The Pope appoints a woman to the synod of bishops.

[Roses]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55966178

A step in the right direction I suppose, but there is a long way to go before there is equality in the RCC.

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55966178

A step in the right direction I suppose, but there is a long way to go before there is equality in the RCC.

To an extent, when there is equality in the RCC, it will no longer be the RCC.

[Roses]

To an extent, when there is equality in the RCC, it will no longer be the RCC.

If that is the case it would be a great benefit, the RCC certainly hasn't covered itself in glory over the centuries.

[Nearly Sane]

If that is the case it would be a great benefit, the RCC certainly hasn't covered itself in glory over the centuries.

That's the point, the RCC is effectively  based on the idea of inequality, and while for much of its history tgat's been in line with the zeitgeist, it's so entwined with the institution, that it's difficult for it to change. If the reforms of the 60s had continued apace then it might be in a better position but they stalled, or rather may have progressed glacially, while the speed of change in society just got faster and faster.

[SusanDoris]

That's the point, the RCC is effectively  based on the idea of inequality, and while for much of its history tgat's been in line with the zeitgeist, it's so entwined with the institution, that it's difficult for it to change. If the reforms of the 60s had continued apace then it might be in a better position but they stalled, or rather may have progressed glacially, while the speed of change in society just got faster and faster.

They cannot even begin to think  of even thinking about the fact that their whole religion has nothing at all objective at its base.

[Nearly Sane]

They cannot even begin to think  of even thinking about the fact that their whole religion has nothing at all objective at its base.

There are lots of RCCs who wouldn't claim that their religion is objective. At the same time there are lots of non religious people who might claim objectivity for things they have no justification for.

The idea of superiority over religious people because 'oh look I base my beliefs on objectivity' is just a simplistic nonsense.

[SusanDoris]

There are lots of RCCs who wouldn't claim that their religion is objective. At the same time there are lots of non religious people who might claim objectivity for things they have no justification for.

The idea of superiority over religious people because 'oh look I base my beliefs on objectivity' is just a simplistic nonsense.

You may have read 'superiority' into my post, but it was not there. No person is superior or inferior to any other; our lives have place and time and happen in different environments with different chances of good or bad health, luck, success, failure, etc, but no person can consider him/herself to be superior or inferior, in my firmly held opinion and practice.

[Nearly Sane]

You may have read 'superiority' into my post, but it was not there. No person is superior or inferior to any other; our lives have place and time and happen in different environments with different chances of good or bad health, luck, success, failure, etc, but no person can consider him/herself to be superior or inferior, in my firmly held opinion and practice.

So you are no better than Fred West?

[SusanDoris]

So you are no better than Fred West?

What do you mean by 'better than'? I was lucky enough to be born with a set of genes that made me a naturally cheerful sort of person, into a family where life was working-to-middle -class, and lived in places where I received, enjoyed and benefited from a good education. That does not make me 'better' or 'worse' than Fred west, since we both have an evolved physical body very similar in most respects. I await your answer.

[Nearly Sane]

What do you mean by 'better than'? I was lucky enough to be born with a set of genes that made me a naturally cheerful sort of person, into a family where life was working-to-middle -class, and lived in places where I received, enjoyed and benefited from a good education. That does not make me 'better' or 'worse' than Fred west, since we both have an evolved physical body very similar in most respects. I await your answer.

  More useful to yourself and others as a base description.

I'm struggling to see how you can comment on others' inability to  'think about the fact that their whole religion has nothing at all objective at its base' and not be suggesting that it is something that they should do. Your latest post seems to take the position that they have no choice but to think that, and your thoughts are just as fixed. Now philosophically, I can agree that that may well be true but it seems impossible to me to function on a day to day basis like that. To go back to one of my favourite quotes 'Of course I believe in free will, I have no choice'

[SusanDoris]

  More useful to yourself and others as a base description.

Thank you for reply. Yes, 'more useful' sounds like an apt phrase to use.

I'm struggling to see how you can comment on others' inability to  'think about the fact that their whole religion has nothing at all objective at its base' and not be suggesting that it is something that they should do.

Okay, I've had another look at my post. I should have said, 'Some RCs are so indoctrinated and possibly terrified of some dire consequences if they challenge that faith  that they are no longer able to think of doing so' or similar wording.

Your latest post seems to take the position that they have no choice but to think that, and your thoughts are just as fixed.

