A Brief Argument: Religion Has Been a Waste of Time

[sealchan]

You see human nature as being more complex than I do. I think nature tends to begin with simple concepts-patterns and then creates what looks like dazzling-baffling complexity from them.

To which I would add that out of that complexity emerges new layers of "nature" that have their own new simple concepts and patterns that in turn interact with other systems to create dazzling-baffling complexity...

The pleasure-pain neural system may represent a good system to try to understand and isolate, but you will want to re-integrate that into other evident systems. The evolution of morality may have begun in the cognition of pleasure and pain in simpler species, but as evolution progressed organism complexity until one species could model the world and past-present-future in ever more subtle and now socially communicable ways, the pleasure-pain system had all new layers of linguistic reality to negotiate. And, perhaps in line with the co-evolving emotional system which is a sort of pre-language (with its non-verbal communicative functionality) that pleasure-pain system is more like a deep strain in the overall symphony of the brain's work on moral issues.

"Feeling" was identified by C. G. Jung to be a major psychological function whose work is to create a rational system of values in the context of pleasure-pain, emotion and language as well as cultural overlays which determine what is and what is not a proper way to act in the effort to satisfy one's instinctual needs. It is, perhaps, a naturalistic way to understand the experience of our brain's work to determine moral context for our actions. As a cognitive function, Jung believed that individuals would develop a bias for or against use of that function with respect to its complimentary opposite "thinking" which is a rational system of word-definitions whose logical inter-consistency is the goal.

Another way to think of this is to consider, to what extent, people can defy their pleasure-pain responses, study how abuse causes dysfunctional responses in this area and how some people excel at moral assessments while others struggle. One of the beauties and the challenges of the human brain is that it adds so much neural roadway that many of the older neural-instinctual systems have to work harder to get their voice through to the command and control center that is the modern psyche. This allows for delay of gratification of instinctual needs and for the deferment of the pleasure and pain systems as final arbiters in many culturally common and less life or death situations.

One other thought...I've thought about instincts as source of motivation or will power in the human psyche. In dreams these instincts are often represented by a timer or deadline...instinctual needs pool up ever increasing amounts of psychic energy until their goals are met and that energy is then released again. This seems to be part of the pleasure-pain system.

Please excuse the idea dump...I find it helpful to myself to let my thoughts spill out so that I can see them. Thanks for the thought-provoking thread topic.

 

[joe1776]

In a way, then, you might say that when religion teaches us to distance ourselves from our cultivation of pleasure and our acceptance of pain it is doing so due to a lack of discrimination about how our emotions could already guide us toward obtaining pleasure as either good or bad?

So the emotional system is a second principle it seems to add alongside of the pleasure and pain system's contribution to our mental feeling and calculation for what is and what is not moral, would you say?

Then reconciling these two systems results in moral progress?

In a discussion on morality, I don't use the word "emotion" or the term "emotional system," so I'm unable to answer your questions.

I don't think the emotions, as I define the word, are involved.

I think conscience is an immediate, intuitive judgment that emerges from the unconscious mind. It seems to be able to make those immediate judgments case-by-case despite the fact that it is presented with almost infinite variety of relevant facts in each case. The source of its wisdom is a mystery.

If conscience hears the facts in a case of wrongdoing, we get an unpleasant feeling. It feels wrong. If the act doesn't feel wrong, we can assume that it was morally justified.

If we are sitting in judgment of another person and the act which causes serious harm to another person feels wrong, that feeling should be followed by the urge to see the wrongdoer punished. When people judge the act of others immoral but they are unwilling to punish the wrongdoer, the process has gone wrong.

Example: We hear people say, "I think abortion is murder" but they are not inclined to have the woman who terminated her pregnancy punished. In this case, their moral rule, a product of their reasoning mind, has created a bias which conflicts with the judgment of conscience.

Another example: The Sixth Commandment to some Christians is an absolute rule. "Killing is always a sin." Give them a case in which the killing was done in a clear case of self-defense and they will go silent if asked if the killer should be punished. Their interpretation of scripture created a bias.

