Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Happens When You Remove Faith
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 180 (403891)
06-05-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Stile
06-05-2007 4:43 PM


Re: I'm still reading...
The point was that goodness can be greedless, and it's better to aim for that. Not that it always is, or even that I always am.
I agree.
morality is situational. No one thing is going to work for all situations.
I agree with that too.
If we were to remove all penalties for people's actions, then I think we could refer to people as a "Potentially Dangerous Tribe", hell, we can still refer to much of them that way even with penalties for their actions.
In that case, the simple fact that I'm still alive proves that either you've misinterpretted "my approach", or you're wrong about people. Take your pick on that one
Or the amount of people that are "Actually Dangerous Tribes" (as opposed to potentially) is fairly low where you're hanging out.
If all penalties were removed from people's actions, would you behave any differently? Why or why not?
All penalties? What are we talking about... removing penalties of law? Removing the possible physical-retribution of anyone? Removing even emotional penalties (regret, empathy...)?
I thinking along the lines of laws and 'religious' penalties. I wan't thinking physical or emotional "penalties".
That is, if anyone wants to do things that me and my group don't approve of.. go ahead and do them.. over there. If they insist on doing them against us, then this is where the "dukes" come in, as you so put it.
Sounds good to me. And that's how many poeple do it even with laws. But you gotta keep the dukes around. With only the greedless goodness (and no dukes), you would get taken advantage of or 'taken out'. That's why I don't think greedless goodness works, or exists on some hard-wired evolutionary level. Sure, its easy to claim or have in today's world, but this is hardly the world we evolved through.
In the type of world we did evolve through, out-group greedless goodness would not have worked (or didn't).
So yes, I'd act differently because it would then be my place to "put up or shut up" when heads collide. Would this be behaving diffferently? I don't know... perhaps I'm behaving exactly the same, except with penalties in place, it's someone elses job to take care of that and without them it's my place.
In my experiences, you can't rely on the 'someone else' to get the job done. You have to stick up for yourself.
It's why that punch is thrown which makes it good or bad.
SO do you think that everything (well not everything) is, on some level, either good or bad?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Stile, posted 06-05-2007 4:43 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Stile, posted 06-06-2007 9:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 6123 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 137 of 180 (403894)
06-05-2007 5:27 PM


I'd like to ask all of you a question, I think it's relevant to the discussion. Now play along as if this were a real situation.
Say you're on a vacation to some unknown country. In this country it is considered an honor to kill your children if they are born female. You for some reason happen to witness a woman giving birth to two female babies. Her husband looks at the babies for a short while and then kills them.
Will you:
a) Stand in shock for a while and think about how insane this is
b) Try to intervene and stop the man from killing the babies
c) Just shrug your shoulders and think " Oh well, whatever's the custom here"

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 5:30 PM Neutralmind has not replied
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 8:05 PM Neutralmind has not replied
 Message 141 by anastasia, posted 06-05-2007 11:02 PM Neutralmind has not replied
 Message 149 by Stile, posted 06-06-2007 9:16 AM Neutralmind has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 180 (403895)
06-05-2007 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Neutralmind
06-05-2007 5:27 PM


With faith:
b) Try to intervene and stop the man from killing the babies
Without faith:
c) Just shrug your shoulders and think " Oh well, whatever's the custom here"
I'd expect typical atheists to respond with a)
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Neutralmind, posted 06-05-2007 5:27 PM Neutralmind has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 139 of 180 (403907)
06-05-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Neutralmind
06-05-2007 5:27 PM


In this country it is considered an honor to kill your children if they are born female.
(d) stay away from such an insane country.
The only reason to go to such a country would be to
(e) actively try to change this custom (a pro-active (b)).
More logical would be to stay away and wait 20-50 years and let the situation solve itself
(see Shaker communities in New England for reference)
Shaker - Wikipedia
quote:
Turnover was very high; the group reached maximum size of about 6,000 full members in 1850, but now has only four members left.[1]
Where do the mothers come from? Even if all mothers were imported there would come a point where females would logically stop participating. The activists would be most productive at the borders convincing women not to cross: run out of women and you run out of children, run out of children and it is only a matter of time until the "nation" no longer exists.
This solution allows for the rights of different countries to have different, even barbaric customs, and for the parents to take care of their children the way they see fit (an element of US law that allows parents to kill their children by withholding life support for religious reasons). It also would take care of part of the population problem.
The problem that you are trying to create a situation where moral systems between two cultures collide, albeit with a drastic example. In any less drastic situation the answer could be (c).

