Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on November 19, 2015, 12:39:00 PM
-
A number of posts on different threads have crystallized a thought that has been underlying a lot of my posting on morality. I think there are two ways of looking at morals and moral decisions that are common on the board. One is that we, our some surrogate entity look at the greater good from some Olympian height calculating what is the overall impact and seeing the big picture. In this view we can connect all those who might believe in gods together and say that Muslims are all somehow responsible for Paris, Beirut, Yola etc.
It's the view that was behind the thread that drew me back to the board a couple of years ago where we discussed what you do if a nutter with a vital of some dread virus says they will break it unless you allow them to torture a child to death. Viewing the thread , there was near unanimity that you allow the child to be tortured so I rejoined to disagree with that.
And I still disagree with it because I am at the opposite end of view. I don't think we can see the big picture , or indeed that there are any surrogate entities doing it on our behalf. We can develop some basic heuristics which allows us to object to things in principle, slavery, murder, rape etc but most of our dilemmas are smaller. I fear the big picture view as it leads to wanting to make grand statements and gestures, to seek solutions and if none obvious come to mind to throw our hands up and declare things to be impossible. It also leads to the classic folly of 'We must do something. This is something. We must do this'
My view is almost myopic. I look at the thread on Tuam and can see no connection with my mother and her belief and that abomination. My mother does not contribute to the world view in a calculating manner, and, I would suggest, such a hubristic view is only held by wannabe tyrants, madmen and fools. As said before to quote Hue and Cry,most of us are 'ordinary angels winning tiny victories'. I think we should accept that that's probably in reality true for all of us and that thinking there is anyone out there with a grand plan is a wish for wisdom that does not and has never existed. We expect politicians to solve things when I think we should first hope that they don't make things worse, and then inch by inch make things a tiny bit better.
In a world where working out the best utilities tariff is such a challenge, solving the problems in Syria is not about the big plans. It's about the saving of one child.
-
Yes, I agree. We can only deal with what is in front of us. Saving one child. Your mother and mine having nothing to do with any Christian abomination.
Thinking that we can see the big picture places us in the position of the gods, when in fact we are fools.
-
A number of posts on different threads have crystallized a thought that has been underlying a lot of my posting on morality. I think there are two ways of looking at morals and moral decisions that are common on the board. One is that we, our some surrogate entity look at the greater good from some Olympian height calculating what is the overall impact and seeing the big picture. In this view we can connect all those who might believe in gods together and say that Muslims are all somehow responsible for Paris, Beirut, Yola etc.
It's the view that was behind the thread that drew me back to the board a couple of years ago where we discussed what you do if a nutter with a vital of some dread virus says they will break it unless you allow them to torture a child to death. Viewing the thread , there was near unanimity that you allow the child to be tortured so I rejoined to disagree with that.
And I still disagree with it because I am at the opposite end of view. I don't think we can see the big picture , or indeed that there are any surrogate entities doing it on our behalf. We can develop some basic heuristics which allows us to object to things in principle, slavery, murder, rape etc but most of our dilemmas are smaller. I fear the big picture view as it leads to wanting to make grand statements and gestures, to seek solutions and if none obvious come to mind to throw our hands up and declare things to be impossible. It also leads to the classic folly of 'We must do something. This is something. We must do this'
My view is almost myopic. I look at the thread on Tuam and can see no connection with my mother and her belief and that abomination. My mother does not contribute to the world view in a calculating manner, and, I would suggest, such a hubristic view is only held by wannabe tyrants, madmen and fools. As said before to quote Hue and Cry,most of us are 'ordinary angels winning tiny victories'. I think we should accept that that's probably in reality true for all of us and that thinking there is anyone out there with a grand plan is a wish for wisdom that does not and has never existed. We expect politicians to solve things when I think we should first hope that they don't make things worse, and then inch by inch make things a tiny bit better.
In a world where working out the best utilities tariff is such a challenge, solving the problems in Syria is not about the big plans. It's about the saving of one child.
There is a need for doctors on the ground to help the refugees, to provide food and water for the hungry and thirsty, to ensure medicines and housing and basic facilities are available.
There's even a need for soldiers and warplanes, to an extent, to contain the areas of violence.
Those don't solve problems, though, and they don't improve anything, they just stop things getting worse in some places. You can't just keep sticking plasters on something and hope that it will go away, sometimes you need diagnosis and a treatment plan that targets the source(s) of the problem.
