Penelope wrote:

geo:

We are very good at rationalizing our own culturally-accepted behaviors

Yes, don't we just. Any fule can see that factory farming chickens is an abomination. Well, factory farming any sentient creature is an abomination. Ducklings kept indoors, with water to drink, but no water to swim in.....It's just got to be wrong. I don't believe anyone who says they feel comfortable with doing it. We do it anyway.....but at least, let's own up that it isn't right.

I think people know what is right and wrong....without religious dogma.....In fact, there is something wharped going on when people feel righteous about not eating fish on Fridays, because the liturgy says so, but eating, tortured animals with gay abandon.

It's usually easier to not think about how poorly animals are treated. Maybe we buy organic and hope that means the chicken or turkey was allowed to run around and do what those critters are supposed to do, lead a somewhat normal life before being butchered and eaten. But you're right. If you know anything about factory farming, you know this isn't the case and that the "organic" label doesn't really mean much. Not passing judgment since I'm a meat eater myself. We seem to be progressing towards a more caring attitude about how animals are treated and in a hundred years we may look back on factory farming and feel shocked that people could be so uncaring about it. Such changing attitudes are constant, maybe a progression of caring that includes people of other races and cultures and even members of the animal kingdom. But that progression seems to have nothing to do with religious belief and everything to do with wealth and better standards of living.

Many theists who see the false solidity of religious morals as absolute still fail in abiding by them.

Most people, religious or not, fail in consistently abiding to a moral creed.
However, if a person's religion is responsible for a solid moral foundation, consistently adhered to by that person, it is no less solid than an atheists arbitrarily developed moral creed. It seems you are discounting one because you find its origin to be one rooted in myth. The end result is just as solid. So be it. Perceptions vary. It is a part of the humaness of mankind. We all don't take the same route. Religion (not dogma) and science (not dogmatic science) both seek truth.

such a moral compass is far stronger than anything you'll find in religion, specifically because it does away with the faults of religious morality.

What are your metrics for your conclusion that evolutionary morals are far stronger than anything found in religion? Can you provide evidence to back that claim?

Thanks

What are your metrics for your conclusion that evolutionary morals are far stronger than anything found in religion? Can you provide evidence to back that claim?

I am not sure than I understood exactly what Interbane was saying, but I would say that evolutionary morals and religious morals are completely linked. Religious morals are part of the evolution of morals. Each religion has examined evolutionary moral ideals, plus the cultural ones of the time and tried to improve, or make a guide for society of the time. Religious morals are not absolute, they too are evolving.

Quote:
To an atheist, who does not need religion to declare what is moral and what is immoral, the immorality of rape is just as arbitrary as the development of 5 instead of 6 toes.

That is a very stupid sentence. The only way someone could believe the above strawman is if they do not know a single atheist(unless that atheist were a sociopath).

I would certainly hope that all decent people recognize that rape is wrong regardless of religious affiliation. Certainly someone who refrains from rape only because their religion tells them not to is no moral person at all.

Look at this example of rape. What about statutory rape? Is this a crime? What about a husband raping a wife? For a very long time this was not even recognized. The immorality of rape is an evolving spectrum not a moral absolute.
If someone refrains from doing something they believe to be wrong even though they have an urge to do so, why does that make them not a moral person? If this is true, I would doubt there is a single moral person on earth.

Morals are not hard-wired. The framework for learning morals is (and sometimes this is lacking essential ingredients) and then parents, family, and society build on this.

There are no real moral absolutes. A simple ideal, which most would probably agree on, is: Do no harm to others, yourself, or the world. Morality is a balancing act because the needs and wants of these three are in conflict.

However, if a person's religion is responsible for a solid moral foundation, consistently adhered to by that person, it is no less solid than an atheists arbitrarily developed moral creed. It seems you are discounting one because you find its origin to be one rooted in myth. The end result is just as solid.

The problem isn't that a religious person's moral creed is less solid, it's that it's more solid. The inflexibility of religious morality leads to unintended consequences such as what can be seen all across history. When morals are assimilated based on authority, rather than reason, there will necessarily be areas of the moral creed that are unreasonable, due to the infinite variety of possible human interaction and circumstance.

