Is redemption possible without religion?

[smiling_bandit]

@Revenant Threashold

Perhaps, but my point was solely that using as an example something that depends on other people doesn’t really work all that well. Especially if you’re talking about actual fact, not our belief about that fact.

… Yes, that is my ultimate point here. I think you’re missing my thrust by a country mile. I’m not here to argue for one side or the other, but I am here to point out that some things cannot be held logically without complete contradiction. I accept there are some modes of thought which allow for cntradictions, but here we do not have one I can see.

Actually, I would tend to disagree with you. People may want to believe that what they are doing is “right”, but that does not seem to stop people from believing themselves to be doing “wrong”. It may well be that our desire to do right influences our opinions on the rightness of our actions - i’d probably argue that case right there with you - but it doesn’t seem to be a totally mind-bypassing concept.

… We’re not conflicting on this. You’re just looking at a different part. I’m not saying people do not fool themselves. I also am not saying people do not feel guilty for doing wrong, at least if it is clear to them. I am saying that people do feel, and that feeling is strange and irrational (though possibly useful) if it is not based on a real thing. It may in fact be simply bio-programming.

I honestly mean no offense by this question, but it seems to me you may have fallen into the same “trap” as others; that you want something to be so, you like the idea, and thus you believe it. You don’t want another system to be so, so you don’t believe it. How do you self-examine in order to ensure that you don’t believe what you believe because you would like it to be so?

No. I want to make something absolutely clear. I am guilty of many things*, but I am at least pretty sure I don’t fall into this trap, at least. I believe in a lot of things which do not please me, and I could easily come up with a lot of things which would please me still more.

This is why I do my little thing here. I must KNOW. It may not be possible, but if it is, I will.

*Or not, at the philosophy may take us.

But how can we harness such a power, if we are inherently subjective beings? It does not change the situation to have an objective standard, because we have no means of recognising or understanding that. It’s not simply a matter of us “may” not being able to harness it, we can’t harness it at all, because we cannot define objectivity with subjective standards. Essentially, we are left with hope that we are capable of that, which is irrelevant.

Ah, but are we? That’s a critical part of my search. I am not yet satisfied that this statement is true. While people certainly have a hard time communicating fully, the very fact that we are having this conversation* is at least some evidence of an external reality which we are capable of recognizing, defining, and understanding objectively.

I for my part do not yet believe people are purely subjective in their thinking, and that is precisely what seperates humanity from other creatures. In fact, there is really nothing in our material culture which makes us different: a sufficiently developed animal could mimic that. Rather, it is our quest for understanding of the causes and effects. Animals can make associations of memories with effects or replicate any material thing we build. Humans are thus far the only ones who seem to investigate, replicate, understand, and control those effects. Even if we do it badly - do we not do it?

*OR ARE WE? DUN DUN DUNNNNNN!

This doesn’t seem correct to me. If I define morality as “the culture of the moment” that doesn’t mean that the next culture of the moment along changes morality. It’s a constant, not a variable; when the next culture comes along, that does not change the morality of “the culture that was”, it simply replaces it with a new one. When people say “the culture of the moment” has the correct morality, it is generally not because it is the culture of the moment; that is to say, they are simply defining the current form of it, not defining the basis of it.

I’m sorry, and I do understand what you are saying - but this is a distinction without a difference. Regardless of the precise rules people use to derive their morality, if it changes at random based entirely on the whim of the majority, then it’s a meaningless concept. Morality would be a word which basically meant, “fad”. Yet, I have not yet found anyone who held that the two were the same, and I have never found anyone who really believed or lived that - though there may be some sociopathic personalities who do.

Well, you wouldn’t, would you?

Yup. You see my dilemma?

Why? You’ve said that you like this idea, but I don’t understand why it must be so. Why couldn’t you have a true moral order and yet the total inability to approximate it? Why must an intrinsic perception of good and evil exist?

Because if there is a moral order, we live in it, just as we live in gravity, and we respond to it, just as we respond to gravity. I don’t deny it would be even more invisible to us. I simply think it likely that if it exists, we could in . And I have already said that this is not certain.

It’s like being arrested for a crime you don’t know the law behind. You couldn’t say why you were being arrested, but certainly there appear to be policemen bundling you into a cop car. But if there are no cops, you aren’t enlightened as to either the judgement or to the legal aspect. In fact, I could say that your posts upthread have broken my rules of posting - up until I said that, you had no idea of that rule-breaking, nor even of the existence of those rules. Why not objective standards by the same standard?