In this instance there are many influences leading to this, and religion is one of them.
O.
-
In which case the source of the problem will be what's in front of us. Can you see it, because I'm sure as shit that I can't.
-
Religion though is not a real cause. It is not external to us. We don't act badly because of religion, we act badly, we create religions and sometimes we combine the two. Sometimes we act well and combine that with religion. The same is true for family and friends, sport, nations, politics.
-
I was talking with a friend about this yesterday we were discussing the fact that the IS 'fighters' are high on smack with girls at their disposal. I know it sounds crude when I tell my daughter that when they aren't fighting they spend their time picking their noses and wanking, but they really aren't any different from the muppet teens she sees at school and in town. Alienation, hormones and a big god guy to make you feel important. It could just as well be politics or a football club.
-
In which case the source of the problem will be what's in front of us. Can you see it, because I'm sure as shit that I can't.
There are many. Lack of a wider education and a fundamental lack of appreciation for individual rights in the Arab world - partly the legacy of religion in the region - the rampant inequality both within the Arab world and between the majority of the Arab world and the majority of (and the depiction of) the West, tribal feuds which have been suppressed by Western interference in the past painting nation/state divisions on a area rather than letting them evolve (including internecine struggles within religious groups, an intersect religious struggles), blatant political interference from the West in the creation of the Israeli state and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the conflict between religions and the legacy of colonial injustices.
There are most likely others, and subtle combinations of these that throw up other elements, too. I didn't pretend it was simple, quite the opposite, but if we don't at the very least acknowledge these, and where we can remedy them or show them to be nonsense, we're not going to move forward, we're just going to keep trying to plug holes in the dyke, and no matter how many of us there are we'll eventually run out of fingers.
O.
-
In which case there is no single source. That's certainly where I am arguing from.
My concern with what you are saying us that having identified the sources, we can somehow rectify them. We have to be very sure of our facts and the outcome - just like Blair was with Iraq - that went well. Seeing the bigger picture and how we can fix it requires us to be fortune tellers. I'm more comfortable with supporting those who have decided to seek change rather than telling people where they've gone wrong and offering to fix them.
-
The situation is complex and therefore I think any large scale plans Wil fail due to them becoming inflexible and because of unintended consequences. I think we would be better saying that we would like to see a Syria where there is stable govt, and that in order to support that we will over the next 6 months to a year do the following and towards the end of that period evaluate if that seems to be working and carry on what seems to work and change what doesn't.
-
And besides, if we recognise religion as a problem, so what? What difference is that going to make? I would suggest precisely none. I only see it leading to more division, more anxiety and fear. All of which, as we all know, lead to the dark side.
Stating that, in some broad sense, religious belief gives permission for extremist murderers to operate seems to me to be the worst kind of armchair moralising that is so often borne of intellectual and economic privilege. As NS says, religion doesn't exist apart from people or society. It is as fluid and flexible as we are.
Bottom line is we need to live together, that takes people talking, neighbours, individuals, communities. Generalising people only dehumanises them and us, opening the door to hate.
-
Excellent post, Sam.
-
And besides, if we recognise religion as a problem, so what? What difference is that going to make? I would suggest precisely none. I only see it leading to more division, more anxiety and fear. All of which, as we all know, lead to the dark side.
Stating that, in some broad sense, religious belief gives permission for extremist murderers to operate seems to me to be the worst kind of armchair moralising that is so often borne of intellectual and economic privilege. As NS says, religion doesn't exist apart from people or society. It is as fluid and flexible as we are.
Bottom line is we need to live together, that takes people talking, neighbours, individuals, communities. Generalising people only dehumanises them and us, opening the door to hate.
I hope each of us read that sentiment, and, I have to say, particularly the atheists, take it on board.
-
And besides, if we recognise religion as a problem, so what? What difference is that going to make? I would suggest precisely none. I only see it leading to more division, more anxiety and fear. All of which, as we all know, lead to the dark side.
Stating that, in some broad sense, religious belief gives permission for extremist murderers to operate seems to me to be the worst kind of armchair moralising that is so often borne of intellectual and economic privilege. As NS says, religion doesn't exist apart from people or society. It is as fluid and flexible as we are.
To some extent, that's the problem. Religion is at once so broad, formless and meaningless as to apply to virtually every possible category of humanity, and at the same time so personally specific and precious that it can't be criticised. Some people's motivation for their atrocities is their religion, but the concept of religion can't be attacked, and there's no way to justify differentiating between individual religious beliefs.