Rather than adhering to a manufactured creed that is good in theory yet bad in practice, we should adhere to an axiom from which a moral creed can be derived. The moral creed would then have checks and balances, and can adapt to the advances of society. Isolating what that axiom is would be the subject of a lengthy discussion. I would also say that a certain amount of understanding is necessary, which many people lack.

I am not sure than I understood exactly what Interbane was saying, but I would say that evolutionary morals and religious morals are completely linked. Religious morals are part of the evolution of morals. Each religion has examined evolutionary moral ideals, plus the cultural ones of the time and tried to improve, or make a guide for society of the time. Religious morals are not absolute, they too are evolving.

The moral rules that we humans create include those ossified in religion. The problem is that even though religious morals have evolved, they are still anchored to the same words. What has resulted is a spectrum of interpretation, much of which has been shoehorned to both stay true to the words, and to avoid the unintended consequences of those words. That convolution from shoehorning leads to further unintended consequences.

There is also the problem of the slippery slope of the bible being the word of god. The more true you stay to the words of the bible, the more extreme the behavior that results. Look at WBC, for example, and their picketing of funerals. There is no secondary bible to act as a mediator. By what authority do Christians justify deviating from the words of the bible in order to act according to the modern moral zeitgeist? The bible is the authority, so to deviate seems contradictory to the worldview.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the two moral paradigms are completely linked. To say they are 'linked' doesn't capture the relationship of the two in my mind. Religious morals deviate from a game-theory approach in many respects. The game-theory approach is what I mean if I call them evolutionary morals, rather than to say religious morality is one rung on the ladder of the evolution of our morality. There are two different connotations of the word 'evolution' being used here, if that makes sense.

To return for a moment to earlier posts on this thread about a life hereafter.

Yesterday on t.v. (Dr. Phil show for Americans on this board) there were two psychics who did "readings" for audience members. These were messages received by the psychics from dead relatives of the people having the readings. Their relatives on the other side were much concerned with the current lives of the audience members and also related (often very trivial) facts to prove they were indeed the passed on relatives.

So how do people who believe in an afterlife regard such messages? I will say that the audience in attendance was deeply immersed in such beliefs and indeed this particular show had many more applications to attend than the show could possibly handle.

I know my opinion of such psychic, but what do others think?

The inflexibility of religious morality leads to unintended consequences such as what can be seen all across history.

We can see, across history, consequences related to "godless" States. How inflexible were these non religious individuals: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pot
Moral absolutes would have perhaps prevented the horrors related to the aforementioned amoral monsters. There are irrational religious and non religious people.
Slippery slopes are, and always will be unavoidable terrain in need of negotiation. Christ's doctrines of love, charity, etc are more than reasonable starting points when considering morality. Naturally, you as my neighbor no longer have oxen or an ass in your driveway to covet. If I covet your SUV and steal it, the bible and the law considers it immoral and an affront to society.

Rather than adhering to a manufactured creed that is good in theory yet bad in practice

We can say the very same thing about aspects of the judicial system. Although there are mechanisms in place to prevent stagnation, the judicial system is a work in progress. Christianity's doctrine of love also espouses forgiveness. That, to me, allows for flexibility. There is noting rigid in that creed.

I would also say that a certain amount of understanding is necessary, which many people lack.

Most people are going to live their entire lives lacking "a certain amount of understanding." Moral absolutes provide people of less understanding a guide to live by.

ant wrote:

Most people are going to live their entire lives lacking "a certain amount of understanding." Moral absolutes provide people of less understanding a guide to live by.

Come on, we none us understand everything. We often don't understand our own motives for our own behaviour. Moral absolutes, written down, are not helpful at all. The Bible is basically, a jewish book. The law, for the jews, is absolutely impossible to fulfill. It is full of dietary laws, sacrificial laws....laws of behaviour, how you should think, even. No religion has more laws than the jews. It isn't just 'The Ten Commandments' for them. I even have problems with the ten commandments. How can you not covet? I sometimes look at my neighbour's husband and, I've coveted, before I realise. (I'm joking!!!) But you know what I mean.

