|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Morality of atheists: where does it come from?
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The point being that neither of these authors live on a desert island without any Christian culture or 'backstory' as it were.
And neither do our churches live on desert islands without any secular influence. In some cases churches have been forced to behave in more moral ways because of the secular law that governs them.
Yes, somebody earlier in the thread, possibly Justinian, said that the churches have been playing catch-up morals in recent years, on issues such as equality for women and gays.
seriously?
It seems to me that a ,lot of the treatment by the Church, basically itys leadership, has been because of it's/their ignorance of the word, of it's central teachings and the example of Jesus himself - in other words, when churches have acted unjustly or cruelly they have displayed an 'atheistic spirit.'
How can a church diosplay authentic Bivblical morality in the spirit of Christ when the NT clearly says there is no difference between male and female and that we are all one on Christ?
How can a church - even if it doesn't believe in the validity of homosexual activity - be less forgiving than Jesus who said to the adulterous women, 'neither do i condemn thee'?
Maybe at their best atheists have reminded the church what their central morality should be, drawing them back to the spirit of Christ.
In any case, I don't here Christians who campaign for equality or justice or even tolerance for homosexuals quoting Peter Tatchell or using him as their authority; I invariably here them quoting Scripture of Christian theologians and thinkers.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Mudfrog
I really love your argument there, when the churches are being, well, somewhat deficient in their moral thinking, they are being 'atheistic'!
Delicious!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
And that when atheists drag the church into behaving properly the atheists are being Christian.
It reminds me of an story about a Christian paying his Jewish friend a compliment by saying that at heart his Jewish friend was not really a Jew at all, but a Christian.
His Jewish friend replied by saying that those things that the Christian saw in him and called Christian, he also saw in the Christian and called them Jewish.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, sorry to double up, but that question to seekingsister made me think about atheist thinkers who have contributed interesting ideas on morality.
Here are a few that I can think of:
Slavoj Zizek, Bernard Williams, Schopenhauer, Sartre, Santayana, B. Russell, Rorty, Rawls, Nietzsche, Mill, Colin McGinn, Mackie, Foucault, Paul Edwards, Dewey, Deleuze, Simon Blackburn, de Beauvoir, Badiou, A. J. Ayer.
Please add others!
Which one of these does not essentially claim that evolution or human development or "reason" is the source of human morality - as defined broadly as Western secular values?
The leading atheists of the day - Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens - are all Eurocentrists.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
mdijon
That reminds me of a famous passage by Trotsky, where he cites a British newspaper article which was lambasting the 'Kaffirs' of South Africa, and Trotsky says that he much prefers the nobility and dignity of the 'Kaffirs' to the foul morals and behaviour of their British oppressors, who were no doubt to a man, devout Christians!
It's probably in 'Their Morals and Ours', which I must reread.
[ 27. November 2013, 10:09: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Most Western atheists are either post-Judeo/Christian or humanist in their philosophies, and they tend to assume that all atheists in all environments and in all contexts would come to the same conclusions about moral behavior, rights, etc. They are wrong.
Yes - though on the other hand, it would be incorrect to argue that on that basis that there can't be a purely philosophical basis for morality or even humanism of some kind.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
seekingsister said quote:
That atheists claim their morality comes from some internal sense of right and wrong - I believe they are deluding themselves. Look how the atheists in North Korea behave, or the ones in China. There are plenty of societies that have organized around atheism that have no exhibited anything remotely approaching a moral character - USSR, Cambodia. (NOTE: religious societies have also done bad things, save yourself the effort of mentioning the Crusades or Inquisition here). It's not a "natural" way of being to think that caring for the poor or needy or the ethnic minority is the right thing to do.
Note that the societies quoted are, firstly, that, societies, not individuals. Secondly, they all arose during a particular period.
Usually, the arguments about altruism being not only natural, but an essential feature of human evolution are looking at smaller societies, and, dare I say it, more "primitive" groups. Even, it is quoted, at least one early hominid, found to have suffered injuries which would have made it impossible to survive alone, who has, none the less, lived on many years after the injury, presumably cared for by the group.
The recent case of the women trapped in servile status shows that in some groups any such instincts can be over-ridden, and interestingly, the first comparisons were made with religious cults, only for this to be overthrown with the group revealed to be a political group (with similar roots to societies seekingsister cites). In a small group like this, it is possible to identify all members as being atheist, but clearly atheism cannot be the cause of the immoral behaviour, since it is so similar to behaviour in religious cults.