Ah, but here is my case. You talk about what the thief does, but not why. People do not commit crimes thoughtlessly unless by accident. Instead, they justify to themselves that they have a good reason. Maybe they come to believe they are just that awesome. Maybe they convince themselves the victim deserves it. Maybe they engage in mental gyrations to just not think about it.

But doesn’t that itself imply the existence of rules which make it neccesary for him to do so? In order to lie to oneself, there must be a truth to lie about. We are in the position of knowing about a possible moral order, and yet also that some of us violate it anyway despite feeling it. Even the sociopaths who seem to feel no guilt appear to have arranged things principally such that they can just feel superior and ignore that order.

Using whatever reason we might have, we are left with two possibilities. There is no objective, timeless moral order for us, or there is and we should follow it.

This is why I object to the idea of cultural moralities. If there is a moral order which is time-dependent and/or basically random, in what sense can it be called a morality? It will ultiamtely depend on human whim. It cannot guide human behavior or choices except as the moment dictates. It offers no advantage or disadvantage. It will change the second enough people get together and decide differently.

Now, I can accept rationally that the truth might be that there is no god or devil or good nor evil, and that we can achieve nothing, everything we do and have done will eventually be eradicated by the porocesses of the universe, and that it only a mere whim and bio-neural programming which controls us and makes us think otherwise. I cannot rationally accept that the Truth is that we should just blindly follow whatever our “culture” (whaterve that amorphous entity is) tells us to - until somehow we are supposed to change our minds and do somethig else, and that this is not only good but the highest good.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@smiling_bandit

@Revenant Threashold

Perhaps, but my point was solely that using as an example something that depends on other people doesn’t really work all that well. Especially if you’re talking about actual fact, not our belief about that fact.

… Yes, that is my ultimate point here. I think you’re missing my thrust by a country mile. I’m not here to argue for one side or the other, but I am here to point out that some things cannot be held logically without complete contradiction. I accept there are some modes of thought which allow for cntradictions, but here we do not have one I can see.

On this point i’m not arguing about your overall ideas, just the point you initially brought up using other people as a metric; it just doesn’t work very well, as you agree.

… We’re not conflicting on this. You’re just looking at a different part. I’m not saying people do not fool themselves. I also am not saying people do not feel guilty for doing wrong, at least if it is clear to them. I am saying that people do feel, and that feeling is strange and irrational (though possibly useful) if it is not based on a real thing. It may in fact be simply bio-programming.

This was more in regards to your point about many people seemingly not reflecting on their ideas, particularly atheists.

No. I want to make something absolutely clear. I am guilty of many things*, but I am at least pretty sure I don’t fall into this trap, at least. I believe in a lot of things which do not please me, and I could easily come up with a lot of things which would please me still more.

Ah, but there are counters to this. There’s a sense of realism, and there’s give-and-take, for example. I suppose the question shouldn’t be “does my sense of reality match precisely what I would most like it to be”, but rather, “does my sense of reality match precisely what I am most willing to accept as possible”.

Ah, but are we? That’s a critical part of my search. I am not yet satisfied that this statement is true. While people certainly have a hard time communicating fully, the very fact that we are having this conversation* is at least some evidence of an external reality which we are capable of recognizing, defining, and understanding objectively.

But it’s a statement that is impossible to prove. So long as the possibility exists, any evidence is tainted by that possibility; the problem is not in searching for the right thing, but that our tools for searching are flawed. And this conversation isn’t evidence of any external reality, let alone one we can define in any way, because it relies upon us accepting the premise.

I for my part do not yet believe people are purely subjective in their thinking, and that is precisely what seperates humanity from other creatures. In fact, there is really nothing in our material culture which makes us different: a sufficiently developed animal could mimic that. Rather, it is our quest for understanding of the causes and effects. Animals can make associations of memories with effects or replicate any material thing we build. Humans are thus far the only ones who seem to investigate, replicate, understand, and control those effects. Even if we do it badly - do we not do it?

There’s no way to know for certain.

