"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Prudence

And the nonbelievers likewise point to the questioning as proof that the belief system is complete poppycock with nary a shred of truth nor utility.

I don't say that there is nary a shred of truth nor utility. Just that the truth and utility is available outside the framework of religion or spirituality.

If you, in your personal quest for "truth" feel it is found in a religious framework, I really don't care. It is when those who have found it there declare that because that is where they found it, it is the only place it can be found that I have issues. (Or when they claim real world proof for their faith, then yes I'll probe that reality.)

Originally Posted by flippyshark

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.

I've been very consciously keeping my responses in the language of free will. Obviously (if you're aware of my past here), I don't really believe that. We're just biological machines running on an electrical power source with a chemical operating system. The selfishness I've described (I originally used the word narcissism in my post above before changing it; wonder how that word choice would have altered things) isn't something I think we choose; it is just evolved into us and, I would argue, that produces a very general framework of morality that is pretty common across human time and space, though in specifics there is a fair amount of diversity.

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.

Why do you grant the privilege of this cop out to religion, but not to secularism?

[David E]

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.

Originally Posted by Alex

Why do you grant the privilege of this cop out to religion, but not to secularism?

Not sure why you call this a cop out. I think I'm just stating a fact. To give a simple example: millions of people go to places of worship and hear the teachings, among which murder and stealing are prohibited. Some of them still go and commit awful murders. Does the fact that people can't live up to the teachings mean they are wrong or that the deviation becomes the badge of that religion?

As far as me not granting this to secular ideology, what did I write that makes you think this? I don't think I have painted secularism by pointing out the few aberrations. Funny, there is not a really a formal ideology that secular people hold up as a model, so I can't even say they are not living up to their standards because each person might have their own version.

-----

Alex, regarding the why is murder wrong question, you pointed out that I was not understanding what you wrote, in which case I still don't. Seemed like you were saying you thought murder was wrong in your case, but that it might not apply to others. Is that right, or do you agree with Flippyshark's answer which was a universal societal one, Enlightened Self Interest?

[David E]

Originally Posted by Prudence

This is the facet of religion with which I currently struggle. So many of the "instructions" were clearly (from our modern perspective) designed to address social issues of the time. And we have no trouble, as a (western) society, dismissing the rules about stoning and selling daughters and whatnot. But the other rules society swears are the unerring Word of God and must be obeyed blindly.

I have been advocating the guidance of a fixed set of moral values (vs. Moral Relativity). But in every age, these have to be applied to the situation by using our intelligence and logic (Situational Ethics). I think both secular and religious people get confused about how to do this. There really are two areas of confusion:

1. Moral Relativity and Situational Ethics.

Moral Relativity vs. Absolute or Universal Morality
An ethicist has asked hundreds of high school students who they would save first if both their dog and a stranger were drowning. 1/3 say the dog (a more secular response, because they love the dog and not the stranger), 1/3 say the stranger (a more religious response, because people created in God’s image and are more valuable than animals) and 1/3 say they don’t know. But my point is about a follow-up question: When either dog or stranger savers were asked if the answers of the others were wrong, very few would say they were. In other words, they feel that everyone’s sense of right and wrong is personal and does not necessarily apply to others. This is what I said about the danger of the bus ads, that everyone can make up their own rules, as opposed to norms that apply to everyone.

Situational Ethics:
Many religious people will confuse Moral Relativity with Situational Ethics. They might say “lying is always wrong”. If you were sheltering Jews in WWII and the SS came to your door and asked “Do you know where any Jews are hiding?”, wouldn’t the ethical answer be to lie?

2. Institutional vs. Personal
“Turn the other cheek”. This makes a great deal of sense on a personal level. If we never forgave people who wrong us, we would end up with no friends. Sadly, many people shut others out of their lives because of intolerance of any transgression.
But it makes no sense to apply this on a national level. Do we say to our enemies who bombed New York, “OK, now you can bomb LA?” Many secular people will point to teachings that were meant to be a guide for the individual and mis-apply it to the behavior of governments.

In the example of lying, many times on a personal level lying is the right thing to do (“honey, do I look fat in this dress?”). But on a national level, it is almost always disastrous.

There has been bit of discussion about selfishness. Religion has seemingly contradictory answers. Rabbi Hillel said, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I?”. I think in this case, in the personal realm, selfishness drives others away and will lead to unhappiness. But in the intuitional or national realm, an entity has to know what it stands for and pursue its mission (provided it is a good one). So it becomes a responsibility to defend oneself against aggression and to help others who are victims of it where possible.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I tend to think selfishness is the only reliable motivator. If I know how it benefits someone, I can guess what they will do. I can be wrong, but even altruism has self-interest at its heart.

I do what I do because it creates the world that I want to live in. I like a world where people use their turn signals, where people help other people when it's necessary, and where people are honest and hardworking. There are many things I want in a society, and I don't always hit the mark, but I do try.

I'm really enjoying this conversation.

[flippyshark]

I'm back for a minute or two, and I am also enjoying this discussion.

