Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[1robin]

I practiced Hinduism for two years, and all that time rejected the caste system, and only heeded Sages who did likewise.

I did not say all Hindus accept the caste system. I said the Hindu faith does. In that respect your were not practicing Hinduism. I can have the son of Hindu priests who is now a Christian professor of philosophy with more degrees than you can count (I think 3 earned and 6 honorary) explain Hinduism's teachings on the caste system if you want.

Gross misunderstanding of how Varnashrama Dharma is supposed to work, and apparently completely unaware of the fact that Buddhism did the same thing about 600 years before Jesus was born, and similar desire to escape Varna's perversion also encouraged conversions to Jainism, Islam, and Sikhism.

I am reluctant to sidetrack into a debate of another faiths teachings. BTW I heard of this issue from a Hindu who researched the protégées efforts in India professionally.

As it stands, there's nothing "occasional" about it. Christianity didn't do anything to alter humanity's general behavior, even as it reshaped Kingdoms.

Oh yes it has. Christian conservatives are the most generous demographic in history. Make a list of soup kitchens, drug rehabs, 12-step programs, foreign aids programs, medical professionals who volunteer to help free of charge, etc.... and you will find Christianity far outstrips any other private organization. However don't take my word for it:

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

No other factor has done more to affect mankind's moral outlook than Christianity, there is not even a distant second place.

Olaf the Lawbreaker still committed atrocities. Christian monks still preserved as best they could the Old Ways. I have nothing against Christianity, but neither do I regard it as inherently special outside of the fact that it happened to be the Mediterranean religion that ended up shaping Western Civilization.

Again you cannot condemn a book by a handful who have abused it. You do not judge a teacher by the students who defy the lessons and ignore what is taught. You evaluate them by assessing the students who diligently practiced what was taught. Instead of Olaf you should look at Billy Graham or Dr. Livingston. You can find evil in every philosophy and religion ever followed but no faith in human history has as many examples of selfless generosity than Christianity.

For a person who is colorblind, the sky is not blue. For people who have a fourth cone, the sky reportedly has a pinkish tint to it because they can see beyond the normal "visible" spectrum.

Yes it is. That is like saying that silly thing about the tree making a noise when no one is around. The tree oscillates the same frequency and the sky reflects the same frequency of light regardless of whether any creature is around to view or hear them. Blue is merely a semantic tool to label that event. You getting the objective nature of frequencies confused with the semantic tools used to describe them. The nature of a thing is independent on the ability of anything to comprehend it. All the stars objective existed long before a single telescope was invented to view them through and would still objectively exists if no creature in the universe was aware of them.

Colors are subjective. Not in their names, but in how they're perceived.

No colors exist in the diffraction of light based on frequency. The semantic devices used to describe this occurrence has no relevancy to it's nature or existence.

We don't perceive morality; we conceive of it through empathy, as I already said. Jupiter has tangible existence; morality is an intangible conception.

No we conceive rules by contriving what is or is not empathetic. There is nothing inherent to human empathy that makes it objectively true. For al you know bovine empathy is the actual truth and we are all wrong. BTW we perceive objective morality be the same methods we perceive Jupiter. Through our sense of perceptions and experience. The same way I trust my visual perception with Jupiter I trust my perception of morality.

You've read a thousand scholarly texts, all from widely varying time periods and cultures? If so, I'd like to know which ones.

I did not say anything about reading anything.

There's only one way I've found to express objectivity in Modern English: a bunch of interacting values. We as perceiving creatures are subjects, and thus all our perceptions and conceptions are inherently dependent on subject-object relationships; hence subjective. Objective exists independent of any subject.

How it is that you are restricting form describing something is irrelevant to what the thing actually is. If you describe me as short and fat that has no effect on the fact I am tall and thin. Did I post the Roman definitions of morality? They were far more articulate and exhaustive than what you stated or what I have and reflect the exact dynamic I have been attempting to explain.



[quoteIt is the same with morality, though again, I wouldn't use the word "opinion" because its connotations aren't accurate to the topic. [/quote] I would because no matter what you use it would be the equivalent of an opinion. If it is empathy a whole range of opinions about what is empathic exist, if evolution a whole range of opinions about social Darwinism exist, whatever you said would be merely opinion.

Well, I would argue that Lincoln's suggestion is based entirely on his cultural conceptions of morality.

Lincoln was one of the greatest master word smiths to ever live. However I only used his phrase, it did not ground any argument I have made.

If Jesus is real in the sense that you imply, so be it; I've already accepted whatever fate the Gods have in store for me. If this particular God has a problem with what I've chosen, then another way of wording that would be: that's his problem. We all please and anger some Gods or others.

If Jesus is real in the sense that I say there is only one God. It won't be his problem, you either go with the truth or be crushed by it.

1. If God exists you are completely wrong and will be held perfectly responsible as will everyone.
2. If God does not exist there is no right to be and everyone's eternal fate is the same.

No. I'm a polytheist; Frigga is a Goddess.

One bizarre day. I am debating a pagan and a polytheist. BTW even if polytheism was true everything I have said about morality would still be true.

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin,

Can you give a concrete example of one of god's moral truths, and how you came to know it?

Hello Ice horse. What is an ice horse anyway?

My statements do not entail hat I could do so. My statements are proposition. If X then Y. If God then objective morality. So I will respond but my response has no bearing on my original argument.

1. I know God exist because I have experienced him.
2. My experiences of him confirmed the biblical descriptions of him.
3. The biblical descriptions of him (and BTW the generic philosophical descriptions as well) present a God which has endowed human life with infinite worth, sanctity, and meaning.
4. To deprive both God and man of that objective sanctity, value, and meaning is to violate an objective and absolute duty we have to God and our fellow man if we do not have sufficient justification for doing so.
5. Therefore Murder is objectively wrong. I come to know this by supernatural experience, moral perception, and logical deduction.


Sometimes a child is smarter than a professor. If you give a child a moral requirement one of the first things your likely to hear is "Oh yeah who says". With God the moral locus of the universe says murder is wrong, without God no moral locus exists to say it. By saying it I mean to derive it's objective nature from.

 

[1robin]

At best, it's an intermediate link in the chain. What's the source of God's nature?

Ok, name me a single thing that would transcend God's nature and supply a more objective foundation. God's nature is the founding truth behind every derivative fact. I have already said things that do not come into existence require no source.

So the makeup of "God's nature" has no foundation? If there's no particular reason why it is the way it is, then it's arbitrary and can't reasonably be called a basis for objective morality.

It has no cause, it is it's own foundation. All things that exist either have an explanation external to themselves or internal to themselves. God's explanation is internal to it's self.

God transcends God? How is that even possible?

