[NuclearFusion]

I meant to say 'hence why they would want an abortion...'

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by NuclearFusion)
I think the point is that people should be free to do things, provided that those things do not have a negative impact on other people. Which is why murder is wrong, because obviously is has a negative impact on the victim and their family. Whereas things like gay marriage, gay adoption, mixed race marriage (yes, a republican senator proposed that mixed race marriages should be illegal) etc. have no such negative impact on others. Abortion is a little bit more in the middle, because it could be argued that it does in fact have a negative impact on the baby, but as for the other things I mentioned, this is not true.

As a side note, I do actually support abortion, because if a child is born unwanted, it is very unlikely to have a good standard of life, it will likely grow up being resented by its mother. The mother is unlikely to be capable of raising a child as well, hence why they would want an adoption. So for me, life itself isn't enough by itself to justify an unhappy existence for both the mother (or parents) and the child. However, I can see why people might be against it, however, there are no such rational arguments against things like mixed race marriages etc.
\

See post no. 38 of this thread, where I reply to this same point someone made earlier. This is a vast oversimplification.

In our society, we usually consider ourselves free to do certain things even if they have a negative impact on someone else. For example, a man is free to divorce his wife even if his children are negatively affected by it. McDonalds is free to build a restaurant next to Burger King, even if Burger King is negatively affected by it.
We also prohibit others from doing certain things, even if they don't necessarily negatively affect anyone else. For example, we prohibit taking organs from dead people who didn't sign the donor register - though I don't see how that negatively affects anyone else. We don't consider it acceptable for homeless people to temporarily squat in other people's houses, even if they leave it in the state they found it. We don't allow people to walk around naked in public. We don't allow incest - even if the couple is infertile.

Would you also be willing to apply the same "harm principle" to all of these examples? Or would you concede that some things are acceptable even if they harm others, and some things are unacceptable even though they don't harm anyone else?

[TheGrinningSkull]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
The difference is, religion advocates policy based on authority and absolutism, whereas people like Dawkins advocate policy based on reason and consequentialism. If anything, the secular 'new atheism' movement is calling for a radical decentralisation of power, so that we can form a set of moral rules based on logic and reason, rather than the authority of scripture and religion.

An eye for an eye sounds logical, and a person taking the law into their own hands may sound logical to them and their moral compass.

At what point do rules and morality become objective?

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by TheGrinningSkull)
An eye for an eye sounds logical, and a person taking the law into their own hands may sound logical to them and their moral compass.

At what point do rules and morality become objective?

I'm not saying our morality should be subjective to each person's personal views; simply that a common moral code should be determined from rationalism, rather than simply the authority of religion.

[noisy06]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
I'm not saying our morality should be subjective to each person's personal views; simply that a common moral code should be determined from rationalism, rather than simply the authority of religion.

What do you mean by "rationalism" and why does it take precedent over religion? Is there objective evidence that "rationalism" should be taken as a "moral code"?

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by noisy06)
What do you mean by "rationalism" and why does it take precedent over religion? Is there objective evidence that "rationalism" should be taken as a "moral code"?

Working out the consequences of our actions, and basing our moral code on reason is always more effective than taking our moral code on authority/religion. There is no reason that we should be following morals because they are given by the 'authority' of scripture - the idea that we believe because something or someone tells us to believe. And as for the evidence - it stems mainly from the evidence against using a system of absolute moral authority found in religion; the authority that states homosexuals should be stoned to death, and that people who work on the Sabbath should be killed, and that disobedient children should be killed too.

Obviously, very few people take these rules seriously now, but imagine what would happen if religious authority were the sole way to determine our morality.

[noisy06]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
Working out the consequences of our actions, and basing our moral code on reason is always more effective than taking our moral code on authority/religion. There is no reason that we should be following morals because they are given by the 'authority' of scripture - the idea that we believe because something or someone tells us to believe. And as for the evidence - it stems mainly from the evidence against using a system of absolute moral authority found in religion; the authority that states homosexuals should be stoned to death, and that people who work on the Sabbath should be killed, and that disobedient children should be killed too.

Obviously, very few people take these rules seriously now, but imagine what would happen if religious authority were the sole way to determine our morality.

No, that isn't more effective. And secondly, human rational and logic is dangerous in its own right. Consequences is a minor aspect people don't really consider unless it affects them, there is no such thing as "what if it were to happen to me" attitude in human logic or rationalism, the stronger more powerful individual considers himself or herself to be in a position to act in their own best interests, regardless of its effects on others. You are making the mistake of assuming that everyone will accept the idea of basing laws upon consequences (of which there is a great divide originally, what is a good consequence to some might not be acceptable for others).

