Round Table on Morality, Theology, and Ethics
Pages
| Author | Topic: Round Table on Morality, Theology, and Ethics |
|---|---|
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 17:58
Profile
Homepage
quote:Even if we assume the existence of a creator deity, there's no reason to believe that said deity is benevolent. After all, the only people claiming that God is benevolent are God's own PR team. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 19:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:The problem is that you know ignorant people, not that you know Christians. quote:That would be a problem with religions that emphasize proselytizing. Christianity does it a lot, and Islam is fairly good at it as well. Other religions tend not to push themselves so much. Again, I think it's a problem you have with specific individuals who belong to specific religious institutions, not religion in general. quote:The finer points of Trinitarian theology aren't my forte, but what if God willingly incarnated Himself as a man in order to die for the good of humanity? Self-sacrifice is neither mean nor unfair. In fact, we usually call it noble. I'm not opposed to a religion founded on the principle of altruism. quote:What if God gives us free will and allows us to do what we want with it? We may do evil, but that's our choice. Why doesn't God intervene? He is infinitely superior and intervention goes against the divine plan. Theology has wrestled with this question for a long time, and all the best anwers boil down to our inability to comprehend what is best in the long run from our non-omniscient perspective. Or God could just not care, as Thuryl suggests. —Alorael, who separates faith and religion into separate categories. It's quite possible to believe in God, or gods, or some supernatural force, without following any structured religion. Likewise, it is possible to be part of a religious community and structure without doing anything more than following the forms. Belief has no obvious consequences per se, but organization does. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 19:39
Profile
Homepage
quote:Okay, 'choice' wasn't the best way for me to put my point... I'm not sure I meant that. Either way, I agree that it looks silly upon reflection. quote:I would. I just wonder how long it'll last. And I agree that religion and politics and blah blah blah don't cause anything on their own. People cause stuff. People are just influenced by that other junk. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 19:43
Profile
Homepage
Thuryl: I suppose I stand corrected with the bad analogy. To clarify: those who hold the "I'm not responsible" view deserve the same consequenses as those who do not, regardless of the offense. I chose the Nazis as an extreme and generally well-known example. To further clarify my wording, I probably should have said "stereotypical" instead of "average". Thanks for pointing that out. Kyrek: Publically, Any friend who tries to trick you into reading the Bible has issues. Really. I'm going to send you a PM for the rest. quote:That's why we're here! :D Well... part of it, anyway. EDIT: formatting and a punchline -------------------- The Silent Assassin wants to discuss philosophy... Particularly in regards to whether or not the cat has the right to lock him out of the house while I'm napping. I suppose it would help if I let him in. [ Wednesday, February 21, 2007 19:43: Message edited by: Lenar_Labs ] -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4599
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 19:47
Profile
quote:Since you said this person is your friend, I will boldly make the assumption he/she is concerned with the well being of your soul. He's your friend and is simply doing what he believes is best for you. I do not personally view this as annoying or wrong; it's simply human compassion. I also believe this is the case when it comes to many conversion attempts. One person possess faith that their "religion" is the right path, and wholeheartedly desires to take his or her family and friends down that path with them, out of love. That's really great when you think about it. What's wrong with love anyway? I feel as if I am rambling, so I'll be silent. For now. -------------------- "Yeah-- you're right. You christians are far too persecuted nowadays. I mean it. We really should stop feeding you to the lions." --TM "Ancient Blessings" My unfinished (and likely to remain that way) BoA scenario. Posts: 135 | Registered: Tuesday, June 22 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 20:21
Profile
As a race that easily lends itself to pondering about the universe, mankind is naturally predisposed to creating religion and belief systems. Religion fulfills the need that people have to understand the world around them. As someone, I think Salmon, posted earlier, one of our most universal fears is that of the unknown. Religion provides the remedy for this fear, and I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Being unable to take a firm stance on such a prodigious issue, I have to call myself an agnostic. I am open to the possibility that God exists, but I am afraid that I will need proof first. I identify myself as an agnostic because staunch atheists do not realize that their unwavering opposition to the existence of a God is an example of faith as well. One is justified in hating religion for its consequences, but not its goals. [ Thursday, February 22, 2007 16:19: Message edited by: Garrison ] -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 21:46
