Is Theism An Excuse To Embrace Judgmental Behavior?

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

That's like saying the deer was a catalyst for the arrow because it didn't run.

Neither King, nor Gandhi, nor Mandela was an agent of any downstream hate or violence -- neither as an actor nor as an inciter. It's taking a huge liberty with history to portray them as such.

I suppose that depends on who you ask. History is written by the winners but remembered by everyone.

King spoke out against popular ideas of the time and motivated the African American population which was viewed as a threat to those who did not see it the same way we do now.

Gandhi did the same and so did Mandela. Their defiance of these, admittedly flawed, ideologies was an act which incited the violent retort.

You cannot have a winner without a loser and you cannot fight intolerance without provoking it.

Still, my point is not on these figures. My point is that morality is not theistic or atheistic. It is personal.

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

Their defiance of these, admittedly flawed, ideologies was an act which incited the violent retort.

They were defying a status quo that was already violent.

Icon wrote:

You cannot have a winner without a loser and you cannot fight intolerance without provoking it.

I understand your rhetoric. But I don't understand your thesis or your point.

Icon wrote:

My point is that morality is not theistic or atheistic. It is personal.

That's fair, though it's also fair to note that it is contextual too. Perhaps it doesn't make people innately good or bad, but it certainly shapes the expression of morality.

@Aedes,

Good discussion, on the whole, I'd love to add a few thoughts though:

Bones-O! wrote:

However in both camps you find people who see the beliefs of the other as an affront. In truth, this is not a religious issue. You find people foaming at the mouth at all sorts of views that contradict theirs, especially in politics. Hell, I have a friend who's not talking to me at the moment because I strongly criticised a movie he liked.

I don't much like the phrase "both camps" because it polarizes, but Bones is spot on the point here. Anything you criticize, or don't' subscribe to, has the potential to enrage others who've taken on that concept as 'their own'. It's true of nationalism, race, football teams, political affiliations and more. Religion, I think, hits so hard in this aspect because of how personally people tend to hold their theology. Nicely put Bones.

Aedes wrote:

...the TRUE conversation we should be having is whether or not it is even possible to draw any kind of generalization about the terms "theist" and "atheist" other than their specific definitions.

Another capital point; and one I've tried (perhaps with not so much success) to annunciate many times; that theism and atheism speak to belief structures; nothing more, nothing less. If we leave this within the realm of 'belief', by suggestion, this actually allows folks to keep and be proud of their thoughts (since the term belief carries with it the suggestion of personalization - it short curcuits arguments because one can't reasonably say, "No, you don't believe X"). Unless and until we stop generalizing the ills of the world to one subset of people or another, we'll continue to fail in addressing behaviors. It's arrogance alone that suggest that all who believe <this>, do <that>.

gre107 wrote:

With that said, it seems that the religious subscribe to beliefs that are not their own in order to put "order" to things that they "do not" or "wish not" to learn or analyze.

They shun their responsibility to critically think about the argument at hand. And in turn use/adopt the pre-fabricated views of their religion to make judgments.

On a certain level, I think I'd agree. But (and I hope you don't mind me using your post as an example, Gre) this is exactly what I've been railing against: It's a negative generalization of an entire mindset. This one says, essentially, 'theists are bereft of reason because they don't want to think things through'. Isn't this the same kind of lumping many of us atheists have been victim to? Again, I think that for some, this statement is likely true, but it's not stated that way. I hope this point I make here is taken in a positive light.

Icon wrote:

It just seems to me that anyone trying to pass judgment outside of God's grace (which no one has who is passing judgment) is really denying the teachings of their religion and even insulting the word of the God that they worship.

