Unless I have badly misinterpreted your posts, I doubt this.
You seem to feel that religion and science are equally valid paths to find answers about the nature of reality. I disagree with this. I feel the answers to these questions that are provided by science, while not perfect, are far better than the answers provided by religion.
I don’t know. I feel the Golden Rule expresses that idea within a framework of self interest. If you want to express the same idea within a framework of universality, I prefer Kant’s categorical imperative.
Ok, but that’s just the Golden Rule dressed up in fancier language. Sure, go for it if you want higher precision, but fundamentally it’s the same idea. Even when expressed by “God”–presumably, the God is addressing all of the followers as equals.
And sure, one might use a selfish Golden Rule with, say children (“You know when you hit your brother, he hits you back? You don’t like that, right?”), but any non-trivial version of the rule has to apply to people who can’t possibly hurt you back, so it’s not a very good general-purpose justification.
Good questions, the unsatisfactory answer to our monkey brains is…“we don’t know, and we may never know”
And you are right that it is partly due to our limited capabilities, were are all stupid shaved apes. We know that our human-sized understanding of physics breaks down at various scales in the universe and past that point our current models are no use, the maths cease to work. The singularity is such situation, light speed is another.
It is rather like asking when you reach the north pole, what is further north? the question makes no sense.
If anyone says they know what happens before the big bang they are lying. There is no evidence to support it.
Religion says they do know but God seems to be merely asserted as a place-filler for stuff we don’t yet understand or perhaps can never understand. It was asserted in the past as a place-filler for the stuff that we didn’t understand then as well but whenever we (through science) uncovered the real mechanisms of the world it has never, ever been shown to be a god.
And as I say, whatever infinite properties are asserted for god can more simply be asserted for the universe.
Why introduce a god? why introduce that additional complication? Why is it necessary to do so? What does it explain that a purely natural universe does not?
And the reasons for the golden rule can be easily explained by purely natural means.
Imagine a creature born who’s genes drive behaviours that help the common good of their immediate genetic group (i.e. a family) is that gene likely to flourish and be passed on? Is that imperative going to be more widespread and useful amongst a slightly wider genetic family (a tribe)? As the cognitive abilities of that creature improve and it becomes able to be introspective and able to verbalise its inner thoughts, how might it express that behaviour?
It is trivial to plot a course to the golden rule through natural selection, no need for a god that rasies far more questions than it answers, it is unnecessary.
That is fucking insane.
Very true.
He is still a baby after being nailed to the cross and over 2000 years? :eek: He is taking longer than* I* thought…
I don’t think it’s simply applicable to this debate (re religious indoctrination).
But I do think it’s worth looking at the “lie-to-children” concept in applied philosophy:
YES!
Keep the little ones’ minds pure and free of your cultural imprinting.
However… Language is a VERY big part of what defines one’s worldview.
So…
Don’t teach your kids Language until they are old enough to chose for themselves!
(not sure how you plan to communicate this with them, but that’s a secondary problem for the committee)
The Golden Rule, Matthew Chapter 7 verse 12? That Golden Rule?
Or maybe the (Buddhist) passage in the Udanavarga 5:18- “Hurt not others with that which pains yourself.”
There are others but I guess that’s not the point, is it. I’m always missing the point.
It predates those, it is a principle of reciprocity and we see it in other related social species. It is such a core trait that it would be astonishing not to find it codified in religious texts but it does not come from religion.
It is not like we didn’t know it and live by it until such point as someone wrote it down.
I see what you are saying but the analogy I’d make is that we equip out children with an initial means of communication but if we are any sort of parent we encourage them to explore others as well
We don’t say “English is the only language you’ll ever need” and if they end up speaking another languague fluently and living somwhere or with someone using another languge primarily we’d think …“great!”
Definitely. I mentioned God only because I find it interesting that even there, the justification is essentially the same: something like “hey you guys, you’re all the same to me, none of you better than the next, so you’d better treat each other as you’d treat yourselves.”
