Mom unapologetically raising kid without religion

[Regiomontanus]

The "no harm" axiom is a basis for morality. It's technically irreducible, but if you want the opinion of a universal prescriptivist on the subject. It's wrong to hurt someone because it's not conductive to the objective of morality itself which is, to put it simply, people living and flourishing together. Hurting people will, in the vast majority of instences, prevent people from living and flourishing together (exceptions may apply).

So in other words, arbitrary. That's what I thought.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

To think we can temper our own hubris is at best naive. Anyone can claim they are “of God.” Many have throughout history and caused splintering cells of various religious types.

Seeking God is a personal matter, but it can’t dictate secular law because not everyone will seek God or want to. We have to accomodate that mindset as well. We will stumble and fall but we cannot rely on God or wisdom or prophets, we have to dictate our own destiny and take ownership of our responsibilities to our community.

Morals change religion to religion and even age to age.
I’m all for religious education covering a broad range of religions across the world. But I don’t hold your optimism in eliciting the outcome that you predict. Some religions actively advocate against certain education.

That is our challenge, to decide if there is a God, then who speaks for God and then have we interpreted what was given in the manner it was meant to.

If one looks back, most laws of what people see as a secular government, would be based on spiritual principal of followers of faiths. Faith would have been/was a prime requirement to be elected.

It only the last hundred or so years that truly faith based laws brought forward by those elected, are eroding.

Thus we can rightly ask, if God does not leave us alone, has new guidance been given.

Of course as a Baha'i I believe it has. Man has been given the right to rule, providing that guidance is not ignored. It is written if it is ignored calamity awaits.

This is worth considering;

"The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements..... "

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Page 213

The immediate future will see great change, we live in very interesting times.

Regards Tony

 

[epronovost]

So in other words, arbitrary. That's what I thought.

Didn't I provided a reason based on a logical formulation? I can make write more formally if you prefer.

P1: The objective of morality is to live together and flourish.
P 2: Harming people prevents them from living together and flourishing.
C 1: Don't harm people.

Would like me to present you a logical formulation on how and why harming people prevents them from living and flourishing together?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So in other words, arbitrary. That's what I thought.

That is really not arbitrary. Less so than that of the Bible. "Because God said so" is about as arbitrary as one can get.

 

[Regiomontanus]

That is really not arbitrary. Less so than that of the Bible. "Because God said so" is about as arbitrary as one can get.

What you mean is that it is arbitrary because you think that there is no Creator God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you mean is that it is arbitrary because you think that there is no Creator God.

There is no reliable evidence of a Creator God. The morals of the God of the Bible are quite arbitrary. Perhaps you have some improved ones.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Didn't I provided a reason based on a logical formulation? I can make write more formally if you prefer.

P1: The objective of morality is to live together and flourish.
P 2: Harming people prevents them from living together and flourishing.
C 1: Don't harm people.

Would like me to present you a logical formulation on how and why harming people prevents them from living and flourishing together?

Sigh.

Suppose I reject P1. I don't care if I hurt people, I just want what is good for me by any means necessary - everyone else can go f*+$ themselves. Now what?

 

[SomeRandom]

That is our challenge, to decide if there is a God, then who speaks for God and then have we interpreted what was given in the manner it was meant to.

If one looks back, most laws of what people see as a secular government, would be based on spiritual principal of followers of faiths. Faith would have been/was a prime requirement to be elected.

It only the last hundred or so years that truly faith based laws brought forward by those elected, are eroding.

Thus we can rightly ask, if God does not leave us alone, has new guidance been given.

Of course as a Baha'i I believe it has. Man has been given the right to rule, providing that guidance is not ignored. It is written if it is ignored calamity awaits.

This is worth considering;

"The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements..... "

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Page 213

The immediate future will see great change, we live in very interesting times.

Regards Tony

Skepticism and rebellion against the Church as leaders stared way back in like the 17th Century if not earlier. At least in the West.
I see the challenge as more a test of our character. It’s easy to claim moral high ground if you believe that you are obeying a God. Whether or not that ground is indeed superior is debatable at best.

