Religiosity and 'Goodness'

[Vort]

Quote

 

Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality. Morality is not bribery or threats. Religion is bribery and threats. Humans have morality. We don’t need religion.

- Penn Jillette (NYT)

 

Indeed. This is why anarchies have been so fabulously successful throughout history at establishing peaceful, productive societies.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

Indeed. This is why anarchies have been so fabulously successful throughout history at establishing peaceful, productive societies.

Human nature is inherently weak/flawed/evil. That's one of the reasons we need religion. I have great respect for Penn Jillette but he's way off on this 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

No! The Normans! Your a Norman, we are all Normans!

You do realize that the Normans were Viking descendants, right? And the Vikings were just as brutal, bloodthirsty, and carnage-prone as the old stories make them out to be. Given how prolific the Vikings were in settling the areas, raping the women, and taking wives, they were pretty good at spreading themselves around, too. So saying you're Norman is sort of a threat.

But I'm sure you already knew that.

[zil]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

You do realize that the Normans were Viking descendants, right? And the Vikings were just as brutal, bloodthirsty, and carnage-prone as the old stories make them out to be. Given how prolific the Vikings were in settling the areas, raping the women, and taking wives, they were pretty good at spreading themselves around, too. So saying you're Norman is sort of a threat.

But I'm sure you already knew that.

I think you just dissed one of my ancestors...  Based on your description, you should probably be glad he's long dead.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

I think you just dissed one of my ancestors...  Based on your description, you should probably be glad he's long dead.

Dead Viking bullies don't scare me!

[Fether]

29 minutes ago, Vort said:

You do realize that the Normans were Viking descendants, right? And the Vikings were just as brutal, bloodthirsty, and carnage-prone as the old stories make them out to be. Given how prolific the Vikings were in settling the areas, raping the women, and taking wives, they were pretty good at spreading themselves around, too. So saying you're Norman is sort of a threat.

But I'm sure you already knew that.

So theoretically, how many of us have Norman in our blood?

Edited November 4, 2017 by Fether

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

So theoretically, how many of us have Norman in our blood?

If you're at all northern European, the odds approach 100%. I'd say if you have any European blood, you're almost certainly of Viking descent.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, Godless said:

I would add China as well.  And let's not forget that the Christian establishment has a history of fighting tooth and nail against intellectual and artistic innovation. Many of the advances in Western Civilization occured in spite of Christianity, not because of it. 

The Chinese became quite oppressive and counter-revolutionary around the 16th-17th centuries, where they chose to remain until the Opium Wars harshly compelled them to confront their own backwardness.  I think the oppressiveness of which you speak is more a function of socio-economic stagnation generally and the natural “conservatism” of entrenched powerful institutions, rather than any particular set of religious principles.  The Chinese kind of skate on a lot of stuff—partly due to our own western historical ignorance, partly due to modern Chinese marketing, and partly because they filled their natural borders and euthanized or absorbed competing ethnic groups over a thousand years ago, sparing them the smarminess of latter-day social justice warriors.

More generally—I would agree that *individual* atheists can be “moral” (I.e. “prosocial”.  But I don't think you can create a moral society—or sustain one in the long-term—based on self-preservation; because moral systems always leave the conformists vulnerable to exploitation by avaricious non-conformists.  Thus you develop a vicious cycle of individuals who think they can “beat the system” engaging in devious forms of antisocial behavior for their own profit; and a state clamping down ever more tightly in response through ever-more invasive and authoritarian means.  This results in even more determinedly devious nonconformism on the one hand and a state apparatus ready to be co-opted by tyranny on the other hand. 

