Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....?

This of course has its own set of problems: If you end up making a harmful moral decision, you could carry it out with with a zeal that is disproportionate to how confident you should be. This can lead to good people doing bad things, with a sense of clarity that can be delusional.I say that with this lack of discernment, clarity or confidence, comes moral humility which in turn leads us to be more open to new moral arguments.In the age of reason, morality will still work. We'll still have our moral instincts, we'll still have little voices in our heads. But we won't interfere with the lives of others based on a confidence borne out of appeals to prime moral movers who we can never be sure we have correctly understood (since it largely amounts to listening to the voices in your head and picking out the ones that we already feel are the 'good' ones).I originally came to answer questions like this: And the answer I think is clear. Because we want to, because we are empathic and social creatures, because that is how we are raised and it is a fundamental part of our psychological make up (genetics and environment combining). You implied that with no moral prime mover we'd just as well devolve into a might makes right society, and I reply that even believing in a prime moral mover does not avoid the might makes right state of affairs when resources come under dispute between groups.I think I have successfully argued against that position, since now you agree that we have moral instincts, little voices in our heads, the capacity to meditate and contemplate etc, and they would still be there even if religion was sidelined.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No I'm only talking about the process by which we arrive at conclusions. I agree - which does seem like a good place to close this off.May the force be with you.

Anything can be twisted or for whatever reason and there always be those who are delusional with or without religion. I think I hear you saying that it is wrong for those who have a moral belief that they believe is theistically founded to try and convince others of their sense of morality, but it is fine for those who base their morality on something else to promote their beliefs. That sounds fair. As I've said in numerous other posts my view is that my being a Christian does not necessarily make me more moral or nicer than my neighbour but it should make me a nicer more moral person than I had been previously.

You checked the pages that the links you were intending to post led to, then put in five links to the same page? Weird. As for Truzzi's definition and description of a pseudoskeptic, you fit the bill very well.5) Assuming criticism requires no burden of proofThis is exactly what you try to do in the O.P. of our Great Debate, here.6) Making unsubstantiated counter-claimsThis is your speciality.Now you can go to the great debate thread and illustrate (1) your tendency to deny, as we're off-topic here.

Im giving this one a rest, allowing all participants to read back twenty posts or so and try and coordinate your thoughts in support of (or against) the topic. Sometimes I think that some of us (occasionally myself included) tend to get caught up in our own thoughts and blather on without pausing to acknowledge the contributions and opinions of others. I'll reopen this one in a day or so...please read what others have said and slooow down!

Hi, Phat. It's a good question. In my opinion, irrational faith itself isn't the real problem. When it becomes coupled with expansionist/proselyting ideals, then it becomes something of a problem.In an Age of Reason, faith would have to be recognized for what it is (inherently irrational), and, in order to promote better overall prosperity and happiness, we would have to overcome our fear of the potential consequences of falling short in our adherence to our irrational faith.

Wrong? Not necessarily. Potentially hazardous given the false sense of confidence that divine theory gives? Yes. I think you are doing yourself a disservice if you think that you require a Christian moral framework to be a more moral person. There are plenty of people that have committed monstrous acts, because of their Christian beliefs. I'm not suggesting you are one of them. However, the reason you are not one of those people is not because of your Christian beliefs it is because you are actually a moral person. You therefore cherry pick the good, or at least acceptable moral guidelines from the Bible and you call that 'Christianity'.The danger comes when a person misidentifies the moral teachings of the Bible and, with great confidence, commits horrific acts. We shouldn't suffer a witch to live? That justifies some murder right there, for example.

So just how does this work? People can promote all the strange beliefs they want as long as it isn't theistically based. However all theistic aideas will have to pass by a board of anti-theistis before they will be allowed to promote it. I think I'm starting to get the hang of this "Age of Reason idea. I can only talk from my own personal experience which is what I was doing. Also, of course it is my belief that all morality is as the result of a moral prime mover.It isn't cherry picking, if the Bible is understood in the way I believe is intended.

