Why should we give up our beliefs?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.

But is that legitimate under subjective morality.

In other words does a moral relativist have any justification to call anybody to account?

as much as a moral objectivity - opinion

Sorry, The correct answer is, of course, no justification to call anybody to account whatsoever.

[Shaker]

And yet in a world of subjective morality we have laws, police, courts and prisons all the same. Try again.

[Nearly Sane]

... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.

But is that legitimate under subjective morality.

In other words does a moral relativist have any justification to call anybody to account?

as much as a moral objectivity - opinion

Sorry, The correct answer is, of course, no justification to call anybody to account whatsoever.

in which case no one does. Since you only have an opinion on morality, you are left with that problem. The issue only applies if you think you need an objective morality.

[Leonard James]

Sorry, The correct answer is, of course, no justification to call anybody to account whatsoever.

Objectively, you are correct. Nature (evolution) knows no moral code. Survival and reproduction are the only reasons for our existence.

We are, however, an intelligent social species, and are aware that laws are essential for peaceful cohabitation. So we invented morality. It is an entirely subjective concept.

[ippy]

Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.

Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century? 

To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live?  After all, we all have beliefs, be we atheists or theists.

"Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century"?

What has the question just above got to do with this thread?

ippy

Because in terms of 'oughts', that is how we should behave to each other, science based on 'is' answers nothing

Assuming you are saying that Pol Pot ect, were using science based ideologies when they were doing their wicked deeds, well for one thing science is science as far as I know there's nothing more to science than that, it doesn't have an ideology. 

Pol Pot etc didn't do their wicked deeds for the cause of science they just happened to be a type of wicked person that wanted to do wicked things because that was their nature and unfortunately people like this gain power from time to time, at he moment we've got yet another bunch of religious nutters out there in Syria and Iraq doing the wicked things this time.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.

Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century? 

To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live?  After all, we all have beliefs, be we atheists or theists.

"Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century"?

What has the question just above got to do with this thread?

ippy

Because in terms of 'oughts', that is how we should behave to each other, science based on 'is' answers nothing

Assuming you are saying that Pol Pot ect, were using science based ideologies when they were doing their wicked deeds, well for one thing science is science as far as I know there's nothing more to science than that, it doesn't have an ideology. 

Pol Pot etc didn't do their wicked deeds for the cause of science they just happened to be a type of wicked person that wanted to do wicked things because that was their nature and unfortunately people like this gain power from time to time, at he moment we've got yet another bunch of religious nutters out there in Syria and Iraq doing the wicked things this time.

ippy

You seem to have read my post as if it was from Hope and was a direct follow on from his earlier one - it isn't. You were suggesting we use only facts to decide what we ought to do. We can't - they don't help unless you make some earlier assumption. If religion answers nothing on this, it at least tries to, Science is unconcerned about it.



You are right in that in relation to science Pol Pot etc have no import. Indeed ideologies are merely in many ways secular faiths. My reading of Hope's post is that we can have such a thing as a secular faith, note this is different from a secular society though that difference is one that posters often try and blur. A secular society is essentially a liberal democratic construction that gives as much freedom to people that it can including religion. An ideology such as fascism can be secular in the sense of not being involved with the sacred but that's a different use of the term. It should also be noted that fascism could be part of a theology as well.

It's the quality I admire most in liberal democracy that it is a leap of faith across the ought is gap but it is the one that gives the biggest spread of allowance for being wrong.

[ippy]

Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.

Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century? 

To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live?  After all, we all have beliefs, be we atheists or theists.

"Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century"?

What has the question just above got to do with this thread?

ippy

Because in terms of 'oughts', that is how we should behave to each other, science based on 'is' answers nothing

Assuming you are saying that Pol Pot ect, were using science based ideologies when they were doing their wicked deeds, well for one thing science is science as far as I know there's nothing more to science than that, it doesn't have an ideology. 

Pol Pot etc didn't do their wicked deeds for the cause of science they just happened to be a type of wicked person that wanted to do wicked things because that was their nature and unfortunately people like this gain power from time to time, at he moment we've got yet another bunch of religious nutters out there in Syria and Iraq doing the wicked things this time.

ippy

You seem to have read my post as if it was from Hope and was a direct follow on from his earlier one - it isn't. You were suggesting we use only facts to decide what we ought to do. We can't - they don't help unless you make some earlier assumption. If religion answers nothing on this, it at least tries to, Science is unconcerned about it.



