A Discussion/Debate on Religion & Other Closely Related Topics

[SoulReaver]

Gasp! You mean, not all Muslims hate Christians?!? Lies!

no true scotsman muslim would not hate christians

[lordofseas]

Update on the case: LINK. I hope the Pakistani President has the grace to exercise pardoning in this. This is just sad. :/

[pookey]

All that for 'allegedly' burning pages in a book, a book, so a human life is worth less than paper, pathetic. Someone accuse the guy and his lawyer of blasphemy, see how they like it.

[lordofseas]

Interesting. This is why I think Buddhism is a far better ideology than others.

[Gatefan1976]

Interesting. This is why I think Buddhism is a far better ideology than others.

All religions have the capability to do what the D-L said, unfortunately, thier followers generally seem reluctant to do it. I don't know why, probably because if one facet can be proven "highly unlikely to the point of negligable", then the rest becomes "questionable", and people seem to not like that at all.

[lordofseas]

All religions have the capability to do what the D-L said, unfortunately, thier followers generally seem reluctant to do it. I don't know why, probably because if one facet can be proven "highly unlikely to the point of negligable", then the rest becomes "questionable", and people seem to not like that at all.

I don't think we will ever hear Pope Ratzinger say anything on spirituality and ethics being separate, even partially, from religion, nor do I think we will ever hear that from the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia or a prominent Rebbe saying that ethics should not be grounded in religion. It seems extremely unlikely.

[Gatefan1976]

I don't think we will ever hear Pope Ratzinger say anything on spirituality and ethics being separate, even partially, from religion, nor do I think we will ever hear that from the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia or a prominent Rebbe saying that ethics should not be grounded in religion. It seems extremely unlikely.

Hence the word *capability* LoS
Do I think it's *likely*, of course not.

[lordofseas]

Hence the word *capability* LoS
Do I think it's *likely*, of course not.

Which makes me sad.

[Gatefan1976]

Which makes me sad.

I generally don't give it a second thought for the most part.
"True Believers" may call it "al a carte" religion, I prefer to see it as a facet of people that should be examined, questioned and fluid. The more you make anything a monolithic unchanging entity, the more it becomes subject to decay.

[lordofseas]

I generally don't give it a second thought for the most part.
"True Believers" may call it "al a carte" religion, I prefer to see it as a facet of people that should be examined, questioned and fluid. The more you make anything a monolithic unchanging entity, the more it becomes subject to decay.

I call it a la carte as well, but the world would be far better if people thought about things instead of accepting them on the presumed authority.

[Gatefan1976]

I call it a la carte as well, but the world would be far better if people thought about things instead of accepting them on the presumed authority.

Qestion though, do you see "al a carte" as a failing, or a strength?

[lordofseas]

Qestion though, do you see "al a carte" as a failing, or a strength?

I see a la carte religion as the attempt of people to justify modern thinking in an archaic setting. Clearly that is a failing of the religious text, yet a strength for society. Most people that take religion a la carte are not going to go around killing people and burning embassies. Fundamentalists are far more likely to do that. I mean, it's not the people that have acknowledged evolution as true that are lambasting the school systems, it's the people that are not. In a way, I can sympathise with the people that take religion a la carte, because they want to have the best of both worlds, but there are some points of exclusivity in each that will take a lot of mental gymnastics to get through. And I think there is writing on the wall for the fundamentalists, whose position I pity far more, because while they try to maintain literalism to their sacred text, there's only so much reality you can ignore.

[Gatefan1976]

I see a la carte religion as the attempt of people to justify modern thinking in an archaic setting.

Interesting, can you elaborate on that?

Clearly that is a failing of the religious text, yet a strength for society. Most people that take religion a la carte are not going to go around killing people and burning embassies. Fundamentalists are far more likely to do that. I mean, it's not the people that have acknowledged evolution as true that are lambasting the school systems, it's the people that are not. In a way, I can sympathise with the people that take religion a la carte, because they want to have the best of both worlds, but there are some points of exclusivity in each that will take a lot of mental gymnastics to get through.

Such as?

And I think there is writing on the wall for the fundamentalists, whose position I pity far more, because while they try to maintain literalism to their sacred text, there's only so much reality you can ignore.

