Faith vs blind faith

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And yet strangely "moral arbitration" happens all the time 

Yeh, it means that people are believing that there isn't really a right or wrong and then acting as if there are. its big, it's minty with brown stripes and it's humbug, Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And that from a guy who thinks that aesthetic taste is a better one.

Yep. Do I really need to explain why?

Really though?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yeh, it means that people are believing that there isn't really a right or wrong and then acting as if there are. its big, it's minty with brown stripes and it's humbug, Hillside.

It's also not true. Unless that is you feel like actually telling us who these alleged people might be.

Good luck with that.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yep. Do I really need to explain why?

Well it would be nice to see you explaining something since at present you have not actually distinguished morality from a question of taste.

Matters of taste are generally consequence light and any repercussion effemeral. Not so morality when not doing what one ought to do morally has repercussion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well it would be nice to see you explaining something since at present you have not actually distinguished morality from a question of taste.

For the purpose of the matter in hand – ie, subjective vs objective – there is no difference

Matters of taste are generally consequence light and any repercussion effemeral. Not so morality when not doing what one ought to do morally has repercussion.

Do you keep collapsing into the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy deliberately, or do you genuinely not understand why it’s a wreck of an argument?

Oh, and about these mysterious people who "are believing that there isn't really a right or wrong and then acting as if there are". Any thoughts on who they might be?

Something?

Anything?

[Shaker]

Well it would be nice to see you explaining something since at present you have not actually distinguished morality from a question of taste.

Matters of taste are generally consequence light and any repercussion effemeral. Not so morality when not doing what one ought to do morally has repercussion.

Once again your cart seems to be leading the horse. The phenomenon you describe is certainly an indication of how seriously we take morality, but doesn't actually refute the position that morality is subjective and much akin to aesthetic judgements/preferences. If that were the case there'd be no disagreement on moral matters (you may have noticed that there is) - and therefore no crime, ultimately.

[Sebastian Toe]

But you are only answering half the question - you have failed to tell us who or what that 'moral authority' is. So please enlighten us.

Was there an answer to that forthcoming.
An actual answer as opposed to a tortuous, twisty tour of tawdry tedium trying to turn truth to trickery?

[Gordon]

Was there an answer to that forthcoming.
An actual answer as opposed to a tortuous, twisty tour of tawdry tedium trying to turn truth to trickery?

Kudos for best alliteration of the year.

[SusanDoris]

Well that didn't take long:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/2017/how-religious-groups-voted-at-the-2016-referendum-on-britains-eu-membership/

Although this study didn't specifically ask about atheism, it includes a no religion group, which was disproportionately Remain, by 57% to 43%. No Christian group came close to this level of Remain support, and the big block of CoE/Anglicans were overwhelmingly Leave (60% to 40%). Muslims were the only religious group to be substantially Remain, but their numbers are pretty small so unlikely to sway a vote.

So you can conclude that the nightmare of Brexit may be laid squarely at the door of Christians overall, and CofE in particular.

I hope this information could be, will be,  promoted all over the internet!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I hope this information could be, will be,  promoted all over the internet!

And can it mention Giles Fraser and that 64% of young people couldn't be arsed to vote and how many of those were non religious?

[ProfessorDavey]

And can it mention Giles Fraser and that 64% of young people couldn't be arsed to vote and how many of those were non religious?

Stop lying - 64% of 18-14 year olds DID vote.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop lying - 64% of 18-14 year olds DID vote.

Whoops my mistake. It looks like I was wwwrroo........It looks like I was wwwroon......it looks like I was wwwwooooooooorrrorrrrrnnnnnn. It looks like I was
wwwwwwooooooorrrrrrrnnnnnngggg.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop lying - 64% of 18-14 year olds DID vote.

Don't you mean 64% of 18-14 year olds don't have the vote?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It looks like I was wwwwwwooooooorrrrrrrnnnnnngggg.

Yes, but on the bright side at least you've got a new tagline for your posts.

[floo]

Whoops my mistake. It looks like I was wwwrroo........It looks like I was wwwroon......it looks like I was wwwwooooooooorrrorrrrrnnnnnn. It looks like I was
wwwwwwooooooorrrrrrrnnnnnngggg.

Oh you poor soul, ask nursie to make it better.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yeh, it means that people are believing that there isn't really a right or wrong and then acting as if there are. its big, it's minty with brown stripes and it's humbug, Hillside.

Another contender for your new tagline, or do you intend actually to tell us who these mysterious "people" might be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Another contender for your new tagline, or do you intend actually to tell us who these mysterious "people" might be?

Hillside, I have exposed the manifest and manifold contradictions within moral irrealism and subjective morality regarding morality as a matter of taste...we need to move on now.

[Nearly Sane]

I hope this information could be, will be,  promoted all over the internet!

Why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside, I have exposed the manifest and manifold contradictions within moral irrealism and subjective morality regarding morality as a matter of taste...we need to move on now.

Did you know that I’ve already solved the threat of global warming?

