically, in the right circumstances or culture anything may be morally defensible.
But assuming for the sake of argument that it was true, how would belief in a god change things? The same sort of problems remain. If the god doesn't actually exist and doesn't actually speak to everyone in some obvious and objective fashion, then people could project anything that they want into their god's mouth and interpret his will as they see fit. If there are multiple ethnic or cultural gods, then what ensures that they all speak with a single voice?
Even if everyone's moral beliefs are all derived somehow from their religious beliefs, we still seem to have a relativism on our hands, except now it's a religious relativism.
It is trivially true from a moral relativism point of view, especially considering in-group vs out-group.
Again, I have specifically assume that a god does not exist, so there would be nothing to believe in. I will repeat for your benefit. Moral relativism is how a person views all morals, not just those they espouse. While you may very well view a variety of moralities as relative, I assure you those who espouse any give religious morality do not. "Religious relativism" is thus a nonsense phrase.
That's not any 'common sense' that I recognize. I think that it's clearly false (and tremendously cynical).It is merely common sense that human institutions, on their own, can only instill a sense of "don't get caught". People only think they can do more because humans are smart enough to learn from their mistakes. But it is just a fear/threat response, in lieu of actual conscience.
Again, why? You seem to like opining without backing it up in the least little way. Are you saying that human institutions can instill conscience? How, other than by threat of consequences?
Without alternative explanations your opinions are vacuous.
What's the relationship between a fully developed conscience and a highly developed sense of self? It seems to me that on many occasions it's the sense of self with all of its desires and demands that's getting in the way of conscience.
And what's the connection between having a highly developed sense of self and believing in the existence of a god?
Really? You are the one who said conscience was innate. So how can you not understand the relationship between the self and conscience? Would it not simply follow that, if conscience were innate, the better one understands themselves the better they utilize conscience?
You seem to be sketchy, even on your own beliefs.
Again, no assumption of an existing god, thus no "believing in the existence of a god".
I kind of smell implicit Hegelian-derived ideas about the role of 'the Other' lurking behind the scenes.Again, not necessarily monotheistic and not necessarily actually existing to witness anything at all. I have already said that it serves as a pattern for personally internalized objectivity.
You do not seem to know what you are talking about.
That sounds Kantian. So, how are 'fully confident objectivity' and 'self-assured justification' different from one another?Fully developed conscience is seeing oneself as the final arbiter of your actions in fully confident objectivity (which is beyond self-assured justification).
Again, your philosopher name-dropping simply makes you seem like you have no idea what you are talking about. Elaborate or do not bother. Justification is easy, most people do it all the time. Personal objectivity must be cultivated and can often run counter to our desires.
I don't understand how believing in one of these concepts is supposed to move us from self-assured justification to fully confident objectivity. If the objects of our religious beliefs needn't actually exist and are just our speculative cultural posits, then where is the objectivity coming from?
The objectivity is cultivated through a pattern that is not liable to human limitations. Belief is not necessary, but perhaps expedient, especially considered the trouble atheists seem to have with things like conscience and universal ethical principles (in contrast to moral relativism).
The precise list of behaviors that are labeled 'good' and 'bad' does seem to be culture-specific to some extent. ...If conscience were a natural, innate instinct there would be no need for such relativism. Instinct, developed by all the organisms of a species being subject to the same evolutionary pressures, would inform morality much more similarly than not.
But I think that there is a common core of what I've called 'virtues' that seem to exist pretty much everywhere, among all humans in all cultures. People all over the world have some sense of fairness. People all over the world have some sense of reciprocity - the so-called 'golden rule' is found in many places. People all over the world feel empathy and compassion.
So you seem to be affirming a moral relativism ("culture-specific"), but idealistically ignoring moral relations to out-groups. If your vague "virtues" were as ubiquitous as you imply, then why does that not explain why morals often do not apply equally to out-groups?
And I have already said, repeatedly, that things like empathy and compassion have social pressures/motivators.