Question. Thought Provoking?

[poadeleted1]

Again, adult thoughts welcomed. All others, keep it to yourself.

Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?- Brad Stine

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Again, adult thoughts welcomed. All others, keep it to yourself.

Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?- Brad Stine

The man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in because his taking offense is actually a form of belief.

 

[Greebo]

I'd have to say the latter as well. Then again the question is easily reversed:
"Who is more irrational? The man who doesn't believe in God, or the man who's offended that someone else doesn't?"

We've sadly got all types in the world.

 

[Dart]

Again, adult thoughts welcomed. All others, keep it to yourself.

Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?- Brad Stine

How can he be offended by a God if he doesn't believe in the God?

My experiance has been Gods don't offend, believers do.

 

[poadeleted1]

Certainly a strange juxtaposition.....

 

[wbarnhill]

My experiance has been Gods don't offend, believers do.

Precisely.

 

[MSmith]

My experiance has been Gods don't offend, believers do.

Ding, ding, ding!

We have a winner.

I've always liked the saying "God, save me from your followers."

 

[wesleyj]

My problem is with the man, who beleives, that if he performs an action, against other people, in the name of a god that he beleives in, that he is doing right, regardless of how much damage or injury his actions may produce.

 

[woodstock]

Ding, ding, ding!

We have a winner.

I've always liked the saying "God, save me from your followers."

second and third both of you!! (meaning Dart, who wasn't quoted here...)

 

[DoubleD]

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread", but here goes anyway.

"Belief" is almost by definition not rational, in the sense that Newton's laws of motion or the balance in my bank account are rational. If that weren't true, we'd all quickly agree about God, like we do about F=ma (Newton's Second Law). So, both choices posed are "irrational".

I think it was Sinclair Lewis who said, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross". Ring any bells with respect to political discourse in our country at this time?

 

[poadeleted1]

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread", but here goes anyway.

"Belief" is almost by definition not rational, in the sense that Newton's laws of motion or the balance in my bank account are rational. If that weren't true, we'd all quickly agree about God, like we do about F=ma (Newton's Second Law). So, both choices posed are "irrational".

I think it was Sinclair Lewis who said, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross". Ring any bells with respect to political discourse in our country at this time?

Whose flag?

 

[kevin47881]

Whose flag?

If last weeks demonstrations are any indication, Mexican.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Whose flag?

Does it matter?

 

[alaskaflyer]

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.

Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

-A. Einstein

BTW, Einstein strongly rejected his characterizations as an "atheist." As do I

 

[Frank Browne]

"Not everything that can be counted, counts. And not everything that counts, can be counted." A. Einstein

 

[gkainz]

"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
A. Einstein

Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

 

[alaskaflyer]

Yes, he was a spiritual man, if not a strictly religious one. To build inelegantly on Chuck's excellent construct above, I find that those who are most irrational are the believers who have no patience for others' equally illogical version of God.

 

[wbarnhill]

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.

Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

-A. Einstein

BTW, Einstein strongly rejected his characterizations as an "atheist." As do I

I think it can be easily said that Einstein was a Deist, believing in an impersonal god who created everything but did not interfere with the world. Einstein also believed that physical processes determined everything. Einstein was raised Jewish, but didn't adhere to Judaism.

 

[alaskaflyer]

It is the second quote in my post above that I appreciate the most, and it is something I believe in strongly - that regardless of belief or non-belief there is a moral fabric that must/can/should be maintained in society, leaving us to debate religion at our leisure.

Of course some didn't get the memo.

 

[wbarnhill]

It is the second quote in my post above that I appreciate the most, and it is something I believe in strongly - that regardless of belief or non-belief there is a moral fabric that must/can/should be maintained in society, leaving us to debate religion at our leisure.

Right. Religion and morality are clearly separate. You can have one without the other, but of course you can also have both or neither.

 

[gkainz]

Right. Religion and morality are clearly separate. You can have one without the other, but of course you can also have both or neither.

How can you have morality without religion? Morality based on what moral tenents? Moral relativism? Morality by definition is based on some point of reference.

 

[Dart]

Right. Religion and morality are clearly separate. You can have one without the other, but of course you can also have both or neither.

