|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted November 07, 2019 08:32 PM |
|
|
Dude, “the distinction” Sal refers to, only flourished when Europe evolved to secular thought. That IS the development. It wasnt because of religion, it was because religion was no longer dominating anything. Now, you can say that Christian theology had more potential to open a gateway to secular thought than Islam, if we skip historical details and go exclusively by source material, the books, that is true. Islam, in very simplified terms, is the synthesis of Roman militarism + Christian evangelicalism + nomadic culture. (I use the word evangelicalism in the old-fashioned sense, as the ideal of “one true religion should spread.” Jews were monotheistic but their idea of “only one true God” was to keep it to themselves, they didnt try to convert people.)
There are a lot of factors about why what happened in Europe, happened in Europe, it naturally involves Christianity, too. It also involves Greek philosophy, geography, the Mongol invasion from the East weakening the Middle East, etc etc... But it wasnt because of Christianity. If we had some alternative universe in which Konstantin decided Rome was going to be Buddhist, Europe wouldnt turn into China.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 08:48 PM |
|
|
Things DID get into motion earlier - because of the schism within Christianity. Protestantism was a powerful force for a time, while Catholicism was more like a rotting corpse not wanting to admit it was dead.
It's interesting to note that if you look at religions, to progress, the Eastern religion is really not that suited. Karma and all that? Why strain? That's where protestantism has the advantage. God wants you to work and success and wealth is the measure of how righteous a life you lead and how much you are in God's favor. THAT is capitalism, that is industrialism (comes from industrious), that's all those "hobby scientists".
That's not so much different from other religions - say, Vikings - just that it wasn't fixated on war and plundering.
The key word here is WORK.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 08:53 PM |
|
|
@artu
bah, you talk about some christian African countries struggling, I say the judeo-christianism doesn't originate from there - where it imported as a fashion - then you bicker about geographical position as a fallacy from my side. Calling this logic?
Look, the West is both great cathedrals and the concentration camps. Is both US consitution and chattel slavery, both poison gas and life saving medicines, we all know that. But some people keep pointing to the bad things and totally ignore the positive ones. However, the bad ones have been present in EVERY civilization, from always.
The positives are unique to the West - religious tolerance, abolition of slavery, universal human rights, the development of the scientific method. These are accomplishments of a scope and scale that only the West can claim. As Western thought evolved, it secured the rights of women and minorities, lifted billions of people out of poverty, and invented most of the modern world. Everybody, almost, wants today to live in the Westrern world.
To exaplain the reasons the Western civilizations are/were so successful one must look far back, at Jerusalem and Athens and the teachings and philosophies which emerged from.
Jerusalem represents the religious revelation: the beliefs that a good entity created an ordered universe and that this entity demands moral behavior from his paramount creation, the man. Athens represents reason and logic as expressed by Plato and Aristotle. These two ways of thinking - revelation and reason - live in constant tension.
The religion claims there are certain fundamental truths handed down to us by a transcendent being. We didn't invent these truths, we received them from God. Those rules are vital for building a functioning, moral civilization and for leading a happy life.
Greek philosophy claims that we only know truth by what we observe, test, and measure. It is not belief, but fact, that drives our understanding and exploration of the universe.
Western civilization has found a way to balance both religious belief and human reason.
Without JudeoChr values, we fall into scientific materialism – the belief that physical matter is the only reality, and therefore also fall into nihilism – the belief that life has no meaning, that we are stellar dust in a vast and cold universe.
Without Greek reason, we fall into fanaticism – the belief that fundamentalist adherence to non provable principles represents the only path toward meaning and progress.
This is how balance works and why almost all countries adopting this philosophical blend as functional and organic, and not as a merely simple fashion, are today the most advanced, a magnet and an example for every other people. Who often will even risk their lives in order to be able to join the Western world.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 08:59 PM |
|
|
|
What "values"? Is there any other value than the capitalist values? Market? Profit? The world IS materialistic, and it is that way from the start of humanity.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 09:10 PM |
|
|
Any religion suggests to “behave good” Sal, there is nothing distincly Christian about that. People were still social creatures before monotheism, they werent nihilists because they didnt believe. Gorillas or baboons also have a sense of belonging.
This dualistic and fictional “yin yang” of yours has nothing to do with why morality exists. Morality doesnt exist because of religions, religions exist because we are a social specie that develops moral codes.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 09:14 PM |
|
|
No, they don't, artu. Vikings?
All religions divide people in two groups: believers and non-believers, and all non-believers are "fair game". The alternative is conversion: become a member or face the consequences.
However, Christians SHOULD have been different - but apparently the interpretation was that you should only love thy CHRISTIAN neighbour. Oh, wait, not true, considering that Christianity warred among themselves as well.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 09:16 PM |
|
|
artu said:
morality doesnt exist because of religions, religions exist because we are a social specie that develops moral codes.
yeah basically you just reformulated what I was saying
Salamandre said:
Western civilization has found a way to balance both religious belief and human reason.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 09:30 PM |
|
|
Except that this is not true. Meanwhile you should know that if you would "create" religion with the purpose of introducing or supporting moral rules someone would have to have a pretty good idea of what they were doing.