I think the choice has probably been taken away from them by their indoctrination, but no, my thoughts are most decidedly not as fixed. I have always challenged, with the 'Is this true?' question, but when I was a child the time was not right and I was prevented from finding a rational answer  for sucha question. I have always enjoyed all discussion on the subject and of course if someone ever comes up with an objective, independently, verifiable, etc etc fact, I will change my mind and such a fact would change the world's knowledge base too.

Now philosophically, I can agree that that may well be true but it seems impossible to me to function on a day to day basis like that. To go back to one of my favourite quotes 'Of course I believe in free will, I have no choice'

It's something of a pity I think that it is only really on message boards that such topics can be broached. The only person with whom it comes up in conversation and with total agreement is my next-door neighbour. Her mother, well into her 90s, has just died (nothing to do with Covid 19 fortunately) and that reduces the number of people she can agree with on such matters.

[Nearly Sane]

Thank you for reply. Yes, 'more useful' sounds like an apt phrase to use.

I think I am influenced by the idea that subjectively the idea of wellbeing is a good base axiom for morality and evaluation here. Fred West was obviously a bad person on that position. I think we have evolved to be judgement machines. It could be argued that judging is the characteristic that makes us homo sapiens.

Okay, I've had another look at my post. I should have said, 'Some RCs are so indoctrinated and possibly terrified of some dire consequences if they challenge that faith  that they are no longer able to think of doing so' or similar wording.

I think for many RCs and other religions, it's not really that big a part of their life. It's important in many ways but on a day to day level belief vs lack of belief doesn't really seem to me to make that much difference to a person. I don't go out for a drink (at all at the moment obviously) with my friends who have relugious beliefs and think of them as any different from me purely because of those beliefs. The fear part seems to kick in much more when people doubt. It's something that I hear more from former religious people than religious ones. If we were to go down the idea of religion as meme, it's a very effective adaptation for keeping the meme going. (Note, I have lots of issues with the idea of memes other than being used metaphorically)

I think the choice has probably been taken away from them by their indoctrination, but no, my thoughts are most decidedly not as fixed. I have always challenged, with the 'Is this true?' question, but when I was a child the time was not right and I was prevented from finding a rational answer  for sucha question. I have always enjoyed all discussion on the subject and of course if someone ever comes up with an objective, independently, verifiable, etc etc fact, I will change my mind and such a fact would change the world's knowledge base too.

I think a lot of religious people are religious because it feels right to them. It's wider than the idea of indoctrination, it's cultural, it's social, and it's part of our make up to think why, and want a why answer rather than just a how answer.

In addition, there are for many the idea of personal experiences, and I think it's almost impossible for anyone who believes they have had one to deny that on a purely rational basis. To take the often used example that we don't actually touch things - I get the rational argument that supports that but on a day to day basis it feels like nonsense.

I also have an issue with the idea of arguments for and against religious belief. They feel like a post rationalisation for the position rather than the reason for it. Certainly I didn't feel like I reasoned myself out of religion, I just realised I didn't believe. Now it might be argued that my subconscious wrestled with the arguments, and my conscious was presented with a fait accompli, and that the rational arguments I might present are somehow the conscious mind accessing the processes of the subconscious but again that's just not what it feels like.

And the thing about the arguments that religious believers prsent seem so often nothing to do with why they actually believe. Arguments like the Kalam or the Ontological seem obviously pist rationalisations.

It's something of a pity I think that it is only really on message boards that such topics can be broached. The only person with whom it comes up in conversation and with total agreement is my next-door neighbour. Her mother, well into her 90s, has just died (nothing to do with Covid 19 fortunately) and that reduces the number of people she can agree with on such matters.

To be honest, a lot of this type of discussion, I find uninyeresting, in part because I feel that detailed arguments on the philosophical approach tells me little about the person. There's an element that I can enjoy on an intellectual level but I have had so many of those discussions that it's pretty repetitive. I am much more interested in the day to day stuff, politics , art, sport, and of course people always people. And on that level, there are those who hold religious beliefs with whom I have much more fellow feeling than I do with many Gradgrindian atheists who suppose they drip rationality and objectivity. As Hume argued, reason is the slave of passion. We cannot jump the is ought gap with rationality and objectivity. We always need to make an assumption on a desire, and in the end that is why I choose wellbeing as an axiom - because I want to have a good enjoyable life.

