|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:08 pm
I agree with that assessment. The principle was intended only to prevent the extreme end of the scale. Since western society has wholesale rejected Christianity, they believe the separation is greater than ever, when, in actuality, they've given government, media, and/or pop-culture the reigns for defining morality, all of which is a significantly worse idea for a multitude of reasons.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:11 pm
Then there is the other side of that coin: nearly one in four american children today are being raised "godless." That is to say no specific religion is being taught or enforced in the home. I myself was raised in this manner, where my parents always answered any questions I had about the subject as clearly and honestly as possible . . . allowing me to determine what faith was right for me. Studies are currently leaning towards those being raised this way as being more family oriented, kinder, and generally good people. Not the hideous monsters that most faiths would demand happen to us 'heathens.'
I love that bit of logic though. Once I used that line of thought in a college course, and the instructor actually asked permission to use it in the future. Naturally, I said yes, and was flattered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eloquent Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:09 pm
I'm surprised the # is so low, though this may include the nominally religious (which is where ~90% of American being Christian comes from).
In a sense, being raised w/o any sense of religion may be better than being raised in a hypocritical household, as that almost always sours the children against religion in their teen/adult years.
Also, the dissonance between public school, pop culture, & such VS religion makes growing up in such an environment tough (even most truly religious parents send their kids to public school for a variety of reasons [not wanting them to be too sheltered, inability to pay for private school, inability for 1 spouse to home school, etc...]).
I am unfamiliar with the recent studies you reference, but that is certainly an interesting development, if true, and a shame to those who would call themselves religious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:56 pm
Last I heard, America was somewhere around 70% Christian, but the percentage that put faith in a higher power was nearly total. Then again, that was a few years ago. In either case, that seems to undercut the idea that without faith, society would fall apart to rancor and violence. In my eyes, it is not the faith that is the issue. Faith is a symptom. The cause is the desire to be inhospitable and horrible to each other. The selfish desire to look after number 1 above all others. While selfish motivations have their places, a sense of community needs to have a degree of selflessness. Helping those that are dear to you in some way engenders a stronger sense of connectedness. The hypocrisy you mention is also a rampant issue. People have become disillusioned with going to church on Sunday not for lack of belief, but for understanding that those who put on their pious finest on Sunday are often the ones that treat their neighbors in the least 'godly' way possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eloquent Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:05 pm
My ~90% statistic was from the 80s or 90s.
You're right. Without anything to believe in a culture will degrade. For instance, science is the replacement for religion in this modern age for many, and, since it prescribes no morals, it's effectively like having no faith at all.
I agree that people too often blame religion or the lack thereof for the ills of the world. In the Christian worldview, everybody is basically evil (selfish, prideful, etc...); being a Christian doesn't grant you special exemption from that, but it is a calling to strive for better. I see the overly-humanistic worldview prevalent nowadays asserting that humanity is basically good to be deeply flawed, even from a scientific perspective (entropy, if nothing else); what even is "good" by the subjective/relative morality they also preach? Its popularity is obviously due to the natural appeal being told one is basically good has, no matter how obviously untrue it is. Sadly, it seems this has led to the focus on self esteem above actual merit. Both of these combine to make a populace that is woefully non-introspective and un-analytical. Case in point, people always make comments when a major crime is committed as to how they cannot fathom the mindset of the perpetrator; with how society promotes empathy, this alienation seems to be a sharp contrast from what would be expected at first blush.
Ah, yes, I grew up in just such a church. Co-morbid with the vanity was legalism (treating standard/convictions as equal to scripture and enforcing/expecting those upon others). "Holier than thou" attitudes sicken me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:13 pm
I politely disagree on your comment about science having no morals. Most scientific practices/studies I am aware of have strict moral guidelines that must be followed or a practitioner is expunged. For instance, my degree is in Counseling Psychology. If I were to begin to actually get to use it, I'd need to pay attention to both the APA and ACA codes of ethics. Those that work in any practice of science need to be aware of the moral implications of both their practice and their results. Science has safeguards and limitations . . . the 'mad scientist' that most people consider is a fallacy, and demonizes scientific research. I had a man in my store today that insisted that somewhere in the world, babies were being injected with bird dna to grow wings as a military project. Is that possible? Oh yes. We have that ability to alter and introduce foreign DNA to a fetus. We don't because it is unethical and horrid. Moral guidelines of what is acceptable, and those that cross those lines are cast out, not dissimilar to being excommunicated.