In states like the USSR, it cannot be known that all members were atheist, and indeed it is clear that they weren't, as the whole of the Chinese population has not been. In North Korea, where there has been such tight control, it may not be possible that individuals have any other option than atheism, but it is the behaviour of individuals that needs to be judged, not that of the obviously abnormal top layer. (And the ruling groups in these societies have more in common with other ruling groups, whether religious or atheist, than with any ordinary member of any society. Usually male, aggressive, without empathy, concerned with personal status and dominance...)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Most Western atheists are either post-Judeo/Christian or humanist in their philosophies, and they tend to assume that all atheists in all environments and in all contexts would come to the same conclusions about moral behavior, rights, etc. They are wrong.
Yes - though on the other hand, it would be incorrect to argue that on that basis that there can't be a purely philosophical basis for morality or even humanism of some kind.
Although I am still waiting to hear from seekingsister who these 'they' are, who assert that all atheists would come to the same conclusions about morals.
I would tend to say the opposite - that at the moment, for example, there are frequent and heated debates amongst atheists about the nature of morality and ethics, and how a non-theistic ethics might look. I don't see a consensus at all.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S
(And the ruling groups in these societies have more in common with other ruling groups, whether religious or atheist, than with any ordinary member of any society. Usually male, aggressive, without empathy, concerned with personal status and dominance...)
So if women had been in charge, these societies would have been less evil, yes?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although I am still waiting to hear from seekingsister who these 'they' are, who assert that all atheists would come to the same conclusions about morals.
Not sure why you are waiting. Scroll up.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's much easier to find put downs if you take remarks out of context isn't it?
Says the person who attempted to pervert my words to claim that I was making a pro-slavery argument.
I didn't intend the remark to be taken at face value. I apologise.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
CS Lewis in The Abolition of Man not only takes it for granted that we're all born with a moral sense, but he goes out of his way through a lengthy appendix to find similarities between disparate ethical systems around the planet. If I recall his argument was that God planted these moral impulses in us. But he would think the title of this thread was trivial. Where does the morality of atheists come from? Same place all our morality comes from. We're born with it. It's part of the human inheritance.
In other words, we ALL get our morality from God, it's just some acknowledge it (religious people) others don't (humanists/atheists).
I seem to remember the former AB of C, Rowan Williams, asking something similar - that atheists can do good, but where does it come from?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The leading atheists of the day - Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens - are all Eurocentrists.
Dawkins is a humanist. Hitchens is an antitheist. Harris is a skeptic. What makes these people "leading atheists?" They write books. Some, even many, people buy these books. Have these buyers read the books? Dunno. I have lots of books myself, and have often joked that the best reason for not reading a book is owning it, so I can always read it "later."
I'm someone who describes herself as an atheist. I reject Dawkins as unnecessarily divisive; his describing his followers as "Brights" is an inherent put-down of religionists. I've encountered plenty of very, er, bright religionists right here on the Ship. I don't believe religionists as a whole are "stupid," and see neither point nor value in claiming this.
Hitchens I regard as an alarmist and the current Don Quixote of the atheist/religionist divide, tilting at straw windmills much of the time. The common argument, repeated several times on this thread, that religionists have done much harm in the name of religion is not inaccurate, but it is incomplete. Large-scale movements generally, religious, political, philosophical, whatever, develop mixed records over time. If atheism ever develops into an actual movement (and it's hard to imagine it will), it, too, will do both harm and good if it holds together long enough. Why? It's composed of human beings. We have form.
Harris I know little about (among those books I've yet to get around to). My point, though, is who are these leaders "leading?" The number of avowed atheists, at least IME, remains fairly small. What influence are these leaders having? Are they calling for the mass execution of clergy? Persecution of believers? Bombing of churches? Burning of Korans? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
These unorthodox views get public notice simply because they're unorthodox, at least here in the Bible-belt-wearing US. Miley Cyrus gets attention too. Doesn't make her a "leader" of anything. I personally suspect many of us who claim the label "atheist" claim it out of a desire not to be led, but to forge paths of our own through any given moral wilderness.
Lastly, while I have no quibble either with reason or with logic, I wish people would stop assuming that's one of the places atheists try to derive their morality from.
It's nonsense. The whole of human history demonstrates as clearly as possible that human beings do not operate primarily on the basis of logic or reason. Most of us operate, most of the time, on the basis of our emotions, which we then cleverly (or not) rationalize after the fact.
Morality is our primary defense against the most negative of our emotion-based actions.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S
(And the ruling groups in these societies have more in common with other ruling groups, whether religious or atheist, than with any ordinary member of any society. Usually male, aggressive, without empathy, concerned with personal status and dominance...)
So if women had been in charge, these societies would have been less evil, yes?