Are you asking what transcendent means? How about sovereignty? Does that term clarify it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, name me a single thing that would transcend God's nature and supply a more objective foundation.

Irrelevant. "More 'objective' than anything else" does not necessary imply "actually objective".

God's nature is the founding truth behind every derivative fact. I have already said things that do not come into existence require no source.

Then it's arbitrary. So be it.

It has no cause, it is it's own foundation.

Which is it? If it has no cause, it can't very well be its own cause.

All things that exist either have an explanation external to themselves or internal to themselves. God's explanation is internal to it's self.

So "God's nature" has an explanation, but it's within God? What is it, then?

BTW: you really need to stop flip-flopping between "God's nature has no source" and "God's nature's source is God." Both have their problems, but we aren't even going to get to them if you keep contradicting yourself.

Are you asking what transcendent means? How about sovereignty? Does that term clarify it?

No, it doesn't. What I'm getting at is that if God exists, for something to be objective, it would have to transcend God. You say that nothing transcends God, so your argument implies that nothing objective exists.

 

[icehorse]

Hello Ice horse. What is an ice horse anyway?

My statements do not entail hat I could do so. My statements are proposition. If X then Y. If God then objective morality. So I will respond but my response has no bearing on my original argument.

1. I know God exist because I have experienced him.
2. My experiences of him confirmed the biblical descriptions of him.
3. The biblical descriptions of him (and BTW the generic philosophical descriptions as well) present a God which has endowed human life with infinite worth, sanctity, and meaning.
4. To deprive both God and man of that objective sanctity, value, and meaning is to violate an objective and absolute duty we have to God and our fellow man if we do not have sufficient justification for doing so.
5. Therefore Murder is objectively wrong. I come to know this by supernatural experience, moral perception, and logical deduction.

Sometimes a child is smarter than a professor. If you give a child a moral requirement one of the first things your likely to hear is "Oh yeah who says". With God the moral locus of the universe says murder is wrong, without God no moral locus exists to say it. By saying it I mean to derive it's objective nature from.

My avatar is a picture of my Icelandic horse, hence "icehorse"

 

[Riverwolf]

I had a great many Indian students over my 36 years in teaching, and many of them were Hindu. Why I mention this is that every now and then one of them would come up to me and be terribly upset about some other students misportrayed what Hindus supposedly believe, and the issue of caste is just one of them.

Also, I think it's important to mention, which I'm certain you're aware of, that there's a tremendous amount of theological variation between Hindus to the point whereas it becomes next to impossible to categorically state what Hindus supposedly believe. The "many paths to God" is taken seriously by undoubtedly most Hindus, therefore most tend to be quite nonjudgmental when it comes to dealing with religious people and concepts that are different from what they may believe.

This is generally true in my experience, though certainly not universal. I wonder if it's even possible to say what "most Hindus" do or don't believe, seeing as a huge number of them live in villages and are illiterate.

 

[roger1440]

"God's nature" is a sideshow in this discussion. Where did "God's nature" come from, exactly? Would God have been able to have chosen a different nature?

- if yes, then the morality you're describing is nothing more than God's whim... "malum prohibitum".
- if no, then the source of morality is something beyond God.

When you or anyone else asks, what is God's nature or where did God's nature come from, what exactly is being asked. Rephrase the question please.
When I read in the Bible, God is one, I understand this as there is only God and no other. In other words, the only thing that exists is God.

 

[Riverwolf]

I did not say all Hindus accept the caste system. I said the Hindu faith does.

There is no singular "Hindu faith". Like the term "pagan", it's an umbrella term for many different religions, including Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Smartism, etc.(and many more than this, and sub-religions within them).

I can have the son of Hindu priests who is now a Christian professor of philosophy with more degrees than you can count (I think 3 earned and 6 honorary) explain Hinduism's teachings on the caste system if you want.

Or I can cite the actual Legends, for example Visvamitra, who was a Kshatria and later became one of the most renowned of all legendary Brahmanas, becoming one of the Seven Sages, and attributed author of much of the Rig Veda's 3rd Mandala, including the famous Gayatri Mantra.

This professor is not an authority on all Hinduism, just as the Sages I followed weren't. Nobody truly can be; it's just too diverse.

Oh yes it has. Christian conservatives are the most generous demographic in history. Make a list of soup kitchens, drug rehabs, 12-step programs, foreign aids programs, medical professionals who volunteer to help free of charge, etc.... and you will find Christianity far outstrips any other private organization. However don't take my word for it:

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

An opinion, in the connotations I put forth below.

How much have you actually looked into general human behavior?

Hospitality has been among the highest virtues in all cultures through all time, as demonstrated in the myths of what happens to people who abuse it, so Christianity is not a causal force of modern generosity. Many of the programs that exist today are brand-new, and likely have more to do with enlightenment philosophy than Christianity specifically. Otherwise, what you speak of would have existed right from Christianity's beginning; as it stands, Christianity's spread through Europe coincides closely with one of the absolute darkest times in the subcontinent's recorded history. While Christianity is not in any way the causal force of this (as many incorrectly believe), it did little to stem the hardships. Things settled down hundreds of years after Christianity's spread, only to be thrown into strife again with the Black Death. Honestly from what I've seen, it's only in the past few decades that things in Europe have FINALLY quieted down even a little.

The only reason Christianity appears to outstrip those things you put forth is because they come from cultures that are predominantly Christian. But that's artificial inflation; there's simply not enough data to make a judgment call either way.

Again you cannot condemn a book by a handful who have abused it. You do not judge a teacher by the students who defy the lessons and ignore what is taught. You evaluate them by assessing the students who diligently practiced what was taught. Instead of Olaf you should look at Billy Graham or Dr. Livingston. You can find evil in every philosophy and religion ever followed but no faith in human history has as many examples of selfless generosity than Christianity.

How deeply have you, personally, looked at other faiths? How much have you questioned what others tell you or what you hear from "authorities"?

Olaf the Lawbreaker lived 1000 years ago, and so cannot be used as a point of contrast to those other names, who are contemporary. How about contrasting him with Olaf II, aka Saint Olaf, who was much more peaceful (and thus more successful) in spreading Christianity?

Yes it is. That is like saying that silly thing about the tree making a noise when no one is around. The tree oscillates the same frequency and the sky reflects the same frequency of light regardless of whether any creature is around to view or hear them. Blue is merely a semantic tool to label that event. You getting the objective nature of frequencies confused with the semantic tools used to describe them. The nature of a thing is independent on the ability of anything to comprehend it. All the stars objective existed long before a single telescope was invented to view them through and would still objectively exists if no creature in the universe was aware of them.

It would appear that you're the one confusing the issue. You see, that's the sort of thing I've been trying to clarify.