I don't pity them at all, because as we see every day aound the world, they are also the more likely to drag everyone else kicking and screaming down with them, or attempt to justify thier beliefs by scilencing dissent.

[Col.Foley]

I see a la carte religion as the attempt of people to justify modern thinking in an archaic setting. Clearly that is a failing of the religious text, yet a strength for society. Most people that take religion a la carte are not going to go around killing people and burning embassies. Fundamentalists are far more likely to do that. I mean, it's not the people that have acknowledged evolution as true that are lambasting the school systems, it's the people that are not. In a way, I can sympathise with the people that take religion a la carte, because they want to have the best of both worlds, but there are some points of exclusivity in each that will take a lot of mental gymnastics to get through. And I think there is writing on the wall for the fundamentalists, whose position I pity far more, because while they try to maintain literalism to their sacred text, there's only so much reality you can ignore.

Ignore is the wrong word for that look at from a different world view would be better. Two people can look at the exact same data and come to different conclusions.

[aretood2]

I see a la carte religion as the attempt of people to justify modern thinking in an archaic setting. Clearly that is a failing of the religious text, yet a strength for society. Most people that take religion a la carte are not going to go around killing people and burning embassies. Fundamentalists are far more likely to do that. I mean, it's not the people that have acknowledged evolution as true that are lambasting the school systems, it's the people that are not. In a way, I can sympathise with the people that take religion a la carte, because they want to have the best of both worlds, but there are some points of exclusivity in each that will take a lot of mental gymnastics to get through. And I think there is writing on the wall for the fundamentalists, whose position I pity far more, because while they try to maintain literalism to their sacred text, there's only so much reality you can ignore.

Short version

I half agree with the D-L to a point when it comes to a code of ethics that would govern a pluralistic society. But when it comes to smaller factions within a society, I disagree with him. I am "fundamentalist" in the sense that I take the bible to be historically factual and accurate. I see it as a reliable witness of God's plan, will, his past dealings with humans, and his standards. Yet I do not think that imposing bible based standards will be very helpful on the world as a whole. Bible based standards have to be accepted as a result of careful personal analysis of all the available evidence.

I simply don't expect the whole world to do such a thing, so we as an entire species do need to look elsewhere for a system that could mitigate conflict and chaos. Though I do not believe that a system outside of Bible based standards will solve all of the worlds problems.

Long version
Why I think literalism has little to do with this subject.
The problem with liberalism is often that fundamentalists aren't the final authority on what is literal and what is not. Any large body of literature contains metaphors and analogies and symbolism. Within the greater Christian community there is constant debate on what part of the bible is meant to be literal and what part isn't.

Some "fundametnalist" Christians take Genesis chapter 1 as metaphorical while others take it as allegorical and others as literal. It's not a la carte. This is the problem when it comes to religious texts. The imagery and wording can cause confusion as to what is meant to be literal historical record, what is meant to be prophetic (and in what capacity, be it historical, allegorical, or metaphorical). Compare Jehovah's Witnesses with LDS Mormons who both are labeled as having a literal intepritation of the Bible. Their views differ greatly in many areas, yet agree in others. Both have extra biblical books (Book of Mormon for LDS and several dozens of authoritative books and magazines for JW's).

What actually forms these churches are not a historical curiosity that develops in the minds of the individuals, but responses to cultural and social movements. In the case of LDS Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, both can trace their cultural lineage to the second great awakening. All of these movements that resulted from the second great awakening are in a sense fundamentalist yet their views yet have different believes. Seventh Day Adventists believe in the trinity, a position held by many fundamentalists, while Armstrongism (various off shots of the Adventist movement) sees the trinity as a pagan lie.

What we have there are two fundamentalist taking radically different interpretations from a text that is seen to be equally literal. Throw in their sabatical movements vs non sabatical movements and you have an even greater range of interpretations. For example, some fundamentalists (Pentecostals) believe in glossolalia while other fundamentalists (Some southern baptists) do not.

I other words, I don't think it's about literalism. A la carte religion does not deal one way or the other about literalism. It is simple willful ignorance of sacred text. If a religious person who is not "a la carte" debates scripture or a sacred text with a person who is "a la carte" the response that the a la carte believe will give is "I believe." The objections given by the none-"a la carte" believer would be "but it says it there in scripture!"

