Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Pope to non-Catholics: "Bend over, baby, Papa is drivin'!"
And that title is a lot less crude than the way I first wrote it.
So, Pope Bene 16 has laid down the law: if you ain't Catholic, you're going to hell.
A 16-page document, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict used to head, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.
But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in the Protestant denominations -- a view likely to further complicate relations with Protestants.
"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," it said.
So much for one big happy Christian family, eh? Perhaps our recent influx of trolls and twits will now abate, as they go off to do Holy Battle with the Evil Papists over which version of Sky Daddy Authority is more valid... Anyone up for a new round of Reformation Warfare?
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Bush Applauds Pope’s World Peace Message
Bush Applauds Pope’s World Peace Message
(A Bridge Over Troubled Waters?)
George W calls out to Rove and Cheney. "Hey, did you hear what 'Big Benny' said?
He said, "if you're not Catholic, you suck."
"Now that's my kind of Uniter."
Rove chimes in, singing and doing his famous rap dance, "When you're down ...and feeling blue...incite the base...I do, I always do. ..When you're down and out...and feeling small.."
Cheney harrumphs, "Send the old curmudgeon a triple secret E-Mail. Ask him to set up a slush fund for us. Tell him we'd be glad to take out a few thousand apostates for him, starting with a Congressman or two."
Bush; "Operation 'Top Robe,' that's what we'll call it. Gotta ring to it. Armies of God and all that good stuff."
"And tell him to fax us the "Inquisition: Then and Now" manual they've been working on. It seems like we've been waiting for it for ages."
Hehehehehe... n/t
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
The Pope doesn't recognize my primacy.
Therefore he will be going to detention for eternity. And if he doesn't sit still and be quiet, he'll get another eternity in detention! Of course he could still repent and end up at the Big Rock Candy Mountain.
That tends to happen a lot.
A lot people jump in others personal problem. That why they have tunnel vision. I say go for a secular country. Life is a state progression, you cannot have the answer at once. So it is very important to learn something new everyday and continue to review your past knowledge. You have to be skeptical everyday. If you do not then you will be lost in self-gratification. That why I think that most or probably all religion rely on self-gratification. Everyone seeks euphoria right? The line blurs when you have sadism and masochism comes in play.
The Reply Link
Hi Myron,
Thank you for commenting here at UTI. However, if you use the "Reply" link underneath the comment you are replying to, it makes it a lot easier for the rest of us to follow the thread of the conversation. As it stands here alone, your comment does not seem to make any sense and appears to be a non sequitur.
Just some friendly advice. Thanks for listening. :)
The Jumping In Of The Face
Taking those two comments as a jumping-off point: Is it possible, when someone states that something is a matter of "faith", to ask "But faith is just believing in something without evidence or good reason; Why would you do that?" and have it not come across as "getting in their face"? I'm really curious about this, because it's landed me in a world of static with people I've otherwise gotten along fine with. And because I really want a sensible answer to the question: Why do people suspend the rules of rationality and evidence -- that work quite well throughout so much of their lives -- when it comes to metaphysics and God Belief?
The Elvis analogy
Why do people suspend the rules of rationality and evidence -- that work quite well throughout so much of their lives -- when it comes to metaphysics and God Belief?
I dont think I suspend the rules of rationality and evidence. Ive been asked this question before and Ive answered with what I call my Elvis analogy.
Suppose Im vacationing in an island somewhere and I took a walk and saw an old man watering some plants in front of his hut and see was singing 'Love Me Tender' and damn if he didnt sound like Elvis. I take a look and he looks like Elvis (older of course) and I say Hi and we get to talking and I visit him everyday and more and more Im convinced that he IS Elvis by what the stories he tells and certain stuff he owns (pictures of him as a kid, for instance). One day, he says he's leaving the island and moving somewhere else and he can't tell me where but he'll keep in touch. He takes everything he owns and leaves and I return home. I tell my friends I met Elvis and he's very much alive. As expected, theyll laugh at me and tell me Im insane or have been drinking too much rum because the overwhelming evidence is that Elvis is dead. They show me news reports, old newsreels, coroner's reports, etc. Now will I believe my friends' evidence or will I believe my own experience? Of course I'll believe my own experience. Nothing my friends can say or show me can convince me Elvis is dead.