IMO, since we have Conscience, the Ten Commandments are unnecessary at their best and potential biases at the worst.

 

[joe1776]

Please excuse the idea dump...I find it helpful to myself to let my thoughts spill out so that I can see them. Thanks for the thought-provoking thread topic.

I find all your posts thought-provoking. You're welcome to add idea-dumps to my threads anytime.

 

[Augustus]

If I ask you to support your claim, you won't be able to do it without making more unsupported claims.

I have provided you with an article to read and a video to watch.

Adam Smith's book was the product of a clever, reasoning mind, written with clarity, which influenced other bright minds who, in turn, influenced others. The Christian Bible, depending on the edition, is comprised of 600,000 to 800,000 words which are interpreted differently even by those who consider the book sacred.

Adam Smith's work is interpreted differently, and often wrongly, by different people. For example, did you know that the 'invisible hand' of the market was Divine Providence?

Also, Smith was a moral philosopher more than an economist, yet people use his ideas to promote amoral economic theories.

It's the nagging of conscience that changes cultural biases over time. It was the nagging of conscience that changed the cultural bias that condoned legal slavery. It's the nagging of conscience that is currently changing the cultural biases against women and homosexuals. These examples of moral progress happen despite the old cultural biases opposed to them reflected in the scripture of the Christian Bible written by men who were citizens of morally immature cultures.

Honestly, that's nonsense. Roman and Greek attitudes to slaves was that their lives had no value. Their entire society was built around values completely alien to your progressive humanism yet it was only 2000 years ago.

If we take human history as being 150,000 years, when did we start to display 'moral progress'? In 149,000 there was basically nothing according to your logic, then everything became supercharged purely based on our brain suddenly managing to convince us what we were doing was objectively wrong and had always been so (although this only really happened in one small part of the world).

 

[joe1776]

I have provided you with an article to read and a video to watch.

The Nisbet essay you linked is not on-topic and doesn't support your claim. Our topic here is moral progress. The essay is concerned with progress in general but it seems more concerned with economic progress
.
The video you linked wasn't on-topic either. The speaker made his case that Christianity had made important contributions to the humanity's "external body of knowledge." If you can't make your own argument that Christianity has made a significant contribution to humanity's moral progress, I'm sure you can find one on the Internet that's on-topic. If you can, post it and give me a chance to challenge the argument. But no videos please. I want to be able to read and quote the writer.

Adam Smith's work is interpreted differently, and often wrongly, by different people. For example, did you know that the 'invisible hand' of the market was Divine Providence? Also, Smith was a moral philosopher more than an economist, yet people use his ideas to promote amoral economic theories.

You brought Adam Smith book into our discussion to make a single point that we have already debated. What you wrote here is not relevant to our topic.

Honestly, that's nonsense. Roman and Greek attitudes to slaves was that their lives had no value. Their entire society was built around values completely alien to your progressive humanism yet it was only 2000 years ago.

You stated a fact that proves we have made moral progress since the time of the Romans and Greeks and you're asserting that it denies my claim that we humans are making moral progress?

The trend to abolish legal slavery began to have an effect in the nations of the world about in the year 1700 and took almost three centuries to complete. As late as 1866, Pope Pius IX was telling his large contingent of Catholics that he found nothing in divine law against the buying, selling or trading of slaves. He was right. The Bible, with more than 100 quotes on slavery does not condemn the practice.

If we take human history as being 150,000 years, when did we start to display 'moral progress'?

Who knows? We would need better historical data to determine that but evidence of violent deaths, as a percentage of population. seems to increase the further back we go.

In 149,000 there was basically nothing according to your logic, then everything became supercharged purely based on our brain suddenly managing to convince us what we were doing was objectively wrong and had always been so (although this only really happened in one small part of the world).

I have no idea of the reasoning you used to come up with that conclusion. You might try explaining it.

