Theological Opinions , PART II

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Isnt all behavior determined utimately by genetics? (Yes, I realize you said "directly" there). For if not genetics what else could it be? Careful. This is where the god people like to storm into the vacuum. HOW we are effected by environment is limited by our genetics anyway. Having genetic instructions of "Do whatever it is you think would best keep us alive" IS a genetic instruction after all.

Unfortunately you're moving into the realm of philosophy at this point. Science doesn't have an answer. If you want to debate free will, we should probably start froma different viewpoint.

As I mentioned above, humans have advanced capabilities for heuristics. What you are saying is basically the same as complaining that we are limited in what we can percieve and react to by the limitations of the universe.

If you can respond to the environment (which consists of the entire universe) in multiple ways depending on your past experience, your genetic predispositions (based on solutions that worked for your ancestors) and how you feel at any given moment, as well as any other myriad number of factors, I say that it makes very little difference whether you actually have free will, or it's just an illusion.

If it's an illusion, it's a pretty damned good one...

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Having genetic instructions of "Do whatever it is you think would best keep us alive" IS a genetic instruction after all.

I don't think that may be considered as an instruction. It's more like an open door.

After all, you can choose to do something that you think it's not the best to keep us alive

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

I don't think that may be considered as an instruction. It's more like an open door.

After all, you can choose to do something that you think it's not the best to keep us alive

it is definitely an instruction, it is the most basic instinct that exists in the animal kingdom: Survival by whatever means possible.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

it is definitely an instruction, it is the most basic instinct that exists in the animal kingdom: Survival by whatever means possible.

It's an instruction, but not a mandate. Humans can indeed override their instincts.

In fact that's a lot of what's at the base of mores and norms, choosing between conflicting instincts...

There are a lot of times where group and species survival is more important that individual survival. So you find a significant occurence of taboos surrounding things like stealing, killing off competing offspring etc.

Those types of things might be just dandy for an individual's survival, or an individual's genetic survival, but they are not good for species or group survival...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

I don't think that may be considered as an instruction. It's more like an open door.

After all, you can choose to do something that you think it's not the best to keep us alive

like what? and dont forget that a wide (almost infinite) variety of actions may at any given time be beneficial to the survival and propagation of a set of genes. so you cant limit an action as a rule when it may be necessary under rare conditions.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Mistake? He never said you said that

His point is an excellent one, IMO, and I await your proof along with inky. Here's his post again, for your convenience:

Hmm... Well not that it makes much difference. My morals and all morals arising from survival needs is pretty much a subset of a larger set.

Since it falls under the same umbrella, I will refer him to the above post.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So they basically say that they just are undecided on the issue, because they can't or don't know for sure.

And that is a decision - JUST like atheists and Christians and other belief-holders make.

And they base their morality on that decision - JUST like atheists and Christians and other belief-holders.

[...]

See, the agnostic JUST MADE A MORAL DECISION based on their BELIEF SYSTEM.

IMO, agnosticism is NOT "neutral", any more than any other belief. It is a decision with very important ramifications, just like choosing Christianity or atheism or Buddhism or Christianity-plus-whatever-I-think-different or whatever other belief is out there.

I disagree. How can not knowing something be a belief? Imagine a mathematician that doesn't have enough data to solve a math-question. According to your theory that mathematician would have a belief system based on not knowing that bit of info and therefore on not being able to solve the question. It doesn't make sense to me. A decision that you don't have enough info to make a decent decision is not a belief.

Morals do not uniquely belong to religion. I think you can have morality and morals without accepting the presence of a devine being. Therefore I think agnostics can be,in regard to beliefs in devine beings, NEUTRAL. It's neither yes or no for them, I don't see how you can get anymore neutral than that.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I disagree. How can not knowing something be a belief?

Here's the belief - if I were to ask the atheists I've spoken with if he/she based their morality on the Bible being the word of God, they would say no. They BELIEVE (based on subjective evidence) it is NOT the word of God, therefore why would they base their morality on it? They will base their morality on whatever they subjectively BELIEVE it is right to base it on - science, popular opinion, talking with others, pondering it on their own, etc. etc. - just like I base my morality on whatever I subjectively believe it is right to base it on.

