GuySmiley
Well-known member
Would you call yourself an antilabelist?
Intro to Derf
- Thread starter Derf
- Start date
heir
TOL Subscriber
Derf
Well-known member
If I answer yes, I answer no. conundrum!
Derf
Well-known member
Thanks for the thread link. I was looking for such just today.
Derf
Well-known member
I have this rather inane idea that if I don't participate in the bashing, that it helps--if not with that particular conversation, then at least with the overall flavor of the conversations.
If you do the same, and others do, too, then the atmosphere can actually change for the better. (My version of climate change)
That being said, I've seen some real caring between members that might go at each others' throats in a debate, so keep in mind that the conversations are not all meant to make each other feel happy, but to sharpen iron on iron--hopefully focusing on doctrine rather than personal characteristics.
All the best! (And with that username, watch out for the Jews and Muslims.)
Derf
PureX
Well-known member
I would have thought that the whole point of religious doctrine was to help people recognize and change their own "characteristics" for the better. Arguing over doctrine for doctrine's sake, or for the sake of 'being right' doesn't seem to improve anyone's individual self-awareness, nor their desire to be better human beings.
It's seems to me that the only way doctrines effect that, is by applying them to ourselves. Not by "correcting it" in others.
Just thinking ...
PureX
Well-known member
That would be true if theology were all this site was about, but it's not, really. And I think it would be unreasonable for us to expect it to be. How can we learn if no one ever tells us we're wrong? How can we change our behavior for the better if no one ever tells us we're behaving badly? How can we ever learn how to think and write more clearly if no one ever tells us we're posting like a confused child?
I don't personally mind the insults, even when they're completely off the mark, because sometimes they're not off the mark. Sometimes I need to hear them, to learn. And if they are off the mark, so be it. We're not all at the same level of spiritual and intellectual maturity. There are lots of adult children in the world who are going to behave like the overgrown spoiled toddlers that they are. And they're here, too.
That's just life.
Derf
Well-known member
Good thoughts! But what is "doctrine"? If doctrine is what we use to figure out what to do, then wrong doctrine leads to wrong practice.
For instance, if my doctrine says to worship angels (or demons), eat babies, and kill indiscriminately, then I would hope someone would at least attempt to correct my doctrine (if they can get close enough to me before I get to them). Once I have my doctrine corrected (assuming I'm willing to correct it), then the correct application can follow.
But without a distinction between "correct" and "incorrect" doctrine, there's no distinction between "correct" and "incorrect" morals or behavior. Thus, in my theoretical doctrine above, changing my own characteristics "for the better" would mean that I worship angels (or demons) MORE fervently, eat MORE babies (or bigger ones, perhaps), and spend MORE time killing indiscriminately. There...now I'm a better human being.
PureX
Well-known member
To be honest with you, I think people adopt the "doctrines" that validate the way they want to behave, not the other way around. With the result that arguing about doctrine serves as little else but a distraction from the real question: how is our behavior effecting us, and effecting others, through us? Our "doctrines" are usually just a mask of self-justifications.
For example, have you noticed that angry people tend to believe in an angry God, who then justifies their desire to express their anger? Or that vengeful people tend to believe in a vengeful God that will carry our their desire for vengeance? Or conversely, that kind and generous people tend to believe in a kind and generous God, that enables them to express those convictions in an otherwise mean and selfish world?
I think our doctrines are masks that reflect who we already are, and how we see the world, more than they're programs for changing us for better or worse. We can argue doctrines if we want to, but from my observations, that's almost always a waste of time. Because it's how our behavior is effecting and shaping who we are that really matters. And most of the time, we use arguments about doctrines to avoid asking those more direct questions.
Derf
Well-known member
So, what would that make your god? A cynical god?
I'd argue that doctrines, whether right or wrong, inform our behavior. And a wrong doctrine is very unlikely to lead to right behavior. Perhaps you have put the cart before the horse in your comments: maybe angry people are angry because their doctrine makes them think their god wants them to be angry (like their god, perhaps).
Either way, the one that gave us "anger" should be more fit to determine how best to use it than we ourselves. And we are told to "Be angry, yet sin not." We are also told that He is, to name a few, a jealous God, a merciful God, a just God, a truthful God, a vengeful God, and a loving/"kind and generous" God, not all of which does He ask us to be.
I agree that what matters is how our behavior is affecting and shaping who we are, but how do we know which of those behaviors are ones we should allow to affect and shape us? That's doctrine.
PureX
Well-known member
I'm sorry, but that's a pathetic reply. Do you really think people are so stupid that they can't determine a positive result from a negative result from their own behavior? Do you really think a man that beats his wife and children needs to be told by some holy book that beating his wife and children is having a negative effect on both himself and them?
Or do you think the violent domestic abuser uses his deliberately biased understanding of religious doctrine to try and justify his desire to beat and humiliate members of his own family? … Because he already KNOWS it's wrong.
