| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2008 12:06:13 PM · #1151 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not here to argue the specifics of Christianity. The truth of the matter is many, many religious people (not just Christian) hold it to be a "self-evident" truth that homosexuality is forbidden. |
The difference here is that the religious person will say "It is forbidden!" while the secular homophobe will say "I won't tolerate it!"
And the religious person brings out a book written two thousand years ago and claims the book labels homosexuality as anathema, and says this justifies his beliefs. The secular homophobe points to thousands of years of consistent persecution of homosexuals and uses that as justification; "See, I'm not alone, you can't fight this perception because it's always been around."
Both are ignoring the evolution of social mores (as opposed to "absolute morality", assuming such exists), and are cherry picking their book or their history to justify the singling-out of homosexuals as a group that should remain exempt from the ongoing adjustment of social mores that has been taking place since humans first gathered in clans and tribes.
And for WHAT? To guards against what great danger? It's freakin' ridiculous, and all this intellectualizing is beginning to look repulsive to me. Come ON, folks! This is just people loving people! What's the harm of that? Really?
R.
Message edited by author 2008-11-19 12:39:46. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 12:18:24 PM · #1152 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The truth of the matter is many, many religious people (not just Christian) hold it to be a "self-evident" truth that homosexuality is forbidden. |
Many, many religious people have believed in their "self-evident" divine right to own slaves or that women are inferior and should not be educated or allowed to vote. Some still do, and justify their beliefs by pointing to page 142 in some book written by unknown authors centuries ago. That should be a ridiculous proposition, like relying on a Mayan tablet to form 21st century law, but of course it's the ONLY true measure of morality if you believe the Mayan tablet.
Message edited by author 2008-11-19 12:18:52. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 12:24:02 PM · #1153 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The first person is wrong out of scientific necessity. The second person is wrong because the vast majority of the world disagrees with him. |
No, the second person is wrong because, as pointed out, it's an empirically observed fact that happiness = good, suffering = bad. We use the notion of intuitively cashed ideas when we recognize that happiness derived from the suffering of others is not good. Why is this moral? To treat others ethically is to recognize that they experience happiness and suffering, to paraphrase Sam Harris. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 12:25:52 PM · #1154 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Regarding this maximization of happiness as a moral imperative (act in such a way as to increase the sum of happiness in those around you, yourself, and the world), it occurs to me that the imperative stems from the impulse/condition we call "empathy". That is to say, the more empathetic you are, the more unhappy you become when others around you are unhappy, and the happier you become when they are happy. And one of the distinguishing traits of sociopaths is that to one degree or another they are incapable of feeling empathy, meaning that (at least by society's standards) they are emotionally crippled, morally crippled, or both.
So it is at least conceivable that the "root cause" of "morality" (leaving the religious argument out of it for now, dealing only with the secular) is the development/evolution within a species, in this case humans, the facility of empathy. And this may be a path we can explore in trying to validate a universal, secular morality.
R. |
That's an astute observation made by Dawkins, more or less, in The God Delusion. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 12:27:38 PM · #1155 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not here to argue the specifics of Christianity. The truth of the matter is many, many religious people (not just Christian) hold it to be a "self-evident" truth that homosexuality is forbidden. |
I think you would find this a very difficult position to hold on to in a conversation like this, because there are just so many ways to discredit it. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 12:36:17 PM · #1156 |
Now I'd like to let Harris talk about moral relativism, which he treats starting on pg. 178 of his book. He's discussing relativism of all kinds, but is mostly concerned with moral relativism. I've abbreviated the quote, but he's discussing past morality, differing morality, the morality of the suicide bomber, etc.
"The general retort to relativism is simple, because most relativists contradict their thesis in the very act of stating it... [M]oral relativists generally believe that...the people of the past can be judged by the standards of the present. And yet, implicit in this approach to morality lurks a claim that is not relative but absolute. Most moral relativists believe that tolerance of cultural diversity is better, in some important sense, than outright bigotry. [This] amounts to an overarching claim about how all human beings should live. Moral relativism, when used as a rationale for tolerance of diversity, is self-contradictory."