Profile
quote:I think that what other people are addressing as a complaint against religion is that it occasionally is used to combat the unknown without first seeking to understand it. It may be all well and good for the Mormans to prosletize in countries that don't share their faith, but do they do it with full understanding of the total affect is has on the subject culture? -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 21:46
Profile
quote:I don't see this - while under this worldview, the society in question's success or failure at making less people predestined to do wrong is itself predetermined, it is still morally obligated to make the effort. Ultimately, the amount of people who will end up predestined to do wrong is predetermined, but if we imagine an alternative universe where societies were predestined to believe that criminal acts should be ignored because they were predestined to occur, more people in that alternate world would turn to crime (i.e. be predestined to be criminals) than in the world where we are predestined to believe that criminals should indeed be punished and/or rehabilitated for their crimes. Thus, from a utilitarian standpoint, it would be best for society if it was to believe that criminal acts should meet with consequences, and thus that is the moral thing. [ Wednesday, February 21, 2007 22:22: Message edited by: Imban ] Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 22:01
Profile
quote:This statement strikes me as either silly or an intentional misinterpretation; I don't think you'd call someone who took a bullet for you cruel. quote:This complaint assumes, for starters, a god who knows of the issues in question, interprets things in the same way you do, and cares to change things in a way you would consider "good". Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 22:07
Profile
Homepage
quote:Is Kyrek not made in God's image? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 22:10
Profile
You also can't see all the consequences of a specific action. There maybe some long term result that only God can see, One result of the evils of Hitler was to finally guilt Europe into the creation of Israel as an actual independent country instead of part of a colonial protecterate. After the 40 years since the Balfour declaration planning to do something, they finally did it. While this has meant several wars in the Mideast, there would have been others between the Arab states without Israel. Maybe good people have to suffer to force change. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 22:18
Profile
Actually, the independence of Israel was largely a consequence of good-old fashioned rebellion against the British Empire. Rebellion spearheaded by the ancestors of Likud, who actively attempted to ally themselves with Hitler. (The ancestors, I mean. Likud has taken a courageous stance against Hitler since its founding in 1973.) History is hilarious, but only when you have hindsight and are willing to use it. [ Wednesday, February 21, 2007 22:20: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
|
written Wednesday, February 21 2007 22:20
Profile
quote:That is hardly a common trait to all religions. If you wanted to call me out on my statement not applying to the Christian conception of God, you could easily have just called it at the "Why would God care?" part. Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, February 22 2007 00:15
Profile
Homepage
quote:One could credibly argue that it's wrong to help someone who one knows doesn't want to be helped, no matter how good one's intentions. There's a reason we give patients a right to refuse medical treatment, and no longer lock up the mentally ill unless they pose an immediate danger to somebody's life. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, February 22 2007 06:04
Profile
Homepage
quote:In scientific terms, sure. In theological terms, faith and proof come from opposite ends of the spectrum. One chooses what one believes because one believes religious things on the basis of faith, not evidence. quote:This is one of those age-old questions that bugs me, because it seems nonsensical under the usual constraints. An omniscient and omnipotent god in a deterministic universe would know enough at the moment of creation to be certain how things were going to work out, so free will is a cop-out for evil in the world: this god created everything knowing full well what we were going to do and could've created things differently if he didn't want evil to exist. In order for free will to matter, God has to be not omniscient (which I think is how people tacitly used to reconcile this long ago) or not omnipotent (there's Satan, struggling against him), or the world has to be probabilistic, not deterministic (at the moment of creation, there was a finite probability of some evil arising, and God just minimized the expectation value of the evil function over the lifetime of the universe). -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, February 22 2007 07:09
Profile
Homepage
