A Deteriorating State :: Morality in the 21st Century

quote:

---

So, as one becomes more educated, one also becomes more liberal? Will you back up that that is usually the case?

---

As people become more educated, they become less likely to be religious fundamentalists.We can use the public's beliefs about Evolution vs. belief in the Genesis account of creation as one measure.The following are the percentages of people in various groups who believe, from left to right, The literal Genesis account of creation, Theistic Evolution, and Evolution in which God had no hand in.Everyone 47% 40% 9%
Men 39% 45% 11.5%
Women 53% 36% 6.6%
College graduates 25% 54% 16.5%
No high school diploma 65% 23% 4.6%As you can see, the greater the educational level, the less likely it is for people to hold dogmatic fundamentalist religious views on this issue. Results from 1997:When people become highly educated in the sciences, the difference becomes even more stark. Results from 1997:Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55% sourceIt is also the case that more educated people tend to be more liberal.Remember that on-line book by Dr. Bob Altemeyer, PhD called The Authoritarians that was mentioned in the Book Nook a little while back? He is a research Psychologist and he has shown in his work that people who tend to score high on his Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale showed a drop of 15-20% after completeion of a 4-year college education. RWA correleates strongly with religious fundamentalism.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Not all liberals, just liberals in general. Liberal, conservative, religious fundamentalist, atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. are all systems of morality/beliefs. Agnosticism is the method of logical evaluation of only those things known, with no assumptions, upon which science, truth, and knowledge are built.

---

Er, OK, but now I have no clue what you are talking about.I am an Agnostic, but I'm also pretty liberal.My liberal views have been arrived at through rational analysis. I also hold some conservative views and some libertarian views and some socialist views, to name a few flavors. Some of my political, social, and economic views have changed radically, some have remained unchanged.I am not sure it is appropriate to lump static religiously-held faith-based dogma along with growing, changing-through-experience political, social, and economic attitudes.

That wasn't your original argument. Nor was it the argument against which I was arguing in my previous post.In addition, you've shown nothing, other than that education causes people to be less likely to believe in a literal Genesis account and more likely to accept something they were probably unfamiliar with before they began their education anyway”evolution. Does this mean they are more likely to be left-wing authoritarians, or does it show that they are less likely to be right-wing authoritarians?A couple of other points:Are people who accept evolution and reject a literal Genesis liberals?
What's the benefit in being a liberal over a religious fundamentalist?
This is off-topic, so one of us”probably me”should start a new topic, since this is an interesting conversation worth continuing, at least I think. Jon

So, Jon. Are you planning on telling us anytime soon whether you are an agnostic about subjects such as the tooth fary, easter bunny, Zeus, Odin, Peter Pan and such? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Ya your right I jumped in midstream.

Since you have a tendency to lump things together, people spend their time trying to understand what you have lumped together and try to help you realize that you shouldn't lump certain things together. Learn not to lump.IMO, nator wasn't making an argument. In Message 4 you asked the difference between liberals and religious fundamentalist, which you erroneously lump together. She tried to help you understand the difference. She showed one measurement that showed education made a difference. If you don't believe her, then do your own research. Learn. Don't escalate the situation away from the topic, which you did.Even by definition liberals (one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways ) and fundamentalists (a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles) are opposites. Not something to be lumped together.Please try not to create battles where there aren't any.Keep your repsonses in line with the topic.I still want to know what do you mean by bringing our moral system down?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

That wasn't your original argument.

---

Yes, actually it was:You wrote:

quote:

---

What's the difference between a liberal and religious fundamentalist?

---

I replied: You see, being "liberal" and being "religious fundamentalist", according to my understanding of the definitions, are antithetical.One simply cannot be both at the same time.This is why I asked you to define your terms. Since you haven't, I will continue to use generally accepted definitions.

quote:

---

Does this mean they are more likely to be left-wing authoritarians, or does it show that they are less likely to be right-wing authoritarians?

---

There's pretty much no such thing as "Left-wing Authoritarianism".Go read The Authoritarians. You can take the RWA scale test yourself. I'd be interested to know what your score is.

quote:

---

In addition, you've shown nothing, other than that education causes people to be less likely to believe in a literal Genesis account and more likely to accept something they were probably unfamiliar with before they began their education anyway”evolution.

---

I freely acknowledged in my last post that beliefs about Genesis creation and evolution were only one measure of the effects of education on fundamentalism.But an important part of Christian Fundamentalism is the belief that the bible is literally true and inerrant, and in particular the account of Creation is literally true.More education reduces this particular Fundamentalist belief, therefore it can be said to reduce fundamentalism, in part at least.