He goes on to talk about pragmatism as a corollary of relativism that is less easily dealt with, but he ultimately deals with it. To summarize: "Respect for diversity in our ethical views is, at best, an intellectual holding pattern until more of the facts are in." |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 12:36:26 PM · #1157 |
Originally posted by Louis:
That's an astute observation made by Dawkins, more or less, in The God Delusion. |
Nice to know I'm in good company. I haven't read the book...
R. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 12:41:14 PM · #1158 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The first person is wrong out of scientific necessity. The second person is wrong because the vast majority of the world disagrees with him. |
it's an empirically observed fact that happiness = good, suffering = bad. |
You are going to have to enlighten me. Empirically (information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment), how are you going to observe "good"? You could probably observe "happiness" (although scientists may have lots to say about what that really means empirically), but how are you going to graph the chart that shows as happiness rises so does "good"? That's ridiculous because "good" has no meaning in a scientific sense. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 12:54:41 PM · #1159 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't happen to have a lot of use for a 2000 year old publication with total human spin on it filled with a lot of useless information, traditions, and values that have no place in today's society.
See, I feel that God communicates his wishes for me in His way.....and it certainly isn't through the writings of 2000 years ago.....it's in the signs and guidance that I sense. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You don't believe in a publication that's been around for 2000 years? You believe God communicates to you with signs and guidance?
I'm impressed. The God I know hasn't said a word to me at all. Thus, I can only go off what the church interprets of the bible. I'm not talking about a 2,000 year old book. I'm talking about 2,000 years of learned people discussing/debating these same topics.
Anybody can read the bible and take snippets and twist them into signs and guidance. I'd rather go with the church teachings that have already been debated and researched. |
First, I could do without the sarcasm......and if you want to be sarcastic, at least quote me in context.
I don't take snippets and twist them.....I don't use the Bible at all, you seem to have missed that.
How I get signs and guidance from God is between me and him, and I do the best I can.
I will reiterate......I don't want, or need someone to tell me how to live.....especially from their take on a publication that has so much controversy surrounding it.
As to learned people teaching, debating, and researching.....great, just leave me out of it.
You know as well as I do that for every scholar that has a certain aspect of scripture interpreted a certain way, there's another out there who would likely have a different interpretation.
I don't profess to be a scholar at all, much less a biblical scholar....there are some things that I know an awful lot about, but again, I don't offer the benefit of my knowledge unless someone specifically asks me for it......unlike most people I have met who do profess to be experts and/or committed to Christianity, or whatever their field of expertise may be.....they seem to have little or no compunction about forcing their opinions on others.
Pretty much like your projected disdain about how I get my attitude about how to live.....you don't seem to like it much, so you take a shot at it.
How charitable.......you must be a Christian.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2008 01:06:21 PM · #1160 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
How charitable.......you must be a Christian. |
Out of curiosity, what do you consider yourself to be? |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 01:14:09 PM · #1161 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
How charitable.......you must be a Christian. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Out of curiosity, what do you consider yourself to be? |
Most days a decent person, but somewhat judgemental......something I'm really trying to work on.
It's kind of hard to say....I am technically a Unitarian Universalist, and I like most of their tenets.
That shot was reflexive......I really try not to do that.....I guess I am more sensitive about how personal my relationship with God is.
I have a lot of reasons as to how and why I believe what I do, but they are from what I interpret as grace and guidance.
What does that make me? Questioning? Hopeful? Clueless?
I do have a wonderful group of people at our local UU church who practice trying to be good and decent acts of kindness, and that's okay by me........I spend a fair amount of time with them doing what I can.
