For years I, and others, have argued that morality and more importantly, Conscience, are inextricably interlinked. In these arguments we are told that secular humanism can supply the same morals that religion does....which I and others agree with....to a degree.

In really delving into the ramifications of all these arguments though, I have always felt the pieces missing to the debate and have been unable to quantify just why.

A few months ago I stumbled on something and it is this.

Why not, as is so often done, turn their arguments back upon those who do the same to us....with such telling results, in some circumstances.

I continued to consider this and came to the conclusion that I just wanted T i t for tat, and that is no argument what-so-ever. It is specious sophistry at the very best.

Sophistry.... !!WHAM!!.... Holy Hannah!! that's IT!

Sophistry comes from the NAME, Sophocles, another great Philosopher, do the research and then refute it using their own presentations.

How to do that honestly....honesty being of paramount importance in any debate, or argument, as the logical fallacies that are perhaps introduced by yourself, will utterly defeat your own presentation.

So first, let us begin with,

SOCRATES; He posited that the knowledge of right and wrong, is what makes us accountable for our actions. Conversely, he posits that moral faults are the consequence of ignorance of the "Good".

PLATO; Also subscribed to this as well, in as much as he surmised that whoever knows the "good".... will do it!

This is, pointedly, the projection of their own goodness onto humanity in general, and palpably, factually and provably, FALSE.

ARISTOTLE; He posited that morality could not stem from this and pointed to another analysis in his refutation of their premise and and gave his own presentation of this logical fallacy.

Aristotelian Philosophy being some what more logical in presentation, and fact, does come closer to the mark, in that he posited that this was, by simple observation, wrong. As those so instructed still chose to do wrong!

He surmised that there were four basic divisions of morality and they were constructed as follows. Virtuous, restrained....unrestrained and vicious....in descending order.

VIRTUOUS; Those who do good spontaneously and happily.

RESTRAINED; Those who do good, but only after much huffing and puffing, strutting and posing. In short, internal argument with their conscience.

UNRESTRAINED; These are the ones who know what they should do but give in to their passions and weakness and do wrong, with very little conscious conflict.

VICIOUS; Those who, when confronted with a choice, will do evil with absolutely no internal conflict with conscience, felt or even experienced!

His presentation of these four "groups," broken down as it is, and then condensed to two categories, lays itself open to defeat seriatum, because any argument from the general to the specific, fails because there are ALWAYS exceptions to the general presentation. which leads to defeat seriatum...(in detail)

Now let us examine this further.

In his presentation we can see the progression of the classes with this simple example.

Your mother calls down to you and asks you to bring her, her purse. It is to be found on the kitchen counter and her wallet is beside it. You put the wallet in it and bring it to her.
VIRTUOUS; He will go and bring her the purse with no second thoughts.

RESTRAINED; He will see the wallet and know it has money in it looks inside and, the conflict begins! How much can he get away with? Any? Some? ALL!? And around, and around, he goes until finally.... he puts the money back, puts the wallet in the purse and brings it to her.

UNRESTRAINED; the same argument occurs as above BUT! He decides to take a dollar as he surmises she will never miss just a buck for Pete's sake! obviously consumed by his weakness and passions for personal gain at whomever's expense.

VICIOUS; Goes gets the purse,sees the wallet, empties it, throws the wallet in the garbage grinder turns it on, waits a moment shuts it off, and brings her the purse.... wallet? WHAT wallet mom? No internal conflict here! Nope, nu uh, none!

AND NOW TA DA!!; We have good old.....

ROUSSEAU; He's the one who came up with the good old "Bon Suavage". In this treatise he posits that it is only by association in, and with, society in general we lose our sense of "goodness"

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is self contradictory, as it belies the FACT that it is that same society that GIVES us religion and morality concepts of the day, and time, and culture we live in!! Talk about a logical fallacy!!

When Capt. Cook was EATEN in Hawaii was that the example of Le Bon Suavage?

When James Town was wiped out, OR The people on Roanoke disappeared, another example of Le Bon Suavage? Dearborn in Illinois, Another?

Well THIS could be given as the evolutionary bon sauvage but certainly NOT the religious example of conscience.

Now let us move into the area of Religious morals and secular, humanistic moral relativism.

In religious morals, some things are always good and some things are always wrong. It is in life that the application becomes difficult, as then we have to deal with realities and the consequence to others feelings, actions, reception of our choices, and the consequences to them if what we, or they, did was illegal and now they, or us, may have to face punishment.

It is important to note here, that so far, I have not used the word "sin" or "sinful". In my mind they are, rightfully, able to be juxtaposed, one with another at any time. I don't like to use the word "sin" as it is a "trigger word" to many and especially Atheists...or Humanists and they stop listening, or thinking, when they hear them. For which, really, they can't be blamed. The same way the religious react when we are called, superstitious congenital idiots!

Kinda self defeating, trying to communicate with people that way... ain't it!?

LAW...Secular Humanism and Moral Relativism ;

Secular Humanism assumes that human beings can, with no guidance from any supreme being, create laws that will guide us the same way.

They also assume that these self same "laws" will form the "New Human Conscience" for the future. They then tell us in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THEY WILL BROOK NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS "TRUTH"......You can not legislate morals!!!

WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY!?!

BZZZZ...BZZZZ.....BZZZZTTT LOGICAL FALLACY... LOGICAL FALLACY.... LOGICAL FALLACY!!

If morals can not be legislated, then just what the hell are you doing????

Can you legislate a conscience? Can you legislate right and wrong feelings? Can you legislate things that are free of black and white and apply this morality where none ever have attempted to be so arrogant?? Or... been successful at before in all of human history?

In your world of "moral relativism" we know damned well what the results are! We see them every flipping day! Children murdered by their parents and others and their killers given a pass, sometimes set free, Why? Because they were found not responsible. People being murdered in our streets and those responsible are made victims, because their mom's took away their tinker toys when they were twelve, or some other such CRAP!

Or the ones who chop up their families with an axe and they have the excuse that they were abused! THIS is what moral relativism brings us, all this and more.