I haven't the faintest idea - merely describing what is observable. I did say usually. There is always Elisabeth Bathory - but I'm not sure she led a society in the same way. I did try to think of some women cult leaders of that type, but couldn't. I don't think Mary Baker Eddy or Ellen White were quite like that, but arguments accepted. So, either the women have been, like early astronomers, largely airbrushed from history, or they didn't found cults, or if they did, they weren't of the destructive sort. Which is interesting, given the conversation I was having with the window fitter this morning about girl bullies, and how difficult they are to deal with.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If somebody comes over the hill with a big enough sharp pointy thing and declares that might is right, then doing what they say is what keeps the peace best for most people.
Call me crazy, but isn't human history well-littered with the remains of such regimes? A large body of resentful people tends not so much to "peace" over time as it does to plotting the overthrow of those wielding sharp pointy things in ways the resentful disapprove of.
Firstly, I think you're underestimating the role of people with big pointy sticks in maintaining the present economic and political order.
Secondly, that's the major problem with might as right as a philosophy - that might seldom turns out to be mighty enough. The people who resent the big pointy stick frequently turn out to be even mightier. Of course, that particular problem doesn't apply to a supposed omnipotent God, to get back to the point I originally made.
Thirdly, you concede that regimes based on morality as what works also die out. It's just that they last longer than the ones that don't. So if all societies die out eventually anyway you're not making any distinction by saying that regimes based on might makes right die out. Regimes that don't have enough might to hold off more powerful neighbours die out with greater frequency than those that do.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
...Dawkins is a humanist. Hitchens is an antitheist. Harris is a skeptic. What makes these people "leading atheists?" They write books. Some, even many, people buy these books...
And some, even many, don't.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I am a Christian and I do not follow Rick Warren's teachings, but based on his book sales and influence I would say he is a leading Christian personality.
That you personally don't like Dawkins or Hitchens has nothing to do with that fact that they are among the most well-known atheist thinkers and have a wide-reaching cultural and social influence.
What is with people on this thread personalizing everything? If it's not true for you, it can't be true at all?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
...Dawkins is a humanist. Hitchens is an antitheist. Harris is a skeptic. What makes these people "leading atheists?" They write books. Some, even many, people buy these books...
And some, even many, don't.
You're clearly missing Porridge's points.
I agree with her by and large, although Dan Dennett is one of the "leading atheists" (whatever) that I find fascinating in his view points, and the one who actually talks about things that I care about - like the evolution of religion, the philosophy of morality etc. I could think of little better than to say, atheist or not, to listen to him if you want a well thought out view point on the origins of both of these from an atheistic point of view.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Porridge wrote:
Lastly, while I have no quibble either with reason or with logic, I wish people would stop assuming that's one of the places atheists try to derive their morality from.
It's nonsense. The whole of human history demonstrates as clearly as possible that human beings do not operate primarily on the basis of logic or reason. Most of us operate, most of the time, on the basis of our emotions, which we then cleverly (or not) rationalize after the fact.
Morality is our primary defense against the most negative of our emotion-based actions.
Now this I like. I've argued this for ages - I remember going to a week-end course on ethics, which presented various ethical dilemmas, and I kept getting up and saying, 'but surely this is an emotional dilemma?'. To which, most people there stared at me blankly.
You can obtain some kind of ethical framework from reason, I suppose, but I'm not convinced that you would actually use it, when the heat is on.
I think ethics is quite different from an abstract philosophical point of view, and when one is in the middle of some crisis.
It seems to me that atheists who are interested in ethics, will discuss consequentialism, deontological ethics, pragmatism, virtue ethics, evolutionary ideas, innateness, nihilism, and so on. Is there a consensus? I can't see one.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Lyda*Rose
I do like your quotations; I wish I was good at remembering that sort of thing!
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Atheism is not a belief system.
That is the point I'm making Susan. I'm not sure what you are struggling to understand.
I read (i.e. listen to) posts and respond to the contents, so apologies if I missed a point.
quote:
Atheists who have a morality that goes beyond that which is of material use to the individual, MUST (in my view) have ANOTHER belief system. Buddhism, humanism. Pick what you like.
Are you referring to altruistic behaviour, to adherence to the rule of law and the 'golden rule', to thoughts of God/god/s, to appreciation of the arts, to hopes and dreams, both for oneself and others? These might not lead to direct material (in terms of money or goods) gain, but they materially, even in the smallest way, affect our minds ... and probably, or should I say 'therefore', our moral behaviour.
My morality is not behind or beyond anything; it is not someone's or some group's belief system.