Personally, I think God sent me to them, for what I can give to them, and what they give to me as well.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2008 01:26:14 PM · #1162 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's kind of hard to say....I am technically a Unitarian Universalist, and I like most of their tenets. |
Not to hijack this thread (ya, right), but what do UUs think about an afterlife and how does it operate? Is it works based (the good get rewarded, etc)? or is it based on something else? |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 01:40:05 PM · #1163 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not here to argue the specifics of Christianity. The truth of the matter is many, many religious people (not just Christian) hold it to be a "self-evident" truth that homosexuality is forbidden. |
I think you would find this a very difficult position to hold on to in a conversation like this, because there are just so many ways to discredit it. |
Out of interest, would your main argument in the negative be along the "cherry picking" lines I've seen twice above or along the "actually the Bible does not prohibit it" lines or a third line of argument? |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 01:51:08 PM · #1164 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not here to argue the specifics of Christianity. The truth of the matter is many, many religious people (not just Christian) hold it to be a "self-evident" truth that homosexuality is forbidden. |
I think you would find this a very difficult position to hold on to in a conversation like this, because there are just so many ways to discredit it. |
Out of interest, would your main argument in the negative be along the "cherry picking" lines I've seen twice above or along the "actually the Bible does not prohibit it" lines or a third line of argument? |
Well, for starters, as far as cherry picking.....that whole abomination thing......there were many things referred to as that, including pork.......and in context, some of the abominations described seem pretty tame today.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2008 01:59:48 PM · #1165 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The first person is wrong out of scientific necessity. The second person is wrong because the vast majority of the world disagrees with him. |
it's an empirically observed fact that happiness = good, suffering = bad. |
You are going to have to enlighten me. Empirically (information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment), how are you going to observe "good"? You could probably observe "happiness" (although scientists may have lots to say about what that really means empirically), but how are you going to graph the chart that shows as happiness rises so does "good"? That's ridiculous because "good" has no meaning in a scientific sense. |
Are you really suggesting that nobody has ever observed that in general, happiness is good for people, and suffering is bad for them? |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 02:02:19 PM · #1166 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The first person is wrong out of scientific necessity. The second person is wrong because the vast majority of the world disagrees with him. |
it's an empirically observed fact that happiness = good, suffering = bad. |
You are going to have to enlighten me. Empirically (information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment), how are you going to observe "good"? You could probably observe "happiness" (although scientists may have lots to say about what that really means empirically), but how are you going to graph the chart that shows as happiness rises so does "good"? That's ridiculous because "good" has no meaning in a scientific sense. |
Are you really suggesting that nobody has ever observed that in general, happiness is good for people, and suffering is bad for them? |
I'm taking beef that a study that involves the term "good" could actually pass a peer-review. I'm also taking beef that the term "good" you just used above is equal to "moral good". "beneficial" and "morally good" are not necessarily synonyms.
Message edited by author 2008-11-19 14:04:16. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 02:03:01 PM · #1167 |
My argument is that our secular republic is not supposed to base its laws on any particular religious teaching, particularly when to do so treats its citizens unequally on the basis of their race or gender.
Having the laws regarding the civil marriage contract made gender-neutral (an agreement between two "spouses" who are consenting, competent, unrelated and unmarried adults) has no effect on the rights of any religion to practice according to their own tenets, and is non-discriminatory within the meaning and spirit of the equal protection provisions of the Constitution.
Just as a hypothetical, should a majority of California's population convert to Islam, do you think it would be OK to amend the Contitution to define marriage as between a man and (up to) four women, and homosexuality as a capital offense, to conform with the Bible, the Koran and Sharia Law? |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 02:06:00 PM · #1168 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Just as a hypothetical, should a majority of California's population convert to Islam, do you think it would be OK to amend the Contitution to define marriage as between a man and (up to) four women, and homosexuality as a capital offense, to conform with the Bible, the Koran and Sharia Law? |
I'd say people have the right to advocate their position. I'm not saying I'd agree with everything they advocate. I'm also not saying every position advocated is constitutional. Finally I'm saying that teasing out what are "secular laws" and what are "religious laws" could be very difficult in a number of cases.
Message edited by author 2008-11-19 14:08:08. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 02:07:08 PM · #1169 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And for WHAT? To guards against what great danger? It's freakin' ridiculous, and all this intellectualizing is beginning to look repulsive to me. Come ON, folks! This is just people loving people! What's the harm of that? Really?
