"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[David E]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Morality has to be universal? I'm not so sure of that. It seems to me more like an ever-shifting consensus.

By using the word “universal” I mean absolute (vs. relative) morality, that is, if stealing is wrong, it applies to everyone, like I tried to explain in my reply to Prudence. By universal, I don’t mean built-in biologically to all humans; we have already discussed and agreed somewhat about how people can be fundamentally different. Maybe you are talking about what i called Situational Ethics, which is how to apply that morality in difference circumstances.

I agree with your comments about Oprah, but unfortunately it’s not just her audience; many educated intelligent people, especially academics and artists, cling to this same idealistic notion that people are naturally good and the same. (I should write something soon about secular vs. religious dogma.)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by David E

By using the word “universal” I mean absolute (vs. relative) morality, that is, if stealing is wrong, it applies to everyone, like I tried to explain in my reply to Prudence. By universal, I don’t mean built-in biologically to all humans;

And here's what's pretty alien to me. If you don't believe in god, where does your definition of this supposed universal morality come from?

And to answer your jury analogy, a jury is relevant and meaningful within the context of the system that created it. It's a product of a society that agreed to those rules, and so it makes perfect sense to enforce those rules. But that doesn't mean those rules are universal truths.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And here's what's pretty alien to me. If you don't believe in god, where does your definition of this supposed universal morality come from?

Let me be more explicit than that. "It came from my religious upbringing" isn't what I'm looking for. Because that doesn't answer the question. It explains why you believe in it, but it doesn't answer the question of where it comes from if you think it exists. If you got it from religion, where did religion get it? And the only end to that questioning is god.

But you don't believe in god. So this "universal" definition of good and bad is not, afterall, universal. You'd LIKE it to be universal because you feel like it works pretty well, but it simply isn't, unless you believe in god (and even then, if you believe in god and think his word is universal, then his word doesn't match your definition of the universal good, but that's another story).

And so the genesis must have been human. There must have been enough people who WANTED the idea that not negatively affecting others is good to be universally held. So religion was created to explain and reenforce that desire. And despite the fact that Darwin has given us a far simpler and sustainable explanation for that, people are reluctant to accept it because relgion "has worked so far", ignoring all of the ways religion certainly hasn't worked.

Sigh, I bet I'm really pissing off some religious people reading this thread.

[flippyshark]

You may be pissing others off, but you're delighting the heck out of me.

Anyhow, David E., looking back at your first post within this thread, I notice that you say your thoughts about this issue were spurred by comments from Don Wildmon, who you say you know nothing about. Well, I sure do. He's the founder of the very right-wing American Family Association (originally known as the National Federation for Decency.) He started the ball rolling on the boycotting of Disney (for allowing gay days, the horror!), led the charge on the protests of The Last Temptation of Christ, has campaigned steadily against gay rights, abortion rights, Blockbuster Video (for carrying NC-17 titles), you get the picture. He's got a major ideological axe to grind when he says that society functions better with religion. It's a big power grab for him and his ilk. (His son Timothy runs the organization these days, and is cut from much the same cloth.) I know this has no bearing on the merits of the argumjent in and of itself, but you are the first agnostic I've ever heard propose it. (On the other hand, I've very often heard it from religious apologists, whose views I spend a surprising amount of time examining.)

[David E]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

...but it doesn't answer the question of where it [morality] comes from if you think it exists. If you got it from religion, where did religion get it? And the only end to that questioning is god.

Yes! Otherwise, the choices are: "Chairman Mao", or "whatever you think is right". And I argue that the consequences of these are not good at all.

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

But you don't believe in god. So this "universal" definition of good and bad is not, afterall, universal

The teaching of it must be transmitted through culture, but the morality that we teach has to be applicable to everyone. We are getting tripped up on the word universal, I think. Weren't you arguing for instinctual morality (5 guys on a bridge)? I have always been saying it's cultural, otherwise how do you get societies where human sacrifice was mandated by law and others where it's not? (Here is an example of a practice that was deemed right for some to engage in, but not others.)