Unless you can explain otherwise, I would say that all moral behaviour arose from a set of behaviours which proved beneficial to the species, and were codified (is that the right word here?) into sets of rules by groups since presumably it would have beenfound that this was a much easier way for them to be learnt and remembered. Of course my morality resembles very much that of the law and civilised behaviour of the society I live in, but would you not agree that 'good', 'right', beneficial' morality pre-dates these religions?
(I mean, there must have been atheists right from the time gods were first proposed - I'd love to know what and how they thought!) quote:
That atheists claim their morality comes from some internal sense of right and wrong - I believe they are deluding themselves.
Who claims this? The atheists I know and many believers too, accept that the case is an evolutionary process. Do the leaders of the countries you mention do what they do because of their atheism?
They are certainly deluded if they think they are doing the best they can for their people. I'd say their sole interest is in power and wealth for themselves so that moral, altruistic behaviour is ignored and suppressed.
quote:
Atheism without another philosophy or belief system that ascribes value to humanity cannot be moral.
Again I ask, where is it said that atheism is moral? The people who are atheists will be either moral or not, or somewhere in between,
quote:
... Because what makes the most rational sense is to protect oneself and one's family/community/nation at the expense of others if necessary. One life to live so maximize it. There's no afterlife or reincarnation so why bother with moral questions, just focus on survival. In the West this may seem extreme but go to a poor developing country with limited resources and it will make quite a bit more sense.
It does not make the most sense for survival to think of oneself only and 'who cares about the rest'. That would have meant an early extinction for the human species, I think.
Personally, I never think, 'I'm an atheist, therefore I adhere to such and such a moral code.' I hope I consider the best bits from what II've learnt throughout my life, adhere to that, and adapt and change as better ideas come along.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Porridge wrote:
quote:
.... Most of us operate, most of the time, on the basis of our emotions, which we then cleverly (or not) rationalize after the fact.
Now this I like.
I agree with both of you.
It's pretty much the view of David Hume in his Treatise. Interestingly philosophers have often ignored what he said about belief being emotionally driven.
The man said, “The woman you put here with me — she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
Double rationalisation. It was the woman's fault and if that fails, it was God's for creating her.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
que sais-je
What about 'reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions' (Hume)?
In some ways, this is a sensational assertion, and sometimes is used to describe the 'inertness of reason', (Stanford Encyclopedia), i.e. the idea that reason in itself cannot generate desires or intentions.
I have seen atheists dumb-founded by this quotation, as it seems to downgrade reason considerably.
But I suppose the is/ought problem is also germane here - I think that Sam Harris claimed to have got rid of it - much to the amusement of some.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
In other words, we ALL get our morality from God, it's just some acknowledge it (religious people) others don't (humanists/atheists).
I seem to remember the former AB of C, Rowan Williams, asking something similar - that atheists can do good, but where does it come from?
From the Christian point of view, yes. I don't expect an atheist to see it this way, but I'm saying that a Christian who doesn't is wrong. So the question, "where do atheists get their morals from?" is unnecessary and presupposes a falsehood, namely, that Christian morality is different in some basic respect from everybody else's morality.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
atheism as a concept has no morality of its own.
Of course not. But what is being argued here (and every time this bloody subject comes up) is that atheists have no morality. But they do. They have basically the same morality as all of us, whether because God implanted it or because evolution made them that way as it makes us that way. Christian ethics isn't significantly different from everybody else's ethics, except for (depending on your reading of Christianity) threat of punishment.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
[a long quote from Ursula K. LeGuin]
That's gorgeous, and that sort of thing is one reason LeGuin is one of my favorite scifi/fantasy authors.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I remain convinced that the culture of the day, in which atheistic authors were brought up with, will either be actively rejected or unconsciously absorbed into their own personal worldview. They will not have been a blank canvas upon which they painted their own, original and equally valid morality.
True but our culture evolved out of the Judaic culture, the ancient Roman and Greek cultures, northern European cultures -- it's overly simplistic to say it's "Christian Culture" as if Christian culture was born fully formed from the forehead of Constantine the Great.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, sorry to double up, but that question to seekingsister made me think about atheist thinkers who have contributed interesting ideas on morality.
Here are a few that I can think of: <snip> Please add others!
Camus.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Atheists who have a morality that goes beyond that which is of material use to the individual, MUST (in my view) have ANOTHER belief system. Buddhism, humanism. Pick what you like.
Only if morality must perforce come from a belief system.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What about 'reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions' (Hume)?
I think that's in the Enquiries but it says much the same. The Treatise makes the point that you can show the same evidence to two people and one may accept it but the other not. It happens quite a lot on the Ship. Given an argument for the existence of God, I'll probably either look for a flaw or assume that someone cleverer than me can find one. Confusingly I have the same reaction to arguments against the existence of God.
