| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/02/2011 11:47:03 AM · #2026 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Not to belabour the point, but I think you're missing it. Religion is incapable of teaching anything like universal love, in spite of its high-sounding oratory, because it is concerned too much with its own (evolutionary) biases. As a composite of memes, each religion is concerned with its own survival. The core goal of an individual religion is to supersede all others -- to dominate, as it were, the environment in which it thrives. An uncomplicated, rising-above-our-selfish-ingroup-tendency to achieve altruism of a kind not seen in human history, without qualification, without conditions of any kind, is antithetical to every religious tradition. |
Now that hits the nail squarely on the head doesn't it? |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 11:47:10 AM · #2027 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Not to belabour the point, but I think you're missing it. Religion is incapable of teaching anything like universal love, in spite of its high-sounding oratory, because it is concerned too much with its own (evolutionary) biases. As a composite of memes, each religion is concerned with its own survival. The core goal of an individual religion is to supersede all others -- to dominate, as it were, the environment in which it thrives. An uncomplicated, rising-above-our-selfish-ingroup-tendency to achieve altruism of a kind not seen in human history, without qualification, without conditions of any kind, is antithetical to every religious tradition. |
I understand your point, but it plays right into Haidt's hands. If you do not view 'ingroup loyalty' as a moral axis to pay attention to, then naturally you will want to discard it. Be that as it may, in the Western world, the idea that we are, as humanity, all one big ingroup is explicitly Christian. You can divorce yourself from those roots, but the fact remains they are the roots. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 11:50:04 AM · #2028 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I see the more moderate churches as a big part of the problem, as they add legitimacy to arguments like yours, that in effect we shouldn't be so angry, or generalize when talking about religion. Sorry, but it's a system, and each cog matters, moderate religious organizations are critical to the more zealous organizations. It's a bit like a pyramid, there have to me 1000's of moderate churches to provide a strong enough foundation for lunatic fringe organizations like the asshats who are busy protesting the funerals of soldiers with the God Hates Fags / Soldier Fags / Kill more soldiers thing.... You may not be doing this, but you are indirectly supporting them in multiple ways, some more obvious than others. |
By the same reasoning, you and I (and everyone else in this country) support Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and the equivalent far left political groups. We're all citizens of our republic. We fuel extreme right/left politics by supporting moderate politics when we vote, donate money, watch television debates, etc... |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 11:55:44 AM · #2029 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Be that as it may, in the Western world, the idea that we are, as humanity, all one big ingroup is explicitly Christian. |
That isn't true. It would be more accurate to say the Christian position is: Christianity is open to all. Humanity is comprised of those who are Christian and those who refuse to be Christian. Those who refuse will bear the consequences.
At first blush, the oratory sounds good, but the reality is less appealing (and opposite to universal altruism). |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 11:56:38 AM · #2030 |
| The God Hates Fags people hate the Fag Enablers and Cory Hates the God Hates Fags Enablers. Makes sense and is also a great idea for a sitcom. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 12:03:27 PM · #2031 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Be that as it may, in the Western world, the idea that we are, as humanity, all one big ingroup is explicitly Christian. |
That isn't true. It would be more accurate to say the Christian position is: Christianity is open to all. Humanity is comprised of those who are Christian and those who refuse to be Christian. Those who refuse will bear the consequences.
At first blush, the oratory sounds good, but the reality is less appealing (and opposite to universal altruism). |
Even if we say this is true (and I disagree with it), the root idea is there to be grasped on and "improved" (as you might consider). If you don't think this is the root of this idea, then where do you propose it came from? Can you provide support with rough dates and quotes? |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 12:09:24 PM · #2032 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I see the more moderate churches as a big part of the problem, as they add legitimacy to arguments like yours, that in effect we shouldn't be so angry, or generalize when talking about religion. Sorry, but it's a system, and each cog matters, moderate religious organizations are critical to the more zealous organizations. It's a bit like a pyramid, there have to me 1000's of moderate churches to provide a strong enough foundation for lunatic fringe organizations like the asshats who are busy protesting the funerals of soldiers with the God Hates Fags / Soldier Fags / Kill more soldiers thing.... Moderates may not be doing this, but are indeed indirectly supporting them in multiple ways, some more obvious than others. |
Kinda like the way Humane Societies provide an underpinning upon which PETA is built, and without PETA there'd be no support for the tip of the pyramid od radical animal-rights-activists? Or whatever?