Bottom line is we need to live together, that takes people talking, neighbours, individuals, communities. Generalising people only dehumanises them and us, opening the door to hate.
Yes, we need to live together, but some people's religion doesn't allow for that. How, given that we can't actually address that religion directly or indirectly, do we deal with that? We can contain them by denying them access to finances and resources, but until we deal with the elephant in the room that is their religion we'll just be trying to clamp the lid on tighter and tighter as the pressure builds.
O.
-
That all still sounds like treating religion as a problem to solve, as if it can be externalised. In reality it is the equivalent of saying people are a problem that needs to be solved. That, I think, is what makes the idea so scary.
And I disagree that there is no way to differentiate between individual religious belief. The test is society itself. Ideas such as freedom, security, love, compassion - these are universally celebrated in civilised societies amongst all religions and none. If a religious belief isn't contributing to the furtherment of those ideals, then I would argue it is a failure, and we should collectively feel no guilt in dismissing it. It really isn't rocket science. The complexity of religion is an illusion. What you are seeing is simply the complications of people and society.
-
I hope each of us read that sentiment, and, I have to say, particularly the atheists, take it on board.
No. Please don't high-jack my post in another pathetic attempt at point scoring. And before you cry victim and paint me as another Christian hating atheist I should explain that it isn't your faith I have a problem with, it's your personality.
-
That all still sounds like treating religion as a problem to solve, as if it can be externalised. In reality it is the equivalent of saying people are a problem that needs to be solved. That, I think, is what makes the idea so scary.
Religion is a motivator - I'd say it's a bit more like saying poverty or hunger are problems that need to be solved.
And I disagree that there is no way to differentiate between individual religious belief. The test is society itself. Ideas such as freedom, security, love, compassion - these are universally celebrated in civilised societies amongst all religions and none.
That's deciding if a given religion is effective at securing freedom, or allowing compassion... There are religions I like and religions I don't, expressions of religions I like and expressions I don't, but I can't justify acknowledging one and not the others because they all have exactly the same basis: nothing.
If a religious belief isn't contributing to the furtherment of those ideals, then I would argue it is a failure, and we should collectively feel no guilt in dismissing it. It really isn't rocket science.
They are contributing nothing, they always have been, yet still they persist.
The complexity of religion is an illusion. What you are seeing is simply the complications of people and society.
I'm not saying that religion is complex, but the problem of religion most definitely is.
O.
-
No. Please don't high-jack my post in another pathetic attempt at point scoring. And before you cry victim and paint me as another Christian hating atheist I should explain that it isn't your faith I have a problem with, it's your personality.
I was actually commending your post as worth reading for all. Then you both misunderstand, and then lapse into personal, cheap, insult. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I don't quite know what you know about me from reading this forum. If I was to judge you from your posting, I would assess you as a pedantic, sanctimonious, and self-opinionated character. I am sure you are not like that, in "real life."
-
Actually that is exactly what I'm like.
-
Actually that is exactly what I'm like.
Well of course, I didn't like to insult you, despite the provocation. You sound like a real hit!
-
As an aside why is "self-opinionated" used pejoratively, I wonder? I've met people who seem to have no opinions in particular on anything very much and they're incredibly boring. Why is having an opinion on something deemed to be A Bad Thing?
-
As an aside why is "self-opinionated" used pejoratively, I wonder? I've met people who seem to have no opinions in particular on anything very much and they're incredibly boring. Why is having an opinion on something deemed to be A Bad Thing?
I think it implies being dogmatic.
-
You got the wrong person when you used it of Samuel, then. For dogmatism you need to look elsewhere.
-
You got the wrong person when you used it of Samuel, then. For dogmatism you need to look elsewhere.
Tell him: he agreed with my assessment.
-
With being opinionated, yes; but that was before you defined it as being dogmatic.
-
With being opinionated, yes; but that was before you defined it as being dogmatic.
If he is as clever as he seems to think, then he ought be aware of such a connotation. But I guess you're right: he wouldn't know.
-
Outrider
I think there is a fundamental difference between how we understand religion. I think I can see where you are coming from but I actually find it hard to fully assimilate. I'm going to be thinking on this for a while I think. Good stuff!