The bottom line? Well, maybe they won't hold me accountable someday either! Despite the rhetoric and Bullfeathers and purposeful ambiguity, it is really THAT simple! THAT is what people use.... to allow this CRAP to become embedded in their lives and society.

Because people are no longer struggling with their conscience.... THEY DON'T HAVE ONE!! It has been nearly legislated away....Why? Well ya see it's like this, cultural relativism teaches us that in our culture others may find our beliefs wrong...and that is so...but then we are to take into account those people in our laws and then try and craft a society from the result? GOOD LUCK! HOW'S THAT WORKIN' FOR YA SO FAR?

O.K. Since we have been the single most successful nation to ever grace the earth and are the ones that are always counted on to bring succor to the suffering, freedom to the oppressed, and all those other things that have been demanded of us by the Europeans, and others, when, and where, did we become so frigging EVIL!!

I would suggest to you it began in the early sixties when the intelligentsia finally gave custody of the asylums, schools and other institutions, over to the insane...or at least the young, with skulls full of mush, who didn't KNOW didlly squat and because they hit people in their liberal guilt, they were successful in doing so!

So inform us please, Oh Great Ones, just WHAT are we to replace a well formed fully functioning and well integrated conscience.... WITH!

Because here's the rub...where does conscience come from? Are you going to tell me it just evolved? Well then where did it devolve.. to... in just the last thirty five years!? I mean come ON...if it evolved, then we took millions of years to do so...right? Or as we see now, some in their desparation to remove belief in some supreme being are running shows AD NAUSEUM ALL OVER TELEVISION THAT [I]ALIENS Are responsible for all our gains as human beings and our "legends of Gods".

I see this as being more desperate than a horni sailor after closing time in a bar! You expect to bring this as your argument now!?! O.K. give it a shot....you will probably be just as successful as you have been trying to eradicate religion in the past.

Your offerings and arguments have fallen far short of the mark....just sayin'

T

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tawodi,

You've made some wrong turns in your reasoning and come to some mistaken conclusions, based on faulty premises. To discuss them will require some time but, it being Sunday morning and I not being one of those nasty anti-religion atheists, I need to get ready to go sing in the church choir I look forward to debating this later.

As I get older (I'm 60 years old now and hope for another 20 - 25 years), I find myself, sadly, more inclined to accept English philosopher Thomas Hobbs' view of man.

Paraphrased, Hobbs felt this:

Man is inherently selfish and does “good” or “evil” not based of conscience or lack of conscience but rather on “What’s in it for me?”

People do not do “good” because they wish to do “good” or because their conscience tells them to do “good”– they do “good” because it bolsters their self-image or because it will make others feel better about them or their religious faith has taught them that if they do “good” they will benefit from it in the afterlife.

If, for example, I have a loaf of bread and I encounter a starving person, I might give them the loaf of bread not because it’s a “good” thing to do but because, in doing so, I’ll feel good about myself, or someone else seeing me give the person the bread will feel good about me and treat me better, or because I believe I will get a better place in heaven when I die, or because I believe I will be reincarnated to a higher form in my next life.

If, on the other hand, I am starving and another person is starving and there is only one loaf of bread, taking it and eating all of it myself and giving the other starving person none isn’t “evil” – my needs are just more important than the other person’s needs.

Corollary:

The primary reason for government and laws is to protect ourselves from each other’s selfishness.

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:
As I get older (I'm 60 years old now and hope for another 20 - 25 years), I find myself, sadly, more inclined to accept English philosopher Thomas Hobbs' view of man.

Paraphrased, Hobbs felt this:

Man is inherently selfish and does “good” or “evil” not based of conscience or lack of conscience but rather on “What’s in it for me?”

People do not do “good” because they wish to do “good” or because their conscience tells them to do “good”– they do “good” because it bolsters their self-image or because it will make others feel better about them or their religious faith has taught them that if they do “good” they will benefit from it in the afterlife.

If, for example, I have a loaf of bread and I encounter a starving person, I might give them the loaf of bread not because it’s a “good” thing to do but because, in doing so, I’ll feel good about myself, or someone else seeing me give the person the bread will feel good about me and treat me better, or because I believe I will get a better place in heaven when I die, or because I believe I will be reincarnated to a higher form in my next life.

If, on the other hand, I am starving and another person is starving and there is only one loaf of bread, taking it and eating all of it myself and giving the other starving person none isn’t “evil” – my needs are just more important than the other person’s needs.

Corollary:

The primary reason for government and laws is to protect ourselves from each other’s selfishness.

Heh! Heh! Heh! What rock do you live under?

Show me anywhere in the Constitution or government documents that "protecting" citizens is a primary function of government. Morality and a "sense" of right or wrong are not legislated.

So the State or Proletariat knows best? How's that working for ya? You give the government the power to dictate morality and you get Germany 1939.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Chukpike,

quote:

If, for example, I have a loaf of bread and I encounter a starving person, I might give them the loaf of bread not because it’s a “good” thing to do but because, in doing so, I’ll feel good about myself, or someone else seeing me give the person the bread will feel good about me and treat me better, or because I believe I will get a better place in heaven when I die, or because I believe I will be reincarnated to a higher form in my next life.

Congratulations!!

You have countered precisely, YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!

Why on earth would you "FEEL" a damned thing, no matter WHAT you did with the bread?

Where DID this little thing called Guilt come from? HMMMM? Let's see...did one of your laws do that?

Guilt comes as an internal construct, when imposed from outside it is meaningless. To do good in your construct is meaningless. Survival is the ONLY consideration allowed in logic. You Chose to call that good. I do not, therefore in the real world since my construct of reality is no more valid than yours we are at an impasse.... speaking logically that is. So. If I see you before you see me and kill you for your bread...that is not worthy of note, sorry about that.

Or..... maybe Obama can get Katy Sebelius to promulgate a regulation for you to have a sense of guilt...... will that work?

Your analysis is incomplete, you have not looked far enough into what I have written, to understand the point just yet.

I am NOT trying to insult you or anyone else by that statement it is simply the truth.

What I wrote here took me YEARS to assimilate, collate and then apply to bring it here.