Morals do not uniquely belong to religion. I think you can have morality and morals without accepting the presence of a devine being.

I agree. I agree.

And I"m too pooped to answer the rest - I have some wedding stuff going on this weekend and I have a bunch of clean-up and decorating to do - I'll be back next week

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Here's the belief - if I were to ask the atheists I've spoken with if he/she based their morality on the Bible being the word of God, they would say no. They BELIEVE (based on subjective evidence) it is NOT the word of God, therefore why would they base their morality on it? They will base their morality on whatever they subjectively BELIEVE it is right to base it on - science, popular opinion, talking with others, pondering it on their own, etc. etc. - just like I base my morality on whatever I subjectively believe it is right to base it on.

And here you speak about atheists - whereas what Eärniel was commenting on was your comment regarding agnostics who don't claim to have an answer one way or the other.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Morals do not uniquely belong to religion. I think you can have morality and morals without accepting the presence of a devine being.

I totally agree!! EVERY person has morals, altho they may be different. I think they're surprisingly similar, tho. I think the evidence shows pretty strongly that we are highly moral beings.

It's late and I feel that I'm not expressing myself well, so I'll address the other parts of your post tomorrow.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I totally agree!! EVERY person has morals, altho they may be different. I think they're surprisingly similar, tho. I think the evidence shows pretty strongly that we are highly moral beings.

I believe morality is a result of our living together in societies -we have to be moral to live this way. I don't think morality is related to agnosticism.

[HOBBIT]

Jews do believe in a heaven. Not sure on the details, but there is definitely an after-life heaven type of thing not dissimilar to the one in Christianity.

There just is definitely no hell, which is cool . No purgatory and nothing from the new testament :P

If you don't make it into heaven, you just ... hang around on the earth, maybe as a spirit/ghost or something.

Not very religious. :P


There is nothing conforting in the torah (old testament)? *Shrug*
The ancient Jewish religion is the same as the Jewish religion today. It hasn't changed.

[Count Comfect]

Jewish quotes about Heaven/Afterlife tend to be fairly cryptic. For example:

"Rabbi Yaakov says, 'This World is like an anteroom (of a Palace) with respect to the World-to-Come. Prepare yourself in the anteroom so that you will gain entry to the Palace.' (Pirkei Avot, 4:21)"

Not a word about what happens if you don't get in, notice.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Jewish quotes about Heaven/Afterlife tend to be fairly cryptic. For example:

"Rabbi Yaakov says, 'This World is like an anteroom (of a Palace) with respect to the World-to-Come. Prepare yourself in the anteroom so that you will gain entry to the Palace.' (Pirkei Avot, 4:21)"

Not a word about what happens if you don't get in, notice.

Yes, it's rather interesting that the Jewish religion was formulated without a huge emphasis on the after-life, if any. There's vague references in it in the Psalms, but not too much elsewhere in the Old Testament that I'm aware of. I think Lewis put it correctly - the point of the OT writings were to show that God is One (the most powerful One there is, for that matter), and that He cares about moral behavior. Kind of the ideas summed up in the Shema that gets put into mezuzzahs (sp?).

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't quite understand what's the relevance of that statement?

an answer to your question? They destroyed the post where you questioned me so I cant refer to it anymore.

If something happens to be a church or a formal philosophy, does that have any weight when evaluating if it's true? What are your thoughts?

you mean a religion? See that’s exactly what im talking about. No need to insist that religion is all about truth and literalness. How limiting and short sighted. Religion and philosophy can be extremely useful tools for learning and relating to the world. Not to mention for dealing with hardship and the inevitable torment of human life in a harsh universe.

I wasn't "indoctrinated" by anyone - I believe what I think is true, based on lots of thought and observation.

yes yes of course you do… as you’ve said 8 billion times before…

but of course you realize millions of Christians and practitioners of other religions would not agree. They would say well I believe like I do because that’s how I was brought up. Because that’s my religion. And one must be faithful to ones religion. Very few of them have taken the time like you (apparently) to do countless hours of research and scientific study on the nature of each and every claim made in the bible and why each and every one of them just happen to be the actual way the world is. They simply believe. Its human nature.

Meanwhile, agnostics by definition must look at all the available data and figure out what they can from reality that way. Not because they joined a church or because they were raised a certain way or were born again into a certain way. None of that stuff applies. Its just naked raw what do we know.