The whole thing about this God belief is that it is experiential. You have to experience it for yourself. The atheist says, Show me so I can believe, and the theist says, Believe so you can see. This is the irreconcilable difference between us. In Psalm 34:8 it reads, 'Taste and see that the Lord is good,' and it is an apt metaphor because tasting is experiential. I think a cantaloupe tastes good and there is no empirical experiment you could conceive that would disprove that I think cantaloupes taste good. I wish I can express how I 'experience' this God presence, but it's difficult. You just know.
I hope I made sense.
Nice analogy
I don't think you suspended rationality and evidence in your analogy. There was clearly evidence, and you rejected the hearsay evidence (old news reports). And you probably wouldn't fault your friends too much for not believing you. You didn't bring back any pictures, audio, handwriting or secrets few knew that could be investigated. Even if they trusted that you weren't lying, you could be delusional or simply mistaken.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the difference. Nonbelievers like me certainly understand that people have the capacity to believe all sorts of things and that if we could somehow convince ourselves that god exists, then we too would start seeing signs and feel that we were right. But as Philip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Elvis
I once met a guy at a party who was a dead ringer for actor-comedian Gabe Kaplan, from "Welcome Back Kotter." My friend introduced us: "Hank, this is Carter." I thought he said "Kotter" and I laughed – I was convinced I was meeting the actor.
It wasn't Gabe Kaplan.
I really respect the fact that there's nothing your friends (or others) can say or show you to convince you of something that goes against your own subjective experience.
That same mindset has worked so well for President Bush, hasn't it?
Not to mention the several billion people he affects.
Unity and Diversity
Hank:
As a follow-up to what I wrote regarding "dialogue," I must say that though there are some things I would agree with Jeg on, there are some sharp disagreements I would have. A primary one being that there ARE things that could turn me from my position. My position is, indeed, to use Flew's term, falsifiable. I would never continue in my current worldview if they were disproved. And Jeg notwithstanding, I am not alone in this as a theist.
Perhaps this is one of those "dialogue" things. I get the drift from uti that many of you have met some "religious" people that were going to believe no matter what. I think you are right that there are those kind of people, but I also think that it is sometimes a stereotype. I, for one, am not in the category of people that can believe regardless of the facts.
Hope this is helpful.
-Col.
More Elvis
A primary one being that there ARE things that could turn me from my position. My position is, indeed, to use Flew's term, falsifiable. I would never continue in my current worldview if they were disproved.
Neither would I, Col. *IF* they were disproved. In my analogy (and I remind everyone it is an analogy--a poor picture of what Im trying to illustrate), if they take me to where Elvis is buried and we dig up his grave and take his skull and a few tissue samples and have those compared with Elvis's dental records and samples of his DNA, and if the tests say that it is indeed Elvis, that would prove that the fella I met wasnt Elvis. But if the others merely say, "Elvis is dead, dork. All the newspapers said so," I'll stick to my guns. ;-)
Good
Thanks, Jeg. Good clarification.
Disproof
I'm minded of the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
As to the death of Elvis, I don't give a shit. I have no more problem believing he's dead than I do believing OJ killed Nicole. I could be wrong on both ... but given the reportorial evidence I DO have, I'm probably not, and it's not important enough to spend time researching.
But ghosts? I'd have to see some serious shit AND get a lot of external corroboration by reputable scientists before I'd actively decide to believe in them. And it's not just an intellectual thing with me – I could sleep soundly in a graveyard, and never feel a shiver.