It is absolutely beautifully cohesive, that Jesus, a jew, whether fictitious or not, came out of the Jewish nation. He said, 'Sod the Law, it is impossible'. In this lies all the law and the prophets...'Love one another - feed my sheep'. Jesus, according to the New Testament, didn't give us any laws - except that we love our neighbour as ourself. If you don't believe in God or Jesus, you can still give three hearty cheers for this philosophy attributed to him.

Having said that, I don't even like some of my neighbours - I can't love them all, but there you are, that is what 'grace' is about. I am told that I can be forgiven, for my lack of love and charity. So, there is 'hope'. It encourages me to keep on, keeping on. I don't understand it, and I don't completely believe it.....(the Jesus story)....but it has given me a 'pattern' and hope, mere hope. And, I might add, prayer works.

lady of shallot wrote:I know my opinion of such psychic, but what do others think?

Having been a professional magician and escape artist for some period in my younger life, and having studied the life, techniques and philosophies of my idol in the profession, Erik Weisz (known to the world as Harry Houdini), I can say without reservation or fear of factual contradiction that so-called professional “psychics” are nothing of the kind. Their “psychic abilities” come not from the “spirit world,” but from a complex mix of various talents, skills, and, in some cases, outright fraud. The talents include such things as the use of generalities to hone in on vague “facts” about a person, coupled with a mastery of reading subtle clues in body language, verbal responses, and emotional reactions, in order to adjust their “readings” to give the impression of “knowing” about the past events and life details of their subjects. As for the fraudulent, this involves such things as: using “plants” or “stooges” in the audience; pre-screening and researching the lives of those they will “randomly” choose from an audience; or relying on subtle signals (verbal, visual and electronic) from their assistants as they interview audience members at some distance from the stage.

Originally known as CSICOP (the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), the current Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has proven over and over again that most “psychics” are simply charlatans out to make a buck. I say “most” because there are a few successful “stage psychics,” who readily admit that what they do is skilled trickery (and believe me it does require a great deal of skill).

As a former contributor to the now-defunct OMNI Magazine, I was often required to interview representatives from CSICOP—such as Philip J. Klass and the magician James Randi—on subjects ranging from UFOs, to psychic predictions, and the “spirit world,” and in all cases, their reasoned and logical explanations for various claims of so-called “paranormal” or “psychic” abilities could not be effectively countered by the persons making such claims, or by any other “true believers” in the pseudo sciences.

So when I am asked what I think about the claims some make of being endowed with paranormal psychic abilities, my answer has to be that they are a large load of cow manure.

As an addendum, I might add that before Houdini died, he and his wife Bess made a pact to prove or disprove the notion of communicating with the dead. They agreed that if Houdini found it possible to communicate after death he would send her the message "Rosabelle believe." This was a secret code only the two knew of—a phrase from a play Bess was performing in when they first met. For ten years after Houdini’s death, Bess held yearly séances on Halloween in hopes of hearing from her dead husband, but Houdini's spirit never appeared, nor was the secret message ever conveyed in any other way.

Proof of a continuation of the personality - is the stuff of music hall and showbusiness. There are two kinds of spiritualist church to my knowledge. The Christian spiritualists and the National Spiritualist Union. The NSU do not accept Christian doctrine and believe that Jesus was just a medium and healer.

My mother was a member of the latter and I have never adhered to either, although I have met many and various so-called mediums. Many mediums really believe that they contact the spirits. I have never found it very edifying and, so far as I can judge, doesn't help in the building of character or giving of solace or peace to the soul. There being too much emphasis on the physical phenomena.

But, we search everywhere and anywhere if we are heartbroken, and I could never blame the people I have encountered in the congregations. Spiritualism grew popular in Europe after the first world war - when almost all had lost sons, husbands and dear ones who gave their lives meaning. They were looking for meaning. I excuse them, as I hope you confirmed atheists might excuse such as me. I don't care about their being an afterlife....but I do care about their being meaning and reason. I cannot stop searching, because, it matters more than anything. If it transpires that there is no meaning, then I still will never regret my search as it has given my life more depth and it has certainly exercised my intellect.