Arguing doctrine with such a man is not going to stop him from abusing his family because it's not doctrine that's causing him to abuse them. The doctrinal arguments are just a smoke screen, and a pointless distraction from the real problem. What the man needs is to face the damaging results of his own behavior, and be made to take responsibility for it.
Derf
Well-known member
damaging to whom? Evolutionists (doctrinally pure ones, that is) would say that behavior that damages another species that is a competitor is beneficial, not harmful, behavior. The same might be said of inferior members of the same species. You might be right that we all KNOW right from wrong, but put ten of us in a room together and see if we all agree on right and wrong. Personally? I don't trust my own sense of right and wrong, If not flawed, it's at least biased to my benefit (and to others' detriment).
You're assuming everyone has an uncorrupted moral compass by which to judge their own behavior, but our society suggests that's a poor assumption. Your last statement requires an outside judge of a man's behavior to override ('be made to take responsibility') the man's own judgment. You seem to be arguing against yourself here.
PureX
Well-known member
What makes you think anyone else has any better or less biased understanding of right and wrong than you do? Or that you have any better understanding of it than anyone else does? And since, clearly, we are all equally lacking in the omniscience necessary to fully grasp what is truly 'right', and we are all biased in favor of ourselves, then what is the point of arguing religious doctrines that are the result of our own limited understanding and self-centered bias? If we must have a debate, it seems to me the proper course of action would be to employ the branch of philosophy called 'ethics' to generate and pursue as informed and reasonable set of ethical imperatives as we can.
No, I understand that we are all confused, and that we are all "corrupted" by self-centered bias in our assessment of what is "good and right". What I don't assume is that 'my' religious doctrine offers us all the corrective solution to that. Or that even if it did, that anyone else should take my word (or argument) for it.
Which then leads us back to the study and debate of ethics, NOT the study and debate of religious doctrine.
An example of ethical study and debate would be to start with the assumption that it is better to exist, than not to exist. And then to develop ethical imperatives that are based on the goal of continuing existence, as opposed to seeking annihilation.
Soon we would come to the inevitable dichotomy of continuing individual existence, relative to continuing collective existence, and the ethical quandaries that arise when these two imperatives conflict, or compete. I think the logic of ethics will be far superior to the superstitions of religion in dealing with this age-old quandary. Don't you?
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Of course "it seems" to you. That's why we need something that is outside of ourselves to provide proper course of action. You picked the doctrine of 'ethics' derived from human philosophy. I prefer the doctrine of the God that made humans. Whichever one of us is right, it's an argument over "doctrine". You seem to be making my case for me, thanks!
As to which of us is right, I'll point you back to your own statement: "we are all equally lacking in the omniscience necessary to fully grasp what is truly 'right'". Your aspiring statement demolishes the idea of a human-determined ethic in the same breath that it shows what is needed for a transcendent ethic--omniscience. So you've also made that case for me. Thanks again!
As [you] pointed out above, the study of ethics is valid as long as it can discern what is of human origins and what is from a source with more knowledge to speak about humans.
That seems reasonable to me--that existence is better than non-existence. But there are many in this world (and a number that post in this forum, see here) that disagree with you. How can you prove to them that you are correct about existence?
Note also the expanding number of states here in the US that are legalizing assisted suicide. This is, in my opinion, a direct result of the movement of our society away from Christian truth (read: "doctrine"). And apparently it opposes your thought system as well.
What you've done is presume the truth of Christianity, which says that life is better than death, and then you use that to argure that Christianity is not a valid source of truth. I wouldn't finish cutting off that branch just yet.
Nicely worded! See how you included your "superstitions of religion" as a way to diminish its potential impact in this discussion! But what if we compare the truths of religion with the opinions about ethics.
I'm sure that's scary to you, as that means we have to pick one religion over another to be the purveyor of truth (read: "doctrine"). And thus we are back to arguing over doctrine. I'm glad we agree so vehemently.
PureX
Well-known member
We don't have anything outside ourselves. Man's religions are still man's religions. They do not come from "outside" our own bias or desire. You may want some outside force to tell you what to think and do, as many people do, but none exists. All that exists are a lot of other humans who will be only too happy to tell you what to think and do. (For their own purposes.)
But that "true moral authority" you and so many others seek does not exist in this world. Your Creator wants you (and all of us) to determine right from wrong for ourselves. Because as we do so, we will also be determining who we are as individual beings, and who we are acting to become.
You have swallowed the lie of the religionists: that they embody "God's authority".
They don't. It's just another man-made control system. I hope some day you'll find the courage to put down the religious illusions of "authority" and face the task of defining yourself as your Creator intended.