Well no, in the Age of Reason religious notions of morality have been sidelined, by definition. There is no need to police it. Right, everyone has their methodology of interpreting the bible. That methodology amounts to cherry picking. You use a methodology of interpretation that you feel makes the bible a sufficient guide to moral behaviour. But you are judging the goodness of this moral system using your own moral sense. You reject other methods of interpretations based on your own judgement of the problems they raise. Of course, deciding that God is real may provide suitable motivation to start following the dictums of your moral sense where you had previously been more selfish. In the Age of Reason we'd try to foster an environment so that people will be motivated follow their in built capacity for moral behaviour without needing to use the sidelined carrot and stick of religion - even if you want to argue its a particularly good carrot and stick. I'm saying it is possible to do it in other ways that don't require using that particular tool, and in the Age of Reason we would of course have to use those other methods.

Quick comment: No. People are free to advocate whatever strange beliefs they want. Theistic or otherwise. But in this 'Age of Reason' they will have to accept that any claim to the divine (literal or metaphorical) truth of their beliefs will hold no sway at all. Instead they will have to argue their case based on why it is their particular moral stance should be adopted. So you are only including the bits that correspond to your beliefs and discarding the bits that don't. That is precisely cherry picking isn't it?

To date the only way that happened was by persuasion by force. No you read in context with reason and tradition. Here is a quote from Matthew 22:

quote:

---

34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" 37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."

---

"On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets"Also look again at the verse from Micah 6:

quote:

---

8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?

---

These are verses that are used to sum up the message of God. Why would anyone want to remove this line of thought from a so-called Age of Reason? But the carrot and stick thing misrepresents Christian teaching. It is impossible to perform an unselfish charitable act if it is being done for reward.

In the western world that is exactly what's happening now. I'm completely opposed to the idea of living in a Christian theocracy. See my answer to Mod above.To add a note though I'd say that the beliefs about the character of God are to a large degree formed by the Bible in context and then in understanding the Bible I do interpret it with that understanding. I think the Bible in context tells us that we have a loving God and that He wants us to be a loving people. When I understand that I can look at the notion in the Bible that God wants us to turn our difficult children in to be stoned to death I'm left with no doubt that this came from the hearts and minds of mankind. It isn't that difficult.

But that doesn't mean that it's the only way it can happen. Maybe persuasion by appeal to self-interest, maybe an appeal to group interests, maybe people will just be persuaded rationally. Yes, yes, everyone says something along those lines to justify why their interpretation is the better one. Nobody is suggesting we boycott morale ideas just because one religion or another had them too. Obviously we'd have done away with the God parts. But the love each other bit? Sure, why remove that line of thought just because some people who believed in God also believed in said line of thought? That just wouldn't be reasonable. No.Matthew 6 (NIV) Your father rewards you for your righteousness, UNLESS you parade it in front of others. You do charity in secret and thus receive a reward from your Father.That's the carrot. I think the stick is well known, enough.

Good luck with that. I have no doubt that some of what I believe is wrong but I keep trying to gain further understanding. It really seems to bother you that you can't have absolute knowledge and so you reject the whole thing. Fair enough and that deals with the idea of making a public show of charity for human approval. In addition though there are those commandments to humbly love God, neighbour, kindness, mercy justice etc. This precludes the idea of charity for some future reward. (The carrot). It is not an act of unselfish love if the reason that you are charitable is due to self interest. Instead of it being an unselfish act of charity it becomes a selfish act.You keep wanting it to be about what it is you do. It isn't about what you or I do, it's about the person that we are when, theoretically, not even God is looking. Do we love kindness for its own sake, do we treat others justly because we believe in fairness, are we naturally humble, do we find our own joy in the joy of others or deep down is it all about me?It seems to me that this would be consistent with how you want people to act in The Age of Reason. Rather than trying to sideline religion wouldn't it be more fruitful trying to promote theism based on thses principles?

If you were following along with Straggler and I, you'd realize we were both skeptical that such a thing is going to happen any time soon. Humans are still too attached to their superstitions. As someone that rejects absolute morality, I reject this characterisation that I'm uncomfortable without absolute knowledge. My point was that everybody interprets the Bible to be inline with their own personal in built (and learned) moral system. My point was not that we should therefore reject the whole thing.My point is that we don't need the Bible to make moral judgements since we can morally judge the Bible. Morality is about what we do. And what we do is about who we are. It's not a question of trying to sideline religion, the point is that religion would be sidelined in an Age of Reason. In an age where we are trying to promote theism based on these principles, we'd call it the age of...now.