morality == religion? Sez who?

[SpencerH]

A culture or an individual may define right and wrong for the culture or the individual i.e. morality. 'Evil' is a morality construct that is defined by a particular religion and which applies to the believers of that religion.

[Boris Godunov]

But SpencerH, for some reason which I'm unable to explain, since such moralities lack absolute good/evil, you can't apply the term good/evil to to ANYTHING!

[/Albert Speer]

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There are no gods in Buddhism per se, there are these beings called bodhisattvas, who are basically humans who accumulated sufficient karma and enlightenment to be removed from the wheel of reincarnation.

I'd thought that if you got enough good karma (but didn't achieve enlightenment) then you might be reincarnated as a being that's more powerful and longer-lived than a human, a "god" of sorts, and if you got too much bad karma then you might be reincarnated as something worse than human like a hungry ghost or animal or whatever. But it's been several years since I studied buddhism at all, so I may be off in left field.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by loinburger
I'd thought that if you got enough good karma (but didn't achieve enlightenment) then you might be reincarnated as a being that's more powerful and longer-lived than a human, a "god" of sorts, and if you got too much bad karma then you might be reincarnated as something worse than human like a hungry ghost or animal or whatever.

Yeah, there are a few levels you can attain, so it's entirely possible to become a lesser god of sorts if you do enough good things. Oh, maybe like saving thousands of people in a shot or something.

Also you can be reincarnated into an animal or even an insect if you have a load of bad karma.

There's also the lowest level of Hell that you get sent to and never come out if you have been really, really bad. But I am not sure if that's kosher Buddhism or just some Chinese thing.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Free will and omniscience are NOT mutually exclusive. That's based on a bizarre limitation of thought imposed by a determinist philosophy. Maybe people aren't machines, and our idea of cause and effect cannot be applied to ourselves. Are you familiar with the old saying about how you can't design a computer that comprehends its own workings?

The entire idea of Freewill was conceived by Christian theologicians because it was (correctly) determined that an individual cannot be held responsible if he could not ultimately select his own actions.

In fact, St. Augustine was in favour of destiny. Not till Thomas Aquinas did the Church started pushing Freewill.

Suppose at time t you have encountered Event R. Even though it appears that you might have actions A₁...A_m to choose from, eventually your choice would be A'. Suppose that the Judeo-Christian god is omniscent, he would certainly know about this. Since your choice is known before hand - acutally has been known since God created this universe - what exactly is your choice? None.

Originally posted by Elok
If he really wanted, he could presumptively alter the nature of reality so that two plus two is three and a rock can be lifted and stay on the ground simultaneously, or in some weird way match whatever hoop you hold up for him to jump through.

I do not think you can postulate the Judeo-Christian god can defy logic at will without conceding the argument. Since we humans comprehend this world through logic, making such an assertion is the same as declaring that your God is incomprehensible.

Originally posted by Elok
"But why couldn't God just make the world differently so people wouldn't choose evil?" Because evil is, like I said, the essence of contrariness.

I am not sure you made such a point. If you have, it does not appear you have provided any argument it.

However, regarding the first sentence in the quote, it seems that the Judeo-Christian god is entirely capable of fashioning human beings in a way such that we will not choose evil even when we are capable of it.

Originally posted by Elok
My understanding of evil is as a force of nothingness, and asking who made nothing is like asking the chemical composition of a vacuum.

If evil is a force of nothingness it would not exist, and we would know nothing about it.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There's also the lowest level of Hell that you get sent to and never come out if you have been really, really bad. But I am not sure if that's kosher Buddhism or just some Chinese thing.

IIRC, Indian Buddhism also has a hell, but you can't go there for eternity -- at most, you'll only go there for a few hundred thousand aeons.

[Berzerker]

wow this has gone in a different direction than my quoted post was meant to take this. I followed that quote up with...

Well Speer, if you didn't start threads and disappear maybe the debate would follow in your footsteps a bit better.

my point was that an athiest or an agnostic has no right to call anything evil as his morality is inherently a subjective one.

And theists don't view morality subjectively? Of course they do, they pick and choose what they like or dislike from their religion and make up excuses for their departures from the standards they dismiss.