Why? Well because I couldn't find it stated just this way anywhere else. Everyone seems to just take what they're told and file it as a talking point. Most of what I have presented here is self cancelling, "philosophically speaking," read it again.... the first half any way.

BUCK;

The premises are NOT mine, they are the premises of the greatest philosophers that have ever lived, as you and others keep telling us.

My premise IS where does conscience come from and WHY!

I also AM NOT Referring to Consciousness! Which, as it is accepted now, can be surmised to have begun with the breakdown of the bi-cameral mind of man.

Fair warning.... One man here said years ago, in reference to me. "Any one who can reconcile Nietzche to St Thomas Aquinas has my respect!"

(edited as per supplied by Kim from "vote"!)

He can claim that quote if he chooses to.

Do not confuse apples and oranges.

T

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tawodi,

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
BUCK;

The premises are NOT mine, they are the premises of the greatest philosophers that have ever lived, as you and others keep telling us.

My premise IS where does conscience come from and WHY!

I also AM NOT Referring to Consciousness! Which, as it is accepted now, can be surmised to have begun with the breakdown of the bi-cameral mind of man.

Fair warning.... One man here said years ago, in reference to me. "Any one who can reconcile Nietzche to St Thomas Aquinas has my vote!"

He can claim that quote if he chooses to.

Do not confuse apples and oranges.

T

Actually, I believe I said "...has my respect!", but it still takes some mental gynastics to acomplish that feat!

Can you legislate morality? Well, you can try. It depends on the willingness of not only the citizens to obey the laws but the enforcers of the law well, enforcing. To quote Orson Scott Card in “Enders Game”, “Your commander only has as much power as you let him.” Example- New law, funny hats will be worn every Thursday. Personally, I would follow this law (I like funny hats.) But would police be able to effectively enforce such a law?

I see laws as a general agreement of all members of society, used to keep some type of order. Otherwise everything would break down into anarchy. Do I break laws? PFFT, yes. The ones that make little or no sense. Mainly speed limit violations. 55mph on a freeway? Seriously?

IMO the root of many of the societal ills lies with the lack of accountability. “You smoke 5 packs of cigarettes a day, for 40 years and blame the billboard for giving you lung cancer!” By and large, people are not held accountable for their actions. Hell, I get in trouble if one of my soldiers does something stupid on a weekend. I wasn’t there holding his hand while wrecked his car on the freeway. But somehow I was supposed to prevent it. Real pet peeve of mine.

The excuses rain down. “I was abused.” “The voices told me to do it.” “The other shareholders we’re doing it too.” “Society has marginalized me, so I have to lash out.”

Summation, you cannot create effective laws that dictate a person’s behavior. There must be some sort of framework emplaced for the person to use on the laws. Moral compass, thermometer or whatever you want to call it. Without that, you have an exercise in futility.

quote:

Without that, you have an exercise in futility.

BINGO!

You have nailed it and we have spent almost eighty years trying to erase the educational,societal and moral underpinnings of our people, and this country. Then we wonder why we see what you and I have mentioned and even what we once could have NEVER imagined....I DON'T wonder AT ALL!

Were we always perfect? Of course not!

But the meddling ****wits NEVER should have begun trying to fix what was NOT broken! There were enough faults to change or repair with out THAT!

T

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tawodi,

Hi Kim!!

Is I fired up or WHAT!

It has taken me years, as I said, to present this in a cogent form, I'm glad I got to do it.

For too long we have, all of us, thrown rocks at each other over this subject.

Hopefully this will help come to some sort of conclusion....At least as much as one CAN considering the subject.

Be well friend Bruce

T

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
Hi Kim!!

Is I fired up or WHAT!

It has taken me years, as I said, to present this in a cogent form, I'm glad I got to do it.

I was thinking of asking if you used that as a sermon or such; good form, nice flow!

The flip side is, while I enjoy a good round of philosopical roulette, Philosophy, whether Socratic or otherwise is just another construct attempting to unscrew the inscruitable! Good for passing the time after a collegiate "Puff-n-Pass" contest, or a good round of "Pass-Out".

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:

For too long we have, all of us, thrown rocks at each other over this subject.

Sad, but true!

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:

Hopefully this will help come to some sort of conclusion....At least as much as one CAN considering the subject.

Doubtful, but a good effort!

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:

Be well friend Bruce

T

I'm guessing today is one of the "up" days?

Here's hoping for nothing but!

Yes it was an up day.

I put more on the other thread as it was more appropriate there than here.

Be well friend....Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
For years I, and others, have argued that morality and more importantly, Conscience, are inextricably interlinked. In these arguments we are told that secular humanism can supply the same morals that religion does....which I and others agree with....to a degree.

In really delving into the ramifications of all these arguments though, I have always felt the pieces missing to the debate and have been unable to quantify just why.

A few months ago I stumbled on something and it is this.

Why not, as is so often done, turn their arguments back upon those who do the same to us....with such telling results, in some circumstances.

I continued to consider this and came to the conclusion that I just wanted T i t for tat, and that is no argument what-so-ever. It is specious sophistry at the very best.

Sophistry.... !!WHAM!!.... Holy Hannah!! that's IT!

Sophistry comes from the NAME, Sophocles, another great Philosopher, do the research and then refute it using their own presentations.

How to do that honestly....honesty being of paramount importance in any debate, or argument, as the logical fallacies that are perhaps introduced by yourself, will utterly defeat your own presentation.

So first, let us begin with,

SOCRATES; He posited that the knowledge of right and wrong, is what makes us accountable for our actions. conversely, he posits that moral faults are the consequence of ignorance of the "Good".

PLATO; Also subscribed to this as well, in as much as he surmised that whoever knows the "good".... will do it!

This is, pointedly, the projection of their own goodness onto humanity in general, and palpably, factually and provably, FALSE.

ARISTOTLE; He posited that morality could not stem from this and pointed to another analysis in his refutation their premise and and gave his own presentation of this logical fallacy.

Aristotelian Philosophy being some what more logical in presentation, and fact, does come closer to the mark, in that he posited that this was, by simple observation, wrong As those so instructed still chose to do wrong!

