Certain people can't ever get it right

[Lem]

Morley's binary, Lem's binary, IHAQ's binary, Chap's binary, Doc's binary!
And.... Gadiantion's binary, honor's binary, did I miss anyone?? Hm.... let me think..... No. That's everyone.

Now, who thinks singularly? Is that even possible? who could possibly be that consistent?
Could it be... the one "who participates here with such an obvious intent to divisively troll"????

I think we have a winner.
------------

Now that he has defined every person on this thread as a binary thinker locked in a box except for himself , back to the topic.

I really did like Chap's overall summary:

Let's see where we are. We started out with this:

Many of these problems could be alleviated if people had faith in a creator God who has given commandments which if obeyed would help solve a good portion of the world’s ills. Rather than move away from God I think it would be a darn good idea if we were a bit more “deadly earnest” about trying to know and obey Him. But you’re right, there are a lot of people fumbling in a slew of nonsense which results in real problems.

Regards,
MG

Since then it has been agreed that:

1. There are an awful lot of different deities to choose from, with whom a variety of sometimes incompatible commandments are associated..

2. None of these deities turns up in person to tell us how to act. We have to rely instead on those human beings who claim to have the right to tell us what their particular favourite deity wants.

3. In order to be able to advise people how to act ethically, it is not in fact necessary to speak in the name of a deity.

Now mental gymnast tells us:

[...]

Western societies have endured thus far in peace and without internal dissolution because of a foundation of Judaeo Christian principles. You and most of the people you associate with are the beneficiaries. Most of us practice ethical behavior because of the historical foundation we rest on. Even in a place like Russia you will find a large segment of society acting in accordance with Judaeo Christian principles because of their Christian heritage. In the Far East and other Asian cultures we have the influence of sages influenced by the moral and ethical teachings spawned by the Axial Age.

Unfortunately we have the ‘bad players’ that have come along throughout history and had profound influence on the actions and beliefs of many people to their detriment. As we do today. Over time and generationally will these bad players influence and overtake the foundational principles of moral/ethical behavior and thought that western societies have heretofore been built upon? Time will tell. But I am concerned. Especially with the increase of those who are a ‘light unto themselves’.

On this I would comment:

A. "Western societies have endured thus far in peace and without internal dissolution because of a foundation of Judaeo Christian principles." I am simply gobsmacked by this claim. How about:
- the huge societal and international conflicts that followed the fracturing of the western church after Luther? The burnings, the long and horrible 'wars of [Judaeo-Christian] religion' - right up to the English Civil War.
- The French Revolution, followed by the 19th century revolutions in other parts of Europe and finally the Russian Revolution, all of which cost humanity a vast amount of blood and misery.
- the world conflicts of the 20th century, principally motivated by conflicts between historically Christian countries, with huge civilian casualties and a determined effort by one nation of Christians to exterminate a whole people, the Jews.
This is not just a matter of a few bad actors. I leave aside the ruthless exploitation by western powers of non-Christian nations, the large-scale extermination, dispossession and enslavement of those powerless to resist.
And why is Islam left out of the club of Abrahamic religions?

B. The whole idea that the human race owes its capacity to act decently and kindly to religions and world-views that came into being as a result of the creation of complex religions and philosophies in what is called by some the 'Axial Age' (reckoned by Jespers as being from the 8th-3rd centuries BC) has always struck me as back to front.
In the first place, the idea that (in effect) the Israelites looked at the commandments Moses had brought down from the mountain and said "No adultery? No stealing? No murder? Wow, if only we'd known before!" is just silly. Hunter-gatherer peoples who have never had cultural contact with any 'civilised' religion or philosophy seem to manage their lives at least as harmoniously and decently as does an actual average New Yorker or Londoner. I don't think I am in any way ethically superior to them from having read a stack of Christian deity-centred literature in my time. Nor do I think they are ethically superior to me from not having read that stuff (so, no 'noble savage' illusions). If there was an 'Axial Age' (which some doubt), it did no more than embed the basic ethical insights long possessed by the mass of normal human beings before writing was invented in a mass of intellectual, textual, cultural and political structures, by no means all of which have been beneficial to us in the long run. I don't think we need feel any particular gratitude to Zoroastrianism, post-exilic Judaism, and so on.

C. I note that we are now no longer being asked to treat deities in themselves as important to us - but instead we are being told that we should feel grateful to the religions that claim that such deities matter. That's quite a step away from the original claim that "Many of these problems could be alleviated if people had faith in a creator God".

