You find my lack of faith disturbing?

[elder999]

And getting back to murder - .

And, getting back to morality being a construct, there have been and are human societies and circumstances where "murder" is not immoral, but the morally right thing to do.

 

[fangjian]

And, getting back to morality being a construct, there have been and are human societies and circumstances where "murder" is not immoral, but the morally right thing to do.

Right. Ultimately it is something that can not be answered with certainty like the question 'What is an electron?' We do not and probably never 'know what it is really'. We can only create models that describe its behavior. With morality, we can come with sensible models that will predict a favorable outcome. If we come up with the goal being, 'To maximize human well being for as long as possible'. There are demonstrable ways to do that. The culture that the Taliban want to instate is one that is measurably not as good as others. It is a 'good' thing to recruit kids to destroy themselves and others because it is what AlLah commands. However, I won't concede that it is all just relative and blah blah, like Anthropologists of old. Human well being can be measurable, and what is right and wrong can most certainly be a scientific question.

 

[elder999]

. Human well being can be measurable, and what is right and wrong can most certainly be a scientific question.

Well being for a heroin addict with a 20 year addiction is getting his bump on, every day. Is that right, or is it wrong?

How is the Taliban culture measurably not as good as others-if we simply measure "human well being" with Maslow's heirarchy of needs, Taliban culture might be measurably ideal....for the Taliban, anyway.

"Well being" is a construct, as are, largely, "right and wrong."

 

[fangjian]

Well being for a heroin addict with a 20 year addiction is getting his bump on, every day. Is that right, or is it wrong?

How is the Taliban culture measurably not as good as others-if we simply measure "human well being" with Maslow's heirarchy of needs, Taliban culture might be measurably ideal....for the Taliban, anyway.

"Well being" is a construct, as are, largely, "right and wrong."

Yeah I know. I don't have any evidence that it is something that is 'objectively known to beings outside of existence'. We create it as we go. And it will change with the times. But you have to set up a goal and go from there. Like the fist presupposition is 'The universe exists' from there we can learn from it. If your presupposition is 'The universe doesn't really exist'. What will you accomplish from that first presupposition? Not much. So with an idea like 'right and wrong', you have to make some type of presupposition like 'Are their ways that are better than others when addressing the issue of 'human well being'? Yes some ways have to be better than others. In maximizing human well being, would it be 'good' if we could set up some type of bomb where it causes extreme pain, sickness, etc. and then destroys all humans on Earth ? Would that maximize human well being, or are there other things we can do that may be more productive (per the first presupposition)? Some questions will be hard to answer, but it doesn't mean there aren't any.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And, getting back to morality being a construct, there have been and are human societies and circumstances where "murder" is not immoral, but the morally right thing to do.

But not this society and not my religion. Our morals, like our laws, reflect the majority's Judeo-Christian beliefs and the basis for them. My point remains this - religion is a useful framework for me to consider political candidates. Not guaranteed to be accurate, not a promise of certain behavior or voting, but a framework for evaluation, which is useful to me and beats the heck out of having no framework whatsoever to use.

I do not find myself in quandaries over whether or not a person who runs for office and declares himself a Christian is actually a member of some other society where murder is lauded as a moral imperative. He isn't, unless statements are very much a lie.

 

[elder999]

. In maximizing human well being, would it be 'good' if we could set up some type of bomb where it causes extreme pain, sickness, etc. and then destroys all humans on Earth ? Would that maximize human well being, or are there other things we can do that may be more productive (per the first presupposition)? Some questions will be hard to answer, but it doesn't mean there aren't any.

Ya know, nearly 70 years ago, we did just that: set up some type of bomb that caused extreme pain, sickness, death, and we spent the better part of the next 35 years in great fear of it being used to destroy all life on Earth. At the place where that device was invented, the argument still rages, 70 years later, over whether it was right or wrong to invent the damned thing in the first place, and whether it was right or wrong to actually use it. Both sides have convincing arguments, about which they are completely adamant-and both sides think they are taking the "moral" high ground, because, well, there is no "right or wrong"-there is no answer.

But not this society and not my religion. Our morals, like our laws, reflect the majority's Judeo-Christian beliefs and the basis for them. My point remains this - religion is a useful framework for me to consider political candidates. Not guaranteed to be accurate, not a promise of certain behavior or voting, but a framework for evaluation, which is useful to me and beats the heck out of having no framework whatsoever to use.

And, while not in complete agreement, I agree with most of your post on this. Me, I've got no problem with the hypothetical atheist candidate-in fact, I'm fairly certain we've had atheists that allowed themselves to be portrayed as "Christians" to hold public office, just as California once had a declared atheist governor who was, perhaps, the highest office holder ever of that type in this country.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

With morality, we can come with sensible models that will predict a favorable outcome.

But I have no reason to believe that all atheists embrace this model. So I still have no framework. If they wish to explain to me that this is how they arrive at their determination of 'good' and 'evil', I will certainly consider it. But again, I SAID THAT. Answer me the question and I will consider voting for an atheist politician. Without a framework, they must either answer those questions for me or I will not vote for them. It's really as simple as that. I do not know what their framework is. I cannot assume all atheists believe X, Y, or Z as a basis.

If we come up with the goal being, 'To maximize human well being for as long as possible'. There are demonstrable ways to do that. The culture that the Taliban want to instate is one that is measurably not as good as others. It is a 'good' thing to recruit kids to destroy themselves and others because it is what AlLah commands. However, I won't concede that it is all just relative and blah blah, like Anthropologists of old. Human well being can be measurable, and what is right and wrong can most certainly be a scientific question.

You presume we want the same things, I think. We do not. I don't want a Utopian society, or one anything like what you've described. I already have a framework for right and wrong, and I like it. What I want is political leaders who want what I want. Choosing those who call themselves 'Christian' is a valid way to find a short list of candidates to consider further; just as I have said I would do for veterans and self-proclaimed conservatives.

Not only do I have no reason to believe that all atheists want what you have described above, but if they said they did, I would most certainly not vote for them. I do not want that kind of society and I surely won't vote for one or vote for anyone who does.

 

[granfire]

I have not read everything...
But here is a question:
How do you know if the person running for office really gives a crap and is not just a sociopath, able to tell everybody what they want to hear but basically only believing in their own advancement?

 

[fangjian]

I have not read everything...
But here is a question:
How do you know if the person running for office really gives a crap and is not just a sociopath, able to tell everybody what they want to hear but basically only believing in their own advancement?

You can't know anything for sure. I think that is generally what most sociopaths do to appear to function normally in society. Why?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have not read everything...
But here is a question:
How do you know if the person running for office really gives a crap and is not just a sociopath, able to tell everybody what they want to hear but basically only believing in their own advancement?

There are not many ways to be certain. We certainly have a lot of crooked politicians, and I tend to think that many or most of them are more interested in power, sex, and money than in the good of the nation or community they serve.

However, if one refuses to believe anything about anyone, then one is forced to either not vote, or to spend enormous amounts of time to find the candidates that do represent their interests; by examining their voting records, their public statements, who their major donors are and what they want, and so on.

And while it is always good to be informed about the people for whom one votes, there simply isn't the time (and sometimes the information available) to put together a dossier on every candidate for whom one might vote.

Therefore, frameworks are useful constructs to establish basic similar backgrounds, beliefs, and interests.

I can make some basic assumptions to get a short list of candidates whom I do wish to do more research on, a much more manageable proposition. Veterans top that list for me, followed by conservatives and Christians and Jews. Of course they could be lying to me. But without a framework to being with, I can't possibly do the appropriate research to make informed decisions about all potential candidates in every race I might vote in. So in lieu of anything else, a Republican who is a veteran and a Christian or Jew would get my vote if I had nothing else to go on in a given race. I could end up sorry for having voted that way, but it's the best bet I've got when I have no other method to arrive at a rational decision.

How does anyone make decisions about anything? Very often, we rely on frameworks. For example, a restaurant. If one has been there before, one might order something one has had before. Or, if one has never been there before, one might order something familiar from the menu that one likes in general. There is no guarantee that the meal will be the same as it was before, or the same as it is sold in other restaurants, but it's a useful framework if one is seeking a known quantity.

 

[WC_lun]

Society tells many more people what is "right and wrong" than religion. Most of the time, religion is bent to society norms instead of the other way around. For this and other reasons I do not think religion is either an indicator nor a prerequisite of morality. Most people find certain behaviours repugnant and would not do it. It wouldn't matter thier religion or lack of religion. Other behaviours can be justified, no matter how bad an effect it has on individuals or society, again this is not dependant upon religion or lack thereof.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Society tells many more people what is "right and wrong" than religion.

All society is based on religion.

Most of the time, religion is bent to society norms instead of the other way around. For this and other reasons I do not think religion is either an indicator nor a prerequisite of morality.

You would be incorrect. Morality is a definition of right and wrong as established by religion, society, or culture. With culture and society being established by religion, making in all, one cause.

Most people find certain behaviours repugnant and would not do it.

That is a taboo, not a moral value. Taboos appear to be nearly universal (although not entirely so) and may be related to animal instincts. Examples of taboos include eating human flesh and extreme incest. You would not find that 'most people' would not fail to stop at a stop sign, cheat on their taxes, speed, take drugs, or have sex outside of marriage left to their own devices. Those are either morals or laws based on morals. They are far from universal. There is no innate inner code urging people to share their harvest, remain faithful to their spouses, or for males to remain with families while raising children. In fact, if there is any inner code in those cases, it is quite the opposite.

It wouldn't matter thier religion or lack of religion. Other behaviours can be justified, no matter how bad an effect it has on individuals or society, again this is not dependant upon religion or lack thereof.

Everyone justifies their behavior, whether they are religious or not. And they quite often do not behave as their own moral code would insist they should. But that's not the point. Because I have a framework based upon religious moral values, and I like those religious moral values, I want my society to reflect that and so seek political leaders who also claim those values. As I said, they may not be telling the truth, but this is a framework and not an absolute.

You seem to think I am assigning values to religion as being good and atheism as being bad; I'm not. I am saying that when I seek like minds, I look to the labels that are the same as my own, which makes perfect sense. Why would I look to the unknown value that an atheist represents to lead me BEFORE looking to one of my own, such as a veteran, a conservative, or a religious person?

Can atheists be good people? Yes, of course. Would I vote for one? Perhaps, if they took the time to explain to me what their concept of right and wrong is, and how they arrived at those value judgments. But if they cannot or choose not to explain those things to me, I will not vote for them. They may be good; they may actually represent what I want in society; but I'll never know it because we have no common framework and they are a question mark to me.

 

[fangjian]

All society is based on religion.
You would be incorrect. Morality is a definition of right and wrong as established by religion, society, or culture. With culture and society being established by religion, making in all, one cause.

In all my studies in Biological and Cultural Anthropology, that just doesn't seem right to me at all. However I won't act as if I 'know' something, so I won't respond.

Everyone justifies their behavior, whether they are religious or not. And they quite often do not behave as their own moral code would insist they should. But that's not the point. Because I have a framework based upon religious moral values, and I like those religious moral values, I want my society to reflect that and so seek political leaders who also claim those values. As I said, they may not be telling the truth, but this is a framework and not an absolute.

You seem to think I am assigning values to religion as being good and atheism as being bad; I'm not. I am saying that when I seek like minds, I look to the labels that are the same as my own, which makes perfect sense. Why would I look to the unknown value that an atheist represents to lead me BEFORE looking to one of my own, such as a veteran, a conservative, or a religious person?

Can atheists be good people? Yes, of course. Would I vote for one? Perhaps, if they took the time to explain to me what their concept of right and wrong is, and how they arrived at those value judgments. But if they cannot or choose not to explain those things to me, I will not vote for them. They may be good; they may actually represent what I want in society; but I'll never know it because we have no common framework and they are a question mark to me.

Of course. You make perfect sense. It's the same as what I do. If I hear of a candidate being an Atheist I have an idea in my head of what they likely think, believe etc. If the candidate is a Mormon I have an idea of what they may think, believe, as well. Obviously, the Mormon's likely approach in evaluating the world around them, is completely different than mine. I just simply do not understand it.

Back at the first page, everyone just thought I was a jerk, but we all do this.

