| |
|
|
| Forum Rules
|
1. This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition. 2. Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate. 3. All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable. 4. Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set. 5. No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations. 6. Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists. The register and login section is at the top right. You can also register or login here.
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:133
Senior User
Online Status:
 |
| 06/26/2007 6:25 AM |
|
Well, given their size, it is the most visible group.
This point appears to be correct, although religious people are really many smaller groups that share a common trait (belief in a higher power). The Christians in the US can at best be said to share superficially similar beliefs with each other, with different sects disagreeing with each other over some fairly basic beliefs.
As well, it tends to be the one that cares the least about justifying their beliefs logically
By your standards, any internally consistent justification is sufficient. If I feel that murdering someone is wrong, then that justification is sufficient. Your critique of religious justification seems to be based on your conclusion that the bible is a flawed book and not a valid source of justification (I assume that you would come to the same conclusion about the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita too, but of course they'd need to be considered on a case-by-case basis). Yet you have offered no proof of that position, and so even basing a moral system solely on the bible is as justified as basing it on any more modern philosopher or one's internal sense of rightness.
it also seems to be a group that is very willing to impose its view on the rest of the nation.
The catch is that most atheists, agnostics, humanists, and so forth (including ones who are members of a church) could be grouped together and form another large group with just about as much cohesion as the religious right. They would be just as bent on imposing their views on the nation as people who's morality is derived from their faith. In fact, many people who oppose mainstream Christianity's influence on the public discourse are at least supporters of other religious systems (typically non-western since one strange quirk of US culture is the tendency to publicly reject itself).
Everybody derives their morality from some place. There is no objective standard that I've seen that can be used to place non-religious ethics above religious ethics. The closest that I have heard is the principle of affirmative action which gives precedence to oppressed groups (in this case it may be more correct to say minority groups, although claims of oppression by a religious majority have some merit). Even that standard requires a non-objective determination of value, particularly that fairness is a highly valued idea and that it cannot be obtained without an active effort to level the field.
In short, religious morality is just as valid as secular morality. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/26/2007 10:50 AM |
|
Yet you have offered no proof of that position,
Because it is descriptive, rather than normative, I don't need to offer proof as to why it is wrong - the burden of proof is not on me, but rather on the believer to show why it is correct.
However, I suppose one attempt might be to show that the Bible is contradictory in some way, thus showing the statement "The Bible is always true" to be false.
as justified as basing it on any more modern philosopher or one's internal sense of rightness.
no becaues the bible is descriptive because it makes statemnts about how the world actually is whereas ones own internal sense of rightness is normative.
Basing it on a modern philosopher is risky: One cannot say "my moral system is right because Kant said so!", since one would need to demonstrate Kant to be "true". It runs into the same problem.
The catch is that most atheists, agnostics, humanists, and so forth (including ones who are members of a church) could be grouped together and form another large group with just about as much cohesion as the religious right.
They seem to have largely failed in their efforts lately 
They would be just as bent on imposing their views on the nation as people who's morality is derived from their faith.
Except that, in my experience, the atheist is usually able to come up with:
1. A very internally consistent picture of their morality
2. A very good explanation for why others ought to accept it, appealing to shared values and what not,
3. An explanation for their morality,
4. They usually don't run into the is-ought problem.
Often, when religionists attempt to justify a belief or what not, it will often come down to "Well, Jesus said..."
typically non-western
I should note that many non-western religions are, in fact, atheist and could be classified as philosophies.
In short, religious morality is just as valid as secular morality.
If I try to build a building on a weak foundation, it will collapse quite easily regardless of whether it might stand on a different foundation.
If I try to build a moral system on a weak fuondation, it will collapse quite easily.
If X belief is justified based on the Bible, then it is NOT justified unless the Bible is also justified.
If X belief is justified based on some philosopher, then it is NOT justified unless the philosopher is also justified.
If X belief is justified based on ones own sense of right or wrong, then it needs no further justification, for it is already entirely logically consistent.
Now, in an argument, using the last one typically isn't very convincing: Usually people will appeal to other common values in an attempt to sway their opponent.
But the whole point is that "religious" morality, by claiming moral authority from a "factual source", then needs to prove that factual source in order for their arguments to flow.
If they cannot, then the arguments do not flow. Period. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 07/03/2007 4:05 PM |
|
| Well then, let's turn to something else. Less of a debate, though it will inevitably become such, and more of a request: Why is it that you believe (assuming you do, of course)? What is it that prompts you to accept one faith but not another? |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:133
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 07/04/2007 7:40 AM |
|
I was writing a reply to your earlier post, but it was lost due to the quirks of the new site's cookie policy. I could try to recreate it, but that'd be a huge hassle and take up way too much of my free time.
I generally don't debate religion because it is a losing proposition for everyone involved. No one can prove their position (not even the atheists, who generally have no better proof than Occam's razor and the same type of reductio ad absurdum "proofs" that religious people use, which don't actually prove anything) and everyone is too invested into their positions to have a calm, rational discussion. You may have noticed that I didn't really discuss any particular religion in this thread, although you seemed to be focused on ones that include a belief in the bible. This is because it was then a meta-level removed from actually debating about religion.
I usually think that it is a bad idea for religious people to try to prove their beliefs to be true. Such efforts only reinforce the fact that their proofs are not logically sound, even if you accept some of their premises (such as that some holy writings are true and reliable). For other reasons, I don't accept religious authority as justification for most public policy (the only exception is where the religious position is unequivocally clear, in which case I still don't consider the argument to be universally valid, but only valid to those who would submit themselves to the same authority).
My point is that I'm not going to get into a discussion of what I believe or why I believe it. Not in this environment, anyway. There are other people at this site who seem to be very eager to share their beliefs. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|