not at all. I haven't made any claim as to how things "had to be". I was just noting how things have actually been when I said there wasn't a purely "secular morality", a phrase that was used by someone else earlier. I was also quite clear that I personally believe there has been great benefit towards our morality from non-religious sources, so I wouldn't call our morality completely religious either. I could see a person claiming secular moral benefits arose from the primordial soup of religious or superstitious people, but that is not very defensible to me. If someone claimed some mystical statement about "all good things coming from god," I may personally agree, but I would definitely not get into a debate pretending I could prove it somehow. maybe when you do "good" you are just being a functional primate, and your instincts are not impaired. That is certainly no more moral than doing good because god commanded it. At least following a command implies a personal choice that instinct does not. Even low level morality implies more morality than behavior that is merely instinctual. I am highly skeptical that we should call instinctual behavior, morally "good". Being a functional primate should maybe be called "neutral". What makes a functional primate more "good" than a functional lion, that separates the weak young from the herd and kills it? A lack of personal responsibility seems inherent in behaviorist and mechanistic ideology. I am not sure where we find the proof of the psychological and philosophical idea that we should call moral goodness. I certainly don't think it is just about having proper instincts, nor is it about, "I MUST do this because the most powerful being told me to."
But as I pointed out morality motivated by a sense of empathy and community IS secular morality. It is the guidance of ethical behavior without reference to religious factors such as obedience to a god or to a higher authority (shaman, church, etc) or fear of punishment. Why are you insisting still on a morality of command--of religious morality--when I just showed you how our moral consciousness evolved in the early stages of evolution prior to the birth of religions? The capacity for empathy comes out of self-awareness, a particular ability to project into others our own feelings and intentions. Whether it is based on instinct or not, it's pretty clear this capacity evolved from primates and is the basis for our moral sense. Maybe YOU think it is a low level of morality, but you'd be hard pressed to find any more noble motivation for doing good than out of compassion and loyalty to communal interests. You really think doing good because you are commanded to is a higher form of morality than compassion? I don't see instinctual goodness as a problem. Mothers will instinctively defend their children to the death. A man will risk life and limb to save his beloved. A youth will bravely fight to defend his family's honor. Who are you to dismiss such deeply felt and hardwired drives toward altruistic action? Do you think that morality just appeared one day out of a vaccum sui generis and that it didn't develop in us like every other behavioral trait has? You should study some evolutionary psychology sometime. Our consciousness and humanity is tied directly to ancient instincts and emotions that go back all the way to primates. "Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man." — Charles Darwin
Because the derivation of these concepts is consistent with the definition below. There is no rational expectation for these conditions outside of an imaginary context established through the subjective experience of Buddhist practitioners.
To answer to Syne's original post, the concept in question has value as it allows us to make sense of the world we find ourselves in. It bridges paradoxes that would be impossible to cross otherwise. It makes peace between logic and intuition- natural dualities present in everyone's mind. More recently it teaches us about value of love and free will, gives purpose to meaning and reminds us of what we're doing and why. Arguably, it is the single most important aspect of our lives we get to contemplate.
What sense does it make of the world? I think things make more sense without a god, due to the problem of evil. A world with a god would make no sense, why is there disease, natural disaster, all kind of human tragedy even among the religious?
No, I specifically made the point that the concept of god in Buddhism is not mythical. You have completely failed to show otherwise, and failed to answer the question. Again, you are conflating the concept of god with religion. You have yet to give any reason to justify such a conflation. And until you manage to, using one to infer things of the other is unwarranted. Again, you are conflating the two. It is not the simple belief in the existence of a god that governs a believer's actions. It is the specific attribution to that god some sort of edicts, whether through scripture or revelation. The confusion, I assure you, is all yours. I never argued that "unlike human experience...produce like behaviors", so I have no idea why you are asking that. You do not seem to be making any coherent argument at all here. Again, who are you talking to? What "particular belief system" do you imagine I am arguing the benefits of? And again, you have not said anything to justify your continued conflation of a concept of god with religion (the latter being the only actual source of any atrocities, granted you do not assume the actual existence of a god).
The problem of evil has been fully addressed, almost ad nauseam, but then the OP did not assume the actual existence of a god, so this is a moot argument anyway.
Although mythical would generally apply in these matters, my original assertion was that gods, religion, and concepts thereof were mystical in nature, not mythical. Here’s a list of relevant terms and definitions Using your statements and the terms above, my take on your premise is that an imagined process(concept) of accountability represented by mystical entities (gods, your example) or mystical processes (samsara, karma and nirvana, my example) are influential in (govern) the exercise of an affected conscience. Further, this stated condition when in operation is by definition synonymous with religion. But the mystical concepts of Buddhism are analogous to the mystical qualities of gods. Like I stated earlier, by definition an operational concept of god is synonymous with religion.. Whatever the degree of receptivity, a corresponding influence will result from belief in mystical processes. I gave you a simple straightforward interpretation of moral relativism. In fact it’s the only valid interpretation of morality that can be reasonably demonstrated. I get the impression that you might disagree. Examining god as an abstract concept is not religion, incorporating imagined gods and godlike process into operational systems of moral regulation is. If a concept of god holds that a monthly human sacrifice is necessary to maintain order in the universe, when that concept goes into practice it becomes religion. Now I don’t believe you would argue for such a concept, but such concepts have historically gone into practice.
