"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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?

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.

It's not like Leviticus, to use the previously mentioned example, has some sort of list where rules from column A must be obeyed until the advent of the internal combustion engine and rules from column B must be obeyed in perpetuity. I see them as rules with a purpose - and when the purpose is no longer relevant, the rules need no longer required blind adherence.

Major religious figures themselves are often philsophers of a sort, exploring the meaning of truth and faith and societal compact - reorganizing (sometimes to radical effect) the everyday practices supporting one religious sect or another. How can you be a philosopher and not question? How can you follow a philosopher and not emulate their questioning?

And yet, the modern questioner finds themselves frequently on the outsides of both camps - devout believers and devout nonbelievers. The believers expect the blind obedience to bearded, be-robed imagry they've been trained to worship -- all else is heresy. 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.

How am I supposed to find truth if I don't look for it?

[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.