Maximizing Moral Virtue

[The Grand Nudger]

When we imagine that religion must be bad, we let bad religions off the hook, as though it were something other than completely voluntary.

Bad religions aren't the only kind, it's just that they possess extreme competitive advantages in a completely unregulated zero-sum market where there's a gargantuan monetary incentive to operating in bad faith. It's not exactly a great foundation from which to maximize moral virtue, which is what makes the question in the op so laughable on it's own grounds. The question posed assumed that there were no gods and we would be doing this without religion - but in a world in which those bad faith actors of bad faiths are not operative..we've -already- moved the needle closer to maximizing moral virtue by default and need do nothing in particular to accomplish that improvement.

Notice, for comparison, how little shit wicca gets (unless, ofc, you're a competing witchdoctor). About the worst wicca does as a movement is exploit the dispensable income of middle class teenage girls. I suppose that's something, but it's not as if that market wouldn't spend money on fantasy otherwise. The whole pitch is "we're not assholes like the other fantasists" - a contrarian social identity with respect to the traditionalist beliefs that same cohort grew up with......based on being nice and whatnot.

[Aegon]

Okay Aegon, what is the nature of religion?

Is it good, bad or neutral?

You're asking basically the same kind of question. "Religion" has meant too many different things and has had a very wide variety of impacts on culture and society. Sometimes this impact is extremely negative, other times it's been positive. So I reject the question like the human nature question.

If I had to choose, I guess I'd say that, overall, organized religion has had a net negative impact on humanity because of the violence and war that religions have created, if that's what you're asking. The amount of death and suffering caused most likely trumps the positives that people have gotten from them. I would also say that the Abrahamic religions, in my opinion of course, are so laughably wrong about the universe and our place in it that it's hard not to find them repulsive. To me it feels as though billions of people think 2+2 = 5 because of those religions. The egotistical thinking that those religions encourage have definitely had a negative impact on the West's collective psychology.

[h311inac311]

Okay Aegon, what is the nature of religion?

Is it good, bad or neutral?

It's bad. I mean, look at yourself. You believe that Earth is flat because of religion. That can not be good.

Off topic, but I have to ask you, why do you blame my religion for initiating my curiosity about the shape of our realm?

I can tell you it was no appeal to scriptura which first opened my mind to the idea that our earth may in fact be level and stationary. Again, that discussion of physical truth isn't exactly what this thread is about, or is it?

It seems to me that both Aegon and Nudger are upset by and large with Theocratic over-reach or the use of an appeal to god as a means of manipulation. If you've ever read any of the prophets I'm sure you would be surprised by how often it is the lone shepherd who is advocating on behalf of a love for his creator.

Thomas Jefferson has said something which I find both inspiring and also fairly true, he considered faith to be a fairly personal thing. An intimate, private and often times secret relationship that one shares with his idea of God within his own imagination, requests and meditations. Much like the blind men who cannot agree on what an elephant is, that is, until the sun comes up and reveals all for them to see.

Each of us has our own conception of who God is, but when I hear you guys speak on him it seems as though you are more concerned with ideas such as liberty, freedom of thought as well as the freedom to explore whatever moral system you wish to establish. I would argue then that your issue is with the interpretation of how to apply the Bible, rather than the whole of its testament to human kind.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems to me that both Aegon and Nudger are upset by and large with Theocratic over-reach or the use of an appeal to god as a means of manipulation. If you've ever read any of the prophets I'm sure you would be surprised by how often it is the lone shepherd who is advocating on behalf of a love for his creator.

An appeal to a god often does take the form of a manipulative effort - but it doesn't really matter whether it does or not with respect to maximizing moral virtue.  Gods are completely useless to morality.  As a scam, or well intentioned. Even that very sentence is explicitly ammoral. Do x y or z...not for any moral reason - but for love of a creator. Securing someone's love - god or human, may not factor into making a moral decision - and as it just so happens it's very often the case that securing the love of a god (as told) or a human (in mere reality) is both immoral and estranges you from the love of other humans.

That it minimizes moral virtue (and in some cases completely moots morality as a factor).... for transactional gain. Tell me, does being a good person get you a golden ticket, or does that require something else?