 

[paarsurrey]

A Brief Argument: Religion Has Been a Waste of Time

It is a wrong notion, please.
The truthful religion tells us as to how to spend time most usefully for the good of this life and for the next life .

Regards

 

[Augustus]

The Nisbet essay you linked is not on-topic and doesn't support your claim. Our topic here is moral progress. The essay is concerned with progress in general but it seems more concerned with economic progress
.
The video you linked wasn't on-topic either. The speaker made his case that Christianity had made important contributions to the humanity's "external body of knowledge." If you can't make your own argument that Christianity has made a significant contribution to humanity's moral progress, I'm sure you can find one on the Internet that's on-topic. If you can, post it and give me a chance to challenge the argument. But no videos please. I want to be able to read and quote the writer.

If you can't see the relevance to your point then it will be difficult to make 'progress'

Your concept of moral progress requires 2 things: a concept of morality and a concept of teleological historical progress.

Both of what I linked to relate to how the latter came to be, and how uncommon it was in historical society.

You are assuming your ideologically grounded view of history is in fact a neutral observation, when this is very far from the truth.

As for contributions to morality from Christianity, how do you think we went from the alien world of the Greeks and Romans to your form of gentle, modern humanism?

There is no scientific reason to assume that 'all men are created equal', and if anything is 'self-evident' it is that there is no equality in nature, at least in our, and similar species.

The sanctity of human life is a purely religious creation, and the version in the West that replaced the contempt for weaker life of the Romans is grounded in Christianity. The concept of a common Humanity that Humanism relies in was a product of Genesis creation mythology. Even the universalism of your ideology is clearly religious in origin.

Going through 2000 years of European thought to show how we went from 'there' to 'here' is quite complex, if you are interested though try Larry Siedentop - Inventing the individual.

"I argued in an earlier book, Democracy in Europe(2000), that the Christian conception of God provided an ontological foundation for the individual, first as a moral status, and then, centuries later, as the primary social role. ‘The interiority of Christian belief – its insistence that the quality of personal intentions is more important than any fixed social rules – was a reflection of this. Rule following – the Hebraic “law” – was downgraded in favour of action governed by conscience. In that way, the Christian conception of God provided the foundation for what became an unprecedented form of human society.’ Christian moral beliefs emerge as the ultimate source of the social revolution that has made the West what it is....
Christianity took humanity as a species in itself and sought to convert it into a species for itself. Thus, the defining characteristic of Christianity was its universalism. It aimed to create a single human society, a society composed, that is, of individuals rather than tribes, clans or castes. The fundamental relationship between the individual and his or her God provides the crucial test, in Christianity, of what really mat- ters. It is, by definition, a test which applies to all equally. Hence the deep individualism of Christianity was simply the reverse side of its universalism. The Christian conception of God became the means of creating the brotherhood of man, of bringing to self-consciousness the human species, by leading each of its members to see him- or herself as having, at least potentially, a relationship with the deepest reality – viz., God – that both required and justified the equal moral standing of all humans."

A review here:

Inventing the Individual: the Origins of Western Liberalism by Larry Siedentop – review

You brought Adam Smith book into our discussion to make a single point that we have already debated. What you wrote here is not relevant to our topic.

You said a book that had multiple subjective interpretations couldn't be influential. I disagreed.

The trend to abolish legal slavery began to have an effect in the nations of the world about in the year 1700 and took almost three centuries to complete.

And the philosophical underpinnings of abolitionism, the evil of slavery due to human intrinsic worth, were first articulated in the 4th C by Bishop Gregory of Nyssa, based on scriptural exegesis from Genesis creation mythology. This relates to how we ended up with a Western view which sanctifies the individual, rather than the group (when you think about it, this is a strange evolution for us fancy apes).

I have no idea of the reasoning you used to come up with that conclusion. You might try explaining it.

Almost everything you would deem to be 'progress' happened in the past 1000-2000 years. Our brains didn't magically evolve 1000-2000 years ago, so it would require extraordinary evidence to make a solid case that we have been hard wired since time immemorial to be modern Western Secular Humanists, which, conveniently, just happens to match your own ideology.

