One other thing, H.C. You seem to be asserting that religion determines the "background assumptions of a society." I think a strong case could be made that it's the other way around, and American society is a case in point. There is no other culture in the world so dedicated to religious liberty, and no other culture in the world with such a rainbow of religious beliefs. Not only are all the world's great religions and most of its minor ones represented here, but America has been the wellspring of a great many new religions and new sects of old ones.

At times, you have seemed to be asserting that this diversity -- and the challenge it presents to traditional Christianity's influence on our society -- endangers the values and mores central to American culture. But what could be more obvious than that this diversity is a product of those very values and mores?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

What about it? They exist, but what about them creates obligation? We can sympathize with others (or most of us can), and we can choose to act with others' interests in mind.

But what about that ability creates any duty to use it?

what creates the duty to use any standard?-- the consequences of not using it. our ability to put ourselves in another's position causes us to know, or at least consider, what can happen if we don't discern right from wrong, whether we're discerning it in others' behavior or our own.

let's take this way back and consider (what else?) the practical application: would it or would it not be a great evolutionary advantage to be able to discern right from wrong? to be able to tell who is good and who is evil?

if proto-human A used violence against proto-human B, proto-humans C through Z would need to be able to tell whether proto-human A did so for the reasons deemed "right" (and thus was someone to trust and keep around) or for reasons deemed "wrong" (and thus was someone to shun or punish). judging this incorrectly could have dire consequences.

conversely, proto-human A would need to be able to tell right from wrong to know how to act so as to be trusted and not to be shunned or killed.

meaningful enough?


TK

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

What about it? They exist, but what about them creates obligation? We can sympathize with others (or most of us can), and we can choose to act with others' interests in mind.

But what about that ability creates any duty to use it?

what creates the duty to use any standard?-- the consequences of not using it. our ability to put ourselves in another's position causes us to know, or at least consider, what can happen if we don't discern right from wrong, whether we're discerning it in others' behavior or our own.

let's take this way back and consider (what else?) the practical application: would it or would it not be a great evolutionary advantage to be able to discern right from wrong? to be able to tell who is good and who is evil?

if proto-human A used violence against proto-human B, proto-humans C through Z would need to be able to tell whether proto-human A did so for the reasons deemed "right" (and thus was someone to trust and keep around) or for reasons deemed "wrong" (and thus was someone to shun or punish). judging this incorrectly could have dire consequences.

conversely, proto-human A would need to be able to tell right from wrong to know how to act so as to be trusted and not to be shunned or killed.

meaningful enough?


TK

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Without a religious basis, you can't meaningfully say that anyone has any rights. Either there is an objective moral standard, or else there's nothing but acts of will, in which case the only 'rights' that mean anything are those of the powerful, who will have no reason not to look out for their own self-interests.

What about the whole edifice of natural law? And then there are the results of game theory that show how behaviing as if others had rights is adaptive. Not everybody acknowledges that rights apply to others, sociopaths don't for example. But how adaptive is the sociopathic way of life?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Without a religious basis, you can't meaningfully say that anyone has any rights. Either there is an objective moral standard, or else there's nothing but acts of will, in which case the only 'rights' that mean anything are those of the powerful, who will have no reason not to look out for their own self-interests.

What about the whole edifice of natural law? And then there are the results of game theory that show how behaviing as if others had rights is adaptive. Not everybody acknowledges that rights apply to others, sociopaths don't for example. But how adaptive is the sociopathic way of life?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It's not a question of acceptance.

Yes it is. And here's why:

they're just social constructs that lack meaning.

One chooses what meaning to apply to concepts. You choose to apply meaning only to religious constructs. Thus the only source of rights that you will accept is religion. You have simply defined the world in this way by asserting it as fact, you have made it fact.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It's not a question of acceptance.

Yes it is. And here's why:

they're just social constructs that lack meaning.

One chooses what meaning to apply to concepts. You choose to apply meaning only to religious constructs. Thus the only source of rights that you will accept is religion. You have simply defined the world in this way by asserting it as fact, you have made it fact.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

To my mind, the vector of change leads away from religious agricultural (red) cultures towards secular industrial cultures, towards more international cooperation, towards more equality, towards better enforcement of human rights.

Without a religious basis, you can't meaningfully say that anyone has any rights. Either there is an objective moral standard, or else there's nothing but acts of will, in which case the only 'rights' that mean anything are those of the powerful, who will have no reason not to look out for their own self-interests.