I've read The Prophets™ - I don't think that you'd appreciate my understanding of it..mostly since you think they were prophets. I can see the evil in what they cherished and I can see the danger in chasing the things they loved. I can see the goodness of their expectations as they perceived them and the genuine yearning for some other state of affairs. I see the effects of a very real and very tragic loss. In short...I see actual human beings with complicated motives in compromising situations. You see wizards staring into a crystal ball. IDK how that's going to help maximize moral virtue as a belief..either. The Prophets™, out of love for their creator, advocated that their daughters should immediately cease race mixing, for example. They stumped for civil war over theological disputes. They scapegoated their various sub-sects for the political and military misfortunes which had befallen them. The most important bit of Prophecy™ in the western world concerns how some batshit davidic warlord will come to earth and roll human civilization back to the iron age.

Pass.

[Fake Messiah]

Off topic, but I have to ask you, why do you blame my religion for initiating my curiosity about the shape of our realm?

I can tell you it was no appeal to scriptura which first opened my mind to the idea that our earth may in fact be level and stationary. 

I was talking more about religion (than scripture) because religion teaches people to accept logical fallacies and embracetheir delusions in order to believe the bullshit that religion is selling them, thus making people believe in all sorts of other nonsenses because they don't know how to discern fiction from reality. Just like you when you are refusing the evidence that shows how wrong you are.

It seems to me that both Aegon and Nudger are upset by and large with Theocratic over-reach or the use of an appeal to god as a means of manipulation. If you've ever read any of the prophets I'm sure you would be surprised by how often it is the lone shepherd who is advocating on behalf of a love for his creator.

Bible is anti-democracy. As you almost noticed, it pushes the idea of one "wise" ruler chosen by God, instead of people. People as a nation are portrayed as guilty, sinful, and in constant need of a ruler sent from God (instead of elected by the people).

[The Grand Nudger]

Does religion teach people to do that, or does theistic religion teach people to do that? Is religion anti-democracy, or are there anti-democratic religions?

I think that the question is simply delicious, as christianity is and was a democratic religion with respect to it's formation and even it's enduring fundamentals........ and yet .......christianity is theocratic, and seemingly has no use (in political expression) for democracy-now.

[h311inac311]

Well atheism (especially without any appeal to the history of communism) has the benefit of newness. It's a fairly new idea to be so widely adopted which is partially why I raised this topic to begin with. Nietzsche, for example, observed that humans have a tendency towards worship. He predicted that during this new rise of atheism (in the wake of men spending more time with machines that with nature) would lead to a mass movement towards government taking the place of God within the hearts and minds of it's subjects, and for the most part his predictions turned out to be true. He also predicted that this worship of government would lead to some thing like communism as well as a wide variety horrendous outcomes.

You guys can play the blame game all you want because for awhile theism was the only game in town. However, I posit that most wars were fought over territory, not religion. That just because the soldiers are religious it doesn't make the war a theistic war. In fact, it seems to me that only the Catholic Crusades have this distinction. If we ask the men why they are going to war they will likely say it is for "honor, glory, prosperity or protection." This is how most men justify their choice to kill another man, either he believes that his country is worth killing for because of its virtue, or at the very least, he wants to protect his land from being conquered by an even more tyrannical power. Religion is merely a tangential issue, and to assign all of the blame for the evils of war, genocide, mass rape and torture to theology I think is a necessary tactic to maintain your position that man is inherently neutral. Because if it turned out that man truly was a flawed being then your ideological crusade against God would be highly ill fated without some kind of appeal to a real morality.

If men are free to invent their own meaning and assign their own value to the words right and wrong what is stopping the gambler from telling his wife that gambling is good?
What will prevent the murderer from telling you that he is a more evolved being which has the right to naturally select his victims for death in the hopes of wiping out their gene pool?
What is stopping a corrupt mind from aiding the destruction of society?

You see I ask these questions because unlike you I believe that moral good takes effort, inspiration, and endurance. Sometimes you have to turn down offers of money, fame and sexual pleasure in order to withstand corruption. Especially if you want to be in a position of power or influence. Jesus spent most of his time in conflict with the religious authorities of his day and I consider the Catholic church to be the prime example of what it means to be a modern day Pharisee.

But as you said Nudger, you consider the Wiccans to be morally good though right? So does this mean that some religions are good?

As to your point about the prophets, yes at the time of the Old Covenant there was a law against pagan marriages. The reason for this is of course spiritual as generational curses may be passed down from either parent to their child. The evidence that this practice needed to stop was within the moral degradation of Jerusalem. The people of Israel weren't happy anymore but instead of throwing their Idols away they instead continued in stubbornness of heart, desiring to be more like the pagan religions surrounding them and less like the God which lead them out of Egypt.