[SusanDoris]

I think I am influenced by the idea that subjectively the idea of wellbeing is a good base axiom for morality and evaluation here. Fred West was obviously a bad person on that position. I think we have evolved to be judgement machines. It could be argued that judging is the characteristic that makes us homo sapiens.

Thank you for an interesting read. I've had the latest S/N 20 installed this afternoon, so will read and respond properly tomorrow. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think I am influenced by the idea that subjectively the idea of wellbeing is a good base axiom for morality and evaluation here. Fred West was obviously a bad person on that position. I think we have evolved to be judgement machines. It could be argued that judging is the characteristic that makes us homo sapiens.

I’m the same, but then pretty quickly you run into the question “whose wellbeing?” – the done-to-death trolley car thought experiment, whether it’d then be right to kill one person to harvest his organs to save the lives of five others dying for want of transplants etc. Wellbeing (or maximal wellbeing) is fine so far as it goes, but it quickly runs into rationally indefensible answers (albeit emotionally preferable ones).   

I think for many RCs and other religions, it's not really that big a part of their life. It's important in many ways but on a day to day level belief vs lack of belief doesn't really seem to me to make that much difference to a person. I don't go out for a drink (at all at the moment obviously) with my friends who have relugious beliefs and think of them as any different from me purely because of those beliefs. The fear part seems to kick in much more when people doubt. It's something that I hear more from former religious people than religious ones. If we were to go down the idea of religion as meme, it's a very effective adaptation for keeping the meme going. (Note, I have lots of issues with the idea of memes other than being used metaphorically)

Memes are metaphorical aren’t they – ie, the proposition that ideas and beliefs will take hold and spread just as material phenomena like viruses will. In any case though, I’ve mentioned before that our best friends are RC (he a cradle RC, she a marriage convert from C of E) and no – it seems to make little difference to their day-to-day lives. (He’s a highly literate and liberal immigration lawyer by the way who tells me he still takes great comfort from dropping into RC churches now and then). The issue for me though is that my RC friends (and likely yours) don’t necessarily reflect the spectrum, especially in countries where church and state are much harder to distinguish than here. There are countries where bans on abortion, on sex ed, on contraception etc have a real and damaging effect on the populations as a whole, where for the clerics and for the devout laity the RC faith is it seems a very big part of their lives indeed – big enough to mandate how everyone else should live. And that troubles me – not the content of the faiths so much (so what?) – but their practical effect when they're in charge.               

I think a lot of religious people are religious because it feels right to them. It's wider than the idea of indoctrination, it's cultural, it's social, and it's part of our make up to think why, and want a why answer rather than just a how answer.

Doesn’t it “feel right” to (pretty much) all religious people, regardless of what (or how nasty) the beliefs? Presumably Fred Phelps’s venomous intolerance felt as right to him as the rather sweet local vicar’s beliefs feel right to him. The more interesting question for me is why something that seems plainly wrong to me apparently feels right to someone else.     

In addition, there are for many the idea of personal experiences, and I think it's almost impossible for anyone who believes they have had one to deny that on a purely rational basis. To take the often used example that we don't actually touch things - I get the rational argument that supports that but on a day to day basis it feels like nonsense.

It may feel like nonsense, but it isn’t. The issue for me with “experiences” though is not that I doubt people have them (I’m sure they do), but rather it’s that the justifications they make for their causes are routinely terrible: “One day I felt a deep sense of oneness with the universe, therefore (insert name of the deity they happen to be most enculturated to here) did it” type of thing.   

I also have an issue with the idea of arguments for and against religious belief. They feel like a post rationalisation for the position rather than the reason for it. Certainly I didn't feel like I reasoned myself out of religion, I just realised I didn't believe. Now it might be argued that my subconscious wrestled with the arguments, and my conscious was presented with a fait accompli, and that the rational arguments I might present are somehow the conscious mind accessing the processes of the subconscious but again that's just not what it feels like.

Religious beliefs are religious beliefs – you can’t really have arguments for and against them as such, but what you can have is arguments for and against the arguments attempted to justify them. That’s the boundary for me: not so much “what do you believe?”, but rather “why do you believe it?”. And when the answers to that question fail (as they always seem to), I take the view that there’s no sound reason for me to take the claim seriously regardless of what it happens to be. 

And the thing about the arguments that religious believers prsent seem so often nothing to do with why they actually believe. Arguments like the Kalam or the Ontological seem obviously pist rationalisations.  To be honest, a lot of this type of discussion, I find uninyeresting, in part because I feel that detailed arguments on the philosophical approach tells me little about the person. There's an element that I can enjoy on an intellectual level but I have had so many of those discussions that it's pretty repetitive.

