"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[Cadaverous Pallor]

[David E]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And saying that religion should continue to be accepted because it's the contextual basis of our current morality is like saying slavery should be reinstated because it's the contextual system under which our country was made as strong and powerful as it is.

I gave the car travel analogy as an example of an invention that works pretty well, despite what problems it has. Not as an example of a an enduring institution. If we had hover cars, we would switch to those. Changing my analogy to something evil like slavery, which then implies a correlation to religion, isn't fair.

Just as a matter of historical clarification, now that you do mention slavery, it is not what made the US powerful, in fact it tore it apart. The slave states were pretty much only agricultural, party because of the longer growing season, and yes, because of the labor situation. The north, where slavery was prohibited, prospered much more in every other regard: manufacturing, trade, diplomacy, the arts, charitable institutions, urban development, etc. And don't forget that the abolitionist movement was Christian.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by David E

And don't forget that the abolitionist movement was Christian.

Alas, so was the pro-slavery faction.

[€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 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.

[David E]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Alas, so was the pro-slavery faction.

In profession and affiliation more than in deed. It's hard to live up to standards and do the right thing when you have a lot on the line. In historical context, slavery was near universal for all of history, and after US abolition, only took 50-100 more years or so to clean up most of the world.

[€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]

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...

[€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.