You are right in that in relation to science Pol Pot etc have no import. Indeed ideologies are merely in many ways secular faiths. My reading of Hope's post is that we can have such a thing as a secular faith, note this is different from a secular society though that difference is one that posters often try and blur. A secular society is essentially a liberal democratic construction that gives as much freedom to people that it can including religion. An ideology such as fascism can be secular in the sense of not being involved with the sacred but that's a different use of the term. It should also be noted that fascism could be part of a theology as well.

It's the quality I admire most in liberal democracy that it is a leap of faith across the ought is gap but it is the one that gives the biggest spread of allowance for being wrong.

Overall, call me thick if you like, I'm not sure exactly what your point was in that last post of yours.

I can't understand how or why Pol Pot Etc were mentioned, any more than say the price of fish in Halifax this morning.

My kind of secularism is a level playing field for all, the religious, or not, all get a vote and that's for me the beginning and end of any influence religion is due in every day life.

The nearest I get to fascism is buying the Daily Telegraph once a week Saturdays and that's only because it's so right wing it makes me laugh more than it annoys me.

A clarification of your post would be good, my brain isn't what it used to be.

ippy



     

[Nearly Sane]

Overall, call me thick if you like, I'm not sure exactly what your point was in that last post of yours.

I can't understand how or why Pol Pot Etc were mentioned, any more than say the price of fish in Halifax this morning.

My kind of secularism is a level playing field for all, the religious, or not, all get a vote and that's for me the beginning and end of any influence religion is due in every day life.

The nearest I get to fascism is buying the Daily Telegraph once a week Saturdays and that's only because it's so right wing it makes me laugh more than it annoys me.

A clarification of your post would be good, my brain isn't what it used to be.

ippy



   

Ok, I'll see what I can do.

There are two uses of the word secular here. The first is the one which you are using which is bound up in an idea in liberal democracy about a level playing field. In order to achieve this a secular sate is one which is a liberal democratic one which allows freedom of religion amongst other things.

There is a second use of secular which simply refers to be non religious. In that sense Pol Pot ran a non religious and indeed anti-religious state but it was in this second sense secular. There is a blurring of the use by those who oppose the first use (your's)  by implying that it is the same meaning as the second.


The relevance of Pol Pot etc to you post though I would see it as being about your idea that following scientific methods somehow is going to lead to answers on morality. It doesn't do this and is explicit in not doing this. While religion may get what you see as the 'wrong' answers to such questions, it along with political ideologies at least tries to. Science does nothing to prevent a Pol Pot.

[ippy]

Ok, I'll see what I can do.

There are two uses of the word secular here. The first is the one which you are using which is bound up in an idea in liberal democracy about a level playing field. In order to achieve this a secular sate is one which is a liberal democratic one which allows freedom of religion amongst other things.

Yes that's more or less it for me.

There is a second use of secular which simply refers to be non religious. In that sense Pol Pot ran a non religious and indeed anti-religious state but it was in this second sense secular. There is a blurring of the use by those who oppose the first use (your's)  by implying that it is the same meaning as the second.

I don't think that applies in most western cultures; here in the U K it wouldn't support a dictatorship regime purely because we laugh too much at people like budding dictators to much for them to be taken seriously.
 

The relevance of Pol Pot etc to you post though I would see it as being about your idea that following scientific methods somehow is going to lead to answers on morality. It doesn't do this and is explicit in not doing this. While religion may get what you see as the 'wrong' answers to such questions, it along with political ideologies at least tries to. Science does nothing to prevent a Pol Pot.

Yes I understand; but if you try YouTube Sam Harris science and morality his take on this science doesn't give answers on morality, gives that idea a sever knock on the head, I wish I was as articulate as Sam so try Sam on this subject via YouTube, he says it in a way that is so much better than anything I could put forward to you; I'll go with sam it's not as cut and dried as you it seems to me are putting it forward.

ippy   

[Dicky Underpants]

You seem to have read my post as if it was from Hope and was a direct follow on from his earlier one - it isn't. You were suggesting we use only facts to decide what we ought to do. We can't - they don't help unless you make some earlier assumption. If religion answers nothing on this, it at least tries to, Science is unconcerned about it.



You are right in that in relation to science Pol Pot etc have no import. Indeed ideologies are merely in many ways secular faiths. My reading of Hope's post is that we can have such a thing as a secular faith, note this is different from a secular society though that difference is one that posters often try and blur. A secular society is essentially a liberal democratic construction that gives as much freedom to people that it can including religion. An ideology such as fascism can be secular in the sense of not being involved with the sacred but that's a different use of the term. It should also be noted that fascism could be part of a theology as well.