Yea, I've often been baffled at this glaring contradiction. You know what, though, the more I see from our theists here on the Forum, the more my views of what a theist *is* is changing. If I choose to make an argument against theism, I find myself addressing the medieval christian god; inexorably, when doing this I get a litany of responses from folks who don't define god in that way. It's almost as if, as I learn more about the varieties of theists there are, the less one can address theism en-toto. This, in the end equation, is probably a good thing Smile

Icon wrote:

The entire point of this thread was to show how ridiculous it is to say that theism or atheism dictate morality. Morality is a choice that comes from experience and other life choices. Period. Believing or not believing has no bearing on morality.

Can I have your autograph? My god... I've been writhing so hard to try and get this point across and am very encouraged that at least one other sees it similarly.

Icon wrote:

This thread was meant to be a joke. It is funny how...

Yea, I got a good chuckle out of this at first too. But I'll have to admit, focusing on the specific issue at hand from other threads (let's talk about the elephant in the room) has it's own value as well.

In either case - good exchange here; thanks.

@Khethil,

Im a bit concerned that the opinion... morality is not as a result of belief but through other life events.This is the point of the whole thread surely? atheists are a result of their life's experiences but theists draw their morality from their scriptures. How they apply it might be through their life's experiences but they are tied to it like a dog to a leash.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Im a bit concerned that the opinion... morality is not as a result of belief but through other life events.This is the point of the whole thread surely? atheists are a result of their life's experiences but theists draw their morality from their scriptures. How they apply it might be through their life's experiences but they are tied to it like a dog to a leash.

Let's not forget the human condition in these calculations. When faced with odds beyond reason, I have seen even the most devout theist turn on their God.

A book can give you ideas but it is up to the person to apply them. Morality is still independent of religion.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Im a bit concerned that the opinion... morality is not as a result of belief but through other life events.This is the point of the whole thread surely? atheists are a result of their life's experiences but theists draw their morality from their scriptures. How they apply it might be through their life's experiences but they are tied to it like a dog to a leash.

I don't take it to mean that life experiences alone dictate morality, as much as that experiences along with other factors (which are all interrelated) determine ones' moral set. To single out a particular aspect (read: ones' theology) and attribute any and all morals to it would be denying the impact of other factors, such as experience.

But that brings up a good point: The different aspects (and their proportion therein) that determine ones' morality. As with all human-issues, I'm sure the mix is many and varied. Some believe ones' theology is the sole determinant (which I'd completely disagree with), and speaks to the heart of what we're discussing.

And actually, I believe it was phrased as, "... experience and other life choices" (emphasis mine).

At least this is how I took it to be

@Khethil,

Every individual can choose his moral values but if chooses to believe in a particular faith he also has to abide by those faiths standards.He or she can not on fundamental issues be seen to either avoid them or disagree with them, logic is not part of the process once the commitment has been made.Abortion, contraception, homosexuality are all dictated to by the morals of the church.

Khethil wrote:

I don't take it to mean that life experiences alone dictate morality, as much as that experiences along with other factors (which are all interrelated) determine ones' moral set. To single out a particular aspect (read: ones' theology) and attribute any and all morals to it would be denying the impact of other factors, such as experience.

But that brings up a good point: The different aspects (and their proportion therein) that determine ones' morality. As with all human-issues, I'm sure the mix is many and varied. Some believe ones' theology is the sole determinant (which I'd completely disagree with), and speaks to the heart of what we're discussing.

And actually, I believe it was phrased as, "... experience and other life choices" (emphasis mine).

At least this is how I took it to be

Experience is a valuable asset when forming personal morals but are overturned when confronted with defined theological argument.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Every individual can choose his moral values but if chooses to believe in a particular faith he also has to abide by those faiths standards.He or she can not on fundamental issues be seen to either avoid them or disagree with them, logic is not part of the process once the commitment has been made.Abortion, contraception, homosexuality are all dictated to by the morals of the church.

