| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2013 07:56:31 PM · #176 |
| All points of view are welcomed at the governing table and things work themselves out. The courts uphold the ideal of no official state sponsored church. That's the way I see it and, I think, the majority of people when viewing the establishment clause. |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 08:19:30 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why shouldn't religion play any part in governing people who overwhelmingly believe in religion?
|
because when you have a document that protects practicing any religion, you can't pick one to have the most influence.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2013 06:26:11 AM · #178 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Frankly the "complete and absolute" separation of church and state is a rather radical interpretation of the concept. By radical I mean that if you polled the appropriate legal experts on the subject, I think only a small minority would believe a "complete and absolute" separation was what was intended.
It makes sense though that an atheist group would be advocating for an atheist government. |
... and just how do you arrive at the conclusion that wanting to separate church and state is tantamount to advocating for an atheist government.
I fully support the idea of gay marriage...doesn't make me gay does it?
Ray |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:37:22 AM · #179 |
I'm not saying any separation of church and state is a radical idea (it isn't). I'm saying a "complete and absolute" separation is. Complete and absolute are very strong words. One would assume this means that there would be no mention or influence of religion in government at all which would make it, in praxis, atheist (even if there was no official proclamation).
I think the events of yesterday are a perfect litmus test for my original point. Here is the weakness of "artwork morality". Let's say we are discussing the Boston Marathon bombing and the question comes up as to whether the bombing was "justified" or "correct" or "right" (or whatever descriptive words we want to insert). If we are true to the concept of artwork morality, it is just as valid (or invalid) to say "yes" as to say "no". Is this something artwork morality people are willing to live with? That one can say, "the bombing was right" in every bit as valid a manner as one can say, "the bombing was wrong"?
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 11:37:47. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:46:36 AM · #180 |
| wouldn't it depend on ones frame of reference? |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:49:09 AM · #181 |
Originally posted by Mike:
wouldn't it depend on ones frame of reference? |
So you are saying there are frames of references where the bombing is acceptable and justifiable and that these frames of reference are on equal footing, morally speaking, as your own? |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:01:28 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not saying any separation of church and state is a radical idea (it isn't). I'm saying a "complete and absolute" separation is. Complete and absolute are very strong words. One would assume this means that there would be no mention or influence of religion in government at all which would make it, in praxis, atheist (even if there was no official proclamation).
I think the events of yesterday are a perfect litmus test for my original point. Here is the weakness of "artwork morality". Let's say we are discussing the Boston Marathon bombing and the question comes up as to whether the bombing was "justified" or "correct" or "right" (or whatever descriptive words we want to insert). If we are true to the concept of artwork morality, it is just as valid (or invalid) to say "yes" as to say "no". Is this something artwork morality people are willing to live with? That one can say, "the bombing was right" in every bit as valid a manner as one can say, "the bombing was wrong"? |
In what possible world could you justify hurting innocent people? You don't need A God to tell you it's wrong. Maybe I'm not understanding your question. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:23:12 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not saying any separation of church and state is a radical idea (it isn't). I'm saying a "complete and absolute" separation is. Complete and absolute are very strong words. One would assume this means that there would be no mention or influence of religion in government at all which would make it, in praxis, atheist (even if there was no official proclamation). |
Again this whole thing with talking of atheism like it's a group thing. It's really not. And therefore it wouldn't be an atheist government. But it would NOT have the religious influences that are truly not relevant to government.
How can this be a bad thing when the religion that is the most prevalent in our government is Christian based? It's not like there's a fair distribution of the different religious influences. And for those of us who feel that religion has no place in government, how are we represented?
|
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:23:39 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not saying any separation of church and state is a radical idea (it isn't). I'm saying a "complete and absolute" separation is. Complete and absolute are very strong words. One would assume this means that there would be no mention or influence of religion in government at all which would make it, in praxis, atheist (even if there was no official proclamation).
I think the events of yesterday are a perfect litmus test for my original point. Here is the weakness of "artwork morality". Let's say we are discussing the Boston Marathon bombing and the question comes up as to whether the bombing was "justified" or "correct" or "right" (or whatever descriptive words we want to insert). If we are true to the concept of artwork morality, it is just as valid (or invalid) to say "yes" as to say "no". Is this something artwork morality people are willing to live with? That one can say, "the bombing was right" in every bit as valid a manner as one can say, "the bombing was wrong"? |
It's a slippery slope you try to lead us down - to accept that 'artwork morality' is is someway an inevitable consequence of atheism. I don't believe this is so. We atheists still live in a shared world within a socially constructed culture. That culture has a socially constructed morality. Sure, that social construction has been influenced by religious doctrine - religion itself is a social construct drawn from the same pool of people who have inhabited the world. You may see this as me admitting that religion underpins social morality but actually this is indistinguishable from a view that religion piggy-backs on socially constructed human morality. There is a long history of organised religion reappropriating values (and myths such as Dionysus/Bacchus, Osiris or the misunderstanding of hibernating bears and conveniently reinventing old world-views) for the furtherance of political gain.