What's your POINT, Cory? Haven't you ever heard of babies and bathwater? There will always be lunatic fringes on every point of view, and every last one of them relies on a moderate core-values base to legitimize their positions. If you want to use the argument that the actions of extremists invalidate the entire institution, then while you're tossing the church, be sure you toss, say, "democracy", and "communism" and "monarchy" and all other governmental systems as well, just to name one area of human endeavor that's ripe to be "corrected".
R. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 12:24:51 PM · #2033 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What's your POINT, Cory? Haven't you ever heard of babies and bathwater? There will always be lunatic fringes on every point of view, and every last one of them relies on a moderate core-values base to legitimize their positions. If you want to use the argument that the actions of extremists invalidate the entire institution, then while you're tossing the church, be sure you toss, say, "democracy", and "communism" and "monarchy" and all other governmental systems as well, just to name one area of human endeavor that's ripe to be "corrected".
R. |
My POINT is that the bathwater is poison, so if we must throw out the baby with the bathwater, then fine, probably for the best anyway..
That is, of course, a bad analogy, this is more like throwing out the dishwater with the detergent, the two are, frankly, so integrated and codependant as to constitute a singular entity... |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 12:52:10 PM · #2034 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Be that as it may, in the Western world, the idea that we are, as humanity, all one big ingroup is explicitly Christian. |
That isn't true. It would be more accurate to say the Christian position is: Christianity is open to all. Humanity is comprised of those who are Christian and those who refuse to be Christian. Those who refuse will bear the consequences.
At first blush, the oratory sounds good, but the reality is less appealing (and opposite to universal altruism). |
Even if we say this is true (and I disagree with it), the root idea is there to be grasped on and "improved" (as you might consider). If you don't think this is the root of this idea, then where do you propose it came from? Can you provide support with rough dates and quotes? |
The root idea of altruism?
Co-operation usually involves a degree of altruistic behaviour (as much as anything). Evidence for co-operation long predates the written word, evidenced archeologically by things like the first agrarian settlements in 10k BCE.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2011 12:52:32 PM · #2035 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
That is, of course, a bad analogy, this is more like throwing out the dishwater with the detergent, the two are, frankly, so integrated and codependant as to constitute a singular entity... |
I find that position to be extreme. We should throw it out along with all other secular positions just in case! Viva la revolution! :P |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 12:54:06 PM · #2036 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The root idea of altruism?
Co-operation usually involves a degree of altruistic behaviour (as much as anything). Evidence for co-operation long predates the written word, evidenced archeologically by things like the first agrarian settlements in 10k BCE. |
No. This isn't what we're talking about. The idea being discussed was that we, as humans, are all one ingroup. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 01:10:45 PM · #2037 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
That is, of course, a bad analogy, this is more like throwing out the dishwater with the detergent, the two are, frankly, so integrated and codependant as to constitute a singular entity... |
I find that position to be extreme. We should throw it out along with all other secular positions just in case! Viva la revolution! :P |
*shrug* Honestly, you think that it's extreme to feel they support each other? Not sure why you'd say that, as I think the evidence is that the function of the entire beast relies upon all of it's parts, remove the moderates and the cry for dissolution would be loud and clear.
Message edited by author 2011-03-02 17:15:35. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 01:15:16 PM · #2038 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Be that as it may, in the Western world, the idea that we are, as humanity, all one big ingroup is explicitly Christian. |
That isn't true. It would be more accurate to say the Christian position is: Christianity is open to all. Humanity is comprised of those who are Christian and those who refuse to be Christian. Those who refuse will bear the consequences.