What you've demonstrated here is the internal struggle between conviction and doubt. It is not enough to refer moral judgement to the scriptures, since the scriptures do not cover all possibilities at all or many of them clearly. Thus it is required, in order to erase doubt, further that interpretation be referred to another external source and this gives us 'the church'. However, this is not enough either since it conflicts with personal conviction, thus it is necessary to have many churches (denominations) and allow the individual to choose who interprets the scriptures for them. This seems to have found a nice balance, but it does highlight that even in 'following the scripture' there is a degree of freedom for the theist to exert his or her will within.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Every individual can choose his moral values but if chooses to believe in a particular faith he also has to abide by those faiths standards.He or she can not on fundamental issues be seen to either avoid them or disagree with them, logic is not part of the process once the commitment has been made. Abortion, contraception, homosexuality are all dictated to by the morals of the church.

You're not entirely correct. I can choose to believe and choose a faith but decide not to follow the rules. For instance, practicing Jews which do not keep Kosher. Christians who judge others. Muslims who drink.

You may choose a faith but you must choose your morality as well. I chose to live in the USA but I do not follow all of the rules. Just because someone chooses to believe in something does not mean that they cannot break the rules.

Again, theism is not a dictator of action, only a book with rules which the person chooses to play along with so long as it suits them to do so.

@Icon,

So how do explain that theists of one particular faith abide by the same morals and other faith something diferent again.You will find that no two atheists have identical morals because they have been formed by experience not dictation.To ignore the importance of religious observance in the faithfuls moral code is not exactly correct.Lets say contraception and the RC church! can you honestly say that their congregation have the same opinion by majority than a group of atheists, you dont think their values have been influenced by scripture rather than by experience?

@xris,

xris wrote:

So how do explain that theists of one particular faith abide by the same morals and other faith something diferent again.You will find that no two atheists have identical morals because they have been formed by experience not dictation.To ignore the importance of religious observance in the faithfuls moral code is not exactly correct.Lets say contraception and the RC church! can you honestly say that their congregation have the same opinion by majority than a group of atheists, you dont think their values have been influenced by scripture rather than by experience?

Considering I know a Roman Catholic who has had an abortion and another who has had a divorce, I would say that the church did not form their opinions of the situation entirely.

As I said, it is a personal thing. Sure, religion can influence it but it is no where NEAR the deciding factor. Religion is just another experience like non-consentual sex or addiction.

@xris,

xris wrote:

So how do explain that theists of one particular faith abide by the same morals and other faith something diferent again.You will find that no two atheists have identical morals because they have been formed by experience not dictation.To ignore the importance of religious observance in the faithfuls moral code is not exactly correct.Lets say contraception and the RC church! can you honestly say that their congregation have the same opinion by majority than a group of atheists, you dont think their values have been influenced by scripture rather than by experience?

No I can't, but that's not what I was saying. Nor am I ignoring the importance of the scriptures. You are ignoring the importance of the choice a theist has about whose interpretation of the scriptures is most compatible with theirs. Each denomination has a different set of interpretations, even though some elements may be identical. A theist cannot draw a complete morality from the scriptures alone.

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

Considering I know a Roman Catholic who has had an abortion and another who has had a divorce, I would say that the church did not form their opinions of the situation entirely.

As I said, it is a personal thing. Sure, religion can influence it but it is no where NEAR the deciding factor. Religion is just another experience like non-consentual sex or addiction.

So why does the majority of RC not complain about their churches stance on contraception and aids in Africa.What you speak of is morals of convenience. You selected two, i asked is it the majority? not a few friends you might know.

@xris,

xris wrote:

So why does the majority of RC not complain about their churches stance on contraception and aids in Africa.What you speak of is morals of convenience. You selected two, i asked is it the majority? not a few friends you might know.

That IS the majority of the Roman Catholics I know.

We cannot speak in majorities and that is my point. Morality is a choice, not a requirement.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

No I can't, but that's not what I was saying. Nor am I ignoring the importance of the scriptures. You are ignoring the importance of the choice a theist has about whose interpretation of the scriptures is most compatible with theirs. Each denomination has a different set of interpretations, even though some elements may be identical. A theist cannot draw a complete morality from the scriptures alone.

