[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
This is bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, surely you’ve been on the Dope long enough to see that there are a lot of people who think that it’s ‘hippie nonsense.’ Mostly of a moderate and conservative persuasion. And if a lot of people think that on the leftward-leaning Dope, there must be whole huge masses who think that in the general population.
[QUOTE=monavis]
One could say all humans were Atheists until in human evolution people came to understand that if they wanted to survive they needed to look out for other humans as well.
[/quote]
So you think atheism = sociopathy ? What makes you think that our ancestors would have survived long enough to become intelligent, much less religious if they didn’t look out for each other ?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
So you think atheism = sociopathy ? What makes you think that our ancestors would have survived long enough to become intelligent, much less religious if they didn’t look out for each other ?
[/QUOTE]
That is my point exactly, Reason brought about ethics or morals, Religion came after that.
Monavis
[QUOTE=monavis]
That is my point exactly, Reason brought about ethics or morals, Religion came after that.
Monavis
[/QUOTE]
I agree that, before the advent of religion, we used reason to establish ethics and morals.
I disagree actually. The empathic response is physiologically innate. Our common ethos as a species is part of our biological evolution as a social animal. We’re not the only species capable of empathy or altruism. I don’t think reason ever had anything to to do with the emergence of “morality,” in humans, only in how it was agreed to apply those innate impulses to cultural constructs, and I think religious speculation/rationalization/justification was probably indistinguishible from what we would think of as “reason” or critical analysis in the earliest human communities. that’s not to say that religion was what caused humans to construct cultural moral systems but that religious/magical thinking was how they analyzed their impulse to do it and was (maybe more importantly) a tool they used for justifying it to the larger group and enforcing it.
[QUOTE=monavis]
That is my point exactly, Reason brought about ethics or morals, Religion came after that.
[/QUOTE]
So would you say that when a bird cares for its young, by bringing them food and defending them against predators, they’re doing it because they’ve developed reason? Is it God that’s telling them to do it? Or is it because, if they didn’t, their particular genes would eventually die out? If your parents didn’t have any children, odds are you won’t, either.
When a troop of monkeys band together to drive off a predator, are they doing it because they’ve found religion, or is it because the ones who don’t band together don’t survive?
We’ve got billions of years of instincts telling us that, if we take care of those that are related to us, they’ll take care of us. The entire reason we’re here, having this conversation, is because our ancestors genetically “learned” that cooperation means you get to have more children. The ones who didn’t cooperate with others of their own kind didn’t get to survive long enough to reproduce.
It seems to me that reason has actually made us more unethical, in that it takes intelligence to really screw they neighbor, without suffering the consequences.
[QUOTE=Homo Ergaster]
It ain’t science…oh sorry sicence has book and precepts..I guess science is religion too.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly what book and precepts would those be?
[QUOTE=Miller]
Exactly what book and precepts would those be?
[/QUOTE]
Well, there’s my textbook from Bio 101…
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
Well, there’s my textbook from Bio 101…
[/QUOTE]
Hallelujah! Amen!
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
Well, there’s my textbook from Bio 101…
[/QUOTE]
Splitter!
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
So would you say that when a bird cares for its young, by bringing them food and defending them against predators, they’re doing it because they’ve developed reason? Is it God that’s telling them to do it? Or is it because, if they didn’t, their particular genes would eventually die out? If your parents didn’t have any children, odds are you won’t, either.
When a troop of monkeys band together to drive off a predator, are they doing it because they’ve found religion, or is it because the ones who don’t band together don’t survive?
We’ve got billions of years of instincts telling us that, if we take care of those that are related to us, they’ll take care of us. The entire reason we’re here, having this conversation, is because our ancestors genetically “learned” that cooperation means you get to have more children. The ones who didn’t cooperate with others of their own kind didn’t get to survive long enough to reproduce.
It seems to me that reason has actually made us more unethical, in that it takes intelligence to really screw they neighbor, without suffering the consequences.
[/QUOTE]
Survival of the species is embedded in all animals,it is called instinct.Humans developed a brain that could reason and co-operating with others of it’s kind made it possible for the species to continue,all animals and plants have adopted to their environment Those that didn’t or were unable to died out.
Monavis
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
It seems to me that reason has actually made us more unethical, in that it takes intelligence to really screw they neighbor, without suffering the consequences.
