|
01-21-2005, 04:29 AM | #1 |
Fëanorophobic
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the pages of a book
Posts: 1,417
|
Religion and Individualism
For my English class, we were working on a German novel called Demian by Herman Hesse. This novel invited us "not to consider prohibited anything the soul desires" and to find our own morality since "evil is always changing". We were discussing the novel one day and one of my classmates said that he thought that people who follow religion just choose the easy way out. IOW, they wait for religion to teach them morals instead of finding them out for themselves. His comment seems to suggest a view that following religion makes you less of an individual, that (to quote Bop's sig.) "morality is the herd instinct in the individual". Now, I completely refuse this reasoning, but I just wanted to know what you guys think about it. To what extent can religion and individualism co-exist? How far does it apply to your religion; or, if you have no religion, what is your opinion on the matter?
Last edited by Beren3000 : 01-21-2005 at 11:00 AM. |
01-21-2005, 04:38 AM | #2 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Excellent topic, sir.
Personally, I kind of agree with the idea (though I am clear that many religious people are not doing this), but that is probably because I agree that morality etc come from ourselves and not from any deity. Another aspect to the question is how much individualism is valued within a specific religion and how that affects our culture. As we know, the Reformation challenged the hierarchical orthodoxy of the Catholic Church and helped lead to the rise of individualism in the West. Finally we've got the question of how religion is in fact a very effective means of transmitting "moral knowledge" and ensuring that we all behave ourselves. Maybe we're not ready as a species for truly individual morality (though personally I think that we are). |
01-21-2005, 07:51 AM | #3 | |
Fëanorophobic
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the pages of a book
Posts: 1,417
|
Just a few points:
-I'm not personally against the idea of individual morality, but IMO, it doesn't rule out the existence of evil. There is such a thing as BAD, so if you try to universalize individual morality, the immediate result will be the abolition of all constitution and the "bad" people will have a field day. Quote:
More later, I gtg now. |
|
01-21-2005, 08:24 AM | #4 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Well I guess we'll have to agree to differ about evil.
But how would "universalising individual morality" lead to the abolition of all constitution? My view about individual morality is not a prescription but description: an opinion based on observation and thinking. Individual morality is, IMO, a fact of life and it hasn't led to "abolition of all constitution. |
01-21-2005, 10:56 AM | #5 |
The Intermittent One
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here and there
Posts: 4,671
|
nice topic, beren, best let Brownie, Rian, Inked, Lief, Lizra and Nurvi know about it, then we will have some excellent discussion
in my opinion, morality is individuality, you define your concepts personally, howerver, you may draw on a religious context if necessary, such as i base my belief system on that of the teachings of the buddha. |
01-21-2005, 10:59 AM | #6 | |||
Fëanorophobic
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the pages of a book
Posts: 1,417
|
Quote:
Quote:
EDIT: Cross-post with LCoU Quote:
Last edited by Beren3000 : 01-21-2005 at 11:04 AM. |
|||
01-21-2005, 11:56 AM | #7 | |
The Intermittent One
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here and there
Posts: 4,671
|
Quote:
ie it is possible for one to encompass the other, and vice versa, it is just a human rarity |
|
01-21-2005, 10:59 AM | #8 | |
I am Freddie/UNDERCOVER/ Founder of The Great Continent of Entmoot
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Plainsboro, NJ
Posts: 9,431
|
Quote:
Whether you believe in a god or not - your morality is strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian principals if you live in the west. This is the culture that is predominate here. That is why In the US or in Europe - peopel don't throw acid on a woman for looking at a man or having sex out of wedlock. While in other parts of the world - it's condoned. Society - whether it's through religion or through secular laws is solely what defines morality. If we condoned cannibolism tomorrow - inititially - because of the culture - people would still not feel comfortable eating another human being. But as time wore on - the morality would change because more people would find it acceptable as the old belief gave way to the new. Whether you like it or not - it's the group (society) that defines morality - not the individual.
