Tawasakm

Redundant vocabulary? In what way? I'm not entirely sure what leads you to make this assertion. While this is not the first time I have encountered the argument that religion and ethics are inseperable I've yet to have anyone explain to me why this is so. It almost seems to me that religion has hijacked all credit for the more "enlightened" aspects of humanity. I've known quite a few individuals who do not believe in religion of any kind who act ethically. If you define ethically as behaving with the best interests of others in mind. Many historical figures both religious and non-religious have acted ethically. Many from both sides have acted otherwise. It seems to me that "ethics" exists independently of religion. Imagine that a society so geared toward rational thinking could find other answers for these problems. They might, thinking rationally, decide to implement better recycling, more efficient vehicles, better mass transit public transport systems, reduce their own personal allocation of resources to a more sustainable level, expend greater resources to solving global problems etc etc. Being culturally geared toward thinking more rationally (arguably) and possessing greater curiosity (more of a need for answers arguably) they may indeed be better geared to find peaceful solutions than religious neighbours. Genocide, to me, never seems to be the result of rational thought and I don't agree with your premise that a non-religious society would lack ethics. Surely there are other ways to search for answers to meta-physical questions. Surely in a reasoned society the medthodology of religion can be discarded - while at the same time retaining those aspects (and answers) of religion that are proven to be true. Maybe a society can be contented to know what they know and to wait to discover what they don't know - not being content with insubstantial answers to such important questions. In any event this is a hypothetical that I've constructed. In such a situation I am conveniently (and arbitrarily) able to postulate that this society has, indeed, thrown out religion. Perhaps we can argue over whether or not that is possible later and just look at the possible effects for now? August 1991 I like your joke

Probably true but lets just try to concentrate on the one society. If I think globally my tiny little mind will implode. While this may be visually appealing it would leave me a little discommoded. I was in fact put through strict catholic primary schools and a somewhat more liberal anglican highschool. University was not religious. I have had something of a look. Specifically what would surprise me? If not then whats the point of it? Why should it be mystical and hidden? In point of fact I think you are wrong - at least in part. The truth is that many aspects of religion, in all its complexities, right and wrong, can be easily observed. What you are talking about is FEELING religion - which is a different thing. One aspect of religion is its ability to draw disparate people together and unite them under common goals. Let me use an example which I encountered in a local newspaper today (the Sunday Times from Perth). The article was about a woman who suffered from anorexia. She had fought the disorder for twelve years without success and had dropped to 27kg. She, and her family, were exhausted. They had gone through many professionals without success. Finally she ended up with a clinical psychologist named Bruce Beaton. The problem at this point was that the family was just too wrung out to implement and run another treatment program. But the local church rang him up and offered to help. They gathered 30 volunteers who would (on a rotating basis) visit the lady 3 times a day during meal times and for an hour afterwards. The critical point for the sufferer was the determination and unconditional love that she received from these total strangers. She has recovered, is married, and has doubled her weight. She continues to eat healthily and happily. Now in this example the church brought together disparate people (from all ages/backgrounds/jobs etc) and united them under a common goal - to save the life of this woman. The patient attributes much of her success to the unconditional love of these people and they attribute that to the guidance of their church. I do believe that churches/religions around the world contribute vastly to the betterment of the lives of others. I also believe that churches/religion have contributed greatly to wars and other such negative things. Religion has been perverted for many reasons by many people. By its very nature it is easy to do so - because they rely on that which is unseen, unmeasurable and unaccountable. For my hypothetical situation to work only requires that the positive aspects of religion can be achieved in a secular/scientific society. In this instance would there have been a mechanism to bring together volunteers happy to give of their time and energy to help this person? If the answer is yes then religion (however positive in this instance) is not providing society with anything that it cannot provide itself. So, do you think there are positives that religion provide that can only be achieved through religion? If not then the hypothetical society is a success.

That seems a little extreme. My view is that the guidelines contribute to the quality of discussion. I think that the removal of the guidelines would have a deleterious effect. Nor do I agree that enforcement (so long as its impartial - which it appears to be) of the guidleines amounts to thought control. People here all seem free to hold their own views. The guidelines merely place an onus on the poster to put forth their arguments inpersonally, rationally, and with reference to source material as required. This is a positive. I also agree there should be some monitoring to stop people moving off topic - this stops discussions from becoming polluted or clouded. Anyone who wishes to do so is able to start a new topic after all and can discuss the issue they wish to in that way. I am glad, however, that Greg chose to move the computer topic to the help section rather then removing it entirely. I have found it interesting and useful. I'm sure you can all understand that it was in the wrong section though - it IS off topic as far as politics is concerned. Even if he had deleted I'm sure you can all understand that it is off-topic for the purposes of this forum. Considering the fact the guidelines help not hinder and that Greg puts in alot of impartial work to maintain the integrity of this site I'm confident that everyone here can respect his decisions.

