"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

Selfishness is why murder is bad; i

The fallacy that makes most people scared to give up on religion is that selfishness is a bad thing.

The reality is, everything thing we do is selfish. Every single decision is selfish. In the end, it comes down to "because I want to".

Even acts that are materially selfless are ultimately motivated by selfishness. They are performed because the performer would feel worse about themselves if they didn't.

"But I've given up my own fulfillment to raise my kids!" Only because you'd feel worse about not raising your kids.

And yes, some people have different selfish desires, and that's where law enforcement comes in. Hopefully, they'll feel worse about the prospect of being in jail instead of fulfilling their selfish tendencies that negatively affect other people.

But the selfish desire of the majority of people for personal safety, as Alex defined well, is what motivates the social contract, independent of religious belief.

[Strangler Lewis]

Perhaps it's a slight diversion, but I must interject. While it's interesting, and while I agree at some level, I don't find it terribly pragmatic to tear apart terms like selfishness and free will--terms which everybody should agree have recognizable moral connotations in the social context in which we live.

Put another way, if I said to one of my kids, "Don't you think you're being a little selfish," and they came back at me with, "well, so are you with your criticisms," I would not reward them with an ice cream for brilliant philosophy.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Good thing we're not talking to children.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I didn't say that all selfishness is morally neutral. All I'm saying is that selfishness is not inherently bad in all cases.

[David E]

Originally Posted by Alex

As for why, without referencing god, I think murder is wrong:

I place almost no inherent value on your individual life. This is true. If we learned later today that you were dead all it would be is an interesting factoid.

But I care if you were murdered for the same reason I don't really care if 600 villagers in Africa die but do care if they all die of ebola: I don't want it to happen to me. So I'd really appreciate it if society rallied round to make sure the ebola epidemic did not spread.

This is because I very much do place an inherent value on my life. I'd really prefer it not end until I choose that it does. So, by society gathering round to condemn killing people like me, to the extent that this pressure prevents me specifically from being killed I am in favor. Selfishness is why murder is bad; if I were guaranteed to be exempted from any murdering, my opposition to it would fall precipitously (but not completely since there are other lives that I hold in some value). Continuing this to other conclusion is why drunk driving is bad (you driving drunk could hurt me) but Jim Jones convincing hundreds to kill themselves is not (if Jim Jones successfully convinces me then see the second sentence of this paragraph).

So you are saying murder is wrong because the person being killed does not want that to happen? Just because you don't want it to happen doesn't necessarily create a moral barrier to others. For example, because thieves don't want to be arrested doesn't make arresting them an immoral act.

Then you gave selfishness as a second reason. Now you are into the business of saying an act is wrong because of the thinking or motivation of the perpetrator. So it would not be wrong if the killer had an altruistic motive? The 9/11 murderers did, even giving their lives for the cause.

Another post in this thread claims that everything is selfish (9/11 perpetrators wanted to go to heaven). I don’t agree myself, but if it were true, and we applied your logic of selfish=wrong, then everything would be wrong.

Still wondering what is wrong about murdering.

Originally Posted by Alex

And yes, there are people who want to continue their religious culture even in the absence of god. I just think they're even more irrational than the people who actually believe the god is there and therefore think they're doing what he commanded. Avoiding bacon-wrapped asparagus because your deluded (as you now think they were if you don't believe their god exists) ancestors did is just silly*.

Maybe not so silly if you learn the background and wisdom behind some of the practices. Having a Sabbath or day of rest once a week from TV and computers could lead to a happier, more mentally healthy life and people be more inclined on that day to bond and empathize with friends, for example. This day was one of the first animal rights laws in history, as it required that domesticated beasts rest also. Judaism had other more detailed strictures protecting animals such as prohibiting the amputation and consumption of single limbs which was practiced before then. Now, I am not saying that secular value systems can’t come up with similar norms, and sometimes they do; but for the most part, THEY DIDN’T, whereas the religious traditions as they have evolved have a pretty good system that should not be discarded lightly. A lot of the figuring out has been done.

When I say secular systems have not generally produced good results, let me give you my evidence: In four centuries, the Catholic Inquisition is estimated to have murdered about 30,000 people. (I am making a case for contemporary religious values anyway). The secular ideologies that replaced religious ones in the 20th century, most notably under Mao and Stalin, murdered 100 million, besides massive forced relocation and theft of property. Without the notion that something transcends our physical existence, this human tragedy more easily becomes an acceptable cost of attaining your utopian vision for society on earth, because there is nothing else but that.

[David E]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And Jews stoned people to death for touching a woman while she was on her period. And Christians tortured and slaughtered people because they believed a little bit differently than they did. And they didn't consider that murder. So, as Alex says, our current Judeo/Christian definition of what is right has changed to catch up to the societal definition, not the other way around. People are perfectly capable of forming and refining the social contract without religion. If anything, the inclusion of religion in the discourse slows the process down as it's a force that resists what may be necessary change.

Pointing out awful practices that members of a group did does not mean their value system is bad unless those things are proclaimed to be an integral part of it. It was after the Jews entered into a pact with God to worship only him that the golden calf was brought into the temple. The Bible is a story of human failing and struggle. People don’t always live up to their standards, but that doesn’t make the standard wrong. So to be fair, we have to ask: were these acts prescribed by their philosophy, or were they done contrary to it? This is a question that many are asking of Islam today.

[David E]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

The fallacy that makes most people scared to give up on religion is that selfishness is a bad thing.

The reality is, everything thing we do is selfish. Every single decision is selfish. In the end, it comes down to "because I want to".

Even acts that are materially selfless are ultimately motivated by selfishness. They are performed because the performer would feel worse about themselves if they didn't.