Can you tell me how believing in a magical all-knowing being who behaves exactly as if he doesn't exist, who allows suffering and misery and tragedy to plague our everyday lives even though he could prevent it, and who will eventually torture non-believers in hell forever, teaches us one thing about the value of love and free will? To me the value of love and free will is best learned by exercising those virtues in our lives. The concept of God adds nothing at all to this knowledge.
once again i am not saying without religion there can be no morality, morality is not the result of one or the other, secular or non-secular humanity. You need to provide the example of our current society as it would be without religious underpinnings, if you want to show your point, or stick to animals that have no religious sociological leanings historically. And don't go back to pre-history and talk about their philosophy that we can only speculate about. If you want to say morality isn't philosophy but is only biology intellectualized, then i would ask again for you to tell me the difference between the biology of animals and the morality of humans. If you think there is one. I claim that morality involves choice. no you have a reference to an instinctual survival mechanism of primates. Again, i have to ask why a person should consider bonobos morally "good", and non-pack animals as morally "bad". Or if not, why not? Some people are glad to point out the grey areas in religious thought - "how can someone be doing something good when they are commanded by a god to do it?", but they won't ask the same question of themselves i.e. - "how can someone be doing something good when they are commanded by a gene to do it?" i think choice is higher than biology. if you choose compassion it is higher than being forced biologically to have compassion. If it is some biological deficiency that causes your lack of compassion, who is responsible? This mechanistic ideology sets us up for a regression. some non-primate mothers instinctively kill children. some instinctively abandon them. Again, please answer the question about what would make a morally "good" animal before we continue. if these things are so clear, why do some people claim religion caused problems, when it was really only deficient or un-evolved biology that resulted in a lack of compassion? where is the logic or rationality in that?
I see. So morality involves a choice but at the same time has to be commanded by higher authorities with threat of punishment to enforce it? That doesn't sound like choice to me. Choice comes when you have a sense empathy for your fellowman--a capacity that evolved from our social evolution as primates--and then out of that motivation to choose to help them because you identify with their needs. God has nothing to do with that. Philosophy has nothing to do with that. As for evidence for the evolution of morality in our species, go back to that article I posted demonstrating altruistic behavior in apes and monkeys. Did you even read it? You act like you didn't. It clearly showed that our moral instinct evolved from a much earlier stage of our evolution before there was anything like philosophy or language or laws. If you need more evidence I'll be glad to post. See bottom of this post. As for modern examples of people taking moral action, the world is full of these. Helping other people thru charity and volunteer work. Relief efforts for wartorn or disaster-stricken countries. Where is there NOT evidence for the moral instinct to help your fellowman without recourse to commandments from God? I never asserted such a thing. You did. In fact some species have moral instincts while others are amoral. Lizards are pretty amoral. They do whatever the hell they want without much consideration for their fellow lizards. We don't call them immoral. We call them amoral. See the difference? No gene forces you to do moral things. Rather it is the capacity for compassion and empathy that is genetically hardwired in us. Out of that inherent sense of commonality--we make the choice to act. We can certainly choose not to act. Many do as it may conflict with their other drive for ego fulfillment. But whatever the case may be, we are wired for making moral decisions. Sometimes that wiring goes bad, as in the case of sociopaths who have no ability to empathize. This in itself should prove that empathy is directly related to the structure and biochemical composition of our brains. It's not something you can teach or learn from reading a philosophy book or a bible. Noone chooses to have compassion. They either do or they don't. And then they can choose to act or not act according to that inherent sense of bonding. It doesn't invalidate morality that it is based on primal needs for love and nuturing and altruistic urges. It's just who we are. And unless we are sociopaths, there really is nothing else to be. An animal driven by instinct to kill its young is not committing an immoral act because it has no morality in place to act from. It is an amoral creature. Only with species which have evolved in social structures where group solidarity and cooperation and altruism advanced their own survival do we approach something like "good behavior." Look at dogs. Dog owners know from experience that dogs have their own moral sense and loyality that often puts our own morality to shame. Do you think these dogs learned this all from the teachings of some religion or from belief in some Dog God? Ofcourse not. We see in animals the same emotions and altruistic drives that we ourselves also evolved. That is abundant evidence for the evolution and biological basis of human morality. Like I said, people can still make choices based on their own evolved emotions. The fact that certain ideologies have historically arisen, for example bigotry and religious intolerance, that misguide those choices with false concepts and ignorance doesn't invalidate the biological capacity for empathy we all have within us. Hatred, in my view, IS something we have to be taught, basing itself on the other instinct of fear of differences in others. Religion is imo a big cause for this kind of hatred in our society. But much less so than in ancient times as more and more people rid themselves of false notions of demons and sinners and a damning God. Sociopaths have distinct brain structure, study finds http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/psychopath-brain-structure-_n_1497753.html Empathy and the Brain http://www.parentingscience.com/empathy-and-the-brain.html
That is your assumption. I would strongly argue against such assumption. Another assumption. I have no trouble understanding why you would not believe in such a deity. Neither would I. It’s preposterous. The beauty of the concept is that not believing in love or free will won’t prevent you from discovering them, just as a lack of belief in gravity won’t prevent you from tripping. Instead of being logical improbabilities, with a deity, they have a grounded source- the reason for being just the way they are.