Where I believe the first ethical codes came from and how they relate to humanism.
So as to the issue of ethics and religion? To me, it actually depends. What do you mean ethics? Do you mean general societal norms to govern entire cultures and prevent conflicting moralities from causing conflicts among moral agents? In that case a universal moral code is needed and in the light of a pluralistic society imposing one set of morals (be them of religious or none-religious origin) would inevitably cause conflict.

For this universal code to work it must be general enough that all factions of a society will be able to swallow. If it is too broad it will fail to prevent conflict. If it is too specific it will defeat the purpose of being a system accepted by different factions.

For me the morality/ethics must then be determined in absence of any particular religion while yet being sensitive to a plurality of religions and none-religious beliefs. Will this form a perfect society? I don't think so because at some level there will always be factions of society with conflicting moralities that will collide due to the scarcity of resources. Will it serve to mitigate these conflicts? Yes it will, but only to a point. It'll prevent unrestrained lawlessness and anarchy, but injustice will still be known.

Now within an individual framework, I think that ethics must be tied to the best possible system that can provide a workable and none-burdensome ethical framework. What can constitute as burdensome is subjective to the individual. To develop a group code of ethics the individual must sacrifice some of his views to consolidate with other individuals to form a group. To avoid conflicts in developing, an authoritative structure of which all individuals can agree on must exist. For the humanist it is the framework established by eons of religious development in human society throughout the world. But before humanism existed in any form, original moral principles developed aside religious principles that were meant to provide single societal norms. These societal norms were established to diminish the existence of conflicting moralities within a population of multiple individuals.

Humanism, in my opinion, is only possible thanks to the long history of religious monopoly of ethical codes. It is easy to then accept base morality first, then quantify it in none religious principles. During that process some principles can be abandoned, this is what essentially has happened in the development of humanism.

Religiously derived structures are the original vehicles that societies have used to form ethical codes of conduct so that individuals can all agree with minimal conflict to one base code of ethics.

My answer to the D-L's position of where ethics should come from

The issue with early societies is that they were homogeneous. In their small isolated worlds their one religion was enough to insure stability. However once they began interacting with other societies, their moralities conflicted. Due to the scarcity of resources, compitition developed and became justified by morality (where you get allegations that war is caused by religion).

This process grows and continues. This is why you have those fundamentalists who try to blow things up. Because there are too many different moralities and too little resources that a history of conflict has developed as a result. The historical precedent is strongly imposed in the cultural memory of each faction that is in conflict. Challenges to the narratives of each faction causes more conflict. The best way to disarm this conflict is to look for a universal code of ethics that does not challenge the narratives of each faction. To do this, religion must be ignored.

Within each faction (or group) religion will continue to serve as an internal code of ethics. Personally, I do believe that my code of ethics is irrevocably tied to my faith. I believe that my faith is a result of reason and observation of the evidence presented to me in my life that legitimizes it. Since I see my faith as proven, then it only makes sense to use it as the bases of my own personal ethics. Since my personal code of ethics has not caused the oppression of others, I am led to believe that it is the best code of ethics on a personal level.

Religiously I believe that in the world to come, this code of ethics will become the universal code. My duty as a moral agent is to share the theory to all those who are willing to see and hear. They themselves will then decide, based on their own observations, the validity of the code that I have accepted. If they come to the same conclusion based on a careful analysis of the evidence, then they will become my brothers in one faction. If they do not accept the same code that I have they will continue on their lives to the best of their ability outside of my faction.

Conclusion
I do not believe that society and individuals should be governed by the same rules in the strictest sense. I am basically agreeing that to a certain point, ethics shouldn't be based on religion. That is the ethics that governs a pluralistic society. But within one singular homogeneous group, religion is fully capable and (depending on the religion) the best to form a code of ethics that is much more reliable and successful than the universal code derived without religion.

I do not agree with the D-L in that human civilization is so simplistic that we can all follow one universal code of ethics based on humanism alone. As long as humanity has a vast array of historical/cultural/nationalistic narratives that conflict with each other, no amount of humanistic rationalization will solve the problems of the world.