Religious vs non-religous bases for morality

[Immanuel Can]

Liberals may wish to ignore that, but they ignore it for political, not intellectual reasons.

LIBERALS ?????

I should say, secular liberals. I wasn't saying anything specific to those who falsely profess to be Christians. The whole secular studies fields of "Religious Studies" and "World Religions" make the same mistake: they combine unlike things, as if they were all the same phenomenon, without properly differentiating between genuine adherence and mere superficial professing.

[MikeNovack]

You do realize, IC, that this exchange more or less started when I tossed in "The first and last Christian died on the cross". Now that is using hyperbole to say pretty much what you are, that most calling themselves Christians and who are known as Christians are not properly following the teachings of Jesus.

However -- it is not just secular students of comparative religion who refrain from passing judgement on whether the people claiming to follow a religion are properly adhering to the tenets of that religion. Students of comparative religion who are themselves followers of some religion also usually do that.

They are studying religious beliefs as they exist IN PRACTICE and not making judgements about what a religion SHOULD BE. They are studying religions as they change over time. Nor do they assume what had been recorded as the teachings of the founder of a religion are the actual teachings, since usually some time has passed.

I consider what you are doing fully within the history/tradition of Christianity where once sect declares another or most other sects "not properly Christian".

[Immanuel Can]

You do realize, IC, that this exchange more or less started when I tossed in "The first and last Christian died on the cross".

Started? No. You only quoted it two messages ago.

If you want to know what's at the top of a mountain, don't ask a fish. If you want to know about Christians, don't ask Nietzsche.

However -- it is not just secular students of comparative religion who refrain from passing judgement on whether the people claiming to follow a religion are properly adhering to the tenets of that religion. Students of comparative religion who are themselves followers of some religion also usually do that.

It depends on whether or not they've been infected with secular liberal contempt for their subject matter, or not. Anybody who knows any real "religions" knows better than that, of course.

Another thing all academics in the study of "religion" also know: there's a distinction between internal knowledge of a religion and external seeming. It takes a proper, deep engagement in order to see the former, but not much thinking at all to have a prejudice about the latter. That's why they bother to study their subject in a deep and protracted way; there's a lot more beneath the surface than is apparent to the eye, and they know it.

They are studying religious beliefs as they exist IN PRACTICE and not making judgements about what a religion SHOULD BE.

Well, every scholar of religion has a difficult discernment task: to know exactly who counts as data in a relevant study. So they're forced to make decisions about what phenomena can be rightly included in their study, test group or sampling, and what should be regarded as irrelevant or extraneous to the data pool. So, like it or not, they have to make a choice.

Can they include Westernized Muslims in a study of jihadis? Can they include Reformed Jews in a study of Conservative Judaism? Can they include Catholics in a study of Pietism? Can they include polytheists in a study of Theism, or only monotheists: and which "theos" can be included? These are not trivial decisions, and they cannot be simply skipped. In all of them, too, the "self-identification" criterion would be likely to render any study or report invalid, scientifically speaking. Include too little, and you're cutting out relevant data; include too much, and your study is polluted with false data.

The upshot: you're not actually right about that. Even knowing which "practices" or "phenomena" count for investigative purposes requires a decision about the authentic "in" zone, and the excluded "out" zone. Such a decision will be made either by explicit criteria, or accidentally (rendering all results scientifically invalid); but it will have to be made.

Don't be upset if we have to do what the scholars have to do. It's unavoidable.

[MikeNovack]

] It depends on whether or not they've been infected with secular liberal contempt for their subject matter, or not. Anybody who knows any real "religions" knows better than that, of course.

Liberal my ass.

Take yourself. Certainly not a liberal. Do you seriously expect us to believe YOU are able to seriously consider very "other" religions on their own terms? Aren't you too fixated on your belief in the TRUTH of your religious beliefs to be able to do that. You think YOU can "look at that religion" from the perspective of one inside that religion?

This isn't a difference between the secularist student of comparative religion and the believer in some religion studying OTHER religions. In both cases they are studying a belief system not their own. So only can it from "outside". Not just religious beliefs but religious experiences. Aren't I hampered in my attempt to understand Christianity because never EXPERIENCED "being saved". I can report, "this Christian tells me they have felt this experience" but that's not the same as feeling it. Just like I can report "this follower of Santetria tells me they have experienced being possessed by a god" by not fell that for myself.

[Immanuel Can]

] It depends on whether or not they've been infected with secular liberal contempt for their subject matter, or not. Anybody who knows any real "religions" knows better than that, of course.

Do you seriously expect us to believe YOU are able to seriously consider very "other" religions on their own terms?