Religious morals, human morals. No difference. 'Both' are socially constructed world views that have emerged from our shared socio-cultural history.
The difference between the atheist and the theist is that we don't believe that there is any divine influence in any of it. Now the 'concept of the divine' - a different matter entirely. An influential (but human) idea. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:32:37 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mike:
wouldn't it depend on ones frame of reference? |
So you are saying there are frames of references where the bombing is acceptable and justifiable and that these frames of reference are on equal footing, morally speaking, as your own? |
no. people can choose to accept and justify anything they wish under any reason they can think up, but they know it isn't morally acceptable or else why would they commit such acts in the first place?
|
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:35:35 PM · #186 |
Kelli and Paul, you didn't read my original post carefully enough. Just leave the theism and atheism out of it right now. It's unnecessary to the point.
"Most theists will say it is more like discussing math and most atheists will say it is more like discussing art (though there are exceptions on both sides)."
Paul, what you write is interesting, and could very well have truth in it, but it's tangential to what I'm getting at.
Kelli, you raise a good point. What possible way could it be justified? Yet artwork morality will allow for that point of view. (how could someone possibly say the Mona Lisa isn't art? yet someone could have that view based on their own reasoning and it would be "valid".) Maybe you subscribe to an objective morality. There's nothing wrong with this as long as you understand. (Of course, to have an objective morality it needs to be grounded in something...objective (ie. outside yourself).)
As, remember my original question: Is "artwork morality" meaningful or helpful?
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 12:39:26. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:49:41 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Kelli and Paul, you didn't read my original post carefully enough. Just leave the theism and atheism out of it right now. It's unnecessary to the point.
"Most theists will say it is more like discussing math and most atheists will say it is more like discussing art (though there are exceptions on both sides)."
Paul, what you write is interesting, and could very well have truth in it, but it's tangential to what I'm getting at.
Kelli, you raise a good point. What possible way could it be justified? Yet artwork morality will allow for that point of view. (how could someone possibly say the Mona Lisa isn't art? yet someone could have that view based on their own reasoning and it would be "valid".) Maybe you subscribe to an objective morality. There's nothing wrong with this as long as you understand. (Of course, to have an objective morality it needs to be grounded in something...objective (ie. outside yourself).)
As, remember my original question: Is "artwork morality" meaningful or helpful? |
This is a helpful post- thank you. The Mona Lisa bit especially. I don't believe anybody has ungrounded morality - I think that is an oxymoron. The ground is always culture. It would be possible to be amoral, through no exposure to culture but there is an interesting debate to be had here in regards to the relationship between morality and human empathy. Is empathy socially constructed or innate? If innate - then perhaps we are born moral (fancy that!) What would that mean to this debate.
I have myself thinking now.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:56:13 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mike:
wouldn't it depend on ones frame of reference? |
So you are saying there are frames of references where the bombing is acceptable and justifiable and that these frames of reference are on equal footing, morally speaking, as your own? |
Are you implying that religion (yours, at least) is based on some objective morality? |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:05:33 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mike:
wouldn't it depend on ones frame of reference? |
So you are saying there are frames of references where the bombing is acceptable and justifiable and that these frames of reference are on equal footing, morally speaking, as your own? |
Are you implying that religion (yours, at least) is based on some objective morality? |
It would. God. He is independent of me. NOW, lest we get off topic, this is a completely different concept than the questions of the "knowability" of such a morality (so let's not go there because we'll get sidetracked).
You can see the "objectivity" if, for the sake of the point, you assume God exists and is moral. If these are true, the moralness of an action is grounded in Him and is objective to me or you or anybody else. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:05:59 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by Paul:
I have myself thinking now. |
Egad! Rant is not supposed to result in this! :P |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:07:36 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So you are saying there are frames of references where the bombing is acceptable and justifiable and that these frames of reference are on equal footing, morally speaking, as your own? |
There are imaginable scenarios. From one side, if you had access to a time machine and that poor 8 year old kid was going to grow up to be the next generation's Hitler and cause millions of deaths, then that might work. Far fetched but a logical rational reason. From a fixed moral perspective of a theist, if God told him to, then that works. When the mentally unstable hear voices in their heads, they sometimes sound like God. More likely than the time machine guy, because all you need is a personal belief that the voice you hear is the rule maker, and all your actions are within the rules.