It's tempting to believe that your own ideology represents the ultimate and objective fulfilment of human destiny, but there is nothing more religious than adopting such a view and thus it's hard to claim religion is a 'waste of time' when evangelising such a messianic Humanist faith.

Regardless of whether or not we follow formal 'religions', we all adopt ideological narratives that are functionally religious in nature, even if these are secular faiths.

 

[joe1776]

Your concept of moral progress requires 2 things: a concept of morality and a concept of teleological historical progress.

I didn't offer a concept of progress. I made a claim of moral progress and I linked readers to another of my threads giving evidence of progress.

You are assuming your ideologically grounded view of history is in fact a neutral observation, when this is very far from the truth.

Another claim you won't support.

As for contributions to morality from Christianity, how do you think we went from the alien world of the Greeks and Romans to your form of gentle, modern humanism?

My OP explains that.

There is no scientific reason to assume that 'all men are created equal', and if anything is 'self-evident' it is that there is no equality in nature, at least in our, and similar species.

There is a logical reason to conclude that inequality is a fictional idea created by arrogant people: In order to measure anything, there has to be an agreed-upon standard. There is no agreed-upon standard for measuring human worth.

The sanctity of human life is a purely religious creation, and the version in the West that replaced the contempt for weaker life of the Romans is grounded in Christianity.

The Crusades and the staking and burning of heretics were a moral upgrade from the Roman era?

Going through 2000 years of European thought to show how we went from 'there' to 'here' is quite complex,

It's not just complex, it's an absurdly bias-contaminated project. Fortunately, in the context of my OP, we aren't interested in European thought. Our topic is moral progress and that is difficult to measure but certainly possible.

You said a book that had multiple subjective interpretations couldn't be influential. I disagreed.

I never said that. You won't find a quote to support you.

And the philosophical underpinnings of abolitionism, the evil of slavery due to human intrinsic worth, were first articulated in the 4th C by Bishop Gregory of Nyssa, based on scriptural exegesis from Genesis creation mythology. This relates to how we ended up with a Western view which sanctifies the individual, rather than the group (when you think about it, this is a strange evolution for us fancy apes).

Can you support your claim that Gregory was the first? Wikipedia starts their timeline on the abolition of slavery Before Christ.

It's obvious that Gregory's position wasn't accepted by the Catholic Church since their Pope was still supporting slavery in 1866.

Almost everything you would deem to be 'progress' happened in the past 1000-2000 years.

That's only because the historical record is pretty good going back 2000 years and I didn't need to go back further to show moral progress.

Our brains didn't magically evolve 1000-2000 years ago, so it would require extraordinary evidence to make a solid case that we have been hard wired since time immemorial to be modern Western Secular Humanists, which, conveniently, just happens to match your own ideology.

The idea that evolution did an about-face morally 2,000 years ago hardly seems likely. So, my thinking is based on Probability.

It's tempting to believe that your own ideology represents the ultimate and objective fulfilment of human destiny, but there is nothing more religious than adopting such a view and thus it's hard to claim religion is a 'waste of time' when evangelising such a messianic Humanist faith.

So, by starting this thread, I am 'evangelizing' and that makes my effort 'religion?" That's what I call 'argument-by-labeling.' You'd make a good politician. Politicians use that sly little trick to degrade their opponent's positions.

Regardless of whether or not we follow formal 'religions', we all adopt ideological narratives that are functionally religious in nature, even if these are secular faiths.

That might be true for you. But I doubt it is for most people. It's certainly not true for me.

 

[Muffled]

Of course. Our acts are either intentional or unintentional.

Conscience informs us that intentional acts that harm innocent others are wrong but unintentional acts which cause harm are not. Our laws reflect the judgments of conscience. If we harm others in a traffic accident, it is not an immoral-criminal act. If we harm others in an intentional act of road rage, it is immoral and considered a criminal act.