He surmised that there were four basic divisions of morality and they were constructed as follows. Virtuous, restrained....unrestrained and vicious....in descending order.

VIRTUOUS; Those who do good spontaneously and happily.

RESTRAINED; Those who do good, but only after much huffing and puffing, strutting and posing. In short, internal argument with their conscience.

UNRESTRAINED; These are the ones who know what they should do but give in to their passions and weakness and do wrong, with very little conscious conflict.

VICIOUS; Those who, when confronted with a choice, will do evil with absolutely no internal conflict with conscience, felt or even experienced!

His presentation of these four "groups," broken down as it is, and then condensed to two categories, lays itself open to defeat seriatum, because any argument from the general to the specific, fails because there are ALWAYS exceptions to the general presentation. which leads to defeat seriatum...(in detail)

Now let us examine this further.

In his presentation we can see the progression of the classes with this simple example.

Your mother calls down to you and asks you to bring her, her purse. It is to be found on the kitchen counter and her wallet is beside it. You put the wallet in it and bring it to her.
VIRTUOUS; He will go and bring her the purse with no second thoughts.

RESTRAINED; He will see the wallet and know it has money in it looks inside and, the conflict begins! How much can he get away with? Any? Some? ALL!? And around, and around, he goes until finally.... he puts the money back, puts the wallet in the purse and brings it to her.

UNRESTRAINED; the same argument ocures as above BUT! He decides to take a dollar as he surmises she will never miss just a buck for Pete's sake! obviously consumed by his weakness and passions for personal gain at whomever's expense.

VICIOUS; Goes gets the purse,sees the wallet, empties it throws the wallet in the garbage grinder waits a moment and brings her the purse.... wallet? WHAT wallet mom? No internal conflict here! Nope, nu uh, none!

AND NOW TA DA!!; We have good old.....

ROUSEAU; He's the one who came up with the good old "Bon Suavage". In this treatise he posits that it is only by association in, and with, society in general we lose our sense of "goodness"

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is self contradictory, as it belies the FACT that it is that same society that GIVES us religion and morality concepts of the day, and time, and culture we live in!! Talk about a logical fallacy!!

When Capt. Cook was EATEN in Hawaii was that the example of Le Bon Suavage?

When James Town was wiped out, OR The people on Roanoke disappeared, another example of Le Bon Suavage? Dearborn in Illinois, Another?

Well THIS could be given as the evolutionary bon sauvage but certainly NOT the religious example of conscience.

Now let us move into the area of Religious morals and secular, humanistic moral relativism.

In religious morals, some things are always good and some things are always wrong. It is in life that the application becomes difficult, as then we have to deal with realities and the consequence to others feelings, actions, reception of our choices, and the consequences to them if what we, or they, did was illegal and now they, or us, may have to face punishment.

It is important to note here, that so far, I have not used the word "sin" or "sinful". In my mind they are, rightfully, able to be juxtaposed, one with another at any time. I don't like to use the word "sin" as it is a "trigger word" to many and especially Atheists...or Humanists and they stop listening, or thinking, when they hear them. For which, really, they can't be blamed. The same way the religious react when we are called, superstitious congenital idiots!

Kinda self defeating, trying to communicate with people that way... ain't it!?

LAW...Secular Humanism and Moral Relativism ;

Secular Humanism assumes that human beings can, with no guidance from any supreme being, create laws that will guide us the same way.

They also assume that these self same "laws" will form the "New Human Conscience" for the future. They then tell us in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THEY WILL BROOK NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS "TRUTH"......You can not legislate morals!!!

WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY!?!

BZZZZ...BZZZZ.....BZZZZTTT LOGICAL FALLACY... LOGICAL FALLACY.... LOGICAL FALLACY!!

If morals can not be legislated, then just what the hell are you doing????

Can you legislate a conscience? Can you legislate right and wrong feelings? Can you legislate things that are free of black and white and apply this morality where none ever have attempted to be so arrogant?? Or... been successful at before in all of human history?

In your world of "moral relativism" we know damned well what the results are! We see them every flipping day! Children murdered by their parents and others and their killers given a pass, sometimes set free, Why? Because they were found not responsible. People being murdered in our streets and those responsible are made victims, because their mom's took away their tinker toys when they were twelve, or some other such CRAP!

Or the ones who chop up their families with an axe and they have the excuse that they were abused! THIS is what moral relativism brings us, all this and more.

The bottom line? Well, maybe they won't hold me accountable someday either! Despite the rhetoric and Bullfeathers and purposeful ambiguity, it is really THAT simple! THAT is what people use.... to allow this CRAP to become embedded in their lives and society.

Because people are no longer struggling with their conscience.... THEY DON'T HAVE ONE!! It has been nearly legislated away....Why? Well ya see it's like this, cultural relativism teaches us that in our culture others may find our beliefs wrong...and that is so...but then we are to take into account those people in our laws and then try and craft a society from the result? GOOD LUCK! HOW'S THAT WORKIN' FOR YA SO FAR?

O.K. Since we have been the single most successful nation to ever grace the earth and are the ones that are always counted on to bring succor to the suffering, freedom to the oppressed, and all those other things that have been demanded of us by the Europeans, and others, when, and where, did we become so frigging EVIL!!

I would suggest to you it began in the early sixties when the intelligentsia finally gave custody of the asylums, schools and other institutions, over to the insane...or at least the young, with skulls full of mush, who didn't KNOW didlly squat and because they hit people in their liberal guilt, they were successful in doing so!

So inform us please, Oh Great Ones, just WHAT are we to replace a well formed fully functioning and well integrated conscience.... WITH!

Because here's the rub...where does conscience come from? Are you going to tell me it just evolved? Well then where did it devolve.. to... in just the last thirty five years!? I mean come ON...if it evolved, then we took millions of years to do so...right? Or as we see now, some in their desparation to remove belief in some supreme being are running shows AD NAUSEUM ALL OVER TELEVISION THAT [I]ALIENS Are responsible for all our gains as human beings and our "legends of Gods".