No we conceive rules by contriving what is or is not empathetic. There is nothing inherent to human empathy that makes it objectively true. For al you know bovine empathy is the actual truth and we are all wrong. BTW we perceive objective morality be the same methods we perceive Jupiter. Through our sense of perceptions and experience. The same way I trust my visual perception with Jupiter I trust my perception of morality.

You state an impossibility. Jupiter is tangible, and morality is not; therefore, they are not comparable and cannot be perceived in the same way. (Unless you can show me morality such that I can see it, in itself, with my eyes, hear it with my ears, touch it with my skin, etc.) Your argument is also based on the idea that there must be an actual objectively true morality that is correct regardless, and I've never seen any indication that this is the case. Bovine empathy (I'm not actually sure if cows have empathy, but whatever) is true for bovines; human empathy is true for humans.

I did not say anything about reading anything.

If you didn't, then how do you know how many articles and what's contained in them?

How it is that you are restricting form describing something is irrelevant to what the thing actually is. If you describe me as short and fat that has no effect on the fact I am tall and thin. Did I post the Roman definitions of morality? They were far more articulate and exhaustive than what you stated or what I have and reflect the exact dynamic I have been attempting to explain.

What do you know of Roman morality?

I would because no matter what you use it would be the equivalent of an opinion. If it is empathy a whole range of opinions about what is empathic exist, if evolution a whole range of opinions about social Darwinism exist, whatever you said would be merely opinion.

As I explained, the connotations of opinion are that they involve individuals, or small groups of people at best, and carries strong implications of irrelevancy. This may or may not be the case in the area you grew up in, which might be part of the confusion, but it's the case here.

But political boundaries and the value of money are not irrelevant, though still subjective.

Hence, your use of opinion is inaccurate.

Besides, not all opinions are equal. Social Darwinism, from what little I know of it, is stupid, and based on a very, very outdated, and long-discarded, view of how natural selection works.

1. If God exists you are completely wrong and will be held perfectly responsible as will everyone.

If so, so be it. I'm not living my life based on this "if".

2. If God does not exist there is no right to be and everyone's eternal fate is the same.

And yet we are, so whether there's a "right" to be is completely irrelevant. We all die, yes.

But first, we live.

One bizarre day. I am debating a pagan and a polytheist. BTW even if polytheism was true everything I have said about morality would still be true.

Because monotheistic-type thinking has become the default mode in our culture, the actual implications of polytheism are not fully realized by most people I've talked to. (Even I'm still learning them).

For example, it would not be true. What is good in the eyes of one God is evil in the eyes of another. From what I've seen, you likely please Tiu, the Just and Honorable King, who oversees strategy and victorious warfare; but you likely anger Woden, who sees greatness in glory (either victory or defeat) and ecstatic inspiration, and the hungering thirst for direct knowledge and wisdom at all costs. Who's "objectively" right? Remember that Woden became King during the Migration Age (and largely remains so today), and Tiu became less important. It's not terribly likely that the two Gods get along.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When you or anyone else asks, what is God's nature or where did God's nature come from, what exactly is being asked. Rephrase the question please.
When I read in the Bible, God is one, I understand this as there is only God and no other. In other words, the only thing that exists is God.

I'm getting at the Euthyphro dilemma: "is what is morally good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?"

The first possibility implies that God is not the source of morality. The second possibility, IMO, doesn't describe a moral system: morality that's based merely on God's whim wouldn't be actually moral.

One tactic that some theists do is to respond to the question by saying "morality comes from 'God's nature'" or the like. What I was doing was trying to get robin1 to see that this doesn't actually answer the question, since "God's nature" either comes from God or not, which just brings us back to the original Euthyphro dilemma.

 

[metis]

This is generally true in my experience, though certainly not universal. I wonder if it's even possible to say what "most Hindus" do or don't believe, seeing as a huge number of them live in villages and are illiterate.

A close friend of mine spent a summer in India studying Hinduism, and he remarked on just how diverse a religion it is. This diversity has positive effects in that it tends to lead towards less judgmentalism especially in regards to other religions-- the "many paths to God" approach. The Buddhist and Jewish communities there have been welcomed and found much support.

 

[metis]

While some criticize the caste system as found in India and blame it on Hinduism, they apparently are unaware of the fact that Europe operated under the "feudal system", which not only roughly mimicked the caste system, but also was endorsed by the more dominant churches there. Then, when that system was ousted, a capitalistic system came in and caused much hardships throughout much of Europe, especially in the late 1800's and early 1900's, and this dog-eat-dog system that left millions out in the cold was endorsed by some other churches.

So, it's "interesting" that some look at the speck in Hinduism's eye but can't see the plank in their own religion's eye.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While some criticize the caste system as found in India and blame it on Hinduism, they apparently are unaware of the fact that Europe operated under the "feudal system", which not only roughly mimicked the caste system, but also was endorsed by the more dominant churches there.

Much more than endorsed, in some cases. At one point, the Church of England's plantations made it one of the largest slave-owners in the Caribbean. The Vatican directly profited from feudal labour in the Papal States.

There are very good reasons why, in uprisings like the French and Russian Revolutions, they tossed out the clergy along with the aristocracy.

Then, when that system was ousted, a capitalistic system came in and caused much hardships throughout much of Europe, especially in the late 1800's and early 1900's, and this dog-eat-dog system that left millions out in the cold was endorsed by some other churches.

Indeed.

So, it's "interesting" that some look at the speck in Hinduism's eye but can't see the plank in their own religion's eye.

I think it's an issue of perspective: the further removed from a thing, the less we see the nuance. We also assume that the things that

I remember talking to one of my (Catholic) ex-in-laws once when the topic of same-sex marriage came up. She said "do you know what gay guys do?" ... and proceeded to repeat a rumour she had heard about bathhouse orgies.

Meanwhile, she lived right near a strip club with an attached motel - where what went on was entirely heterosexual - but it had never occurred to her that that place had anything to do with her as a heterosexual woman.

 

[1robin]

Irrelevant. "More 'objective' than anything else" does not necessary imply "actually objective".

Subjective is a very misunderstood word. In this context it means free from the opinions of it's adherents. A moral duty is objective if free from human opinion, true of all humanity, true at all times, and true in all places. Actually it probably does not even require anything beyond free of human opinion, the rest just solidify it's objective nature.

Then it's arbitrary. So be it.

Let me state this another way just to short circuit your hyper technical attempts to dismiss what you find inconvenient. God is the greatest possible objective source. If you deny it then the word has no meaning and should be discarded. God's nature was here before a single other thing was. It holds sovereignty over every single object that has ever existed. If that is not the ultimate objective source of truth then there can never ben such a thing.

Which is it? If it has no cause, it can't very well be its own cause.

I did not say it was it's own cause. I said it was it's own explanation. Asking what caused an uncaused God has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought. Why are you asking it?

