Objective Morals. Are they any better?

[Moz]

Se If it's nationality it usually means we are conscripted and don't have a choice - as in wars. Does a difference in culture drive us to war? Look at all the trouble spots around the world. No religion involved?

What other belief system has such a hold over people apart from nationality or culture that tends to make some kill others when they have no real basis for this?

Well why are you not calling for the end of nationality and culture as well?

You Will not give an inch. it so fascinating watching you refuse to acknowledge the same themes i tried to put forth, albeit not as eloquently as Augustus and Shad.

 

[Milton Platt]

Personally, I find it ridiculous when a religious person defends their morals as being the better ones.
The main argument a religious person uses to defend this claim is that their morals come from God.
I don't quite understand why a moral coming from God is called "Objective".
Maybe because in the eyes of a religious person God is impartial and has no reason to favor any of the sides, one way or the other.
That's what I think they believe, not sure that is correct.
There is a problem with that logic:
How can the morals from a "Subjective being" be consider "Objective"?
That doesn't make any sense.
That is a semi contradiction to me.
You believe in an unproven God but the morals taught by this unproven God are proven (objective).
I hear that all the time from very educated people who engage in long and intricate discussions trying to corner the opponent in logic traps trying to prove their point.
For the purpose of this discussion:
Subjective means beliefs not proven.
Objective means proven facts.

How are objective morals better than subjective ones?
Are morals from God better than morals from atheists or non-believers?
Any proof of that?
Better for whom, just believers?

For morals to be objective in an absolute sense, they would have to exist independently of a god or other being. In other words, something would have to be moral, whether or not a god said it was, and not because a god said it was.

 

[danieldemol]

That is probably the most outright evil post i has seen on this forum.
You are defending the death of Billions. The restriction of the most basic right we have, procreation. All in the name of the Utopia. Your ideas lead us directly to the Gulags. Oh yeah your moral compass is fine and Dandy.

All attempts at demonising me for pointing out truthfully the obvious failure of Christianity aside, i’d be curious to know why you consider reproduction to be the most basic right we have as opposed to say - the right to eat, drink drinkable water and breath breathable air.

 

[Raymann]

If religion is man-made why do you think it is fundamentally different from all other kinds of man-made ideology?

Who said it is fundamentally different from all other kinds of man-made ideologies?
Do you have any idea how many Gods has man created throughout history?
Most every other ancient civilization created their own Gods.
It would appear that every time man has no answers a God has to be created to answer them.
All those religions created by man are fundamentally similar.
It seems that man needs a supreme power to guide the masses and keep everyone on the same page.
We know the Greeks had their fair share of Gods to satisfy every single need.
Praying and meditation are always part of any religion.
Praying is a way of communicating with God but it is not so different than regular meditation.
You can achieve pretty much the same state of comfort and peace using simple meditation instead of praying to a God.
So it is clear why the appel to believing in God:
God has all the answers, God cannot be proven wrong.
God gives us hope of eternal life.
Hope all wrapped in one package (religion).

 

[Moz]

[QUOTE]="danieldemol, post: 6374133, member: 29492"]All attempts at demonising me for pointing out truthfully the obvious failure of Christianity aside, i’d be curious to know why you consider reproduction to be the most basic right we have as opposed to say - the right to eat, drink drinkable water and breath breathable air.[/QUOTE]

First...... it is the Eastern philosophies that seem to be the big population generators, 1,5 billion China 1.3 billion India so your idea that it is Christianity is just plain wrong.
The Judao/Christian world is in somewhat of a decline as the world population has tripled in a century.... funny that doesn't seem to fit what you are saying.

Second..... Your reproductive ideas are abhorrent. Evil Orwellian nightmare stuff. To save the planet you would force humans not to breed. How can you not see the dystopian world that you would have.

Third.. .... i really do not think you have any idea where the source of your thinking originates. The ability to argue for the death of billions and the restriction of the right to reproduction and to argue that it will be a Utopian dream that we should aim for only comes from a few very dark sources.

You should read Solzhenitsyn and see what type of thought he was reacting against.... you would find it familiar i think. Now he would definitely slap you if you tried to say the stuff you are saying to him..