You open a huge can of worms in challenging religious doctrine such as homosexuals being stoned to death. This is in fact a theological argument first and foremost. Picture this: Imagine Angels descend from within the shadows of the clouds one day and land on every continent in an amazing manner. And then the Angels say that they came on behalf of God Himself, the Almighty, the All-Wise. And everyone is stunned and amazed and accepts their statement. But then the Angels say that God wants homosexuals to be stoned to death. What now? Is there even a choice?

Can you see that this is not a round the table discussion? It's important to realize that when a relgious person claims that their holy book says such and such, that means they think it comes from the Divine. If you think something comes from the Divine, no amount of human logic or rational can overcome what you believe is God's word. So there's no point invoking logic or rational at all. In other words, the only reason why you believe that stoning homosexuals to death is wrong is because you don't accept that this is God's word. If you did accept it to be God's word, then you wouldn't be in a position to reject this ruling in the first place. Don't get theology tangled up with rational please.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by RobertWhite)
I respect people's view if they believe in a religion, but what I find intolerable is people believing their personal beliefs should be inflicted upon everyone else; this is especially a problem in the USA. For example, if you don't believe abortion is right, then fine, don't have one, but why should that view be enforced upon someone else?

OR

You don't agree in gay marriage? Fine, don't have one. But if gay people want to, why shouldn't they? Yes, people argue it's a religious thing and God doesn't agree with gay people (an extremely antiquated view in my opinion), but it's still a view, an opinion, and marriage isn't just a religious thing any more.


This can be said for a countless number of other things, such as euthanasia. So, are these views influenced by religion or would they still exist without it? Thoughts?



-I'm aware this is a much larger problem in other countries. I'm talking about Christian ones in this thread.

Any opinions, values, beliefs, and indeed sometimes "facts" are forced on people, either directly or indirectly. This is not limited to religion. What we believe is usually a direct result of what other people in close proximity or in high esteem themselves believe.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by noisy06)
No, that isn't more effective. And secondly, human rational and logic is dangerous in its own right. Consequences is a minor aspect people don't really consider unless it affects them, there is no such thing as "what if it were to happen to me" attitude in human logic or rationalism, the stronger more powerful individual considers himself or herself to be in a position to act in their own best interests, regardless of its effects on others. You are making the mistake of assuming that everyone will accept the idea of basing laws upon consequences (of which there is a great divide originally, what is a good consequence to some might not be acceptable for others).

You open a huge can of worms in challenging religious doctrine such as homosexuals being stoned to death. This is in fact a theological argument first and foremost. Picture this: Imagine Angels descend from within the shadows of the clouds one day and land on every continent in an amazing manner. And then the Angels say that they came on behalf of God Himself, the Almighty, the All-Wise. And everyone is stunned and amazed and accepts their statement. But then the Angels say that God wants homosexuals to be stoned to death. What now? Is there even a choice?

Can you see that this is not a round the table discussion? It's important to realize that when a relgious person claims that their holy book says such and such, that means they think it comes from the Divine. If you think something comes from the Divine, no amount of human logic or rational can overcome what you believe is God's word. So there's no point invoking logic or rational at all. In other words, the only reason why you believe that stoning homosexuals to death is wrong is because you don't accept that this is God's word. If you did accept it to be God's word, then you wouldn't be in a position to reject this ruling in the first place. Don't get theology tangled up with rational please.

Well that sounds like a good argument for disenfranchising the religious, certainly.

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by noisy06)
No, that isn't more effective. And secondly, human rational and logic is dangerous in its own right. Consequences is a minor aspect people don't really consider unless it affects them, there is no such thing as "what if it were to happen to me" attitude in human logic or rationalism, the stronger more powerful individual considers himself or herself to be in a position to act in their own best interests, regardless of its effects on others. You are making the mistake of assuming that everyone will accept the idea of basing laws upon consequences (of which there is a great divide originally, what is a good consequence to some might not be acceptable for others).

You open a huge can of worms in challenging religious doctrine such as homosexuals being stoned to death. This is in fact a theological argument first and foremost. Picture this: Imagine Angels descend from within the shadows of the clouds one day and land on every continent in an amazing manner. And then the Angels say that they came on behalf of God Himself, the Almighty, the All-Wise. And everyone is stunned and amazed and accepts their statement. But then the Angels say that God wants homosexuals to be stoned to death. What now? Is there even a choice?

Can you see that this is not a round the table discussion? It's important to realize that when a relgious person claims that their holy book says such and such, that means they think it comes from the Divine. If you think something comes from the Divine, no amount of human logic or rational can overcome what you believe is God's word. So there's no point invoking logic or rational at all. In other words, the only reason why you believe that stoning homosexuals to death is wrong is because you don't accept that this is God's word. If you did accept it to be God's word, then you wouldn't be in a position to reject this ruling in the first place. Don't get theology tangled up with rational please.