Unfortunately my conscience isn't so nice so I have to try to keep Him under control.

 

[Muffled]

How does this comment pertain to our discussion?

My master tells me not to murder people. I don't have to know why. Why is really the question that pertains to meaning. If a person has to find a good reason not to murder someone it leaves it open to he idea that there might be a good reason to do so.

 

[joe1776]

Unfortunately my conscience isn't so nice so I have to try to keep Him under control.

Conscience is the only moral guide we have. We can follow it or not because we have free will. Conscience has no control at all. It only offers guidance.

 

[Augustus]

I didn't offer a concept of progress. I made a claim or moral progress and I linked readers to another of my threads giving evidence of progress.

Another claim you won't support.

I know you find it offer a concept, you assume it is self-evident.

Your threads are entirely dependent on a teleological, progressive concept of history though, which is intrinsically an ideological position.

If one cannot recognise their ideological beliefs as being ideological it is hard to discuss the issue.

Can you support your claim that Gregory was the first? Wikipedia starts their timeline on the abolition of slavery Before Christ.

It's obvious that Gregory's position wasn't accepted by the Catholic Church since their Pope was still supporting slavery in 1866.

It is to the best of my knowledge, although I'm not going to claim my knowledge is perfect so could be wrong.

A better question is can you find a text arguing that slavery is a moral evil due to humans having inalienable rights that exist from birth before Gregory?

‘I acquired slaves and slave girls.’ What is that you say? You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and in doing so you lay down a law in opposition to God, overturning the natural law established by him. For you subject to the yoke of slavery one who was created precisely to be a master of the earth, and who was ordained to rule by the creator, as if you were deliberately attacking and fighting against the divine command.

What price did you put on reason? How many obols did you pay as a fair price for the image of God? For how many staters have you sold the nature specially formed by God? ‘God said, “Let us make man in our image and likeness.”’

There is a logical reason to conclude that inequality is a fictional idea created by arrogant people

I'd say equality is the fiction (that doesn't mean it's a bad thing though). The evidence is all around us in nature, and we are just fancy apes rather than something unique.

Can you give me an example of a primate species in which equality is the biologically determined norm? Or any species for that matter?

That's only because the historical record is pretty good going back 2000 years and I didn't need to go back further to show moral progress.

You certainly do if you want to make a claim that it is the biologically determined purpose for our existence.

The idea that evolution did an about-face morally 2,000 years ago hardly seems likely. So, my thinking is based on Probability.

That would be a very good argument for why it is highly probable that 21st C Western Secular Humanism isn't hard-wired into our DNA.

So, by starting this thread, I am 'evangelizing' and that makes my effort 'religion?" That's what I call 'argument-by-labeling.' You'd make a good politician. Politicians use that sly little trick to degrade their opponent's positions.

You are the one who is inferring negative meaning. It just means you are trying to persuade others your ideology is correct.

That might be true for you. But I doubt it is for most people. It's certainly not true for me.

Yet here you are promoting a teleological salvation narrative for humanity, with Divine Providence our DNA guaranteeing our ultimate redemption as a species.

Why would you say this ideological worldview is not ultimately analogous to a religious belief?

 

[joe1776]

If one cannot recognise their ideological beliefs as being ideological it is hard to discuss the issue.

You're finding it hard to discuss the issue because you can't counter the argument made in the OP.

It is to the best of my knowledge, although I'm not going to claim my knowledge is perfect so could be wrong. A better question is can you find a text arguing that slavery is a moral evil due to humans having inalienable rights that exist from birth before Gregory?

It's obvious that Gregory's writing had no effect on Christianity's position on Slavery, so why should I care if it was the first?

I'd say equality is the fiction (that doesn't mean it's a bad thing though). The evidence is all around us in nature, and we are just fancy apes rather than something unique. Can you give me an example of a primate species in which equality is the biologically determined norm? Or any species for that matter?

Why do you believe that human worth must be unequal because the primates are unequal in many respects? What is your standard for measuring human worth? Intelligence, strength, athletic talent, moral character -- what?