 

[Augustus]

Who said it is fundamentally different from all other kinds of man-made ideologies?

It was implicit in the post I was replying to.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What other belief system has such a hold over people apart from nationality or culture that tends to make some kill others when they have no real basis for this?

Well why are you not calling for the end of nationality and culture as well?

You Will not give an inch. it so fascinating watching you refuse to acknowledge the same themes i tried to put forth, albeit not as eloquently as Augustus and Shad.

I'm a bit of a realist at heart perhaps? Religion of the three mainly is a choice whereas the other two tend to be what one gets from living in a particular place. Most often religion too gets thrust upon one (as a child), via education and parental beliefs, such that it looks rather similar to the others but it is still a choice. And I'm glad that in the UK it very much is a choice and hardly matters what one believes - we tend to have such freedom here fortunately.

Nationality, well no doubt we will all have varying degrees of this depending upon how one sees one's fellow countrymen/women and how one views the history of that particular country - often whilst relating this to other countries and how one treats them. Hence I am not particularly nationalistic concerning the UK - no flag-waving from me that often - since I do recognise the bad we have done over the years just as much as any good. And I do recognise what others have done and how few countries come out whiter than whiter in the morality stakes. So I'm not particularly proud to be British, but I do view myself as lucky to be born here, as the freedoms and possibilities are rather in line with what I would want to see - that is freedom of expression, particularly in religious beliefs, and also in many other ways. The UK is hardly the best that a country could be though - I do recognise that - but we seem rather better than many, especially where freedoms are not so available to some.

Culture, well one can subscribe to or refrain as much as one wants - if essential freedoms exist to do this but all too often one is constrained by the appropriate culture one is surrounded by. The amount of freedom of expression will no doubt influence this.

So, basically religion is the one of the three that is possibly the easiest to alter, or commit to one over another, if one has a society where this is possible. In many societies it appears not to be the case that much.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Do you believe there is a possibility that such a history could turn out worse?

Of course I don't know and perhaps it would have been even worse but it sure seems as if religion was doing as much harm as it seemingly kept us all in check.

 

[Mock Turtle]

People tend to massively overestimate the contribution of religion to human conflict throughout history due to popular narratives and availability bias.

It's been estimated that religion has been the primary motivation in somewhere between 6 and 9% of wars (and this includes the Arab conquests which, imo, were more imperial than religious). Religious divisions consistently map to other ethno-cultural-linguistic divisions too, which makes identifying 'religious' conflicts even more difficult.

With 91-94% of human conflict being non-religious, it's clearly not one of the top reasons why conflict occurs though.

In addition, religion unites as well as divides. Many people tend to assume absent religion there would be more unity, but this is certainly not self-evident as humans are naturally divided as a species and religion has been one of the most unifying forces in human history. Logically, this unifying force must have prevented an unknown number of conflicts also.

Another issue is that people tend to compare religious conflict against a baseline of zero. So if, hypothetically, there were 1000 religious wars, they assume that absent religion there would have been 0 wars between these states. The problem is if you remove religion you create a vacuum that must be filled by a different guiding ideology/belief system. We have no way of running an alternative history with dozens of new ideologies to see how many wars these caused. If we look at all kinds of societies across human history though, there is no reason to believe they would have been predominately peaceful.

Ultimately, we have no way of knowing religion's net contribution to violence in terms of violence fomented and violence prevented. At worst it has caused 9% of wars (and a smaller percentage of deaths), but, in theory, could have actually been responsible for a net decrease in violence although we can never know this one way or the other.

Many people (not you, I'm generalising about 'New Atheist' types) want to blame religion as they see violence as some kind of error or distortion of human nature (inhuman animals!) and thus need to identify the culprit. Many Humanists (as belies their Christian heritage) see religion as filling the role of the devil, with Reason (i.e Divine Providence) set to deliver us from evil in their secular salvation narrative. This is why their view of religion in history is completely out of step with the views of historians and secular academics and is more a secular version of evangelical Protestant preaching than it is the impartial and reasoned analysis they purportedly favour.