You summed up the issues succinctly. Regarding what I bolded, I'm always nonplussed at the lack of logic when someone like Midgley says that people like Gemli don't actually know why rape is wrong because they don't believe in a god (actual statement by Lou!), and your response is pretty perfect.

[Physics Guy]

My understanding is that it is really not clear that hunter-gatherer societies have maintained ethical
standards comparable to average modern city-dwellers. There seems to be at least a large school of thought among researchers in the field that reckons murder was much more common in prehistoric groups than it is now even in really bad neighborhoods.

I think it’s also a good rule of thumb in history that if somebody introduced a law prohibiting something, it was because people were doing a lot of it. A society that went so far as to attribute a law against murder to a deity who personally wrote the commandment in stone was probably a society with a high murder rate.

Do legal prohibitions actually reduce the incidence of what they prohibit? That’s still a question today. But prohibiting something in law is at least doing something. Something’s probably better than nothing. On the whole I think I’d rather live in a society that had a law against murder than in one that did not.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

In the kingdom of Ur (I might be using that term wrong) it was a capital offense to steal. After losing a beloved mountain bike and wooden indian to theft I’m now wondering if someone would’ve actually risked it for the biscuit to steal either of those items under that system. I’m also not so sure I’m beyond embracing draconian punishments for offenses like that because I haven’t just been victimized the one time, but every single time I think about and experience the resulting sense of loss and injustice.

- Doc

[mentalgymnast]

Morley's binary, Lem's binary, IHAQ's binary, Chap's binary, Doc's binary!
And.... Gadiantion's binary, honor's binary, did I miss anyone?? Hm.... let me think..... No. That's everyone.

Nope. You left me out. You haven’t really been reading my posts. Binary is the default. But we don’t have to stick with it. We can, over time, train ourselves to think in a non-binary fashion. Some are more able to take this approach than others. That’s the simplified erosion. Again, go back and read what I’ve already written.

I can’t be the judge of whether or not you, for example, are cognitively consistent in how you view the world, etc. We all have certain prejudices and biases that move us towards binary ways of thinking...often without really even recognizing it. My suggestion to anyone, including myself, is to take stock and honestly ask ourselves whether we fall prey to the natural instinct to trust wholeheartedly our natural inclinations towards either/or, black/white thinking. You know people who tend towards living in the world this way. I’m suggesting that you may want to look inward and do a self analysis to see if you are immune from doing so.

Regards,
MG

[mentalgymnast]

Morley's binary, Lem's binary, IHAQ's binary, Chap's binary, Doc's binary!
And.... Gadiantion's binary, honor's binary, did I miss anyone?? Hm.... let me think..... No. That's everyone.

Now, who thinks singularly? Is that even possible? who could possibly be that consistent?
Could it be... the one "who participates here with such an obvious intent to divisively troll"????

I think we have a winner.

Your age seems to betray you. I can’t see you being much older than, say, thirty? Thirty five max? You don’t seem to read for comprehension. That is a skill that seems to be lacking in the younger ‘Twitter’ generation. You just don’t seem to ‘get it’ and I find that I have to repeat things...and you still don’t get it. For coming across as a fairly intelligent individual, you sure seem to be challenged in some respects. May I go as far as to say...dumb? Probably not intentionally. And don’t take that personally, this seems to be more common among the younger generation...and it’s not all their fault. Lots of things in play.

We all have things that we’re dumb at. May I suggest you are honest with yourself, look inward, and see where your weaknesses are? When we fail to do so, in a certain respect, we just continue to get dumb and dumber.

Ignorant may be another way of putting it.

Regards,
MG

[Bret Ripley]

You don’t seem to read for comprehension ... You just don’t seem to ‘get it’ and I find that I have to repeat things...and you still don’t get it ... you sure seem to be challenged in some respects. May I go as far as to say...dumb? ...

We all have things that we’re dumb at. May I suggest you are honest with yourself, look inward, and see where your weaknesses are? When we fail to do so, in a certain respect, we just continue to get dumb and dumber.

Well, how about we just slap a big ol' QED on that.

[mentalgymnast]

I'll just address this point:

I’m speaking in general terms in regards to the influence of Christianity and other Axial Age religious movements, including Islam. The moral and ethical teachings have influenced western civilization in promoting values that have enriched peoples all over the world. You and other secularists are the beneficiaries along with the rest of us.

There is good reason to suppose that your average human being in preliterate societies was no worse (thought perhaps no better) in ethical terms than your average modern city dweller. A detailed acquaintance with the ways in which dominant groups in early literate societies appropriated basic human ethics as part of the elaborate structures of power and authority that became major world religions does not suggest to me that we are any better off as a result. If anything, we may be worse off. Hunter-gatherers do not have elaborate and authoritative structures of belief that may from time to time demand in the name of a deity that those who do not subscribe to them shall be killed or coerced into changing their beliefs. But all the Abrahamic religions have gone in for that big time, when they have had the power to do so.