You epitomise the dangers of morality from authority, and completely miss the point. Firstly on "not everyone will accept the idea of basing laws upon consequences" - it doesn't matter how our laws are written, whether it be through authority, or through reasoning. Once the rules are written, it becomes law. Not everyone accepts the law now, and not everyone will follow changes in the law. But once the state instigates the rules, it becomes the law, and people must follow them, or they risk facing the repercussions of breaking the law. Whether people will follow a system of law based on reasoning or not is an irrelevant issue.

Secondly, "human rational and logic is dangerous in its own right"? In comparison to what? The blind and unconditional following of religious leaders and scriptures? There are genuinely good people out there who are convinced that blowing themselves up in an act of martyrdom is actually benefiting society, because their Imam says so, and because they are promised eternal paradise. There are genuinely good people who will go and die for their leaders because they are told to do so. I would rather take reason over blind authority any day.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" - Steven Weinberg.

Thirdly, "if you think something comes from the Divine, no amount of human logic or rational can overcome what you believe is God's word." This is the epitome of the dangers from moral authority. For one, I highly question anyone who says "there's no point invoking logic or rational at all", as it quite insultingly implies that someone else does the thinking, whilst we merely obey as mindless slaves. There is no sense in carrying something out, or believing a belief without first understanding it, and to understand, we must put reason over authority. If I did one day, to my surprise, discover the existence of God, and if he told me to kill my family, would I do it? No, I'd ask him why first, and unless he could justify it, and unless he could explain it to me, then he has no right asking me to do such a thing. Human slavishness is a huge channel for stupidity to manifest itself, whether it comes from religious fanatics, totalitarian leaders, or ultra nationalists, and it needs to be got rid of for the greater good of society.

Of course we should use rationalism to determine what is right. We should never simply say 'this is wrong' because it just is, or because 'something told me to believe this'. Unless we understand what we do, and the reasoning behind it, we shouldn't blindly be following instructions dictated from authority. Not only is that immoral, it is dangerous, and a poison to society.

[noisy06]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
You epitomise the dangers of morality from authority, and completely miss the point. Firstly on "not everyone will accept the idea of basing laws upon consequences" - it doesn't matter how our laws are written, whether it be through authority, or through reasoning. Once the rules are written, it becomes law. Not everyone accepts the law now, and not everyone will follow changes in the law. But once the state instigates the rules, it becomes the law, and people must follow them, or they risk facing the repercussions of breaking the law. Whether people will follow a system of law based on reasoning or not is an irrelevant issue.

Secondly, "human rational and logic is dangerous in its own right"? In comparison to what? The blind and unconditional following of religious leaders and scriptures? There are genuinely good people out there who are convinced that blowing themselves up in an act of martyrdom is actually benefiting society, because their Imam says so, and because they are promised eternal paradise. There are genuinely good people who will go and die for their leaders because they are told to do so. I would rather take reason over blind authority any day.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" - Steven Weinberg.

Thirdly, "if you think something comes from the Divine, no amount of human logic or rational can overcome what you believe is God's word." This is the epitome of the dangers from moral authority. For one, I highly question anyone who says "there's no point invoking logic or rational at all", as it quite insultingly implies that someone else does the thinking, whilst we merely obey as mindless slaves. There is no sense in carrying something out, or believing a belief without first understanding it, and to understand, we must put reason over authority. If I did one day, to my surprise, discover the existence of God, and if he told me to kill my family, would I do it? No, I'd ask him why first, and unless he could justify it, and unless he could explain it to me, then he has no right asking me to do such a thing. Human slavishness is a huge channel for stupidity to manifest itself, whether it comes from religious fanatics, totalitarian leaders, or ultra nationalists, and it needs to be got rid of for the greater good of society.

Of course we should use rationalism to determine what is right. We should never simply say 'this is wrong' because it just is, or because 'something told me to believe this'. Unless we understand what we do, and the reasoning behind it, we shouldn't blindly be following instructions dictated from authority. Not only is that immoral, it is dangerous, and a poison to society.

Thanks for your response. I don't have the time now but I will hopefully respond in the near future. I have big beef with this post of yours, I have major problems with it which I will address. The quote Steven Weinberg is just appalling. I'll justify myself don't worry. Another thing is, the tirade in the last paragraph about religion is basically a big philosophical/theological one. I'm just warning you because once you mess with theology (which includes ipso facto texts that are considered Divine) then theology messes with you!

[S-man10]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
x

Great quote you posted by Weinberg

(Original post by noisy06)
Thanks for your response. I don't have the time now but I will hopefully respond in the near future. I have big beef with this post of yours, I have major problems with it which I will address. The quote Steven Weinberg is just appalling. I'll justify myself don't worry. Another thing is, the tirade in the last paragraph about religion is basically a big philosophical/theological one. I'm just warning you because once you mess with theology (which includes ipso facto texts that are considered Divine) then theology messes with you!

