tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1086764876629036045.post6541248600343385903..comments2023-10-06T06:29:02.689-04:00Comments on A Bright Cape: It's not my faultSkyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10723733406348223879noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1086764876629036045.post-84972695603501434352010-12-29T10:46:51.924-05:002010-12-29T10:46:51.924-05:00I think that the very fact of having a discussion ...I think that the very fact of having a discussion about how to teach morality to the masses is a demonstration of why religion is not morally useful. Someone who thinks they are not part of the masses is really in no position to talk about morality meaningfully.<br /><br />When you are three and you hit someone and an adult says, "Well, how would you feel if someone hit you?" you don't have an in depth understanding of philosophy or of religion, you haven't surrendered your reason to anything, and yet you manage to understand.<br /><br />Religions are the moral equivalents of planned economies. No person, or group of people, is capable of rationally reasoning out rules for behaving morally. We are mostly capable of making pretty good moral decisions for ourselves (I think we are better at morality than economics), but we need the emergent intelligence of the entire society to actually come up with reasonable ways of dealing with the complexity that arises in moral decision making.<br /><br />So religion has something going for it. It has been around a long time, and the people who are preaching about it have a huge tradition to draw on. Also, it is to their credit that many religious leaders don't think they have all the answers and that it is better to rely on the wisdom of others. This can be an application rather than a surrender of reason - much the same way that letting markets set prices is more rational than devising your own scheme.<br /><br />But simply sitting back and conveying the wisdom of the crowd is hardly a good picture of what religions do. Pat Robertson doesn't go on TV and call for assassinations because he is in tune with our common wisdom about right and wrong. Moreover, for every person who is humbled by the idea of God there is a person who thinks that they are personally blessed by God and that God justifies their actions. If belief in God has a correlation to being egotistical, we don't know whether it is positive or negative, but I'd wager heavily it is very small.<br /><br />I just keep going back to the idea that religion seems to have nothing to do with morality. Whether someone is religious or not is not really an indicator of whether they are moral or not. The fact that there are virtually no atheists in prison probably has way more to do with an third cause like education.Sthennohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05429676469805661834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1086764876629036045.post-30191234495656852502010-12-27T16:42:41.143-05:002010-12-27T16:42:41.143-05:00Science is not internally consistent either or rea...Science is not internally consistent either or really reachable by logic. Our conditions for science is that it is repeatability and the ability to predict (and explain) observed data. Quantum mechanics completely blows away any real understanding of physics as we understand it. Does that mean what we teach at high schools is purely mumbo jumbo and useless and engineers and mechanics who use that physics are simply blindly following a faith that they know nothing about?<br /><br />The tenets of religion _are_ reachable by reason. The unfortunate truth is that people claim that religion is an all or nothing deal... Either you accept all portions of it or none at all. That kind of expectation is unreasonable for any belief system, but sadly religion is held to that far more often then any other belief.<br /><br />What needs to be considered is that religion is a societal construct. The scriptures are works of people and if you are trying to judge the religion, then they need to be studied with that lens. You cannot try to literally read the Bible and say that God said X and since we now find that morally reprehensible that the Bible has no values. There has to be a context applied to it, and you are deliberately trying to remove it.<br /><br />I'm not claiming that religions are infallible or that their insistence of a deity can be fully fathomed. But I see little difference between that and the assumption underlying quantum mechanics in that the randomness is "pure". Obviously we cannot test the randomness (since every measurement we take will skew the sample) so we must believe that it is in fact random. Whether or not the randomness is artificial or natural really has no bearing in the science's understanding, nor does the existence (or non-existence) of a deity remove the moral teachings of religion.Bungnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1086764876629036045.post-26142866894109471422010-12-27T12:42:18.979-05:002010-12-27T12:42:18.979-05:00Here is the thing Bung: If religion does not requ...Here is the thing Bung: If religion does not require the surrender of reason then the tenets of the religion must be reachable by reason. There are two possibilities here: One is that the religion you refer to is a religion that is logically deducible and internally consistent. This does not describe any religion I have ever heard of, and I would be eager for you to tell me of a religion that follows these characteristics. The other possibility is that the religion you speak of is not internally consistent and reachable by logic, in which case believing in it *does* require surrender of reason. <br /><br />Note that plenty of intelligent people are religious. Plenty of intelligent people believe they can beat the slot machines in vegas, or that they are a better than average driver, or any number of other things. I am not saying that anyone who believes in religion is stupid, I am arguing that belief in religion requires believing in things that are not believable from a logical reasoning standpoint. <br /><br />I agree that if everyone had to understand physics to drive a car that things would be crazy. I have no idea what that has to do with morality, or reaching a personal understanding of it. I do think that you are right that many/most people aren't interested in philosophy and want rules to follow. Supplying those rules is a useful thing to do, but why is there any reason to mix those rules up with supernatural nonsense? You don't need God to think it is a bad idea to kill people, so why bring God into it at all?Skyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10723733406348223879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1086764876629036045.post-70276690278571608032010-12-27T01:52:02.929-05:002010-12-27T01:52:02.929-05:00Such formality! Bah! Morals are very simple and d...Such formality! Bah! Morals are very simple and don't require religion, you would just prefer it that way. And surrendering of reason is very a much a requirement. You can't logically deduce that the major religions of the world have ultimate truths. It's man-made words in books that have no real basis. It's fiction, and unnecessary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1086764876629036045.post-8643082079962908602010-12-26T12:37:52.207-05:002010-12-26T12:37:52.207-05:00I have to agree with the Actuary here, religion is...I have to agree with the Actuary here, religion is actually a fantastic way of teaching morality. The problem occurs when people disagree with what morality is. This difference in beliefs can lead to some very nasty situations, especially in religions who feel it is their necessity to spread their morality to others.<br /><br />Nor do I think religion requires a surrendering of reasoning. I know a lot of very intelligent and very religious people... the question is how do you approach the masses? Not everyone can understand morality at its fundamental level (philosophy) but instead simply need rules to follow. Religion provides this for those, and those who prefer philosophy are allowed to do so. The expectation that everyone needs to come to their own personal understanding would lead to chaos... could you imagine what the world would be like if people had to understand physics or mechanics to drive a car? Morality is a societal construct and is taught to maintain society as a whole.Bungnoreply@blogger.com