Coming back to this - if we had a product that had a one in ten or one in twenty failure rate (here, religion causing as much bad as good - as in conflict), then I think any sensible person would have a redesign of this product. This is not an acceptable failure rate - in my view - especially when it is often fronted as being 'the only way'. Perhaps it is the moral aspect that is the problem. I doubt few would be that bothered what any individual chooses to believe or how they would want to worship their particular entity as long as it didn't interfere too much with others. The morality mix is the bit that seems to cause the most problems - and all a bit arbitrary and of the time so often.

I think it is inherent in certain religions - not all - that causes such. As I have mentioned, it being in the very nature of setting rules as if in stone and which supposedly anticipates and/or attempts to control the future but essentially can't do this - as proved by history. And all that results is continual fragmenting of said religions - to cope with change so often - and also conflict with other religions or with those having none. I mean, there are still those who no doubt see their particular religion triumphing eventually. What can one say to such people?

I think it is the claims to have the authority on morality that has caused so much bother for us all over the ages - especially when, to many of us, it seems misplaced.

 

[Mock Turtle]

'Pound for pound' non-religious ideologies probably (well almost certainly) have a worse record for violence than religious ones: Nationalism, Fascism, Communism, Jacobinism, Baathism, Futurism, (Russian) Nihilism, Anarchism etc. Yet 'rational' people still remain absolutely certain that religion is unique in its ability to cause violence.

I think religion is often a greater motivator (for some) to action since it often is such a fundamental aspect of their lives. Which belief tends to be the one least amenable to change so often?

If religion is man-made why do you think it is fundamentally different from all other kinds of man-made ideology?

Possibly because more is at stake for any individual - whatever rewards/punishments they believe in during their life and also any possible afterlife if believed. Does anything else really compare with this? And of course, many are not amenable to debate concerning their religious belief but instead will just quote scripture at one in defence.

And if we looked around the world 75 years ago or 45 years ago we'd see non-religious ideologies causing most of the trouble.

Snapshots of history are often misleading such that one could point to any period in time to back up one's views.

 

[Moz]

I'm a bit of a realist at heart perhaps? Religion of the three mainly is a choice whereas the other two tend to be what one gets from living in a particular place. Most often religion too gets thrust upon one (as a child), via education and parental beliefs, such that it looks rather similar to the others but it is still a choice. And I'm glad that in the UK it very much is a choice and hardly matters what one believes - we tend to have such freedom here fortunately.

Nationality, well no doubt we will all have varying degrees of this depending upon how one sees one's fellow countrymen/women and how one views the history of that particular country - often whilst relating this to other countries and how one treats them. Hence I am not particularly nationalistic concerning the UK - no flag-waving from me that often - since I do recognise the bad we have done over the years just as much as any good. And I do recognise what others have done and how few countries come out whiter than whiter in the morality stakes. So I'm not particularly proud to be British, but I do view myself as lucky to be born here, as the freedoms and possibilities are rather in line with what I would want to see - that is freedom of expression, particularly in religious beliefs, and also in many other ways. The UK is hardly the best that a country could be though - I do recognise that - but we seem rather better than many, especially where freedoms are not so available to some.

Culture, well one can subscribe to or refrain as much as one wants - if essential freedoms exist to do this but all too often one is constrained by the appropriate culture one is surrounded by. The amount of freedom of expression will no doubt influence this.

So, basically religion is the one of the three that is possibly the easiest to alter, or commit to one over another, if one has a society where this is possible. In many societies it appears not to be the case that much.

The religious violence you are talking about was in the time of National Religions right. if you were in a Catholic country you were catholic, Protestant the same. (On the whole) So your qualification of religion being a choice is not that accurate... but we'l run with it.

On nationalism, i like how you portray the UK as varying in its nationalism but again the violence you are referring to is from a time when nationalism was paramount. So your qualification of nationalism is not that accurate... but we'll run with it.

On Culture, People did not get any choice in how much of the culture they adopted in the time we are looking at, a monocultural world... but we'll run with it.

So, basically religion is the one of the three that is possibly the easiest to alter, or commit to one over another, if one has a society where this is possible. In many societies it appears not to be the case that much

So how about this for a compromise.... when you make your claims about religious violence you just give religion 33.33% of the blame and let me argue you down to the more accurate 5-15% from there with relevant facts and discussion if we can. That seems fair. I acknowledge that religious division has caused violence and you admit that religion has been used by the culture and the state for violence and at least then the debate can progress past this stupid black and white and we can discuss the grey.