I tend to use the term "self-interest' instead of selfishness, as the latter has a somewhat negative connotation, trained into us from childhood. "Enlightened self-interest" is perhaps even better, and includes the idea that serving the interests of others aids in furthering one's own interests, which I think is not only true, it's a pretty good basis for personal ethics. It's also entirely rational and non-dependent on revelation.

"Selfishness" often connotes "unenlightened self interest" - in other words, inconsiderate, myopic greed and disdain for the well-being of others. I presume that this has not been the intended usage of it in Alex and GD's posts.

My few minutes are almost up - I'll throw in a quick and almost entirely irrelevant anecdote. I just returned from performing an interactive murder mystery. Our audience was a local Christian private school, and the kids were mostly high school age. (Our show was their reward for doing well in their "Academic Olympics.") Anyhow, during the Q&A section of the show, where the audience gets to question the actor/suspects, one of the students, a young lady of I'm guessing sixteen or so, demanded of the detective character, "Did you vote for Obama?" The actor playing the detective said, 'I don't know what that has to do with the murder, but yes, I did." The girl looked right at him and said, "How dare you!" Then she sat down. The room got real quiet, until the detective went on to the next table. Awkward.

Anyway, neither here nor there, but it just now happened, and I wanted to share. I'm off to my next show. Check back in later.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

It's times like this where I wish The Hedonist Manifesto were a completed reference work that I could quote at will

[Strangler Lewis]

As to a secular value system, the story goes that the great sage Hillel was asked if/or said that he could teach the whole Torah while standing on one foot. Challenged to do it, he stood on one foot, recited the golden rule and declared, "That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary. Go forth and learn." Since you are an agnostic, I assume you have no trouble agreeing that this moral principle--which sounds a lot more moral than enlightened self interest--predates its clever attribution to a divine source. I think the "self-evident truths" set out in the opening to the Declaration of Independence states some key principles as well (minus the endowment by the creator part).

I'm not sure that the Dorchester story is terribly useful in a world where our enemies blow themselves up for the greater bad all the time. Further, in "Band of Brothers," the point was made that the bond among the men was such that they killed themselves for each other all the time, without particular regard for the objective at hand and, presumably, without consideration of Judeo-Christian principles.

That said, I do wonder if the story really played out as we're led to believe: with angelic music and lighting and an exchange between Bobby Jordan and Pat O'Brien.

Sorry, son.
Dat's okay, fadda.
Here, take moin.
Tanks, fadda, I'll never ferget ya.

Or was there, perhaps, a bit more persuasion exerted on the chaplains?

[flippyshark]

The golden rule is in no way incompatible with enlightened self interest. I don't see it as superior to (or inferior to) but part and parcel of.

Actually, Rabbi Hillel gave the rule as "Whatever is hateful to you, don't do to others," which I think may be superior to the more common form of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Why? Well, you might desire something that others would find unsavory. (extreme and rude example - "I just don't understand why she objected when I peed on her. It's what I would have wanted.") On the other hand, if you avoid behaviors that you yourself would not enjoy, you automatically go a long way toward modeling to others what you would like or expect from them in return. It's not a bad starting point for a moral system, secular or otherwise.

The sacrifice of the chaplains is laudable regardless of their own belief system. Their decision to give themselves up for the good of four sailors may have been informed somewhat by a sense of expectation. ("As a representative of a higher power, it's better for me to model supreme sacrifice, rather than spend the rest of my life justifying my decision to save myself." Indeed, it would have sounded lame for any one of them to say "I thought it was important for me to survive so I could continue to give moral sustenance to the rest of you." Such a chaplain might well have been seen as a coward.)

I suspect there have been any number of non-theists who have also given their lives for others. Unlike the chaplains, they do so without any expectation of heavenly reward. I could see someone deciding that their own biological imperative simply means less to them than dying for something admirable or heroic. ("I could decide to save myself at the cost of someone else's life, but then, will I be able to live with myself?") Not long ago, there was even a video posted in a thread here showing a dog who was willing to put his life at risk to save another dog on a busy highway. (I'm assuming the dog had some understanding of the danger - I guess it could have been in the so-stupid-I'm-brave category.)

Surely you aren't saying that the actions of Mugabe or Idi Amin are examples of ESI, are you? (Enlightened self interest - one serves ones own interests best by serving the interests of others.) Your examples sound more like its opposite, unenlightened self interest - rapacity and willingness to murder to further ones own agenda. How exactly did society benefit from these guys?

I will agree that societies built around ESI face risk from aggressors who do not share those values of tolerance.

[Strangler Lewis]

I always interpret the "do unto others . . ." as embracing both acts and omissions. However, whether phrased in the positive or negative, it boils down to "Treat people how you expect to be treated." Since the command would be meaningless and unworkable otherwise, this presupposes a shared value system of substantive expectations of proper treatment and agreed upon procedures for resolving foreseeable disagreements. E.g., "Excuse me, ma'am. May I pee on you?"

[€uroMeinke]

So really it seems to me we need to be more Machiavellian about our beliefs - we know there isn't a God but we need to pretend so that we can dupe enough of our people to blindly go of to battle and kill the enemy in the name of God so we can eat their bacon. Still sounds like enlightened self interest, especially if you are not a believer.