An experiment involving Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, etc.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

As Karma is affected by and in some fashion recognizes morally good and morally evil acts' date=' it would seem to encompass objective moral standards.[/quote']

 

If that is true, wouldn't it also mean that mankind can come up with objective moral standards on our own, without help from God?

 

(I think that question may be within the rules that were originally established for this thread (and which I ostensibly am supposed to be enforcing, although I actually only enforce the rules prescribed by Terry, which is a very short list), but without reading back five pages, I am not sure. It seems sufficiently philosophical that it probably does not get into the subjects that MattR was trying to avoid.)

[AZMike 173]

 

If that is true, wouldn't it also mean that mankind can come up with objective moral standards on our own, without help from God?

 

(I think that question may be within the rules that were originally established for this thread (and which I ostensibly am supposed to be enforcing, although I actually only enforce the rules prescribed by Terry, which is a very short list), but without reading back five pages, I am not sure. It seems sufficiently philosophical that it probably does not get into the subjects that MattR was trying to avoid.)

 

Under a Buddhist perspective? Probably not, although not all Buddhists believe in God or gods. I doubt that a Buddhist would argue that (to use the usual metric for total evil) an unrepentant Nazi officer would be excused for his behavior in his next phase of existence because his culture deemed what he did as objectively good, or because he thought he was doing the right thing. In the absence of a grounded moral standard that transcends humanity, human moral codes become merely aesthetic choices.

 

This is implicitly recognized in most arguments on the objectivity of moral codes. If a particularly horrible example of behavior that is condoned by human cultures, such as genocide or infanticide is brought up, the usual response from someone arguing that there can be an "objective" human based moral code is that, "Of course that's wrong! I don't need any outside source to tell me that!" Well, then what is the source of that recognition, and why is a deviant human culture's behavior recognized as "wrong?"

 

Mere popularity doesn't work. The Nazis were voted into power by a large majority. Utilitarianism doesn't work. The majority of people involved in a gang rape think it benefits them. Even a limp application of the "Golden Rule" isn't enough - a rapist would probably say that he wishes his victim would do to him what he wants to do to her or him. Simple intuition is inherently untrustworthy.

 

So - you would probably have to Ask a Buddhist , but Buddhism does have a moral code, and it would seem to be something other than the arbitrary choices made by the Buddha as a man, so I would argue that it is objective.

 

Would the Karmic mechanism, whatever that is, recognize an "objective" man-created moral standard that is in radical contradiction to whatever standards previously applied throughout time? Is Karma customer-based? (I'm not trying to be flippant here or denigrate those who believe in Karma.) So if a majority of humans decided, or even if ALL humans somehow decided that it would now be okay to slowly torture those born with birth defects to death, that would be, if not objective, at least a unanimous decision that would be in contradiction to the Buddhist laws of Right Behavior (as well as the Tao, the Quran, and the Bible). Would the Karmic Wheel adapt to that new human created, allegedly "objective" moral system and now reward such previously forbidden behavior? I would guess that most Buddhists would say no. (The one I just asked said absolutely not.)

 

Just a thought experiment to explore your question. What do you think?

[SSScout 1616]

AZMike: I have wondered who or what determines the "quality " of the Karma. If one's Karma determines which way one goes/arrives in their next life, then how is that credited? Whose value determines how an act is credited, Karma wise? Is it to consider how the act advances or detracts from the progress of the universe?

56 million humans died as a result of WW2. How do we determine the Karma value of the actions of the folks that contributed to that total?

[AZMike 173]

Well, again I don't believe in Karma. By the rules of this thread, however, I won't go into my philosophical or theological reasons . As I was asked, I gave the reasons I think the Buddhist conception of Karma/Kamma supports the argument for a transcendent objective moral system, and a supernatural (or, hypermundane) view of reality that I think would keep them in BSA as a "religion" in a way that other practices devoted solely to personal perfection, such as the Silva Meditation Method or EST or a practice of Zen meditation divorced from a religious perspective, wouldn't. I'm sure that some Buddhists would agree on my conclusions, and some wouldn't.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I haven't seen any official BSA pronouncement that requires belief in a "transcendent objective moral system" or anything similar, but I have seen where belief in a god has often been stated as a requirement. The BSA's religious requirements simply aren't coherent.