OK maybe there are flaws in all arguments but you have to either believe or not - and I'd say emotion is one of the reasons (part of which is that if you change your mind about a big thing, the rest of your belief system probably has to be rebuilt and we hate doing that).
I have seen atheists dumb-founded by this quotation, as it seems to downgrade reason considerably.
Reason seems to me much overrated when trying to discover the meaning (if any) of Life, the Universe and Everything. Though quite good for finding flaws in other peoples' arguments. Also find it useful when doing Sudoku.
"When the Temple of Reason was nearing completion, a mine was laid by which, in the end, the whole edifice would be blown sky-high" said Russell of Hume. But most philosophers, Russell included, continued as though it had never happened.
Hume's arguments about induction are equally corrosive. The pietist Hamann (see SEP) had a love-hate relationship with Hume, arguing that faith in God was no less reasonable that any other belief if you followed Hume's line. I think Hamann was right - though, I'm told, he's almost unreadable. I don't believe in God, but I don't think it is more or less unreasonable than doing so.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That reminds me of a famous passage by Trotsky, where he cites a British newspaper article which was lambasting the 'Kaffirs' of South Africa, and Trotsky says that he much prefers the nobility and dignity of the 'Kaffirs' to the foul morals and behaviour of their British oppressors, who were no doubt to a man, devout Christians!
Of course so were (and still are) many of the 'Kaffirs'.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
que sais-je
Great quote from Russell.
I was thinking about Foucault who (partly) argued that ethics was the means whereby the powerful gave a good ideological kicking to the powerless - that is a rough paraphrase!
But this is rather like the Marxist analysis - see Trotsky above, who talks about the 'moral effluvia' which is shown by the powerful, as they attempt to oppress the powerless.
So this kind of atheist analysis, is a kind of subversion of conventional morality, and seeing it in some ways as a con-trick, or an act of partisanship.
But Simone Weil brilliantly reversed this by arguing that the real opium of the people is not religion - but revolution. Well, that is quite a nice bit of rhetoric.
But where does this leave the above kind of 'atheist morality'? Not as something monolithic at all, but heterogeneous, and not rational.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That reminds me of a famous passage by Trotsky, where he cites a British newspaper article which was lambasting the 'Kaffirs' of South Africa, and Trotsky says that he much prefers the nobility and dignity of the 'Kaffirs' to the foul morals and behaviour of their British oppressors, who were no doubt to a man, devout Christians!
Of course so were (and still are) many of the 'Kaffirs'.
Yes, of course.
I was wrong about the quote also - it's from 'Neuer Weg', who (I think) were a left-wing group, so Trotsky is being doubly sarcastic about their racism.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl:
We need some sort of morality to live together, and almost by definition the powerful get to decide what it is. So morality as a whole isn't just a con trick though the particular morality of a period maybe.
But where does this leave the above kind of 'atheist morality'? Not as something monolithic at all, but heterogeneous, and not rational.
I have no problem with that. Be wary of systems because we rarely get them right. The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. (2 Cor. 3:6)
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
que sais-je
Yes, you are right, 'con-trick' is too strong; I must stop reading Trotsky.
But I think Foucault said that to know is to control; and to control is to know. But I think he would also say that the demonic brilliance of bourgeois morality (and maybe all moralities), is that we internalize our own oppression.
By gum, these French chappies certainly could string a few sentences together.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Right, too feverish to do a proper quote response so here goes addressing various points on the thread.
Did anyone say human reactions are always based in logic or reason? No, just that the origin of moral behaviour as evolutionary can be described in a logical, reasonable and rational manner.
A quick glance into animal behaviour shows many examples at many levels of behaviours that are detrimental to the individual, but beneficial to the species and some that are not a detriment, but not much a benefit unless applied at the group level.
Why are we to be different?
Did Mudfrog utter the Mother of All One True Scotsman arguments?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That reminds me of game theory, the holy grail of some atheists, esp. as described by the Blessed W. D. Hamilton (see Chasing the Red Queen, for example). An atheist, he left a note about his burial, which included the famous phrase, 'and this great Coprophanaeus beetle will bury me. They will enter, will bury, will live on my flesh; and in the shape of their children and mine, I will escape death.'
The Red Queen idea states that sex, by producing genetically unique offspring, protects against the ravages of parasites, predators, mothers-in-law, etc. The more you run, the better you can stand still in the arms race. This does not work in the pub on a Saturday night, I can assure you.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Lastly, while I have no quibble either with reason or with logic, I wish people would stop assuming that's one of the places atheists try to derive their morality from.