The analogy of "artwork morality" versus "mathematical morality" is fine if you stick to 2+2 questions. One side is fixed, the other can be fluid and come up with the wrong answer. However much of the time moral questions have the complexity of Fermat's Last Theorem and there any good mathematician will tell you high level math is an art form with the same inherent risks of any form that relies on intuition, association, the search for elegant solutions and complexity of proof. The nice thing about following a codified morality is that some great minds have lain down the path you must tread. The risk is that if the answer is wrong you get a whole lot of people running down the wrong path. Wrong theist thinking ends with Savonarola. Wrong atheist thinking ends with Kaczynski. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:12:39 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So you are saying there are frames of references where the bombing is acceptable and justifiable and that these frames of reference are on equal footing, morally speaking, as your own? |
There are imaginable scenarios. From one side, if you had access to a time machine and that poor 8 year old kid was going to grow up to be the next generation's Hitler and cause millions of deaths, then that might work. Far fetched but a logical rational reason. From a fixed moral perspective of a theist, if God told him to, then that works. When the mentally unstable hear voices in their heads, they sometimes sound like God. More likely than the time machine guy, because all you need is a personal belief that the voice you hear is the rule maker, and all your actions are within the rules. |
Wait. Wait. Wait. This is important. You are not speaking to subjectivity. It is very important to say the details don't matter. Make the details whatever you want. As specific or as vague. The question is, given a particular set of details, is it as valid to say "right" or "wrong" or is one answer more correct than the other?
Objective need not imply absolute. Objective just means that the answer is not dependent on the person answering. It is dependent on the external details of the scenario.
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 13:17:52. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:17:26 PM · #193 |
| If you want to think even more Paul, ask yourself this: What is a culture? Are there cultures within cultures within cultures until we wind up with a culture of one individual? If someone disagrees with the culture around them, does that make them "wrong"? This is the problem with grounding morality in culture. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:18:20 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Kelli and Paul, you didn't read my original post carefully enough. Just leave the theism and atheism out of it right now. It's unnecessary to the point.
"Most theists will say it is more like discussing math and most atheists will say it is more like discussing art (though there are exceptions on both sides)."
Paul, what you write is interesting, and could very well have truth in it, but it's tangential to what I'm getting at.
Kelli, you raise a good point. What possible way could it be justified? Yet artwork morality will allow for that point of view. (how could someone possibly say the Mona Lisa isn't art? yet someone could have that view based on their own reasoning and it would be "valid".) Maybe you subscribe to an objective morality. There's nothing wrong with this as long as you understand. (Of course, to have an objective morality it needs to be grounded in something...objective (ie. outside yourself).)
As, remember my original question: Is "artwork morality" meaningful or helpful? |
This is a helpful post- thank you. The Mona Lisa bit especially. I don't believe anybody has ungrounded morality - I think that is an oxymoron. The ground is always culture. It would be possible to be amoral, through no exposure to culture but there is an interesting debate to be had here in regards to the relationship between morality and human empathy. Is empathy socially constructed or innate? If innate - then perhaps we are born moral (fancy that!) What would that mean to this debate.
I have myself thinking now. |
I think I get what you are saying, but "artwork morality" is today's reality anyway. Isn't it? The theist of the modern world picks and chooses which of the governing books rules he/she will follow every day. Maybe they aren't supposed to but it's fact. How many Catholics are on birth control? How many get abortions? How many Jewish people eat pork? And so on, and so on. The world is as it is, and everyone defines what they believe to be moral based on how and where they were raised and what they were taught. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:18:49 PM · #195 |
| Within the two scenarios I laid out, why is this subjective? Put yourself in the role of the time machine guy, or the voice hearing guy. The situation is objective, the reaction is subjective. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:22:12 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mike:
wouldn't it depend on ones frame of reference? |
So you are saying there are frames of references where the bombing is acceptable and justifiable and that these frames of reference are on equal footing, morally speaking, as your own? |
Are you implying that religion (yours, at least) is based on some objective morality? |
It would. God. He is independent of me. NOW, lest we get off topic, this is a completely different concept than the questions of the "knowability" of such a morality (so let's not go there because we'll get sidetracked).
You can see the "objectivity" if, for the sake of the point, you assume God exists and is moral. If these are true, the moralness of an action is grounded in Him and is objective to me or you or anybody else. |
So why is it that sometimes it's moral to burn heretics at the stake and at other times it isn't? |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:24:39 PM · #197 |
| This is just another one of Achoo's little contrived "I'm only going to accept an answer of my own devising to trap you into something you don't really mean" experiments folks ;) It is of no consequence. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:46:56 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This is just another one of Achoo's little contrived "I'm only going to accept an answer of my own devising to trap you into something you don't really mean" experiments folks ;) It is of no consequence. |
Well defining the terms of an argument is the tactic of any good debater, and frankly it is fairly heroic for him to keep up one side of the argument against so many others pretty much single handed. Daniel in the lions den? |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:57:21 PM · #199 |
Thanks, Brennan. :) Ed is just grumpy. My posts will have to slow down today as I'm getting busy at work.
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 15:04:50. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 02:19:13 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Within the two scenarios I laid out, why is this subjective? Put yourself in the role of the time machine guy, or the voice hearing guy. The situation is objective, the reaction is subjective. |
Right. I think I'm following you. The time machine scenario lays out specific details of the story. The question I'm trying to raise, is if you gave this scenario to ten people and five answered it WAS correct and five answered it WASN'T correct, is one answer more valid than the other or are they equally valid (or invalid)? A viewer brings their own subjective experience and thoughts to the table, the question is whether those matter to the answer. Artwork morality would say those experiences and thoughts are very important to the answer while math morality would say those experiences do not matter to the answer.
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 14:20:20. |
|