It's common for religious people to get into mental binds over semantic issues. The most common semantic thing I've seen is deliberately defining words in a way that they confuse instead of inform. For instance, saying "science requires faith," or "atheism is a religion." Or defining god as "the background of all existence" or "the whole universe." The problem is that words are basic tools of thinking – you can sharpen your thinking by being meticulous about your definitions, or blunt it by being fuzzy and loose.
One such bind, something I see a LOT, is using the word "proof" in some absolute sense ... such that NOTHING, no amount of evidence, could ever satisfy the definition. Using the word in this way, you really can't PROVE that you yourself exist.
My experience is that you can pretty much tell, the instant you hear someone use the word in that way, that it's no use talking to them. I've seen people fight like 2-year-olds against even defining the word. They seem to treat such a discussion as some kind of contest they desperately don't want to lose.
The fact is, "proof" is a colloquialism. As far as I can tell, it's not even used, except colloquially, in science (except, as far as I know, in math, where it has a certain specific meaning different from the colloquial one).
On the other hand, the word "theory" has both colloquial and technical meanings. I wish I could say that semantically-confused religious people are making an honest mistake when they use the colloquial meaning in place of the technical one in a discussion of the technical subject of evolution (where the technical definition really is a must).
BUT ... I can’t. I must have talked to a thousand people online about the subject, and I haven’t been able to get even a single one to admit that the word “theory” HAS a technical meaning very different from its colloquial one. Every time you hear someone say “It’s just a theory!” you’re hearing from either an impervious fool or a deliberate liar. To me, mostly, they’ve seemed to be liars.
Anyway, Jeg and Col, when I see something like “IF they were disproved” in a religious discussion, it raises flags in my head.
I could easily imagine that you might be defining “proof” in such a way that nothing in this universe could satisfy it, so that you can safely keep your religious beliefs.
...
I’m leaving out a whole other argument here, and a long one, on the subject of “the guy who makes the assertion has to prove it, and not the guy who doubts it.” You can’t DISprove what was never proven. And certainly what was never even loosely bolstered by evidence other than subjective testimonials and unsupported holy book assertions.
I’m also leaving out the idea, another long argument, that “You can’t prove a negative,” which is not quite true. I can “prove” that J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter doesn’t exist, and never did ... starting from the fact that the very name “Harry Potter” denotes a specific trademarked fictional character with well-defined attributes (does magic with a wand, owns an owl named Hedwig and a Nimbus 2000 flying broomstick, goes to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, has friends named Hermione and Ron, etc.), and not any other entity ... and that this specific fictional character does not and cannot exist because of these basic facts.
Shows what *you* know!
Aw, man, Hank. Harry has a Firebolt - his Nimbus 2000 got busted up.
Sheesh. Potter-fanboy-wannabe's. ;)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
But, but, but ...
Ah, but THERE is where you and I differ. I can make a basic factual error at 1:51 a.m. and get away with it ... because of my immense charm, first of all, but also because I can believably whine in a pathetic high-pitched voice "But I'm OLD, and it was 1:51 a.m. -- I was just tired!"
Elvis is dead.
Let's forget about Elvis. It's an analogy. While we're at it, let's forget about epistemological or ontological 'proof.' Im not asking atheists to prove there is no God. The God question is unscientific, something you can't prove or disprove using the scientific method so asking for proof or disproof is absurd. Not to mention a waste of time.
Belief systems on the other hand are eminently falsifiable. If for example we find the body of Jesus buried somewhere in Palestine--or India or wherever--(assuming we have a means of ascertaining his identity through DNA or whatever), that would debunk mainstream Christian belief. Another is if we find and positively identify the original manuscripts of the gospels and on comparing that with what's in the Bible, we find that the Bible has been subjected to massive editing such that what Christians believed then is different from what they believe now.
The fact is, "proof" is a colloquialism. As far as I can tell, it's not even used, except colloquially, in science...
I think youre correct. I think it was Karl Popper who said you can't prove anything in science to be true. You can only prove it to be false. When someone says Darwinian evolution has been proven, I know he's either speaking colloquially or being dishonest.