__________________
Come back! Come back! To Mordor we will take you! "The only thing better than a great plan is implementing a great plan" - JerseyDevil "If everyone agreed with me all the time, everything would be just fine"- JerseyDevil AboutNewJersey.com New Jersey MessageBoard Another Tolkien Forum Memorial to the Twin Towers New Jersey Map Fellowship of the Messageboard Legend of the Jersey Devil Support New Jersey's Liberty Tower Peacefire.org AboutNewJersey.com - New Jersey Travel and Tourism Guide Last edited by jerseydevil : 01-21-2005 at 11:01 AM. |
|
01-21-2005, 11:06 AM | #9 | |
Fëanorophobic
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the pages of a book
Posts: 1,417
|
Quote:
Last edited by Beren3000 : 01-21-2005 at 11:07 AM. |
|
01-21-2005, 01:28 PM | #10 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Quote:
But enough agreeing: I disagree about Law. It is nothing of the sort. Quote:
We have laws, and we may have moral reasons for having them, and they may well embody aspects of our morality, but morals themselves don't exist outside of our heads. We can only be said to have a "group-defined morality" insofar as we can negotiate them with our peers. Once agreed (or rather, learned, since so much is embedded in our respective culture as you point out), each person relates differently and inconsistently to the agreed "group morality" (or else why do people exceed the speed limit but still think of themselves as a "good person"). The strength of religion, as I said, has been in mediating this communication. From a social anthropological perspective, religion facilitates the negotiation, agreement and implementation of collective morality. Last edited by The Gaffer : 01-21-2005 at 01:30 PM. |
||
01-21-2005, 01:43 PM | #11 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
02-09-2005, 12:18 PM | #12 | |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
I am an atheist; yet I consider myself a very strongly ethical person. I often consider myself a more ethical person than those who just read their ethic out of a book. My ethical perspective is very different from the one of religious people, not just in what is right or wrong, but in the way in which I consider the concept of "wrong". I might for instance reverse my judgement on occasion (which is a "no, no, no" for religion, as far as I understand it) |
|
02-09-2005, 11:15 PM | #13 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Your ethics are completely self-derived, TWFM? Your morals also? How can you be sure that you haven't picked up ideas outside yourself? And, if you are so assured, what makes your system superior to all others, particularly those with a longer history than yours, or more adherents?
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 Last edited by inked : 02-09-2005 at 11:16 PM. |
02-09-2005, 11:42 PM | #14 | |||
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
If instead what you are asking is how can I be sure that it is not indeed the holy gost or the the devil who speak through my mouth, then I will tell you that I can't be sure, but that (given that I don't believe in them) I don't belive so. What is unique about my ethical view is that I scrutinized all of it to the best of my ability by using my brain; I don't exect this scrutiny to be final and I see it as perfectly possible that I will change some of my positions (albeit I expect that this will happen very rearly) Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by The Wizard from Milan : 02-10-2005 at 12:38 AM. |
|||
02-10-2005, 12:04 PM | #15 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Quote:
Thanks for your answers. You have an assembled ethics and morality which is selected by you from among a roster of choices you say. That puts you in the position of being above all systems and in judgment of them. What, pray tell, is the basis for your judgments amongst them? I do not deny that you use your brain in the process, nor do I question that it is the best you have met in your life, granting that brains transplants are not possible and you have only the one like everyone else! Exactly what examples of your contention that ideas have been proven wrong? As stated I do not know if you refer to ethics, morals, scientific paradigms, or theories of social structure. I am particularly interested in the examples that you say exist for ethics or morals.
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
|
02-10-2005, 01:09 PM | #16 | ||
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
Quote:
Examples of previous ethical norms that are now considered morally-wrong are: 1) women and minors are not humans 2) natives of south america are not humans 3) if one of two brothers dies married and childless, the other brother must make the woman pregnant 4) prostituted should be killed by stoning ... |
||
10-20-2010, 01:19 AM | #17 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
*headdesk* I love math! (never was good at history... )
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
10-20-2010, 01:27 AM | #18 |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Looks like I'm thinking of Alexander Nevsky, who fought both Teutonic Knights and Swedish invaders. Oops.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
10-25-2010, 12:18 PM | #19 |
The Dude
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: at the altar of my ego
Posts: 1,685
|
The Poverty of Agnosticism?
For some reason i recently read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It was a massive bore frankly, and his attempts at humour were lame as... One thing i did find slightly interesting was his so called atheist stance.
I knew the old moot stomping ground would have discussed it, and in my quick search i saw they had quite recently in the multiculturalist thread. I didnt want to include this there since it seems nothing to do with multiculturalism. Granted i didnt read much of that thread (gimme a break its like 20 pages) so if it has been covered already, sorry. I had trouble grasping Dawkins agnostic/atheist distinction. For those fortunate not to have read, he introduces probability to the god question and defines 7 distinct groups that go. 1. Strong theist - Knows God 2. High probability but short of 100% - De facto theist 3. Higher than 50% but not very high. 4. 50% either way 5. Lower than 50% but not very low 6. Low probability but short of zero - De facto atheist 7. Strong atheist - Knows there is no God Now in my understanding 1 = theist; 2->6 = agnostic; 7 = Atheist... and you see my dilemma. Are the atheists here those Dick de factos? Whats wrong with agnosticism?
__________________
Ill heal your wounds, ill set you free, Last edited by Millane : 10-25-2010 at 12:22 PM. |
10-25-2010, 12:46 PM | #20 |
Cardboard Harp of Gondor Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IM IN UR POSTZ, EDITIN' UR WURDZ
Posts: 6,433
|
I have moved the thread here, so that we don't have too many religion threads running rampant.
|