I can't prove that to them. I can only offer the logic and positive result of it. Every human has the right (and the obligation) to choose for themselves what they will accept as their ultimate moral imperative. Because our Creator has deemed it so. None of us can force any other of us to believe what we chose not to believe. We are all here to choose our own view of existence, and our own course of action in the light of that view. Because in doing so we are defining ourselves … co-creating ourselves, with God. This is free will. This is God's gift to all mankind.
This nation was supposed to be modeled after that divine free will: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." … etc. The state is trying to ensure the God-given free will of every individual to the degree that it is able, without the free will of one person infringing on the free will of another. It is not the state's place, nor yours or mine, to dictate our moral imperatives of our fellow humans. To do so would be to defy God's gift of free will to each and every human being.
Whatever you think is a valid source of truth for you, is fine, for you. I'm simply pointing out that your assuming it to be the truth for everyone else is unfounded, ego-centric, and defies the Creator's gift of self-determination.
A lot of religious doctrine is based on superstition. If you find that "insulting", I'm sorry, but that's your problem to deal with. I prefer ethics to religious doctrines because ethics tries to operate ontologically, rather then via superstition, myth, here-say, and religious authoritarianism.
Derf
Well-known member
Hi PureX,
I still think you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Here is an example from your post (I did the embolding for emphasis):
How can we have a creator (who is obviously outside ourselves) when we don't have anything outside ourselves???
Here's another one:
How can you tell me what God intended without somehow embodying God's authority? You sound like a religionist to me, telling me what God says and what He doesn't say, what He wants us to do and what He doesn't want us to do, while at the same time you are denigrating all religionists (does that include yourself, or are you somehow above the fray?).
Where did you get the authority to make such statements? Answer these questions for me, please:
These are all statements of absolute truth, even while many of them are also statements of relative truth. How is that possible? How is it that you can give me assurance of the truth of a statement that says there is no absolute truth??
I appreciate that you have softened your statement about religion. Before you talked about "the superstitions of religion" (which is a bit of a broad brush), but now you've tempered it (appropraitely):
Yes, you are quite correct: A LOT of religious doctrine is based on superstition, or based on the desires of some to control the many, which you also mentioned. These things are valid concerns!
But how do you deal with them? We have to have a discussion over doctrine. We have to find out if there is one that is true and which ones are false. We do that with the powers of logic, yes, but logic does not develop these ideas, it only helps us to discuss them--it helps us to determine if these things are from men (and therefore suspect) or from God (and therefore above the petty whims of man). Maybe there's a better way to state that last thought, but the point is that doctrine is not something to be feared, but something to be analyzed for truth--for consistency, perhaps.
In fact, that is what you have been doing with me for the last few posts--arguing over doctrine. If it is so fruitless, why do you engage in it?
Thanks for making my point so well for me.
I still think you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Here is an example from your post (I did the embolding for emphasis):
How can we have a creator (who is obviously outside ourselves) when we don't have anything outside ourselves???
Here's another one:
How can you tell me what God intended without somehow embodying God's authority? You sound like a religionist to me, telling me what God says and what He doesn't say, what He wants us to do and what He doesn't want us to do, while at the same time you are denigrating all religionists (does that include yourself, or are you somehow above the fray?).
Where did you get the authority to make such statements? Answer these questions for me, please:
How do you know "We don't have anything outside ourselves"?- How do you know "that 'true moral authority' and so many others seek does not exist in this world"?
[*]How do you know "our Creator has deemed it so"?
[*]How do you know "We are all here to choose our own view of existence"?
[*]How do you know "[My] Creator wants [me] (and all of us) to determine right from wrong for ourselves"?
[*]How do you know "It is not the state's place, nor yours or mine, to dictate our moral imperatives of our fellow humans"?
[*]How do you know "Whatever you think is a valid source of truth for you, is fine, for you"?
These are all statements of absolute truth, even while many of them are also statements of relative truth. How is that possible? How is it that you can give me assurance of the truth of a statement that says there is no absolute truth??
I appreciate that you have softened your statement about religion. Before you talked about "the superstitions of religion" (which is a bit of a broad brush), but now you've tempered it (appropraitely):
Yes, you are quite correct: A LOT of religious doctrine is based on superstition, or based on the desires of some to control the many, which you also mentioned. These things are valid concerns!
But how do you deal with them? We have to have a discussion over doctrine. We have to find out if there is one that is true and which ones are false. We do that with the powers of logic, yes, but logic does not develop these ideas, it only helps us to discuss them--it helps us to determine if these things are from men (and therefore suspect) or from God (and therefore above the petty whims of man). Maybe there's a better way to state that last thought, but the point is that doctrine is not something to be feared, but something to be analyzed for truth--for consistency, perhaps.
In fact, that is what you have been doing with me for the last few posts--arguing over doctrine. If it is so fruitless, why do you engage in it?
Thanks for making my point so well for me.
Last edited: