Atheists Sounds Alarm on Decline of Christianity

53,856 Views | 723 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Osodecentx
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:



It's a different premise. Religion is, among other things, a discourse about morality. Science is not that kind of discourse. It can talk about means, but not ends. The values that TS claims to derive from science are all imported from various other places, mostly a mix of religion and popular culture. Here's the problem with this approach. When confronted with a fundamentally different value system, he'll find no tools with which to engage it. Science lacks the language to address moral issues directly. Whether they involve supernatural belief or not, all moral systems are based on faith and authority. A scientist who recognizes no issues other than scientific ones is ultimately helpless against such forces.
Evidence is not based on faith, and is crucial to any rational discourse on morality. Any sound basis for morality ought to be able to show why it has value to society. Although evidence as authority is under attack these days.

Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing.
Well said. That's exactly why science alone isn't enough. It can tell us why different values have this or that effect, but it can't define value. As Curt said, that always involves belief.
I don't think TS nor I said that science alone provides the basis for morality; it is a way of determining whether your value system is working to achieve its stated aims. And when it is not you adjust.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash: "Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing."

Actually, Science is a tool used to form and test practical application of intellectual theories.

Philosophy is a tool used to test and challenge theoretical concepts including emotional and moral decisions.

Religion is a tool used to seek personal experience beyond human limits.

They are not the same.
So, you agree with Quash.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Recognized by whom, outside of those devoted to Science?
By definition.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:



It's a different premise. Religion is, among other things, a discourse about morality. Science is not that kind of discourse. It can talk about means, but not ends. The values that TS claims to derive from science are all imported from various other places, mostly a mix of religion and popular culture. Here's the problem with this approach. When confronted with a fundamentally different value system, he'll find no tools with which to engage it. Science lacks the language to address moral issues directly. Whether they involve supernatural belief or not, all moral systems are based on faith and authority. A scientist who recognizes no issues other than scientific ones is ultimately helpless against such forces.
Evidence is not based on faith, and is crucial to any rational discourse on morality. Any sound basis for morality ought to be able to show why it has value to society. Although evidence as authority is under attack these days.

Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing.
Well said. That's exactly why science alone isn't enough. It can tell us why different values have this or that effect, but it can't define value. As Curt said, that always involves belief.
I don't think TS nor I said that science alone provides the basis for morality; it is a way of determining whether your value system is working to achieve its stated aims. And when it is not you adjust.
Yeah, but the problem is that he assumes everyone shares his stated aims and that the only real questions are empirical. If that were true, there would be no such thing as philosophy.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

Recognized by whom, outside of those devoted to Science?
By definition.
No one of any authority, then.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash: "Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing."

Actually, Science is a tool used to form and test practical application of intellectual theories.

Philosophy is a tool used to test and challenge theoretical concepts including emotional and moral decisions.

Religion is a tool used to seek personal experience beyond human limits.

They are not the same.
So, you agree with Quash.
If you think so, English is not your primary language.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash: "Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing."

Actually, Science is a tool used to form and test practical application of intellectual theories.

Philosophy is a tool used to test and challenge theoretical concepts including emotional and moral decisions.

Religion is a tool used to seek personal experience beyond human limits.

They are not the same.
So, you agree with Quash.
If you think so, English is not your primary language.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash: "Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing."

Actually, Science is a tool used to form and test practical application of intellectual theories.

Philosophy is a tool used to test and challenge theoretical concepts including emotional and moral decisions.

Religion is a tool used to seek personal experience beyond human limits.

They are not the same.
So, you agree with Quash.
If you think so, English is not your primary language.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash: "Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing."

Actually, Science is a tool used to form and test practical application of intellectual theories.

Philosophy is a tool used to test and challenge theoretical concepts including emotional and moral decisions.

Religion is a tool used to seek personal experience beyond human limits.