I’m sorry, and I do understand what you are saying - but this is a distinction without a difference. Regardless of the precise rules people use to derive their morality, if it changes at random based entirely on the whim of the majority, then it’s a meaningless concept. Morality would be a word which basically meant, “fad”. Yet, I have not yet found anyone who held that the two were the same, and I have never found anyone who really believed or lived that - though there may be some sociopathic personalities who do.

I can’t agree. There’s a very strong difference between a morality as defined by basis and reason and one defined by current circumstances (even if that basis is the current circumstances, though the results would likely be the same in that case). My morality does not change on the whim of the majority. If my morality was exactly the same as my resident country, should I move to another country, my morality would not then change because of that move. It’s comparing internal and external moral systems - certainly all systems are derived, in some part, from external forces, but in one situation you’re simply a cipher for wherever you happen to be at the time and in the other you are a self-contained believer in that system wherever you happen to be. It doesn’t change based on the whims of the majority, is what i’m trying to say.

Because if there is a moral order, we live in it, just as we live in gravity, and we respond to it, just as we respond to gravity. I don’t deny it would be even more invisible to us. I simply think it likely that if it exists, we could in . And I have already said that this is not certain.

Why do you think that it is likely, though?

Ah, but here is my case. You talk about what the thief does, but not why. People do not commit crimes thoughtlessly unless by accident. Instead, they justify to themselves that they have a good reason. Maybe they come to believe they are just that awesome. Maybe they convince themselves the victim deserves it. Maybe they engage in mental gyrations to just not think about it.

But justification requires knowledge of the rule breaking. If we do not have access to the rules, then we have no reason to justify anything - why would we? People most certainly commit crimes thoughtlessly, if they do not think there is anything to think about. And a set of objective moral standards do not imply that justification is requires if we have no access to those standards. I am no more bound to question my motives for comitting an infraction against objective standards than I am to question them for breaking what your standards might be, or some other person’s.

Using whatever reason we might have, we are left with two possibilities. There is no objective, timeless moral order for us, or there is and we should follow it.

I think you’ve skipped a step there. Even if there is an objective morality, and even were we capable of accessing that in any way - why should we follow it? You’ve missed an option; that there is an objective, timeless moral order, but we do not need to follow it. Or indeed that there are objective orders, but that they change.

Now, I can accept rationally that the truth might be that there is no god or devil or good nor evil, and that we can achieve nothing, everything we do and have done will eventually be eradicated by the porocesses of the universe, and that it only a mere whim and bio-neural programming which controls us and makes us think otherwise. I cannot rationally accept that the Truth is that we should just blindly follow whatever our “culture” (whaterve that amorphous entity is) tells us to - until somehow we are supposed to change our minds and do somethig else, and that this is not only good but the highest good.

Well, of course you can’t. In such a universe, there is no objective truth. Why is such truth necessary - beyond that it would be nice if it did exist? What reason do we have to search for it, when we cannot ever know for certain?

What if it turns out that Truth is an objective evil?

[smiling_bandit]

@Revenant Threshold

Ah, but there are counters to this. There’s a sense of realism, and there’s give-and-take, for example. I suppose the question shouldn’t be “does my sense of reality match precisely what I would most like it to be”, but rather, “does my sense of reality match precisely what I am most willing to accept as possible”.

Ultimately irrelevant. Either my ability to decipher reality works or does not. if it does not, I won’t really get anywhere. So to me it’s an opaque possibility.

But it’s a statement that is impossible to prove. So long as the possibility exists, any evidence is tainted by that possibility; the problem is not in searching for the right thing, but that our tools for searching are flawed. And this conversation isn’t evidence of any external reality, let alone one we can define in any way, because it relies upon us accepting the premise.

Then we are not having this conversation and you cannot, in fact, communicate the idea to me. That may not mean I do not hear some noise and create a meaning, but we aren’t transferring that meaning. So even if true it’s self-defeating.

I can’t agree. There’s a very strong difference between a morality as defined by basis and reason and one defined by current circumstances (even if that basis is the current circumstances, though the results would likely be the same in that case)…

Then we are talking completely about two seperate things. I am talking about Culturally Relative Morality. The fact that you may be a part of another culture than the one in which you currently reside is irrelevant. Either you change along with other people simply because the culture changes (and needing no other moral reasoning) or you have some other reason for doing what you do and the fact that a nearby culture also holds those beliefs is irrelevant.