Sorry it has taken me so long to post a reply to a topic that I started. I'm afraid that it is often the case that I won't get an opportunity to read and reply for days at a time. In fact I only have time for a brief reply now. H3X0r thankyou for your post. Its good to have a committed religious person posting. Since I am not very religious I may be missing aspects of religion that contribute, perhaps uniquely, to society. So I am grateful to anyone else who can contribute them to the discussion. Regarding your point of morality and ethics I am curious to know why you feel that only religion can encourage you to such a path. Surely a rational society could measure the harmful effects of certain behaviour and create laws and punishments designed to enforce positive behaviour. Could it not be the case that people educated as to exactly why something has a negative effect on society and individuals would be capable of behaving as ethically as those who do so through "fear of God" (which is how I see it). Empathy surely can also exist independently of religion. I sympathise Cartman but that is exactly what I want to hear. And then I want to see how my hypothetical society might handle things differently. Dear Caesar, I appreciate your input but this thread does not relate to the specific policies of the United States (in part or in whole) nor towards its actions in Iraq or elsewhere. How does this relate to the hypothetical? Unfortunately I am out of time. Hopefully tomorrow I can spend alot more time on this and catch up on all the other topics.

My hypothetical supposes an attempt not success. It does suppose that people may find the consequences other then they might have suspected. That they may find their scientific approach is lacking in some ways. They may find that it does not. In any event I really need to get moving. I'll return to this another day.

The mere possibility of extensive vote-tampering in a nation as powerful as the United States sends shivers down my spine. There, more then anywhere, there needs to be a reliable free election from an informed electorate. Abuses of power can have massive consequences not only for Americans but for the world. Thanks for inspiring nightmares in my sleep tonight Blackdog

I don't know if its that simple. Lets look at the role of religion in spiritual life. All of the religions I know of instruct us in how enrich ourselves spiritually and grow. What is spirit? A non-visible entity that is not directly measurable. Would this society need to abandon the concept of spirituality (or a non-physical aspect of all living things) and how would that impact on morality, mental health and well-being, relationships etc? Granted some people do not believe in these things and are comfortable with it. But will that hold true for everyone? Or is there a way for science to embrace spiritualism?

Using which brand of English? There are differences, for instance, in the way that Americans and Canadians spell certain words. A spell checker could cause people of certain nationalities to make spelling mistakes... from their point of view.

I find it a sad indictment of the situation that hostility can extend beyond death. Ancient Romans believed (or so i was taught in Ancient Hostory 102) that it was wrong/immoral to allow hostilities to continue beyond death. Once a man was dead they were to let go of what led before and act graciously toward the individual (well their corpse and their memory). Would that we could all actually do that. It seems to me that everybody has too much invested - in beliefs, in land, in identity. So much so that they are now entrenched and find it hard to move in any direction - to allow a change of direction. I may just be an oddball but I think the first step toward peace is for everybody there to loosen their grip a bit - to invest a bit less in those things that are leading to conflict. If they are not held so tightly they may become even more valuable and more easily appreciated as there is room for movement. Of course this is something of a philosophical view and not terribly practical to the complexities of the situation.

Let us suppose that everybody within this nation is committed to appying scientific methodology in all aspects of society and the abolition and abandonment of religion as discussed. They have already begun. So now we can attempt to predict what problems they will encounter. As we theorise problems we can attempt to overcome them using the scientific method (or other non-religious methods that rely on empirical evidence that you may know of). We can then attempt to see if these problems can be succesfully overcome. I welcome people of faith to join in and hypothesise certain problems and then to defend them from the point of view of religion (for the sake of the hypothesis we could pretend you are observers from an outside nation...). Sound like fun to you? Sounds like fun to me.

I wouldn't want to consider the morality of Caesar's position in such a fashion. As far as I understand his argument relating to Arafat he is saying that both sides are doing the wrong thing and in such a climate he finds it hard to pick out who should be considered the "bad guy". Where I think his aguments are hitting difficulties is that he seems to be seeing through "Bush tinted glasses". I find his attitude toward Bush justifiable (although I am personally somewhat more moderate and specific in my views on the man) but I think in his reaction to what he sees he is... seeing it everywhere. All paths seem to lead back to Bush and then a criticism of him. Personally I feel if you ignore that part of his argument you can see that his argument has some substance. There are bad guys on both sides involved in the ongoing conflict. Of course I may be reading his argument wrong. If t turns out to be some kind of "he's not as bad as Bush so he's not bad" argument or a "they're all acting that way so how can any of them really be bad" argument then I couldn't support it. In fact I should really shut up and hear what Caesar has to say for himself. Why don't I do just that?

Why limit our fun? Lets go with all of the above.

If murder can be proven to be bad for society based on the study of empirical evidence using the scientific method (and it can be) then such a law would stand up. Just because a law is originally based on religious doctrine does not mean that it cannot also be based on a more rational/scientific formula. I don't believe this is an instance where the removal of religious doctrine would create a vacuum of any kind. However, I'll bet you could come up with more examples of the way religion influences, perhaps even glues, society together. I would appreciate it if you keep working on this.

I decided to go back and look at the topic of the thread again . Ok here is where I get a problem Caesar That seems off topic to me. Don't get me wrong here - I agree with you about Bush and Iraq and other things. But I don't think it fits the question. You are, I think, attempting to extend the question. It might now seem to be: if Arafat dies will there be a resurgence of terrorism because Bush invaded Iraq? I agree, broadly speaking, with your points concerning Bush and previous US governments/presidents but what has any of it to do with the affect of Arafats death?

