Religion and Individualism

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Thanks, yeah it does clear up a bit. I feel like I knew that at one point but forgot it. Still, it would be hard to love something you don't know or don't believe in fully. How is the word "love" supposed to be applied here?

When I encountered God, I didn't believe in him fully and I didn't know him. I doubt that I loved him; I certainly didn't love him as I do now. I don't know what RÃ*an would say, but I'd advise knowing before loving. From my personal experience, that's the order it goes in (though maybe it goes differently for other people). If you look at the book of Acts, you'll see that the Christians spoke of a God that they didn't just believe in, but experienced powerfully. God still speaks to people and acts through them powerfully. He can be known, just as physical people can be known. I suggest asking God to come into your life.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Gah, most of the trouble with religion is that everything about it can be interpereted so many ways, and the outsider can't tell which way is right.
To quote Dougal McGuire from 'Father Ted', "that's the great thing about Catholicism: it's so vague that nobody really knows what it's all about."

Ask God to teach you the truth about himself, and to answer your questions. It says in the scripture, "ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you." I know from personal experience that even from a state of unbelief and uncertainty, one can be given experiential knowledge and then will tumble into love.

Will you pray, with me, that God will show you which religion he is to be found in and that you will encounter him?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by katya

Yeah, but my view of "the same" or what happened before is too much influenced by my mom's ramblings so I'm just going to start now. I *could* go back to his actions in the past and interpret those from my own unique POV, but I figured it'd be just as well to start fresh. It's more fair, and more useful to me to know current things rather than old news. ...or something.^^

I'm glad to see anyone think fairly and carefully about anything Too many people don't think!

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Thanks, yeah it does clear up a bit. I feel like I knew that at one point but forgot it. Still, it would be hard to love something you don't know or don't believe in fully. How is the word "love" supposed to be applied here?

I've grown in love for God thru the years. I've been a Christian for about 30-some years now. Just as with my husband, I didn't love him the instant I met him - I grew in my love for him as I got to know him better.

Gah, most of the trouble with religion is that everything about it can be interpereted so many ways, and the outsider can't tell which way is right.

I disagree that "everything about it can be interpereted so many ways" - frankly, I think things like "love your neighbor as yourself" are pretty darn clear

To quote Dougal McGuire from 'Father Ted', "that's the great thing about Catholicism: it's so vague that nobody really knows what it's all about."

I disagree strongly with some aspects of Catholicism. If you feel like reading a book on my recommendation (it's fairly short, but definitely not "easy" reading), try "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. One of the things that I like about Lewis is that he is a clear and logical thinker, and unafraid to tackle tough questions. One flaw in Catholicism, IMO, is that it doesn't promote individual thinking and opinions and personal "tackling" of questions as much as I think is appropriate and healthy. A person that holds ANY worldview, whether it be Catholicism, non-Catholic Christianity, atheism, Buddhism, etc. without thought does NO service to himself/herself or to the worldview. Belief without thought is NOT faith; it's foolishness (IMHO).

[BeardofPants]

[small aside]I LOVE FATHER TED!!![/small aside]

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

[small aside]I LOVE FATHER TED!!![/small aside]

[MRS DOYLE]would you like a cup of tea father?[/MRS DOYLE]

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

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.

I totally, wholehartedly agree with this statement.
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)

[inked]

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?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Your ethics are completely self-derived, TWFM? Your morals also? How can you be sure that you haven't picked up ideas outside yourself?

I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking whether I think I am the first on the planet to come up with the ethical claims that I make, my answer is NO! Some of it I heard from others; some of it I read about in books; some it I came up originally; some of it I just resystematized.
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)

Originally Posted by inked

And, if you are so assured, what makes your system superior to all others,

I use my brain; my brain is far from perfect and downright wrong on occasion, but it is still the best brain I have ever met in my life or read about (no this statement has not been certified by any outside authority).

Originally Posted by inked

particularly those with a longer history than yours, or more adherents?

There are too many examples of ideas (or systems of ideas) held for centuries and by entire masses of people that have been proven wrong to give to history or number of adherents too much weight

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking whether I think I am the first on the planet to come up with the ethical claims that I make, my answer is NO! Some of it I heard from others; some of it I read about in books; some it I came up originally; some of it I just resystematized.
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)


I use my brain; my brain is far from perfect and downright wrong on occasion, but it is still the best brain I have ever met in my life or read about (no this statement has not been certified by any outside authority).