You certainly do if you want to make a claim that it is the biologically determined purpose for our existence.

Disagree. I think I did that just fine in the OP.

That would be a very good argument for why it is highly probable that 21st C Western Secular Humanism isn't hard-wired into our DNA.

The argument was just fine as I used it. That's why you didn't counter it as used.

Yet here you are promoting a teleological salvation narrative for humanity, with Divine Providence our DNA guaranteeing our ultimate redemption as a species.

That's comical.

Why would you say this ideological worldview is not ultimately analogous to a religious belief?

For starters, it's based on reason not faith.

 

[Augustus]

Disagree. I think I did that just fine in the OP.

I think all three of these massive efforts -- philosophy, psychology and religion -- have been mostly a waste of time because none have effectively led the majority of its followers to finding meaning in life.

How do you know they haven't helped the majority of people to find meaning?

Why do you believe that human worth must be unequal because the primates are unequal in many respects? What is your standard for measuring human worth? Intelligence, strength, athletic talent, moral character -- what?

Because we are primates. Unless you subscribe to some kind of creation myth, we are just animals like any other.

There is no such thing as intrinsic 'human worth', we are bundles of atoms that evolved through chance. What's the standard measure for measuring the worth of a butterfly, baboon or buffalo? The sanctity of life is a religious creation based on human exceptionalism that evolved into secular concepts such as human rights.

As a species, we create myths to make sense of the world, and to enable us to construct complex societies. That they are myths doesn't make them wrong, or lacking in value. There is nothing wrong with creating myths that justify equality, it is a good thing.

You confuse values that derive from these myths for objective moral truths hardwired into us for hundreds of thousands of years though, in part because you have no interest in looking at how such values developed.

It's obvious that Gregory's writing had no effect on Christianity's position on Slavery, so why should I care if it was the first?

There is no such thing as 'Christianity's position' and never has been. There has never been a uniformity in thought.

Why don't you think that looking at the evolution of European thought towards the secular humanistic ideology that you subscribe to is relevant or worthy or looking at though?

If you did, you might be able to take a more nuanced position as to why it came to be that Europe developed a particular culture rather than the magical thinking of 'it's Humanity's destiny'.

The argument was just fine as I used it. That's why you didn't counter it as used.

I've asked you many times to explain this:

Almost all of what you deem progress has occurred in the last 1000 years, and in one particular part of the world. The ideology you subscribe to, despite being around for a few centuries, is still almost exclusively held in the same part of the world in which it developed.

Given the 149,000 years of "non-progress" why should anyone believe that these changes were the product of our universally hardwired cognition, rather than being the product of a particular culture at a particular time?

For starters, it's based on reason not faith.

Who says a religion needs to be based in faith rather than reason? Also, many believe their faith is indeed justified by reason, as you do.

I take the position that cultural values arise out of myriad factors and are thus products of particular historical circumstance hence their diversity. Ultimately, there is no purpose for Humanity, as Humanity doesn't exist as anything other than a mythical construct. We are just individuals and societies that have differing and often conflicting purposes and aims. The entirety of human history backs this up, as does any study of the natural world we are part of. There is no Porcinity, Simianity or Caninity for other animals, so why do we get a collective destiny?

What would you say is the weakness of this position?

You take the position that your values have been hardwired into us via DNA and that the ultimate purpose of all human existence is for all people everywhere to become more like you. What you are implicitly saying is that you represent the apex of human development, as you are blessed with the Truth and embody its values. As such people who disagree with you or act counter to your desired outcome are objectively acting against Humanity's One True Purpose as it is inevitable that all of Humanity moves around to your position sooner or later.

And you don't see that such a view could be described as religious in nature?

 

[joe1776]

How do you know they haven't helped the majority of people to find meaning?

I make my arguments to be persuasive to intelligent, unbiased minds. I don't feel the need to explain the obvious to such readers.

There is no such thing as intrinsic 'human worth.'