So "God's nature" has an explanation, but it's within God? What is it, then?

God's nature explains it's self. It is the only (I think) example of the second category possible. If you start with what we can see and know currently and try and explain it, you keep having to back up a step to explain whatever it is your trying to, you must keep explaining things by an external pervious thing and you must do this until you run out of natural explanations for things. You still have to explain the initial things that explained everything that came after but you no longer have natural explanations previous to the initial condition by which to do so. This requires that you look for non-natural explanations. The best of those by far (there is not even a distant second) is God. Now God is the one thing that is different than everything else. He is eternal and had no cause. He is his own explanation and requires no cause. This fits in nicely because an infinite regression of causation is impossible. It must end in a first cause that was not caused it's self.

BTW: you really need to stop flip-flopping between "God's nature has no source" and "God's nature's source is God." Both have their problems, but we aren't even going to get to them if you keep contradicting yourself.

Semantic technicalities won't have any effect on what my argument is. Assuming I have made or will make terminology mistakes let me give you my "official" claim about this. It will supersede any typo you find in the future. God is not his own source or cause. He was never created and requires no source or cause. However he is his own explanation. Now you may find that inconvenient because your condition to look for external natural explanations for things. However there is no logical flaw (but there is a logical necessity) in what I have said. From his uncaused and self explained nature all derivative objective truth flows and finds it's ultimate explanation.

No, it doesn't. What I'm getting at is that if God exists, for something to be objective, it would have to transcend God. You say that nothing transcends God, so your argument implies that nothing objective exists.

You are only using nihilism as a tactic. If something transcended God then you would have to find something that transcends what transcended God and so on. Congratulations like much of modern theoretical academia you have thought your way into oblivion and nihilism. God is defined by the bible and even generically by philosophers as the highest possible truth. Nothing transcends him because nothing can. He is the ultimate and eternal source and arbiter of al truth. If that is not objective then your criteria make no sense and would result in intellectual suicide.

 

[1robin]

There is no singular "Hindu faith". Like the term "pagan", it's an umbrella term for many different religions, including Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Smartism, etc.(and many more than this, and sub-religions within them).

I understand what your saying but not sure I can agree. Hinduisms primary foundations are singular. That does not mean that others have not distorted the original faith. Like Christianity it has singular truths that have been perverted by others at times but what others distort is not of the faith.

Or I can cite the actual Legends, for example Visvamitra, who was a Kshatria and later became one of the most renowned of all legendary Brahmanas, becoming one of the Seven Sages, and attributed author of much of the Rig Veda's 3rd Mandala, including the famous Gayatri Mantra.

This professor is not an authority on all Hinduism, just as the Sages I followed weren't. Nobody truly can be; it's just too diverse.

I afraid this discussion will be side tracked by taking an off ramp into Hinduism. Let me just post why I and countless others believe the caste system is inherent to Hinduism. If you disagree that is fine but I don't want to get side tracked by Hinduism at this time. Sorry.

Philosophy 312: Oriental Philosophy
Hinduism: The Caste System, Reincarnation, and Karma I. The Caste System--(groups assigned by birth not personality). The Hindu conception of the social order is that people are different, and different people will fit well into different aspects of society. Social order or social class according to varna forms the framework of moral duties according to personal characteristics of individuals (not necessarily birth).

1. 
   A. Historically the caste system dates back to the Aryan invasion of India around 2,000 BC.
   
   B. Society is divided into four main groups (with a fifth, "the untouchables," outside of the caste system).
   
   1. 
      Passage from the Rig Veda:
      (The world was formed from Purusa whose body is described as follows.)
      "The brahmin was his mouth, his two arms became the rajanya (kshatriyas), his thighs are what the vaisya are, and from his feet the shudra was made."
      
      1. Brahmin: the seers, the reflective ones, the priests.
      
      1. 
         a. The intellectual and spiritual leaders.
         
         b. In our society, they would correspond to the philosophers, religious leaders, and teachers. 2. Kshatriyas--(pronounced something like "kshot ree yahs") the born administrators (formerly nobles, rajahs, and warriors).
         
         1. 
            a. The protectors of society.
            
            b. In our society, the politicians, police, and the military. 3. Vaisyas: (pronounced something like "vy sy us") the producers, the craftsmen, artisans, farmers.
            
            1. 
               a. The skillful producers of material things.
               
               b. In our society, the merchants. 4. Shudras--(pronounced something like "shoo drrahs") the unskilled laborers or laboring class.
               
               1. 
                  a. The followers or the maintenance people.
                  
                  b. The so-called menial workers or hard laborers.
               C. Advantages to the Caste system. The heritability of intelligence and factors of personality raise some interesting philosophical questions.
               
               1. 
                  1. What we would like people to be is not usually what they are. Many persons would be more comfortable in their own social class.
                  
                  2. Unless unequals are separated into different classes, many persons would be "born losers."
                  
                  3. Egalitarianism is the belief that privileges are proportional to the responsibilities and a denial of the tyranny of the majority.
               1. 
                  

Hinduism: Caste System, Reincarnation, and Karma

An opinion, in the connotations I put forth below.

How much have you actually looked into general human behavior?

Enough to have a good idea of what it is in general. I was in the Navy for 9 years and two wars, I have traveled internationally many times, and I have crisscrossed this country working in federal courtrooms for many years. I have also studied moral theory to be familiar with it.

Hospitality has been among the highest virtues in all cultures through all time, as demonstrated in the myths of what happens to people who abuse it, so Christianity is not a causal force of modern generosity. Many of the programs that exist today are brand-new, and likely have more to do with enlightenment philosophy than Christianity specifically. Otherwise, what you speak of would have existed right from Christianity's beginning; as it stands, Christianity's spread through Europe coincides closely with one of the absolute darkest times in the subcontinent's recorded history. While Christianity is not in any way the causal force of this (as many incorrectly believe), it did little to stem the hardships. Things settled down hundreds of years after Christianity's spread, only to be thrown into strife again with the Black Death. Honestly from what I've seen, it's only in the past few decades that things in Europe have FINALLY quieted down even a little.

Hospitality is not among those great moral truths I am discussing. Things like courtesy, some form of law, and hospitality are mundane issues. I would never suggest Christianity is extraordinary because it is courteous or hospitable. I suggest it is because it has more of those who do that hard stuff than any similar demographic. Stuff like leaving everything to medically and spiritually help people in uncivilized nations they had never met before, sacrificing their lives instead of compromising their virtue, giving of their assets more than any other demographic in history, fighting wars and dying to free other men, Christianity still has more private food, addiction, and shelter programs than any other source on earth. etc........ You do not prove anything is extraordinary by posting it's mundane actions but only by it's exceptional actions.