I see this as being more desperate than a horni sailor after closing time in a bar! You expect to bring this as your argument now!?! O.K. give it a shot....you will probably be just as successful as you have been trying to eradicate religion in the past.

Your offerings and arguments have fallen far short of the mark....just sayin'

T

First mention - good thread Tawodi...as KJ1110 mentined, I too am hoping for many more of your "up days"

I believe I have understood all of the many facets you have presented but apologize in advance if I fail to address them all in this first response.

I too have often pondered this dilema between secular humanism and people of religion in their understanding and implementations of morality.

You have known me for quite some time now on these threads. We have shared many ideas and we have battled a wee bit toosorry for that.
You have seen me state a few times long ago that "The Conscience is the Science of God".
This new thread of yours has drawn me to elaborate more on this and the subject of good and bad and hopefully explain how we are drawn to both.

The internal battle between ones self is common to all men religious and non-religious.
The morality that is formed is a bi-product of the conscience of the whole society.
Often times we could introduce ourselves as the knower of the way for the good to follow...such as in the "virtuous state".
Other times it could have just been as fitting to say "My name is Legion and we are many"... such as when in the "vicious state".
Inside all of us is both the good and the bad, otherwise there would be no struggle now would there? Sure, some battle more on the right and others more on the wrong, but the point is that we all wrong many times and more often times would fall somewhere in the middle such as the "restrained and unrestrained" states. If those of the secular nature are afraid to recognize the word "sin" as a fitting word, well then screw them,hehh... to me that is just a sign of their insecurity or other times just their attempt to silence any religious tone.
It is a fact that we are all sinners, we are the sons of sinners and our children will sin.
(Seems fitting coming from "LegionSon" hehh?) But, thats ok, it is as intended.
There can not be good without the bad.

Now onto the secular vs. religious understandings of morality.

There are those who will not recognize the contributions to society that religion brings.
They will rely solely on the sciences as the only known truths of the world that surrounds them. These are the secular humanists.
There are those who will not recognize the contributions to society that science brings.
They will rely soley on their religion as the only known truths of the world that surrounds them. These are the extreme religious.
That is not to say that all extremely religious reject the science for as we know most will accept scientific fact and the benefits of such as in the use of medicine and the understanding of the future and history of the world through scientific srudy.

I have a hard time understanding why those who only view the world through secular eyes will on one hand say that the religious should have an open mind and use reason and logic to guide them while at the same time discredit all religions as mere myths and superstitions.
I would ask them to think about it keeping an open mind and to use reason and logic in their answer to a few questions important to mankind that science has yet to prove or discover those things that we know exist and religions have devoted long suffering to understand and put into words so others could comprehend on a human level. Such things as the life force that enters the body, the conscience, the spirit, the love,the compassion, all of the things that can not be seen but are essentials to everyday life. Now I know some will imediately say that we have psychiatry as the science that addresses this but that would not be complete in adressing the beliefs of the religious concerning the things I have stated.
The secular humanists regular insistance on the only possible answer as dilusion myth or superstition is more of a closed minded state of thinking than those who try to understsand the presence of much more in the human state of life and our surroundings.
People will say that religions are there just to control people. Well, what do laws do then.. Should all laws be disregarded as myths or superstions just because they are based on the survival of the whole or the good of the people like religious practices do..
Laws are often times the clearest view of what is deemed right or wrong, good or bad, sin or virtue. There are the natural laws that are scientific fact and there are many laws not yet understood or discovered just as there are sciences not yet understood or discovered.

Religions are the study of those things yet to be discovered or fully understood put into the words of the day for the good of the people to ensure that we follow the laws of those which we do understand and share with eachother today tomorrow and forever.
Religion is the science of spirituality.
Conscience is the Science Of God...it all begins there...The Alpha and The Omega

- LegionSon -

Now where have I heard this before?

quote:

VIZZINI: Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

MAN IN BLACK: Yes.

VIZZINI: Morons.

I've heard that Iocaine powder will give you a nasty trip and sorts of issues later.

SULLY;

Who, or what, is that directed at?

T

L.S.;

Good post it begins the thinking process of well let's look at this....maybe there's something here to learn....which of course is why I posted this treatise....to get people to THINK!

All of us, at one time or another, become masters of "The knee jerk response" What this means is, we respond in reaction before formulating our response by picking up our brain from the floor, where we've been playing with it, and THINKING! before speaking!

T

Guilt is simply not living up to expectations. Those expectations can be self imposed or what society as a whole expects. If there is a universal right and wrong is drinking alcohol right or wrong? If it is wrong as the Muslims say then everyone, Muslim or not, should feel guilty after drinking alcohol. Conversly Muslims should feel no guilt if there is no absolute prohibition. Since this is patently untrue it perfectly illustrates my point of no supernatural explanation of guilt.

Thor you have picked a question to which there is a universe of answers.

How about this one which comes from all the major faith structures besides the top three we always acknowledge "it is wrong to kill the innocent." ...ALWAYS!

When I started this thread I fully expected to meet with a storm of resistance. Well I haven’t really and those that disagree seem to be holding their fire so far, perhaps as they research their responses.

I applaud them for that, as it is, as it should be, for a discussion to proceed so as to approach a concensus. Not that there will ever really BE a concensus, as too many variables exist to do so….we, none of us, myself included, can convince others we have an answer, much less all the answers to either side of the question.

Now I will proceed to perhaps the pre-eminent of those lauded by atheists and agnostics, and others, who attempt to refute the connections to humanity and the consideration of linkage between morals and conscience. Dr. Richard Dawkins.

In 2006 he published a treatise that purported to present the “scientific argument” against free will and personal responsibility.

In his treatise he surmised that mankind was strictly a product of our environmental conditions in which we were raised by our parents and the place, family framework, social structure and surrounding, social environment.

Now this weighty tome was quite the read, if you lack a brain, because the whole thing is flawed by positing the argument that it did. I for one being living proof of that flaw and so, damned near, is most of humanity in the modern world especially here in America.

Why? Well since the entire theory posits that we will be so heavily influenced by our prior experiences we are incapable of changing ourselves or our surroundings by an exercise of free will.