Technological change, or the shift from agricultural to industrial cultures, are irrelevant to that.

Well, first off, I'm a devout agnostic. I can respect much ancient wisdom which is passed on through religious teaching. I realize that for some people, God plays a large part in their decision to act in a moral fashion. Perhaps these people, if it were possible to prove that God does not exist, would instantly become immoral. Without a fear of hell or promise of reward in heaven, why would they act morally?

But I choose to act morally without religious motivation. I choose to act within the constraints of the social contract as this is in my best interests, as I wish others to act in a similar way towards me.

Now, it is true that men knew the difference between good and evil before the Enlightenment. The Western concept of 'sin' has evolved somewhat since the Agricultural Age, but not that much. It is also true that the basics of what is legal and acceptable within the secular social contract, criminal law is an extension of the concept of sin.

It is wrong to say the Inquisition respected freedom of religion, freedom of speech, due process of law, and the rest. These ideas were daydreams during the Agricultural age. While many felt tyranny was wrong, there was no structure or force to give these feelings force until the Enlightenment.

Before the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, before militias, before revolutions, before democracies, religion could not and did not enforce the rights of conscience. More often, as Marx claimed, religion acted as the 'opium of the masses.' The cleric and warrior classes cooperating to keep the People subdued. Religion existed before modern industrial civilization in part as a tool of oppression. It was the Enlightenment concepts and implementation of the social contract, rights and democracy that created the modern West.

I've oft stated my view that recent S&H crises have featured conflict between an autocratic, religious, rural, conservative faction resisting change, and a democratic, secular, urban, progressive faction advocating change. I see the red / blue divide as old and basic. It has been going on at least since the Protestant Reformation, though at that point the conflict was between more and less autocratic churches, rather than between religious and secular world views. I have oft repeated that the democratic, secular, urban, progressive faction has always produced the Gray Champion, and has always written the history book. Thus, while I find religious people to be often good neighbors, and while I can respect much religious wisdom, come the crisis, I would expect the fundamentalists to be the bad guys. When I see the Republican religious right squaring off against the Islamist religious right, I cringe, and wildly scan the horizon looking for good guys ready to take on the winner.

I do not deny that the modern secular world views borrowed much from ancient religious traditions. However, it was secular forces which created the modern democratic government, generally seizing human rights, equality and political power from a red faction proclaiming ancient oppressive traditions as the Will of God. While many center their sense of morality on God, many do not. While some cannot conceive of a reason to be moral save through their relationship with supernatural forces, this is not true of all.

I sometimes also differentiate between three systems of truth which coexist within our culture. We all have to know when to switch between these systems. Different people's values systems are based on one system or another.

After a car crash, one might ask several questions. "What was the driver's blood alcohol level?" might be an example of a scientific questions. Assuming one can get a sample reasonably promptly, one can answer that question. "Was the driver at fault?" is a legal question. One can answer legal questions definitively, though not always perfectly. The mechanisms for determining legal truths are entirely different, involving laws, judges, lawyers, rights, and juries. "Will the driver will burn in hellfire everlasting?" is a religious question. Religious questions are inherently unanswerable. The First Amendment, in fact, guarantees everyone a right to their own opinion on such questions.

On abortion, we see the three world views collide again. When does the fetus become sentient? When does the fetus become a citizen, and thus gain legal rights? When does the fetus gain a soul? People with different world views, with different ideas on which is the more important question, can reach vastly different conclusions with no hope for a meeting of minds. If St. Augustine long ago claimed God attaches a soul at a certain age for male babies, and at a certain other age for female babies, is it not obvious that the law must protect these souls? Or does the First Amendment forbid the state from giving a religious belief force of law?

Anyway, my world view is scientific first, legal second, religious third. I can comprehend that others prioritize differently. I deny a notion that the ancient religious myths are necessary for moral behavior and the existence of the social contract. I quite understand that the some individuals believe faith is necessary for themselves. I tend to get ticked off, though, when individuals with religious based morality attempt to enforce their beliefs on others through law. Thus, while I see an ancient correlation between what is a sin and what is a crime, I find it important to distinguish between the two. While the state may have a legitimate role in regulating the fishing industry to protect against over fishing, they have no business preventing the sale of fish on Friday during Lent. While modern secular law once borrowed from older world views, they have been and ought to be cleanly sundered.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

To my mind, the vector of change leads away from religious agricultural (red) cultures towards secular industrial cultures, towards more international cooperation, towards more equality, towards better enforcement of human rights.