Another way you can confirm this is by looking at the election results county by county and city by city. For example, in the last election, Illinois was almost all red except for Chicago and little blue islands called college campuses.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Thank you Nuggin. I keep wondering myself how we can say that morality is so subjective, and yet have no problem making our judgements retroactive, i.e., imposing our moral codes upon past cultures as a standard of judgement.It seems like Jon is complaining because someone tried to impose their old-fashioned morality upon the new 'liberated' minds. The examples of horrific brainwashing which he gave were: pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-chastity...my, my. I don't even know what being a literalist fundamentalist has to do with it. I also don't know what is immoral about any of it. I expected when I read the opener to hear about some of the actual immorality we have going on today, which brings us back to the subjectiveness thought. My ideas of immorality in this century are definitely not the same as Jon's!We are still experiencing something of the sexual revolution. Why do all talks about morality tend to revert back to human life and reproduction issues?I see that allowing others to have choices and freedom is moral. It doesn't follow that all choices are necessarily equal. What is intrinsically better about teaching young people they can have sex whenever they like as long as it's protected? What is intrinsically better about telling kids they can have an abortion legally, so why not just go have more sex? What is so great about telling them that marriage is old-fashioned?Groups that preach a message of chastity IMO are being very moral, so long as they aren't legally forcing anyone's hand. If someone is threatened by a message, that's sad. What exactly is wrong with the message of chastity? Don't we all have mistakes we could have avoided, and wouldn't it be morally wrong NOT to tell kids that they can choose to prevent unwanted pregnancies, STD's, broken homes, etc, without having to patch things up with abortions? I mean, come on. The right to an abortion doesn't make it any easier for a young girl to tell her parents, to raise the money, or to get to the clinic.
No one relishes the idea no matter how legal it is.I would want my girls to live in a world where they are not sexual objects, where they don't have to stress under pressure, where they can say no and not feel like they aren't cool. How are we supposed to get the message of mutual respect across, when we keep acting like sex has no consequences that can't be dealt with? It's wrong, and backwards, and silly. You can't raise a responsible person with the notion that there is a always going to be a quick fix.

iceage Message 35 In message 35 I think you are getting fundamentalist and fanatics mixed up. iceage be scientific, and get the facts straight.
God loves everybody, enough He sent His only begotten Son to die for all sin.
God HATES Sin, not the sinner.I think the fanatics on both sides, God exists and No God exists are those destroying the morality in the world.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

BINGO!!@Y'all”
When I said that liberals and religious fundamentalists are the same thing, I meant in terms of deteriorating morals”which is the topic of this thread . Just like an Islamic fundamentalist, a Hindi fundamentalist, a Christian fundamentalist etc. are all grouped as 'religious fundamentalists' and called 'crazy'; so too can we group liberals and religious fundamentalists as 'extremists/fanatics' in recognizing their equal levels of moral deterioration.So @ Schraf, can you tell me”in regards to the topic”how a liberal is less/more morally deteriorated than a religious fundamentalist? If you cannot show any difference, then, within the context of this thread, they are the same thing”as I originally said .Sorry, ICANT, that I posted all that stuff to Schraf in your message; I hope you will forgive me .Jon

the only thing deteriorating is your version of morality. And that's only if you let others affect you.If you ask the religious fundamentalist, it's those darn liberals who are eroding morality. And if you ask the liberals, it's those religious fundamentalists. And if we ask you, it's the other two groups.really Jon, what's your point here? That one group thinks another group is responsible for eroding morality? Well, duh! Or is your point to complain? If so, get in line with the other groups.Nothing special here.

Until one devises a measure for morality, one cannot demonstrate its improvement or deterioration.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

quote:

---

pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-chastity...my, my

---

People who support abortion rights are not "anti-life".People who support gay marriage are not "anti-marriage".People who support sexual freedom are not "anti-chastity".That is the difference between fundamentalist and liberal.The liberal says, "I think people should be free to choose their own morality as long as it doesn't negatively affect others."The fundamentalist says, "I think my morality is the only correct one and anyone who thinks differently is evil/going to hell."

quote:

---

Groups that preach a message of chastity IMO are being very moral, so long as they aren't legally forcing anyone's hand.

---

I'd say that the only way such groups could teach chastity and be moral is if the also provide full disclosure during their presentations of the lack of effectiveness of their programs.

quote:

---

How are we supposed to get the message of mutual respect across, when we keep acting like sex has no consequences that can't be dealt with?

---

I really don't know who you think teaches this, but it certainly isn't groups like Planned Parenthood or other mainstream pro-legalized abortion/sex education organization. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So @ Schraf, can you tell me”in regards to the topic”how a liberal is less/more morally deteriorated than a religious fundamentalist?

---

How do you define "morally deteriorated"?