They are not the same.
So, you agree with Quash.
If you think so, English is not your primary language.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

Recognized by whom, outside of those devoted to Science?
By definition.
No one of any authority, then.
Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms. Those norms can be influenced by religious clerics or by a humanistic science of morality approach. One is based upon arbitrary religious view, and the other takes into account the well being of others. Regardless of approach, morals are ultimately the product of our brain, and culture reinforces and influences what goes into our brain. Values are essentially based upon facts about the well being of sentient conscious beings. Those facts can relate to a range of potential happiness or suffering. All sets of values or morals are reducible to concerns of our conscious experience and changes in that experience. Even if you base those values upon religion and how it will affect your status after death in a hereafter, in a state of nirvana with a god, or in some realm of punishment and suffering, but you are still concerned about how your conscious experience is affected after death. That belief is a factual claim that may or may not be true.

In this life there is a continuum of facts relating to conditions of well being from suffering to flourishing. We know experientially and factually what states relative to each other are more ideal in terms of suffering or flourishing. There are factual truths that we can determine about how societies can organize and flourish, and morality relates to these truths. Our state of well being and existential experience involves our brain and is largely determined or realized in the brain. There are right and wrong answers to questions in terms of well being as to how we flourish. How culture or society attempts to organize around those questions can affect us, by causing changes in our brains. Which culture produces the highest degree of flourishing can be understood through science, and more specifically through psychology and neuroscience. Values reduced to facts about conscious experience of conscious beings can correspond to differences in individual and collective well being, expectations and cooperation.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.
Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:



It's a different premise. Religion is, among other things, a discourse about morality. Science is not that kind of discourse. It can talk about means, but not ends. The values that TS claims to derive from science are all imported from various other places, mostly a mix of religion and popular culture. Here's the problem with this approach. When confronted with a fundamentally different value system, he'll find no tools with which to engage it. Science lacks the language to address moral issues directly. Whether they involve supernatural belief or not, all moral systems are based on faith and authority. A scientist who recognizes no issues other than scientific ones is ultimately helpless against such forces.
Evidence is not based on faith, and is crucial to any rational discourse on morality. Any sound basis for morality ought to be able to show why it has value to society. Although evidence as authority is under attack these days.

Science is a way of knowing. Philosophy is a way of knowing. Religion is a way of believing.
Well said. That's exactly why science alone isn't enough. It can tell us why different values have this or that effect, but it can't define value. As Curt said, that always involves belief.
I don't think TS nor I said that science alone provides the basis for morality; it is a way of determining whether your value system is working to achieve its stated aims. And when it is not you adjust.
Yeah, but the problem is that he assumes everyone shares his stated aims and that the only real questions are empirical. If that were true, there would be no such thing as philosophy.
More of a desire than an assumption.

And it is not that the questions are answerable by empirical approach alone, but that empirical approaches are underutilized. And in the current climate, denigrated.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.
Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".
But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.
Quote:

So the mob drives morality?
No.
Quote:

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

Better stated: Cultural norms (values) are often at odds with others' values, which causes problems ...
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.
Quote:

So the mob drives morality?
No.
Quote:

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

Better stated: Cultural norms (values) are often at odds with others' values, which causes problems ...
What you call "cultural norms" is simply what the mob decides is OK. The problem is that mob mentalities are seldom based on altruism or deep consideration of a moral foundation. Those have always come from individuals.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.
Quote:

So the mob drives morality?
No.
Quote:

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

Better stated: Cultural norms (values) are often at odds with others' values, which causes problems ...
What you call "cultural norms" is simply what the mob decides is OK. The problem is that mob mentalities are seldom based on altruism or deep consideration of a moral foundation. Those have always come from individuals.
There is a really big difference between cultural norms and mob mentality. Cultural norms play out in large numbers, but they also come into play one on one. Hardly a mob.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.
Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".
But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.
Quote:

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.
As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?

What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.
Quote:

So the mob drives morality?
No.
Quote:

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

Better stated: Cultural norms (values) are often at odds with others' values, which causes problems ...
What you call "cultural norms" is simply what the mob decides is OK. The problem is that mob mentalities are seldom based on altruism or deep consideration of a moral foundation. Those have always come from individuals.
There is a really big difference between cultural norms and mob mentality. Cultural norms play out in large numbers, but they also come into play one on one. Hardly a mob.
It's not a 'norm' until it's done by most people, ergo while a crude way to put it, yes 'mob' is a sound description.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TS: " innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction."

Nope. Consider the fact that there are special interest groups supporting pedophilia and racism which are gaining political support.