[/QUOTE]
quoting from Aliens: I don’t know which species is worse. You don’t see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage!
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Splitter!
[/QUOTE]
Lumper!
[QUOTE=monavis]
Survival of the species is embedded in all animals,it is called instinct.Humans developed a brain that could reason and co-operating with others of it’s kind made it possible for the species to continue,all animals and plants have adopted to their environment Those that didn’t or were unable to died out.
[/QUOTE]
That’s almost exactly what I just said, except that you seem to think that humans would’ve killed each other off if we hadn’t developed intelligence enough so that we could get along with each other. What I actually said, though, is that like all other animals, we got along reasonably well without intelligence, with each other- what intelligence did for us is it helped us exploit our environment better than our competitors.
Monkey don’t kill off other members of their troop- if they did so, they’d die, too. Monkey with brains don’t kill off other members of their troop… unless there’s some sort of advantage in doing so.
That’s where we get our morals and ethics from- animals that don’t cooperate with their own families die off pretty quick. You might know this as “The Golden Rule”. We don’t need God to tell us how to behave.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
That’s almost exactly what I just said, except that you seem to think that humans would’ve killed each other off if we hadn’t developed intelligence enough so that we could get along with each other. What I actually said, though, is that like all other animals, we got along reasonably well without intelligence, with each other- what intelligence did for us is it helped us exploit our environment better than our competitors.
Monkey don’t kill off other members of their troop- if they did so, they’d die, too. Monkey with brains don’t kill off other members of their troop… unless there’s some sort of advantage in doing so.
That’s where we get our morals and ethics from- animals that don’t cooperate with their own families die off pretty quick. You might know this as “The Golden Rule”. We don’t need God to tell us how to behave.
[/QUOTE]
Well said, There are many intelligent people who still kill others so it was not intelligence as we know it now,but seeing that we need each other(Using our intelligence well) has helped us to survive as a species. I would add: that now humans are killing each other( in some cases) for no apparent reason and one wonders; Why?
Monavis
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
Monkey don’t kill off other members of their troop- if they did so, they’d die, too. Monkey with brains don’t kill off other members of their troop… unless there’s some sort of advantage in doing so.
[/QUOTE]
How does this set any group of animals apart from humans? All kinds of animals will kill, even eat, their own species, if they are in competition with those other animals for resources. This is natural. What reason has given us is the ability to find ways to co-exist and share resources so that we don’t have to kill each other when we want something that someone else has. When individuals or groups of humans decide to kill another human or group of humans because they want their stuff, they are obeying according to the laws of nature, but ignoring their ability to behave otherwise, which is the big upside of being able to think. Nature seems to instill “compassion,” or the desire to protect other animals, when there is an advantage to be had in disseminating DNA, when the animal in question is or has a reasonable chance of being related.
My feeling about religion is that it was used to control the masses-- it’s tough to convince uneducated, starving, desperate people to behave and not kill each other because “it’s wrong! it’s bad for the species! it’s not compassionate!” Telling them Big Daddy Sky King will strike them down? They will be shunned by the group because they are a sinner? They will go to Hell, which is a really bad place? Works a lot better. If they are good, though, and follow all the rules, even though they are starving and desperate and hurting, they will go to Heaven, which is really awesome and excellent-- great incentive to behave, to continue in their appointed roles despite their suffering.
Once you can embrace compassion and non-violence by virtue of your own reason and internal morality, do you need an externally imposed moral order? I don’t think so. What religion has turned into in the vast majority of cases is a way to mediate individuals’ relationship to the mystical/spiritual world-- for economic, social, and political power. Seems to me like religious institutions are claiming that they have an exclusive lock on communication with God(s), and you have to cede power to them in order to have a relationship with the Divine.
Really, why would any person have a more direct relationship with the Divine, if it existed, than any other person? That’s the thing about religion I could never quite understand. The priests and nuns I knew never seemed any happier, more enlightened, or more in touch with what’s Real and Meaningful than anyone else. I just couldn’t buy it.
I am not an atheist. I am not religious either. I think spiritual beliefs are and should be personal. It’s nice if someone else has the same idea of the spiritual as you do and you can share in your expressions of that, but mandating such things, and claiming that you and your people are the only ones who know all the rules and regs WRT God… seems daft to me. Always has.