Even moralities which claim to be absolute (Kantian, utilitarianism, etc.) still hinge their concept of good and bad on assumptions such as the universality of a maxim or the importance of human happiness.

Once you start measuring competing happiness', subjectivity is inevitable. Utilitarianism sacrifices your happiness for the sake of the community but that leaves utilitarians in a bind when the happiness being sacrificed is their own... It's the old "I believe in democracy except when the majority is screwing me" paradox.

Furthermore, the simple fact that they are made by imperfect humans is enough to constitute them as subjective, imperfect moralities.

Wouldn't that be true for religious folk?

I already assumed that religious morality was a simplistic human construct...

Then why argue one needs religion to be moral?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Utilitarianism sacrifices your happiness for the sake of the community but that leaves utilitarians in a bind when the happiness being sacrificed is their own

Btw, that's quite a generalization. There are many utilitarians who wouldn't mind giving up some individual happiness for community happiness. Besides there isn't only kind of utilitarianism... Mill's is based on human liberty.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

The evolutionary explanation of moral beliefs makes no reference to unseen or supernatural entities and should be preferred for that reason.

And yet people have always believed in the supernatural, so how do we know that isn't part of our evolution too?

Imran -

Btw, that's quite a generalization. There are many utilitarians who wouldn't mind giving up some individual happiness for community happiness. Besides there isn't only kind of utilitarianism... Mill's is based on human liberty.

Why is it a generalisation? Sure, some "utilitarians" don't mind giving up freedoms they don't cherish, but that isn't the deal they've signed onto by being utilitarians. Other people also get to decide which freedoms they have to give up based on their reading of the community's needs. For example, say the community says it will be better off if pot is illegal. The utilitarian who doesn't cherish the use of pot may give up that freedom without a complaint. But what if the community says religion has caused alot of strife and should be banned and the utilitarian is religious?

[Agathon]

And yet people have always believed in the supernatural, so how do we know that isn't part of our evolution too?

Sure, I'd agree with that, but the point remains: giving an explanation of why people believe in something is not the same as giving a justification of that belief.

For example: Jane believes that President Bush is an alien because she is suffering from a delusional mental illness brought on by watching Men in Black II. That's why she has that belief: it doesn't follow that it is justified.

On that note:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-03/religion.html

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And yet people have always believed in the supernatural, so how do we know that isn't part of our evolution too?

"In God we trust -- but which one?"

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


"In God we trust -- but which one?"

I've always favoured the cannibal god of the Hamatsas myself- either that or the Mouse Apollo.

[Al B. Sure!]

Beserker:

Well Speer, if you didn't start threads and disappear maybe the debate would follow in your footsteps a bit better.

I didn't start this thread. Loinburger did. he just quoted me from a previous thread

And theists don't view morality subjectively? Of course they do, they pick and choose what they like or dislike from their religion and make up excuses for their departures from the standards they dismiss.

yes of course... and they have a subjective book which they claim is the word of God.

Wouldn't that be true for religious folk?

yes...

Then why argue one needs religion to be moral?

say what?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger Suppose at time t you have encountered Event R. Even though it appears that you might have actions A₁...A_m to choose from, eventually your choice would be A'. Suppose that the Judeo-Christian god is omniscent, he would certainly know about this. Since your choice is known before hand - acutally has been known since God created this universe - what exactly is your choice? None.

Of course you had the choice. It was your choice. Just because you were such a person that would make that choice, doesn't make it not your choice.

[Elok]

UR: Your choice is still there. You still made it. What you refer to is not freedom but "the right to surprise god." If you think this invalidates the meaning of your freedom, that's your problem.

Humans "comprehend the world through logic" because logic is fit to the established rules of the world, space, and time. An omnipotent being could change those rules, and thereby change established "logic." And believers have been saying that God is incomprehensible from day one, but your side always counters that we're just full of crap, and stonewalling to control human minds, and so on, and so forth...

Evil is a force of nothingness and tending towards nothingness. Call it "entropy" if it makes you feel better. Evil is in a sense also the essence of free will-it is a being exercising its right to choose even when there is only one sensible choice. Sin (which is interchangeable with "evil" for my purposes) is choosing the different way not because it is better, but because it is different. Like teenage rebellion, you might say.