There are too many examples of ideas (or systems of ideas) held for centuries and by entire masses of people that have been proven wrong to give to history or number of adherents too much weight

TWFM,

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.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

What, pray tell, is the basis for your judgments amongst them?

My judgement is based on what I truly feel being the ethical decision. Although I am sure some external observer could examine everysingle judgement I make and try to find consistency patters (and for sure there are), ultimately it is what I feel is right that I choose. That's why this answer sits in this thread "... and individualism"

Originally Posted by inked

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.

Well, the list of scientific theories that have been proved wrong is so long that i certainly don't know them all, and I sure you can come up with examples too.
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
...

[Insidious Rex]

and dont forget gays should never be allowed to marry. oh wait... sorry... Im getting ahead of myself.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and dont forget gays should never be allowed to marry. oh wait... sorry... Im getting ahead of myself.

..

[inked]

TWFM,

Which feeling? and does it change with the feeling?
horny?
hungry?
sad?
happy?
indigestion?
anxiety?
happiness?
fear?

As to your second series:
the status of women and children in society have changed as society has chosen to emphasize their persons, but the change is alsways towards the ideal of personhood with legal rights and responsibilities; it is in fact the self-existent morality to which this appeal was made and on the basis of it that the changes were argued. The moral status did not change. The treatment of those persons did in response to the moral argument.

natives of Africa and South America and North America, too, not to leave out the Polynesians and all non-Westerners, but it was the argument from self-existent morals that changed the societal perceptions.

the morality of what I take you mean by the Levirite law was that the man's family was responsible for the welfare of the widow and her long term care, which involved children to provide for her care, and also a duty to preserve the dead man's line of inheritance; this is clearly a moral duty to provide for extended family and one mode of its fulfilment. That particular social practice has been laid aside, true, but not the moral duty to accomplish the goals at which it was aimed. So we have a change in mode, not meaning, wouldn't you say?

as to prostitutes being killed by stoning, check your recent European history in regard to Islam, I think you will still be assured of its practice within European borders. On the other hand, you most likely mean the Western practice has discontinued that punishment, but that is a change of means;
prostitutes are still regulated by law, though the practice is unhealthy both before and since AIDS/HIV (and the long list of STD's). But in Western civilization one would say that the appeal to the higher morality was that the practice did not deserve death by violence (apart form the johns, of course) and so the practice stopped by an appeal to a higher understanding of morality.

In each of these cases we do not have a change of morality but a shift in emphasis of existing morality to justify altered socieal norms.

So, where are the "new" moral values you allege?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

TWFM,
Which feeling? and does it change with the feeling?
horny?
hungry?
sad?
happy?
indigestion?
anxiety?
happiness?
fear?

I call it ethics as I truly feel. In a way similar to the one in which you (if I understand correctly) put a god (the existance of whom you claim, but I don't recognize) as originary, I put my own feeling as originary. Yes, my ethical feeling can on occasion be momentarily clowded by some of the emotions or phisical states that you list, and that is very unfortunate, but from my point of view the choice is between my ethic (fallible, no doubt, but the best around) and taking up at random some other set of norms among those circulating, the validity of any of which set I don't believe in

Originally Posted by inked

As to your second series:
the status of women and children in society have changed as society has chosen to emphasize their persons, but the change is alsways towards the ideal of personhood with legal rights and responsibilities; it is in fact the self-existent morality to which this appeal was made and on the basis of it that the changes were argued. The moral status did not change. The treatment of those persons did in response to the moral argument.

natives of Africa and South America and North America, too, not to leave out the Polynesians and all non-Westerners, but it was the argument from self-existent morals that changed the societal perceptions.

the morality of what I take you mean by the Levirite law was that the man's family was responsible for the welfare of the widow and her long term care, which involved children to provide for her care, and also a duty to preserve the dead man's line of inheritance; this is clearly a moral duty to provide for extended family and one mode of its fulfilment. That particular social practice has been laid aside, true, but not the moral duty to accomplish the goals at which it was aimed. So we have a change in mode, not meaning, wouldn't you say?

as to prostitutes being killed by stoning, check your recent European history in regard to Islam, I think you will still be assured of its practice within European borders. On the other hand, you most likely mean the Western practice has discontinued that punishment, but that is a change of means;
prostitutes are still regulated by law, though the practice is unhealthy both before and since AIDS/HIV (and the long list of STD's). But in Western civilization one would say that the appeal to the higher morality was that the practice did not deserve death by violence (apart form the johns, of course) and so the practice stopped by an appeal to a higher understanding of morality.