You can also have an immoral religion which is not the same as an amoral religion.

 

[wbarnhill]

How can you have morality without religion? Morality based on what moral tenents? Moral relativism? Morality by definition is based on some point of reference.

Quite simply. The idea of "Do unto others" existed far beyond the time of the Bible. It is easy to say I wouldn't kill someone because I wouldn't want it done to me. It is also easy to say that someone who kills another is seen as violating the first rule. From that point, things become more complicated as you must decide whether the person was justified in killing the other. I can go on and on, but I assure you, no religious document is necessary for a society to form morals. Now, if you want to delve into a deeper argument, you could easily argue that religions attempt to instill morality through fear. In Christianity, believers fear that living an unmoral life results in your soul being sent to hell. As a non-religious person, I do not require that induced fear to have morals. I still know right and wrong, and no religion introduced those ideas to me.

 

[alaskaflyer]

How can you have morality without religion? Morality based on what moral tenents? Moral relativism? Morality by definition is based on some point of reference.

Well, I'm not William, but like I said above, I'm with Einstein:

SNIP "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary."

And like Einstein, my believing such does not mean I do not believe in God.

 

[ScottM]

How can you have morality without religion? Morality based on what moral tenents? Moral relativism? Morality by definition is based on some point of reference.

This is the beigning of a question that cannot be answered definitively and is where philosophy really begins to try and tackle the source of our social constructs. There are several schools of thought on this but frankly, my philosphy background is a little rusty, and I don't think I could do a good job of making a case for any one of the theories.

There are ideas that morals are based on ones social sctructure or 'tribe'. These social relationships could also be some of the basis for one's religious beliefs one could argue, there are some theories about 'gene' related moralism, all inaddition to the the source of religion that you cited Greg.

Here is a nice description of morals that may be useful to guide further discussions that subsribes to one of the theories I mentioned above.

A. Descriptive Ethics orMorals: a study of human behavior as a consequence of beliefs about what is right or wrong, or good or bad, insofar as that behavior is useful or effective. In a sense, morals is the study of what is thought to be right and what is generally done by a group, society, or a culture. In general, morals correspond to what actually is done in a society.


1. Morals is best studied as psychology, sociology, or anthropology. Different societies have different moral codes.


2. Morals is a descriptive science; it seeks to establish "what is true" in a society or group.


3. Often morals are considered to be the shared ideals of a group, irrespective of whether they are practiced.


4. In the sense of descriptive ethics or morals, different persons, groups, and societies have different moral standards. This observation is seen as true by all sides.

I think the thing that is interesting is *if* religion is the source of morals, who gave those morals to the religion? It could be argued God or a god(s) but we know there are more than one religion. Morals do tend to change from one culture of religion to another. That leads into the the problem of whose morals, religion, and /or God is right?

We know from accient times that the 'God' that is right is the one that belongs to the victor in war. Pre-Christian times it was very common to have beliefs in a God of each tribe. The Romans had their Gods and the others had theirs. When Rome would conquer the other's Gods were vanquished and replaced with the new ruler's gods. Along with that action a new set of morals was also suplanted on the culture. This is part of the reason that there is not one set of morals but many.

 

[Greebo]

How can you have morality without religion? Morality based on what moral tenents? Moral relativism? Morality by definition is based on some point of reference.

No, by definition morality refers to moral conduct, and moral means, in a nutshell, right behavior. (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/moral)

I don't subscribe to any defined faith or religion (agnostic, not aethiest), and I don't need the threat of some divine retribution to tell me what is right or wrong, either.

Killing people for most reasons is wrong, but there are times when killing is justified or even necessary for survival.

The taking of that which is not earned is wrong.

The violation of one's trust to another is wrong.

I inherently understand why most of the 10 commandments are good for mankind, without believing in the idea that there is some kind of divine being waiting beyond the grave with a metaphysical switch with which to spank my bottom.

They are good for humanity because they show mutual respect, trust, faith in each other, and as principles lay the foundation for a successful society. We can see from day to day what happens when people don't live by these moral codes, and calling what happens "God's punishment" is just an easy way of explaining the consequences and, in many cases, a way for the morally upstanding to feel smug.

