Atheist but culturally religious?

Started by jonb, October 05, 2015, 07:27:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

jonb

#30
Looking at primates there are a lot of examples that could be seen as depicting moral codes. Even when males are competing for reproduction most animals have evolved not to kill, which is surprising if you think of how all important to the animal that act is.
We are a pack animal and as such an individual that only pursues self interest would disrupt the pack making it that not only that other members of the pack would loose but the self-motivated individual itself would ultimately loose out. so there might it seems be some ethics which are universal to all beings.
Then there are codes which are particular ways of life and cultures, for instance it would be hard to be a trader if everyone took your property so a group that might rely on traders to bring them goods might feel it is important to them to protect all passing traders.

However a goat herder in Iraq three thousand years ago would not understand evolution and in trying to codify  ethics would attribute them to quite the wrong thing. Then as others come along as they do not understand the basis of that code will make errors and wrong attributions which might well twist natural human ethics into something very distasteful.

Getting rid of the concept of gawd means we have also disposed of the twisted thinking that came with it. The clarity of that vision could enable us to differentiate what is universal to us and what is expedient to varying situations. True a lot of what we come up with as westerners will seem quite like christard ethics, but it would be built on a firmer truer base and better able to evolve to meet the needs of humanity.

Quote from: Baruch on October 05, 2015, 07:25:02 PM
Atheism wrapped in revolutionary politics, was once a very particular "should" with specific characteristics.  Fortunately that particular ideology has receded.  Today atheism does seem individualist and libertarian ... not something tolerated in those other political systems.

An ethics built up from libertarian individuals is about as revolutionary as one could get! When opposed to the top down ethics we have to a large part inherited.

Baruch

#31
Quote from: stromboli on October 05, 2015, 01:44:57 PM
1. Ethics is moral social behavior. Atheism is disbelief in god. Moral social behavior comes from a commonality of agreed upon ideas concerning human social behavior. Atheism is lack of belief. Belief is not the same as behavior.

2. Secular versus religious is a dividing point between the two in terms of, for instance, the constitutional separation of church and state. We already have a concept of secularism in that respect- not praying in schools, posting the 10 commandments outside the court, etc.

3. You are also equating culture with religion. Granted that the two are often intermingled, but by definition they don't have to be. And culture as the foundation of ethics depends on the culture. You can argue that aspect ad infinitum, which is what will probably happen with this thread. If in terms of applicable ethics, the extremes being witch burnings and stoning adulterers versus merely condemning those actions verbally, you will never come to a consensus because every separate aspect will vary with different cultures.

Maybe part of Jonb's problem ... is that in a secular society, or in one that has a clear separation between private religion and public behavior (including politics) what you are saying, does fit well.  But if you are not secular (and I consider a monarchy to be non-secular ... it is a divine right situation) or if religion is entangled at the public level vs the private level (say in a theocracy) then what you are saying doesn't make sense, the models are incommensurate.

Jonb - to me, to be British is to believe really strongly in some kind of moderate monarchy ... a kind of extended family that is different from the American, in that America is less a family and more an autocracy ... because while both Brits and Americans center their "social contract" per Hobbes, on the national executive, ours is elective and non-hereditary (mostly).  Technically, the powers of Parliament and the rights of the people, derive by lèse-majesté ... they are acting as delegates of the royal sovereignty, who originally is a delegate of the Christian or Pagan god ... however much they may spar amongst themselves.  Like the Commonwealth of Cromwell ... America is a military encampment with a temporary Commander in Chief.  We must always have another Ireland to massacre and a Scotland to beat down.  A very good historian has noted this continuity ... but of course there can't be any immense rope of unconscious binding that ties diverse people in space and time together ... are we not autonomous?  Like Ms Thatcher said ... there is no such thing as society.

Also, I edited my response from lunch time.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

jonb

QuoteMaybe part of Jonb's problem ... is that in a secular society, or in one that has a clear separation between private religion and public behavior (including politics) what you are saying, does fit well.  But if you are not secular (and I consider a monarchy to be non-secular ... it is a divine right situation) or if religion is entangled at the public level vs the private level (say in a theocracy) then what you are saying doesn't make sense, the models are incommensurate.