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Neutralmind, posted 06-05-2007 5:27 PM Neutralmind has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 140 of 180 (403936)
06-05-2007 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Jazzns
06-05-2007 4:25 PM


Jazzns writes:
You said above that you feel that the people making that claim down "own" their morality. I ask you this, if you believe your absolute morality comes from God, why would you KEEP your morality if tomorrow you discovered there was no God?
I don't believe morality 'comes' from God, as in, spoken from God's own mouth. It is more of a thing which goes TO God, or revolves around God. God based, sure, not God dictated. It must still be discovered by our own rationale.
I believe the entire question of morality is one of inherent rights and wrongs assosciated with actions, and that without fixing in our minds a higher purpose for morality, it is impossible to determine what IS right or wrong. Morality is goal oriented.
So, if I lost my purpose for morality, which is currently to please God, I would only cease doing those things which I do to please God, and retain the things which I do to please others because that is what society has agreed upon as 'morality' and it seems rational on some level.
The object of morality is the only 'absolute' I have spoken of. If there were no God, I wouldn't 'keep' my morality, I would get a new one. I am not sure if I could even call it morality, because to me morality is a religious thing. Nevermind that though.
Again, the people who respond and say they would stop being moral if there were no God, are simply not thinking things thru. They would become differently moralled, with maybe a binge period where they were just not thinking at all. Perhaps they would become amoral, and simply follow rules and laws, stay out of trouble, and not make anyone mad. You CAN do things which other people think are right, without being moral. You CAN be moral and do things which irk the crap out of other people.
I am sorry for taking this to some other level, but as far as the OP goes, if you want to discuss morality using befuddled ideas and the false concept that loving people IS morality, that is fine. I don't think you can learn much from folks who aren't thinking deeply enough.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Jazzns, posted 06-05-2007 4:25 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Jazzns, posted 06-06-2007 11:55 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 141 of 180 (403939)
06-05-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Neutralmind
06-05-2007 5:27 PM


Neutralmind writes:
Say you're on a vacation to some unknown country. In this country it is considered an honor to kill your children if they are born female. You for some reason happen to witness a woman giving birth to two female babies. Her husband looks at the babies for a short while and then kills them.
You have made an example of how morality is goal oriented. If your goal is to honour men, or reduce the population, then yes killing girls would be a righteous behaviour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Neutralmind, posted 06-05-2007 5:27 PM Neutralmind has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 142 of 180 (403941)
06-05-2007 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2007 3:14 PM


quote:
So, when you go meet that tribe, are you going to take Stile and Schraff's approach, or are you going to keep your dukes up?
Stile and Schraff would get killed and robbed in a second with their approach.
Er, what is my approach, according to you?
I don't recall mentioning anything about interacting with primitive, non-industrial tribes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 3:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 143 of 180 (403942)
06-05-2007 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2007 3:14 PM


I'll check it [iterated prison dilemma] out, thanks.
One of the most important things that comes away from it is that sometimes the most selfish way to act is to be nice, retaliatory, forgiving and non-envious.
In the normal prisoner's dilemma the selfish thing to do would be to always betray...but real life is more like the IPD than the non-iterated version.
We have done this (see native tribes throughout the world), and we've learned that they are good to each other and bad to others.
So, when you go meet that tribe, are you going to take Stile and Schraff's approach, or are you going to keep your dukes up?
Being an 'other' I'd probably try to avoid them.
It works just fine in modern cities with laws n'stuff, but if you break us down to our basics, we are not a moral species
Those tribes have have laws n'stuff as well as punishment. It wasn't that long ago that if someone from those tribes came into contact with us enlightened city dwellers...we'd hang 'em as soon as enslave their children.
And those same enlightened city folk, had you asked them were God fearing church goers. Moreso than today! It isn't God that sets us apart from this tribe - it is an inherited culture. That culture includes religion of course, but it does not rely on the presence of religion.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 3:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by bluegenes, posted 06-05-2007 11:30 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 145 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 11:33 PM Modulous has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 144 of 180 (403944)
06-05-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Modulous
06-05-2007 11:14 PM