In point of fact, this publication also went so far as to proclaim with great fanfare among the intelligentsia of the liberal elite, that free will not only didn’t exist, but that it was impossible….FOR…… IT TO EXIST!

Now when you begin to examine the flaws and failures of this modern society we live in
You MUST consider that the modern liberal Psychiatric community and that of the Psychological associations agree almost to a person that this is so. Beginning with good old Sigmund Freud, Jungian theories and so many others, if you want to know who go look it up yourself, I ’haven’t the time ! In fact Dawkins even made these following statements in this tome of intelligent comments, which I quote for your edification. Don’t thank me, too many people take this man seriously!

1. “Doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the human nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility?”

2. Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment.”

3. Dawkins even made the statement that said…and I quote once again, “ Isn’t the murderer or rapist just a machine with a defective part?”

Now how to put this in perspective? First you must understand I may be guilty of condensing it just a smidgeon! Trust me, there was a whole lot more verbiage and bluster and quite frankly, bloviating, to cover any apparent errors in judgement or need I say….reasoning?

How can I get you to grasp my meaning but by anology. You know I love them!

You are driving your car to somewhere….it breaks down…..you step from the vehicle with an iron bar and begin beating the car with it!!

This what Dawkins and others are suggesting! There is no point to punishing people for their crimes…THEY HAD NO CHOICE!! They’ve got a bad transmission…or something!

Now so you can understand further. Let us go back in time to the Menedez Brother’s trial for the double murder of their mother and father. If the memory is fuzzy I will clear it for you then you can remember your disbelief and rage at the verdict.

ENTER; The frizzy headed blond ( blond... is there a joke here?) no, unfortunately there is not. I certainly wish I could be more emphatic, but you can only do so much with italics!

She was the one hold out on the Jury, which caused the Judge to declare a mistrial. (Thank heaven! They were retried and found guilty) In front of the cameras she said, Quite emotionally…” I could NOT vote for conviction!” “They are ORPHANS!”

I saw it, most of you saw it, it was all over television and in the papers for days, remember? Well I certainly do. How about the jury in the O.J. trial? There has never been a trial presented with so much clear and damning evidence presented in modern America as that one…..the verdict? Not guilty.

Do you now begin to see what happens when everybodies looking for a pass!? This is the world we live in now.

Now, are there humans with little, or even NO…. conscience? You bet the pants hanger behind you there are! BUT, do they get a pass to continue to prey on humanity because they’ve got “bad parts” Or do we lock them up and throw away the ROOM if we have to, to protect others, never MIND punishment…Or even worse….. correction.

No Prison ever corrected anyone.... ever! It only “educated" them that if they did that, or some thing worse there would be a penalty for it…WHY? Because WE, as a society, SAID SO…….THAT”S….. WHY!! Some things are right somethings are wrong…. CHOOSE WISELY…….sound familiar? It should.

So…to surmise, what does all this mean. Well it means, on the serious side, that the denial of free will is neither scientific, nor sensible. One may say with all seriousness that science, is that science, that depends on cause and effect to be understood..... as science!

The study of conscience is far more difficult, in that it consists of minutia so small, over so long a time, as to be virtually indecipherable even with a computer. We can study the squiggles on an E.E.G. chart but to decipher what they mean, anything, except in the physical aspects of them, is impossible to understand! We cannot read thoughts. The squiggles, with out the patient telling us what they were thinking, are useless! This is also irrefutable.

To suggest that conscience is from the physical is ludicrous in the extreme…. Wanna know why…? Not even you some times know why you “did” something! So explain to me how is THAT possible if it’s all physical. And yes I know about the lizard brain…..and it’s no frigging excuse for your actions, except in times of almost fatal stress and reaction!

Times of passion don’t cut it in my book. I ALWAYS knew what I was doing no matter how Pzzzd I was! What stopped me from acting, was the knowledge of the consequences, to me, the focus of the anger, (which isn’t always another person) or to my family. Threaten them or me physically then it didn’t matter to me, you’re going down and then we might discuss further developments! My conscience was engaged every second of the confrontation and you’d better believe I knew it! So I refuse to buy the cheap crap excuses we hear every day from these fools that have brought this upon us and insist in forcing us to swallow it .

Free will, A modest scientist would immediately concede that science says nothing at all about free will as a spiritual reality, anymore than it can deny the existence of God.
A materialistic or mechanistic view of the universe that leaves no room for the possibility of spiritual realities, is not a scientific one at all but a philosophical one. There is nothing scientific about denying that possibility.

Now we come to the chicken or the egg part of the discussion. Which came first…conscience or free will.

Well Theologically you MUST have conscience to HAVE free will! That is what your conscience is FOR! To allow you to choose. The right from the wrong…simple ain’t it…till you use it to solve real life problems. THAT presents the difficulties I mentioned before and need not be restated here.

Why do you NEED to be able to choose? Well if you have no choice, then you DON’T have free will do you? Again Theologically speaking The first commandment (per Jesus) IS…”Love the Lord God with all your heart, all your spirit, all your mind and all your strength”

Without free will there is no love, there can not be with no choice in the matter. In the case of no choice, why would you even need a mind! You would not, everything would be rote repetition of previous experience. I have seen all the arguments about birds build nests and yes they do and according to their species they all build them somewhat different don’t they…..Why don’t doves all build different KINDS of nests to support that argument. Why don’t beavers build condominiums instead of dams with sticks and mud…yeah they’er pretty good dams but not much good for anything else are they? That is NOT creation of the new.... is it? It is rote learned repetition, as that is all they are capable of.

And so it is with free will and conscience, with out one, there is no need of the other.

So here’s the deal folks! You can continue to live with your scientific theories as your sole form of accepting your existence….I will live with my spirituality as a huge part mine.

You can NOT prove quite a bit of what you present most times, neither can I. At least to you who have never experienced the spiritual in a believable, to you, way.

T

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tawodi,

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
Thor you have picked a question to which there is a universe of answers.

How about this one which comes from all the major faith structures besides the top three we always acknowledge "it is wrong to kill the innocent." ...ALWAYS!

