|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God and Sheri S. Tepper | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Geno Inactive Member |
We may not be the special creation of a god.
Who says? I certainly haven't ruled it out.
If we don't step beyond our evolutionary past then we won't realize all that we are capable of.
Maybe God knew what he was doing with the evolutionary past. Why fight several billion years worth of it? (and not to mention at least one super or hypernova that went into the project!) I think this reaches right to the heart of this argument: We don't know if God made us or not, so how do we know how to live? The only clues we have are those that scientific inquiry provides. What do they mean? How can they guide us in our lives? And, as I mentioned earlier, what I can reason from the evidence of the evolution of human life, is that I am supposed to procreate! I think we've come to the conclusion as well that a generally stable society is usually a good thing for most (but perhaps not all...) of us procreators. If we can logically pursue from that point to the "musts" you posited earlier, I will hop right on that bandwagon...if you can't, I think we need to keep working on it, don't you? [This message has been edited by Geno, 06-16-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
It's what I've been saying all along.
The fundamentals in morality come from human nature - the starting point is balancing the interests of the individuals who make up a society with the overall needs of society. Add to that a propensity for rules, hierarchy and ritual. Even superstition - less so in the West these days - has played its role in shaping the rules of societies. And it seems that we can and do manage to live quite well without moral authorities in your sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Geno Inactive Member |
The fundamentals in morality come from human nature - the starting point is balancing the interests of the individuals who make up a society with the overall needs of society.
Seems like you are defining morality in terms of society, which we already covered.
Add to that a propensity for rules, hierarchy and ritual. Even superstition - less so in the West these days - has played its role in shaping the rules of societies. Yep, I agree...society again.
And it seems that we can and do manage to live quite well without moral authorities in your sense.
Can you give me that example? It would really help me out here. thanks,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Oh sure.... then you take it back in the very next post. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Geno Inactive Member |
then you take it back in the very next post. Well after reading through about 10 pages of Logic 101, I knew you'd see right through my Appeal to Flattery! BTW, you have a terrible website and therefore your argument is poopoo. (Ad hominem!) r/Geno
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
It is wrong to say that I am defining morality in terms of society. I AM indicatign that the interactions of society are the primary driving force behind the establishment of morality and the source of many basic principles (e.g. restrictions on killing).
And so far as I can tell , while the Christian Church has been a moral authority in your sense at some stages of its history and the Islamic and Judaic religions also have their authorities most other societies do not have anything quite comparable. Yes there are religious laws and restrictions but nothing quite the same. Try the early settlement of Iceland for instance. There is no absolute moral authority there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Geno Inactive Member |
Try the early settlement of Iceland for instance. There is no absolute moral authority there. The 'early settlement of Iceland'?! Are you kidding me? Paul, I believe you are pulling my leg! ----- OH MAN. I think I just got the answer. Tell me what you think of this. I was thinking:Yes, there are many that are common to most human societies--after all, they are all humans living together--there should be some commonalities. Then I started thinking, "Geez, Geno, there are some commonalities to morality in different societies...why is that? Hmmm, was there a time when we didn't have morality?--Maybe when "humans" were little rats running around." So then it hit me, humans genetically adapted early on (and I've said this earlier) to behave in a manner beneficial to the group (and hence themselves). It's logical to conclude this included an aversion to murder. If this is what you're talking about, I agree with you 100%. But, I believe it more correct to think of this as a "proto-morality"--the "basics" as you've put it. Take those basics and apply them to any of the societies you've mentioned--another good one is China, an intensely moralistic society guided by Confucian thought for about 2000 years--and you come up with a different set of moral standards for each society. This applies even to something as basic as murder, such as in the case of Indian female infanticide. I believe this is because, early in any human society, a moral authority "hijacks" the basic human morality and takes it over within that society.Why? Because, authority--even moral authority--is power and power, in any society, will be sought out and held. This is why I think we see so many "priest-kings" early in human civilization. Even your example of early Iceland provides one: quote: So, it may be (as I wrote, posted for the second time here: http://EvC Forum: God and Sheri S. Tepper -->EvC Forum: God and Sheri S. Tepper) that we don't need a morality...because morality is in all of us. Of course, I somehow doubt all this will work. There are still the outliers that I referred to earlier (http://EvC Forum: God and Sheri S. Tepper -->EvC Forum: God and Sheri S. Tepper). These leaders and outcasts who don't need to follow society's rules to survive. I believe the altruists like Crashfrog and others will always be (may always have been) used by the ruling elite. Why? To keep the masses in line and retain power for themselves. Why is it that morality has always been defined by the leaders of society? See the "priest-king" note above. Please, anyone's thoughts on the above would be really appreciated! wr/Geno
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
As a complete aside, one of the interesting things about the early churches you find in Norway built when Christianity was being introduced to the region is that the steeples have dragon heads sticking out of the sides next to the cross on top.
Seems that the idea was that they were going to give this new-fangled religion a try but if it didnt work out, they could still use the building for the old religion. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Geno Inactive Member |
LTM. Think they could've taught Pascal a thing or two?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well it seems that the idea that religion = moral authority is an assumption too deeply bedded in your thinking for me to overcome it.