In each of these cases we do not have a change of morality but a shift in emphasis of existing morality to justify altered socieal norms.

And now I could spend two hours tring to show to you that you are wrong both ways: 1. the examples I list are foundamental shifts in morals 2. other issues against which you advocated on these boards (in other threads, LGBT, teen sex) are actually not shifts in morals, but natural extensions as these over-aching morals that you postulate.
I won't do that because I see that as a waste of time; if you want to believe that I don't do it because I would be ultimately unable to, you are free to (wrongly) believe so

Originally Posted by inked

So, where are the "new" moral values you allege?

As I said in one of my previous posts the claim of originality is not as important to me as the claim of both thoughtfullness and sense of justice. I will claim that I felt values I had never heard of before I felt them, although others had committed them to paper beforehand in a way or another. If you are then going to claim that I actually had heard of them before I felt them, feel free; even if you were factually right, it would not matter to me because (as I said) orginality is not important to me, "originariety" (if such a word exists in English) is.

Ok, I now deliberately choose 3 of my most controversial examples to answer your question of examples of my ("new", as you call them) moral values:
1. if a person desires to die, he or she should be free to choose no matter what
2. many acts of giving birth are unethical. Choosing not to have babies is often an ethically superior choice to having babies. Although, it is difficult to draw the line precisely, if everybody shared my ethic I doubt there would be any overpopulation problem in the planet
3. cantinuation of the race or extinction of humanity has no moral implications

[inked]

TWFM,

If at any moment I happen to feel vindictive from a surfeit of Italian food and indigestion, and, in that moment of feeling, happen to be so cross with someone as to strike and injure them permanently or kill them, is that wrong or right on your showing of ethics? and Why?

Given your logic above, variation from self-derived ethics on the basis of feeling would appear justified.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

TWFM,
If at any moment I happen to feel vindictive from a surfeit of Italian food and indigestion, and, in that moment of feeling, happen to be so cross with someone as to strike and injure them permanently or kill them, is that wrong or right on your showing of ethics? and Why?

I think I answered above when I wrote

my ethical feeling can on occasion be momentarily clowded by some of the emotions or phisical states that you list, and that is very unfortunate

What I meant is that my choice may be driven by emotions or phisical state but my choice would not necessarily be ethical. My true feelings would not necessarily approve (and would sometimes outright disapprove) of my choice.
I might be extremely angry with person X and might insult him or her, my feeling of anger in the moment are not what I call "my true feelings". My true feelings are what I use when I am pondering what is fair.

Originally Posted by inked

Given your logic above, variation from self-derived ethics on the basis of feeling would appear justified.

Ah, careful, I have never said that what you feel is ethically correct. I know myself, my true deep feelings and I consider them sound ancors (although I might get it wrong on occasion).
I am not proposing my ethic as absolute-god-like-immutable, I am proposing it as best-so-far

[inked]

Then describe the "what is fair" by which you judge your own system.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

2. ... Choosing not to have babies is often an ethically superior choice to having babies.

Please clarify what you mean by "choosing not to have babies". Is it choosing to abstain from things that might cause babies, or killing babies before they exit the womb, or something else?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Then describe the "what is fair" by which you judge your own system.

With all respect, you don't seem to understand what I say, which is understandable because we start from starting-points that are so far apart.
I feel (and here I am using "feel" in a different way) that I have already answered that question

[inked]

TWFM,

If you had made yourself clear, I would not have asked for explanation. As it stands, you assert the validity of your selection of ethical/moral ideas on the basis of your feeling and sense of fair. I think it reasonable that you address those concepts. On the other hand, if they mean what you have said, that they have no basis save in your brain. Following brownjenkins line of reasoning, we now have the brownjenkins standards, the lizra standards, and the TWFM standards. I am at a loss to comprehend how three sets of deterministically arrived chemical structures have evolved systems of ethics/morals and how they inter-relate or even that they should.

Enlighten me.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

TWFM,

If you had made yourself clear, I would not have asked for explanation. As it stands, you assert the validity of your selection of ethical/moral ideas on the basis of your feeling and sense of fair. I think it reasonable that you address those concepts.

I feel stronger than yesterday that you have not understood what I have written. Indeed it would be a reasonable question, if I did not feel I have already answered at least twice.
Personally, I don't think it is possible for anyone to understand what I say from your standpoit, you have to shed your mental schemes and look closer to what I have written