I broadly agree, except it does tell me something about the person - it tells me they’re not thinking straight!

I am much more interested in the day to day stuff, politics , art, sport, and of course people always people. And on that level, there are those who hold religious beliefs with whom I have much more fellow feeling than I do with many Gradgrindian atheists who suppose they drip rationality and objectivity. As Hume argued, reason is the slave of passion. We cannot jump the is ought gap with rationality and objectivity. We always need to make an assumption on a desire, and in the end that is why I choose wellbeing as an axiom - because I want to have a good enjoyable life.

Same here (more or less), but nonetheless I’m still interested in the practical effect of poor thinking – real people get really hurt in the real world, and so I suspect I’m a little less sanguine than you are about letting it be. I’m aware of the slippery slope fallacy (of course) but I still struggle to see how I’d argue against, say, someone committing a murder because his “faith” justifies it when I’m relaxed about someone doing something else less malign (or even benign) because his faith justifies that. I take the view that faith is a very bad reason for doing anything – there’s no logic to retro-fitting what the something happens to be to conclude that sometimes faith is a good rationale and sometimes a bad one. It’s just a bad one always I think.     

[SteveH]

NS,

I’m the same, but then pretty quickly you run into the question “whose wellbeing?” – the done-to-death trolley car thought experiment, whether it’d then be right to kill one person to harvest his organs to save the lives of five others dying for want of transplants etc. Wellbeing (or maximal wellbeing) is fine so far as it goes, but it quickly runs into rationally indefensible answers (albeit emotionally preferable ones).   
   

What you're talking about is utilitarianism, and all the situations which are supposed to counter it as a moral system - the trolley-car one, the killing-to-harvest-organs, etc. - can be refuted simply by asking why the action described is wrong. The answer always turns out to be utilitarian (more specifically, rule-utilitarian): if it was the rule that people could be killed for their organs, we'd all be living in fear, which is hardly conducive to general happiness or well-being.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Nye,

What you're talking about is utilitarianism, and all the situations which are supposed to counter it as a moral system - the trolley-car one, the killing-to-harvest-organs, etc. - can be refuted simply by asking why the action described is wrong. The answer always turns out to be utilitarian (more specifically, rule-utilitarian): if it was the rule that people could be killed for their organs, we'd all be living in fear, which is hardly conducive to general happiness or well-being.

Yes I’m aware of rule utilitarianism, but the problems with it seem to me to be who’d decides on the rule, how they’d decide it, and how in any case they would measure the paradigm for maximal wellbeing they’d arrived at. 

[SusanDoris]

I think I am influenced by the idea that subjectively the idea of wellbeing is a good base axiom for morality and evaluation here. Fred West was obviously a bad person on that position. I think we have evolved to be judgement machines. It could be argued that judging is the characteristic that makes us homo sapiens.

 I think for many RCs and other religions, it's not really that big a part of their life. It's important in many ways but on a day to day level belief vs lack of belief doesn't really seem to me to make that much difference to a person.

Not nowadays, no, because people are accustomed to criticism of religious edicts, they have much more awareness of, for instance, the Pope’s humanness, his vast wealth and his need to travel in bullet-proof cars! Why the question of why God isn’t enough to protect him is raised far too little in my opinion.

The fear part seems to kick in much more when people doubt. It's something that I hear more from former religious people than religious ones.

The long-term effects of such strong inculcation of supposed religious power are evidently hard to break.

I think a lot of religious people are religious because it feels right to them. It's wider than the idea of indoctrination, it's cultural, it's social, and it's part of our make up to think why, and want a why answer rather than just a how answer.

Speaking only for those I know who are of my sort of age, I know that most of them do not attend church, do not mention praying and that activities involving religion are very low on their list. They probably will put themselves down as CofE in the census, but I think that, if questioned closely, they would have to admit that they know there is no heaven or afte-life and that medical science has shown that this is so. But then, of course, it would   be  an intrusion on their personal space even to mention the subject. I think it is sort of an understanding which is not necessary to mention. Most will assume a conventional funeral, but cremation is something mentioned and agreed upon as the best method of disposal!

In addition, there are for many the idea of personal experiences, and I think it's almost impossible for anyone who believes they have had one to deny that on a purely rational basis.