Anyways, we need to move on now…

So as we both know you’ve provided no such “exposure” (unless that is you consider repeatedly collapsing into the argumentum ad consequentiam to be an “exposure”) perhaps instead of standard Vlad avoidance ("Vladoidance"?) you could finally answer just one question and tell us who these mysterious people are that you referred to.

After all, I’m sure you’d hate to be shown to have posted a baseless and frankly paranoid stupidity again wouldn’t you?

Wouldn’t you?

[ProfessorDavey]

Don't you mean 64% of 18-14 year olds don't have the vote?

No

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

First, the comparison of religious texts with legal instruments is a false one. For the former, no-one doubts that the legislators existed at all and (depending on the jurisdiction involved) that their laws should be be enacted and enforced. None of that though applies to religious texts, at least until and unless someone can demonstrate the lawmaker to be a fact rather than a faith belief.     

Second, lots of beliefs in lots of things “work” for lots of people. We were discussing though the epistemology of thinking that some texts are authored divinely and are therefore inerrant. If you want to treat the “holy” text that inspires you as others treat the works of, say, Plato or Sophocles that’s fine. Perhaps they’re interesting, perhaps they help you think, perhaps they provide ideas and guidance you find to have practical use. You are though entirely unencumbered by the notion that you can’t disagree with them, reject them entirely, move on to other texts that seem more coherent or logical to you. You have in other words no concerns about the supposedly divine status of the author.

Now compare that with your relationship with the Quran. Do you see the difference?   

It's not a false comparison because the common factor is the people who are interpreting inputs in both scenarios. I asked you what your theory was on how a religious text could be understood without interpretation and you did not seem to have an answer. Do you have an answer now?

I wasn't discussing the epistemology of thinking that some texts are authored divinely and are therefore inerrant. What's the point of discussing that because there is no method to know if something is authored divinely so the truth can't be established. There is only a belief that it was authored divinely. Regardless of the belief, interpretation is the only method I have of understanding or incorporating the text (and all the scholars' subsequent interpretations) into my thought process. 

No - I don't see the difference. If I disagree with the Quran I will not practise the bits I disagree with. Lots of Muslims don't practise everything they think they should be doing as Muslims. The Quran is providing a message for a way of life - and I may not want certain parts of the way of life I think the practices will lead to.

It's not a question of not believing in the divine authorship, it's just a matter of not being willing to give up or do what you need to do to practise the message, or it's that I think my practice is not going to lead to what I think was the intended outcome, because other people are preventing the intended outcome by their behaviour. Interpretation and decision-making, religious or otherwise, involves analysing and predicting costs and benefits to behaviour. For example, some women will think the costs or down-side of restricting their movements or freedom to go where they want e.g. by having women only times at the gym or women only toilets is worth the benefit e.g. the peace of mind that comes from less opportunities to be stared at or sexually assaulted. Other women will consider the downside of restricted movements and freedom is too high a price to pay for the benefit - they want to go to the gym when it is convenient and they want to interact with men. This process of decision-making is part of the reason why religious practice varies so much.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

It's not a false comparison because the common factor is the people who are interpreting inputs in both scenarios.

Yes it is because one assumes a divine (and therefore inerrant) author and the other does not. 

I asked you what your theory was on how a religious text could be understood without interpretation and you did not seem to have an answer. Do you have an answer now?

It could be understood without interpretation if it was written unambiguously I suppose but that’s not the issue – if you want to claim that an inerrant set of instructions exists at all, what would be the point of it in any case if there was no means of knowing with certainty what the divine author intended them to mean? 

I wasn't discussing the epistemology of thinking that some texts are authored divinely and are therefore inerrant. What's the point of discussing that because there is no method to know if something is authored divinely so the truth can't be established. There is only a belief that it was authored divinely. Regardless of the belief, interpretation is the only method I have of understanding or incorporating the text (and all the scholars' subsequent interpretations) into my thought process.

Again of course that’s just a belief, but what use has that belief when the only available meaning is that which you (and others) are capable of bringing to the text?     

No - I don't see the difference. If I disagree with the Quran I will not practise the bits I disagree with. Lots of Muslims don't practise everything they think they should be doing as Muslims. The Quran is providing a message for a way of life - and I may not want certain parts of the way of life I think the practices will lead to.

Are you saying here that, if you interpret the Quran to mean one thing but you don’t like it you’re content to disobey the rules as you understand them of its (divine and therefore inerrant) author? That you know better (or perhaps don’t, but you’re prepared to take your chances)? Well, that makes you unusual I’d have thought but fair enough.   

It's not a question of not believing in the divine authorship, it's just a matter of not being willing to give up or do what you need to do to practise the message, or it's that I think my practice is not going to lead to what I think was the intended outcome, because other people are preventing the intended outcome by their behaviour. Interpretation and decision-making, religious or otherwise, involves analysing and predicting costs and benefits to behaviour. For example, some women will think the costs or down-side of restricting their movements or freedom to go where they want e.g. by having women only times at the gym or women only toilets is worth the benefit e.g. the peace of mind that comes from less opportunities to be stared at or sexually assaulted. Other women will consider the downside of restricted movements and freedom is too high a price to pay for the benefit - they want to go to the gym when it is convenient and they want to interact with men. This process of decision-making is part of the reason why religious practice varies so much.