More like you have problems with it but no answer to it?

And Weinberg does speak some sense. Incidentally, your whole previous post contradicted it self quite badly. And don't think theology messes with anyone when it has no basis.

[Hylean]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" - Steven Weinberg.

Hilariously wrong. All it takes for good people to do evil things is a conviction that they are serving some greater good. This can be through a belief in a religion, a political ideology, etc. They can also be made to do evil things through fear and coercion.

For instance, it might be rational to kill a town to save a country, yet killing is still considered evil. Thus morals based on rationalism could lead to acts which are considered "evil" by many, even if there is some greater good. Good men can torture innocent men because they think they are guilty and seek a confession. I could go on.

It's a semi-decent quote, but rolling it out as some kind of world-truth is a bit silly.

In the end, all humans do is try to "enforce" their values onto others. Atheists do it, theists do it, deists do it. It's how we achieve and maintain power. Religion is no more guilty of this than anything else.

[S-man10]

(Original post by Hylean)
In the end, all humans do is try to "enforce" their values onto others. Atheists do it, theists do it, deists do it. It's how we achieve and maintain power. Religion is no more guilty of this than anything else.

It funny, this argument, which is being stated without any valid reasoning. Explain how the non-religious "enforce" values as a means to achieve power when the actually message is simply "think for oneself", which then leads to different lines of thought. And when lines of thought are different, explain how the previous generation maintains power when the current generation has different considerations to them, because they were merely encouraged to "think for oneself"?

Religion is clearly the more guilty party with its "hard' selling techniques, thus the often comparison to brainwashing.

(Original post by Hylean)
It wasn't my example. I said it was similar, because it is.

Not at all. Stating science "forces" to channel our thought to a certain path is quite false. It shows "hey, this is or best explanation at this current time, you are free to understand or ignore it completely and please, please, please question it so perhaps it could leads to more understanding of our nature."

The best example is theft or killing, etc. We are taught from a very young age that we have to think in certain ways or we are ostracised from society. Religion is a small part in this and currently atheists of Dawkins' type are attempting to change society's thinking so that it is theists who are ostracised because they do not think the way "they should". It's all about power.

R.P. Everything has already responded to this, I see.

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by Hylean)
Hilariously wrong. All it takes for good people to do evil things is a conviction that they are serving some greater good. This can be through a belief in a religion, a political ideology, etc. They can also be made to do evil things through fear and coercion.

Whilst religion isn't the only ideology that can delude good people into committing bad deeds for 'the greater good', it certainly is the most powerful one. There's nothing quite like believing your actions are commanded unto you by the most powerful being that can ever be imagined - it certainly becomes far harder to swing people round from that. And there's nothing hilarious about extremists out there in the Afghanistan convincing young, juvenile minds to become martyrs by blowing themselves up in the name of their religion.

With that being said religion obviously isn't the only ideology that can convince good people to do evil simply from authority, as Weinberg puts it. But it certainly highlights the dangers of following instructions simply based on authority.

For instance, it might be rational to kill a town to save a country, yet killing is still considered evil. Thus morals based on rationalism could lead to acts which are considered "evil" by many, even if there is some greater good. Good men can torture innocent men because they think they are guilty and seek a confession. I could go on.

I think there's a fundamental difference between following something because of authority, and following something because we've assessed what is correct. In this sense, we do what is right for the greater good, because we understand why it is for the greater good, whilst instruction from authority we simply don't (it may not even be for the greater good at all).

Also, I don't buy your analogies; I think they are framed far too narrowly. There are plenty of good reasons to rationally be against torture, and there are plenty of reasons to be against the sacrifice of people for others. This is why there should be honest, rational debate on these issues, rather than simply saying 'this is right. Because I say so'. It is the blind following of ideology and authority that causes people to do evil, without actually rationalising what they are doing, or why.

It's a semi-decent quote, but rolling it out as some kind of world-truth is a bit silly.

Less of a 'world-truth'. More to highlight the effects of following instruction from authority, and letting other people think for you.

In the end, all humans do is try to "enforce" their values onto others. Atheists do it, theists do it, deists do it. It's how we achieve and maintain power. Religion is no more guilty of this than anything else.

Oh please, it's not about power to the atheists or any other group of people, it's about the decentralisation of power from authority, and allowing us to think for ourselves for once. Nowhere have the proponents of rationalism enforced any specifics which you must believe; they have simply advocated critical thinking - knowing what you do, and why you do it before you actually carry it out.

[RobertWhite]

(Original post by Hylean)
Do they? What's your evidence for this?