[AZMike 173]

Just my opinion on how religion might best be interpreted for those religions who don't believe in a personal God, Merlyn. I think about such things.

 

"The Boy Scouts of America does not define what constitutes belief in God or practice of religion."

 

Ultimately, if a movement, such as Buddhism considers itself a religion, and has a conception of "God" sufficient for youths who are members of that movement to feel comfortable joining, and if adult members participate in a religious committee to support Scouting and award religious medals - who am I to say otherwise?

 

Now, there are atheist churches, however you feel about them, and the atheist (or humanist, or secular, or whatever) movement now has chaplains and services and psalms and clergy and suchlike. Over a tenth of the people who self-identify as atheists even say they believe in God and an afterlife. That's screwy, I know, but there it is. There is a natural human pull towards religion.

 

Someone could, I guess, say they were an atheist, but that they still believe in God (again, about a tenth of atheists do). They could get in, even if they don't fit your puritanical, judgmental, uptight definition of "atheist." (It's just, like, a label, man.)

 

And, not every atheist is a materialist reductionist, and there are real atheists (that is, people who don't believe in God) who nevertheless believe in reincarnation and crystal energy and ghosts and angels and all sorts of spiritual things.

 

Personally, if such a New Age atheist decided that his idiosyncratic belief in the Vibratory Energy of the Fifth Integral was equivalent to a belief in God, and he was willing to join the BSA on that basis...I would probably be okay with that. It would make for some interesting conversations around the campfire late at night, if nothing else.

 

But if an atheist honestly can't say that he has some conception of a Higher Power, or even a Transcendent Moral System (a la Karma) that they feel is a conception of "God"...then you don't fit the membership requirements. Nothing against you, and we appreciate your honesty and integrity. We like you, but only as a friend.

 

I don't want to speak for them, but Buddhists involved in scouting seem to feel that their conception of a Higher Power (such as Karma or the 8-fold path) is sufficiently close to the "God" in the Statement of Religious Principle that they are comfortable being in Scouts. I do not believe that every, or even any, Buddhist involved in Scouting is a liar. I doubt you think that either.

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Careful, fellas. Read rule #1 again. It's ok to discuss transcendent objective moral systems in an informative way... but NOT in the context of BSA membership policies and the politics that usually follow along in that discussion. You, Merlyn and AZMike, are doing ok but remember to tiptoe away from the hot zone if you get close.

 

NJ, I think a purely philosophical discussion may be OK as long as it doesn't cross a really fuzzy line to seeming to be critical of a faith system. If you think an objective system of morality can be found without God, I think that even if you adopt my suggestion of 'moral thermodynamics', and it just doesn't get much more objective than that, a person who believes in God can still respond that God set those rules as well, so it all still works.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Over a tenth of the people who self-identify as atheists even say they believe in God and an afterlife. That's screwy, I know, but there it is. There is a natural human pull towards religion.

 

I'd say there's a natural human pull to not know what words mean.

 

Someone could, I guess, say they were an atheist, but that they still believe in God (again, about a tenth of atheists do).

 

I have never seen an actual cite for that; what I HAVE seen are surveys that either don't use just the word "god" (Pew used "god or a universal spirit", which is NOT the same as just asking if a person believes in "god"), or even worse, a survey that assumes lack of religion = atheism.

 

They could get in, even if they don't fit your puritanical, judgmental, uptight definition of "atheist." (It's just, like, a label, man.)

 

It's an incorrect label in that case. Words actually mean things.

 

And, not every atheist is a materialist reductionist

 

I, of course, know that.

 

and there are real atheists (that is, people who don't believe in God) who nevertheless believe in reincarnation and crystal energy and ghosts and angels and all sorts of spiritual things.

 

I've said so before in this forum myself. I've seen the reincarnation and ghost types on the internet.

 

Personally, if such a New Age atheist decided that his idiosyncratic belief in the Vibratory Energy of the Fifth Integral was equivalent to a belief in God, and he was willing to join the BSA on that basis...I would probably be okay with that.