Jonb - to me, to be British is to believe really strongly in some kind of moderate monarchy ... a kind of extended family that is different from the American, in that America is less a family and more an autocracy ... because while both Brits and Americans center their "social contract" per Hobbes, on the national executive, ours is elective and non-hereditary (mostly).  Technically, the powers of Parliament and the rights of the people, derive by lèse-majesté ... they are acting as delegates of the royal sovereignty, who originally is a delegate of the Christian or Pagan god ... however much they may spar amongst themselves.  Like the Commonwealth of Cromwell ... America is a military encampment with a temporary Commander in Chief.  We must always have another Ireland to massacre and a Scotland to beat down.  A very good historian has noted this continuity ... but of course there can't be any immense rope of unconscious binding that ties diverse people in space and time together ... are we not autonomous?  Like Ms Thatcher said ... there is no such thing as society.

If that is what British is I am not British. This is an important point. You have modelled ethics from top down systems. Men in charge dictating the moral standards of society. The pope may rant all he likes the condom is popular even in Ireland. I am not interested in world leaders my personal opinion of them is that their actions and what they say is totally restricted by their desire for power. No I am talking to individuals on this forum we actually have the power to think for ourselves and put our thoughts into action, just like the people of Ireland.
Culture is created bottom up.

Baruch

Yes, but bottom up is gauche and maybe socialist ... the horror!  America has spent the last 200 years suffering from English royalty envy.  Do you think there is a vaccine for this?  Well maybe the Kennedy family.  The Bush family is like Caesar discovering Cleopatra ... their model of a comfortable living is based on visits to Riyadh, not the Court of St James (Joe Kennedy was US ambassador to GB early in WW II).

Well politically,  it is hard to get people to boycott (cost of water in Ireland), unless they are very Irish-American.  Most Americans identify with the oppressors.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/water-charges-ireland-cause-protests
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

jonb

It is in the nature of empires that they draw power to the centre. So to control them it becomes ever more important for those that wish for power to talk to those with power.
I heard on the BBC that the average American congressman now spends 62% of their time raising money to be re-elected. The British politicians do not have to do this as they are almost entirely of the moneyed class anyway.
This naturally means that as empires progress they loose contact with the general population and come to a point where as they are providing nothing for the population they become irrelevant.
For all the fine words people invariably choose to back their own self interest.
The Roman empire fell because the emperor could no longer provide bread. The British gained control in India because they could provide more to the Indians than the Moguls.
The Austrian and British empires dissolved because they could no longer provide any benefits to their territories.
And the same was true of the soviet empire.

This is just the natural way of things, foundations are all important once the top looses contact with the base the structure topples however impressive it might seem to be.

Baruch

But what glorious history these bubbles of political power provide!  And don't forget, guard your food chain ... Athens had to have Crimea, and Rome had to have Egypt and Tunisia.  The corporate latifundia in Italy were not all that efficient anyway ... the beaten slaves kept having to be replaced.  Unlike the US South, they didn't have a cotton gin to save them.

The American Senate is almost completely made up of millionaires.  Appropriate for something called a Republic.  Think of the American House as a grooming zone for future Senators, and as a convenient low-hand distraction for what the high-hand is doing ... hence the comical behavior ... except I am not laughing ;-(  It all comes down to marginal exploitation ... once it costs more to get the next BTU than it can sell for, the writing is on the wall, hence the world economy since 1974.  The end only comes when it takes more than a BTU to get a BTU ... and this applied to both slaves and petroleum.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

jonb

I am mostly in agreement, but the bank might still have some monies when the run on the bank starts. The end can come not just at the actual financial point, but when it is perceived as likely to come, and that perception could even be false.
Structures are not only vulnerable to actual threats, but even in some circumstances the perception of threats.