As for the worldview of individuals, I do not see the acceptance of flaws in individuals. Perhaps I have my head in the sand. What I have experince with is the idea that while not necessarily good, flaws are acceptable. They are inherent in our genes, and certain laws of nature. Selfish nature is accepted in most species, and we are subject to those laws. The idea that we need to act in our own best interests on a basic level is ingrained in us all. However, as humans, we have the concept of selflessness, a drive to do more than simply survive. As social and communal animals, we seek out each other for both physical and emotional needs. Signs of our working together are all around us, and proof that we are better together than apart. Studies show that acting kind promotes kindness, and that working together easily accomplishes more than working alone.
As for society . . . I believe that this is the logical extension of what has been brewing for decades. Each generation strives to provide a better/easier/more comfortable life for their kids than they had. More posessions, more free time, more achievements, more, more, more. We have achieved a point where the latest generation has the greatest amount of education, material possessions, and overall quality of life possible. However, that comes at the cost of working for your best interests. The Baby Boomers call it being entitled. The Millenials call it dealing with their live. I have to wonder what good blame gives either of them. The world is screwed, and the ones in power don't care. The ones inheriting it realize it is ruined, and are intimidated by the work it will take to fix- particularly for a mess they did not make. I don't see a religious disconnect as much of a social one. The world is currently ruled by entropy and corruption, and those in power couldn't care less. Those that are coming care so much that they are unsure where to even begin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eloquent Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:13 pm
I understand where you are coming from, but ethics are not inherent to science. Ethics and morals come from a worldview. Now, that may be humanism's "liberal morality" (so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, it's fine), and that may be the default for a secular worldview, but it is but one of many options, even within the secular sphere.
The disparaging view of science at times comes from those with stricter standards abhorred at what science permits. While I understand that scientific progress has often been the result of bleeding edge experimentation, working in unknown realms can mean grave acts are being committed until science discovers it is bad (according to the prevailing cultural worldview) as a result of the advancement gained from those very acts; a catch-22 that many would rather avoid.
What you see as virtues, I ultimately see as self-interest. Of course all humans must have a baseline self-interest lest they not attend to basic needs (biology alone provides the impetus there). Precious few actually attain enlightened self-interest (acting for a group you are a member of isn't enlightened in my understanding of the concept). Most people are ultimately driven by pride and/or greed.
When it comes to this level of detail, I can only speak of the fundamentalist Christian worldview. There is a call to purposes even "higher" than that of enlightened self-interest; of course, Christians being fallible humans, all fall short. Your are correct that flaws (sin nature) are natural, but Christianity sees that as the default state of mankind to be risen above.
I will disagree about this generation having the best education. At least in America, the public school & state college system has degraded as of late.
Right, in a sense it has gotten too good for the next generation; every generation has to struggle with something real and impactful. Attempting to erase all trials from the world will certainly lead down a bad path.
I heartily agree with the point about entropy. The next generation is ill-equipped to deal with the radical changes that have occurred in every sector (technology, to name one), including their ripple effects. So many make a humanistic assumption that humanity is on an upward trajectory, but the Christian worldview (and no idea why scientists in the hard sciences don't correct those of the soft sciences when they get it wrong) sees a downward trend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:17 am
Wikipedia describes Enlightened self-interest as a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest. That in itself seems to describe virtually every gathering of individuals that I am aware of. Society, groups, even religious organizations seem to fall into this description. Members of any group acting in ways to better the group are part of said group- thus making the act of assistance selfish in some way. even if the intent is to give, the person will recieve. Whether it is through laurels, monetary, or social benefit as part of the group or gratitude from the group. It reminds me of a phrase from a show I enjoy. "Three forces move the universe: Matter, Energy, and Enlightened Self-Interest." As for the call to be greater, that is a social construct that I believe most people can ascribe to. The strong need to be more than what you begin with. Education makes us smarter and more worldly, money makes us more capable to do whateve we wish, possessions are seen as a reflection of both wealth and choice- what we choose to spend money on. Moral embetterment is less rampant, on that we agree. My only point here is that people need not be religious to want to be a better person. Look at me. I'm barely faithful even to my own chosen pantheon, but at the end of the day I can say without lying that I am a good man, a kind man, and a generous man. Not for the sake of a chosen afterlife, but because it is the right thing to do. Without a moral compass, I found this way, and nothing about me or my life is unique. If my life became thus, others must have as well.