That's exactly what I said. I wrote that inequality in human worth was a fiction and you told me I was wrong because we're animals and the primates were unequal.

I asked this question which you have not answered: Why do you believe that human worth must be unequal because the primates are unequal in many respects? What is your standard for measuring human worth? Intelligence, strength, athletic talent, moral character -- what?

There is no such thing as 'Christianity's position' and never has been. There has never been a uniformity in thought.

Christianity's position on slavery, and everything else can be determined by reading the Bible. And while it's true that there are some positions left unclear because of different interpretations of scripture, the position on slavery isn't one of them. There are more than 100 Bible quotations on slavery, none condemn the practice.

Why don't you think that looking at the evolution of European thought towards the secular humanistic ideology that you subscribe to is relevant or worthy or looking at though? If you did, you might be able to take a more nuanced position as to why it came to be that Europe developed a particular culture rather than the magical thinking of 'it's Humanity's destiny'.

I don't take your claim seriously for two reasons:

1. You aren't known worldwide as an expert on European thought and you can't produce support for this argument you claim is widely-known from such an expert.

2. If there was a widely-accepted argument that Christianity has had great influence, on human moral progress as you claim, it would be repeated from the pulpit by every priest and pastor Catholic and Protestant. All but the dim-witted among the Christian faithful would be aware of it. So, the absence of those effects is evidence that your claim is false.

I've asked you many times to explain this: Almost all of what you deem progress has occurred in the last 1000 years, and in one particular part of the world. The ideology you subscribe to, despite being around for a few centuries, is still almost exclusively held in the same part of the world in which it developed.

Given the 149,000 years of "non-progress" why should anyone believe that these changes were the product of our universally hardwired cognition, rather than being the product of a particular culture at a particular time?

This question was asked and previously answered.

Who says a religion needs to be based in faith rather than reason? Also, many believe their faith is indeed justified by reason, as you do.

As I told a poster earlier, I should have made clear that my comments were limited to traditional Western religion.

I take the position that cultural values arise out of myriad factors and are thus products of particular historical circumstance hence their diversity. Ultimately, there is no purpose for Humanity, as Humanity doesn't exist as anything other than a mythical construct. We are just individuals and societies that have differing and often conflicting purposes and aims. The entirety of human history backs this up, as does any study of the natural world we are part of. There is no Porcinity, Simianity or Caninity for other animals, so why do we get a collective destiny?

What would you say is the weakness of this position?

You offered nothing but a series of unsupported opinions. Why don't you start a thread and lay out your argument? If you want my opinion, let me hear your argument.

You take the position that your values have been hardwired into us via DNA and that the ultimate purpose of all human existence is for all people everywhere to become more like you. What you are implicitly saying is that you represent the apex of human development, as you are blessed with the Truth and embody its values. As such people who disagree with you or act counter to your desired outcome are objectively acting against Humanity's One True Purpose as it is inevitable that all of Humanity moves around to your position sooner or later.

This personal attack is a sign of your frustration.

 

[Augustus]

1. You aren't known worldwide as an expert on European thought and you can't produce support from such an expert.

In that case, why do you expect people to take your posts seriously? Why even bother joining a forum populated by people who are not known worldwide as experts if this renders their opinions worthless?

Anyway, I provided you with a couple of sources by people known worldwide as experts and you just dismissed them out of hand as being 'off topic'. I'd post more if you engaged with them, not much point otherwise though.

2. If there was a widely-accepted argument that Christianity has had great influence, on human moral progress as you claim. It would be repeated from the pulpit by every priest and pastor Catholic and Protestant. All but the dim-witted among the Christian faithful would be aware of it. So, the absence of those effects is evidence that your claim is false.

Errr, they do don't they? Never heard of people going on about the West's "Judaeo-Christian values"?

You are the first person I've ever heard make an argument that Christians never crow about their beliefs that Christianity is a force for moral good

That's exactly what I said. I wrote that inequality in human worth was a fiction and you told me I was wrong because we're animals and the primates were unequal.