Faith can certainly inform how people treat one and other. But it’s uncritical and lacks robust reasoning. If one was to question the morals of a religious person, that person who has essentially intertwined their morals to their belief system, would immediately liken such questions to a critique of their religion. This I think puts up an instinctive mental block. It’s very hard to criticise religion and not immediately offend someone. Which is why I remain skeptical of the capabilities of religions for proper self introspection. (Which is ironic given that a lot of the time, that is the core ideal of many religions to begin with.)

I think using objective evidence to come to a conclusion about ethics and how that affects people is therefore superior to religious morality. Insofar as it can grow with new evidence. That’s not to say I think religiousity is inherently inferior. Just that I’m more willing to back ethics laid out on a more neutral groundwork than morals coming from a supposed high ground.

 

[epronovost]

Sigh.

Suppose I reject P1. I don't care if I hurt people, I just want what is good for me by any means necessary - everyone else can go f*+$ themselves. Now what?

You don't flourish and neither do those around you as long as you are there and behave like so.

PS: That would be rejecting P2 not P1

 

[Regiomontanus]

There is no reliable evidence of a Creator God. The morals of the God of the Bible are quite arbitrary. Perhaps you have some improved ones.

Your first premise is wrong of course. But I know we will not get anywhere on that question, so good night

 

[Regiomontanus]

You don't flourish and neither do those around you as long as you are there and behave like so.

PS: That would be rejecting P2 not P1

LOL. Yeah, bad people who did bad things to others never flurished (as they wanted to). And other people? Why should I care about them?

Common, you can do better than that, surely? (Rhetorical- you can't).

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Skepticism and rebellion against the Church as leaders stared way back in like the 17th Century if not earlier. At least in the West.
I see the challenge as more a test of our character. It’s easy to claim moral high ground if you believe that you are obeying a God. Whether or not that ground is indeed superior is debatable at best.

Faith can certainly inform how people treat one and other. But it’s uncritical and lacks robust reasoning. If one was to question the morals of a religious person, that person who has essentially intertwined their morals to their belief system, would immediately liken such questions to a critique of their religion. This I think puts up an instinctive mental block. It’s very hard to criticise religion and not immediately offend someone. Which is why I remain skeptical of the capabilities of religions for proper self introspection. (Which is ironic given that a lot of the time, that is the core ideal of many religions to begin with.)

I think using objective evidence to come to a conclusion about ethics and how that affects people is therefore superior to religious morality. Insofar as it can grow with new evidence. That’s not to say I think religiousity is inherently inferior. Just that I’m more willing to back ethics laid out on a more neutral groundwork than morals coming from a supposed high ground.

I think the key is to recognise within one's own heart as to what is the high ground and at the same time acknowledge that we are not fully aware of that full potential.

In the past men have interpreted what is the high ground, without the authority to do so, thus what they have implemented may be a very poor version of what was offered.

In saying that, it suited that age, but in this age that is no longer viable. From there we move away to the question of how to see what is needed in this age, what are we to teach our children?

Regards Tony

 

[PruePhillip]

'suggest that raising your children with secular morality is highly beneficial, saying that these children are “less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian, and more tolerant.'

So a non-religious upbringing makes you more sheep like

In a sense yes, a different kind of sheep.
Read my profile below.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your first premise is wrong of course. But I know we will not get anywhere on that question, so good night

Really? No one has ever presented any such evidence here that I or any other atheist has seen. Yet we hear this claim constantly. Please surprise me.

 

[QuestioningMind]

'suggest that raising your children with secular morality is highly beneficial, saying that these children are “less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian, and more tolerant.'

So a non-religious upbringing makes you more sheep like

Wow, you managed to get that completely wrong. Actually, it's folks who tend to be more vengeful, more nationalistic, more militaristic, more authoritarian, and less tolerant who tend to be more sheep like.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think the key is to recognise within one's own heart as to what is the high ground and at the same time acknowledge that we are not fully aware of that full potential.

In the past men have interpreted what is the high ground, without the authority to do so, thus what they have implemented may be a very poor version of what was offered.

In saying that, it suited that age, but in this age that is no longer viable. From there we move away to the question of how to see what is needed in this age, what are we to teach our children?

Regards Tony

Well you’re putting all the onus of morality onto a higher being. Whether or not that being exists is irrelevant. Give the amount of detrimental affects people have caused throughout the ages because of they had in their hearts what they sincerely believed was for the greater good cannot be simply swept under the rug.