Show me where I said that, and I'll respond.

This isn't a difference between the secularist student of comparative religion and the believer in some religion studying OTHER religions. In both cases they are studying a belief system not their own. So only can it from "outside".

Sure. And that's exactly why any scholar of religion, whether secular or religious himself, has to drill deeply in order to establish the right data pool. If he gets that wrong, all his findings will be tainted or wrong because of it.

Not just religious beliefs but religious experiences. Aren't I hampered in my attempt to understand Christianity because never EXPERIENCED "being saved".

Yes, you are.

But if you adopt a fair and objective stance toward that "religion," there is a very great deal you could learn about it. It would just take you much more than a superficial gloss on it. Admittedly, outsider knowledge is inevitably less intense than insider knowledge; but sometimes there's a distinct advantage to outsider knowledge, as well...so it's a bit of a trade-off. The key thing is to get the data pool right, in any investigation.

How do you get the data pool right, without deciding who is, and who is not a given religion? You can't.

Let's take Judaism. In a study of orthodoxy for Jews, who should be included? Should secular Jews be regarded as indicative? What about those that adhere to occult practices? How about Reformed Jews, many of which may be convert goyim? On the other hand, what about people who are genetically and culturally Jewish, but are also Messianic? Should they be included in a survey? What about the Lubovitchers: how far should their practices be taken as indicative? And the Hassidim: do they go too far? What is too far?

You see that you cannot possibly avoid the questions, if you're making any rational assessment of what Judaism is. So why shouldn't it be the case that some people who self-label as "Christian" might be less than entitled to the label? What happens among Jews is surely not unique in that regard, is it?

[MikeNovack]

Let's take Judaism. In a study of orthodoxy for Jews, who should be included? Should secular Jews be regarded as indicative? What about those that adhere to occult practices? How about Reformed Jews, many of which may be convert goyim? On the other hand, what about people who are genetically and culturally Jewish, but are also Messianic? Should they be included in a survey? What about the Lubovitchers: how far should their practices be taken as indicative? And the Hassidim: do they go too far? What is too far?

You see that you cannot possibly avoid the questions, if you're making any rational assessment of what Judaism is. So why shouldn't it be the case that some people who self-label as "Christian" might be less than entitled to the label? What happens among Jews is surely not unique in that regard, is it?

You gave a great counter-example. Because Judaism is a practice more than a belief, and a tribal membership, by and large Orthodox Jews consider Reform Jews, Conservative Jews, even secular Jews still t be Jews. The Hassidic sects that want to distinguish might call themselves "Torah true Jews". But even within Hassidism, some sects would still feel closely connected to less religious/non-religious Jews (Chabbad, for example, and BTW, Chabbad is of the Lubabavicher line of descent from the Baal Shem Tov)) )

"what about people who are genetically and culturally Jewish, but are also Messianic" ----You really should have been more explicit. I realize that you meant "Messianic" to mean believers that the Moshiach has already arrived in Jesus because your belief in TRUTH blinds you to the reality that a lot of Jews are messianic, waiting for the messiah not yet come. You will not be able to grasp why Chabbad is a separate part of the lubabavichers unless you understand their messianic beliefs.

[Immanuel Can]

...a lot of Jews are messianic,...

Yeah, but that's not what the expression "Messianic Jews" refers to, as you acknowledge. And I think you know that much. At least, if you're Jewish, you certainly do.

I once asked a Reformed rabbi if these were considered Jews. He paused, and then said very slowly, "That's...too...far."

If he was right, that would mean that not all biological and cultural Jews are allowed to be Jews. But as you know, there are also Jews who do not consider the Reformed Jews, particularly the convert goyim, to be Jews, either. (You might not talk about those prejudices, but they're there, in the community...and we both know it.) So what is "Yiddishkeit," genuinely? Which group is allowed to say?

And Muslims. I've met Shia who will not even admit that a Sunni mosque counts as a mosque. And I've met Sunnis who claim that Shia drink their own urine. And I know that other groups, like Salafis and Wahhabis, while recognizing Sufis as Muslims, reject their religious practices as genuinely "Islamic." So in that group, too, there's no easy solution to the question of whom we should consider in any data collection about Muslims.

So let's not play around as if this isn't a general situation of all religions. It is. The question of who must be considered genuine, who may be considered misinformed, and who must be considered not-in is something everyone who deals with religion is obliged to decide.

Now, in Western, inclusive dogma, we're taught never to "judge," and never to say somebody is not authentically what they say they are. But that's silly. Total inclusivism is equally a decision, and one that is almost certain to be wrong, as well, and then to result in us polluting the data pool with inauthentic cases, resulting in conclusions that just do not prove true. And every scholar of religion knows that's the truth. We can't skip the challenge of deciding that.