Mod writes:
It wasn't that long ago that if someone from those tribes came into contact with us enlightened city dwellers...we'd hang 'em as soon as enslave their children.
And those same enlightened city folk, had you asked them were God fearing church goers. Moreso than today!
Ah, those good old days, when Europeans were churchgoers, faith based morality was intact, and we could exploit the world without qualms!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2007 11:14 PM Modulous has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 180 (403945)
06-05-2007 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Modulous
06-05-2007 11:14 PM


We have done this (see native tribes throughout the world), and we've learned that they are good to each other and bad to others.
So, when you go meet that tribe, are you going to take Stile and Schraff's approach, or are you going to keep your dukes up?
Being an 'other' I'd probably try to avoid them.
What attitude do you take when you are surrounded by 'others'?
What if you can't avoid 'them'?
And those same enlightened city folk, had you asked them were God fearing church goers. Moreso than today! It isn't God that sets us apart from this tribe - it is an inherited culture.
But the seperation is there, nonetheless.
That culture includes religion of course, but it does not rely on the presence of religion.
It doesn't have to rely on the presence of religion. But the presence of religion is, indeed, having an effect. I'm using 'religion' in a very broad sense.
Your 'religion', or lack there of, involves "avoiding the 'others'"
Now, as far as the TOPIC of removing faith.
Why is so surprising to some of these people that when you alter the religion, you alter the behavior?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2007 11:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2007 11:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 146 of 180 (403949)
06-05-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2007 11:33 PM


What attitude do you take when you are surrounded by 'others'?
What if you can't avoid 'them'?
Then I'd probably try and integrate myself with them and become one of them.
But the seperation is there, nonetheless.
Right - and that separates every culture from other cultures. A difference that has been lethal in almost all of human history, gods or no gods.
It doesn't have to rely on the presence of religion. But the presence of religion is, indeed, having an effect. I'm using 'religion' in a very broad sense.
Your 'religion', or lack there of, involves "avoiding the 'others'"
Now, as far as the TOPIC of removing faith.
Why is so surprising to some of these people that when you alter the religion, you alter the behavior?
My religion doesn't involve avoiding a strange outgroup. That is based on the observation of what strange outgroups do to outsiders.
If you alter any part of a culture, you alter behaviour. That's what culture is - inherited ways of behaving since religion is a part of culture, naturally by changing religion you can affect a change in behaviour.
Of course, the existing culture is just as likely to change the introduced religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 11:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 11:58 PM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 180 (403955)
06-05-2007 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Modulous
06-05-2007 11:44 PM


What attitude do you take when you are surrounded by 'others'?
What if you can't avoid 'them'?
Then I'd probably try and integrate myself with them and become one of them.
You'd just drop what you believed and take their word as true? Or would you falsely integrate?
Do you think you would you become as "bad" as them?
Or would you maintain your 'religion'?
But the seperation is there, nonetheless.
Right - and that separates every culture from other cultures. A difference that has been lethal in almost all of human history, gods or no gods.
Ahh but there were gods, real or not.
If you alter any part of a culture, you alter behaviour. That's what culture is - inherited ways of behaving since religion is a part of culture, naturally by changing religion you can affect a change in behaviour.
Why are people supprised or disgusted, even, by this?
Of course, the existing culture is just as likely to change the introduced religion.
Of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2007 11:44 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Modulous, posted 06-06-2007 9:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 148 of 180 (403990)
06-06-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2007 5:13 PM