Without a religious basis, you can't meaningfully say that anyone has any rights. Either there is an objective moral standard, or else there's nothing but acts of will, in which case the only 'rights' that mean anything are those of the powerful, who will have no reason not to look out for their own self-interests.

Technological change, or the shift from agricultural to industrial cultures, are irrelevant to that.

Well, first off, I'm a devout agnostic. I can respect much ancient wisdom which is passed on through religious teaching. I realize that for some people, God plays a large part in their decision to act in a moral fashion. Perhaps these people, if it were possible to prove that God does not exist, would instantly become immoral. Without a fear of hell or promise of reward in heaven, why would they act morally?

But I choose to act morally without religious motivation. I choose to act within the constraints of the social contract as this is in my best interests, as I wish others to act in a similar way towards me.

Now, it is true that men knew the difference between good and evil before the Enlightenment. The Western concept of 'sin' has evolved somewhat since the Agricultural Age, but not that much. It is also true that the basics of what is legal and acceptable within the secular social contract, criminal law is an extension of the concept of sin.

It is wrong to say the Inquisition respected freedom of religion, freedom of speech, due process of law, and the rest. These ideas were daydreams during the Agricultural age. While many felt tyranny was wrong, there was no structure or force to give these feelings force until the Enlightenment.

Before the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, before militias, before revolutions, before democracies, religion could not and did not enforce the rights of conscience. More often, as Marx claimed, religion acted as the 'opium of the masses.' The cleric and warrior classes cooperating to keep the People subdued. Religion existed before modern industrial civilization in part as a tool of oppression. It was the Enlightenment concepts and implementation of the social contract, rights and democracy that created the modern West.

I've oft stated my view that recent S&H crises have featured conflict between an autocratic, religious, rural, conservative faction resisting change, and a democratic, secular, urban, progressive faction advocating change. I see the red / blue divide as old and basic. It has been going on at least since the Protestant Reformation, though at that point the conflict was between more and less autocratic churches, rather than between religious and secular world views. I have oft repeated that the democratic, secular, urban, progressive faction has always produced the Gray Champion, and has always written the history book. Thus, while I find religious people to be often good neighbors, and while I can respect much religious wisdom, come the crisis, I would expect the fundamentalists to be the bad guys. When I see the Republican religious right squaring off against the Islamist religious right, I cringe, and wildly scan the horizon looking for good guys ready to take on the winner.

I do not deny that the modern secular world views borrowed much from ancient religious traditions. However, it was secular forces which created the modern democratic government, generally seizing human rights, equality and political power from a red faction proclaiming ancient oppressive traditions as the Will of God. While many center their sense of morality on God, many do not. While some cannot conceive of a reason to be moral save through their relationship with supernatural forces, this is not true of all.

I sometimes also differentiate between three systems of truth which coexist within our culture. We all have to know when to switch between these systems. Different people's values systems are based on one system or another.

After a car crash, one might ask several questions. "What was the driver's blood alcohol level?" might be an example of a scientific questions. Assuming one can get a sample reasonably promptly, one can answer that question. "Was the driver at fault?" is a legal question. One can answer legal questions definitively, though not always perfectly. The mechanisms for determining legal truths are entirely different, involving laws, judges, lawyers, rights, and juries. "Will the driver will burn in hellfire everlasting?" is a religious question. Religious questions are inherently unanswerable. The First Amendment, in fact, guarantees everyone a right to their own opinion on such questions.

On abortion, we see the three world views collide again. When does the fetus become sentient? When does the fetus become a citizen, and thus gain legal rights? When does the fetus gain a soul? People with different world views, with different ideas on which is the more important question, can reach vastly different conclusions with no hope for a meeting of minds. If St. Augustine long ago claimed God attaches a soul at a certain age for male babies, and at a certain other age for female babies, is it not obvious that the law must protect these souls? Or does the First Amendment forbid the state from giving a religious belief force of law?

Anyway, my world view is scientific first, legal second, religious third. I can comprehend that others prioritize differently. I deny a notion that the ancient religious myths are necessary for moral behavior and the existence of the social contract. I quite understand that the some individuals believe faith is necessary for themselves. I tend to get ticked off, though, when individuals with religious based morality attempt to enforce their beliefs on others through law. Thus, while I see an ancient correlation between what is a sin and what is a crime, I find it important to distinguish between the two. While the state may have a legitimate role in regulating the fishing industry to protect against over fishing, they have no business preventing the sale of fish on Friday during Lent. While modern secular law once borrowed from older world views, they have been and ought to be cleanly sundered.