OK let me see if I understand your argument Caesar. To my mind it boils down to this: you have come to the conclusion that those you had previously thought were good guys are in fact bad guys - and as a consequence it is quite possible that those you had thought were bad guys are, in fact, good guys. Is that representative of the essense of your rationale? If it is I could argue that you may be leading yourself into potential error in that regard. You clearly have good facts and arguments to back up your conclusions regarding Bush and his government. Without taking sides I can see clear justification for your perception of him as a 'bad guy'. However I don't believe that you can logically conclude that your value judgement of others is necessarily wrong as a result. Those that you had previously considered to be "the bad guys" may still be the bad guys. Or, in another words, Bush being bad doesn't stop Arafat being bad. I will take this all back if it turns out you have the same body of evidence for this value judgement concerning Arafat as you do for Bush.

Errrm I just remembered that this question is addressed to hard right theocrats - which I am not. If you didn't want my answer then I apologise for butting in.

To my mind legalising homosexual marriage is nothing more then formalising reality. If families are not currently harmed by the existence of stable homosexual partnerships then I fail to see how formalising this can become harmful. Note that I am claiming that legalisation would be formalising reality not claiming that it would be legitimising it. Homosexuality has already been legitimised even if it is not completely accepted by all.

Questions of metaphysics are not necessarily the province of religion. Link to the same definitions as before There seem to be a few different takes on what metaphysics is actually the study of but none of these mentions religion. So perhaps your reworded first question does not actually need to be asked in the first place. As to my hypothetical... Lets modify it a little so that it may work for you. Let us say that a government in <insert mythical and/or real nation here> has just been elected by a clear majority. Part of their platform was the advocation of scientific methodology in all aspects of society and the abondonment of belief systems which do not meet these standards. They are going to dismantle, on every level, every religion. Now why don't we attempt to extrapolate the practical affects that such an action would cause. Then we can attempt to determine how these affects may addressed in a secular/scientific way and if that would be adequate for a majority (or perhaps all) of the people in <insert nation>. Let me know what you think of the revised hypothetical. I encourage more people to join in aswell.

OK Caesar I understand the example you are using. I understand the argument that such things are a matter of perspective. What I am asking you to tell me is what your perspective is and why that is. Your argument, I feel, is a little weak as it stands. Its fine to talk about differing perspectives and relativity but please tell me what has led you to your current perspective. Exactly what is it about Arafats actions and the actions of those he interacts with that would lead you to your conclusion? What is your conclusion. I may be erroneously supposing that you do not believe him to be a terrorist. Lastly please don't conclude that I am arguing against you. I have not actually stated a position pro or con I am merely asking for more information from you.

It was probably George Clooney...

In addition I would like to ask you, The Terrible Sweal, which definition of metaphysics you are using. I am aware of several and that are not exacty the same. I am banking on this one: (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment Dictionary definitions of metaphysics Am I right or are you usin a different definition?

I seem to have made my previous post seconds after you made your addition Caesar. Thankyou for providing some further information to support and clarify your position.

I am not arguing that Bush is or is not killing innocents. In fact if I was I'd be completely off topic. I am suggesting that your statement regarding Bush does nothing to address the specifics involved as to whether or not Arafat should be considered a terrorist. I am asking you to support what I have construed to be your opinion relating to the topic of this thread. If I have not been clear in this then please forgive me.

Good points. I suppose I am being a little vague. Your second question is a bit more specific then I would intend. Death is one example of an area that relates to unknown reality (or perhaps more accurately to the physical/non-physical interactions of reality) impacting on peoples lives. To suggest that the viewpoints of atheists etc on death could be applied in a general way may be a misnomer. I would suggest that some people need an answer that provides comfort. Or perhaps religions create that need in people to start with. It seems to me that could only be partly true, however, since there are so many attempts to understand life in physical and non-physical form around the globe an throughout history. It has always seemed that people have a pressing need for an answer to this question. Historically the answer, to me, seems to be built around myth making. Answers are developed which are culturally relevant and intuitively understandable - and always seem to provide hope for the future (or at least a clear model of how to make a better future - be it through reincarnation or whatever) and certainly indicate that life continues after death. If we can no longer address this seemingly universal and pressing question in this manner then how should it be addressed in such a manner that it still provides the same qualities that were previously. But to address your point about the vagueness of my hypothetical situation perhaps I could make it thus: suppose that the conventions of religion are to be abandoned. Ideology, reality, morality etc are to be defined only by that which is quantifiable and tested to be true. How would this system stand up? Would it be able to fulfill all the functions of that which it is replacing? If it cant, then is that actually a bad thing? I really must be tired. I need to sleep and then work on this a bit...

That seems a specious argument. There are people who may believe the world is flat based on where they live and what they read (or what their oral history tells them). If you believe that Arafat is NOT a terrorist then I would love to read your arguments against and your supporting data. If this seems a little harsh then please realise that it is not intended in such a fashion.