You were the one who brought up Socrates and friends. They speak of absolutes with no grey area. An action is either moral or immoral. There are no actions which are neither, nor does context change morality.

THORIN;

That WAS the point! Thank you for again bringing it up.

Quite frankly I was wondering why no-one else DID!

T

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tawodi,

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
L.S.;

Good post it begins the thinking process of well let's look at this....maybe there's something here to learn....which of course is why I posted this treatise....to get people to THINK!

All of us, at one time or another, become masters of "The knee jerk response" What this means is, we respond in reaction before formulating our response by picking up our brain from the floor, where we've been playing with it, and THINKING! before speaking!

T

"to get people to think"?...Yeah, that's what I thought, hehh.
Another thing that it shows is that there are reasons we believe; therefore, believing in God and our spirituality is both reasonable and logical.
- nice thinking with ya -
- LegionSon -

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
Thor you have picked a question to which there is a universe of answers.

How about this one which comes from all the major faith structures besides the top three we always acknowledge "it is wrong to kill the innocent." ...ALWAYS!

You were the one who brought up Socrates and friends. They speak of absolutes with no grey area. An action is either moral or immoral. There are no actions which are neither, nor does context change morality.

Hey thorin001, I am wondering if you agree with them... ("Socrates and friends")about absolutes.
In your earlier post you brought up guilt when you said ---> "Guilt is simply not living up to expectations. Those expectations can be self imposed or what society as a whole expects. If there is a universal right and wrong is drinking alcohol right or wrong?"

Do you think drinking alcohol is right or wrong?

I believe there is good and bad in all things and drinking would be a very good example of one of those "grey" areas.
I also believe there are absolutes such as the example tawodi posed of "killing the innocent".
I am glad you mentioned guilt because it is an important variable that needs to be considered to understand how morality is formed.
It seems that at least tawodi and I both agree that conscience comes before freewill.
Would you agree also with us?
Following this, the logical progression would be choosing right or wrong, right?
Did you ever feel horrible when you did the right thing?(and I don't mean how horrible you felt when you didn't cheat with that beautiful girlfriend of your buds either...actually you probably would have felt a lot more guilty if you had, hehh)
You know what I mean...does doing good or the right thing ever make you feel guilty?
Probably not, right?
And, logically, why do you feel horrible or guilty when doing the wrong thing?
My point is that guilt is usually a clear indicator of what action is to become deemed as wrong and shows a glimpse of how our conscience operates.
Guilt is a self destructing triggered force built into our being. It is like a governor that restricts or controls us. It can sometimes become a heavy burden that confuses our senses and even cause us to react irrationally. In short, it can be very painful. It can bring us down.
Following this progression now leads us to the importance of forgiveness.
The feeling of guilt is released through forgiveness.
Imagine if there was no forgiveness...Seriously, it's hard to imagine the depth I know, but think of it. All the pain and people running around irrationally confused and clouded in their decisions. I don't know about you but when I am in pain I anger easier and am often times quicker to fly off the handle and react to others a bit harsh. Now increase this exponentially across the globe considering extreme guilt.
The point I am making is just how very important the role that forgiveness plays in both forming our morality and ultimately provides peace and stability.
- On The Ring Of Keys -
- Forgiveness is the Key to our survival -
- LegionSon -

Tawadi,

FYI, Sophocles was an ancient Greek playwright and not a philosopher. He is credited with the Theban plays such as Oedipus Rex, Antigone and others.

The Sophists were a group of transient teachers who wandered through the countryside, circa 450 BCE, teaching philosophy for money and do not have much of a cogent reputation with the contemporary academic philosophy community.

Be well!

Mark W.

Radioman;

Hello you're new here to me anyways so I'll take the time to say hello...HELLO! I'm a former C.G. dude (64-68) myself, we"ve got something in common, now don't go and kill yourself, it ain't THAT bad!

ANYHOO...I simply wrote what he spoke of, way back when, as one of the first in "written history" to write anything about it...and is still used to present certain things as examples of early understanding of the human psyche'.

Also I am very aware that he wrote Oedipus Rex, what better way to illustrate, that he had a position of strength to present.. AS..a philosopher as well.... at least of his times.

There are any number of Philosophers I could have used, such as Alfred North Whitehead who would have been a better example of my own belief system but my purpose was not to "convince". It was, and is, to spark a thinking discussion of the aspects that I have brought under the spotlight, and examine in an intelligent way among us here 'cause it can be FUN as well as elucidating!

Again, welcome and Be well friend!

Rev. Bruce

T

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tawodi,

L.S.;

Yes I HAVE felt guilty when I have done the "right thing" sometimes the right thing has caused me to report....as a "mandated reporter" that a child may be being abused by a parent or some other person in their lives and the resultant destruction that ensues as the "wrong" is "righted". I was absolutely CERTAIN the two times I had to act but the tumult was incredibly painful to me to see and to deal with, as I refused the mandating authority's offer of remaining anonymous as that would have been an act of cowardice....to me anyway.

Quite frankly my early intervention by LAW was instrumental in one case of the saving of a family and the child in question before any "real damage" was done, By this I mean the indicators were there and when confronted, the persons involved sought good counsel and it worked out for the better all around. That was fourteen years ago and that family is still together as a unit.

The other example was different in that great damage was already done and it was very ugly indeed.

And so many think being a preacher is easy!

It is strange how guilt can be a "right motivator" when used in the decision to do right but so destructive when we are not sure, or we have erred in our decision and done wrong.

It can indeed tie us in knots and utterly destroy us if we let it.

Here's the rub! Even if we did nothing wrong! When somone has wronged us and we carry the poison around with us for decades. Some times we cloud all our dealings in life with that anger. We find that to forgive feels GOOD! As when we do it, it also absolves our "perceived guilt" for our part, in what was done to hurt us. This is foolish on our part, but a very real constant in human discourse,... as follows. "If only I had not invested with Bill who ripped me off!" "If only I had left earlier to get the paper my son would not have been hurt in that stupid accident when the drunk ran into our car"....invent any scenario you choose, they are miriad and always there! Who can say why, but when you forgive others, you forgive yourself....every time!