R. |
That, for me, is the bottom line.
I'm sure that over the years there were many, many such intellectual, high altitude discussions seeking to validate or invalidate policies that were racially discriminatory. Really it boils down to the fact that such things are wrong. Most intellectual discussions in favor of such discrimination simply mask that with extensive polysyllabic ramblings and complex philosophical gymnastics.
Just because you use big words and/or your "god" to justify your bigotry, doesn't make it right. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 02:10:09 PM · #1170 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Really it boils down to the fact that such things are wrong. |
You like to use the word "bigotry" a lot because it sounds so evil. Could you consider your view above to be "bigoted"?
Bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
Message edited by author 2008-11-19 14:10:20. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 02:14:08 PM · #1171 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The first person is wrong out of scientific necessity. The second person is wrong because the vast majority of the world disagrees with him. |
it's an empirically observed fact that happiness = good, suffering = bad. |
You are going to have to enlighten me. Empirically (information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment), how are you going to observe "good"? You could probably observe "happiness" (although scientists may have lots to say about what that really means empirically), but how are you going to graph the chart that shows as happiness rises so does "good"? That's ridiculous because "good" has no meaning in a scientific sense. |
Are you really suggesting that nobody has ever observed that in general, happiness is good for people, and suffering is bad for them? |
I'm taking beef that a study that involves the term "good" could actually pass a peer-review. I'm also taking beef that the term "good" you just used above is equal to "moral good". "beneficial" and "morally good" are not necessarily synonyms. |
Your terms are defined too strictly for our own good. "One often hears scientists and philosophers concede that something or other is a 'brute fact' -- that is, one that admits of no reduction...[W]e cannot step out of the darkness without taking a first step."
That you would not admit that happiness is good while suffering is bad is curiously dogmatic to me. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 02:18:25 PM · #1172 |
Originally posted by Louis:
That you would not admit that happiness is good while suffering is bad is curiously dogmatic to me. |
No no no. I think happiness IS good. My whole beef is your thinking such a thing could be shown "empirically" (ie. through science). "Good" as used in this coversation (ie. moral good) has no context or meaning in the scientific realm and thus "empiric" observation is of no use unless you a priori define good. Your original statement was that "empirically we can show happiness = good" and I asked HOW you would do that without first defining good? And if you already have defined good then the exercise is circular. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 02:21:48 PM · #1173 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Most intellectual discussions in favor of such discrimination simply mask that with extensive polysyllabic ramblings and complex philosophical gymnastics. |
Eschew obfuscation! |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 02:25:47 PM · #1174 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your original statement was that "empirically we can show happiness = good" and I asked HOW you would do that without first defining good? |
Obviously, you'd have to define good for the purpose of an actual scientific study, but for the purpose of this conversation that shouldn't really be necessary to make the point that it could be done. See aforementioned mental gymnastics. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 02:30:11 PM · #1175 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Really it boils down to the fact that such things are wrong. |
You like to use the word "bigotry" a lot because it sounds so evil. Could you consider your view above to be "bigoted"?
Bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. |
I use that word a lot? Really? How often? Where else? Go on, show me.
I used that word in this case because of the negative context it carries and yes, I view bias and discrimination as evil. The intolerant views in this thread you (mostly you in this case) seek to justify with all of your philosphical musings carries every bit of that negative context. If you want to say that my view is "bigoted" because I'm intolerant of bias and discrimination towards groups of people, then fine, I'll concede that. What is the bigotry that supports this discrimiation all about then? Xenophobia? "god"? Does masking such intolerance in the cloak of religion justify it or make people feel better about it? Do people aside from Rev. Phelps really believe that sort of stuff?
If you just want to exercise your online debate skills or ability to interpret philosophy and run arguments around in circles, you should just come out and say that. If you really believe that homosexuals don't deserve equal treatment and access to the same rights and privileges as everyone else as you've been arguing all along. |
|