I never said they did but the morality is structured around their core beliefs dictated by their scriptures.Im also saying the atheists has no influence by dictation only experience, the theists is driven by faith and it can be moderated by experience..but not always.. I was opposed to the idea that both atheist and theist are the same in that their morals are developed by experience.

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

That IS the majority of the Roman Catholics I know.

We cannot speak in majorities and that is my point. Morality is a choice, not a requirement.

I dont think world views of RC are defined by who you know.The Vatican speaks for the moral values of its congregation and they must abide or suffer in hell.I know a few Irish catholics and for the vast majority contraception has produced very large families.In Africa it has caused thousands to die.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Im also saying the atheists has no influence by dictation only experience, the theists is driven by faith and it can be moderated by experience..but not always.. I was opposed to the idea that both atheist and theist are the same in that their morals are developed by experience.

Just for clarification: So the faithful aren't as influenced by their experiences, then?

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Just for clarification: So the faithful aren't as influenced by their experiences, then?

No because they believe god has chosen their morals for them and no amount of experience and as you know full well debating makes not one jot of difference.

@xris,

xris wrote:

I never said they did but the morality is structured around their core beliefs dictated by their scriptures.Im also saying the atheists has no influence by dictation only experience, the theists is driven by faith and it can be moderated by experience..but not always.. I was opposed to the idea that both atheist and theist are the same in that their morals are developed by experience.

But the atheists' morals are 'developed' by experience, even if not created by them. For instance, a core belief from the scripture is 'Thou shalt not kill'. However, what does the scripture say in its applications, to, for instance abortion, euthenasia, war, execution of criminals..? Does it still apply? The theist has doubt, and so refers interpretation to a third party: the church. The church says, for instance, 'war and execution of criminals is fine; abortion and euthenasia is not'. Well, we have to question that, surely, since 'thou shalt not kill' seems to be, if anything, more applicable to the former pair than the latter. And so the church comes up with the ruling that enemies of the Christian state and murders of Christians are against God and so not protected by his commandmants, but 'potential' human beings have not sinned against God and so are protected, and further the closer you are to God (i.e. closer to death) the more his commandmants apply. Phew, well then what about masterbation and contraception? Aren't these the destruction of 'potential' children of God. 'Uh... yes, better stop those too'.

If you're groovy with the above, the RC is the place for you. However some theists are more intelligent and objective than others and as such will push things further. 'Well if abortion, masterbation and contraception are sinful because they destroy potential children of God (i.e. foetuses, eggs and sperm), surely so is abstainence and menstruation? In fact, unless you're in a perpetual state of shagging or childbearing, you're throwing away potential children of God, and while women can manage this (painfully and with high death risk) in a monogamous marriage, a man who is not killing potential children must impregnate several different women a day which completely contradicts holy matrimony.

'The pope is infallible and you're not' says the RC church. 'You just don't understand the issue as well as I do.' Well, I understand the issue perfectly well thankyouverymuch, and I think you've made a mess of this whole potential children of God thing. Clearly sperm and eggs cannot NOT be wasted in holy matrimony, so I'm heading to the Anglican Church for a bit of common sense and perhaps a bit of 'me time'.

[Paramount Home Theology would like to point out that the preceding story was entirely fictional and resemblence of characters therein to any real persons living or dead or dead then raised from the dead on Easter Sunday is purely coincidental.]

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

[Paramount Home Theology would like to point out that the preceding story was entirely fictional and resemblence of characters therein to any real persons living or dead or dead then raised from the dead on Easter Sunday is purely coincidental.]

Ok, you win. you made me laugh out loud at work. That doesn't happen often. Thank you.

EDIT: Also, your point was very valid. Still, I am trying to point out that even if dictation from the church exists, it is a persoanl choice to obey.

Morality is STILL a personal thing.

Philosophy Forum

Is Theism An Excuse To Embrace Judgmental Behavior?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know