It probably revolves around the ideas that religion is based on nothing and contributes nothing, both of which I regect. Not because I believe in their supernatural claims, but because they are intrinsically human. To me they are simply expressions of the various ways people attempt to solve the problems of living life. That is their power, for good or ill. Dismissing them because their claims can not be substantiated seems to miss the point. I can't do better than that to articulate it.
I reckon that's it from me on this thread. I'm leaving confused, as usual. Thanks for the brief chat outrider :) 'twas a goodun (for me anyway!)
-
Shaker, BA, I hope you have both realised my reply was sarcastic. I just couldn't be bothered to get dragged into a petty exchange and it seemed a quick way of sidestepping it.
I dont know what I sound like on here, or what people think of me! If I sound like a smug Pratt then fine. I can live with that. Maybe I am really like that. You'd have to ask my wife. All any of us have of our fellow posters is text on a screen. Any opinions we have on each other really don't amount to much. That goes for mine as well. Even though they are superior opinions ;)
-
Shaker, BA, I hope you have both realised my reply was sarcastic. I just couldn't be bothered to get dragged into a petty exchange and it seemed a quick way of sidestepping it.
I dont know what I sound like on here, or what people think of me! If I sound like a smug Pratt then fine. I can live with that. Maybe I am really like that. You'd have to ask my wife. All any of us have of our fellow posters is text on a screen. Any opinions we have on each other really don't amount to much. That goes for mine as well. Even though they are superior opinions ;)
What you don't realise is, that I am a cuddly, highly popular, nice guy, off this forum.
-
Shaker, BA, I hope you have both realised my reply was sarcastic. I just couldn't be bothered to get dragged into a petty exchange and it seemed a quick way of sidestepping it.
I dont know what I sound like on here, or what people think of me! If I sound like a smug Pratt then fine. I can live with that. Maybe I am really like that. You'd have to ask my wife.
I will do, at the weekend.
All any of us have of our fellow posters is text on a screen. Any opinions we have on each other really don't amount to much. That goes for mine as well. Even though they are superior opinions ;)
Snap! :D
-
I'm sure you are nice and cuddly BA but on here you are often shrill and unpleasant.
But listen, I don't expect you to give two flying figs about what I think of you. Like I said, I am just text on a page.
-
I will do, at the weekend
;D
-
I'm sure you are nice and cuddly BA but on here you are often shrill and unpleasant.
But listen, I don't expect you to give two flying figs about what I think of you. Like I said, I am just text on a page.
Very harsh. I prefer: accommodating, clever, ethical, helpful, meritorious, refined, temperate: but, then, not wishing to blow my own trumpet!
-
Shaker, BA, I hope you have both realised my reply was sarcastic. I just couldn't be bothered to get dragged into a petty exchange and it seemed a quick way of sidestepping it.
I dont know what I sound like on here, or what people think of me! If I sound like a smug Pratt then fine. I can live with that. Maybe I am really like that. You'd have to ask my wife. All any of us have of our fellow posters is text on a screen. Any opinions we have on each other really don't amount to much. That goes for mine as well. Even though they are superior opinions ;)
Just to note that I would certainly count Gonnagle and Gordon as excellent friends having met them frequently irl. Also met King Oberon a couple of times and he is an excellent chap. And met Fast flint and Lapsed Atheist and wigginhall.
-
It probably revolves around the ideas that religion is based on nothing and contributes nothing, both of which I regect. Not because I believe in their supernatural claims, but because they are intrinsically human. To me they are simply expressions of the various ways people attempt to solve the problems of living life.
Religion isn't based on nothing, but what it's based on is internal rather than external - people don't profess 'gods' because of gods, but rather because of a want or need within them. We need to appreciate and understand what those wants and needs are, but it's amply demonstrated that it's possible to build communities - even nation-sized communities - that don't require that belief with its negative potential.
That is their power, for good or ill. Dismissing them because their claims can not be substantiated seems to miss the point. I can't do better than that to articulate it.
And this is the danger that comes from my view; that dismissing people's religious claims, given how devoted they are to them, is interpreted as somehow dismissing them. It's cheap talk to say 'all people have worth', but it's much harder to convince them that you believe that, especially when you're targetting pretty fundamental world-views that they have.
O.
-
If you don't have an overall plan, an aim and goal, and just do what is myopically in front of you, then you end up going round and round in circles and that would be pointless, and a waste of energy. You need the intelligence to have a reasonable birds eye view of things.