Trends are fluid, and do not represent a moral arc on any basis other then flavor of the times.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:



Nope. Consider the fact that there are special interest groups supporting pedophilia and racism which are gaining political support.


Counter to cultural norms. Any free society will have to deal with moral outliers. How that is done is one measure of that society's values and how they are implemented. I like that we gave space for the voice and for the dissent and the proscriptions.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash: "Counter to cultural norms"

That's just your opinion, since 'norms' are constantly changing and do not always advance.

Sexual promiscuity, resistance to vaccinating children, a willlingness to support a paramilitary police in order to gain security even at the cost of personal rights, all these and more show there is no 'moral arc' to speak of.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

Recognized by whom, outside of those devoted to Science?
By definition.
No one of any authority, then.
Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms. Those norms can be influenced by religious clerics or by a humanistic science of morality approach. One is based upon arbitrary religious view, and the other takes into account the well being of others. Regardless of approach, morals are ultimately the product of our brain, and culture reinforces and influences what goes into our brain. Values are essentially based upon facts about the well being of sentient conscious beings. Those facts can relate to a range of potential happiness or suffering. All sets of values or morals are reducible to concerns of our conscious experience and changes in that experience. Even if you base those values upon religion and how it will affect your status after death in a hereafter, in a state of nirvana with a god, or in some realm of punishment and suffering, but you are still concerned about how your conscious experience is affected after death. That belief is a factual claim that may or may not be true.

In this life there is a continuum of facts relating to conditions of well being from suffering to flourishing. We know experientially and factually what states relative to each other are more ideal in terms of suffering or flourishing. There are factual truths that we can determine about how societies can organize and flourish, and morality relates to these truths. Our state of well being and existential experience involves our brain and is largely determined or realized in the brain. There are right and wrong answers to questions in terms of well being as to how we flourish. How culture or society attempts to organize around those questions can affect us, by causing changes in our brains. Which culture produces the highest degree of flourishing can be understood through science, and more specifically through psychology and neuroscience. Values reduced to facts about conscious experience of conscious beings can correspond to differences in individual and collective well being, expectations and cooperation.
"Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So, morality is relative.

"Those norms can be influenced by religious clerics or by a humanistic science of morality approach. One is based upon arbitrary religious view, and the other takes into account the well being of others."

Basing norms on a religious view is no more arbitrary than basing norms on a humanistic "science" of morality approach.

"One is based upon arbitrary religious view, and the other takes into account the well being of others."

I think it's fair to say that religious views do generally take into account the well being of others.


"In this life there is a continuum of facts relating to conditions of well being from suffering to flourishing."

Is it ok for you to suffer to facilitate my flourishing?


JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.
Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".
But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.
Quote:

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.
As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.


There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash: "Counter to cultural norms"

That's just your opinion, since 'norms' are constantly changing and do not always advance.

Sexual promiscuity, resistance to vaccinating children, a willlingness to support a paramilitary police in order to gain security even at the cost of personal rights, all these and more show there is no 'moral arc' to speak of.
I'm more optimistic: when a billion people move out of abject poverty that outweighs those few who reject evidence based medicine, etc. Same with the lessening in war deaths: " Pinker cites a number of trends through history he feels support the idea that despite the seemingly continual carnage in the world, we have actually inched toward a more civil society. Our transition from huntergatherers to farmers is thought to have reduced violent death fivefold; between the Middle Ages and the 20th century, Europe saw a 10- to 50-fold drop in murder; and in the 70-plus years since World War II warring among the leading powers has for the most part stopped, a first in the history of civilization."

Edit. two billion. My bad, guess I'm not as optimistic as I thought.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Show me where mainstream Christianity or any major religion, for that matter, opposed medicine?

For crying out loud, don't you know Christians invented hospitals?
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Show me where mainstream Christianity or any major religion, for that matter, opposed medicine?

For crying out loud, don't you know Christians invented hospitals?
Show me where I said they did. I thought we were discussing outliers from the cultural norm.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

Show me where mainstream Christianity or any major religion, for that matter, opposed medicine?