At first blush, the oratory sounds good, but the reality is less appealing (and opposite to universal altruism). |
Even if we say this is true (and I disagree with it), the root idea is there to be grasped on and "improved" (as you might consider). If you don't think this is the root of this idea, then where do you propose it came from? Can you provide support with rough dates and quotes? |
I've already said that altruism has its origin in the evolution of the species, when groups were small, and every individual was likely to know every other individual, making altruism a beneficial trait to have. There is no such thing as "universal altruism" of the kind that Richard Dawkins is hinting at. Religions are not good examples of entities that promote such an idea for the reasons already stated. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 01:50:25 PM · #2039 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I've already said that altruism has its origin in the evolution of the species, when groups were small, and every individual was likely to know every other individual, making altruism a beneficial trait to have. There is no such thing as "universal altruism" of the kind that Richard Dawkins is hinting at. Religions are not good examples of entities that promote such an idea for the reasons already stated. |
So if I'm understanding you, you are saying this idea is new and only with people like Dawkins is it being explored and taught? Can you define this idea more? I caught your "rising-above-our-selfish-ingroup-tendency", but that's pretty generic and certainly we have seen that idea taught before, even in Christianity and othe religions. I could give a few examples right off the top of my head, but I'll wait for you to define things a bit more in case I miss your meaning. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 05:00:53 PM · #2040 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So if I'm understanding you... |
You're not. Louis explained the point last night and noted hours ago that you still don't get it: "your quote elucidates what he means by genetic selfishness, and what we have in our power to achieve: "universal love", and a desire for "the welfare of the species as a whole", something "that has never existed before."
Humans are unique (as far as we know) in their capacity to look beyond mere ingroups and work toward the betterment of the entire species. <-- THAT has never existed before. We've even made some incremental steps in this direction (abolishing slavery, disease control, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc.), and they've generally been secular efforts. As much as you'd like to deny it, religion is fundamentally unsuited to this role. Its entire premise is a matter of exclusivity as each sect seeks to better the world by spreading its particular views over others. A noble goal when viewed from within the group, but it's also directly analogous to comic book supervillians who try to impose world order through domination. The concept Louis described is only possible when people are considered as equal humans rather than members of a particular group. The very idea is toxic to religion, which simply cannot exist without distinguishing between the "chosen ones" and the heathens. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 05:18:50 PM · #2041 |
So here's an interesting question. Using this "universal love" (to denote whatever exactly you mean), how would Dawkins, or you, or whomever suggest we display this toward the folks at Westboro? How does this play out in real life?
|
|
|
|
03/02/2011 05:41:58 PM · #2042 |
| Westboro represents the antithesis of universal love [treating everyone as equal human beings]. As for how they should be treated, the Supreme Court made that pretty clear today: as 'equal humans' they have a right to express their opinions in a public place just as we have a right to consider them completely out of their freakin' gourds. The way it plays out in real life is that most people consider Westboro's activities repugnant and try to find a middle ground that allows these loons to practice free speech while also allowing the targets of their contempt to mourn in peace. People who disagree with their stance see yet another glowing example of bigotry and religious hatred while those who might otherwise agree with the message rationalize a more moderate interpretation of the Bible to avoid association with such reprehensible behavior. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 05:44:17 PM · #2043 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So if I'm understanding you, you are saying this idea is new and only with people like Dawkins is it being explored and taught? |
Dawkins isn't "teaching" it, and neither is anybody else. I would refer you to the posts already made.
Your example "gotcha" seems interesting, but it's irrelevant. Nobody is teaching this thing. Taken at face value, we aren't capable of that kind of universal altruism. That's not to say we cannot be -- we most probably can, in the same way that we were capable of discovering the origin of all species to begin with. But demanding a concrete example of something that is at best a wish is tantamount to calling for the way in which we'll eventually find out the origin of physics, or how we're going to go about finding a unified theory of everything.
If you insist, we'll most probably arrive at something closer to true universal altruism via science. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 06:09:06 PM · #2044 |
Ooh Louis, you didn't just say "gotcha" with a Wasilla accent did you?