I could easily imagine that you might be defining “proof” in such a way that nothing in this universe could satisfy it, so that you can safely keep your religious beliefs.
I for one am using proof the way you seem to be using it. We have no misunderstanding there. Has anyone offered disproof in this website? I'd be very interested. In Brent's recent post, he offers The bottom line for me is that there is no physical evidence that a god exists as the only valid one, the rest are icing. As a 'religious person' I could point to the universe itself as physical evidence--the old First Cause argument; why there is something instead of nothing. But youve heard all that before.
(This is my idea of a dialogue, Hank. An honest exchange.)
...
Using the word in this way, you really can't PROVE that you yourself exist.
Whatever happened to I think therefore I am? I can prove to myself that I exist, although I can't prove that you or anyone else or the entire universe does, except in my mind. Maybe this is the Matrix. :-)
My Psychic Routine
I know you said forget about the Elvis analogy, but it made me think about perceived realities. I have been known to do what I call "my psychic routine" at parties once in a while. When I am chatting up a young lady of particular interest I tell her that I have psychic abilities. First, I pretend to read her palm. I talk to myself(oh, ah, I see), then I begin to tell the girl about herself. "I see bad things in your past that have turned out really good for you". "I can see that you have a rough outside, but deep down you are really a very sensitive person". "You depend on your friends a lot". "I see two guys in life, one you are hot for and the other you are being pursued by". "I see a deep connection with your mother. Sometimes when you are thinking of her, she calls you at that exact moment and vice versa".
My psychic routine has worked every single time. Some of the girls are so convinced they say things like "stop it, that is dangerous" or the go off telling other people that I am psychic.
I assure you I am not psychic. But to my victims, it seems very real. They are totally convinced that I can see into their minds. The truth is, I use the exact same lines on everyone. Those things are true of most people, but seem special to the victim.
I don't mean to imply that you are gullible, but perhaps certain people are predisposed to believe and certain people tend to be skeptics. Just a thought.
Good routine
I have to try your psychic routine sometime. And yes, you make a very good point about perceived realities. What we want colors what we see most times. And sometimes we experience something so unbelievable our minds tend to explain it using 'explainable' things. I remember reading something about Nobel prize winning chemist Kary Mullis (who's also an atheist, btw) having what he believed to be a UFO experience near his home in the woods. He remembers a talking raccoon and having developed an unexplained fear of going to some part of the woods at night. He can't categorically say it was a UFO experience but he believes it was but says he can't prove it. (Sort of like my Elvis analogy. :-) )
I don't mean to imply that you are gullible, but perhaps certain people are predisposed to believe and certain people tend to be skeptics.
I tend to be a skeptic, believe it or not. I question mainstream Christian beliefs that seems to be at odds with how we know God is supposed to be like. This is a great site for theists because atheists ask very good questions sometimes. Brent asked one just recently about the doctrine of eternal french frying which I think was just invented doctrine. The Bible doesnt support it, I think. (But that's another discussion between me and my fellow theists.)
And by the way, dont worry about saying you think Im gullible or loony or something. I assure I take no offense.
Routine further explained
Glad you liked it and yes, you should try it. Make sure you are one on one with the lady(not in front of crowds) and make its a once per night performance(keep them guessing, enjoy the attention, and don't give away your secret). I heard this on the radio a long time ago on the Howard Stern show. He was interviewing David Blaine. So, for the record, Blaine deserves the credit. And I owe him big time, if you know what I mean(wink).
You said "I question mainstream Christian beliefs that seems to be at odds with how we know God is supposed to be like." A question: How does one know what god is supposed to be like? I mean, if there is such a omnipotent/omnicient being, it would seem rather presumptous for a mere human to assume he knows what god is thinking. To me, such a thing would seem unknowable. Perhaps that is another of the reasons why I don't believe?
Good luck with the routine.