Now if you want to name a specific Religious conflict go ahead and we will tear it apart and see what the real cause was. I will be very fair in my reasoning as i follow a Christianity that is totally against warfare so i got no skin in the game in trying to defend any part of Christendom.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The religious violence you are talking about was in the time of National Religions right. if you were in a Catholic country you were catholic, Protestant the same. (On the whole) So your qualification of religion being a choice is not that accurate... but we'l run with it.

I did qualify this at the end where I said if one had such freedoms - much of the time people didn't.

On nationalism, i like how you portray the UK as varying in its nationalism but again the violence you are referring to is from a time when nationalism was paramount. So your qualification of nationalism is not that accurate... but we'll run with it.

On Culture, People did not get any choice in how much of the culture they adopted in the time we are looking at, a monocultural world... but we'll run with it.

I was just stating the concepts rather than delving into any historical aspects.

So, basically religion is the one of the three that is possibly the easiest to alter, or commit to one over another, if one has a society where this is possible. In many societies it appears not to be the case that much

That is, these days it is such if one has the freedoms in place to do this. In many places it still isn't.

So how about this for a compromise.... when you make your claims about religious violence you just give religion 33.33% of the blame and let me argue you down to the more accurate 5-15% from there with relevant facts and discussion if we can. That seems fair. I acknowledge that religious division has caused violence and you admit that religion has been used by the culture and the state for violence and at least then the debate can progress past this stupid black and white and we can discuss the grey.

Now if you want to name a specific Religious conflict go ahead and we will tear it apart and see what the real cause was. I will be very fair in my reasoning as i follow a Christianity that is totally against warfare so i got no skin in the game in trying to defend any part of Christendom.

I don't think things work that way. You agree that religious divisions have caused much violence - and still does - do we have to go about quantifying it? It's a bit pointless in my view to try to understand the past in such detail when we seemingly have enough evidence of what religions have done, or have had done in their name. What's the real cause in anything? Perhaps an originating belief that was wrong - even if done for the best of intentions?

 

[Augustus]

Of course I don't know and perhaps it would have been even worse but it sure seems as if religion was doing as much harm as it seemingly kept us all in check.

The ironic thing is that people who are most critical of religion and its role in human history generally criticise it because it has caused outcomes that are inimical to modern, Western secular liberalism which itself owes a massive debt to Christianity. This has long been recognised by the more astute atheist intellectuals like Nietzsche, Marx, Condorcet who each proposed new sources of morality.

Doubly ironic is that the same people also tend to bemoan the decline of the classical Graeco-Roman world as a bad thing despite these values being truly alien to the modern humanist (humans are fundamentally unequal, no sanctity of life, no concept of individual rights and contempt for individualism, no concept of the secular, no real concept of a universal humanity, contempt for the weak, etc.)

I think it is inherent in certain religions - not all - that causes such. As I have mentioned, it being in the very nature of setting rules as if in stone and which supposedly anticipates and/or attempts to control the future but essentially can't do this - as proved by history. And all that results is continual fragmenting of said religions - to cope with change so often - and also conflict with other religions or with those having none. I mean, there are still those who no doubt see their particular religion triumphing eventually. What can one say to such people?

This is a fair point. Universal belief systems bring both benefits and problems.

As you note, monotheisms create the idea of a universal truth and thus a concept of heresy. In terms of inflexibility, religious rules have been far less set in stone than is commonly imagined, but being on the wrong side of them has often not been a nice place to be.

I don't think you can prevent any mass belief system from fragmenting, but some deal with the effects better than other, and monotheism is generally not among the better.

 

[Moz]

I did qualify this at the end where I said if one had such freedoms - much of the time people didn't.

I was just stating the concepts rather than delving into any historical aspects.

That is, these days it is such if one has the freedoms in place to do this. In many places it still isn't.


I don't think things work that way. You agree that religious divisions have caused much violence - and still does - do we have to go about quantifying it? It's a bit pointless in my view to try to understand the past in such detail when we seemingly have enough evidence of what religions have done, or have had done in their name. What's the real cause in anything? Perhaps an originating belief that was wrong - even if done for the best of intentions?