I'd say the concept of not harming (and supporting, where possible) fellow beings of our species can be established as an absolute - not an absolute everyone will follow, but at least one that is separate from all religions and states, and we can therefore all relate to as members of the same species. (As for aliens, let's not get sucked into hypothetical debates and for now assume that humans have the monopoly on complex articulate intelligence.) The opposite concept to the one above is to support, above all, yourself. This doesn't necessarily involve being a jerkwad to others; it means to behave appropriately for the current situation to get the maximum possible benefit for oneself. Now all we need to do is show that one of these concepts should, ultimately, be followed. Arguments that support one over the other, and that can actually be applied to everyone. Personally, this is where I'm stuck... It's like a giant, complex game of Prisoner's Dilemma. -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, February 22 2007 07:12
Profile
Homepage
quote:Wow... I'm getting mental pictures of him lurking around a corner and putting you in a stranglehold while shoving the Old Testament in your face. :P -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, February 22 2007 07:43
Profile
quote:I think it's more the case that religion amplifies both the negatives and the positives, because the blind belief it inspires serves to turn off the minds of its adherents. Members trust, so they don't stop to think about how what they're doing (good or bad) may not be in their best interest, or that of others. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, February 22 2007 08:32
Profile
Homepage
I agree with Drew. Blind belief is definitely one piece of how religion plays out. However, it's not the only piece. I would argue that religion can also provide a framework for dealing with the world (experiencing, interpreting, and reacting to it) which impacts how people make decisions on a number of levels. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, February 22 2007 10:18
Profile
quote:There are questions upon which the available evidence is not convincing either way. One can nevertheless choose to act on the premise that one answer is valid, even going so far as to stop thinking about the alternative possibility. And often this kind of belief choice is wiser than the alternative of professing agnosticism. Life is short, and at some point you may as well take a shot at something instead of holding your fire until you die. In fact, pretty much all questions are of this type, because practically no evidence is ever wholly convincing from a rational point of view. Consider for instance the questions we all shrug off every day. Will the sun rise tomorrow? Is there a hungry tiger on the other side of this door? If you find some proposition to be convincing on the evidence, I would submit that in fact you have simply followed the above choice approach subconsciously, and decided not to bother with the alternatives. I would say that every belief is a matter of choice, and the only difference is how conscious the choice is. quote:Which is the case for an awful lot of myths and cultures, so in fact there is a lot of common ground in human mythology. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Thursday, February 22 2007 10:54
Profile
Homepage
quote:Let's consider two possible axioms: Axiom A - Torah is the [highly allegorical] word of god [that requires a lot of interpretation to apply to modern life] that was given to us (Jews) on Mount Sinai. Axiom B - There is nothing supernatural in this world. Every event can be explained by a combination of random chance and quirks of human psychology. I can build a pretty solid worldview based on either of the above axioms. They are obviously mutually exclusive, but the [conflicting] explanations they allow to create have approximately equal number of holes in them, and the more I learn about either the more holes I can fill in corresponding worldview. I obviously have to choose one of the underlying axioms, because they are mutually exclusive. However, which of them I believe to be correct is a question of faith [or, in my case, current mood and outside influences], because either axiom can serve as a basis for equally convincing theory. The same exercise can probably be performed with Axiom C - Jesus was a son of god and our savior, Axiom D - Krishna is the real deity behind other religious figures, etc. Which starting axiom the person chooses is a question of belief, but once it is chosen it's possible to build a convincing worldview around it. PS Even once you've chosen the underlying axiom you have a lot of choise in interpreting all the other religious documents to select the precise set of rules and regulations to follow. (At least that is the case in most of liberal branches of Judaism, and presumably other religions as well.) [ Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:07: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7331
|
written Thursday, February 22 2007 10:56
Profile
Homepage
I am highly cynical of all religions, including Christianity. Not sure which way I'm going yet. -------------------- You Shall Die Laughing: http://www.worfthecat.ermarian.net/converted The Roost: www.roost01.proboards104.com. Birds of a feather flock together. Posts: 794 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, February 22 2007 11:02
Profile
