"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by €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.

Oh dear, no. Definitely not ESI.

[flippyshark]

Morality has to be universal? I'm not so sure of that. It seems to me more like an ever-shifting consensus. Anyhow, our most formidable enemies right now are quite committed to the God of Abraham (even if they call him Allah), but their version of monotheism sure isn't pointing them to a morality that benefits their own people, or anyone else for that matter. I'm willing to admit it's possible that WE societies have taken tolerance to a level that endangers their own best interests.

And yes, rights are something conferred upon us by other people. We may say that they are part of natural law, or God given, or whatever, but, sure seems like a human invention to me. (A human invention I am all for, by the way.) This is easily demonstrated by the fact that we have all seen rights taken away, by humans from other humans. (Really recently, in fact!) The molecules couldn't do a thing about it. It will be up to humans to give those rights back.

Hey, let's not go crediting the Judeo-Christian deity for the ethic of reciprocity. It's much older than Yahweh.

[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]

The problem with absolute belief systems is they are absolute and almost require the banning or destruction of the other (if it is to survive). If Islam is frightening, it's also a monotheistic belief system, with it's own ethics and morality. If you accept Christianity only for those reasons then you must also accept Islam - or this just becomes an argument of justifying your own beliefs of what is good or evil.

[David E]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

The problem with absolute belief systems is they are absolute

Why is that a problem? Our criminal law reflects our beliefs – shouldn’t murder laws apply to any two people given the same circumstances? Why would it be wrong for one but not the other? (See my other post about absolute vs. relative morality)

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

and almost require the banning or destruction of the other (if it is to survive).

Well some do and some don’t. To recap the previous examples:

1 Radical Islam does what you say and requires the destruction of the other.
2 Dictatorial Secularism doesn’t require it but often destroys outside (and inside) threats to it.
3 Buddhism passes judgment on evil, but does not use violence to stop or prevent it, leaving it to Karma.
4 Western European style Secularism does not pass judgment (relative morality) or use violence to stop evil.
5 Judaism/Christianity requires the destruction only of evil systems and so would act against 1 and 2 but not 3 and 4. (Note that judgment on what is evil is made on the basis of behavior, not on the basis of differing beliefs.)

Looking at the list, it seems that all systems are absolute except 4, which is relative, and the one I assume you favor. No. 2 I think has an absolute system: survival of the fittest where strength, power and self-preservation are revered (Saddam, Pol Pot).

So destruction of the other can be good sometimes, if the other is bad, which is why I prefer 5.

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

If Islam is frightening, it's also a monotheistic belief system, with it's own ethics and morality. If you accept Christianity only for those reasons then you must also accept Islam

No, I said I was skeptical about systems with their own morality. The bus ads are talking to our culture (4’s and 5’s) and are trying to get rid of the No. 5 God.
Regarding Islam, I don’t accept No 1, but I support Islam as it is practiced in America, which has been compatible with our value system, (probably more with 5 than 4). For example, if practicing Muslims dominated an American city, I would feel safer about leaving my car unlocked and worry less about my daughter being killed by a drunk driver than in a secular dominated city. American freedom of religion has led to good manifestations of it.

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

- or this just becomes an argument of justifying your own beliefs of what is good or evil.

Well, yeah, of course I am; everyone on this thread is advocating for what they believe. Don’t you believe 4 (WE) is better than 5 (JC) and present your case to justify that choice? As adults, we get to look at the choices and switch based on looking at what each has to offer. That’s what the bus ads are trying for.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by David E

Regarding Islam, I don’t accept No 1, but I support Islam as it is practiced in America, which has been compatible with our value system, (probably more with 5 than 4). For example, if practicing Muslims dominated an American city, I would feel safer about leaving my car unlocked and worry less about my daughter being killed by a drunk driver than in a secular dominated city. American freedom of religion has led to good manifestations of it.

Actually, I recently visited a vast city, one of the world's largest, in which the crime rate is incredibly low, and where strangers will go out of their way to help you if you are lost or return your wallet if you have left it behind. It wasn't at all a Christian city, or even an Abrahamic one. It was Tokyo. (Which, I guess, falls somewhere around category 4 - essentially secular, with ceremonial observance of Shinto and Buddhism.) I would feel safer about leaving my car unlocked there than any other city I have visited. (Though, given the exemplary public transport, I wouldn't have a car there.)

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. 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), and still committed to a strong defense. In fact, I know plenty of secularists who believe that is exactly what the USA is supposed to be.

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. 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?