It's the quality I admire most in liberal democracy that it is a leap of faith across the ought is gap but it is the one that gives the biggest spread of allowance for being wrong.

Bloody good post!

[Dicky Underpants]

Ok, I'll see what I can do.

There are two uses of the word secular here. The first is the one which you are using which is bound up in an idea in liberal democracy about a level playing field. In order to achieve this a secular sate is one which is a liberal democratic one which allows freedom of religion amongst other things.

There is a second use of secular which simply refers to be non religious. In that sense Pol Pot ran a non religious and indeed anti-religious state but it was in this second sense secular. There is a blurring of the use by those who oppose the first use (your's)  by implying that it is the same meaning as the second.


The relevance of Pol Pot etc to you post though I would see it as being about your idea that following scientific methods somehow is going to lead to answers on morality. It doesn't do this and is explicit in not doing this. While religion may get what you see as the 'wrong' answers to such questions, it along with political ideologies at least tries to. Science does nothing to prevent a Pol Pot.

This likewise.

[ippy]

Ok, I'll see what I can do.

There are two uses of the word secular here. The first is the one which you are using which is bound up in an idea in liberal democracy about a level playing field. In order to achieve this a secular sate is one which is a liberal democratic one which allows freedom of religion amongst other things.

There is a second use of secular which simply refers to be non religious. In that sense Pol Pot ran a non religious and indeed anti-religious state but it was in this second sense secular. There is a blurring of the use by those who oppose the first use (your's)  by implying that it is the same meaning as the second.


The relevance of Pol Pot etc to you post though I would see it as being about your idea that following scientific methods somehow is going to lead to answers on morality. It doesn't do this and is explicit in not doing this. While religion may get what you see as the 'wrong' answers to such questions, it along with political ideologies at least tries to. Science does nothing to prevent a Pol Pot.

This likewise.

Yes it was a good post and it is also worth a look at Sam Harris on this subject via YouTube, he describes a link he sees between science and morality; I'll go with sam on this one it's not as cut and dried as it might be thought.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet in a world of subjective morality we have laws, police, courts and prisons all the same. Try again.

Yes is that a hang over from objective morality?....probably.
Is there any logical warrant for it under subjective morality? Not at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ok, I'll see what I can do.

There are two uses of the word secular here. The first is the one which you are using which is bound up in an idea in liberal democracy about a level playing field. In order to achieve this a secular sate is one which is a liberal democratic one which allows freedom of religion amongst other things.

There is a second use of secular which simply refers to be non religious. In that sense Pol Pot ran a non religious and indeed anti-religious state but it was in this second sense secular. There is a blurring of the use by those who oppose the first use (your's)  by implying that it is the same meaning as the second.


The relevance of Pol Pot etc to you post though I would see it as being about your idea that following scientific methods somehow is going to lead to answers on morality. It doesn't do this and is explicit in not doing this. While religion may get what you see as the 'wrong' answers to such questions, it along with political ideologies at least tries to. Science does nothing to prevent a Pol Pot.

This likewise.

Yes it was a good post and it is also worth a look at Sam Harris on this subject via YouTube, he describes a link he sees between science and morality; I'll go with sam on this one.

What?......JeremyP isn't on top of Ippy for laziness in not providing the link? Jeremy, you are a big fat hypocrite.

[Shaker]

Yes is that a hang over from objective morality?....probably.

I didn't know such a thing had ever been determined to exist.

Who did so, where and when?

Is there any logical warrant for it under subjective morality? Not at all.

I can think of lots - or perhaps, lots which ultimately resolve down to one. Why can't you?

[Owlswing]

To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live?

The way some of the rest of us do, I guess, using reason and common sense and compassion, concentrating not on subservience to nonexistent entities who have to be propitiated but the wellbeing of real creatures who really exist and who have real lives that can go better or worse.

That is one of the thngs that I like about the Pagan deities, they do not require our subservience.

They have given us the world and the free will to use it as we will and are available to assist when we ask for their assistance, not that they always give what we ask for though and the resyt of the time they fight, party and fornicate amoungst themselves.

[torridon]

Why should we give up our beliefs ?

Because by doing so, we would become more honest. 

If humans stopped indulging their beliefs half the worlds wars would end tomorrow. Beliefs are a manifestation of arrogance and ego. None of us can personally decide what is true. I don't decide that Munich is in Germany, I discover that it is in Germany. The habitual holding of beliefs compromises our ability to see clearly and to learn from new findings; abandoning beliefs might not be comfortable, but by giving up some ego we can approach closer to what is true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should we give up our beliefs ?