On the subject of education, the term was meant in the broadest sense. Our school systems in America are failed, and teach kids how to take tests instead of subjects. However, with the advent of the internet, our younger generations are more aware of the world than ever before. Being educated (even if self-educated) in life and important subjects. I may still know how to do the pathagorean theroem, but what use is that? When I was in high school, my 'world' was rather small. Younger generations today have the world at their fingertips.
Concerning the upward mobility or downward spiral, only hindsight can be truly certain. For me, it comes down to what has always been the case. In an extreme oversimplification, every decision made by man can be summed up by saying "it seemed to be a good idea at the time." We do the best we can with the information available. Sometimes it is excellent, sometimes horrific, and with an entire spectrum of gray. I prefer to look for the positives and focus on strengthening those aspects. Personally, I believe most of the world's ills will begin to fade away when we learn replicator and transporter technology. When moving items no longer consumes mass amounts of fuel, we can focus on the quality of products. When we can make energy into food and materials, we no longer will need to fight over petty bits of land and resources. When our trash and undesirable material can easily be turned into the energy to make that possible, we can truly be able to concentrate on bettering ourselves as people instead of countries. Gene Roddenberry offered a view of Earth as close to Utopia as possible. While I doubt that it will come to pass, it is a goal very much worth aiming for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eloquent Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:07 pm
This is the way I think of it, motivationally concerning benefit to one's self:
1. Direct benefit (self interest, we agree on this definition)
2. Known indirect benefit (enlightened self interest, by your definition)
3. Unknown indirect benefit (enlightened self interest, by my definition)
4. Not a factor (as in Christianity, for example, it is supposed to be done for God's sake out of love, though, it is often done out of duty or pragmatism instead, becoming one of the previous motivations instead; "agape" self-sacrificial love is another example).
The Known/Unknown dichotomy could be restated as whether one does or does not expect something in return, if that's more clear.
From the outside looking in, people can only determine if somebody is acting as 1 or 2+.
Regarding morality without religion, this means every person will live as seems right to them, which, to me, implies anarchy given how selfish people are generally. I certainly understand that you've made positive choices, but can you be so generous regarding others?
While I am very much in support of traditional education, ultimately my primary concern is that real valuable learning (including a solid foundation) is taking place, including instilling the love of learning (intellectual curiosity, etc...).
Though many nowadays might see it as insanity or naivety, I see the world as black-and-white w/o grays (there are neutral decisions, obviously, such as choosing which flavor of X to eat, but that's not a question of morals or ethics), but that's expected considering I'm a fundamentalist Christian who believes in its absolute moral system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:02 pm
Morality without religion - With droves upon droves of our society moving towards a 'godless' state, can you afford such pessimism? I will not attack your faith, and you have not attacked mine. However, to assume that without a faith people will devolve into an anarchic state is not supported by the currently gathered evidence, nor is being faithful an indicator of peaceful peoples. The most chilling and destructive forces in history are those that believed their deific idol supported them. The true horror of the Believer. By no means do I villify every faithful individual, but before we make a white/black argument, I urge that to be kept in mind.
We can agree that a love of learning must be fostered, and a foundation for life should be offered . . . but our system does not do that. We teach our kids to pass tests, and do not teach them that which they need. 12 years of English and I still make rampant mistakes from a grammatical sense. 12 years of algebra including precalculus and geometry, and the most math I do is making change in my head. we need to teach our kids how to survive and thrive, not how to pass a test. The foundation of a good education should get a student through life, not make sure he or she aces the SATs.