"But I've given up my own fulfillment to raise my kids!" Only because you'd feel worse about not raising your kids.

And yes, some people have different selfish desires, and that's where law enforcement comes in. Hopefully, they'll feel worse about the prospect of being in jail instead of fulfilling their selfish tendencies that negatively affect other people.

But the selfish desire of the majority of people for personal safety, as Alex defined well, is what motivates the social contract, independent of religious belief.

I think it’s overly cynical to say that everything is ultimately selfish. If someone donates their fortune to an orphanage, I would say it is altruistic and not be concerned about whether their motivation was to go to heaven or not. Otherwise, altruism has no meaning. I care much more about what people do than the reason they did it. (In fact, many times we are not even sure of our own motives.)

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by David E

Still wondering what is wrong about murdering.

I'm glad I don't live near you, then.

I wish I had time to participate in this chat, but I'm extra busy for the next few days. Very quickly, I'd mention that Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot are always brought up by religious apologists to rub in the faces of the secular. But they were hardly bastions of rational secular philosophy. They essentially created godless pseudo-religions with themselves as supreme entities - kind of like the Caesars of yore. In other words, nothing new at all. Political ideology elevated to the status of unquestionable truth can be just as devastating as religion, no doubt about it. But this is irrelevant to the question of whether we derive our morality from a supernatural source. These abusive regimes are a long way away from secular liberal democracies, which currently seem to be exterminating hardly anyone in Scandinavian countries, for instance.

Altruism has been observed in other animal species. Does this mean that our own sense of altruism evolved, or is some supernatural agency granting an awakening morality to a few other primates? I'd say more likely the former.

Altruism aside, self-interest is still a perfectly reasonable place from which to say murder is wrong, or at least extremely inconvenient. And getting from "I don't want to be killed" to "I shouldn't kill others" is perfectly logical. If you live in any kind of in-group at all, and you engage in murder, you can jolly well expect the group to want you out of the picture, and you can easily understand why. ("They don't want to die, just like me.") From here, it isn't that far a jump to say, "Okay, there are other beings with self-interest, just like me. We can work together for our mutual protection." It isn't necessarily the complete picture, but I fail to see any inherent flaws in this explanation. In even the smallest tribe, proscribing murder is a no-brainer. (Of course, the same protecting of self-interest will likely mean that killing folks in the other tribes will be allowed or even encouraged if and when they become a threat. That hasn't changed, alas.)

That's all I have time for. I'm always interested in this topic, so y'all have a ball with it. I'll check back later. <swims away>

[Alex]

Originally Posted by David E

So you are saying murder is wrong because the person being killed does not want that to happen?

No, I didn't say that.

Then you gave selfishness as a second reason. Now you are into the business of saying an act is wrong because of the thinking or motivation of the perpetrator.

No, I didn't say that.

So it would not be wrong if the killer had an altruistic motive? The 9/11 murderers did, even giving their lives for the cause.

That would be up to the societies involved to collectively decide. There are many examples where killing for altruistic (or other) reasons is considered acceptable. The views of individuals aren't individually relevant.

selfish=wrong, then everything would be wrong.

You don't seem to have read what I wrote very well because I never suggested such logic as "selfish=wrong".

Still wondering what is wrong about murdering.

Inherently? Nothing. Subjectively? It's only wrong when you're murdering me. Pragmatically? I'm willing to pretend it is wrong if you're murdered for the side benefit of everybody else pretending they think it is wrong for me to be murdered.

Maybe not so silly if you learn the background and wisdom behind some of the practices.

If you, in order to continue the traditions pretend that the god no longer believes to exist actually exists then yes, perfectly silly. Regardless of the merit of the practice.

As I've said I make no beef with many aspects of religion, I just think that generally religion co-opted them rather than creating them and the same positions can be achieved without religion.

Without the notion that something transcends our physical existence, this human tragedy more easily becomes an acceptable cost of attaining your utopian vision for society on earth, because there is nothing else but that.

I'd rather that than lying to ourselves (not that I am accepting your larger argument). If the only reason we are generally good to each other is because of a giant invisible mommy in the next room who'll ground us, then I'd rather we accept that and work on it and just get rid of the invisible mommy.

But as has been asked several times in this thread, if religious morality is what we need then which religious morality are you advocating? It seems to be judeo-christian, but in that case which judeo-christian morality, and how forcefully to we impose it on the non judeo-christians? And, almost as importantly, what do we do about the fact that the judeo-christian mommy is, as described in available texts, a major dickhead subject to incredible mood swings?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by David E

Pointing out awful practices that members of a group did does not mean their value system is bad unless those things are proclaimed to be an integral part of it.

Read Leviticus and go count the number of reasons God says we should kill people. And I guarnatee you that Torquemada would happily have pointed out to you how integral in the bible what he carried out was.

It was after the Jews entered into a pact with God to worship only him that the golden calf was brought into the temple.

The golden calf was never brought to the temple it was made in the desert at the foot of Sinai while Moses was receiving the 15 10 Commandments.

I think it’s overly cynical to say that everything is ultimately selfish.

Again, it's only "cynical" if you buy into the fallacy that "selfish" is inherently a bad thing.

Maybe not so silly if you learn the background and wisdom behind some of the practices. Having a Sabbath or day of rest once a week from TV and computers could lead to a happier, more mentally healthy life and people be more inclined on that day to bond and empathize with friends, for example.

This just makes me think of that skit Flippyshark posted, The Stool. "Just let Jesus make your decisions for you and don't ask why." Umm, the WHY is the important part. If taking a day of rest leads to better physical and mental health, then take a day of rest because it leads to better physical and mental health, not "because God said so." Otherwise, how do you expect people to come to rational conclusions on new moral challenges that are not explicitly covered in their choice of god handbook?