The way I see it, a religious man is held accountable in the afterlife. They are judged after they die and face whatever consequences await them. But the secular man has to live with the consequences on this plane of existence. I think that does a better job at keeping the man honest.
It won’t always be sunshine and flowers. But given that the consequences would be a little more “closer to home” I think it makes for the secular man more ready to adopt a different way of doing things than the religious one.

 

[epronovost]

LOL. Yeah, bad people who did bad things to others never flurished (as they wanted to). Common, you can do better than that, surely? (Rhetorical- you can't).

Actually amongst primitive humans (when our sense of morality developped itself) that was practically a death sentence. In modern society it's a easier to get away with poor behaviors and harming people due to the fact we are so extraordinarily productive we can "sponge up" the effects of those bad behaviors and a greater emotional and physical distence between the members of society. It's also good to note that most people who hurt others do not flourish and prosper. Violent people tend to be lonely, frequently jailed and impoverished more often and to a greater degree then those who do not.

I would also like to point that you completely ignored the second part of my answer "and neither do those around you as long as you will be there or behave like so". People suffering around you will lead to your flourishment being lower then if they were not since those people will not be able to help you to the furthest of their abilities.

Also, you seem to be confusing morality with some sort of natural law that cannot be violated. It's not. Morality is very much a human construct. It's thus not inviolable. The only difference is that violating willfully the objective of morality makes the situation generaly worst then if you attempted to reach it. I would also like to mention that what exactly are the moral axiom that would allow to reach the objective of morality aren't all known. It's very much a work in progress. Furthermore, the application of those universal axiom to precise situation is also difficult. Morality isn't a simple set of rules and principles that any idiot can apply without hitch or problem.

You think small, don't read full sentences and don't seem open to critique or difference. That doesn't make for good communication with someone else.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Well you’re putting all the onus of morality onto a higher being. Whether or not that being exists is irrelevant. Give the amount of detrimental affects people have caused throughout the ages because of they had in their hearts what they sincerely believed was for the greater good cannot be simply swept under the rug.

The way I see it, a religious man is held accountable in the afterlife. They are judged after they die and face whatever consequences await them. But the secular man has to live with the consequences on this plane of existence. I think that does a better job at keeping the man honest.
It won’t always be sunshine and flowers. But given that the consequences would be a little more “closer to home” I think it makes for the secular man more ready to adopt a different way of doing things than the religious one.

I see the onus of morality is upon us.

The example of Christianity is that Jesus set the standard, we can ask which men followed that example?

What one will find, is those that most live the virtues required, are not the ones that desire to guide others or be leaders. They are the quite achievers.

If one wants to know about true faith, that is where to turn. Also there are many sheep that will blindly follow a wolf in sheep's clothing.

It comes back to our individual choices, that is the way it has always worked.

As a Baha'i I have to ask myself am I living the standard requested of me, it is only I that can do this and only me to blame if I do not.

Regards Tony

 

[SomeRandom]

I see the onus of morality is upon us.

The example of Christianity is that Jesus set the standard, we can ask which men followed that example?

What one will find, is those that most live the virtues required, are not the ones that desire to guide others or be leaders. They are the quite achievers.

If one wants to know about true faith, that is where to turn. Also there are any sheep that will blindly follow a wolf in sheep's clothing.

It comes back to our individual choices, that is the way it has always worked.

As a Baha'i I have to ask myself am I living the standard requested of me, it is only I that can do this and only me to blame if I do not.

Regards Tony

Well now you’re getting into what we Dharmics call “dharma.” That is to follow one’s sincere “duty and responsibilities.” Towards truth, virtues, morality and one’s community.
Of course it’s all very well for a person to seek their own spiritual truth. In a free society, everyone should ideally have that option without interference.

But the Government has responsibilities. Not just to people of faith but people without such faith. They should endeavour to protect all citizens and offer each the same rights as their neighbours. The only way I see this is achievable is for said Government to be neutral.

You say that those who live virtuous lives are the quiet achievers not the leaders.
One then must enquire, what of spiritual leaders? In order to preach a message one should be at least confident in one’s own approach to life. Is that quietly achieving something?

 

[MonkeyFire]

I believe only Jesus, and Michael have the power to understand the gospels and the old testemant, to the rest of us it's just a giant book of out dated morals.