Sorry, I thought I replied to this yesterday but it obviously didn't post.

Per se there is no evidence for this and I doubt there will be any time soon. I came to this conclusion via logical inference. For example, murder is not legal anywhere whilst laws such as abortion and euthanasia vary widely. If humans did not have some kind of moral compass we would expect laws such as murder to vary more widely.

And so relating this back to what I said earlier; ambiguous laws require interpretation which means opinions and values impact them (religion). Laws like murder require no interpretation because 99% of people know it is inherently wrong. There could be other explanations to this but this is the view I prefer to take.

[Hylean]

S-man10

(Original post by S-man10)
It funny, this argument, which is being stated without any valid reasoning. Explain how the non-religious "enforce" values as a means to achieve power when the actually message is simply "think for oneself", which then leads to different lines of thought. And when lines of thought are different, explain how the previous generation maintains power when the current generation has different considerations to them, because they were merely encouraged to "think for oneself"?

Really? Atheism doesn't encourage thinking for oneself. It appears to, but it really seeks to convert everyone to its side through various techniques: derision and debating being two of them. It promotes thinking for oneself in a atheist mindset and often is quite intolerant of religion (note I say "often" and not "always" or even "more than regularly"). By suggesting they are somehow more rational and logical than the religious, they promote an image of themselves and atheism as better and thus better when in charge. Just look at any number of threads on here suggesting religious people shouldn't run countries purely because they are religious, as if this is somehow a character flaw. Interesting, you are taking part in this process by suggesting that atheist would teach one to "think for oneself" as if a religious person would not. Simply not true.

That is one example of how atheists specifically try to enforce their values on others to secure power away from theists. However, you actually misunderstood my statement. What I really meant is that people do it regardless of religious or non-religious affiliation.

(Original post by S-man10)
Religion is clearly the more guilty party with its "hard' selling techniques, thus the often comparison to brainwashing.

Really? Because Stalinism and Nazism are free of such things?

How about the inculcation from birth of certain "truths" which are not true: biological difference equates to mental difference and physical capability; that murder, theft, rape, etc. are wrong; rational viewpoints are the only acceptable ones; white equals pure whilst black equals impure; science subjects are more respectable than arts subjects or social sciences; and so on and so forth.

Those are actually far worse because they are far more insidious and less obvious.

Also, so many religions in this world lack the "hard selling techniques". It'd be a mistake to judge religion on the Abrahamic ones; a mistake all too often made on this forum.

If religion is brainwashing then so is just about every value we hold, as they are generally a combination of social, cultural and parental upbringing, which we have very little say in when we are younger, which is when the majority of our values are set. The whole brainwashing argument also basically seeks to ignore certain things in regards to parenting. Take Christianity for example; it argues that you go to Hell if you're not a Christian. Ignoring the fear argument, which is valid if fear is used and you first have to prove fear is used to make that argument; a parent will hope their child becomes Christian because then they won't go to Hell. Much in the same way they will teach a child not to kill or steal so that they don't go to jail. Raising a child in a religious situation doesn't necessarily stifle critical thinking or even mean that the child is not taught to think for themselves.

Obviously there are certain regions of the world where religion could be argued to be brainwashing, and I won't deny that. Problem is, it's just not true for religion as a whole or even as a concept.

(Original post by S-man10)
Not at all. Stating science "forces" to channel our thought to a certain path is quite false. It shows "hey, this is or best explanation at this current time, you are free to understand or ignore it completely and please, please, please question it so perhaps it could leads to more understanding of our nature."

Actually, no Theory states that (and I was dealing with an example of a Theory, not science as a whole). It's generally added in the discussion afterwards or more often is assumed to be present. When Theories are presented, they are generally presented as strongly as possible, which is why they get called Theories. This channels our thought paths down certain lines. I never said this was bad or good or that they can't be changed or improved. My point was that the Theory as currently expounded channels our thoughts down a path which will lead to use agreeing with the theory. Our thoughts don't necessarily have to follow that path, but that is the intention of the Theory.

In the end, all knowledge channels our thoughts down certain paths or attempts to. For example, we have been raised in Western Society with a belief that science provides better answers; thus there are many people out there that believe in science wholeheartedly without thinking about what they are being told. There are also people who use this belief in science to sway others to their cause, whether that cause be good or bad.

R.P.Everything.

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
Whilst religion isn't the only ideology that can delude good people into committing bad deeds for 'the greater good', it certainly is the most powerful one. There's nothing quite like believing your actions are commanded unto you by the most powerful being that can ever be imagined - it certainly becomes far harder to swing people round from that. And there's nothing hilarious about extremists out there in the Afghanistan convincing young, juvenile minds to become martyrs by blowing themselves up in the name of their religion.