[Pat Mustard]

Well atheism (especially without any appeal to the history of communism) has the benefit of newness. It's a fairly new idea to be so widely adopted which is partially why I raised this topic to begin with.

No it really isn't.  Atheism is as old as the hills, so old that the earliest identifiable christians in the 2nd century were called atheists by the Romans.  In India atheism has a very long heritage, with the jains being an openly atheistic religious people and many within buddhism and even hinduism being also openly atheist.  Plenty of Greek poets, playwrights and philosophers were also personally atheist.

Atheism is older than religion.

If men are free to invent their own meaning and assign their own value to the words right and wrong what is stopping the gambler from telling his wife that gambling is good?
What will prevent the murderer from telling you that he is a more evolved being which has the right to naturally select his victims for death in the hopes of wiping out their gene pool?
What is stopping a corrupt mind from aiding the destruction of society?

I don't know, what is there in christianity stopping you from telling me that all these are morally good, given its human creation?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well atheism (especially without any appeal to the history of communism) has the benefit of newness. It's a fairly new idea to be so widely adopted which is partially why I raised this topic to begin with. Nietzsche, for example, observed that humans have a tendency towards worship. He predicted that during this new rise of atheism (in the wake of men spending more time with machines that with nature) would lead to a mass movement towards government taking the place of God within the hearts and minds of it's subjects, and for the most part his predictions turned out to be true. He also predicted that this worship of government would lead to some thing like communism as well as a wide variety horrendous outcomes.

You guys can play the blame game all you want because for awhile theism was the only game in town. However, I posit that most wars were fought over territory, not religion. That just because the soldiers are religious it doesn't make the war a theistic war. In fact, it seems to me that only the Catholic Crusades have this distinction. If we ask the men why they are going to war they will likely say it is for "honor, glory, prosperity or protection." This is how most men justify their choice to kill another man, either he believes that his country is worth killing for because of its virtue, or at the very least, he wants to protect his land from being conquered by an even more tyrannical power. Religion is merely a tangential issue, and to assign all of the blame for the evils of war, genocide, mass rape and torture to theology I think is a necessary tactic to maintain your position that man is inherently neutral. Because if it turned out that man truly was a flawed being then your ideological crusade against God would be highly ill fated without some kind of appeal to a real morality.

If men are free to invent their own meaning and assign their own value to the words right and wrong what is stopping the gambler from telling his wife that gambling is good?
What will prevent the murderer from telling you that he is a more evolved being which has the right to naturally select his victims for death in the hopes of wiping out their gene pool?
What is stopping a corrupt mind from aiding the destruction of society?

You see I ask these questions because unlike you I believe that moral good takes effort, inspiration, and endurance. Sometimes you have to turn down offers of money, fame and sexual pleasure in order to withstand corruption. Especially if you want to be in a position of power or influence. Jesus spent most of his time in conflict with the religious authorities of his day and I consider the Catholic church to be the prime example of what it means to be a modern day Pharisee.

But as you said Nudger, you consider the Wiccans to be morally good though right? So does this mean that some religions are good?

As to your point about the prophets, yes at the time of the Old Covenant there was a law against pagan marriages. The reason for this is of course spiritual as generational curses may be passed down from either parent to their child. The evidence that this practice needed to stop was within the moral degradation of Jerusalem. The people of Israel weren't happy anymore but instead of throwing their Idols away they instead continued in stubbornness of heart, desiring to be more like the pagan religions surrounding them and less like the God which lead them out of Egypt.

Atheist points of view were espoused as far back as the Vedic Period. I don’t think this qualifies as ‘newness’.

Simply because Wiccans are good doesn’t mean some religions are good (although I’m happy to stipulate that some religions are less bad that others). Religion has precious little to do with whether someone is good.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I’d have to meet a Wiccan personally to have any idea of their moral virtue- but yeah…sure…There’s nothing that makes religion shitty necessarily- which is why I find shitty religions so contemptible. It’s voluntary.

The rest of that is fanfic from a magic book. In mere reality, the people who wrote those stories were ethnocentric bigots, and there wouldn’t have been any reason in their own time to doubt the values of ethnocentricity. Making ridiculous excuses for it ….today…. Is it’s own shitty thing. Gratz.