Agree, and on the GH forum where there are quite a few who say  I am unable to understand their personal experiences of mystic this and that, I regularly point out that I never deny that people have experiences, but I do question their interpretations of them.

I also have an issue with the idea of arguments for and against religious belief. They feel like a post rationalisation for the position rather than the reason for it. Certainly I didn't feel like I reasoned myself out of religion, I just realised I didn't believe. Now it might be argued that my subconscious wrestled with the arguments, and my conscious was presented with a fait accompli, and that the rational arguments I might present are somehow the conscious mind accessing the processes of the subconscious but again that's just not what it feels like.

Yes, that’s a huge barrier to cross if the world’s population is ever to become a majority of non-believers! With thousands of years of beliefs of all kinds ingrained into all countries and cultures, the reduction in beliefs which requires faith alone is an almost unattainable hope.

And the thing about the arguments that religious believers prsent seem so often nothing to do with why they actually believe. Arguments like the Kalam or the Ontological seem obviously pist rationalisations.  To be honest, a lot of this type of discussion, I find uninyeresting, in part because I feel that detailed arguments on the philosophical approach tells me little about the person. There's an element that I can enjoy on an intellectual level but I have had so many of those discussions that it's pretty repetitive.

Agree of course, but my personal circumstances mean that the subject provides a fairly constant source of interest, something I can participate in and think about.

I am much more interested in the day ot day stuff, politics , art, sport, and of course people always people. And on that level, there are those who hold religious beliefs with whom I have much more fellow feeling than I do with many Gradgrindian atheists who suppose they drip rationality and objectivity. As Hume argued, reason is the slave of passion. We cannot jump the is ought gap with rationality and objectivity. We always need to make an assumption on a desire, and in the end that is why I choose wellbeing as an axiom - because I want to have a good enjoyable life.

I think I would have become more involved in politics if I’d started much younger, butmaybe not. I think I am lucky to be an optimistic sort of person but not being able to make eye contact with people …… well that’s something I’m used to. Thank scientists and engineers for the means to communicate with people all over the world with the added ease of being a touch typist, learnt from an excellent teacher way back when I was 18! Ah, so long ago!!
Thank you.
 

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55966178

A step in the right direction I suppose, but there is a long way to go before there is equality in the RCC.

I was reading a few articles on this and I think the more general reporting may be slightly wrong on this. The Tablet (and I guess they are more likely to be correct on matters of the RCC) seem to think that this isn't the first woman appointed to the synod, however it is the first time a woman has had voting rights.

So over the years a few non-clergy (men and women) have been appointed, but until now none of the women have been able to vote, although the men have been given voting rights. So I guess this just rectifying the most gross, primary discrimination - whereby non clergy who are men have been able to vote, while non clergy who are women have not been able to.

However given that the vast, vast majority of the synod of bishops (the clue is in the name) are ordained priests and women aren't allowed to become priests there is no chance that women will have any meaningful decision-making role in the synod. And of course the senior leadership positions are all bishops, cardinals etc, who are, and will remain, exclusively men unless (or until) the RCC allows women priests.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I’m the same, but then pretty quickly you run into the question “whose wellbeing?” – the done-to-death trolley car thought experiment, whether it’d then be right to kill one person to harvest his organs to save the lives of five others dying for want of transplants etc. Wellbeing (or maximal wellbeing) is fine so far as it goes, but it quickly runs into rationally indefensible answers (albeit emotionally preferable ones).   

i think there are problems here but to answer them would take a post almost as long as your entire reply here, and the point about morality in this context is that it is part of how we judge actions and people, and my doubts about Susan Doris's idea that she doesn't judge people at all. If you want to start a thread about how we, as individuals, think of morality, I think it would be a better approach.

Memes are metaphorical aren’t they – ie, the proposition that ideas and beliefs will take hold and spread just as material phenomena like viruses will. In any case though, I’ve mentioned before that our best friends are RC (he a cradle RC, she a marriage convert from C of E) and no – it seems to make little difference to their day-to-day lives. (He’s a highly literate and liberal immigration lawyer by the way who tells me he still takes great comfort from dropping into RC churches now and then). The issue for me though is that my RC friends (and likely yours) don’t necessarily reflect the spectrum, especially in countries where church and state are much harder to distinguish than here. There are countries where bans on abortion, on sex ed, on contraception etc have a real and damaging effect on the populations as a whole, where for the clerics and for the devout laity the RC faith is it seems a very big part of their lives indeed – big enough to mandate how everyone else should live. And that troubles me – not the content of the faiths so much (so what?) – but their practical effect when they're in charge.               