Lots of people grow up surrounded by certain beliefs and then change them.

and tons more simply follow them blindly or without any real evidence. But theres nothing to follow if you are agnostic. Theres no formal or informal body decreeing what should be believed and what shouldn’t be.

Is there anything wrong with getting ideas out of a book?

course not. Although I would hope you wouldn’t base your very essence and sense of reality on say… Lord of the Rings. No matter how good it is and representative it is. Its still a work of fiction. But one that says a LOT about us as humans and the world in general. A great teaching tool.

Sure it is.

no its not. What exactly are “agnostic morals�? find me the source for these as you can for your “Christian morals�. Youll find the term is meaningless of course because agnosticism doesn’t imply a belief system. It doesn’t imply a list you must conform to to be included in the religion. Because its NOT A RELIGION.

Further evidence for this can be found in the fact that agnostics can run the gambit from wonderful giving selfless people to cruel horrible selfish killers. And everything in between. There is no one set of “agnostic morals�. Where as with Christians they are all supposed to follow certain specifically spelled out decrees (commandments anyone?). THOU SHALT NOT KILL! Take it or leave it. you have no choice. Its part of being in the club.

If I were to ask you if you thought killing was wrong because we're made in the image of God (among other reasons), you would say that you don't BELIEVE that is right. Your objection to killing is NOT based on that people are made in God's image; you don't BELIEVE that.

my view on killing comes from my genes and my environment (culture). As does yours. Because religion is part of your culture.

they certainly have NO grounds to object to anyone else's morality! After all, if the right thing to do is come up with your own morality, how can you object to other people's morality if it's different than your own?

another example of trying to drag agnosticism DOWN to the level of religion here. I can object to your “morality� when your “morality� impinges on my freedom and well being and rights. As can you. if you believe killing is wrong don’t kill. If you believe gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry (or vote or own property) then don’t be gay. But don’t force your morals onto others when it restricts their freedom and their liberty to do things that you can do yourself.

They BELIEVE that since there is a lack of evidence (using your phrase) to decide for any particular "religion" being true, that they should come up with their own ideas of morality, right?

yeah cause im the spokesman for the world church of agnosticism I forgot…

ive told you where my “morals� come from. You want to know where others think theirs come from ask them.

"down" - a very interesting choice of words! I mean, if there's a lack of evidence for you, how do you know a particular religion isn't right?

Again, you shouldn’t approach religion from the perspective of IM RIGHT! YOURE WRONG! That’s so human. And by definition religion transcends humanity. It is the a way of perceiving the unperceivable. Of tapping into that which is beyond us. So to spend all your time arguing every little point about religion and how YOURE religion is right and everybody elses religion is wrong is simply keeping yourself in the dark. Religion should never be about the literal. It should never be about trying to translate the symbolism into reality. No. You break it when you do that. And you fool yourself. You need to let religion allow you to transcend. Not use it as some sort of human legal document.

Why is believing in a particular religion necessarily "down"?

it limits you. it obscures your vision and your perception. Suddenly everything needs to fit into specific grooves. And if things don’t fit then you will find yourself trying to force them to. That’s the kind of bias that leads to creationism and noahs ark literalism. I think it’s a lot more honest to have no grooves at all. And let things fall where they may.

I find this attitude, btw, in many "non-religious" people; that they are somehow automatically superior (at least in some ways) to "religious" people. I'm very surprised that YOU seem (because of the use of the word "down") to hold this belief, IRex! Is this true? I don't see how your opinion that there is a lack of knowledge available automatically makes you above (since others are "down" below you) others. Perhaps they see more than you do, and their conclusion is perfectly valid based on what they see. Or maybe I just misunderstand how you're using "down".

I think you are just reading way too much into the use of one simple word. But you have a habit of this.

You seem to think religious people are wrong AND you seem to look down on them. Is that right?

I think some of the most profound people in the world are religious. Because these people get it. religion is one of the most difficult tools to master and these people use religion correctly. They transcend with it. they don’t use it to limit their thinking. A lot of people do however. But that’s understandable considering human nature. Its easy to slip over into the cult aspect of religion. Into the sheep aspect.