I think Shannon's answer is better. There's no use talking about these things if you don't have a gameplan for when you bump into your enemies. He'd make a decent Christian with his message of equal treatment while not being tolerant of the message itself. Dawkins, of course, exhorts us to "teach" these things.
But in the end, none of this is new. We should love our enemies and pray for those who are unkind to us. That's what God would want. He is kind to everybody. The sun rises and falls on everybody, not just Christians. And the rains grow the crops of both people who do good as well as those who do not. I mean, if we just loved those within our ingroup, what good would that do? It seems like even the worst of the worst would do that. If we only act nice toward our own, how is that any great example? I'm guessing even skinheads do that. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 06:17:45 PM · #2045 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But in the end, none of this is new. We should love our enemies and pray for those who are unkind to us. That's what God would want. . |
*LOL*
Ok, so what proof do you have of this? Or is this, like every other statement about god, really more about what you would want, projected into your own theology?
ETA: Don't even worry about "proof" because I know Christians tend to have a very odd definition of proof..... Instead, let me ask, what observations have you made, directly, that have led you to this conclusion?
Message edited by author 2011-03-02 18:19:12. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 07:28:49 PM · #2046 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He'd make a decent Christian with his message of equal treatment while not being tolerant of the message itself. |
There's nothing inherently Christian about the concept. Muslims would call that being a decent Muslim, Hindus would call that being a decent Hindu and Buddhists would call that being a decent Buddhist. What's wrong with just being decent?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's what God would want. He is kind to everybody. |
Westboro has a pretty good idea of what God would want, too, and it certainly doesn't include kindness towards everybody. Who's to say they're wrong? More often than not, being a decent Christian seems to mean the opposite of decency: defending slavery, denying gays (and interacial/interfaith couples before that) the right to marry, punishing public speakers for blasphemy or heresy, and a litany of other human rights issues throughout history. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 08:04:44 PM · #2047 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But in the end, none of this is new. We should love our enemies and pray for those who are unkind to us. That's what God would want. . |
*LOL*
Ok, so what proof do you have of this? Or is this, like every other statement about god, really more about what you would want, projected into your own theology?
ETA: Don't even worry about "proof" because I know Christians tend to have a very odd definition of proof..... Instead, let me ask, what observations have you made, directly, that have led you to this conclusion? |
I was quoting the Bible, Jesus to be precise, so it quite accurately reflects the Christian position. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 08:09:56 PM · #2048 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He'd make a decent Christian with his message of equal treatment while not being tolerant of the message itself. |
There's nothing inherently Christian about the concept. Muslims would call that being a decent Muslim, Hindus would call that being a decent Hindu and Buddhists would call that being a decent Buddhist. What's wrong with just being decent?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's what God would want. He is kind to everybody. |
Westboro has a pretty good idea of what God would want, too, and it certainly doesn't include kindness towards everybody. Who's to say they're wrong? More often than not, being a decent Christian seems to mean the opposite of decency: defending slavery, denying gays (and interacial/interfaith couples before that) the right to marry, punishing public speakers for blasphemy or heresy, and a litany of other human rights issues throughout history. |
Well, your first point would then trigger the question again of why Dawkins is so antireligious when acting out "universal love" seems to be considered decent under the religions you mentioned.
Westboro, of course, doesn't represent Christianty any more than skinheads represent Germans or the ELF represents environmentalists. And, your characterization of the abolitionist movement as being mainly secular is revisionist history writ large. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 08:15:38 PM · #2049 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was quoting the Bible, Jesus to be precise ... |
Unless you have a sound recording hidden away somewhere, it accurately reflects what "someone" said Jesus said ... |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 08:20:17 PM · #2050 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was quoting the Bible, Jesus to be precise ... |
Unless you have a sound recording hidden away somewhere, it accurately reflects what "someone" said Jesus said ... |
Duly noted.
Of course I'm not even sure I'm responding to a guy named Paul. But at the least I'm responding to someone who says this is what Paul thinks. :) |
|