An interesting excercise is to visit the Christian Coalition website and look at their voting records charts. They show all of the legislators who vote "with" that coalition. It is actually quite sobering. I think that the business elite stirred up the fundie base and will be quite surprised when the the fundies eat them for breakfast. Already you can see fundie boomers popping up in congress now that they realize the government can be used to push their agenda. Eg. Tom Delay who wants to "promote a biblical world view" and refers to places in Israel by their biblical names. He is pretty powerful in the Senate.

An interesting excercise is to visit the Christian Coalition website and look at their voting records charts. They show all of the legislators who vote "with" that coalition. It is actually quite sobering. I think that the business elite stirred up the fundie base and will be quite surprised when the the fundies eat them for breakfast. Already you can see fundie boomers popping up in congress now that they realize the government can be used to push their agenda. Eg. Tom Delay who wants to "promote a biblical world view" and refers to places in Israel by their biblical names. He is pretty powerful in the Senate.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

An interesting excercise is to visit the Christian Coalition website and look at their voting records charts. They show all of the legislators who vote "with" that coalition. It is actually quite sobering. I think that the business elite stirred up the fundie base and will be quite surprised when the the fundies eat them for breakfast. Already you can see fundie boomers popping up in congress now that they realize the government can be used to push their agenda. Eg. Tom Delay who wants to "promote a biblical world view" and refers to places in Israel by their biblical names. He is pretty powerful in the Senate.

Tom Delay is in the House.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

An interesting excercise is to visit the Christian Coalition website and look at their voting records charts. They show all of the legislators who vote "with" that coalition. It is actually quite sobering. I think that the business elite stirred up the fundie base and will be quite surprised when the the fundies eat them for breakfast. Already you can see fundie boomers popping up in congress now that they realize the government can be used to push their agenda. Eg. Tom Delay who wants to "promote a biblical world view" and refers to places in Israel by their biblical names. He is pretty powerful in the Senate.

Tom Delay is in the House.

Ooops! :oops:

Ooops! :oops:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Depends on what you mean by 'fundamentalism'. Some people reserve it to mean those who believe in absolute Biblical literalism and infallibility, while others apply it to mean those who simply insist that their beliefs are objective, rather than metaphorical.

I use the first definition, with the understanding that "Biblical" literalism could also apply to the Q'ran or any other religious text. Call it "textual" literalism, I suppose. :wink:

Which definition do you use?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Depends on what you mean by 'fundamentalism'. Some people reserve it to mean those who believe in absolute Biblical literalism and infallibility, while others apply it to mean those who simply insist that their beliefs are objective, rather than metaphorical.

I use the first definition, with the understanding that "Biblical" literalism could also apply to the Q'ran or any other religious text. Call it "textual" literalism, I suppose. :wink:

Which definition do you use?

Originally Posted by TrollKing

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

Now that's a very fine practical definition of the Golden Rule!!

Originally Posted by TrollKing

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

Now that's a very fine practical definition of the Golden Rule!!

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by TrollKing

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

Now that's a very fine practical definition of the Golden Rule!!

(in my best elvis presley [which is really not very good at all])

thank you, ma'am.


TK

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by TrollKing

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

Now that's a very fine practical definition of the Golden Rule!!

(in my best elvis presley [which is really not very good at all])

thank you, ma'am.


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by TrollKing

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

Now that's a very fine practical definition of the Golden Rule!!

(in my best elvis presley [which is really not very good at all])

thank you, ma'am.


TK

More like: "Thank you. Thank you very much."

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by TrollKing

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

Now that's a very fine practical definition of the Golden Rule!!

(in my best elvis presley [which is really not very good at all])

thank you, ma'am.


TK

More like: "Thank you. Thank you very much."

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by TrollKing

(in my best elvis presley [which is really not very good at all])

thank you, ma'am.

More like: "Thank you. Thank you very much."

well, i did say it wasn't very good.


TK

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by TrollKing

(in my best elvis presley [which is really not very good at all])

thank you, ma'am.

More like: "Thank you. Thank you very much."

well, i did say it wasn't very good.


TK