 

[Carol]

In all my studies in Biological and Cultural Anthropology, that just doesn't seem right to me at all. However I won't act as if I 'know' something, so I won't respond. Of course. You make perfect sense. It's the same as what I do. If I hear of a candidate being an Atheist I have an idea in my head of what they likely think, believe etc. If the candidate is a Mormon I have an idea of what they may think, believe, as well. Obviously, the Mormon's likely approach in evaluating the world around them, is completely different than mine. I just simply do not understand it.

Back at the first page, everyone just thought I was a jerk, but we all do this.

But is what you described truly what you are doing? Or are you taking other factors in to account? I think its the latter -- or at least I would hope.

I think there is a difference between being enthusiastic because a candidate has a certain attribute, and voting strictly on that attribute. Personally, I'm enthusiastic about women in politics. But I wouldn't vote for a candidate strictly because she was female. I've volunteered for a few campaigns before, last year I worked on Kelly Ayotte's campaign for U.S. Senate (she won). I talked to a few people other volunteers that would meet me and chuckle something like "Yeah, Kelly is sure bringing women over to her side." I didn't support her because she was female, although I am enthusiastic about women in politics. I supported her because I thought she did a good job as AG.

Some folks voted for President Obama because he is black. Some folks didn't vote for him because he is black. I am thrilled that I got to see the day where we elected a person of color to the highest office in the nation. However, President Obama is not my cup of tea.

In states where judges are elected, I've friends of mine ask "How do you vote for them?" and receive an answer like "I vote out the incumbents," or "I do (pattern x)" My mom blows a gasket when she hears stuff like that. "These are where our laws come from, and nobody researches how the judges make their decisions".

Same with the folks that vote a straight ticket. I can understand the sentiment, I was a Republican in 2000 and voted a nearly straight ticket myself. But that behaviour elected Tom Alciere.

I guess I chalk it up to the same behaviour as the well-intentioned-but-annoying older Asian lady in my neighborhood that keeps approaching me saying stuff like "You engineer? You wanna meet my son? He MBA." IThere may be many that take shortcuts, build stereotypes, and use an economy of words, when relating to other people, but I'm not convinced that it is a sound strategy to use upon election.

 

[fangjian]

But is what you described truly what you are doing? Or are you taking other factors in to account? I think its the latter -- or at least I would hope.

Yeah I wouldn't vote for an Atheist that was also a White Supremacist. It's not everything of course. All things being equal though I will lean to the Atheist as Bill would lean toward the Christian.

I think there is a difference between being enthusiastic because a candidate has a certain attribute, and voting strictly on that attribute. Personally, I'm enthusiastic about women in politics. But I wouldn't vote for a candidate strictly because she was female. I've volunteered for a few campaigns before, last year I worked on Kelly Ayotte's campaign for U.S. Senate (she won). I talked to a few people other volunteers that would meet me and chuckle something like "Yeah, Kelly is sure bringing women over to her side." I didn't support her because she was female, although I am enthusiastic about women in politics. I supported her because I thought she did a good job as AG.

Me and my wife always would say we would vote for a Non white candidate or a female candidate just because they are non white or female. It's not entirely absolute of course. But I've always felt that if a female was elected, even if her opponent was slightly more experienced or qualified, it would be a good thing for the nation.

There may be many that take shortcuts, build stereotypes, and use an economy of words, when relating to other people, but I'm not convinced that it is a sound strategy to use upon election.

Yeah like I said above, it's not everything. But as an example, if a candidate believed that the world was ending soon due to revelation, I just can't support that. I do not think that is rude. The decisions they make will be the product of a mind that thinks the world is ending soon. A mind that thinks they have an eternal consciousness and soul, will make decisions based off of that presupposition. If a mind that thinks, supernatural deities speak to them and inform them on what laws to enact,idk, I just can't support it. That's scary. What if they think a god tells them to invade a certain country. GW, Sarah Palin etc. I've heard them say things like that. " God was speaking to me and he said blah blah blah. " I don't like the idea of laws being enacted or any other decision being made that thinks 'gods are talking to them'.