Do you think you're being insulting to me and other "religious" people by saying you don't want to be pulled "down" to the level of religion?

I think im just trying to point out the difference between being agnostic and being religious.

I don't think I'll touch the science issue right now, except to say that I think it is a god for you in the same way that the God of the Bible is god for me.

Yer right. You shouldn’t touch it. because you have it so completely wrong. science doesn’t demand my allegiance if I am to be a “believer�. Science doesn’t even want me to believe. Science is a tool. Nothing more.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

you mean a religion? See that’s exactly what im talking about. No need to insist that religion is all about truth and literalness. How limiting and short sighted. Religion and philosophy can be extremely useful tools for learning and relating to the world. Not to mention for dealing with hardship and the inevitable torment of human life in a harsh universe.

I don't think that everything in the Bible is literal. There's some lovely and powerful poetry, some parables, lots of imagery, etc. However, it is based on the actual reality of the state of the universe, IMO. Otherwise I wouldn't bother much with it.

Very few of them have taken the time like you (apparently) to do countless hours of research and scientific study on the nature of each and every claim made in the bible and why each and every one of them just happen to be the actual way the world is. ... Meanwhile, agnostics by definition must look at all the available data and figure out what they can from reality that way.

Oh come now You know I haven't looked at "each and every claim made in the bible", any more than YOU, my dear sir, have looked at "all the available data" I have spent many, many hours analyzing and thinking about various worldviews, though; I imagine more time than many people have.

I don't have time to analyze every part of every worldview, whether officially written down or not, and neither do you. Bummer, eh?! I work from actual observation of the world around me, just as you do, and analyze various worldviews I come across, just like you do. The only difference is that we have reached different conclusions. (and yes, you HAVE reached a conclusion - that's why you refer to yourself as an agnostic. And I, just like you, am open to changing my conclusions if I see data that warrants it. At this point, however, I have seen SO much data to support my conclusion that it would take an awful lot to make me change it.)

and tons more simply follow them blindly or without any real evidence. But theres nothing to follow if you are agnostic. Theres no formal or informal body decreeing what should be believed and what shouldn’t be.

I don't see why that matters, unless a person follows formal or informal decrees without thinking them through first. Oftentimes a group of people are right.

course not. Although I would hope you wouldn’t base your very essence and sense of reality on say… Lord of the Rings. No matter how good it is and representative it is. Its still a work of fiction. But one that says a LOT about us as humans and the world in general. A great teaching tool.

Why should I bother to consider LOTR as a basis for reality, when its author says it's fiction? If statements are made as a truth claim, however, then I need to consider them and analyze them and see if they hang together logically and are supported by evidence and by experience.

no its not. What exactly are “agnostic morals�? find me the source for these as you can for your “Christian morals�. Youll find the term is meaningless of course because agnosticism doesn’t imply a belief system. It doesn’t imply a list you must conform to to be included in the religion. Because its NOT A RELIGION.

Why does that matter? As long as a person thinks about things, why should it matter if it's part of what you call a "religion" or not? Why does it matter what the source of morals is as long as a person thinks them through?

What I'm saying is that you are an agnostic, and given that belief, you come up with your moral decisions. You work the same way that I do.

Further evidence for this can be found in the fact that agnostics can run the gambit from wonderful giving selfless people to cruel horrible selfish killers. And everything in between. There is no one set of “agnostic morals�. Where as with Christians they are all supposed to follow certain specifically spelled out decrees (commandments anyone?). THOU SHALT NOT KILL! Take it or leave it. you have no choice. Its part of being in the club.

I think we've seen over and over here that people can call themselves Christian and feel free to ignore any part of the Bible they feel like ignoring.

my view on killing comes from my genes and my environment (culture). As does yours. Because religion is part of your culture.

But it is a chosen part, because I have thought about it, as well as other options, and decided that I think it is based on the truth.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

another example of trying to drag agnosticism DOWN to the level of religion here. I can object to your “morality� when your “morality� impinges on my freedom and well being and rights. As can you. if you believe killing is wrong don’t kill. If you believe gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry (or vote or own property) then don’t be gay. But don’t force your morals onto others when it restricts their freedom and their liberty to do things that you can do yourself.