[MikeNovack]

I once asked a Reformed rabbi if these were considered Jews. He paused, and then said very slowly, "That's...too...far."

If he was right, that would mean that not all biological and cultural Jews are allowed to be Jews. But as you know, there are also Jews who do not consider the Reformed Jews, particularly the convert goyim, to be Jews, either. (You might not talk about those prejudices, but they're there, in the community...and we both know it.) So what is "Yiddishkeit," genuinely? Which group is allowed to say?

He should perhaps have responded "it's complicated, very complicated"

For example, the status of a convert would depend on the status of the bet din (religious court) doing the conversion. So Orthodox might not recognize a a Reform conversion (no orthodox bet din). But it really is complicated because while many orthodox bet dins will only pass converts intending to be observant Jews there are some who will pass converts even more or less secular. I'm not going to bother trying to explain why.

The status of "returness" children or descendants of converts to other religions is again complex. In some cases a conversion required but in this case most bet dins would pass even without an intent to be fully observant. Dealing with "doubtful" status is complicated. There is currently a lot of this going on since DNA testing plus odd family traditions lead many to discover that they are from communities of "Conversos" (crypto Jews since the 16th Century). Really matters decided by the religious courts on a case by case basis.

[Immanuel Can]

I once asked a Reformed rabbi if these were considered Jews. He paused, and then said very slowly, "That's...too...far."

If he was right, that would mean that not all biological and cultural Jews are allowed to be Jews. But as you know, there are also Jews who do not consider the Reformed Jews, particularly the convert goyim, to be Jews, either. (You might not talk about those prejudices, but they're there, in the community...and we both know it.) So what is "Yiddishkeit," genuinely? Which group is allowed to say?

He should perhaps have responded "it's complicated, very complicated"

I don't mind that he was honest, instead. But yes, it's very complicated to know which pool of people fit a given set of data...so that's fair.

The point is still just this: one has to make complicated discernments about who does and does not qualify to fit any group of possibly-religious people. It isn't mean or narrow...it's just unavoidable, especially if one is trying to get ones conclusions to be accurate and well-founded. And in any religious group, there is always a periphery of people who only self-identify as religious, but are actually non-practicing or even non-believing.

Jewish folks have "non-observant" and "secular" Jews, as well as those in a liminal state, like goy converts, and those on-the-outs, like Messianic Jews. Christians have nominalists and "cultural Christians," who often neither know nor care who Jesus was, but who choose to take the label to themselves. Muslims debate endlessly over who counts as "submitted," but they keep that largely in-house and try to claim a united ummah for the sake of public relations, even if they kill each other on the battlefield, as in Iran/Iraq. And on it goes.

Even within something as putatively inclusive and quasi-religious as Buddhism, there are those who see Buddhism as a philosophy only, like some Theravadans, and those who worship ancestors, like East Asian varieties, and spirits, like Tibetans. Can we then say that Buddhists worship ancestors and spirits, or that they do not worship ancestors or spirits? It depends on how you shape your data pool.

You can see the issue, I'm sure. So it's perfectly within reason for us to say that not everybody who claims a religious orientation of a particular kind is a practitioner or conforming to that kind of religious belief.

[MikeNovack]

ut back to the main topic, please (because it might not matter who is or is not REALLY a Christian, Jew, Miuslim, Buddhist, or whatever. And we are (hopefully) still discussing morality (where from) among the religious.

IC, you have been pretty clear, you believe your god has decreed morlity << by "your god" I mean God as you believe to be the true god >>

OK, now take this other person. She's a follower of LH as the teachings of the prophet HL are practiced today. She believe her god (God as she believes the true creator god) created this wonderful world, the non-living parts, all the plants, all the animals including us, To all the creator has given a way to live, inherent in their being. So humans were created knowing how to be human just like the beaver knows how to be a beaver. Human morality inherent in our creation as humans. << BTW -- their "worship" is to declare gratitude foir all the wonderful things -- that's themhman thing to do when given something; show gratitude >>

I am neither Christian nor LH, and so have no reason to prefer (consider more true) either description of "why morality".

[Immanuel Can]

ut back to the main topic, please (because it might not matter who is or is not REALLY a Christian, Jew, Miuslim, Buddhist, or whatever. And we are (hopefully) still discussing morality (where from) among the religious.

I think it does matter: and it matters even more if, as you were suggesting, we try to take some reading of a religion merely from something that those who have only a verbal commitment to it do. If we accept that, we're bound to get it wrong.