As I said to S-man, "religion" cannot be reduced to the Abrahamic religions and there are many out there which do not follow their pattern. I've never really understood why so many atheists do this; it's highly illogical.

There's nothing hilarious about the Holocaust, which was caused by a secular government; there's nothing funny about The Troubles in NI, which is ultimately not about religion; there was nothing funny about the Great Famine in the 19th century in Ireland (apparently some places teach that as an attempted genocide, go figure ); nothing funny about USA's constant interfering in countries across the world, often with violence.

Just some examples of secular, non-religious events. In the end, it doesn't matter what convinces someone and religion is just a tool, just like any ideology.

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
With that being said religion obviously isn't the only ideology that can convince good people to do evil simply from authority, as Weinberg puts it. But it certainly highlights the dangers of following instructions simply based on authority.

Wrong, it attempts to suggest that religion is the only reason. The bit I've bolded is the important bit: there are dangers in blindly believing what you are told is correct or true or right. And that belief is not solely located in religion. There is a blind belief in science in the West for example, which leads to groups like the BNP attempting to use science to justify their own ideology. There was a belief in the early 20th century that skull sizes denoted criminals and eugenic programmes were still in place until the late 20th century in Sweden.

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
I think there's a fundamental difference between following something because of authority, and following something because we've assessed what is correct. In this sense, we do what is right for the greater good, because we understand why it is for the greater good, whilst instruction from authority we simply don't (it may not even be for the greater good at all).

In the end, most people follow from authority, regardless of whether the authority is secular or religious. That's why they have authority because we trust them to tell us what is right.

The point remains, though, that the quote was just flat out wrong.

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
Also, I don't buy your analogies; I think they are framed far too narrowly. There are plenty of good reasons to rationally be against torture, and there are plenty of reasons to be against the sacrifice of people for others. This is why there should be honest, rational debate on these issues, rather than simply saying 'this is right. Because I say so'. It is the blind following of ideology and authority that causes people to do evil, without actually rationalising what they are doing, or why.

And there is someone who can rationally say that if I torture this person to gain information that will save an entire city, it is worth doing. Or by nuking Hiroshima I can stop Japan from carrying on the war.

Group concensus is not always rational, see linching.

There are good, rational reasons to be against those things. My point is there are also good, rational reasons to be for those things and it would depend on the person or group involved which way they swung. Hell, in such instances, it would often come down to force of personality of the debaters. Hardly a rational way to choose what to do, but so often what happens.

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
Less of a 'world-truth'. More to highlight the effects of following instruction from authority, and letting other people think for you.

Which we do every day of our lives; nearly all of your values were thought for you, instilled in you through silent cultural processes.

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
Oh please, it's not about power to the atheists or any other group of people, it's about the decentralisation of power from authority, and allowing us to think for ourselves for once. Nowhere have the proponents of rationalism enforced any specifics which you must believe; they have simply advocated critical thinking - knowing what you do, and why you do it before you actually carry it out.

And yet here you are, picking on theists and deists as if atheists don't do those things. I can go through this forum and find any number of atheists who let Stephen Fry, Hitchens or Dawkins do the thinking for them and blindly quote people like Weinberg without actually considering what the quotes mean.

They advocate critical thinking and suggest that religious people are not able to do that. If religion "enforces" values, then so do they, because the processes are the same. The fact you suggest that religion does not allow for critical thinking is part of said process.

RobertWhite

(Original post by RobertWhite)
Sorry, I thought I replied to this yesterday but it obviously didn't post.

I might have missed it to be fair.

(Original post by RobertWhite)
Per se there is no evidence for this and I doubt there will be any time soon. I came to this conclusion via logical inference. For example, murder is not legal anywhere whilst laws such as abortion and euthanasia vary widely. If humans did not have some kind of moral compass we would expect laws such as murder to vary more widely.

Why? We clearly have no issue with killing. So the morality of taking a life clearly does vary across societies. Death pentality, for example. That's a huge moral issue. Is murder a moral issue or a social one? Is it illegal to stop people from killing and having the "eye for an eye" build and build like it did in Iceland during the Commonwealth period?

(Original post by RobertWhite)
And so relating this back to what I said earlier; ambiguous laws require interpretation which means opinions and values impact them (religion). Laws like murder require no interpretation because 99% of people know it is inherently wrong. There could be other explanations to this but this is the view I prefer to take.

Do they know it, or have they been brought up in a society which suggests murder is wrong and thus it "is" wrong? How are those issues any different to religion, where we are brought up being told something is wrong or right and thus we blindly believe it, much like you and others in here argue religious people blindly believe in their religions?

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by Hylean)
As I said to S-man, "religion" cannot be reduced to the Abrahamic religions and there are many out there which do not follow their pattern. I've never really understood why so many atheists do this; it's highly illogical.