Because by doing so, we would become more honest. 

If humans stopped indulging their beliefs half the worlds wars would end tomorrow. Beliefs are a manifestation of arrogance and ego. None of us can personally decide what is true. I don't decide that Munich is in Germany, I discover that it is in Germany. The habitual holding of beliefs compromises our ability to see clearly and to learn from new findings; abandoning beliefs might not be comfortable, but by giving up some ego we can approach closer to what is true.

But surely the most indulged belief system going is trying to make subjective morality into a kind of ersatz objective morality i.e. indulging and enforcing mere opinion.

[Leonard James]

Why should we give up our beliefs ?

Because by doing so, we would become more honest. 

If humans stopped indulging their beliefs half the worlds wars would end tomorrow. Beliefs are a manifestation of arrogance and ego. None of us can personally decide what is true. I don't decide that Munich is in Germany, I discover that it is in Germany. The habitual holding of beliefs compromises our ability to see clearly and to learn from new findings; abandoning beliefs might not be comfortable, but by giving up some ego we can approach closer to what is true.

That is logical thinking, a no-no for people who are indoctrinated with religious beliefs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes is that a hang over from objective morality?....probably.

I didn't know such a thing had ever been determined to exist.

At the very least it is subjective morality touted as objective morality in that laws established by subjective moralists are an enforced opinion as if they are truths. That effectively makes yo guys ''Major Bullshitters''.

[BashfulAnthony]

Why should we give up our beliefs ?

Because by doing so, we would become more honest. 

If humans stopped indulging their beliefs half the worlds wars would end tomorrow. Beliefs are a manifestation of arrogance and ego. None of us can personally decide what is true. I don't decide that Munich is in Germany, I discover that it is in Germany. The habitual holding of beliefs compromises our ability to see clearly and to learn from new findings; abandoning beliefs might not be comfortable, but by giving up some ego we can approach closer to what is true.

That is logical thinking, a no-no for people who are indoctrinated with religious beliefs.

You really are a twerp!

[Owlswing]

Why should we give up our beliefs ?

Because by doing so, we would become more honest. 

If humans stopped indulging their beliefs half the worlds wars would end tomorrow. Beliefs are a manifestation of arrogance and ego. None of us can personally decide what is true. I don't decide that Munich is in Germany, I discover that it is in Germany. The habitual holding of beliefs compromises our ability to see clearly and to learn from new findings; abandoning beliefs might not be comfortable, but by giving up some ego we can approach closer to what is true.

That is logical thinking, a no-no for people who are indoctrinated with religious beliefs.

Again I am glad that I am Pagan.

No-one 'indoctinated' me with any of my beliefs. I read anything that I could find about Paganism and found those things which seemed to be right for me, kept on reading and adjusted my way of working with the deities as I gained more knowledge.

So much better than getting told off for snoring during a long and boring sermon telling me that the world was created in seven days just over 4,000 years ago.

[cyberman]

And yet in a world of subjective morality we have laws, police, courts and prisons all the same. Try again.

Yes is that a hang over from objective morality?....probably.
Is there any logical warrant for it under subjective morality? Not at all.

Well, actually yes; if a group of people broadly agree on a set of behaviours which they consider to be acceptable/unacceptable/practical based on their shared subjective morality, then they can codify that and agree among themselves to restrict behaviours accordingly. For example, we have agreed in this country that driving on the right hand side of the road is dangerous and bad and should be prevented and/or punished. Completely arbritary, but we have agreed on it collectively and it works.

Please don't respond with "are you saying.." followed by something I haven't said. What I "am saying" is what I have written above.

[Leonard James]

Again I am glad that I am Pagan.

No-one 'indoctinated' me with any of my beliefs. I read anything that I could find about Paganism and found those things which seemed to be right for me, kept on reading and adjusted my way of working with the deities as I gained more knowledge.

The part I have put in bold is the indoctrination. You unconsciously indoctrinated yourself with the ideas of other people that such "deities" existed.

So much better than getting told off for snoring during a long and boring sermon telling me that the world was created in seven days just over 4,000 years ago.

But basically not very different.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You unconsciously indoctrinated yourself with the ideas of other people that such "deities" existed.

I'd be interested in hearing from you how that works but doubtful of your abilities to justify that thesis (based on almost zero previous evidence).....
Which leads me to ask how you know yourself not to be, as you say, ''unconsciously indoctrinated yourself with the ideas of other people.''?