However, let's follow your lead, and return to the OP. The above is a secondary question, and we haven't resolved the primary one yet.

I am neither Christian nor LH, and so have no reason to prefer (consider more true) either description of "why morality".

But you do have a reason to prefer some belief system that can ground a version of morality, if morality is something you want, or you believe to be essential, or you think might actually be a real thing.

What you really don't have a reason to do, is to continue to believe in any morality when the system to which you subscribe denies you any reason for thinking morality can even ever be a real thing. That's the plight of secularism: it admits no logical place at all for morality. It instructs you to think, instead, that morality is a subjective fiction made up by some people, and has no binding force on anybody, no basis of cohesion for a society, no justification to inform a system or conception of justice...if you can do without all those things, then you can choose to be a secularist. But if you are a person who reasons consistently, you can't then continue to believe morality is a real thing. The story you're telling yourself about your origins denies that there is any basis for you rationally to do so.

Now, if you accept a religion, then you have a basis to also accept that morality can be objective. Moreover, you can make deductions from that origin story to the conclusion, "Therefore, X is moral." And you will be rationally correct, even if not necessarily absolutely right about X. You'll at least be honouring your chosen worldview, and acting rationally and consistently in forming your conception of morality out of it.

However, the next question that will naturally arise is, "Which morality?" That's a perfectly legitimate next question...and it is possible to generate answers there, too. But if you're a secularist, you can't even get as far as that, so it's a moot point. You'd really have to first accept at least the possibility of some other worldview being right, rather than secularism, if morality is something you know needs a basis.

Short point: there IS no non-religious basis for morality. So we've solved the OP.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'll simply ask you the question again: what's your evidence that you have a moral duty, not just a feeling?

My evidence is in the life I have lived and the person I have been consistently. You can't have a clue about these things, so I guess you're not meant to know. I don't need to insist on a reason or excuse for it (as you do) -- it's just the kind of being I am, as many beings are.

It's too bad you don't understand this natural potential. I think there is much more at work than you realize while you're busy demanding that everything must be explained within the limits of your awareness.

Exactly, nothing can be proven to an unwilling listener.

I was in the military and as such I had a DUTY to do my best to protect all you involved in this argument. I sacrificed my life for all Americans and all our allies, whether right or wrong, theist or atheist, black or white, evil or just, everyone benefited from my sacrifice equally. It was my duty as per my mission.

[Lacewing]

...

...

...

I think everyone has an opportunity, if not a responsibility, to evolve with ever-broadening awareness for the benefit of all, regardless of whatever individual path we take. Religion stunts and limits awareness (to its own ideas/beliefs) which is actually not moral.

[MikeNovack]

But if you're a secularist..............

We're not THERE yet. << don;t jump ahead >>

IC, at the moment before us two explanations of morality coming from RELIGIONS

With yours, the deity created humans without morality and then dictated morality. There are versions slightly different than yours, humans created without morality but then they acquired moral knowledge << I could argue the Garden myth nowhere says the deity created morality, and note the question "who told you you were naked?"And there are other "in between" possibilities but I want a particular contrast.

With LH, the deity created humans with morality an intrinsic feature. No existence of human morality separate from humans.

Ignore the likelihood than you consider LH a false/untrue religion. That's not a useful argument if you are talking to somebody who is neither Christian nor LH. That there might be 200,000 times more Christians than LH followers is irrelevant> We aren't voting about the true God.

All I am asking is if you can accept that the LH folks believe morality an inherent part of humans as created by deity. That this is a RELIGION based explanation of "what is morality and where does it come from?" That they would not consider morality having an objective existence separate from humans.

[Immanuel Can]

But if you're a secularist..............

We're not THERE yet. << don;t jump ahead >>

I'm there. I don't know why you ever left that question. Surely a worldview with NO basis for morality is the first thing we eliminate. So no, I'm not leaving that point until we settle it, because it's very obvious. I don't think you can avoid conceding it, honestly.

With yours, the deity created humans without morality and then dictated morality.

You won't find that in Torah or the New Testament. You'll find instead that man was created with a moral conscience.

All I am asking is if you can accept that the LH folks believe morality an inherent part of humans as created by deity.

You mean that man had a conscience? I already believe that. But if you mean something else, I'd like to know what it is you mean. Your wording is a bit ambiguous there.

...they would not consider morality having an objective existence separate from humans.

That wouldn't even fit their own account of LH. If LH involves a Deity who has created them, and He has created them as moral beings...then morality is an inherent feature of Him, and only a derivative aspect of them. They didn't invent it, and it doesn't emanate from them...it has its origin and definition in the Deity who constituted their being.

So I don't think your account adds up.