I never talk about these things on the Dope. Maybe I shouldn’t have started.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Once you can embrace compassion and non-violence by virtue of your own reason and internal morality, do you need an externally imposed moral order? I don’t think so. What religion has turned into in the vast majority of cases is a way to mediate individuals’ relationship to the mystical/spiritual world-- for economic, social, and political power. Seems to me like religious institutions are claiming that they have an exclusive lock on communication with God(s), and you have to cede power to them in order to have a relationship with the Divine.
[/QUOTE]
!
Yeah. What she said. (Alright Ruby!)
I’m not really certain what you are saying here. Since you think that it is true in most cases, could you tell me what kind of economic power a religious person can mediate in the mystical word? Can you give an example of social power in the mystical world? Do you think that most Christians want political power in the spiritual world? What kind of political power could they have?
I don’t think that’s true of Protestantism in general in Christianity and certainly not of some of the other great religions, but I’m willing to be educated if you care to illustrate. Which religious institutions are making such claims? Do they represent the majority of religious institutions?
I am very much in agreement with you about the personal nature of the spiritual and I don’t have quite as gloomy an opinion of what most religious institutions encourage.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
I’m not really certain what you are saying here. Since you think that it is true in most cases, could you tell me what kind of economic power a religious person can mediate in the mystical word? Can you give an example of social power in the mystical world? Do you think that most Christians want political power in the spiritual world? What kind of political power could they have?
[/quote]
Not IN the mystical world. WITH the mystical world. As it, knows the will and ways of God and can tell them to us.
Are you really actually denying that religious institutions have had and continue to have massive economic, social, and political power? Can you really be saying that?
In case you are saying that, I’ll try to explain. As self-appointed mediators with the spirital world, you have to go through these religious institutions to talk to God; at least, that’s what they want us to believe, and lots of people do. Catholicism is the religion I know best (unfortunately). They require intervention of a priest for removal of mortal sins. With a mortal sin on your soul when you die, you go to Hell. Can’t have the sacrament of Holy Communion, or matrimony, etc., pretty much can’t do a damn thing WRT God without a priest’s intervention. They even tell you how to pray. I’m pretty sure Protestants require clergy for weddings, officiating Mass, etc. Clearly, people with that much power and pull with the Almighty can translate that power into massive social, economic, and political power. It’s almost like currency.
I don’t even think you get what my “claims” are. The role of mediating between the masses and God is big, big business. You WILL go to Hell without a the intervention of clergy, in Catholicism, if you are in a state of mortal sin, which is actually pretty easy to be in, from what I recall. I can’t speak about specific Protestant sects because I just don’t have that information. However, if people believe that you control the door to Heaven and the door to Hell, you control pretty much everyone who subscribes to your beliefs. I don’t see any way you can deny that, nor the control exerted by the Church in world history.
’
It’s a good thing to give people a moral guide, if they don’t already have one. I think religion served a very important role in the history of mankind, for good and ill, and if it comforts and aids you, then by all means, do what you will. But not everyone needs it to be good.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Catholicism is the religion I know best (unfortunately). They require intervention of a priest for removal of mortal sins. With a mortal sin on your soul when you die, you go to Hell. Can’t have the sacrament of Holy Communion, or matrimony, etc., pretty much can’t do a damn thing WRT God without a priest’s intervention. They even tell you how to pray.
[/QUOTE]
If you know Catholicism best, it suggests to me that you know little of religion.
First, it is really not that easy to commit a mortal sin. I don’t know how often you murder people, rob banks, or cheat on your spouse, but most of the sins that people believed were “mortal” were not. (I am not claiming that no Catholic teacher ever claimed that they were mortal, only that that particular set of popular teachings was often in error ands is certainly not taught, today.)
The idea that one must be forgiven by a priest to avoid hell if one has committed a mortal sin must also be mitigated by the idea that one must have had opportunity to confess. A person who is truly contrite for a sin and dies without the opportunity to confess does not have an automatic “Go to hell, do not pass GO” ticket. The church teaches that God forgives as soon as one expresses sorrow for sin. The purpose of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is to rectify a person’s status with the Body of Christ, not to escape hell.
It is true that the church deems that an appropriately ordained minister must be present to confer a Sacrament on a person, but that is hardly surprising since Sacraments are actions of the church. (However, Baptism may be conferred by any person who legitimately intends tha Sacrament and follows trhe correct procedure and Matrimony is conferred by the husband and wife, not the deacon, priest, or bishop who is only there as a witness.)