Religion was used to enforce this moral code perhaps because it was easy: "Do it or God will be angry" - and people didn't ask questions about God when they depended on the supernatural to do day-to-day things. Because, like when dealing with small children, the threat of punishment is something children understand and stops arguments out of fear - and sometimes its necessary with kids because they don't know any better.

But as intellectual adults, we should.

 

[gkainz]

Quite simply. The idea of "Do unto others" existed far beyond the time of the Bible.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning..." what time is beyond that?

I still know right and wrong, and no religion introduced those ideas to me.

But "right and wrong" based on what? I too believe that we have an inate sense of "right and wrong" and even agree it wasn't religion that instills that in us - I believe it's created in us.

The problem with moral relativism is "what ever is right for me is right and whatever is right for you is right." What if "right" for one extends to punching me in the nose? What justification do I have to say "That's not right?"

 

[ScottM]

Killing people for most reasons is wrong, but there are times when killing is justified or even necessary for survival.

That is your moral belief based upon you experience with your culture. Happens to mine too but that is not my point. My point is that some culture abhor all killing and never consider it justified. Some of these cultures exist today and we know them as Budhist (a religion) Daoist, and even some Christian derived ones like the Dunkers in the 18th century. Those cultures consider your statment about our morals pertaining to killing as immoral.

Ok fine you say, we agree to disagree with them or one side makes the other see their way. But what it comes down to is how do we decide what is the right view? That is the difficult part, as mostly what we apply to making that decision will be our social morals as they are the only guideline we have.

 

[poadeleted3]

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread", but here goes anyway.

"Belief" is almost by definition not rational, in the sense that Newton's laws of motion or the balance in my bank account are rational. If that weren't true, we'd all quickly agree about God, like we do about F=ma (Newton's Second Law). So, both choices posed are "irrational".

I think it was Sinclair Lewis who said, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross". Ring any bells with respect to political discourse in our country at this time?

Are you saying carrying a cross and being patriotic = facism? I find it hard to believe that there is any other way to interpret such a slam at those on the "religious right" who have chosen to exercise their right, the same right shared by all other groups with a common interest in this nation, to make their voice and votes heard. They, a group I'm proud to include myself in, have chosen to no longer sit idly by while those who would call them "facists" pass laws repugant to them. They have the right to make their voices heard, same as those who speak so loudly for causes we disagree with. To call us fascists for choosing to exercise our rights is out of line, IMHO.

 

[Greebo]

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning..." what time is beyond that?

But the 10 Commandments weren't put forth until the time of Moses. I mean it isn't "In the beginning...on the sixth day God made man and a tape recorder to copy everythind down. Yea, not even a pen or pencil!"

The Bible itself was written over a period of centuries as the accumulated wisdom of the Hebrew people, much of which is believed by historians to have been passed down as verbal folklore since writing didn't come along until later.

In Judeo Christian terms, it wasn't until the time of Moses that God finally said, "Ok folks, THIS is how it works, cause you ain't getting it, see???"

In a scientific view, it wasn't until the time of Moses that someone (Moses) figured out what rules would work and what wouldn't and wrote them down.

However you choose to view it, if the sense of moral right and wrong is instilled in us at creation, then we should be mature enough to follow that voice as a society without the threat of punishment.

Personally, I think its a communal belief that each individual has to learn - some from experience, others from their elders.

 

[Greebo]

Are you saying carrying a cross and being patriotic = facism? I find it hard to believe that there is any other way to interpret such a slam at those on the "religious right" who have chosen to exercise their right, the same right shared by all other groups with a common interest in this nation, to make their voice and votes heard. They, a group I'm proud to include myself in, have chosen to no longer sit idly by while those who would call them "facists" pass laws repugant to them. They have the right to make their voices heard, same as those who speak so loudly for causes we disagree with. To call us fascists for choosing to exercise our rights is out of line, IMHO.

No he ISN'T saying that at all Joe. First of all, Sinclair Lewis said it, and it isn't talking about patriots who are faithful.

He's saying that faith and patriotism without rational thinking is easily maniuplated into fanaticism for the wrong cause by those who don't really believe.