You seem to have misunderstood. I said the very concept of human worth is a fiction. A human has no more intrinsic worth than a daffodil, possum or pelican.

Why do you believe that humans, unique among all animals, have a species wide destiny to live in harmony as a result of our unstoppable, hardwired moral progress?

Do you think chimps are also hardwired for moral progress? What about horses?

I asked this question which you have not answered: Why do you believe that human worth must be unequal because the primates are unequal in many respects? What is your standard for measuring human worth? Intelligence, strength, athletic talent, moral character -- what?

I answered it very explicitly.

Human worth is whatever value we create for it via narrative fictions (i.e. myths). One such myth is the sanctity of human life. Another such myth is the desirability of equality.

Just to be clear, something being a myth does not make it bad/wrong/undesirable/etc. It just means it is a cultural creation.

Why don't you start a thread and lay out your argument? It's off-topic here.

It's not really a great sign that you consider that off topic. The reason why most of what you deem 'progress' has been limited to a very specific time and a very specific place, is because it is a product of a particular culture. That was my point.

Given that the evidence strongly favours it, why would you say culture and the social environment are less valid explanations than "it's our preordained destiny"?

This personal attack is a sign of your frustration.

It's just an explanation of the underlying assumptions of your views. I'm not sure why you should see it as a 'personal attack'.

Do you see the following as being a 'personal attack' of the Christian? It's just the same as what I said about your worldview and its underlying assumptions.

An honest and self-aware fundamentalist Christian believes he is blessed with the Truth so he acts in accordance with the scripture he believes outline God's will. Following God's will is the objective purpose of existence so if all people followed God's will then the world would be a better place. Therefore, from the perspective of the Christian, he embodies the archetype of human behaviour, and see's mankind's betterment as being dependent on people being more like him.

 

[joe1776]

In that case, why do you expect people to take your posts seriously?

If I made unsupported claims on key topics that were not common knowledge as you did, I wouldn't expect them to. Only gullible people do that.

Errr, they do don't they? Never heard of people going on about the West's "Judaeo-Christian values"?You are the first person I've ever heard make an argument that Christians never crow about their beliefs that Christianity is a force for moral good

You are either confused or deliberately trying to confuse me. Earlier, when I asked you why your claim wasn't common knowledge among Christians -- because I'd never heard it in my lifetime, you said it was because people aren't interested in European thought.

You seem to have misunderstood. I said the very concept of human worth is a fiction. A human has no more intrinsic worth than a daffodil, possum or pelican

.Yes, I understood and agree. But that position conflicts with your assertion that, by comparison to the primates, human worth must be unequal. If human worth is a fiction, how can it be unequal?

Why do you believe that humans, unique among all animals, have a species wide destiny to live in harmony as a result of our unstoppable, hardwired moral progress?

I don't know why; however, the evidence that it does is persuasive to unbiased minds. Nor do I know of any reason to think that our destiny has anything at all to do with the destiny of the other animal species. Do you?

Do you think chimps are also hardwired for moral progress? What about horses?

I have no idea. Do you?

Another such myth is the desirability of equality.Just to be clear, something being a myth does not make it bad/wrong/undesirable/etc. It just means it is a cultural creation.

The desirability of treating every citizen as equal in human worth isn't a myth. That's a very basic idea necessary to achieve effectiveness in any cooperative endeavor -- and the global society is a cooperative endeavor.

It's not really a great sign that you consider that off topic. The reason why most of what you deem 'progress' has been limited to a very specific time and a very specific place, is because it is a product of a particular culture. That was my point.

I didn't limit progress to a specific time or place. That idea was a product of your failed reasoning as I explained.

Given that the evidence strongly favours it, why would you say culture and the social environment are less valid explanations than "it's our preordained destiny"?

I'm even more sure I'm right now than when I wrote the OP. I made the argument in the OP and you have come up empty, finally resorting to personal attack, in your your attempt to counter my argument.