Right..Love and freewill occur totally independently from a belief in a God, thus invalidating your assertion that belief in God "teaches" us something about them. Thanks for confirming that.
i am not the fundamentalist on this thread. The people who refuse to see the grey areas in their own ideology are the fundamentalists.
i specifically said morality can have components of secular thought and non-secular. You are the fundamentalist here, not me. The chemicals in your brain are far more powerful than a threat of punishment could be to control you. People here should know enough about biology not to even need a reference for that. You can't even admit that choice is being limited or directed in both versions of events (whether genetically or by an authority). Nor admit that we don't have a secular morality or a religious morality, but rather a mix. Unless you want to claim all the way mechanistic, i.e that we have no will and are just machines playing out the gene pool. That is a valid ideology, and is where this biology thing leads logically, but sad. Unless you allow for philosophy. no, it comes when you have agency. i am with Nietzsche on this whole "using someone's commandments as morality" thing. Hate it. My point is that a morality of genes and a morality of command are both less than a higher morality. If you have recourse to say, "my mom didn't give me enough compassion genes to care about helping you", we have a similar lack of responsibility to that of the stringent follower of authority. Edit - the following is a quote that I am bringing in to the discussion to see how closely your idea matches up with the ideas wright seems to represent, or to see how it differs If our morality is just genetic self-interest, so is the lizard's lack of it. How is your theory of amoral lizards going to deal with that? I mean there has to be more to morality, or we can just drop the "morally good" and call it "biologically good", and shave off the excess. That is what you recommend to religious people every day anyway, to shave off the meta-explanations, so let's not be hypocritical. I definitely know the difference between amoral and immoral. You are the one who is calling some other species of animals moral, not me. No, no, no. How do you decide which species is moral and which amoral? Please explain why a spider monkey is more morally "good" than a lion, because they have more "compassion" (supposedly), and then explain why a lion is more morally good than a snake. I think you may start to see the problem i am referring to. aaand here comes the problem bam i am not saying it isn't ALSO biology - it is biology plus something else we humans have, i.e. conscious responsibility for our agency. Or do you agree with this "But Mr. Wright's main lesson comes from the very fact that morality is an adaptation designed to maximize genetic self-interest"? Is morality genetic self-interest? if so, why is our genetic self-interest a higher principle than the lizard's. Why add the word "moral" to the discussion of genetic self-interest. human morality or simply genetic self- interest? believe me i am not talking about animals to call them immoral, no no no. They are amoral, acting only in genetic self-interest. Are we doing that plus something else or not? So where is the line drawn? Between a sociopath with moral agency and a psychopath with no moral agency, it seems only slightly difficult to render a verdict of "amoral or immoral", but which sociopaths have agency? All, some, none? Is morality only a concern for people with certain genes who do the wrong thing?
Sorry, unintentional typo. Nowhere have I said anything about the concept itself being a "process of accountability", nor have I assumed an existing god, nor even a "mystical" concept of one. And I have repeatedly differentiated between a concept of god and religion. Statement, not an argument. If an "operational concept of god" is one that "governs" conscience then this is a strawman argument. But I have not asserted any "mystical processes", nor an existing god in which to have belief. So...another strawman. Interpretation of morality? That would seem to be the crux of moral relativism (all just interpretation), but I think that says more about those who espouse it than about morality in general. I still fail to see what point you may be trying to make. I have not asserted anything about "moral regulation" other than making the factual observation that moral relativists tend to ascribe to no concept of god. The OP is about conscience, which only informs morals. Again, these terms are not synonymous. I have argued no practice or operational system of any sort. This has quickly become repetitive and unproductive.
Brain structure has not proven to be the causative factor, especially considering the discoveries of neuroplasticity. With the help and encouragement of the Dalai Lama, Davidson recruited Buddhist monks to go to Madison and meditate inside his functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) tube while he measured their brain activity during various mental states. ... More interesting were the differences between the so-called adepts and the novices. In the former, there was significantly greater activation in a brain network linked to empathy and maternal love. Connections from the frontal regions, so active during compassion meditation, to the brain's emotional regions seemed to become stronger with more years of meditation practice, as if the brain had forged more robust connections between thinking and feeling. - http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580438,00.html If you wish to claim that the brain makes choices that change its own physical structure, then you have succumb to circular reasoning, without any explanatory power at all.