I don't think things work that way. You agree that religious divisions have caused much violence - and still does - do we have to go about quantifying it?
Well i agreed to 33.33% just to get us started at some agreed point and that i'd argue down from there but apparently it doesn't work that way. It is actually very easy to qualify in many cases, that's why i offered to do it. It is a debate forum after all. But i suppose that would get off the basic atheist talking points and actually examine the issues in depth. That is never a good thing for your side of the argument is it?
..........................................

It's a bit pointless in my view to try to understand the past in such detail when we seemingly have enough evidence of what religions have done, or have had done in their name.
We have enough evidence but it is POINTLESS to try and understand it..... and you are saying this on a debate platform....right. It is the SEEMING evidence that needs to be discussed.... oh right that is pointless.
.............................................
What's the real cause in anything? Perhaps an originating belief that was wrong - even if done for the best of intentions?

What's the real cause in anything.... that's what we were trying to work out. You have been very vocal claiming religion is the major cause now it's "who can know these things". Well if we could isolate the beliefs and intentions, which we can, then a debate on this debating platform could be had.
................................................

So in your opinion the claim that religion has caused war must be accepted as fact and any attempt to understand the context is irrelevant and impossible. In that case......I rescind my offer to meet you at 33.33% and reaffirm my initial contention that Politics is the cause and religion is the tool used to move the populace in up to 95% of cases. As we can not in your opinion quantify responsibility, as long as i acknowledge religious involvement in violence you are the one who needs to prove degree.
................................................
I was expecting you to backtrack somewhat from your admission that nationality and culture were equally if not more to blame for violence but the scale of the walk back is breathtaking.

 

[Augustus]

Coming back to this - if we had a product that had a one in ten or one in twenty failure rate (here, religion causing as much bad as good - as in conflict), then I think any sensible person would have a redesign of this product. This is not an acceptable failure rate - in my view - especially when it is often fronted as being 'the only way'.

One school of thought seems to be that modern secular liberalism and scientific rationalism are inevitable, and thus we should identify what things prevented these form arising sooner.

Another sees that these are anything but inevitable, and thus seeks to identify the specific and contingent beliefs and historical circumstances that caused them to arise.

Which one are you closer to?

I doubt few would be that bothered what any individual chooses to believe or how they would want to worship their particular entity as long as it didn't interfere too much with others

This is a very modern view. In ancient Greece, an idiot was someone who wanted to live a private life and dance to the beat of their own drum.

Traditional societies have been collectivist.

I think religion is often a greater motivator (for some) to action since it often is such a fundamental aspect of their lives. Which belief tends to be the one least amenable to change so often?

Well some resistance to change is not necessarily a bad thing if it prevents worse ideas emerging.

As for motivation, any passionately held ideology does the same. Even something as benign as environmentalism or animal rights can turn people into eco-terrorists.

Possibly because more is at stake for any individual - whatever rewards/punishments they believe in during their life and also any possible afterlife if believed. Does anything else really compare with this? And of course, many are not amenable to debate concerning their religious belief but instead will just quote scripture at one in defence.

Again, any ideology that subsumes the individual in pursuit of a collective goal does the same.

For example, the first suicide bombers were Marxists

Snapshots of history are often misleading such that one could point to any period in time to back up one's views.

That was my point

 

[Mock Turtle]

The ironic thing is that people who are most critical of religion and its role in human history generally criticise it because it has caused outcomes that are inimical to modern, Western secular liberalism which itself owes a massive debt to Christianity. This has long been recognised by the more astute atheist intellectuals like Nietzsche, Marx, Condorcet who each proposed new sources of morality.

Doubly ironic is that the same people also tend to bemoan the decline of the classical Graeco-Roman world as a bad thing despite these values being truly alien to the modern humanist (humans are fundamentally unequal, no sanctity of life, no concept of individual rights and contempt for individualism, no concept of the secular, no real concept of a universal humanity, contempt for the weak, etc.)

But Christianity didn't borrow from the past? There seems to be varied opinions as to this.

This is a fair point. Universal belief systems bring both benefits and problems.