It's nonsense. The whole of human history demonstrates as clearly as possible that human beings do not operate primarily on the basis of logic or reason. Most of us operate, most of the time, on the basis of our emotions, which we then cleverly (or not) rationalize after the fact.
It would be nice, or at least consistent, if (some) atheists didn't denigrate religion on that basis in other contexts.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
What these approaches have in common is that they define morality a priori according to an external standard, so any action can be checked against the standard and found to be either good or bad.
At the risk of almost repeating my question from earlier, how do you do this? Where is the check list? Can you send me a copy?
Afraid not old chap. I don't have a copy.
Several people (e.g. Justinian, Timothy the Obscure, Creosos, anyone else I've missed ... ) have said something similar: that believing in an absolute, objective moral standard is to believe that we have easy access to this standard. We don't, because all our perspectives are subjective. The existence of the objective standard means that when I do something, it is either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. The non-existence of that standard (i.e. if only subjective standards existed) would mean that my action could only be subjectively right or wrong, i.e. morality was up for grabs depending on who you were.
This is analogous to science. We don't know the complete set of the laws of the universe. We do however believe that at root these laws are universal and invariant - properties which allow us to investigate what they are. If we thought there were no universal laws governing the universe, or that they fluctuated unpredictably, scientists would just give up and go home.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Several people (e.g. Justinian, Timothy the Obscure, Creosos, anyone else I've missed ... ) have said something similar: that believing in an absolute, objective moral standard is to believe that we have easy access to this standard. We don't, because all our perspectives are subjective. The existence of the objective standard means that when I do something, it is either absolutely right or absolutely wrong.
That and two quid will get you a cup of coffee. Seriously, if there is an objective moral standard to which neither you nor any other sapient being within the universe has access to, and there is no direct way from within this universe of holding an action up against the objective moral standard and seeing how it measures up then to all beings within this universe it is indistinguishable from one that does not exist.
quote:
This is analogous to science. We don't know the complete set of the laws of the universe. We do however believe that at root these laws are universal and invariant - properties which allow us to investigate what they are. If we thought there were no universal laws governing the universe, or that they fluctuated unpredictably, scientists would just give up and go home.
Bullshit. When we come up with a model for the laws governing the universe we then can and must test it. We see the gap between that model and what actually happens in the universe. Without actually being able to test your models of the universe against some sort of standard they wouldn't be worth the paper they were printed on. The very best you would be able to do would be mathematics in such a way that we did not know whether the universe was governed normally under the rules of standard arithmetic, modular arithmetic, or even transfinite arithmetic.
You are analogous to science here if and only if you remove the actual science.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Did Mudfrog utter the Mother of All One True Scotsman arguments?
I rather think he did, combining it with a Christian version of Mr Everything comes from India
"Laws, culture, ethics - Christian! Opposition to homophobia - Christian! Volunteering - Christian! Medicine - Christian. Fluffy bunnies - Christian!"
@Dafyd
quote:
It would be nice, or at least consistent, if (some) atheists didn't denigrate religion on that basis in other contexts.
Which, of course, invalidates Porridge's point.
quote:
We don't, because all our perspectives are subjective. The existence of the objective standard means that when I do something, it is either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. The non-existence of that standard (i.e. if only subjective standards existed) would mean that my action could only be subjectively right or wrong, i.e. morality was up for grabs depending on who you were.
So how do you use a standard you don't have access to? How do you know it actually exists and is not just a bunch of subjective standards from a bygone age?
Edited to say Justinian got in before me.
[ 27. November 2013, 22:35: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
The use of an objective standard is that it allows objective morality to exist. If there's no objective standard, there's nothing objectively bad about the actions of someone who thinks it's fun to stab you while throwing acid in your eyes. I believe that such actions are objectively wrong so I believe in the existence of objective morality. While it's not a cut'n'shut proof, I also think that the similarity of the moral compasses inside the vast majority of humanity adds weight to my belief.
The big issue is, once you've posited an objective moral standard, you've posited something other than the physical, so strict materialism stops being able to explain the entire universe. Either there is something other than the physical world but by which the physical world may be judged, or else you are not objectively better than a serial killer.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
The use of an objective standard is that it allows objective morality to exist.
At this point you're pretty much just assuming a can opener. In other words, since you would prefer such an objective standard to exist, you assume that it does exist. Is there anything here other than wishful thinking?
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
If there's no objective standard, there's nothing objectively bad about the actions of someone who thinks it's fun to stab you while throwing acid in your eyes. I believe that such actions are objectively wrong so I believe in the existence of objective morality.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. If, as you previously stated, there's no way to really know what this objective morality is, in what sense is it "objective"? In what sense can it be said to exist at all?