I would suggest that Europe's dark ages (at least in academics) was at least partially caused by Catholic dogmatism (but as you said not the actual faith it's self). However Christians dominated the scientific revolution that followed and did so primarily because of their faith creating modern science in the process including many of it's primary fields themselves. Look at any list of dominant scientific figures since Christ lived and the list will contain lastly Christians plus some Jews and a sprinkling of others. So the church caused ignorance but Christians exploded with brilliance from the darkness. 78% of Nobel's are Christians.

The only reason Christianity appears to outstrip those things you put forth is because they come from cultures that are predominantly Christian. But that's artificial inflation; there's simply not enough data to make a judgment call either way.

If they in fact come from nations that are Christians that still makes the point as well as what I said.

How deeply have you, personally, looked at other faiths? How much have you questioned what others tell you or what you hear from "authorities"?

I of course will never have time to investigate them all. I have checked into all the major ones far more deeply than they deserved. I quickly ran into contradictions historical inaccuracy, irrationality, etc... with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I did not stop studying them but I have stopped considering them as God's truth. Plus I also found the road map in the bible to accurately lead me to God. I was born again and that experience served to validate the book that led me to having it.

Olaf the Lawbreaker lived 1000 years ago, and so cannot be used as a point of contrast to those other names, who are contemporary. How about contrasting him with Olaf II, aka Saint Olaf, who was much more peaceful (and thus more successful) in spreading Christianity?

Bad is bad. Morality is not a social fashion that changes with time. A killer 1000 years ago is just as bad as a modern killer. It is not very meaningful to use a handful of individuals to evaluate a faith practiced by billions. My point was find those who practice the faith instead of those that betray it if you want to evaluate it. There is not a single verse in the NT that authorizes violence for any reason, and there is not a violent OT verse that has applied to anyone in 2000 years. If you find a potential Christians who is murdering people that is not a reflection on a book tat forbids murder.

It would appear that you're the one confusing the issue. You see, that's the sort of thing I've been trying to clarify.

Trust me colors are not a clear path.

You state an impossibility. Jupiter is tangible, and morality is not; therefore, they are not comparable and cannot be perceived in the same way. (Unless you can show me morality such that I can see it, in itself, with my eyes, hear it with my ears, touch it with my skin, etc.) Your argument is also based on the idea that there must be an actual objectively true morality that is correct regardless, and I've never seen any indication that this is the case. Bovine empathy (I'm not actually sure if cows have empathy, but whatever) is true for bovines; human empathy is true for humans.

How do you know this? You visually perceive Jupiter the same way we morally perceive objective duties. In fact for more people have perceived objective moral truth than have seen Jupiter. So I would suggest both are real but morality more tangible. The way is irrelevant, all truth beyond the fact we think is a meter of perception.

If you didn't, then how do you know how many articles and what's contained in them?

What? In the age of the internet your asking me how do I know statistics. However my figure was a common form of language meant to indicate scope not an exact amount.

What do you know of Roman morality?

What their texts say? I do not understand why your suggesting this level of assumed ignorance in the age of information.

As I explained, the connotations of opinion are that they involve individuals, or small groups of people at best, and carries strong implications of irrelevancy. This may or may not be the case in the area you grew up in, which might be part of the confusion, but it's the case here.

That is kind of my point.

1. With God morality is an objective fact and not an opinion.
2. Without him opinion is the best we could do.

But political boundaries and the value of money are not irrelevant, though still subjective.

I never said morality is irrelevant even if subjective. I said if subjective it does not reflect any objective truth.

Hence, your use of opinion is inaccurate.

It does not follow that an opinion is inaccurate merely because it is an opinion if there is a factual truth to the matter. There is no moral fact of the mater without God so there is no truth behind it and it is necessarily inaccurate, even though it can still be relevant.

Besides, not all opinions are equal. Social Darwinism, from what little I know of it, is stupid, and based on a very, very outdated, and long-discarded, view of how natural selection works.

Social Darwinism is stupid no matter what time frame you evaluate it in.

If so, so be it. I'm not living my life based on this "if".

Your entire life is based on ifs. You know nothing to a certainty except that you think. Almost all of life is faith based. Christians just admit it.

And yet we are, so whether there's a "right" to be is completely irrelevant. We all die, yes.

But first, we live.

I did not get this.

Because monotheistic-type thinking has become the default mode in our culture, the actual implications of polytheism are not fully realized by most people I've talked to. (Even I'm still learning them).

Not in mine. Since the late 50's secularism has been the trend and virtually every moral statistic has worsened from that time.

For example, it would not be true. What is good in the eyes of one God is evil in the eyes of another. From what I've seen, you likely please Tiu, the Just and Honorable King, who oversees strategy and victorious warfare; but you likely anger Woden, who sees greatness in glory (either victory or defeat) and ecstatic inspiration, and the hungering thirst for direct knowledge and wisdom at all costs. Who's "objectively" right? Remember that Woden became King during the Migration Age (and largely remains so today), and Tiu became less important. It's not terribly likely that the two Gods get along.

That is correct. What is good in God's eyes is actually good no matter how many disagreed. I have no reason to believe any of those other God's exist to please or offend but I appreciate the info.

 

[roger1440]

I'm getting at the Euthyphro dilemma: "is what is morally good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?"

The first possibility implies that God is not the source of morality. The second possibility, IMO, doesn't describe a moral system: morality that's based merely on God's whim wouldn't be actually moral.

One tactic that some theists do is to respond to the question by saying "morality comes from 'God's nature'" or the like. What I was doing was trying to get robin1 to see that this doesn't actually answer the question, since "God's nature" either comes from God or not, which just brings us back to the original Euthyphro dilemma.

Good is what God is or a characteristic of God. To embrace God, one must be more like God. “Be holy, for I am holy.” The Bible is the road map to where we came from, with God. The very word religion means to rejoin. The word implies we were once joined.

 

[Riverwolf]

I understand what your saying but not sure I can agree. Hinduisms primary foundations are singular. That does not mean that others have not distorted the original faith. Like Christianity it has singular truths that have been perverted by others at times but what others distort is not of the faith.

There isn't an "original faith" in Hinduism. The Vedic religion was also quite diverse, but even taken as a whole was only one historical influence on the pan-religion that we call Hinduism. (And from what I've seen of both, the Vedic religion bore little resemblance to modern Hinduism.) Another aspect is the native Dravidian/Tamil religion, which produced my personal favorite Holy Book, if nothing else for structure, the Tirukkural.

I afraid this discussion will be side tracked by taking an off ramp into Hinduism. Let me just post why I and countless others believe the caste system is inherent to Hinduism. If you disagree that is fine but I don't want to get side tracked by Hinduism at this time. Sorry.