Try it, you will see that the person you are forgiving need not even be aware of it, or even be ALIVE! What is important is YOU know and stop thinking about that. How do we stop thinking about it? Simply say to your self, Hey! I forgave them, stop this...and after a time it just STOPS! You will perhaps think of it some time in the future and realize you haven't thought of that in a while...you don't feel any pain or anger any more when it is now in your mind....you are officially THERE! Congrats!

You can free up a lot of space in your head by doing this....really!!

T

I see your point tawodi about guilt being present sometimes even when we are doing the right thing...hmm...sometimes there are tough choices to make. I guess this reinforces just how dominating a role guilt plays in our decisions. Justice is a tough nut to crack sometimes.
Maybe it would have been better for me to phrase it in more general terms such as - For the most part, the conscience uses the feeling of guilt to help prevent us from committing a wrongful act. -
Your scenario with the family made me rethink "absolutes". There really are exceptions to everything. That is what makes life so hard sometimes. There are times when even the decision to kill innocent lives is made to protect the majority or future of a society. I had thought that somebody would have jumped at the opportinity to argue our earlier statements concerning this, but things have turned very quiet lately. Maybe you have succeeded too well in getting people to think before responding. Maybe they are just being nice while they bite their tongues thinking that they have heard it all before. Some may be thinking that we are talking of a subject that is way over ours or their heads, hehh...no matter what though tawodi, you can't help but notice all of the very important aspects of human interaction is what we as Christians have been devoting our entire life to. It is our religion that shows us how the essentials are all brought to life through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. That is why I find all He offered to us and the way He offered it to us all so profound. It seems the more we attempt to understand what is important in life we are always brought full circle to Him and what He did for us.

- peace be with you, tawodi -
- LegionSon -

We as Christians should not discount the abilities of some to find good solid morals from sources other than religion.

There are numerous Philosophical resources available to us all that can state morality just as well as religion can and they are just as valid in doing so.

Now the reason for that is so simple as to be immediately refuted by some, but here it is....we....all of us...are the children of God. You can turn your back on that and deny it even exists or that God does but then you must be judicious in your choice of replacements.

Strangely enough most are, as they then MUST be responsible to, and for, them selves and, for most human beings that is an impossibly courageous act. It is sad to see religion used this way, as we who are faithful in all aspects are branded as needing our faith as a crutch to deal with life. To bear this brand today in the modern world, when one is indeed faithful, is almost more than most can bear...but it's presence is.... sadly true.

So to you I also say. May the peace of the Lord fill you and surround you friend.

Bruce

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tawodi,

quote:

Originally posted by LegionSon:
<snip for brevity>
Guilt is a self destructing triggered force built into our being. It is like a governor that restricts or controls us.<second snip>
- LegionSon -

Here I'm disagreeing with you. Guilt is a learned response. And like any learned resoponse it can be unlearned. Example, child take a toy from another child. Win for child 1 right? He got a toy.
Parent see's this happen and gives toy back to child 2 and scolds child 1. Now 1 feels bad. As the child gets older, he/she can understand why actions are right and wrong, using the value system they have been taught which assigns guilt to actions that are wrong.

Back to being able to unlearn the guilt.
Scenario 1 - I steal money from a sibling = wrong and I feel guilty.
Scenario 2 - I liberate (steal) equipment from the CIF (central issue facility) and feel awesome cause I got free mag pouches.
Both are stealing. Following the built in method of guilt, both would casue the same feelings. Why dont they? Because while guilt is linked directly to our morals, it is not an inherant trait in humanity.
I can learn that taking advantage of a system that often overcharges/griefs soldiers can have positive outcomes for me or my fellows.

Kind of a spinoff of robin hood if you will.

But what about the people that are born without the basic capacity for guilt? The sociopaths? Im not trying to say that they are victims of the circumstance and should be coddled. If they turn into predators then they need to be removed from society permanently. Just like any other predator that would cause potential loss of life (mountain lion, bear etc. Of course wild animals can be put back into the wild)

That might have been what dawkins was shooing for, dunno I didnt bother reading it. If not, then I say poppycock on his premise that there is no free will. Humans are WAY too complex to be looked at in a mechanical manner.

But like I said before, it comes down to taking responsibilty for your actions and living with the consequences.

quote:

Originally posted by NoliMeTangere:

quote:

Originally posted by LegionSon:
<snip for brevity>
Guilt is a self destructing triggered force built into our being. It is like a governor that restricts or controls us.<second snip>
- LegionSon -

Here I'm disagreeing with you. Guilt is a learned response. And like any learned resoponse it can be unlearned. Example, child take a toy from another child. Win for child 1 right? He got a toy.
Parent see's this happen and gives toy back to child 2 and scolds child 1. Now 1 feels bad. As the child gets older, he/she can understand why actions are right and wrong, using the value system they have been taught which assigns guilt to actions that are wrong.

Back to being able to unlearn the guilt.
Scenario 1 - I steal money from a sibling = wrong and I feel guilty.
Scenario 2 - I liberate (steal) equipment from the CIF (central issue facility) and feel awesome cause I got free mag pouches.
Both are stealing. Following the built in method of guilt, both would casue the same feelings. Why dont they? Because while guilt is linked directly to our morals, it is not an inherant trait in humanity.
I can learn that taking advantage of a system that often overcharges/griefs soldiers can have positive outcomes for me or my fellows.

Kind of a spinoff of robin hood if you will.

Wow How incredible. Freely admits to being a thieve and thinks it is morally justified. Even comparing himself to Robin Hood.

Having given an example of how stealing and guilt were a learned response in his first example, and morally wrong. In his second example as an adult he tries to justify stealing and offsets his guilt. He does not "unlearn" guilt.

Talk about a sociopath? That was an excellant example. Sociopaths justify their actions using the logic of "the world owes me" as NoliMeTangere has done.
Don't see how there is any correlation to "Robin Hood" as he shows the person stealing but not returning stolen items to the people.

Trying to jusitfy immoral behavior is not taking responsibiltiy for that behavior. "The Devil made me do it", is not being morally responsible.