Exactly what I mean about the good questions
How does one know what god is supposed to be like? I mean, if there is such a omnipotent/omnicient being, it would seem rather presumptous for a mere human to assume he knows what god is thinking. To me, such a thing would seem unknowable.
Simple answer is 'I really dont know.' I choose to believe God to be a loving God, and it is a free choice I made. That's what the Bible says and that presumption, if you will, is what I use to make sense out of what the Bible says. I could be wrong. I could choose to interpret the Bible with the presumption that God is evil and that would work too. I just chose to go the other way. He could be evil and Im going to fry for all eternity. It *is* presumptuous for a mere human to assume to know. Even St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians said it was like he was looking through a glass darkly. He didnt claim to have a clear picture.
Good luck with the routine.
Yeah I'll need it. I just know Im going to suck at it.
Presumptions
This is exactly what I thought you would say which leads to my next questions. Presuming you know what god wants/thinks because of what the bible says is also presumtious. I know, I know, divinely inspired and all that, but please follow my thought process.
The bible was written by men and put together during the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. The council was comprised of hundreds of scholars and holy men from throughout Constantine's empire. Those men chose the content of the bible from thousands and thousands of ancient books, scrolls and letters. Not one single thing about Jesus was written until a hundred years after his death. Who knows what politics of the day and personal rivalries shaped the final product? Historians, linguists ahd theologians can also cite dozens or maybe hundreds of examples where the original bible has been misinterpreted, mistranslated or just plain completely altered to it's present form.
The point is, after all of the petty, mistake prone, agenda driven humans put their hands on it, how are we to presume that the bible is anything like god originally intended? So, what I am saying is that your presumptions are based on presumptions based on presumptions. Gets a little out of control when you really think about it, eh?
Another thing that bugs me is that I am always hearing people talk about the 10 commandments with reverence and the moral basis for all present day law. Did god forget about rape, slavery and child molestation? Did Moses drop a tablet or something?
The whole thing just seems made up to me. Made up by unscrupulous people with an agenda. Mind control, if you will. One big scam.
The point is, after all of
The point is, after all of the petty, mistake prone, agenda driven humans put their hands on it, how are we to presume that the bible is anything like god originally intended? So, what I am saying is that your presumptions are based on presumptions based on presumptions. Gets a little out of control when you really think about it, eh?
First of all, I dont think the Bible as we have it now has escaped being added to, rewritten, edited, etc. (I dont think John would use 'the Jews' to denote the Jews for instance, because John and Jesus were Jews.) I think Christianity has suffered from information entropy over the years, but it's essentials survived, if not the details. But re your question: This is going to be difficult to explain, but I just trust my experience with God. I choose to trust them. Isnt that what being a free thinker is all about? Considering the options and making a free choice?
Another thing that bugs me is that I am always hearing people talk about the 10 commandments with reverence and the moral basis for all present day law. Did god forget about rape, slavery and child molestation? Did Moses drop a tablet or something?
No, not the 10 Commandments. Theists (even Deists?) believe God is the moral basis. So what the '10 commandments' sought to codify was always in existence from the beginning as part of the natural law. Maybe some people do think that the 10 commandments is the basis, but I think that's wrong.
The whole thing just seems made up to me. Made up by unscrupulous people with an agenda. Mind control, if you will. One big scam.
There's always that. But there are others who arent scammed--who won't allow themselves to be scammed.
The Big Scam
I am a little surprised you did know about all of the problems with the bibles construction and translations. Most Xians are terribly ignorant of the history of the bible. Even more surprising is that with this knowledge, you still consider it a guide to your spirituality. But hey, each to his own. Your blind faith is not what I would consider free thinking. However, I am glad to hear you are not one of the fundies calling for the 10 C's to be posted on our courthouses.
And lastly, about the scam. I think you missed my point about the psychic routine. My victims didn't know they were being scammed(remember- percieved realities). And I never told them the truth. How can you Jeg, be sure you haven't been duped into god belief? What is your evidence? I have cited evidence(biblical inconsistancies) to the contrary that you acknowledge. You could also read from biologists, geneticists or physicists to find evidence that points towards a natural(not supernatural) understanding of the universe. Thats a lot of evidence contrary to your beliefs. You probably will say it is a feeling that I can't understand, but I would point out that my psychic routine victims are using their feelings as well. My advice would be to use your head, not your heart.
