"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[€uroMeinke]

I don't know, I guess as a moral relativist I have a hard time getting on board the objective morality train becasue I don't believe it. For me to advocate it becasue it seems to work better by some "relativist" standard still seems disingenuous to me. Placebos seem to only work when you believe in them, so for a system of objective morality to work, you'd have to send me to the death camps or otherwise silence or intimidate me.

[David E]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

It was Tokyo. (Which, I guess, falls somewhere around category 4 - essentially secular, with ceremonial observance of Shinto and Buddhism.)

See, but I don't think the Buddhist influence is just ceremonial. It's the basis for their sense of morality. And the fact that there is ceremonial participation indicates that there is more of a connection than in a more secular place where you would worry about your wallet, like Detroit. And the difference between these two cities illustrates that there is not a common biological morality that doesn't need nurturing, as Gouhlish Delight thinks.

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Willingness to defend seems important to your value judgement of a society, and I guess I understand that. It has to survive if it is going to continue to offer value.

But it's not just self preservation. If you see someone being mugged or bullied, don't you think the right thing to do is to help them if you can, even though you yourself are not being threatened?

Originally Posted by flippyshark

So, I don't see why a country couldn't be officially secular (tolerating all religions and beliefs within it but not endorsing any of them)

I totally agree. That's the idea of the US. The founding fathers envisioned a secular government and a religious population. (Federal government to be exact. States were allowed to be set up according to how people saw fit with Maryland being Catholic and NH Protestant, there was more religious endorsement at the state level, but it was not so much through laws as ceremony).

Originally Posted by flippyshark

The monotheistic religions carry a great deal of cultural capital (even with godless folk like me), but I can't find a fixed set of values (personal or institutional) in any of them.

You mean that makes sense for you right? You are not denying that each has a known set of values (I pointed some out in my 1-5 list.)

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Endless wars have been carried out within these religions, endless splits and schisms, reforms and reactions. Have you yet specified which values, and if fixed, by whom?

Here again, these splits have been more over theology than values, and I am not arguing for any particular theology.

[David E]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

I don't know, I guess as a moral relativist I have a hard time getting on board the objective morality train becasue I don't believe it.

Even though I know this is common, it's pretty alien to me and I can't see how this would play out in your daily life. Are you saying you really think there is no objective right or wrong? What happens when you have jury duty, is that institution wrong in your eyes (see, I can't get away from it), er, how about, is it irrelevant and meaningless? After all, the jury system's whole purpose is to evaluate the circumstances behind an event in light of a fixed standard society is trying to enforce.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by David E

Even though I know this is common, it's pretty alien to me and I can't see how this would play out in your daily life. Are you saying you really think there is no objective right or wrong? What happens when you have jury duty, is that institution wrong in your eyes (see, I can't get away from it), er, how about, is it irrelevant and meaningless? After all, the jury system's whole purpose is to evaluate the circumstances behind an event in light of a fixed standard society is trying to enforce.

Well, on a jury you are making judgment based on Laws not ethics or morals, though when asked by a judge if I can follow the law, I have sometimes responded, "if they are just laws." Of course, I have yet to be seated on a jury so maybe you have something there.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

[€uroMeinke]

It seems odd to be doing such a utilitarian analysis of Christianity/religion - it seems to presume that Utilitarianism is the true objective morality by which to evaluate other moral systems.

[David E]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

It seems odd to be doing such a utilitarian analysis of Christianity/religion - it seems to presume that Utilitarianism is the true objective morality by which to evaluate other moral systems.

Why is that odd, shouldn't utility actually be the main reason to adopt a system of beliefs, secular or religious? Why subscribe to them if they are not useful to you in guiding your life?

Today above, I quoted a NY Times article about how multiple studies find that religious people are generally happier. People seek happiness through all sorts of means from yoga to consumerism. Some things work, some things are empty and temporary. Why rule out trying the means of religion that seems to work?

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by David E

Why is that odd, shouldn't utility actually be the main reason to adopt a system of beliefs, secular or religious? Why subscribe to them if they are not useful to you in guiding your life?

Today above, I quoted a NY Times article about how multiple studies find that religious people are generally happier. People seek happiness through all sorts of means from yoga to consumerism. Some things work, some things are empty and temporary. Why rule out trying the means of religion that seems to work?

Well, i that's the case Fvck religions and be a utilitarian. I prefer pleasure to utility, so I'll hope you find my secular hedonism acceptable as well (God not included or excluded)

[€uroMeinke]

oh dear, you're going to make re-read the thread - this may take awhile as I check out the fashions on the Golden Globes...

[flippyshark]

While typing out the absurdly rambly post above, others have (rightly) indicated that this discussion has probably played out. I'll hop on board the other one when it appears.