 

[alaskaflyer]

But as intellectual adults, we should.

And to wrap that into the original posts above: We should be satisfied with each others' individual answers.

BTW Joe I didn't read that into his comment, I think Sinclair Lewis' quote was relevant regarding the discussion

 

[gkainz]

No, by definition morality refers to moral conduct, and moral means, in a nutshell, right behavior. (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/moral)

But "right" compared to what? For something to be "right" or "wrong", there has to be some basis, some baseline, some acceptable ruling to compare against. There has to be some absolute somewhere, otherwise it's once again, moral relativism.

I don't subscribe to any defined faith or religion (agnostic, not aethiest), and I don't need the threat of some divine retribution to tell me what is right or wrong, either.

...snip...

Religion was used to enforce this moral code perhaps because it was easy: "Do it or God will be angry" - and people didn't ask questions about God when they depended on the supernatural to do day-to-day things. Because, like when dealing with small children, the threat of punishment is something children understand and stops arguments out of fear - and sometimes its necessary with kids because they don't know any better.

But as intellectual adults, we should.

As children, our parents taught us right from wrong, sometimes with love, sometimes with consequences. As parents, we do the same with our children. Why? I believe, first and foremost, because we love them, not because we love to punish them.

I believe we're using two different understandings of the word "religion" and I should have known better ... I mean "a loving relationship with my Creator"

 

[alaskaflyer]

As an aside...Sinclair Lewis - as much of the world - was preoccupied with fascism in the 1920's and 30's.

...His last great work was It Can't Happen Here, a speculative novel about the election of a Fascist as U.S. President...

Anyway, I think to an extent, that moral relativism exists at all levels of society. Hence the morality vs. religion debate in the first place. What is moral for a Catholic is not necessarily moral for a Southern Baptist, or vice versa (for example.) If there is a baseline it is a moving target.

 

[Greebo]

But "right" compared to what? For something to be "right" or "wrong", there has to be some basis, some baseline, some acceptable ruling to compare against. There has to be some absolute somewhere, otherwise it's once again, moral relativism.

You used the word yourself later in the post, Greg: Consequences.

When people are (to use a simplistic term) bad to each other, we can see the consequences. When people are (simplistic again) good to each other, we can see the consequences.

We determine what is "morally right" based on actions and consequences observed and learned over thousands of years of human trial and error. (If you don't believe in creationism that is - if you believe in Creationism then God tells us is as good an explanation as any )

 

[Dart]

In Christianity, believers fear that living an unmoral life results in your soul being sent to hell.

That statement clearly indicates how little you really know about Christianity.

As a non-religious person, I do not require that induced fear to have morals. I still know right and wrong, and no religion introduced those ideas to me

Actually, you (the greater you, not William) still need fear to behave. It's called "civil authority", the "military" "cop" or what have you, but it is the fear of authority that prevents civilization from degenerating into anarchy.

Man is clearly demonstrated to be a draved, sinful creature who will always make the worst possible out of what is good. Whether it be fear for your immortal soul, fear of the cops or fear that your intended victim will clobber your punk a**, fear and greed are the only true motivators of large scale human behavior.

 

[alaskaflyer]

In Christianity, believers fear that living an unmoral life results in your soul being sent to hell.

That statement clearly indicates how little you really know about Christianity.

Well, I don't know about you but that one sentence sure seems to describe the religion of my earlier childhood rather well But I'd hate for this discussion to get bogged down into that aspect.

 

[Dart]

But I'd hate for this discussion to get bogged down into that aspect.

Same here, feel free to PM with sincere (or hostile) questions.

(Much as would like to get my post numbers up so I can have some standing in front of Micheal and SkyHog.)

 

[Greebo]

That statement clearly indicates how little you really know about Christianity.

Gotta agree, Will - that ain't how Christianity works.

 

[wbarnhill]

Gotta agree, Will - that ain't how Christianity works.

As alaskaflyer mentioned, childhood experiences. You may not believe it, but it's something being taught to children across the south. I'm speaking from my experience of a childhood spent in churches both Presbyterian and Baptist. Jesus saved you, but a life of immorality still resulted in your soul being damned to hell.