CSI
Even more surprising is that with this knowledge, you still consider it a guide to your spirituality. But hey, each to his own. Your blind faith is not what I would consider free thinking.
I think it's a pretty good guide for spirituality. Better than TV, dont you think? But what if it isnt blind faith, Dirk? What if it is a well-considered faith based on evidence and personal experience? Is it still not free thinking?
How can you Jeg, be sure you haven't been duped into god belief? What is your evidence? I have cited evidence(biblical inconsistancies) to the contrary that you acknowledge.
Like I said in a reply to the Colonel, I dont think my reasons for believing qualify as CSI-type evidence, Dirk. I can only offer testimony when called to the stand, and testimony is the weakest form of evidence in court.
Thats a lot of evidence contrary to your beliefs. You probably will say it is a feeling that I can't understand, but I would point out that my psychic routine victims are using their feelings as well. My advice would be to use your head, not your heart.
Yes but I dont see those evidences as contrary to what I believe, Dirk. I find them consistent with it. And thank you for your advice. I appreciate it.
Dead Horse
I am still not comfortable with your definition of free thinking, but it's not up to me now is it? We agree to disagree. I can live with that. Your point about testimonial evidence being the weakest is dead on. And further discussion would be equivalent to beating a dead horse. Anyway, thanks for trying to explain.
Dirk
Whew
No idea what you mean by "free" thinker, but a RATIONAL thinker -- by choice -- sometimes has NO choice. When your allegiance is to reality, you don't have the freedom to go haring off into the fantasy-land of your "choice." You have the duty to bend your efforts to seeing things as they are.
...
Jeg, have you ever been wrong? About anything?
I'm curious as to how you manage to have total confidence in ... what you seem to admit is your subjective experience of your god.
...
Your Ten Commandments comment is interesting in that you actually understand that morality is not dependent from religion ... yet you still insist on seeing it religiously.
Of course
No idea what you mean by "free" thinker, but a RATIONAL thinker -- by choice -- sometimes has NO choice. When your allegiance is to reality, you don't have the freedom to go haring off into the fantasy-land of your "choice." You have the duty to bend your efforts to seeing things as they are.
I gave my definition of 'free thinker' in the comment you replied to. And what is your definition of 'rational thinker,' Hank? I think Im pretty rational, if I do say so myself. Does 'rational' mean positivist?
Jeg, have you ever been wrong? About anything? I'm curious as to how you manage to have total confidence in ... what you seem to admit is your subjective experience of your god.
Are you kidding? Of course Ive been wrong. I have total confidence in what Ive experienced because Ive experience it. What do you mean by 'subjective'? Is subjective = false by your definition?
Your Ten Commandments comment is interesting in that you actually understand that morality is not dependent from religion ... yet you still insist on seeing it religiously.
You mean from a religious perspective? (Im taking 'religious' to mean it has something to do with God.) Of course. Im a theist, remember? Therefore for me, a theist, natural law comes from God. Moral law comes from God, E = mc2 comes from God. Etc.
If that's the case
If that's the case then why are morals subjective to culture?
There are plenty of examples of this even in the modern world. We'll take something on something fairly easy. In the US eating we don't eat dog. We see dogs as "man's best friend" and if you polled American's, I would bet every dollar I'll ever make that the majority would say that eating dog is morally wrong.
But you can't apply this throughout all of the worlds cultures. There are places in the world that breed dogs specifically as food animals.
Other examples would be slavery, cannibalism, polygamy...the list can go on and on. If morality comes from "God" it should be equally applied over humanity dontchya think?
Laws of nature
If morality comes from "God" it should be equally applied over humanity dontchya think?