Baruch

Of course .. the whole world economy is political, not lawful ... the laws of economics are whatever the politicians say they are.  And the arc of history of political-economy is just a Tulip Mania/Mississippi Company/South Sea Company con game.  Every economist since before Adam Smith, is just another John Law (who invented fiat money) ... and Casanova (who invented the lottery).

Of course there can't be a run on the bank ... look at Zimbabwe ... it is easy to have billions of dollars right in your wallet, if the government is willing to feed the illusion to the bitter end.  And with it all going digital, there is no need to even print the money.  Assignat anyone?  Just keep out of the way of Robespierre.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

jonb

And there is the crux, the only legitimacy comes from the base.

Thus even though the people will naturally have a broad and differing set of views it is only their collective view that could legitimise what rules them.

So back to the OP atheists might have a broad set of views some of which will conflict but the ethics they hold to should come from them to have any legitimacy.

That is why I think we have to scrutinise what are our ethics.

Mike Cl

Quote from: jonb on October 06, 2015, 03:36:33 PM
And there is the crux, the only legitimacy comes from the base.

Thus even though the people will naturally have a broad and differing set of views it is only their collective view that could legitimise what rules them.

So back to the OP atheists might have a broad set of views some of which will conflict but the ethics they hold to should come from them to have any legitimacy.

That is why I think we have to scrutinise what are our ethics.
Round and round we go.........................
You state................."only their collective view that could legitimize what rules them."  I agree.  The base.  And the base includes theists, atheists and all the rest.  The broad norms are set by the majority.  Atheists are nowhere near the majority.  So, when you say, "That is why I think we have to scrutinise what are our ethics.", I suggest there is no "our" to scrutinize.  Each atheist is different in his or her ethical views.  You may say that you mean just atheists.  Okay, how would you suggest you get all atheists into one room or under one banner?  I don't see it happening.

I do think it would be helpful for everybody to try to figure out what their own ethics are and from where those ethics come from.  But that would be for everybody--atheist, theist and all in between.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

One strong multicultural problem.  And it isn't tacos or chop suey .. both of which are actually American.  People need to agree on basic ethics, in order to form community.  A strong difference on basic ethics, and you can't form any community.  A community can even have more than one language, provided that most people in it are multilingual.  But if you think it is OK to cut out the heart of a living human at the top of your Aztec temple, and I don't think it is OK ... then we are going to have irreconcilable differences.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Baruch on October 06, 2015, 07:25:50 PM
One strong multicultural problem.  And it isn't tacos or chop suey .. both of which are actually American.  People need to agree on basic ethics, in order to form community.  A strong difference on basic ethics, and you can't form any community.  A community can even have more than one language, provided that most people in it are multilingual.  But if you think it is OK to cut out the heart of a living human at the top of your Aztec temple, and I don't think it is OK ... then we are going to have irreconcilable differences.

You can still have many religions as long as religion is practiced within the confine of 4 walls, and outside of those walls, it's secularism for all.

Baruch

So we can sacrifice people, provided it is a domestic practice?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: jonb on October 05, 2015, 07:27:28 AM
In truth I get disappointed with many atheists.

OK so many people find gawd is a silly idea, but then seem content not to think through what rejecting that doctrine means.

They seem content once gawd is rejected to not question the morality that came with that notion, so essentially live lives driven by the same ethical and moral doctrines as the religious.

When reading many things written by atheists I am reminded of the end of 'Animal Farm'
― George Orwell

Are there others like me who feel it is useless incessantly quoting the bable to prove how superior a person is, but maybe to start thinking what it means to be atheist and what sort of culture this idea could produce, or am I on my own?


Societies around the world have had morality, some long before Christianity. This shows that either each god provides morality to his people, or that morality isn't the exclusive purview of religion, and that, in point of fact, we are frequently moral despite being religious.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Mike Cl

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 07, 2015, 01:57:41 PM
Societies around the world have had morality, some long before Christianity. This shows that either each god provides morality to his people, or that morality isn't the exclusive purview of religion, and that, in point of fact, we are frequently moral despite being religious.
Yes, we are moral despite being religious. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?