It's perfectly logical, considering the fact that 75% of all the world's theists are either Christian or Muslim. I'm not talking about other religions because they simply aren't large enough or powerful enough to pose a threat to critical thinking; they're not strong enough to impose anything substantial onto society. I could talk about Buddhism (more of a way of life than a religion) or Hinduism if I wanted to, but neither is as evangelical as Islam and Christianity, and I would be wasting my time in this thread talking about that.

There's nothing hilarious about the Holocaust, which was caused by a secular government; there's nothing funny about The Troubles in NI, which is ultimately not about religion; there was nothing funny about the Great Famine in the 19th century in Ireland (apparently some places teach that as an attempted genocide, go figure ); nothing funny about USA's constant interfering in countries across the world, often with violence.

Just some examples of secular, non-religious events. In the end, it doesn't matter what convinces someone and religion is just a tool, just like any ideology.

Nowhere at all did I tie secularism with rationalism. Rationalism may be secular, but secularism isn't rationalism. What part of following a totalitarian Nazi regime, infused with primitive paganistic/Nordic blood myths and leader worship, is the fault of reasonable thinking and debate? And you think the USA's pseudo-secular, quasi-Christian government isn't influenced by fanatics can't get elected without the evangelical vote? The world is rife with the influence of authority, both from political ideology and from religious ideology. And I maintain my point - There's nothing quite like believing your actions are commanded unto you by the most powerful being that can ever be imagined; it certainly becomes far harder to swing people round from that. Authority from a King may be strong, authority from a totalitarian politician may be strong, but all are outmatched by the authority of a divine being. Then it really becomes hard to engage someone into a reasonable debate.

Wrong, it attempts to suggest that religion is the only reason.

Well I've already said that religion isn't the only authority that causes problems, so I don't know why you are so bothered. 'For good people to do evil things, that takes religion' is simply a satirical quote highlighting the delusion caused by religious authority, which I mentioned in passing to highlight the specific criticism on religion.

The bit I've bolded is the important bit: there are dangers in blindly believing what you are told is correct or true or right. And that belief is not solely located in religion. There is a blind belief in science in the West for example, which leads to groups like the BNP attempting to use science to justify their own ideology. There was a belief in the early 20th century that skull sizes denoted criminals and eugenic programmes were still in place until the late 20th century in Sweden.

Around 60% of the world's population follow either Christianity or Islam. Again, like I've said, religion is not the only ideology to contributes to blind, reckless following, but is it a major player? Yes; we're talking 5.5 billion people here. It's influence is huge, and the nature of belief in an omniscient God also contributes to the problem, as addressed previously.

Also, there is no such thing as 'belief' in science. Science is neither a political belief, nor a command from anybody - it describes nature using evidence and experimentation. The quasi-political nature of the Social Darwinism used by the BNP to try and justify their actions is exactly that - political. No part of science says 'we should kill off weaker members of society'. Science doesn't tell us to do anything. It simply describes the nature of the Universe and our surroundings.

In the end, most people follow from authority, regardless of whether the authority is secular or religious. That's why they have authority because we trust them to tell us what is right.

This misconstrued, outdated view of why we follow our rules is the point I have most disagreement with. Do we avoid murdering others because authority tells us to? Do we avoid theft because authority tells us to? Of course not. If the authority were suddenly to disappear, would we suddenly become murderers and thieves? Of course not. We can rationalise the consequences of a society which tolerates murder and theft, and we can understand why we shouldn't do such things. Ultimately, I believe all our beliefs should be based around rational and critical thinking which provide us with the true justification with what we do. We need to remove this idea that somehow, authority is involved, so the dangers of blind following don't spread into the dangerous ideas of dangerous men.

And there is someone who can rationally say that if I torture this person to gain information that will save an entire city, it is worth doing. Or by nuking Hiroshima I can stop Japan from carrying on the war.

Group concensus is not always rational, see linching.

There are good, rational reasons to be against those things. My point is there are also good, rational reasons to be for those things and it would depend on the person or group involved which way they swung. Hell, in such instances, it would often come down to force of personality of the debaters. Hardly a rational way to choose what to do, but so often what happens.

What would you rather have? People not debate out the consequences, and just follow what they think God tells them to do?

Which we do every day of our lives; nearly all of your values were thought for you, instilled in you through silent cultural processes.

I don't pretend to have re-invented the wheel, I simply claim to understand what I believe and why I believe, even if some of it was instilled by my parents or my teachers. That's a small, but significant difference.

And yet here you are, picking on theists and deists as if atheists don't do those things. I can go through this forum and find any number of atheists who let Stephen Fry, Hitchens or Dawkins do the thinking for them and blindly quote people like Weinberg without actually considering what the quotes mean.