 

A local person being OK with it is not the criterion the national BSA uses.

 

But if an atheist honestly can't say that he has some conception of a Higher Power, or even a Transcendent Moral System (a la Karma) that they feel is a conception of "God"...then you don't fit the membership requirements.

 

I'll go further than that -- if you don't believe in whatever the BSA considers a "god" this week, you don't meet the requirements.

 

Nothing against you, and we appreciate your honesty and integrity.

 

I disagree. This is one reason why public schools had to be removed as chartering organizations.

 

I don't want to speak for them, but Buddhists involved in scouting seem to feel that their conception of a Higher Power (such as Karma or the 8-fold path) is sufficiently close to the "God" in the Statement of Religious Principle that they are comfortable being in Scouts.

 

In my opinion, the BSA is too pig-ignorant about religion to really know there's a conflict.

 

I do not believe that every, or even any, Buddhist involved in Scouting is a liar. I doubt you think that either.

 

No, but some actual Buddhists in the BSA seem to know there's a problem -- here's a bit I posted in this forum back in 2008, about this correspondence with the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting from 2006:

 

Victor Iwamura, the chair of the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting, is still trying to "influence the powers that be" on the issue of Buddhists omitting 'god':

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.s...ed2e62c872ccad

 

Moderator comment: If anyone follows the above link, you will find more infractions to the rules for this thread than I can count. I will leave the link in case anyone wants to read on but be advised, it is going to take you into a whole different realm of discussion and not one that is appropriate to follow in this thread.

[packsaddle 753]

OK, after 5 fairly solid pages of this thread and fairly close moderation, does anyone have suggestions regarding the 'experiment' so far? I'm particularly interested to know if the level of moderation needs to intensify or back off. Opinions?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Topic drift happens; this part can be spun off in a new thread.

[qwazse 4348]

I have never seen an actual cite for that; what I HAVE seen are surveys that either don't use just the word "god" (Pew used "god or a universal spirit", which is NOT the same as just asking if a person believes in "god"), or even worse, a survey that assumes lack of religion = atheism.

...

 

I get the impression that the "universal spirit" phraseology is meant to identify lots of folks from Judeo-Christian persuasion who would rather treat God as distant and impersonal. Such surveys were never intended to quantify atheists who have a "closet belief." The crossing of categories is incidental to the primary thrust of the survey.

 

My personal experience is that the overwhelming majority of folks who call themselves atheists do so because they don't believe God exists -- not because they believe that God is so remote as to be unworthy or unwanting of their worship. And the converts from athiesm that I know of spent very little time in some middle ground that could accommodate the "universal spirit" notion. They remained convinced that they shouldn't believe ... until they were convinced that they should do so with fervor.

[GeorgiaMom 54]

This has all brought to mind a recent essay on Heaven and Hell, prompted by a professor's question: "Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?" It's worth a read. Put your coffee down first.

 

http://www.jeffkee.com/hell-explained-by-chemistry-student/

 

GA Mom

[MattR 2665]

Merlyn, I have a question for you that is 100% respective of your position (which to be honest I'm not completely sure what it is). The original question was how to do an invocation for multiple faiths (or none) and you never answered it. I can see that it's possibly a bad question for you. So let me try and reword it so it works for you. If you were a SM for a troop with all manner of beliefs and you wanted to start or end a meeting with some sort of way for all the scouts to dig a bit deeper and be a little more selfless, what would you want to do? Not many people answered the question but I don't think anyone that defends the rights of atheists as much you do has. I'm looking for a range of opinions before I figure out what to do for my troop. Thanks.

 

Pack, I think you did a good job, thank you. I will recuse myself from any more opinioning and am not emotionally tied to the rules I set. I just made them up as I went. All y'all did play nice and I appreciate that.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

If you were a SM for a troop with all manner of beliefs and you wanted to start or end a meeting with some sort of way for all the scouts to dig a bit deeper and be a little more selfless, what would you want to do?

 

To somewhat paraphrase 1 Thessalonians 5:21, never stop testing your own opinions; hold on to what is good.

[fred johnson 936]

Merlyn quoting the Bible? Glad that I'm not near him as he'll probably be hit by a bolt of lightening.