Another interesting article from Scoutmaster's Blog on FB; Belief structures

[Eagledad 2779]

So you are saying you don't know the difference between right and wrong without someone telling you? Empathy, compassion, caring, love for one another is part of being human. I know the right thing to do without an external source.

Yes, this is where we differ. I believe that someone born and left in the wilderness without any human contact for 20 years would have a different understanding of empathy, compassion, caring and love for one another if they even have those understandings. And, I believe that if 10 people were left in 10 different wildernesses all over the world for 20 years without human contact, they would have 10 different understandings of those traits, if they even have any understanding. However, if all of them were left with one source of explanations, then they would not only have an understanding of all those traits, they would have a single general understanding.

 

That is the point of using god as the source for the oath and law.

 

Barry

[gumbymaster 98]

I'm going to take Gumbymaster at his word in that he is sincerely trying to understand.

 

Religion is a jigsaw puzzle with half of the pieces missing.  I don't claim to have all the pieces of the puzzle, and I don't claim to be able to see the whole picture, but I am absolutely certain that the pieces I have are true.

 

It is pointless for you to argue to me that any of my puzzle pieces are untrue.

 

It is human nature for people to use their imaginations to fill in the empty spaces in the jigsaw puzzle.  In fact, it takes great patience and discipline to avoid doing so.  

 

If you are interested in the great puzzle, I have a few words of encouragement and advise.

 

Don't remove any pieces from the board.  

 

Don't add any new pieces.

 

Enjoy working the puzzle.  You were never intended to complete it.

I appreciate the response, but I'm not sure how it helps me to understand the position.  If half the pieces of the puzzle are missing, then those are naturally filled in by the individual and/or their religeous leaders.  Which, again makes it potentially subject to interpretation, and not as, pardon the analogy, set in stone.

 

That issue aside, I also fully understand that for an individual, brought up their entire life with a strong religeous background, they will know morality, as passed down by that faith, and understand it to be a solid anchor upon which the laws of man revolve around.

What this does not solve for me, is when a person is of a different faith.  To use your analogy, they are working on a different puzzle, with different pieces in hand and missing.

 

I guess my point of confusion, for the purpose of this topic, is that since they are working different puzzles, they may very well have different anchors in what is morally acceptable, and thus as a non-secular but theistic organization, how do we point to religeon's moral code as being the only acceptable one, when many of those religeons will differ in what is acceptable.

 

Now, it is true that most religeons will have a very similar code, but not an identical one, and each will have their own list of exceptions.  Again, to use an extreme example ...

The commandment is thou shall not kill - most religeons have a similar interpretation, but most also have seeming expections

Thou shall not kill, unless you are a heathan that does not believe in the correct god.

Thou shall not kill, unless so ordered by your king.

Thou shall not kill, unless doing so would prevent a greater violation of the commandments of god.

 

Do not get my position wrong.  I think that the moral code handed down by our religeons is critical to a functioning society.  It creates the framework by which society can adopt the laws of man for everyone.  But I do believe that if a person can morally follow those laws of man, based on the tenants of religeon(s), even if they do not share that religeous belief (or any belief), they can still be moral by following the moral standards of their community.

Edited September 15, 2015 by gumbymaster

[Eagledad 2779]

 

 

Do not get my position wrong.  I think that the moral code handed down by our religeons is critical to a functioning society.  It creates the framework by which society can adopt the laws of man for everyone.  But I do believe that if a person can morally follow those laws of man, based on the tenants of religeon(s), even if they do not share that religeous belief (or any belief), they can still be moral by following the moral standards of their community.

My other post kind of explains my opinion to your question. But sometimes the outcome of two different opinions isn't good. And the Bible refers to that situation for Christians. Goes something like this:

 

1. Believe in God

2. Never Sin

3. Respect other beliefs

4. You might be persecuted for your belief. 

 

Barry

[DuctTape 1230]

Yes, this is where we differ. I believe that someone born and left in the wilderness without any human contact for 20 years would have a different understanding of empathy, compassion, caring and love for one another if they even have those understandings. And, I believe that if 10 people were left in 10 different wildernesses all over the world for 20 years without human contact, they would have 10 different understandings of those traits, if they even have any understanding. However, if all of them were left with one source of explanations, then they would not only have an understanding of all those traits, they would have a single general understanding.