I know of a few answers to the problem of evil, but the one I actually buy comes from the Bible, where it is directly attributed to God. I'm pretty sure I made this same post a couple of years ago here, but what the heck, I'll rehash. I know of two passages in the Bible where someone directly asks God, Why do bad things happen, when they don't seem to make sense as punishments? And (according to the Bible) God answers, clearly and non-trivially. The first is the Book of Job, which according to textual scholars is a pastiche, consisting of three serious but separately composed discussions wrapped in a rather cheesy frame story about Satan being allowed to test Job. In effect the present book consists of an original core surrounded by three layers of fan-fiction. (Fan-revelation?) All the layers are interesting, but they don't have to be taken the same way. The layer that impresses me most is the shortest; it's the penultimate section, just before the appended ending in which Job gets new money and family members and lives happily ever after. And in this layer, Job rails at God for injustice, and God answers 'out of the whirlwind'. And God's answer is, "When hast thou commanded the morning?" God goes on, of course, speaking well enough to be in character for God, but that's the theme. Running the universe is not as easy as it looks, and mortals simply do not know nearly enough to criticise God. The other spot in the Bible where, according to Christians, God gets taken to task for evil, is in the 9th chapter of John's gospel. Jesus encounters a man blind from birth, and the disciples ask why he was born blind. Jesus answers that he was born blind, not as a punishment for anyone, but in order that the glory of God should be revealed. He then miraculously gives the man sight, but he does so by a bizarre and uncharacteristic rigmarole involving smearing mud on the guy's eyes and then sending him off to wash. I interpret the mud-and-washing business as another of Jesus's parables, an appropriately tactile parable for a man born blind. The blind guy finds that the mudeye (or more precisely, the washing) buys him the unimaginable gift of sight. The invited parallel is that blindness (or more precisely, the healing of blindness) can somehow buy a correspondingly more wonderful unimaginable. Put together, the Biblical answer to the problem of evil seems to me to be that it is a problem of poverty of imagination. We can't think of anything that could justify the bad things that happen. The Biblical God simply says, But I can. If there is no God, that's the ideal cop-out answer. If there is a God, one should hardly expect a universe constrained by human imagination. It works equally well both ways. That's the either/or, where I think one has to choose. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, February 22 2007 11:03
Profile
quote:I don't think that's necessarily incongruous with what I'm asserting. When a person assumes a framework, he is necessarily trusting that the decisions, the interpretations it makes ought to be obeyed, are worthy of trust. This is significant, because in so doing, the person is ceding some of his own liberty, his freedom to make choices for himself. It's this framework - this ceding of total free choice in exchange for filters that interpret aspects of life for an individual - that are precisely the source of the subsequent acts of good or evil achieved on a scale that a group of otherwise rational individuals probably wouldn't achieve left to their own devices. In this sense, the filter created by religion isn't necessarily distinct from other devices of groupthink, like nationalism or racism. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 6670
|
written Thursday, February 22 2007 11:17
Profile
Homepage
By Aran: quote:Funny you should mention the Prisoner's Dilemma. It's possible to be nice to other people for your own sake. While cooperation is never the dominant strategy in a single game of PD, Robert Axelrod showed it becomes so in more complex models. First think of an series of PD games between two players. One of the best strategies is called 'Tit-For-Tat'. The first move is always 'cooperate'. If you opponent cooperated last move, you cooperate in the current move, and vice versa. Not terribly altruistic, but better that the 'always defect' strategy you see in a single game. Now consider a tournament of series of PD games: multiple players playing each other multiple times. Two 'always defect' players playing each other gain nothing. An 'always defect' playing a 'Tit-For-Tat' will get a small number of points before the 'Tit-For-Tat' starts defecting as well. However, two 'Tit-For-Tats' playing each other will reap huge rewards, as they'll always cooperate with each other. When you apply this to natural selection, you'll see the constant jerkwads being eliminated as the 'nice unless you're a jerkwad' get selected. (Hey! Turns out my game theory option last semester was useful!) By Kel: quote:Once again, this only disproves the notion of an omnipotent god whose sole purpose is to eliminate all evil whenever possible as quickly as possible, where evil is defined by us. To clarify, what exactly do you mean by 'free will'? The ability to choose whether you wear the black or white socks tomorrow? The ability to do good/evil? The ability to choose/reject faith in God? EDIT: [url=http://broken]link[/ul] -------------------- I wouldn't mind being the last man on Earth - just to see if all those girls were telling me the truth. - Ronnie Shakes [ Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:19: Message edited by: Dintiradan ] Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00 |