Philosophy 312: Oriental Philosophy
Hinduism: The Caste System, Reincarnation, and Karma I. The Caste System--(groups assigned by birth not personality). The Hindu conception of the social order is that people are different, and different people will fit well into different aspects of society. Social order or social class according to varna forms the framework of moral duties according to personal characteristics of individuals (not necessarily birth).

1. 
   
   
   • 
     A. Historically the caste system dates back to the Aryan invasion of India around 2,000 BC.

And immediately that source's credibility is destroyed. The AIT has long been discarded as there's no physical evidence that any invasion took place, and "Aryan" doesn't refer to a group of people in any case, but a language family.

If I remember correctly, the earliest attestation of Varnashrama Dharma is in the Purusha Suktam, which is actually one of the later compositions of the Rig Veda. The current (very, very rough and highly debatable) academic consensus is that the earliest hymns of the Rig Veda are about 4-5,000 years old, and the latest ones about 3-2,500 years old. Being in the 10th Mandala puts the Purusha Suktam in the latter category.

And that said, we in the North also had a form that reflects Varnashrama Dharma. While it didn't have a name, the three attested levels were Thrall (slave), Carl (freeman), and Jarl (King). And it was entirely possible for a Thrall to rise to position of Jarl.

Enough to have a good idea of what it is in general. I was in the Navy for 9 years and two wars, I have traveled internationally many times, and I have crisscrossed this country working in federal courtrooms for many years. I have also studied moral theory to be familiar with it.

Okay. Though I would still say that's pretty time-locked to the Modern Era. What have you seen from how people behave throughout the ages?

I would suggest that Europe's dark ages (at least in academics) was at least partially caused by Catholic dogmatism (but as you said not the actual faith it's self). However Christians dominated the scientific revolution that followed and did so primarily because of their faith creating modern science in the process including many of it's primary fields themselves. Look at any list of dominant scientific figures since Christ lived and the list will contain lastly Christians plus some Jews and a sprinkling of others. So the church caused ignorance but Christians exploded with brilliance from the darkness. 78% of Nobel's are Christians.

If they in fact come from nations that are Christians that still makes the point as well as what I said.

Nevermind the fact that the Islamic world was the one making all the major advances during the times following the Western Roman Empire's collapse (which was the true primary cause of the strife, combined with the Migration Age displacing tribes).

I of course will never have time to investigate them all. I have checked into all the major ones far more deeply than they deserved. I quickly ran into contradictions historical inaccuracy, irrationality, etc... with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I did not stop studying them but I have stopped considering them as God's truth. Plus I also found the road map in the bible to accurately lead me to God. I was born again and that experience served to validate the book that led me to having it.

Great for you. Has nothing to do with me.

It looks to me like those investigations were predisposed from the beginning to seem wrong. Hinduism and Buddhism, in particular, aren't about "God's Truth", and so of course you won't find it there. I, too, have investigated the Bible, and found therein some wonderful (and not-so-wonderful) stories, and bits of great wisdom and bits of outdated nonsense. I see all of these things in every religion I look into, including the one I'm practicing right now.

Bad is bad. Morality is not a social fashion that changes with time. A killer 1000 years ago is just as bad as a modern killer. It is not very meaningful to use a handful of individuals to evaluate a faith practiced by billions. My point was find those who practice the faith instead of those that betray it if you want to evaluate it. There is not a single verse in the NT that authorizes violence for any reason, and there is not a violent OT verse that has applied to anyone in 2000 years. If you find a potential Christians who is murdering people that is not a reflection on a book tat forbids murder.

I never said anything against Christianity; it's a fine religion that has absolutely done great things. I'm providing microcosmic examples of the fact that it did little to actually change much of the general behavior of people. Keep in mind that "did little" still means "did something". It did change behavior, as any new religion in a culture's life is going to do. But it didn't immediately bring an end to strife. It's done great good in the world, and caused much harm.

I would caution against the No True Scotsman fallacy. Virtues and vices must be taken together, with neither one ignored. I did just point to Saint Olaf, did I not?

Consider me: ever since becoming Asatru, I've been more assertive and made far greater attempts to be brave and overcome my immense fear. My depression has finally started to wane, and have never felt this much in control of things. BUT, the core of who I am, that which was there at birth and cultivated through life, will never change. I may be following a religion that has strong associations with the Vikings, but I am not, and never will be, a Viking myself.

Olaf the Lawbreaker was not the general rule of Christianity's spread through Europe, as the most successful conversions were done peacefully. The Felling of Thor's Oak was probably the biggest factor in converting the people of that region.

Heck, many Germanic tribes were already Christian before the Western Roman Empire fell(including the Vandals). They were just of a form that's not common anymore: Arianism. That was just as bad as being pagan in the eyes of the imperialistic forms of Catholicism.

How do you know this? You visually perceive Jupiter the same way we morally perceive objective duties. In fact for more people have perceived objective moral truth than have seen Jupiter. So I would suggest both are real but morality more tangible. The way is irrelevant, all truth beyond the fact we think is a meter of perception.

These "objective duties" are sourced in external forces telling us that they're "objective duties". They would not be there except for those forces, which are cultural. They're deeply ingrained in us, such that it's easy to mistake them for objective truths, even though they're not.

What? In the age of the internet your asking me how do I know statistics. However my figure was a common form of language meant to indicate scope not an exact amount.

What their texts say? I do not understand why your suggesting this level of assumed ignorance in the age of information.

This "age of information" is also the "age of false information". For every reliable article on the internet there's a thousand bogus articles written with enough charisma to sound convincing, even going so far to create fake citations that ultimately just feed back into themselves. Keep that in mind.

That is kind of my point.

1. With God morality is an objective fact and not an opinion.
2. Without him opinion is the best we could do.

Except it's not. Subjective cultural morality does just fine, and has done more or less just fine throughout all time. It's not just opinion. It is not "just my opinion" that killing another human being is wrong. That's an aspect not only of my current cultural values, but those of many other cultures as well. My hyper-empathy (from having Asperger's Syndrome), combined with other parts of my personality, also makes sure that taking a life would be a thousand times more difficult for me than for people without that. Even killing bugs is hard for me, so I typically don't.

I never said morality is irrelevant even if subjective. I said if subjective it does not reflect any objective truth.

Well, like I said, the only way I've found to describe objectivity is "a bunch of interacting values". Everything else is inherently subjective.

Your entire life is based on ifs. You know nothing to a certainty except that you think. Almost all of life is faith based. Christians just admit it.

So do I, and I never said otherwise.

My life has a lot of "ifs" to it. I'm an aspiring game designer and programmer for crying out loud. The "IF statement" is one of the most fundamental tools of both trades.

Hence why I said this if.

I did not get this.