Re: I'm still reading...
Catholic Scientist writes:
With only the greedless goodness (and no dukes), you would get taken advantage of or 'taken out'. That's why I don't think greedless goodness works, or exists on some hard-wired evolutionary level. Sure, its easy to claim or have in today's world, but this is hardly the world we evolved through.
I agree, only greedless goodness is a poor practical way to live life. Only anything (including "only dukes-up") would have one be 'taken out' fairly quickly. Hence the situational aspect.
I'd never claim that greedless goodness works for all situations, only those where it's applicable. But to remain moral, as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't ever stop trying to find where it can be applicable.
In the type of world we did evolve through, out-group greedless goodness would not have worked (or didn't).
I don't know about this. If we define what I've writen so far as "greedless goodness" then this includes putting up your dukes and standing up for yourself when it's required. I don't see why this couldn't have worked. I would agree that it most likely didn't go down that way though. We've had a bit more, um... "free time" (to put it lightly) to think about such things in our modern times.
Oh, I'm also not saying that greedless-goodness was hard-wired. I'm not saying it wasn't either... I'm just saying that we are currently capable of it, it does exist, and it is a good thing to strive for when possible.
In my experiences, you can't rely on the 'someone else' to get the job done. You have to stick up for yourself.
Yes, it's very situationally dependant. I don't disagree with you here.
SO do you think that everything (well not everything) is, on some level, either good or bad?
I don't see the point of the question. Why does it matter if everything is good or bad or not? I'll try to answer anyway:
I think that any action (direct or indirect) that involves one being interacting with another can be morally judged. The judgement can be good, bad, or neutral. The judgement depends on the reactions of the beings involved. Who was hurt? Who was helped? The answers to those questions (and therefore the judgement) is generally very difficult to accurately understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 5:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by anastasia, posted 06-06-2007 12:42 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 149 of 180 (403994)
06-06-2007 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Neutralmind
06-05-2007 5:27 PM


Neutralmind writes:
Say you're on a vacation to some unknown country. In this country it is considered an honor to kill your children if they are born female. You for some reason happen to witness a woman giving birth to two female babies. Her husband looks at the babies for a short while and then kills them.
Will you:
a) Stand in shock for a while and think about how insane this is
b) Try to intervene and stop the man from killing the babies
c) Just shrug your shoulders and think " Oh well, whatever's the custom here"
Well, I agree with RAZD... why am I vacationing there if I know this is what they do in the country? But I will assume you mean that we just happen to find ourselves in this situation and had no before-hand knowledge of their customs.
I would b) Try to intervene and stop the man from killing the babies.
I don't know it's their custom. All I see is a man about to kill some newborns. I'd attempt to stop him there as much as I'd attempt to stop him here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Neutralmind, posted 06-05-2007 5:27 PM Neutralmind has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 150 of 180 (403998)
06-06-2007 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2007 11:58 PM


You'd just drop what you believed and take their word as true? Or would you falsely integrate?
Do you think you would you become as "bad" as them?
Or would you maintain your 'religion'?
Yes. I'd either shed my own culture, or pretend to be part of theirs. I'd either become as good as them or remain as good as I am.
Right - and that separates every culture from other cultures. A difference that has been lethal in almost all of human history, gods or no gods.
Ahh but there were gods, real or not.
Which takes me back to our discussion earlier. The addition of gods is just another cultural separator.
Why are people supprised or disgusted, even, by this?
I've not seen anyone surprise about this. I have not seen anyone disgusted by this either. I have seen people who are disgusted with people whose only cultural guide to morality is religiously instilled fear and that the removal of that fear would strip them of any of their morality. Those kinds of people have no compassion it seems, only fear.
Also - just because religion can change a culture and affect change on a culture's morality, that does not mean that religion is necessary to having a morality. There are other cultural influences that can influence morality, but that isn't always the case. We can look at other cultures and see that faith is the dominant cultural influence - and those cultures are repugnant to our sensibilities. The less influence religion has on culture the more enlightened our culture tends to call it. We can watch this in full with a history of the decline of the power of the church in Europe, or with the decline in science in the middle east.
In the West - religion is still there, but its influence on morality tries to take us back a generation or two in what the rest of the cultural morality is doing. The church is generally a bit behind the times, whether it is women priests or contraception they generally follow after culture, but keep a respectable distance from the 'immoral standards of today'.
As a fan of progression, it should be plain why I think faith should continue declining until its influence is negligible. Sure - if we snap our fingers and faith just vanished, there'd be a lot of confused and upset people. After all, just because they have lost their faith, it doesn't mean they have gained rationality.
However, as secular cultural influences continue to overshadow faith's influence I see a society with less needless barriers and a bright future.
I think faith and religion were a necessary part of our cultural evolution, and without much culture to influence behaviour a society needs religion to bond and remain cohesive. It is difficult to see our society without faith, but as the secular cultural bonds become stronger the religious glue will become unnecessary and society will happily function as a good and just one (or not - we're still emotive apes with an appetite for destruction and it'll all end in tears).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 11:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-06-2007 3:57 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024