For crying out loud, don't you know Christians invented hospitals?
Show me where I said they did. I thought we were discussing outliers from the cultural norm.
You and TS have been arguing against Religion's effect on morals. Pointing out improved medical care while hiding Christian influence on the culture is disingenuous.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

Show me where mainstream Christianity or any major religion, for that matter, opposed medicine?

For crying out loud, don't you know Christians invented hospitals?
Show me where I said they did. I thought we were discussing outliers from the cultural norm.
As to outliers, you still have not defined what supports the 'moral arc' claimed to exist. Modern behavior indicates that there is no such arc, as humans in many places do the opposite of what we would normally agree is a moral standard.

Once political forces began to active tear down Christian institutions, the morals fell as well.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

Show me where mainstream Christianity or any major religion, for that matter, opposed medicine?

For crying out loud, don't you know Christians invented hospitals?
Show me where I said they did. I thought we were discussing outliers from the cultural norm.
You and TS have been arguing against Religion's effect on morals. Pointing out improved medical care while hiding Christian influence on the culture is disingenuous.
Again, I never said that. Please, try to address what I say, not what you think I think. It is a boring waste of time to try to address things I don't say.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

Show me where mainstream Christianity or any major religion, for that matter, opposed medicine?

For crying out loud, don't you know Christians invented hospitals?
Show me where I said they did. I thought we were discussing outliers from the cultural norm.
You and TS have been arguing against Religion's effect on morals. Pointing out improved medical care while hiding Christian influence on the culture is disingenuous.
Again, I never said that. Please, try to address what I say, not what you think I think. It is a boring waste of time to try to address things I don't say.
I addressed both the topic and your bias, quash.

But to be clear, the point is that there is no "moral arc". It's simply that individuals lead people into different kinds of behavior, and a strong leader can establish a trend which lasts for a time.

But it's individual moral choices, not evolution or some force of human collective destiny which drives those decisions and redirections.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.
Quote:

So the mob drives morality?
No.
Quote:

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

Better stated: Cultural norms (values) are often at odds with others' values, which causes problems ...
What you call "cultural norms" is simply what the mob decides is OK. The problem is that mob mentalities are seldom based on altruism or deep consideration of a moral foundation. Those have always come from individuals.
There is a really big difference between cultural norms and mob mentality. Cultural norms play out in large numbers, but they also come into play one on one. Hardly a mob.
It's not a 'norm' until it's done by most people, ergo while a crude way to put it, yes 'mob' is a sound description.
No more of a mob than a gathering for instruction at a seminary is a mob. Cultural norms and values do not rise out of mob gatherings.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JXL said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.
Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".
But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.
Quote:

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.
As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.


There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church


No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

Recognized by whom, outside of those devoted to Science?
By definition.
No one of any authority, then.
Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms. Those norms can be influenced by religious clerics or by a humanistic science of morality approach. One is based upon arbitrary religious view, and the other takes into account the well being of others. Regardless of approach, morals are ultimately the product of our brain, and culture reinforces and influences what goes into our brain. Values are essentially based upon facts about the well being of sentient conscious beings. Those facts can relate to a range of potential happiness or suffering. All sets of values or morals are reducible to concerns of our conscious experience and changes in that experience. Even if you base those values upon religion and how it will affect your status after death in a hereafter, in a state of nirvana with a god, or in some realm of punishment and suffering, but you are still concerned about how your conscious experience is affected after death. That belief is a factual claim that may or may not be true.

In this life there is a continuum of facts relating to conditions of well being from suffering to flourishing. We know experientially and factually what states relative to each other are more ideal in terms of suffering or flourishing. There are factual truths that we can determine about how societies can organize and flourish, and morality relates to these truths. Our state of well being and existential experience involves our brain and is largely determined or realized in the brain. There are right and wrong answers to questions in terms of well being as to how we flourish. How culture or society attempts to organize around those questions can affect us, by causing changes in our brains. Which culture produces the highest degree of flourishing can be understood through science, and more specifically through psychology and neuroscience. Values reduced to facts about conscious experience of conscious beings can correspond to differences in individual and collective well being, expectations and cooperation.
"Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So, morality is relative.

"Those norms can be influenced by religious clerics or by a humanistic science of morality approach. One is based upon arbitrary religious view, and the other takes into account the well being of others."