"No right to be" is a meaningless statement, because we are.

"Everyone's eternal fate is the same". In other words, Death. Everyone dies.

And I have absolutely no problem with that, because we live, and Life is not only meaningless without Death, it's nonexistent.

Not in mine. Since the late 50's secularism has been the trend and virtually every moral statistic has worsened from that time.

Not really. Things are generally improving as far as I can tell (even though the media would have you believe differently). I'll certainly take this world over the almost socially (and very nearly politically) Orwellian postwar years.

Ever see Death Note?

That is correct. What is good in God's eyes is actually good no matter how many disagreed. I have no reason to believe any of those other God's exist to please or offend but I appreciate the info.

No problem, though I wonder if you understood. It would be quite, quite sinful for a follower of Aphrodite to lead a celibate life, just as it was sinful (at least according to Shakespeare) for priestesses of Artemis to not be virgins.

I, personally, see no reason why any God has any right to objective goodness, but then, I'm of the opinion that family has nothing to do with blood-relation. I do remember that the Torah placed a STRONG emphasis on family loyalty, and combined with the fact that the Christian God is often called "the Father", I suspect that this God-conception is a mirror of familial morality. Thing is, I don't agree with that conception; just because they made you doesn't mean they own you. (And I do say that as an artist, BTW; I make my art, but my art is no longer mine once it's in the world).

 

[morphesium]

I find that calling a child catholic,or muslim, or hindu, etc, is completely unethical and unfair to the child's development. It inhibits personal advancement and thoughtfulness because its a limitation that is imposed on them--a metaphorical ball and chain. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have argued, which I agree with, that you wouldn't call a child a republican, or a democrat, or any other political position because a child isn't old enough to understand the complex issues behind various stance--there is nothing more complicated than the nature of reality, which makes religious labeling even more disgusting.

The reasons why religions like this is obvious--its a form of early prostelization that sticks with a child more easily because their families and communities which they grew up with are peer pressuring them to conform to their societal standards. Children are also more susceptible to suggestions. However, it completely demolishes the chance for most children to have an unpolluted period of personal progress where they can individually learn about what beliefs they find most appealing. Religious families inherently tarnish this fundamentally important process.

In an ideal world I would like there to be laws prohibiting the prostelization until they are capable of making more sophisticated judgments. In conclusion parents are doing a disservice to their children by demanding that they stick to the family household religion . It really is a form of child abuse since it obliterates the potential for a child to learn for themselves, instead of being force fed a bunch of garbage created by iron age peasants.

I do agree with you. Religion is a curse. Just like acquired taste, religious faith is also acquired. One of the reasons why it gets acquired is that- through constant signaling in the brain ( rituals, teachings etc ), those signaling paths get hardwired in the brain, while losing other inactive channels. The more hardwired ones channel is (for taste, visuals, thoughts, etc), the more hard it is for one to overcome it or resist it.

Now the best way to make a hardwired connection is to expose them at a very tender age. Additionally, young brains are more prone to accept things without much rational thinking. Take a kid and tell him regularly that the most powerful god (or the one god) is a cross between a pig and an ***, he will accept it. Tell him (show) howling is the best way to please god; and he will start to howl. That is how religion works.

It will be much more difficult for a mature person to agree with such things. This is one of the reasons why one sees every other religion as a stupidity, but not his own religion.

This is one of the reasons why terrorist organizations prefer to recruit and train young kids and when they turn to adults, they will still be in their “chains”.


If kids are thought to keep high ethics and moral standards, thought to think rationally and scientifically (rather than the way religion’s prefers), we will have a far better place to live in, with much more rapid scientific growth, much more advanced law and justice system, etc.
best regards,

 

[Riverwolf]

I do agree with you. Religion is a curse. Just like acquired taste, religious faith is also acquired. One of the reasons why it gets acquired is that- through constant signaling in the brain ( rituals, teachings etc ), those signaling paths get hardwired in the brain, while losing other inactive channels. The more hardwired ones channel is (for taste, visuals, thoughts, etc), the more hard it is for one to overcome it or resist it.

Now the best way to make a hardwired connection is to expose them at a very tender age. Additionally, young brains are more prone to accept things without much rational thinking. Take a kid and tell him regularly that the most powerful god (or the one god) is a cross between a pig and an ***, he will accept it. Tell him (show) howling is the best way to please god; and he will start to howl. That is how religion works.

It will be much more difficult for a mature person to agree with such things. This is one of the reasons why one sees every other religion as a stupidity, but not his own religion.

This is one of the reasons why terrorist organizations prefer to recruit and train young kids and when they turn to adults, they will still be in their “chains”.


If kids are thought to keep high ethics and moral standards, thought to think rationally and scientifically (rather than the way religion’s prefers), we will have a far better place to live in, with much more rapid scientific growth, much more advanced law and justice system, etc.
best regards,

A very narrow and inexperienced view of religion and human behavior, from where I'm sitting, and hardly applicable to even the vast majority of religion. A large part of it, sure, but hardly all of it.

I was not raised in a religion at all, and actually raised with the discoveries made by the sciences (I wanted to be a paleontologist as a kid), and yet I came to religious beliefs and behavior all the same. When I was in Middle School, I practiced an almost entirely made up religion based on elements from Sonic the Hedgehog, Ecco the Dolphin, Land Before Time, and a smattering of a few other things(most dominantly conceptions of Gaia... and no, I never watched Captain Planet). It didn't take any person telling me to do that, nor voices in my head or apparitions telling me this; I just came to it naturally (and have since discarded virtually all of it except the Living Earth). While other stories may not be quite so silly, I know many other people who were not raised in any religion, and still came to them later in life. These are hardly isolated or tiny minority incidents, but quite common.

Nowadays, before all other things, I'm a pluralist. While I do believe there are "wrong" ways, I don't believe there's a singular "right" way, either. Other religions are fine as long as we live and let live, and perfectly suitable for the people who follow them. It helps that I'm also a polytheist; what does it matter to me what God or another, if any, someone else worships? Not like I can honor all the Gods there are.

If someone has no predisposition to scientific thinking, they're not going to think scientifically no matter how much you try to shove it in at a young age. Certain people are predisposed to certain types of thinking, and whatever those predispositions are should be cultivated in a healthy way that does not put them or others in danger, rather than resisted in favor of what we may prefer.

 

[morphesium]

A very narrow and inexperienced view of religionandhuman behavior, from where I'm sitting, and hardly applicable to even the vast majority of religion.A large part of it, sure, but hardly all of it.