Moral ambiguity. Whoo. Yeah, we are going to go rounds on that one if I am not careful. Respectfully, a black-and-white moral absolutist view is not insane or naive. It's downright dangerous. Take for instance a very recent case. A man was illegally arrested and detained, his vehicle searched. The search turned up a small amount of drugs, and he had a prior arrest warrant. However- the arrest that landed him in jail and the drugs were seized in an unlawful act. They should have been thrown out by the fourth ammendment of the constitution . . . but a 5-3 decision of the supreme court decided that because of his prior arrest, it was allowed. That means he was bad once in his past, so any and all infractions he may commit in the future are already admissible in court because he was already found guilty for an unrelated charge from months or years ago. he is bad, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on anything. I trained and learned up to and including the master's level of psychology. I literally studied gray areas extensively. Such includes moral gray areas. No moral choice should be made in a vacuum.
Allow me another tidbit. I heard a half-hour interview online from a self-admitted *****. He described how he found younger girls sexually attractive, and how it upset him. This is the important part: he has not only never harmed another person, he started a support group for ***** to help deal with these attractions without ever harming another person. In a black/white mentality, ***** are not only criminal, but need to be locked away for the safety of children in their vicinity. That is absolute. But what of this guy? He never cited scripture or faith, only a heartfelt desire to not hurt others. Yet he is sexually attracted to elementary school girls. is it not gray to give him his freedom to help others and resist temptation? He is certainly not pure and white . . . but does that mean he must absolutely deserve to be treated as the worst criminal in our justice system? In prison there is a pecking order- and ***** are the worst and lowest. Those are the violators that even the violators loathe.
On a final moral absolute system- societies change. Things change. One of the most used arguments in the gay marriage issue was citing scripture of how it was an abomination in Leviticus. A cadre of other things have also been cited in the bible requiring public executions and similarly horrific punishments. If the moral authority is absolute, and these infractions are outdated, would it not be wise to ammend them? Does that not mean that if you can change the system it is not absolute?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eloquent Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:48 pm
Developed secular states are largely benefiting from adhering to traditional Christian ethics; recently they have begun to discard those, and the consequences are apparent.
I've always found the argument of terrible things done in the name of religion to be mis-framed. In a sense, every act in the world not claimed for a religion is the fault of society as a whole, is it not? Additionally, nominal adherence to a religion is vastly different from actual adherence, though it's obviously difficult to discern; this is why I judge these situations by the actions of these people. Many would say I am treading close to "no true scotsman", but that is an informal fallacy, meaning it is not always incorrect. Finally, it also matters how the religion and its people on the whole respond to these terrible acts; so long as they disavow association, I see no problem so long as the incidence of there terrible acts is not systemically widespread (which indicates a wider problems not being adequately addressed by the religion).
I can only speak to education so much, as I have always been privately educated. While I know I received a higher quality education than most, this leaves me with no real experience to speak to regarding the state of public education. All my statements are based on second-hand accounts of those who were in the system or are experts in education, or my first-and accounts of seeing the results of the education system.
I feel we're on significantly different wavelengths regarding the notion of white/black morality, because I agree with you wholeheartedly in both cases. In both instances, I believe "innocent until proven guilty" is the correct approach regardless of past transgression (case 1) or the moral panic of society (case 2). While in some cases rights need to be suspended (convicts not allowed to own guns [case 1] or live near schools [case 2]), one cannot break the law in pursuit of justice (case 1) or preemptively repeal rights for "thought crimes" (case 2).
To address it from the root: In Christianity all humans are born with a sin nature; humans do not need to be taught to do wrong, that comes naturally. Nothing beyond our control, such as intrusive/passing thoughts or fallibility (and, depending on interpretation, naivety) is sin; choices certainly are, however, meaning actions and deciding to dwell on unwholesome thoughts. Now, culpability/responsibility regarding actions is a complex topic, to be sure, and I agree that that is an unknown; but, I believe there is always a white/black answer, even if we do not know which it is. Perhaps this is your definition of gray? In these situations, we can only do our best from our limited understanding (e.g.: how can you ever know if somebody is lying about something non-concrete).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:19 pm
|
Eloquent Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:21 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:15 pm
Such huge posts of intellectualism . . . Magni intimidated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eloquent Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:35 pm
Unfortunately this pattern always happens with us, long replies resulting in delayed responses and the convo fading away. Still, while they last, they are nice to have, breaking up the monotony if nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