Yes it should be. But like any other law of nature, the moral laws have to be discovered as we mature as a species. I think it is reasonable to expect that primitive humans just out of the jungle would still be subject to the law of the jungle, would still take killing to be a way of life, etc. But as we matured as a species, we discover more and more that for our species to survive, these moral laws ought to take precedence. The moral laws were always there, much like E equaled m(c squared) even before Einstein discovered it. It just took a genius to discover it and write it down.
I now officially turn over this line of inquiry to my fellow golden retriever puppy, the Colonel. He has invoked Kant and Zeno which is way over my league.
Universally
Is there anywhere that gratuitously battering an infant is not recognized as evil?
-Col.
Yes
Actually there is...but no examples in human civilization that I can think of offhand. It's standard practice, however, in some of our closest cousin's activities and indeed in several places in the animal kingdom. Here's a reference for you.
I thought...
I thought we were talking solely about human beings. Also, (to Jim, below), would you say that there is an element of actual "morality" that has developed in the gene code? This is an honest question, not a leader of any kind.
-Col.
Common Sense
I can't speak with professional authority, but it would seem that a certain morality has developed in human society over our history. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an old saying, but pure common sense. Basic things like don't steal, kill or lie are found in every culture. If you take away religion, that basic human morality is still there. I would prefer to think of it as civilization morality.
As we have evolved and become more complicated, so has our code of ethics. Examples of this would be that slavery is no longer tolerated, child welfare is mandated by law and safe working conditions are expected. I think our civilization is further evolving with people expecting health care and education for all.
I am not sure if it is in the gene code, but these morals and ethics are certainly being passed down from one generation to the next.
Kant's sense of "oughtness"
Whatever one thinks of the Categorical Imperative, it is clearly true that humans exemplify some such thing. I agree with you that even if "religion" were taken away, this would remain. Such was manifest for 70 years under the former Soviet juggernaut.
I do have to sneak a bit of a grin as I notice that the prime rule of morality (Golden Rule) was championed by a (poor and hated) theist. :-)
-Col.
Any chance you could provide
Any chance you could provide links to some of these things you bring up? You clearly have me at disadvantage when discussing theologians. At least, I am deducing Kant(never heard of him) was a theologian by your comment. The reason I ask for the links is because these subjects fascinate me and I would like to see for myself if your interpretations are accurate. Maybe I would come away with a different take?
As for the "prime rule of morality" being championed by a theist, I don't care and I don't hate. Good for him. It sounds like common sense to me more than theology.
I suppose I could take the time and investigate myself, but it sure would save me a lot of time I don't have.
Check out Zeno sometime.
Dirk, if this kind of stuff "fascinates" you, have a bit of fun sometime. There was a guy named Zeno (off the top of my head about Aristotle's time) that posed some puzzles.
They are neither here nor there for our discussion, just sort of mind-benders. For example, he "proves" that motion is impossible, etc. Most of us don't let that stop us from moving, but hey.... http://www.brainteaser-world.com/puzzles/paradoxes/paradoxes-12.htm
You might get a kick out of it.
-Col.
No Problem
Sure, Dirk, no problem. No, Immanuel Kant was not a theologian, but a German philosopher. In a nutshell, His "Categorical Imperative" essentially meant that we all have this sense that we "ought" to do certain things, and that we "ought not" do other certain things. Though this would be impacted by culture, errors in logic, etc. for various groups, the basic fact of the impetus remains the same. You can get an overview here: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm I don’t know what the bias is of this page/author, and, in fact haven’t even read the article myself. Let me know what you think.
Sorry--I could have been clearer; Kant is often an everyday name, however, he is an older one.
Enrichment
Colonel-
Glad you stuck around after your initial spat with Jim and Hank. I for one will say thanks for enriching my depth of understanding the world.