Concerning religion and the people following it - it is a very huge relam. Do you think every person under a monotheistic religion has the same religious beliefs- in intensity, inclination etc? NO

Go to a Christian church gathering and talk something about heliocentric theory or genetics etc - well, there is nothing strange here at this age, much people do this. But just a few 100 years back, if someone dared to do this, he would be probably burnt at stake.


it is not human that changed during the past 200 years. our genetics is pretty much the same of that existed just a few hundred years back. it is the religious belief that has changed a lot during these years . Even though one has the same [or is it] holy book that existed 200 years back; spiritually, we are much more free than an average man who lived at those times.

What I am saying is this – the more religious a person / society is, the more I agree with my previous post. However, just like we say “biology is a science of exceptions” here too there are exceptions. Moreover, I know deeply religious people (most of them very old) who are exceptionally good, and they may even credit themselves to their religion for being this good- but what I personally believe is this- they are good even without their religion, they are good morally and ethically.

I was not raised in a religion at all, and actually raised with the discoveries made by the sciences (I wanted to be a paleontologist as a kid), and yet I came to religious beliefs and behavior all the same. When I was in Middle School, I practiced an almost entirely made up religion based on elements from Sonic the Hedgehog, Ecco the Dolphin, Land Before Time, and a smattering of a few other things(most dominantly conceptions of Gaia... and no, I never watched Captain Planet). It didn't take any person telling me to do that, nor voices in my head or apparitions telling me this; I just came to it naturally (and have since discarded virtually all of it except the Living Earth). While other stories may not be quite so silly, I know many other people who were not raised in any religion, and still came to them later in life. These are hardly isolated or tiny minority incidents, but quite common.

I appreciate the way you were brought up. That is what I agree with. Kids should not be raised in or through a religious way. Let them grow up and make their own choice. (Now this is the hard part though– if parents are deeply religious, kids won’t be getting this chance of freedom, they are likely to follow the path of the parent and get it hardwired)

Nowadays, before all other things, I'm a pluralist. While I do believe there are "wrong" ways, I don't believe there's a singular "right" way, either. Other religions are fine as long as we live and let live, and perfectly suitable for the people who follow them. It helps that I'm also a polytheist; what does it matter to me what God or another, if any, someone else worships? Not like I can honor all the Gods there are.

I do agree with much of what you say. Personally, I too, was raised without any religion. I don’t know anything about God. And I believe that, all the god(s) that is associated with any kind of religion are all fake or manmade. What I believe is this, our morale, our inherent sense of being right is the God sent message to us (individually tailored messages). I don’t believe in polytheism or monotheism.

If someone has no predisposition to scientific thinking, they're not going to think scientifically no matter how much you try to shove it in at a young age. Certain people are predisposed to certain types of thinking, and whatever those predispositions are should be cultivated in a healthy way that does not put them or others in danger, rather than resisted in favor of what we may prefer.

I have nothing to disagree with you here. But I do know that much of religious text has many scientific blunders in it. I wish that every person following a particular religion should agree that it has much scientific blunders, and that they should know the reason why such blunders happened to be incorporated into their holy books etc, and finally, they should agree with science. This, I believe should contribute to eradicating or checking extreme faith in a particular religion.

best regards.

 

[Riverwolf]

Concerning religion and the people following it - it is a very huge relam. Do you think every person under a monotheistic religion has the same religious beliefs- in intensity, inclination etc? NO

Go to a Christian church gathering and talk something about heliocentric theory or genetics etc - well, there is nothing strange here at this age, much people do this. But just a few 100 years back, if someone dared to do this, he would be probably burnt at stake.

Quite the contradictory statement: starting by saying that people under monotheistic religions are going to have widely varying religious beliefs, and then saying that it's probable that anyone who dared suggest something that went against the accepted Christian paradigm a few hundred years ago would be burnt at the stake; implying that most Christians at the time had very little variation of religious beliefs.

In any case, it's highly unlikely; stake-burning has been a relative rarity for half a century, now; even Salem was an exception, and featured an extreme form of an already extreme type of lifestyle, puritanism (which is originally Christian but can exist independent of it, see atheist puritan H.P. Lovecraft). Burning at the stake gained brief widespread practice in the area occupied now by Germany and parts of eastern France during the Protestant Reformation because of the MASSIVE socio-political upheaval that was happening throughout Europe at the time.

I haven't looked at them, but I'd be willing to bet that the contemporary articles that were reporting on the Salem Witch Trials weren't sympathetic to the prosecutors.

it is not human that changed during the past 200 years. our genetics is pretty much the same of that existed just a few hundred years back. it is the religious belief that has changed a lot during these years . Even though one has the same [or is it] holy book that existed 200 years back; spiritually, we are much more free than an average man who lived at those times.

What I am saying is this – the more religious a person / society is, the more I agree with my previous post. However, just like we say “biology is a science of exceptions” here too there are exceptions. Moreover, I know deeply religious people (most of them very old) who are exceptionally good, and they may even credit themselves to their religion for being this good- but what I personally believe is this- they are good even without their religion, they are good morally and ethically.

These "exceptions" aren't exceptions at all; they're the rule. At least where I am; I don't know where you are.

By the way, yes 200 years ago the Protestant Bible was much the same as it is now. Our religious paradigm has indeed changed, as it always does and always will. It's the same with all aspects of culture.

I appreciate the way you were brought up. That is what I agree with. Kids should not be raised in or through a religious way. Let them grow up and make their own choice. (Now this is the hard part though– if parents are deeply religious, kids won’t be getting this chance of freedom, they are likely to follow the path of the parent and get it hardwired)

I just illustrated that it's not really going to matter a whole lot. It wasn't a "choice" of mine to create that religion; I'm just naturally hardwired for religious, particularly polytheistic, behavior and thinking, independent of how my parents were raising me.

Personally, I'm fine with raising children in religious practices, as long as other religions are taught about in a pluralistic manner, and questioning is encouraged rather than discouraged. (And no scare-tactics).

I do agree with much of what you say. Personally, I too, was raised without any religion. I don’t know anything about God. And I believe that, all the god(s) that is associated with any kind of religion are all fake or manmade. What I believe is this, our morale, our inherent sense of being right is the God sent message to us (individually tailored messages). I don’t believe in polytheism or monotheism.

And that's perfectly fine. ...though "morale" is a completely different thing from "moral".

I have nothing to disagree with you here. But I do know that much of religious text has many scientific blunders in it. I wish that every person following a particular religion should agree that it has much scientific blunders, and that they should know the reason why such blunders happened to be incorporated into their holy books etc, and finally, they should agree with science. This, I believe should contribute to eradicating or checking extreme faith in a particular religion.

best regards.

There's no "scientific blunders", not really anyway. They weren't applying the scientific method to learn about the world. Those bits of inaccuracy regarding nature aren't always there because they didn't know what they were talking about; from a practical standpoint, Sun does appear to circle Earth, not the other way around. This is wrong, yes, but it sure looks to be right.