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
While it's not a cut'n'shut proof, I also think that the similarity of the moral compasses inside the vast majority of humanity adds weight to my belief.
Perhaps, as others have suggested, it's just that groups without the usual civilized rules against murder, theft, and impertinence tend to dissolve in anarchy. Or it could be that a lot of people find such an idea just as convenient as you do. You have to admit the idea that your own judgements are built into the fabric of the universe, making you right and everyone who disagrees with you objectively wrong, is a pretty enticing one.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Either there is something other than the physical world but by which the physical world may be judged, or else you are not objectively better than a serial killer.
. . . or an atheist. Or a Jew. Or any other person who disagrees with you. That seems to be the real attraction here; the notion that your moral code is superior to all others in a way that is demonstrably, objectively woven into the fabric of the universe. Is there anything here other than ego?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
This is analogous to science. We don't know the complete set of the laws of the universe. We do however believe that at root these laws are universal and invariant - properties which allow us to investigate what they are. If we thought there were no universal laws governing the universe, or that they fluctuated unpredictably, scientists would just give up and go home.
The difference here is that with science we have a way of getting closer and closer to a right understanding of what is going on: testing our hypotheses against data from the real world.
There is no such mechanism for theistic ethics.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
The use of an objective standard is that it allows objective morality to exist.
At this point you're pretty much just assuming a can opener. In other words, since you would prefer such an objective standard to exist, you assume that it does exist. Is there anything here other than wishful thinking?
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
If there's no objective standard, there's nothing objectively bad about the actions of someone who thinks it's fun to stab you while throwing acid in your eyes. I believe that such actions are objectively wrong so I believe in the existence of objective morality.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. If, as you previously stated, there's no way to really know what this objective morality is, in what sense is it "objective"? In what sense can it be said to exist at all?
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
While it's not a cut'n'shut proof, I also think that the similarity of the moral compasses inside the vast majority of humanity adds weight to my belief.
Perhaps, as others have suggested, it's just that groups without the usual civilized rules against murder, theft, and impertinence tend to dissolve in anarchy. Or it could be that a lot of people find such an idea just as convenient as you do. You have to admit the idea that your own judgements are built into the fabric of the universe, making you right and everyone who disagrees with you objectively wrong, is a pretty enticing one.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Either there is something other than the physical world but by which the physical world may be judged, or else you are not objectively better than a serial killer.
. . . or an atheist. Or a Jew. Or any other person who disagrees with you. That seems to be the real attraction here; the notion that your moral code is superior to all others in a way that is demonstrably, objectively woven into the fabric of the universe. Is there anything here other than ego?
That all seems accurate. It's just assuming your conclusion, really. Or assuming your preferred conclusion, without all the messy stuff of providing arguments or evidence for it, because, I suppose, there aren't any.
And I don't get this use of the word 'objective' - does it just add some extra lustre or glamour? Or is that 'luster'?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
It does not make the most sense for survival to think of oneself only and 'who cares about the rest'. That would have meant an early extinction for the human species, I think.
The level of identity I gave was quite a bit higher than "oneself" - I mentioned community and nation.
You have perhaps led a charmed life, to think that such behavior would lead to the extinction of mankind. It's happened and continues to happen all around the world and we're still here, last time I checked.
There is nothing inherently wrong with killing off a competing tribe that starts using a finite source of water, if it means that your children and village will survive.
While an atheist in the West will almost certainly say such behavior is wrong, that's because of the influence of religious or philosophical viewpoints that they have absorbed as part of living in a post-Christian society.
An atheist in China or India, countries where competition for resources is fierce and people are routinely forced off of land or deprived of rights in order to make room for others, is less likely to "naturally" come to the same conclusion.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Atheists might also cite the possibility that evolution has favoured altruism; thus, self-interest alone may not be favoured by natural selection.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Atheists might also cite the possibility that evolution has favoured altruism; thus, self-interest alone may not be favoured by natural selection.
And in almost every culture in the world, the reasons given for the benefits of altruism have been through the lens of religion. Suggesting that altruism as means for survival of the species is not self-evident outside of the framework of a religious philosophy.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Atheists might also cite the possibility that evolution has favoured altruism; thus, self-interest alone may not be favoured by natural selection.
To which the response should be - and so what?
Evolution seems to have equally favoured prejudice against minorities and strangers, psychopathic risk-taking, alpha male dominance, testosterone fuelled male violence, etc etc. Any behaviour people engage in is by definition either favoured by evolution or a byproduct of behaviour favoured by evolution. (We aren't evolved to watch television; but television clearly satisfies certain behavioural dispositions that did evolve.)