To be fair to Little Nemo, upon reflection I think you can arrive at the GR through selfish argument. It would go something like this: if you regularly treat others badly, and selectively, then you will eventually gain a reputation for being capricious and unreliable. Even if you never treat person X badly, person X will still see that you’ve treated persons Y and Z badly, and wonder if he is next. It’s better then to treat everyone fairly and gain a positive reputation, encouraging others to trust and trade with you. It is too risky to take even a tiny chance here: kick just one cat, noticed by just one person, and you’ll forever be known as the kind of person that kicks cats.
Yes, your bottom paragraph is a perfect example of why shitty behaviour might be selected out. In a society that benefits from altruism and cooperation, a non-conforming individual may be shunned and not pass on their genes.
It is also perfectly understandable why god might get shoehorned in there. Early societies feel those imperitives to behave a certain way but lack to education to explain why. That’s a worrying thought because if you don’t know why you do it, there is a risk you may stop. If head shaman suggests that actually it comes from an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful being then great, that becomes something you have to do on pain of real or metaphorical punishment.
I agree that the principle is a universal among social species but to say it “didn’t come from religion” supposes that there is something we are sure predates religion for humans. Which as far as I am aware, we are not. What we are sure of is that the religious impulse is one of the defining characteristics of human beings – why did the earliest humans bury their dead in careful specific ways, instead just walking away, like other animals?
Also, I am tired of the atheists who put Thomas Aquinas, Dante, St. Teresa of Avila, and the most loathsome, ignorant, and punitive modern reactionaries in the same bucket. Get yourselves some nuance, can’t you?
I also thought that quote was pretty clever the first time I read it. But then I got to thinking about it, and I came up with lots of non-religious ideologies that have led seemingly good, or at least normal, people, to do bad things. The most obvious example is so obvious I hate to even go there, but… you don’t think Germans were somehow substantially more evil a century ago than in generations before or since? Because it wasn’t their religion that started all that trouble.
Besides the older I get (and I’ve got a long way to go yet), the more I doubt this idea of “good” people and “evil” people anyway. Sure, you can look at someone’s life and add up the things they’ve done and say that, on balance, this person did more good deeds than bad, and more good deeds than most people did, and therefore call that person a good person. But the quote you offered presupposes another meaning. It posits that certain people do good things because they are good, not that they are good because they do good things. So then, what does it mean to be good? Is it an inborn trait-- could you, if you knew which babies would be good people, drop them in any circumstances and they’d still grow up good? Does your upbringing matter? If it’s strictly a product of one or both of those things, where do we get off punishing people for things they can’t control? Clearly those who subscribe to the idea of good and evil believe at least to some extent in free will. But if people have choices about how to behave, that means they can make different choices at any time. And in my experience, they do–everyone does some good things, and some evil things. And the process by which they choose how to act is always complex, often strongly influenced by community standards (whether that community is religious or not), and never set in stone.
I’m an atheist, sufficiently annoyed by having to tiptoe around religious beliefs that I made sure to specify my preference for atheists on my dating profile when I had one. I would not be sorry to see religion go the way of the evening newspaper and polio. But I think the idea that religion has a lock on, well, anything, is giving it too much credit, and I’d like to see some evidence.
Well humans arent the only species that bury their dead. And of course other primates have complicated social structures that incorporate a form of the golden rule and as far as we can tell they have no form of religion.
The most logical seqeunce of events to me is the beneficial behaviour appearing in hominids with no concept of religion, then having that trait be verbalised, codified and explained at the point where our expanding intelligence allows abstract thought and demands explanations for our pattern-seeking minds. Religion is just a poor attempt to explain what is currently a mystery and yes, probably unavoidable to some degree and possibly beneficial for early societies.
So we see the golden rule at work today in other apes with no religion. Convincing me that religion came first would be a high bar to clear.
Yeah, probably not possible for any quote to perfectly encapsulate the concept and “ideology” can stand in for “religion” more accurately. (but that’s not quite as elegant). Of course many of the most pernicious ideologies end up indistinguishable from religions, the totalitarianism, the edicts, the appeal to texts, the appeal to infallibility, the mob mentality etc.