There is a strong hint of some of my best friends are RCs there. And while I think I could argue that having been brought up in tge RCC, and attended 2 RC schools, including a Jesuit secondary, that I have more experience of the spectrum than you by some distance, I think it's irrelevant to the point. I am suggesting tgat it's more important to judge the individual by their actions rather tgan look at them as simply a member of an institution
 Indeed there are many institutions that are not religious which behave in dictatorial ways. It seems that that is a pretty generic bit of humanity rather than anything specific to religions.

Doesn’t it “feel right” to (pretty much) all religious people, regardless of what (or how nasty) the beliefs? Presumably Fred Phelps’s venomous intolerance felt as right to him as the rather sweet local vicar’s beliefs feel right to him. The more interesting question for me is why something that seems plainly wrong to me apparently feels right to someone else.     

  Again 5his seems to posit the idea that this is somehow specific to the religious. My point, in reply to Susan Doris, was about the belief feeling right but it applies to the other judgements you mention as well. Since we have accepted that the fact of someone having religious beliefs tells us nothing about how they will act as a person, I don't see the use in mentioning some bad religious person. And since there are many bad people in both your judgement and mine who do not have religious beliefs, they seem irrelevant to how we judge the individual.

It may feel like nonsense, but it isn’t. The issue for me with “experiences” though is not that I doubt people have them (I’m sure they do), but rather it’s that the justifications they make for their causes are routinely terrible: “One day I felt a deep sense of oneness with the universe, therefore (insert name of the deity they happen to be most enculturated to here) did it” type of thing.   

You miss the point about  it feeling like nonsense. On a day to day level, I, and indeed you, will act as if it is a nonsense. Then you judge someone else's internal experience to have a bad justicatiobis just you expressing your internal experience of that person.

Religious beliefs are religious beliefs – you can’t really have arguments for and against them as such, but what you can have is arguments for and against the arguments attempted to justify them. That’s the boundary for me: not so much “what do you believe?”, but rather “why do you believe it?”. And when the answers to that question fail (as they always seem to), I take the view that there’s no sound reason for me to take the claim seriously regardless of what it happens to be. 

Again, I think this misses the point about asking for arguments which I am suggesting are post rationalisations. Pointing out that those arguments fail is irrelevant if those are not why the person actually believes. Further, I think this applies to a lot of what we all believe on a day to day basis. The whole idea of people having thought out world views that they examine to establish logical consistency just seems outwith my experience.

I broadly agree, except it does tell me something about the person - it tells me they’re not thinking straight!

Again my argument in that sense is that none of us think straight. Ir's built in to the ought is gap that rationality is sufficient to come to a conclusion of how we ought to behave. And as part of my not thinking straight, I am happier with people who act as I might hope rather than think as I might hope. This is because I just see a lot of limited human beings, and being religious or non religious doesn't seem at all useful in determining whether I approve of their actions.

Same here (more or less), but nonetheless I’m still interested in the practical effect of poor thinking – real people get really hurt in the real world, and so I suspect I’m a little less sanguine than you are about letting it be. I’m aware of the slippery slope fallacy (of course) but I still struggle to see how I’d argue against, say, someone committing a murder because his “faith” justifies it when I’m relaxed about someone doing something else less malign (or even benign) because his faith justifies that. I take the view that faith is a very bad reason for doing anything – there’s no logic to retro-fitting what the something happens to be to conclude that sometimes faith is a good rationale and sometimes a bad one. It’s just a bad one always I think.   

The idea that someone is justified in committing murder because of their faith is not one I have made so this feels like a strawman. Rather people seem to murder because of who they are and the circumstances they are in and I think I should judge them on that not on whether they are religious or not since that may in specific cases be part of the motivation but isn't useful in a generalized approach. Indeed, it seems to me that thinking it can be generalized when the evidence seems to be against it would be dangerous.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

i think there are problems here but to answer them would take a post almost as long as your entire reply here, and the point about morality in this context is that it is part of how we judge actions and people, and my doubts about Susan Doris's idea that she doesn't judge people at all. If you want to start a thread about how we, as individuals, think of morality, I think it would be a better approach.

Fair enough. 

There is a strong hint of some of my best friends are RCs there.