 

That is the point of using god as the source for the oath and law.

 

Barry

Yes we fundamentally disagree. In addition, the alone in the wilderness is a false premise as mammals cannot survive without being reared, thus any conclusion based off your story is not valid. Lastly, even other animals demonstrate actions which could be perceived as showing empathy, compassion etc... I am thinking of elephants and whales. Fascinating creatures. I will not go as far as to say that they have morals as we cannot ask them about their choices. But their behaviors seem to show that actions which appear to follow the same direction as a moral compass. So yes, we do fundamentally disagree. I believe that I and others do have a general understanding of moral principles without them being handed down by a god.

[Stosh 3452]

It's always interesting how we find it so easy to feel our understanding is so much more precise than the next guy's.

 

In World War II we as a nation fought with England and France, but we also fought with Germany and Japan.  Now there's a sentence in pure and simple English that means absolutely nothing unless one knows of alternative sources of information.  And there's the rub.  People who use out-of-context statements end up saying absolutely nothing because in a large number of circumstances their alternative sources of information are from who-knows-where.  

[Stosh 3452]

Those that make up their own moral codes do so based on the preservation of one's own self.  I don't try to kill you if you don't try and kill me, okay?  Now that's part of my moral code.  So as long as I don't do certain things, my survival as an individual will continue.  That's not a valid moral code sufficient for community and civilization.  It works good for that individual, but not the next guy down the road because his survival "code" is different than mine.   His ethics is based on the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest and if I become a threat or a perceived threat, his code would mandate my removal.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Those that make up their own moral codes do so based on the preservation of one's own self.

 

Every single one?  I disagree.  And there are plenty of bad god-based moral codes.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

So I can't use English to determine what an English translation of the 10 Commandments means?

 

Since you're a Hebrew scholar would you mind giving a more literal translation of the 10 Commandments?

 

You can't determine what the original meaning is, no.  And I'm not a Hebrew scholar.

[DuctTape 1230]

The claim that there is either a god inspired moral code or it is based on self-preservation is a false dichotomy. Ones moral code can (and I would argue is) based on that of the communities' interest. It is NOT self-serving, nor based on what is good for the individual, but instead based on serving others and what is best for the society as a whole.

[qwazse 4344]

... His ethics is based on the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest and if I become a threat or a perceived threat, his code would mandate my removal. ...

That would be a terribly bad read of natural selection and game theory. Such a miscalculation led the Axis nations (and many subsequent modern tyrants) into folly.

There are selective advantages to a species maintaining some individuals as menaces and only taking punitive or remedial action after a first strike.

[Peregrinator 85]

You can't determine what the original meaning is, no.  And I'm not a Hebrew scholar.

Then how can you determine what the original meaning is?

[Sentinel947 1205]

Then how can you determine what the original meaning is?

Just read it like the newspaper and strip it of any context that might help make sense of it. 

[walk in the woods 888]

The claim that there is either a god inspired moral code or it is based on self-preservation is a false dichotomy. Ones moral code can (and I would argue is) based on that of the communities' interest. It is NOT self-serving, nor based on what is good for the individual, but instead based on serving others and what is best for the society as a whole.

Not necessarily if your moral code is based on objectivism.  In that case the highest good is the individual happiness and social order is the result of selfishness, no?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Then how can you determine what the original meaning is?

 

By paying attention to people who ARE experts in the language.  How do you determine it?

[Peregrinator 85]

By paying attention to people who ARE experts in the language.  How do you determine it?

By paying attention to people who are experts in the language, but who don't have an axe to grind and so disagree with the experts to whom you pay attention.