In short, if we say altruism is justified because it's favoured by evolution, that amounts to saying whatever is is right.
But anyway, what's so special about being favoured by evolution? As was pointed out earlier in this thread, someone like Richard Dawkins says that reason allows us to rise above evolution. For Dawkins and anybody who holds opinions like his being favoured by evolution is irrelevant to reason.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Atheists might also cite the possibility that evolution has favoured altruism; thus, self-interest alone may not be favoured by natural selection.
And in almost every culture in the world, the reasons given for the benefits of altruism have been through the lens of religion. Suggesting that altruism as means for survival of the species is not self-evident outside of the framework of a religious philosophy.
I don't think that evolutionary advantages are generally self-evident, are they? In fact, in general, natural processes operate in a rather covert manner - for example, I don't think that physicists really understand what gravity is, do they? Of course, they can still make calculations, using its effects.
But the idea of natural selection, the role of genetic information in it, the idea of kin selection, the various strategies cited in game theory - these notions have not been obvious at all in human history, and as it were, have had to be prised out of a kind of unconsciousness.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Atheists might also cite the possibility that evolution has favoured altruism; thus, self-interest alone may not be favoured by natural selection.
To which the response should be - and so what?
Evolution seems to have equally favoured prejudice against minorities and strangers, psychopathic risk-taking, alpha male dominance, testosterone fuelled male violence, etc etc. Any behaviour people engage in is by definition either favoured by evolution or a byproduct of behaviour favoured by evolution. (We aren't evolved to watch television; but television clearly satisfies certain behavioural dispositions that did evolve.)
In short, if we say altruism is justified because it's favoured by evolution, that amounts to saying whatever is is right.
But anyway, what's so special about being favoured by evolution? As was pointed out earlier in this thread, someone like Richard Dawkins says that reason allows us to rise above evolution. For Dawkins and anybody who holds opinions like his being favoured by evolution is irrelevant to reason.
Surely, we are not talking about justifying altruism, but explaining it? I think it can be explained in religious terms, but it can also be explained in evolutionary terms, (although initially, I think it was seen as a problem). In fact, there is no reason why we can't do both!
Your points about reason are interesting, but then some posters on this thread have argued that morals are largely determined by emotional factors. The evolutionary role of emotions is certainly a fascinating topic, but alas, o/t.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If, as you previously stated, there's no way to really know what this objective morality is, in what sense is it "objective"? In what sense can it be said to exist at all?
quote:
You have to admit the idea that your own judgements are built into the fabric of the universe, making you right and everyone who disagrees with you objectively wrong, is a pretty enticing one.
First you say that an objective standard we can't easily access is useless, then in the same post you repeat the old canard that I'm trying to justify my own views by claiming objectivity. Those two statements are incompatible, so which is it to be?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
This is analogous to science. We don't know the complete set of the laws of the universe. We do however believe that at root these laws are universal and invariant - properties which allow us to investigate what they are. If we thought there were no universal laws governing the universe, or that they fluctuated unpredictably, scientists would just give up and go home.
The difference here is that with science we have a way of getting closer and closer to a right understanding of what is going on: testing our hypotheses against data from the real world.
There is no such mechanism for theistic ethics.
No mechanism at all? I don't think you believe that. You and I believe in revelation from God. Other people believe different things. That's a separate question though: the question of "How do we discover true knowledge". I'm talking about the question of "Is there true knowledge out there to be discovered". The methods of discovering true knowledge vary between the disciplines of science and ethics, but what's common between the two is that nobody's going to bother trying to work out a governing principle unless it's applicable elsewhere. Rules that change every day are no rules at all, and that applies just as much to moral rules as to any others.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Positing an objective ethical fact of the matter of which we can't have reliable knowledge is equivalent to saying that the principle of non-contradiction applies to ethics.
The principle of non-contradiction doesn't apply where there isn't an objective fact of the matter. Or at least, if someone thinks the principle of non-contradiction applies within ethics and yet they maintain ethics does not aim at an objective fact of the matter then that's a remarkable coincidence.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, part of the problem here is that we humans tend to prefer Black and White to the subtlety of the grey.
Morals as an evolutionary process is not a simple matter of right v. wrong, good v. bad.
That altruism is selected for does not then mean that altruism is all.
A religious outlook gives comfort in having a set of rules, something also we humans like.
Evolution, social interaction; they are messy and not perfectly consistent.*
*Neither, truly, are religious rules, but that is a discussion for another thread.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
[And in almost every culture in the world, the reasons given for the benefits of altruism have been through the lens of religion.
and it so happens that in almost every culture in the world there exists a religion that sees value in altruism.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