No there isn’t. The “some of my best friends are…” line is cover for prejudice (“I can’t be antisemitic/homophobic etc because some of my best friends are” etc.) Here my antipathy to the RC or any other faith is set out for reasons – I merely referenced friends of ours to confirm with an example your take that, in some cases, faith makes little difference to the way people live their lives day-to-day. 

And while I think I could argue that having been brought up in tge RCC, and attended 2 RC schools, including a Jesuit secondary, that I have more experience of the spectrum than you by some distance,…

No, you’ve likely had more exposure to the same part of the spectrum than I have but unless you’ve lived in a society where the state and church are the same thing (with all that follows from that) then our exposure to the spectrum as a whole probably isn’t that far apart.   

I think it's irrelevant to the point. I am suggesting tgat it's more important to judge the individual by their actions rather tgan look at them as simply a member of an institution

Yes, but that wasn’t my point at all. Rather my point was about why people act as they do, not about the actions themselves. “Judging people by their actions” just gives you “I would/would not agree” with that action. The point though surely is to understand why we disagree.     

Indeed there are many institutions that are not religious which behave in dictatorial ways. It seems that that is a pretty generic bit of humanity rather than anything specific to religions.

That’s just whataboutery, but in any case the same question arises: why do such people behave as they do, and are their actions justifiable? This is a religion and ethics mb so we tend to focus on the religious, but if it was, say, a political mb I’d ask the same questions in that context.   

Again 5his seems to posit the idea that this is somehow specific to the religious. My point, in reply to Susan Doris, was about the belief feeling right but it applies to the other judgements you mention as well.

No it doesn’t – see above. You were arguing that some beliefs and action “feel right” to the people doing them. I was just saying that, presumably, pretty much all actions feel right to the people who do them (religious and otherwise), otherwise they wouldn’t do them.   

Since we have accepted that the fact of someone having religious beliefs tells us nothing about how they will act as a person,…

Who’s “we”, and where did we do that? Clearly there are cases where the religious belief does tell us how someone will behave – someone who subscribes to strongly homophobic “holy” texts for example will in all likelihood himself behave as a homophobe would. More to the point though, when someone justifies their religious beliefs with “because that’s my faith” that also tells us that in all likelihood “but that’s my faith” is its own justification – ie, they’re unlikely to have a good answer to the response, “so what?”.

I don't see the use in mentioning some bad religious person. And since there are many bad people in both your judgement and mine who do not have religious beliefs, they seem irrelevant to how we judge the individual.

It was just an illustration of an extremist behaving as they did because it “feels right” to him. I could just as well have picked Hitler or Shipman, but the context here was religious so I picked Phelps instead.

You miss the point about  it feeling like nonsense. On a day to day level, I, and indeed you, will act as if it is a nonsense. Then you judge someone else's internal experience to have a bad justicatiobis just you expressing your internal experience of that person.

You’re not getting it still. I don’t care about (what someone describes as) their internal experience when that experience is expressed as, say, “therefore god did it”. What I do care about though is how they arrived at that explanation rather than another one – you’re conflating here “experience” with “explanatory narrative for the cause of an experience”.   

Again, I think this misses the point about asking for arguments which I am suggesting are post rationalisations.

All explanations are post rationalisations – that’s the point. If I drop a cup of coffee, “gravity” for it falling is a post rationalisation.   

Pointing out that those arguments fail is irrelevant if those are not why the person actually believes.

But that is why the person actually believes. You can ask them, “why do you think your explanation of a cause for your experience is correct?” and they will tell you. Generally what they tell you is false or impenetrable (“because that’s my faith” etc), but they will tell you nonetheless. Identifying why the response is false or impenetrable though isn’t irrelevant at all – it’s the rationale for, “in that case you give me no reason to take your claim seriously”.     

Further, I think this applies to a lot of what we all believe on a day to day basis. The whole idea of people having thought out world views that they examine to establish logical consistency just seems outwith my experience.

Yes, on a colloquial, day-to-day, pragmatic view of the lived experience that’s probably true, but it’s not what we’re talking about here. The discussion here is about digging deeper than place marker “that’s good enough for now” assumptions to understand truth at a deeper level. Thor causing thunder was functionally good enough for the people who used that explanation, but there are richer understandings available when such explanatory claims are challenged and tested.     

Again my argument in that sense is that none of us think straight. Ir's built in to the ought is gap that rationality is sufficient to come to a conclusion of how we ought to behave. And as part of my not thinking straight, I am happier with people who act as I might hope rather than think as I might hope. This is because I just see a lot of limited human beings, and being religious or non religious doesn't seem at all useful in determining whether I approve of their actions.