The more interesting basis for an atheistic morality, I think, would be rooted in love of kin rather than bare self-preservation.  Even presumably “godless” hunter-gatherer societies had individuals sacrificing themselves for the good of their immediate family circle—I presume due to some ancient equivalent of “love”.  As an atheist *I* may be strong enough to “beat the system” in spectacular fashion—but what about my romantic partner, and my offspring?  Can protect them as well as myself?  I may well choose to subjugate myself to a social code that limits my economic potential, in hopes that widespread adoption of the code will protect my more vulnerable loved ones who aren’t as wily as I am.  But this necessitates a sort of permanent family dynamic (extended, if not nuclear) and larger group identities (tribal, if not patriotic/nationalistic) that the secular left seems not terribly fond of these days.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Fether]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

If you're at all northern European, the odds approach 100%. I'd say if you have any European blood, you're almost certainly of Viking descent.

We are all Normans!

[lostinwater]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Human nature is inherently weak/flawed/evil. That's one of the reasons we need religion. I have great respect for Penn Jillette but he's way off on this 

Thank-you.  i have often wondered about this.  No arguments on our nature - describes humanity (including me) quite well.  But i find it quite troubling at times the concept that a person and God are somehow unable to communicate with one another without the assistance of another third party (who is not Jesus).  It seems like it results in the third party, in the interests of justifying and thus preserving its existence, creating and encouraging the fixation in attention on all the things that differentiate it that don't matter so much, rather than the things it shares in common with other sects that matter a lot.  

i'd say i feel this way a goodly portion of the time.  Though, consistent with my fallen nature, that perspective entirely ignores the good that the church has effected in my life.  i sincerely doubt i would know God and Jesus at all if it were not for it.  Or not the same way - but who knows.

i just know that before i left, i had no balance in my perspective.  And so it was either ignoring the bad and pretending everything was perfect - or vilifying the church completely.  And then the thing came along that shattered the glass castle - and kept on shattering it for years and years.  And that's not the fault of the person who shattered it - not really.  The only thing i can fault in retrospect were my own expectations.

When i chat with my brother who is still in the church, i am amazed at how much more balanced his view is than mine.  i wonder where he picked it up.  Maybe it was taught and my thought patterns just didn't recognize it - but it honestly does not feel that way.

And really, that's the only (reasonable) beef i have.  That the unwritten 'constitution' of almost every organization - especially religious ones - does not include the separation of self-worth from 'state' - to coin the common phrase.  For anyone who allows that separation, in the absence of perfect love (which i think even the best of us human beings are incapable of delivering reliably), lacks the barbaric, yet incredibly effective, tools of guilt and shame that seem almost a requirement to conquer the fall nature @MormonGator has referred to.

i think we as human beings have a need to reduce people, organizations, etc., into the simplest state possible.  Just makes the world and our view of it less confusing when we're able to generalize large swaths of people, or entire organizations into the binary states of entirely evil, or flawlessly good.  And probably also makes it far easier to affirm that our perspective is the only one that could possible be right.  i know i do that far too much.

This might be viewed as an attack upon religion or the church - but honestly, it isn't meant to be.  i'm not wanting an argument - and probably wouldn't win it anyways - with all the sharp minds that congregate here.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you. 

Very welcome. 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

- with all the sharp minds that congregate here.

 @mirkwood excluded.  

[Guest Godless]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

You do realize that the Normans were Viking descendants, right? And the Vikings were just as brutal, bloodthirsty, and carnage-prone as the old stories make them out to be. Given how prolific the Vikings were in settling the areas, raping the women, and taking wives, they were pretty good at spreading themselves around, too. So saying you're Norman is sort of a threat.

But I'm sure you already knew that.

In a sense, this observation kind of confirms the "We are all Normans" statement.

True story: In 2004 I was in Iraq and we ended up sharing living space with some Mongolian soldiers at one point during one of our missions. My squad leader asked one of them if they consider themselves "Oriental". There was some confusion because they had a similar physical appearance to their geographical neighbors to the East and South, but their written language looked more like Russian. The soldier's response: "Mongolians are not Oriental, but all Orientals are a little bit Mongolian".

[The Folk Prophet]

On 11/3/2017 at 5:31 PM, Fether said:

No! The Normans! Your a Norman, we are all Normans!

except Godless, he is not Norman...

That's pronounced Mormon. Mmmm..ormon.