Basing norms on a religious view is no more arbitrary than basing norms on a humanistic "science" of morality approach.

"One is based upon arbitrary religious view, and the other takes into account the well being of others."

I think it's fair to say that religious views do generally take into account the well being of others.


"In this life there is a continuum of facts relating to conditions of well being from suffering to flourishing."

Is it ok for you to suffer to facilitate my flourishing?



Morality should be objective.

Norms based upon religious view is arbitrary, in the sense that the norms are handed down as authority upon the declaration of a religious interpretation. A declaration of man based upon a belief, or a desired projected belief of a man. A humanistic science of morality approach is based upon objective evidence, which is not arbitrary. My overall point is that all morals are ultimately decided by men or women based upon what they believe, which can be arbitrary. Religion is a cultural phenomena, and men determine what they believe are acceptable norms within that culture.

In general, no it would not be ok to suffer to facilitate your flourishing. Although, there may be objective reasons. where it would be voluntarily acceptable - such as organ donation. Empirical objective evidence can come into play in making those determinations. Some Christians believe it is a sin to receive or donate blood, an arbitrary religious decision handed down by religious clerics from what they believe. Evidence based objectivity tells us otherwise.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

curtpenn said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

Recognized by whom, outside of those devoted to Science?
By definition.
No one of any authority, then.
Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms. Those norms can be influenced by religious clerics or by a humanistic science of morality approach. One is based upon arbitrary religious view, and the other takes into account the well being of others. Regardless of approach, morals are ultimately the product of our brain, and culture reinforces and influences what goes into our brain. Values are essentially based upon facts about the well being of sentient conscious beings. Those facts can relate to a range of potential happiness or suffering. All sets of values or morals are reducible to concerns of our conscious experience and changes in that experience. Even if you base those values upon religion and how it will affect your status after death in a hereafter, in a state of nirvana with a god, or in some realm of punishment and suffering, but you are still concerned about how your conscious experience is affected after death. That belief is a factual claim that may or may not be true.

In this life there is a continuum of facts relating to conditions of well being from suffering to flourishing. We know experientially and factually what states relative to each other are more ideal in terms of suffering or flourishing. There are factual truths that we can determine about how societies can organize and flourish, and morality relates to these truths. Our state of well being and existential experience involves our brain and is largely determined or realized in the brain. There are right and wrong answers to questions in terms of well being as to how we flourish. How culture or society attempts to organize around those questions can affect us, by causing changes in our brains. Which culture produces the highest degree of flourishing can be understood through science, and more specifically through psychology and neuroscience. Values reduced to facts about conscious experience of conscious beings can correspond to differences in individual and collective well being, expectations and cooperation.
"Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So, morality is relative.

"Those norms can be influenced by religious clerics or by a humanistic science of morality approach. One is based upon arbitrary religious view, and the other takes into account the well being of others."

Basing norms on a religious view is no more arbitrary than basing norms on a humanistic "science" of morality approach.

"One is based upon arbitrary religious view, and the other takes into account the well being of others."

I think it's fair to say that religious views do generally take into account the well being of others.


"In this life there is a continuum of facts relating to conditions of well being from suffering to flourishing."

Is it ok for you to suffer to facilitate my flourishing?



Morality should be objective.

Norms based upon religious view is arbitrary, in the sense that the norms are handed down as authority upon the declaration of a religious interpretation. A declaration of man based upon a belief, or a desired projected belief of a man. A humanistic science of morality approach is based upon objective evidence, which is not arbitrary. My overall point is that all morals are ultimately decided by men or women based upon what they believe, which can be arbitrary. Religion is a cultural phenomena, and men determine what they believe are acceptable norms within that culture.

In general, no it would not be ok to suffer to facilitate your flourishing. Although, there may be objective reasons. where it would be voluntarily acceptable - such as organ donation. Empirical objective evidence can come into play in making those determinations. Some Christians believe it is a sin to receive or donate blood, an arbitrary religious decision handed down by religious clerics from what they believe. Evidence based objectivity tells us otherwise.
"My overall point is that all morals are ultimately decided by men or women based upon what they believe..."

Ah, then we agree. See, you have more faith than you perhaps realized.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.