But justification requires knowledge of the rule breaking. If we do not have access to the rules, then we have no reason to justify anything - why would we? People most certainly commit crimes thoughtlessly, if they do not think there is anything to think about.

And if so, they do not offend those rules, though they might not be as good as they could. I have already laid out how and why I think we would be able to dimly sense a moral order (and which people may in fact do).

Well, of course you can’t. In such a universe, there is no objective truth. Why is such truth necessary - beyond that it would be nice if it did exist? What reason do we have to search for it, when we cannot ever know for certain?

Well, that would only hold if they were no objective truth. But there may be, so I look.

What if it turns out that Truth is an objective evil?

Then it is evil - but I will know that and be able to choose in knowledge and not ignorance. But I find that proposition ludicrously dubious.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@smiling_bandit

@Revenant Threshold

Ah, but there are counters to this. There’s a sense of realism, and there’s give-and-take, for example. I suppose the question shouldn’t be “does my sense of reality match precisely what I would most like it to be”, but rather, “does my sense of reality match precisely what I am most willing to accept as possible”.

Ultimately irrelevant. Either my ability to decipher reality works or does not. if it does not, I won’t really get anywhere. So to me it’s an opaque possibility.

That strikes me as inaccurate. There are different levels of “working”. It’s ultimately pretty important, given that if we do have some ability to decipher reality the next question would be “ok, to what extent?”

Then we are not having this conversation and you cannot, in fact, communicate the idea to me. That may not mean I do not hear some noise and create a meaning, but we aren’t transferring that meaning. So even if true it’s self-defeating.

What makes it self-defeating? Even if I am not, actually, communicating the idea to you, that does not affect whether that idea is correct or not. It’s not self-defeating at all.

Then we are talking completely about two seperate things. I am talking about Culturally Relative Morality. The fact that you may be a part of another culture than the one in which you currently reside is irrelevant. Either you change along with other people simply because the culture changes (and needing no other moral reasoning) or you have some other reason for doing what you do and the fact that a nearby culture also holds those beliefs is irrelevant.

My problem was that you appeared to be using Culturally Relative Morality to include any kind of morality that could be defined by using culture as an example, even if that’s only temporary or relative only in the end product, and not in the creation.

And if so, they do not offend those rules, though they might not be as good as they could. I have already laid out how and why I think we would be able to dimly sense a moral order (and which people may in fact do).

I don’t understand. If there is an objective moral standard that “stealing is wrong”, and I do not know that standard, and I steal, I have not offended those rules? What if the standard is “stealing is wrong, even if you do not know there are objective standards”?

Well, that would only hold if they were no objective truth. But there may be, so I look.

Not so. Whether there is objective truth or not is irrelevant to the question of whether we can search for or recognise it, because we cannot either way. Even if there is an objective truth, we still are incapable of recognising it, because we are subjective beings. The problem is not what we do, or even what we are looking for, but in us. Our tools are insufficient for the task. It’s like asking someone to measure an elephant with an inaccurate tape measure; it doesn’t matter if there is actually an elephant there or not, because either way, we don’t have the tools capable of measuring it.

What if it turns out that Truth is an objective evil?

Then it is evil - but I will know that and be able to choose in knowledge and not ignorance. But I find that proposition ludicrously dubious.

Why? I of course consider it ludicrously dubious, but then I find the idea that Truth is objectively good, or objectively neutral, to be ludicrously dubious too. Why is it, at the least, reasonable to posit that Truth might not be bad, but so incredibly suspect that it is?

[monavis]

@kanicbird

@Der_Trihs

Ah, so a serial killer who likes to kill and eat people he falls in love with is a moral man? Supporting your beloved spouse the terrorist mass murder is a moral act if you love him? Come on; love is not a particularly moral or admirable emotion.

I really find this fetishization of love in our culture creepy.

Love not being a emotion, but a entity and a Deity. If we are trying to Love, we are trying to be a child of Love (a child of God), Love will see our action, and being a Deity, is capable of correcting it, and will correct it because of what Love is.

As for killing for Love, if it is truly Love that one believes one is killing for, Love, again being Deity, will correct you as you are Love’s child.

I believe it was John who declared that God is Love. That in it’s self is just one human’s way of describing a supreme being, it doesn’t make it true, just a belief in John’s intrepretation of the word. Love does not mean a supreme being,except in the Christian concept. Love has many meanings to many people.