So my sense of gratitude to the world's 'great' religions is ... limited at best.

I would suspect that over time we are seeing a degradation of values in regards to simple values. Kindness...for the sake of being kind. Giving....for the sake of giving. Service....for the sake of serving...loving.

This may be happening more in citified coastal areas out of the Heartland. But as more and more people intermix...moving out of big cities...and fewer moving into larger cities I am concerned our sense of shared cultural values, a few that I’ve mentioned, are going to decline. If tribalism continues without shared values of kindness, service, giving, and respect...I fear for the future.

Here is an article well worth reading:

https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2021/1/ ... e-oklahoma

Why? It points out that we see a difference in basic values that people have simply dependent on where they live. Think about how, over time, shared values (we’re not just born with them, we have to learn them), if they continue to decline will lead towards degradation of our society. Judaeo Christian values, up to this point, have been the foundation upon which our free society has existed.

We have slowly been creating echo chambers, geographically, that have influenced large groups of people. It will be interesting to see where the movement of people out of large city echo chambers has upon Heartland America, where country, God, service, and community have always been at the heart of everything.

The ‘nones’ would like to see these Heartland values go away, I would suspect.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

Instead, you mistake the allowances you give for Smith and others to have been wrong in part as balanced while your belief in God is black-and-white and binary. It's rigidly binary. It's also fully informed by Mormon teachings and culture making your views binary Mormon views that sweep aside facts in favor of this core, immoveable faith in there being a god that meets your criteria. This belief forms the reality you inhabit so completely it's the water to your fish. You could no more engage it with nuanced allowance for it being wrong as a fish could live on the moon.

I believe that the views you and others have towards Joseph Smith to be binary.

If by that you mean I don't see Smith having said or did anything that I wish to have influence on me or my family then yeah, I've come to that conclusion. I don't think he would be a good role model to follow and seems to have done more than enough that we can confirm by evidence to justify the view he wasn't specially informed about matters of morality or ethics. Quite the contrary.

So yeah, I've moved on from him and frankly don't think trying to square that circle is a healthy place to be trapped. Eventually the troubled Mormon dealing with the actually history shakes loose or sinks back in. Spinning around the edges is distressing and no one, including you, spends significant amounts of time there.

I think people can see his place in the history of religion as meaningful and still see him as unworthy of their trust. They can find intellectual pleasure in engaging the universe is Mormon thought that has grown out of the seeds he planted and have a "nuanced" view of his impact on the world while recognizing fully he was a liar and cheat, adulterer and narcissist. But when it comes to how I am willing to let Joseph Smith have influence over my life? That door is closed.

My personal views towards God are NOT binary.

When it comes to god, you are not open to there not being one, nor do you entertain arguments that assume the lack of god. You may be unsure of just who or what God is. But it's all or nothing when it comes to the existence of god.

I think more than anything you are very, very conservative with a view of the world that is feed by Fox News. The church makes for a nurturing environment for the moral views this background has espoused. You are as certain of the rightness of your views on morality as you are that the sun will rise tomorrow. And that defines the boundaries you then manuver within intellectually. You argue that anyone who is unwilling to enter in the mental trap you occupy is binary in their thinking...and you know what? If that is your definition of binary thinking then yes I am.

I think you're a fraud, MG.

[honorentheos]

Judaeo Christian values, up to this point, have been the foundation upon which our free society has existed.

Regards,
MG

I think enlightenment thinkers would take issue with the heir of the obstructions they faced appropriating their legacy.

[Lem]

...I think it’s also a good rule of thumb in history that if somebody introduced a law prohibiting something, it was because people were doing a lot of it. A society that went so far as to attribute a law against murder to a deity who personally wrote the commandment in stone was probably a society with a high murder rate...

And people wrote those laws, right? Not a god? I think that's more Chap's point.

I’m also not so sure I’m beyond embracing draconian punishments for offenses like that because I haven’t just been victimized the one time, but every single time I think about and experience the resulting sense of loss and injustice.

And yet, without believing in a god, you can't figure out why the offense is wrong. /s I think your example puts the lie to that.

That's the logic I just don't get from the theist perspective, that people need a god in order to figure out stuff like this. It doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that if there are laws prohibiting the behavior, then the group consensus must have been that the individual behavior was not acceptable to the group for a reason.