No doubt, but essentially you’re telling me that you treat the Quran as a sort of self help book or maybe as you would the latest Delia Smith. When bits seem useful you’ll take them, and when not you’ll do something else. It’s a bit like a Christian telling me that he ignores all the god stuff in the Bible, but finds the bits about goat husbandry of practical use. Which is fine and dandy if you do find those things to be helpful, but I don’t see what relevance any claims of religious content have to do with it.         

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Yes it is because one assumes a divine (and therefore inerrant) author and the other does not.

No it isn't because the point was that both require interpretation.

It could be understood without interpretation if it was written unambiguously I suppose

Assertion dismissed. How do you understand something without interpreting it?

but that’s not the issue – if you want to claim that an inerrant set of instructions exists at all, what would be the point of it in any case if there was no means of knowing with certainty what the divine author intended them to mean?

The point of it is to interpret it.

Again of course that’s just a belief, but what use has that belief when the only available meaning is that which you (and others) are capable of bringing to the text?

Until you come up with a method of understanding something and deciding how to apply it to your individual situation without interpretation, we don't have a choice but to use interpretation. Those of us who believe that there is a divine message find it useful to think that there is some form of communication to help us base our interpretations on.

Are you saying here that, if you interpret the Quran to mean one thing but you don’t like it you’re content to disobey the rules as you understand them of its (divine and therefore inerrant) author? That you know better (or perhaps don’t, but you’re prepared to take your chances)? Well, that makes you unusual I’d have thought but fair enough.

Yes. No, not that unusual. I don't know any Muslims who practise everything.   

No doubt, but essentially you’re telling me that you treat the Quran as a sort of self help book or maybe as you would the latest Delia Smith. When bits seem useful you’ll take them, and when not you’ll do something else. It’s a bit like a Christian telling me that he ignores all the god stuff in the Bible, but finds the bits about goat husbandry of practical use. Which is fine and dandy if you do find those things to be helpful, but I don’t see what relevance any claims of religious content have to do with it.       

Yup. So do lots of Muslims. Religious content helps - as I have explained before the belief in God bit changes your outlook and choices. E.g. I would not pray or fast for Ramadan or not drink alcohol without the religious element.

[Owlswing]

Well it would be nice to see you explaining something since at present you have not actually distinguished morality from a question of taste.

Matters of taste are generally consequence light and any repercussion effemeral. Not so morality when not doing what one ought to do morally has repercussion.

What is morality?

Supporting a man who has, for far too many years, been a friend and confidant to men who, also for far too many years, headed a terrorist organisation that waged a vicious war on the civilian population and serving military personnel of this country in large part by the use of I E Ds placed indiscriminately to cause the maximum in death and serious life-changing injury to innocent civilians ranging in age from six months upwards?

Is that moral?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

No it isn't because the point was that both require interpretation.

Yes it is, sometimes catastrophically so because when some people (though not it seems you) think they know what a god wants (really know, untroubled by the doubts that the limits of interpretation would bring) then they will act on it. And sometimes what this god wants it seems is flying aeroplanes into buildings.

Now compare that with secular rules and instructions.   

Assertion dismissed. How do you understand something without interpreting it?

It’s a pretty arid discussion and ultimately everything has to be “interpreted” in the sense that, say, “2+2=4” has to be read and understood – ie, “interpreted” – at least to have meaning. I was merely suggesting that ambiguity increases the need for interpretation and vice versa. Why then would a god not make his rules as unambiguously written as possible so as to minimise the risk of misinterpretation?

The point of it is to interpret it.

That’s not the point at all. You can interpret from here to doomsday if you like, but still all you’d have is whatever your ability to interpret gives you. Even if there is a certain meaning at the end of that rainbow, it would still be pointless in the absence of a means of knowing you’d ever found it. That’s the point.   

Until you come up with a method of understanding something and deciding how to apply it to your individual situation without interpretation, we don't have a choice but to use interpretation. Those of us who believe that there is a divine message find it useful to think that there is some form of communication to help us base our interpretations on.

That’s nice for you, but how does thinking that help you “base your interpretation” any more than a non-divinely authored text would. In other words, what relevance does it have?   

Yes. No, not that unusual. I don't know any Muslims who practise everything.

That wasn’t the question. I was asking you whether you’d be content to behave one way even though your interpretation told you that Allah wanted you to behave a different way.

Yup. So do lots of Muslims. Religious content helps - as I have explained before the belief in God bit changes your outlook and choices. E.g. I would not pray or fast for Ramadan or not drink alcohol without the religious element.

Why not? If on the one hand you think it’s just a useful self help book that causes you to think on a cost/benefit basis about issues like going to the gym on women only day, why does fasting and teetotalism fall outside of that paradigm in some way? What does the belief in god change?