Fido,

"Where faith leaves off knowledge begins?" Faith simply desires if you like, that it imagineings will one day manifest themselves as reality. Faith you might say is a process of desire, and nothing more. I believe the latin religio is translated to mean, a linking back, back to its origin, With Christianity this would be its genesis in the form of the garden of eden and the talking snake. I do like your analogy of a great darkness which is the shared experience of two different organisms, only one is claiming to know the darkness for what it really is------that would be the faithful.

Sorry if my stance seems harsh, perhaps in the future there will be a mythology created which does not totally breach with what we know of reality. Actually reality is very mystical, as intangible as it is it would lend itself to the knowledge of the day.

Both ratio and religio are making their meals off the same ignorence, and I don't find science any less dependent upon faith. It at least stops on occasion to test its faith. Only money tests the faith of the religious.

Fido,

You seem to have some investment in equating science and religion as birds of a feather, or two comparable apples. I suggest that their differences lay in their approach to the unknown, it is this which defines them, not the unknown itself. I think to, as I suspect you yourself feel, there is a difference in the level honesty envolved, your tone seems to suggest this to me, am I reading this correctly.

Oh ya. They are very much alike, especially in regard to morals. For example the acceptance of God is a denial of moral responsibility. So, if we follow the form of morality, obey the law, the ten commandments, go to church etc. then we are free from what is always our duty as human beings and that is to know we are just in regard to our fellow human beings.

Truth serves the same purpose for the mathematician or the scientist when they fail to note that it is living breathing beings who actually determine what is truth in regard to what is life. Truth is not at all apart from every moral consideration, but there are people who think it is; so for them truth is fate, just as God is fate. Our purpose as human beings should be to limit faith, and fate; and to keep the moral choice always clearly in sight. Not one of us can safely give up our own authority to determine truth in the light of its results -to another. The only way will can become meaningless as a force is if we deny it.

Oh ya. They are very much alike, especially in regard to morals. For example the acceptance of God is a denial of moral responsibility. So, if we follow the form of morality, obey the law, the ten commandments, go to church etc. then we are free from what is always our duty as human beings and that is to know we are just in regard to our fellow human beings.

Conclusion: God is not moral

How is... derived from the preceding statements?

I don't know what your problem is, we have been having a simple conversation as I elucidated points and answered questions. If we have that level of communication problem; I suspect that a large part of the 'problem' is an unwillingness to make an attempt to understand what I say. You seem to 'act' as if understanding equates with accepting or believing. It doesn't, necessarily.

Dear, dear Nameless - ...
Let me state unequivocally, that I have wanted to understand what you say, I still do;

I have attempted to do so, but found it exceedingly difficult.

...in all discussion I am primarily interested to understand how propositions/statements/conclusions about the point(s) being addressed have been derived. To me, at least, this means simply having to ask questions ...

... there needs to exist both a sufficient commonality of conceptualisation (i.e. meaning of words), and willingness to consider modifications as found to be necessary. Simply dismissing such an approach as "bourgeoise consensus", and declaring that "I do not need to imbibe my 'thoughts', my 'reality' from societal 'authority and consensus'. I have my own 'memories' ...!!", and being dismissive of that with which one disagrees, is I think unlikely to result in an the possibility of mutual understanding.

As for my last post, it was undoubtedly affected by being both physically tired and ill. I should try that combination more often!

So, where to from here?

Oh ya. They are very much alike, especially in regard to morals. For example the acceptance of God is a denial of moral responsibility. So, if we follow the form of morality, obey the law, the ten commandments, go to church etc. then we are free from what is always our duty as human beings and that is to know we are just in regard to our fellow human beings.

.

Suppose a person wants to do what he believes God wants him to do. Why is that "the denial of moral responsibility". Suppose that God tells us we should love our neighbor, and I do love my neighbor. How does this deny moral responsibility? Am I not morally responsible for loving my neighbor?

I will not deny that this is quite moral advice, to love ones neighbor, but it is a moral question of: at what range will you set your love.
When people do as they are told to do, when they believe in God which for so many means accepting the authority of another in regard to God, then what exactly are they wanting to do, and upon whose authority? People sacrificed virgins because they thought that was the want of their God. Who told them that was the want of their God? When we seek the supernatural to deny the natural we do not become more Godly or less natural. We do deny our responsibility to our fellows when we wait to be told or to be asked to give justice to others. If a person is home less, or hungry, or uneducated or unemployed as a result of injustice we can do for him and do nothing for all. Shall we tolerate injustice till the victims overwhelm us? I should not have to seek justice for my neighbors or salve the wounds of injustice when my government is made for the purpose of justice. But if I let the government give charity I give, I am doing the same thing as the church does, and that is feeding the belly, and not feeding the soul. The moral responsibility is primarily this: To recognize our fellow human beings. When we give to the church, or give to government for the purpose of helping victims we are doing so to avoid a painful relationship. It is our obligation to relate, even if relation causes us pain, because only in the relationship are people united to seek justice. We have to concede that the poor need justice as much as the rich, and that the powerless need justice as well as the powerful. The relationship a man has with his God is not moral nor immoral, but is spiritual. The relations one has with his mates, and with humanity are moral or immoral. We can fully believe as if God exists, but we should always act as though God does not exist, and that if God would be real then God is real in our moral actions toward our kind.

If we don't have free will, then we aren't responsible for anything we do - we can blame all manner of other things for our behavior.

Guilt and blame are meaningless words.

The only stable way of being what is called "good" is to understand up to what a point that improves our life and our chances to survive.

I don't think there is such a thing as free will. Freedom seems to consist of knowledge that enables us to recognize the best option in each moment, in each situation.

When I say that a murder is guilty, I mean that he did the crime, and that he did it intentionally. Don't you? Everyone who speaks English does, I think.

When I choose vanilla ice-cream rather than a different flavor, I am doing it of my own free will, because I wasn't forced to do it. That is what we ordinarily mean by "free will".

I'm afraid I'm not anglophone -I stopped studying English when I finished highschool- though I do my best. Thanks for the remark, probably I was ambiguous.

I meant there is no point in feeling guilt, in the sense of thinking one should be punished. Guilt must (I think) be sort of a warning that we have made a wrong choice, to help us not to repeat it. Which is not the same as saying nobody should be punished, since all live beings have a trend to protect themselves of further injury and punishment is a very common strategy for trying to achieve that.



Then, what do you think was the point of the initial question? Don't you think your choices are determined by what you know? I have always thought that the notion of free will had nothing to do with the situation. There are always choices, the same way there are always restrictions. The only doubt is how we work out what is the best choice, I think.

Well, hope to have been clearer. Sorry if I misunderstood something.