Yes, religion is often a source of authority - but that does not mean that it becomes an automatic "moral authority" in the sense that you are using it. Perhaps you would like to read a less superficial account likeHurstwic: Viking-age Laws and Legal Procedures "During this era, Icelanders created a unique form of government, unprecedented in history. The Icelandic settlers were opposed to a central state dependent on the authority of a lord or king. In the 11th century, Adam of Bremen said of the Icelanders, "they have no kingexcept the law." " "A system of laws was set up whereby people were governed by consensus and where disputes were resolved through negotiation and compromise" They didn't have some absolute "moral authority" say who was right and who was wrong. Negotiation and compromise is alien to your concept of a moral authority. And while the chieftains were priests they were hereditary priests. A religius vocation was not a requirement. And in each "quarter" of Iceland there were nine of them - and allgiance could be changed to any of those nine. And the chieftains did not follow some party line :"A godi who was involved in a feud or contentious litigation often brought much larger followings in order to back up his discussions with lethal force, if needed." It is hard to see one of your absolute moral authorities literally fighting with itself over a legal decision. But that is what sometimes happened in the Icelandic Althing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Geno Inactive Member |
Well it seems that the idea that religion = moral authority is an assumption too deeply bedded in your thinking for me to overcome it. Yes, religion is often a source of authority - but that does not mean that it becomes an automatic "moral authority" in the sense that you are using it. I don't hold that assumption and I've never said that. I actually provided an example of a moral authority that wasn't a religion: Confucianism. There are others. I was thinking today that it's possible that moral authority could reside in one person. I think that's one of the traits of a "Cult of Personality".
"During this era, Icelanders created a unique form of government, unprecedented in history. The Icelandic settlers were opposed to a central state dependent on the authority of a lord or king. In the 11th century, Adam of Bremen said of the Icelanders, "they have no king except the law." You didn't provide any dates when you said early Iceland, so I assumed you were talking pre-Christian times. Since Christianity was adopted in 1000AD by the Icelanders, sounds like Adam of Bremen was wrong. (Since Christ is acknowledged Lord and Master of all Christians).
"A system of laws was set up whereby people were governed by consensus and where disputes were resolved through negotiation and compromise" They didn't have some absolute "moral authority" say who was right and who was wrong.... It is hard to see one of your absolute moral authorities literally fighting with itself over a legal decision. Legal authority and moral authority are not the same thing. Actions can be legal and yet still be immoral. I would imagine the reverse is true as well. Your quotes describe legal authority not moral authority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I see. When you brought up the fact that the chieftains were preists then that was proof that they were a moral authority. When I point out that the priesthood was hereditary, that men could change allegiance between chiefs and that those chiefs could and sometimes did fight each other over legal issues (certainly connected to morality !) then they are suddenly just legal authorities.
Look, do you have any real argument against my point that Iceland didn't have one of your "moral authorities" in pre-Christian times ? I ask because you seem to be so absolutely certain based on a very superficial examination - and you seem to dismiss even a slightly more detailed look as irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
I think it might be worthwhile to intorduce the concept of "legitimacy".
When there are multiple contenders for material power, a choice between them can be mediated by an appeal to *legitimate* rulership. Legitimacy is often legalistic but also often moralistic. I think Geno's central claim here is worthy, even though I fear it sets him up for an attack on theism. There IS, I would argue, a historic correlation between rulership and claims to supernatural moral authority. "Kingship came down from Heaven at Eridu" say the Sumerian King Lists."Ritual and War are the affairs of the State", say the priests of the Shang. The Romans were quite convinced (and rightly so) that their formal religion was the backbone of their Empire; and yet there is very little trace of mysticism in the state cult and appointment to its ranks were purely political pro forma. Nevertheless, the state cult was able to pronounce rulings and confer legitimacy and commissioned rituals to appease the gods. Therefore I don't think the distinction between legal and moral authority can be neatly drawn; the relationship between the two passes through Legitimacy. In the case of the Allthing and Scandinavian proto-democracy, I agree that the situation is different; but then would also point out that ever since Athens we have known that top-down rule was not the only methodology. There are other instances of nascent democracy, usually short-lived. There are major structural differences between these modes of organisaing society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Geno Inactive Member |
Been on the road.
Yes, religion is often a source of authority - but that does not mean that it becomes an automatic "moral authority" in the sense that you are using it. 1. I've never said it becomes an automatic "moral authority"2. I've also said (and given example) that there can be other moral authorities in a society or culture than religion. 3. My position has been (and continues to be) thata. Morality is defined as "the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards." b. Those standards are determined by a "moral authority." c. In western civilization since about 400-500 AD the moral authority has been the Christian church. d. Since the 1500's, and the development of humanism and naturalism, the moral authority of the Church has been slipping and ceding authority to rationalism. e. The end of this struggle is approaching. f. The new moral authority may be rationalism (or no authority at all) If you want to talk about Icelandic society and extrapolate from that, that's fine, but I think it is not a very well documented example and probably not very indicative of western civilization on the whole. I think the argument you are making is a stretch. Just because a chieftain does something, it doesn't make it a statement on his moral authority. These chieftains probably had a combination of legal and moral authority and armed strength. They probably had other sources of authority for their rule as well...perhaps personal charisma or a hereditary claim.... What gives a person or entity moral authority is when they dictate or intimate that an act/thought/whatever is immoral, society is substantially influenced to say, "it is immoral."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
So how do you get from the chiefs in Iceland being priests to forming one of your "moral authorities" if you DON'T assume that religion automatically forms one ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024