 

[Carol]

Yeah like I said above, it's not everything. But as an example, if a candidate believed that the world was ending soon due to revelation, I just can't support that. I do not think that is rude. The decisions they make will be the product of a mind that thinks the world is ending soon. A mind that thinks they have an eternal consciousness and soul, will make decisions based off of that presupposition. If a mind that thinks, supernatural deities speak to them and inform them on what laws to enact,idk, I just can't support it. That's scary. What if they think a god tells them to invade a certain country. GW, Sarah Palin etc. I've heard them say things like that. " God was speaking to me and he said blah blah blah. " I don't like the idea of laws being enacted or any other decision being made that thinks 'gods are talking to them'.

I have heard them say that too, and don't care for the message. However, where I differ is that I can't take them seriously that they mean that in a literal context. I do not believe for a minute that they would be toting out those lines if they did not have the evangelical Protestant base that they had. They are politicians with an extensive machine behind them to keep them on-message. Its throwing red meat to their base.

 

[Sukerkin]

All society is based on religion.

Sorry Bill, much as I respect you and your ability to persuasively frame an argument, that is just incorrect (speaking as someone with a more than passing interest in the history of civilisation, Western civilisation in particular). The same as the idea that religions are the basis for morality is incorrect.

Religions are, in general terms, adjuncts and control mechanisms strapped onto societies by those who seek to direct those societies - they are not the basis of the formation of society, tho' they have often been used to codify and enforce cohesion as a society develops.

I won't argue against your feelings on this matter of elected officials as that is your personal choice but it's not good debating form to promote historical and anthropological assertions (that are not really 'evidence' based) and portray them as ineluctable truth. Addendum: not that I am blameless in that regard myself :lol:,

EDIT: I'm not saying that that is a deliberate deception by the way; just a consequence of the path your own life has followed leading you to see things through a certain filter (just like my own father ... and me ).

 

[Buka]

I have not read everything...
the person running for office really gives a crap and is not just a sociopath, able to tell everybody what they want to hear but basically only believing in their own advancement?

You just described every elected official I've ever known.

 

[elder999]

All society is based on religion.

Sorry, Bill-I gotta disagree. All my study of religion, history and current events-especially current events-demonstrate that, their founder's orignial thoughts and motives aside, all religion is shaped by society.

THe Chinese, btw, have been basically atheistic (as in the true meaning of the word; without god) for most of their history, though they have had more than a few religions/philosophical systems (though arguably godless ones) influence their culture from time to time.....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sorry Bill, much as I respect you and your ability to persuasively frame an argument, that is just incorrect (speaking as someone with a more than passing interest in the history of civilisation, Western civilisation in particular).

You're not looking far enough back. The first societies were bands or tribes of inter-related individuals who banded together for protection and to leverage their abilities to hunt and gather food and create shelter. They were religious beings, and the rules of their society show that; our discoveries of the burial sites of the oldest creatures we should label human shows that human bodies were buried in accordance with their religious laws, preparing the body for a presume afterlife, and so on. These are clearly religious laws that were being followed, and at a time when any other 'rules' a tiny tribal society would have would be in their infancy, certainly not codified on tablets or carved in stone.

If, however, you wish to argue that more modern civilizations - say, from the time of the Egyptian pharaohs - used religion as a control structure and that the religions did not predate the society in question, I could concede your point; but not without the addendum that the rules of the society were still based upon religious law. If one wishes to argue that secular authority (the Pharaoh) and religious law (the high priests) were inseparable, the distinction would be one without a difference. The basis of my argument remains; society has never existed without religion and without religious law forming both the basis and the framework of secular law.

In short, there has never been a human society that did not base their civil law either directly or indirectly from the religious laws that came before it and which religion was embraced by the majority of the citizenry. They are intertwined, interlocked, interwoven, part of the warp and woof of all societies.

The same as the idea that religions are the basis for morality is incorrect.

There is no morality outside of human perception. Humans are more religious than they are not, and by a lot. Humans decide what is moral and what is not. Religious humans. And the codes that they have come up with quite often deal with issues that reflect no independent rationalization based upon presumed damage to society, but instead a presumption of what their Creator wanted. For example, rules against masturbation, divination, when and what to eat, homosexuality, and so on. These were (and in some cases are) moral judgments, made by men, according to religious laws of their time and society.

Religion is the basis for all morality.