As you note, monotheisms create the idea of a universal truth and thus a concept of heresy. In terms of inflexibility, religious rules have been far less set in stone than is commonly imagined, but being on the wrong side of them has often not been a nice place to be.

I don't think you can prevent any mass belief system from fragmenting, but some deal with the effects better than other, and monotheism is generally not among the better.

it just tends to tell me that religions are rather natural and something to be expected, but not necessarily true and without some rather large complications.

 

[Mock Turtle]

One school of thought seems to be that modern secular liberalism and scientific rationalism are inevitable, and thus we should identify what things prevented these from arising sooner.

Another sees that these are anything but inevitable, and thus seeks to identify the specific and contingent beliefs and historical circumstances that caused them to arise.

Which one are you closer to?

I suppose the former (of course), since what we have today (in striving for various freedoms and in our scientific understanding) was always there to be discovered. I can't really imagine an alternative universe where non-truth was what ruled. And for myself, I do tend to see religions holding back scientific progress although I know there are different viewpoints on this and contributions made.

Well some resistance to change is not necessarily a bad thing if it prevents worse ideas emerging.

As for motivation, any passionately held ideology does the same. Even something as benign as environmentalism or animal rights can turn people into eco-terrorists.

This is true, but in the past has anything else been so potent?

Again, any ideology that subsumes the individual in pursuit of a collective goal does the same.

For example, the first suicide bombers were Marxists

One man's suicide bomber is another man's executioner - as in, all the religious executions because of heresy, blasphemy, etc. Any difference?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't think things work that way. You agree that religious divisions have caused much violence - and still does - do we have to go about quantifying it?
Well i agreed to 33.33% just to get us started at some agreed point and that i'd argue down from there but apparently it doesn't work that way. It is actually very easy to qualify in many cases, that's why i offered to do it. It is a debate forum after all. But i suppose that would get off the basic atheist talking points and actually examine the issues in depth. That is never a good thing for your side of the argument is it?

Well the thread is about morals more than about the deeds or misdeeds of religions.

It's a bit pointless in my view to try to understand the past in such detail when we seemingly have enough evidence of what religions have done, or have had done in their name.
We have enough evidence but it is POINTLESS to try and understand it..... and you are saying this on a debate platform....right. It is the SEEMING evidence that needs to be discussed.... oh right that is pointless.
.............................................
What's the real cause in anything? Perhaps an originating belief that was wrong - even if done for the best of intentions?

What's the real cause in anything.... that's what we were trying to work out. You have been very vocal claiming religion is the major cause now it's "who can know these things". Well if we could isolate the beliefs and intentions, which we can, then a debate on this debating platform could be had.

I never have claimed that religions are the major cause of conflict - just enough to have caused major problems in our societies and between nations. And it might have been avoidable - that is what I might claim.

So in your opinion the claim that religion has caused war must be accepted as fact and any attempt to understand the context is irrelevant and impossible. In that case......I rescind my offer to meet you at 33.33% and reaffirm my initial contention that Politics is the cause and religion is the tool used to move the populace in up to 95% of cases. As we can not in your opinion quantify responsibility, as long as i acknowledge religious involvement in violence you are the one who needs to prove degree.
................................................
I was expecting you to backtrack somewhat from your admission that nationality and culture were equally if not more to blame for violence but the scale of the walk back is breathtaking.

No religious text then assigns values to others or to their own propositions? And any followers of such are free to choose as they will to believe/disbelieve such? I must have got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. I can see Muslims and Jews embracing and chanting how they love each other and it was all a gross misunderstanding. And the next in line will be - let's see, India and Pakistan, they may not even go to war against each other - that would be such a minor issue after all - and nothing to do with religion.

 

[Cloverfield]

I am objective morals and my heart feels truths , human strengths and the weakness we all have in us .

BE INSPIRED !

 

[Raymann]

I Think this is what you fail to understand.
God is the objective concept. not its morals.

Yes, you are right, I fail to see how God can be an objective concept.
How can God be an objective concept?
Even the most fanatic religious person cannot prove God exists, therefore, it is still a belief based on faith.
A belief based on faith is a subjective belief and therefore God should remain a subjective concept.