I asked you on another thread if you were against partial birth abortion, and you said you were. Let's look at this further.

You've said (and just said again) that if I don't think gays should marry then I don't have to be gay. Let's apply that same standard to YOU and partial birth abortion. Since you think it's wrong, then why don't you just not encourage women to not do it, but don't try to force your morals onto others! If other people don't think it's wrong, then I certainly hope you wouldn't try to force your morals on them, just like you tell me to not force my ideas on gay marriage on others. Same standards here, please.

Again, you shouldn’t approach religion from the perspective of IM RIGHT! YOURE WRONG!

I think I should, so I intend to.

And by definition religion transcends humanity. It is the a way of perceiving the unperceivable. Of tapping into that which is beyond us.

Does your "unperceivable" and "that which is beyond us" exist, or is it just a name for pretty thoughts?

Religion should never be about the literal.

Your opinion; mine differs.

It should never be about trying to translate the symbolism into reality.

If it's symbolism, what is it symbolizing?

No. You break it when you do that. And you fool yourself. You need to let religion allow you to transcend. Not use it as some sort of human legal document.

I'm not interesting in transcending the way you describe it. I'd take drugs if I was interested in transcending that way. What I am interested in is analyzing various truth claims and seeing if I think any seem to model the universe the way I observe it, because I think it is useful, to say the least, to know (at least at some limited level) the true state of the universe in which one lives. I obviously can't know everything about the true state of the universe, but I think an important place to start is the question, "Is there a god/gods?", and go from there.

it limits you. it obscures your vision and your perception. Suddenly everything needs to fit into specific grooves. And if things don’t fit then you will find yourself trying to force them to.

I don't. I think. Many people don't.

That’s the kind of bias that leads to creationism and noahs ark literalism. I think it’s a lot more honest to have no grooves at all. And let things fall where they may.

I guess I believe that Christianity is true the way that you believe that evolution is true. I find the data overwhelming. And when data doesn't fit, we both look to see if there are other ways that the data can be interpreted, because the weight of the previous data is so strongly in favor of Christianity (me) and evolution (you). And if there is ENOUGH data that doesn't fit, then we would jettison our beliefs.

I think you are just reading way too much into the use of one simple word. But you have a habit of this.

I have a habit of pointing out people's biases that they often don't see themselves.

I think some of the most profound people in the world are religious.

What do you mean by "profound"? I'd call them foolish, if by "religious" you mean wasting time on things you don't think are real.

Because these people get it. religion is one of the most difficult tools to master and these people use religion correctly. They transcend with it.

Again, if I want to transcend in that way, I think I'd choose drugs.

they don’t use it to limit their thinking.

When one makes errors about the framework in which one is operating, they make lots of mistakes. When one tries to figure out the true state of the framework in which one is operating, it doesn't "limit" their thinking. On the contrary, it maximizes it.

Its easy to slip over into the cult aspect of religion.

Yes, some people don't think about their worldviews Including agnostics and atheists.

I think im just trying to point out the difference between being agnostic and being religious.

I see no important difference. They are both conclusions about the true state of the universe, and people base their moral decisions on them.

Yer right. You shouldn’t touch it. because you have it so completely wrong. science doesn’t demand my allegiance if I am to be a “believer�. Science doesn’t even want me to believe. Science is a tool. Nothing more.

I agree. Where I think you take it into the "god" aspect is when you think it applies to things outside its proper sphere.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It will never fail to amaze me that you are incapable or seperating religion from person. or maybe you just have a maddening need to equivocate christianity with everything you see. even if its nothing at all.

(btw, I'm NOT on the Christian themes in Harry Potter, because I don't think there really are any besides the common virtues - so neener neener! )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You are attempting to pull me down to the level of religion and slap me with a nice big label: CHURCH OF AGNOSTICISM.

Why did you use the word "down", IRex?

[Millane]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why did you use the word "down", IRex?

because he's "above" organised religion i would assume, and i would generalise that people who dont take part in organised religion are intellectually ahead of those who do (this is a generalisation not applied to you or Inked who both seem very intelligent).
thats my elitist coment for the day....
JD nice with the Beatles quote, we should make a thread were we can discuss lyrics that deal with religion and philosophy, make for some interesting discussion.