There is a difference between arguing with reason, and arguing with authority; fundamentally between saying: 'I believe in this, because of here justification' and 'I believe in this, because God says so'. Again, I don't claim to have re-invented the wheel, but my reasons are laid out, whereas with authority, the reasons are enclosed within the mind of authority itself; so much so that we don't see the justification at all. We simply take it on 'this is right' because authority says so. Letting people think doesn't mean asking everyone to rediscover the philosophy created over the past thousand years, it just means that people should understand what they believe, rather than letting someone else understand it, and saying it should be believed based on that authority.

They advocate critical thinking and suggest that religious people are not able to do that. If religion "enforces" values, then so do they, because the processes are the same. The fact you suggest that religion does not allow for critical thinking is part of said process.

Fundamentally, no, the processes are not the same. Thinking critically isn't an authority, and it isn't enforced onto people based on authority either. It advocates people understanding their ideas, rather than simply taking them. And again, the problem isn't so much religion itself, but the power and influence of religious authority over people who believe because they are told. That is the persistent problem.

As a side note, I've tried to avoid as much ad hom as possible to maintain maximum clarity of discussion. I can already feel it creeping into the thread as a whole, and simply want to shoot down any buds now.

[RobertWhite]

(Original post by Hylean)



Why? We clearly have no issue with killing. So the morality of taking a life clearly does vary across societies. Death pentality, for example. That's a huge moral issue. Is murder a moral issue or a social one? Is it illegal to stop people from killing and having the "eye for an eye" build and build like it did in Iceland during the Commonwealth period?



Do they know it, or have they been brought up in a society which suggests murder is wrong and thus it "is" wrong? How are those issues any different to religion, where we are brought up being told something is wrong or right and thus we blindly believe it, much like you and others in here argue religious people blindly believe in their religions?

It would be highly unlikely for every society in the world to deem murder wrong if the moral was not inherently reasoned. Everyone is brought up in a society and grows to understand its norms - this does not mean murder is any less of an absolute law. Societies change and develop - if murder is inherently wrong then we would expect this to occur and if murder was ambiguous we would still expect societies to occasionally change this law.

We also have to draw a distinction between murder and killing. The death penalty is not murder, it is killing someone for a variety of reasons. Murder is the premeditated killing of another person, reasoned or unreasoned. In no society is it fine to kill someone on the street for no reason. The death penalty varies once again because it is ambiguous, whilst plain murder is not.

[noisy06]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
You epitomise the dangers of morality from authority, and completely miss the point. Firstly on "not everyone will accept the idea of basing laws upon consequences" - it doesn't matter how our laws are written, whether it be through authority, or through reasoning. Once the rules are written, it becomes law. Not everyone accepts the law now, and not everyone will follow changes in the law. But once the state instigates the rules, it becomes the law, and people must follow them, or they risk facing the repercussions of breaking the law. Whether people will follow a system of law based on reasoning or not is an irrelevant issue.

Secondly, "human rational and logic is dangerous in its own right"? In comparison to what? The blind and unconditional following of religious leaders and scriptures? There are genuinely good people out there who are convinced that blowing themselves up in an act of martyrdom is actually benefiting society, because their Imam says so, and because they are promised eternal paradise. There are genuinely good people who will go and die for their leaders because they are told to do so. I would rather take reason over blind authority any day.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" - Steven Weinberg.

Your first paragraph doesn't really address the problems arising from having a validated basis from which A State can base its laws. It skips over the whole issue. There is also that little thing called amendments to the law. Laws do change over time and yet on what basis should the state decides which laws are susceptible to changes and which ones are inflexible? Your answer produces more questions than answers, I hope you realize that.

The following of a religious ruling from an Imam is not morally binding upon a Muslim, in fact, it is a choice of a Muslim to follow the Imam, knowing that Imams aren't infallible. This is in contrast to the Catholic church which regards its clergy as moral authorities whose religious guidance goes unquestioned. There is no such thing in Islam as eternal paradise for martydom. Eternal paradise comes unconditionally for those who believe and do good deeds, regardless of how they died.

Now, you state that blind following is bad, but the only reason why you grew up knowing that murder is wrong is because you blindly followed the teachings that were set out for you in your childhood. The vast majority of your outline morals come from indoctrination in your childhood. Logic and rational tells us that murder is ok when a person can get away it and can benefit from it. There are many people who have used this tool in the past for greatness and still there are many today who thrive from this. Logic and rational allows humanity to do unspeakable acts of evil. The irony in all this, is of course that suicide bombers use their logic along with religious text when concluding that killing masses of people and themselves is fine, if they followed religious text blindly, such actions wouldn't even be taking places, there is no authority for this type of action in the Qur'an at all. But when a little bit of logic is used (and by God they use them), you get bodies in the streets.