As for not believing in God, I try to but have a hard time often. Remember I agreed with Voltaire that if God did not exist, man would have to invent him to avoid the situation you point out that I just quoted above. As long as this thread has gotten, I have not even touched on the most powerful arguments for why someone should at least try to believe in a good God with and an afterlife with accountability . (Separate thread sometime).

Let me explain why what I am advocating is totally consistent with logic and the Scientific Method: To try to bring a way of working with things that are not understood, we often postulate an answer that we can’t prove, and the logic that follows works until we find new information we can adjust for. Even then, the older way is still practical on some level. All the innovations of the renaissance worked under Newtonian mechanics; and even after Einstein, a sextant still works. So how is the postulation of God useful even though it can’t be proved? Science and secularism do not have answers for the mysteries of Time and Existence. I don’t even think we are capable of understanding them no matter what is discovered. (I am wondering if you agree with just that?). One thing we can observe in nature is that there are different levels of capability to understand. My dog can’t understand how I make light appear where I go when I come home. It still happens according to the laws of nature. My dog suffers when I leave her a the vet overnight; I don’t have a way to explain that I will be back for her, and that it will be alright. Likewise, God might have a similar relationship to humans, and God might be limited or part of a hierarchy with more levels. We may not have the ability to know or understand those things, and we may be tasked to work with what we do understand.

At the worst, it attempts to explain mysteries that the secular cannot; and at best it can be a great source of something that no human can be happy without: meaning.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by David E

At the worst, it attempts to explain mysteries that the secular cannot; and at best it can be a great source of something that no human can be happy without: meaning.

I don't know, I have no problem accepting the fact that some things are just unknowable to me, or that the only meaning my life has, is that which I attribute to it.

[David E]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

I don't know, I have no problem accepting the fact that some things are just unknowable to me, or that the only meaning my life has, is that which I attribute to it.

In my case I feel the same. But you and I have been pretty lucky. For millions, this is not the case. This is a good segue to a new thread I am starting about similar bus ads in Britain, and a more common and obvious argument for God.

I think this thread has been pretty much played out, I feel like I am repeating too much. Euro, I would still like your response to the anarchist question and whether you agree about the existence of secular dogma.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by David E

I think this thread has been pretty much played out, I feel like I am repeating too much. Euro, I would still like your response to the anarchist question and whether you agree about the existence of secular dogma.

No question there is secular dogma - isn't that the stuff of party platforms?

As to the Anarchy question - I don't necessarily find it worrisome, but rather the actual state of being. On an individual level we constantly make a choice as to whether or not we will abide by the social contract and thus have a personal sense of anarchy (not that it is without consequence). Sometimes we break with the social norms because we think they need to be changed (e.g. civil disobedience). Sometimes we violate the norms because we can get away with it and advance our own personal agendas. I think by keeping this in mind we respect the needs of other people (have not's having less to lose by violating social norms) and that as much as we'd like other to act in an honorable and moral fashion, at any moment, despite the existence or non-existence of any God we can find ourselves betrayed or taken advantage of. Granted we all wish it were otherwise, but I think it helps to every once and awhile acknowledge the anarchist potential of the people around us.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by David E

In my case I feel the same. But you and I have been pretty lucky. For millions, this is not the case.

So basically it boils down to "we need religion because all those other horrible people aren't as enlightened as you and I are and something needs to rein them in"?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by David E

In my case I feel the same. But you and I have been pretty lucky. For millions, this is not the case.

And I would argue that that is because they have been trained from the outset by religion that life is meaningless without god. My parents, while bringing me up within the context of Jewish tradition, always did so in a way that never had me feeling like god was the only reason for my morality and happiness. It was allegory and a way to frame the thoughts, but god was not a necessity in the equation. Thus, it's easy for me to be happy and appreciate life without external "meaning" from god.