(Again), that wasn’t my point. Why do you hope people behave a certain way? What is it about their actions that makes you approve or disapprove of them, and indeed how is it that you justify your opinions about these matters to yourself? To me the actions themselves are very much a second order issue – it’s the rationales for them (post or not) that interest me much more. Don’t they you?       

The idea that someone is justified in committing murder because of their faith is not one I have made so this feels like a strawman.

This isn’t about you specifically. Clearly people have (and still do) commit murder (and many other appalling acts) using their various faiths as justifications. That’s a practical outcome in my view of privileging faith above just guessing, and I think that’s worth discussing.   

Rather people seem to murder because of who they are and the circumstances they are in and I think I should judge them on that not on whether they are religious or not since that may in specific cases be part of the motivation but isn't useful in a generalized approach. Indeed, it seems to me that thinking it can be generalized when the evidence seems to be against it would be dangerous.

It’s not a generalisation I’m making though – not at all. What I’m talking about is cases in which the perpetrators themselves will tell you they acted as they did because they think their faith mandates it. Sure if someone comes home and finds his partner in bed with another and the red mist descends that’s another story, but here we’re talking about why some behaviours “feel right” to the people who carry them out when those behaviours are justified with bad arguments. Identifying bad arguments and countering them seems to me to be something that should be taught at an early age and should be a lifelong concern if truth is not to be lost. That’s why I care only about the arguments, not about the conclusions - it's why for me "why" questions are greatly more interesting that "what" ones.       

[SusanDoris]

NS Just where do you think I said or implied that I do not judge anyone at all?!! Of course I make judgements,  but of behaviours, not whether a person is my superior or inferior.  My judgements of their behaviour will,  in the case of personal friends, be made on the understanding of how and why they act, i.e. with a knowledge of their lives, backgrounds, etc. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS Just where do you think I said or implied that I do not judge anyone at all?!! Of course I make judgements,  but of behaviours, not whether a person is my superior or inferior.  My judgements of their behaviour will,  in the case of personal friends, be made on the understanding of how and why they act, i.e. with a knowledge of their lives, backgrounds, etc.

I don't understand how you divorce behaviour from the person. I wouldn't send people to jail without judging the person.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I don't understand how you divorce behaviour from the person. I wouldn't send people to jail without judging the person.

And yet judges do just that: “Did person A commit crime X, yes or no? If yes, then jail.” They may consider judging "the person" in mitigation at sentencing (hence character witnesses, psychiatric reports etc) but what matters to them mainly is the fact or otherwise of committing the criminal act itself. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

And yet judges do just that: “Did person A commit crime X, yes or no? If yes, then jail.” They may consider judging "the person" in mitigation at sentencing (hence character witnesses, psychiatric reports etc) but what matters to them mainly is the fact or otherwise of committing the criminal act itself.

And yet still it is not just a  judgement that a crime has been committed but also that the individual was guilty of it. Is Fred West in your opinion a better or worse person than Susan Doris, or do you think as Susan Doris does that he is neither inferior or superior.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And yet still it is not just a  judgement that a crime has been committed but also that the individual was guilty of it.

You’re missing it. For a verdict the judge just cares about whether or not person A committed crime X. The judge isn’t “judging the person” at this stage at all – all the judge is considering is whether or not the evidence creates sufficient nexus between the person and the act to know beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did it, ie to establish culpability.

The time for “judging the person” is at sentencing when issues like whether the accused was sufficiently mature/sane to know what s/he was doing, whether s/he’s a first time or a habitual offender etc apply. Assuming the accused is sane, various crimes have mandatory minimum sentences so no matter how someone might “judge the person” they still go to pokey just the same.       

Is Fred West in your opinion a better or worse person than Susan Doris, or do you think as Susan Doris does that he is neither inferior or superior.

Courts don’t concern themselves with “better or worse” people, just with guilt or non-guilt. Inasmuch as “better or worse” issues are in play it’s in the scale of the act – stealing a packet of Polos and stealing the crown jewels are both theft, but one deserves less punishment than the other. Again though, for determining culpability it’s the act itself that matters not the character of the person who committed it.   

As for West and Susan, of course in my opinion Susan is a morally better person than West – the latter did morally despicable things in my opinion, and the latter has not (so far as I know). That’s a different matter though – that’s about benchmarking other people’s morality against my own, not about whether I’d send someone to jail.