I just spent the last two hours reading about Kant and only saw the tip of the iceberg. Some of the things he discussed I did not understand and had to spend a significant amount of time looking up, like a priori vs a posteriori. I will need to spend more time investigating, but my initial reaction is that Kant was a man before his time. With people like him around back in the 1700's, why did it take so long for our modern definitions of morality to catch on? This thought led me to google Kant and the Emancipation Proclamation. And you already know the answer, his name was there also. A whole other can of worms was opened up. It seems Kant has been a very influential philosopher and someone I need to learn more about.
The main thing I learned is that what I consider "common sense" actually had an origin. Kant may not have been the first to discuss morality, but he sure set the foundation for what I would label modern common sense. Before today, I would have said my two favorite philosophers were Homer Simpson and Al Bundy. I am surprised Kant's name doesn't come up more often when discussing moral issues. I suppose that is what the Paris Hilton world has come to, unfortunately.
Oh, the Zeno link was cool to, yes I do like brain teasers.
Dirk
Great
Thanks, Dirk. I'm glad I've stuck it out too. I've learned a lot.
-Col.
Likewise.
Col., you do theists proud. I too am glad you've stuck around. So often, we see someone blast in here with an agenda, unwilling to actually *discuss* things intelligently, just resorting to the tired old arguments that we're a bunch of heathens, and then leaving...it gets more than a little old, and I've only been posting regularly for less than a year.
Anyway, thanks.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
True Honor
Thanks, Jim. I consider your words a genuine badge. Something I'm proud of and want to guard.
Best wishes
-Col.
Showing your age.
yeah, Col., I think you're showing y(our) age. ;) Not to say that Kant was our contemporary, of course, but that I don't believe he is taught as much. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong...my intro philosophy class was 30 years ago...
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Interesting.
n/t
Whoops. Wrong link.
The above "Interesting" was supposed to be in response to Thameron's "Basis" below. Stupid computers.
Col.
But he was German!
Jim, you know no ghost ever dies in Germany! :-) They just give 'em rinse and run 'em by us again!
(Actually, I think Kant is still pretty much considered a basic today.)
-Col.
The ev-psych people...
The evolutionary-psychology folks would say that there are definitely traits associated with 'morality' which have come to be expressed in our genetic code. But I am way out of my depth here, having only a minimal background in biology. You might also look at Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, which kicked off some of this line of thought 30 years ago.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
The basis of morality
Is not hard to discern. Ask yourself a question. Could you survive on this planet utterly alone? I am going to make a guess here and venture that you are not a purist survivalist (someone who could walk into the woods absolutely naked and suvive for an extended period of time) and that the answer is 'no'. For better or worse we are social creatures. We depend upon each other and we need to get along. At a bare minimum the social and cultural rules must ensure that. I am not sure if a genetic basis has developed but it seems logical to assume that someone who could not get along with others would have their breeding opportunities restricted (by death or incarceration for example). The rules we all know. Don't steal, don't kill etc. are an outgrowth of the simple truth that we need each other. In many places a load of additional crap has been loaded on top of these basic principles, but that is extraneous stuff and is not essential.
There is another foundation of morality which our species is just beginning to recognize and perhaps the awakening will come too late. This foundation is simply that we are part of Earth's biosphere, not separated from it. We endanger it at our peril. If we stuck to just those two foundations: We cannot survive alone so getting along is a good idea, and we are part of the biosphere so taking good care of it is a good idea then I think we would be much better off. The message from religion is simply too contradictory. One guy will tell you loving your brother is moral and another will tell you that flying a planeload of people into a building is a moral thing. And when questioned why, each will point to a book and say 'because that says so' and that I think is a truth not quite as obvious as my inability to survive without the rest of you.
Thanks~ n/t
That's DNA talking.
Remember, from one perspective we're just a by-product of our DNA propagating.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
10C
I always like to point out that 4 of the Ten Commandments (or 3, depending on which list you're looking at) have nothing at all – zero – to do with morality.
No gods before me / no graven images / don’t use god’s name in vain / remember the Sabbath – don’t have SHIT to do with being a good person.
And they’re the FIRST FOUR.