That's NOT what religion is all about. It's an explanation/story of what everything is all about and of course an illusionary ritual to somehow INFLUENCE things (sacrifice, prayer...).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 10:12 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:01, 07 Nov 2019.
|
@Sal
No, I didnt. Your formulation is: The West is super because it combined tne reason of Ancient Greece and the morality of Christianity. What I said was, there is nothing distinctly Christian about morality. This is actually way too simplistic to even to object to but.... For instance, Ancient Greek philosophers had endless debates about what is moral, they werent Mr. Spocks like you tried to portray them. There is both reasoning and morality in any society, what is historically distinct about Europe is how it developed a method of reasoning (which is not some yang to morality, there is no such duality, this reasoning also involves what you build your morality on) that is based on facts, not myths.
@JJ
Yes, religions are basically stories that try to explain things and make sense of the world but they are stories that suggest moral codes. Not every religion suggests a moral code such as “non-believers are fair game.” Most pre-monotheistic religions usually dont even care. They dont have the notion that religion must be universal. The idea that religion should “dominate” develops paralel to kingdoms starting to dominate, instead of various tribes each minding their own business. A good example: some missionaries read the Bible to American natives, they like it and in return, they tell their own tales,
when the missionaries say “this is heresy” they cant even comprehend the reaction, “but why, we liked your stories, why do you treat ours like this?”
Of course, there is a perception of “the others” but that’s not significantly about religion, that’s the nature of any social structure:
Click
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 10:21 PM |
|
|
@ artu
That's where I disagree: religion isn't moral at all. Gods are doing all kinds of immoral crap, Egyptian, Greek, you name it. Even the good ones (Zeus siring lots of children...)
No. Religion has been taken by the powers that were to propagate a certain behavior for everyone else, except the powers that were.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 10:24 PM |
|
|
Religions suggest A morality. I’m not saying it is THE correct morality. I mean, I dont expect people from ancient times to oppose slavery, anyway.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 10:34 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 10:58 PM |
|
|
Do not tempt the gods and know your place, if you do tempt them they will punish you. This is a moral suggestion on how you should behave, what is “the right thing” to do.
Do not sleep with your neighbor’s wife, another moral suggestion,
Turn the other cheek, moral suggestion.
It’s endless, every religion suggests moral codes.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 11:21 PM |
|
|
Well - no. "Do not tempt the gods" has no repercussions except for what the priests say (you do something - who is to say you are tempting the gods with what you do). (That they will punish you is just enforcing the power of the communicator).
Do not sleep with your neighbour's wife is - formulated differently - part of the law laid down for the Jews (only). It's not a moral. It's a law (that includes the penalty as well - the perpetrator has to pay to something).
Turn the other cheek is indeed a moral suggestion - the problem is, no one ever followed that one, so the one example you gave was a failure.
Instead, everyone used that to point their finger, if anything.
In fact, the last one is a glaring example of religion being utterly meaningless when it come to moral. It's even in the Bible: Moses goes to fetch the law of god and when he comes back his people are dancing around an idol.
It's alibis, at best.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 11:23 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
@ artu
That's where I disagree: religion isn't moral at all. Gods are doing all kinds of immoral crap, Egyptian, Greek, you name it. Even the good ones (Zeus siring lots of children...)
No. Religion has been taken by the powers that were to propagate a certain behavior for everyone else, except the powers that were.
You just instantly assume that you have the authority or wisdom to tell Zeus what is or isnt moral. That's a very Marxist thing to say.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 11:44 PM |
|
|
I see artu misunderstood me, my claim about moral values:
Salamandre said:
Those rules are vital for building a functioning, moral civilization and for leading a happy life.
Was part of what religion claims/imposes - read the statement before, not my opinion about.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 07, 2019 11:44 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Morality:
1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
2. A particular system of values and principles of conduct.
3. The extent to which an action is right or wrong.
All examples fit all the definitions. A law can be, and in may cases is, based on moral values. It’s simple, when you talk about normative “rights and wrongs” you are talking about moral values.
This river is created by god: Not normative.
It is a sin to bath in this river: Normative.
It is a sin to bath in this river but you have a legal right to do so: A secular morality based on “human rights” surpassing a morality based on “god’s order.” Still normative.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2019 08:17 AM |
|
|
I know what you mean, and it looks right, but that is still what I disagree with.
There are a lot of religions, and a religion is first and foremost some kind of story that describes and explains the powers that govern "the world"; the "order of things" you might say. The point of interest here is that part of the story that describes the role the humans "supposedly" play. If any.
Now - take the Romans. Is there any moral/morality as a normative in their religion? No. The only thing existing are cultic and ritual practices with the purpise to gain the favor of one or more gods for something. There is nothing normative (and I'd consider this as a condition for moral and morality coming into play). So a peasant would make a sacrifice to gain some kind of "protection" for the harvest. (The moral here would be: if the gods are (supposed to be) bribable, then who are we to be not so, but I don't think anyone was interested in "moral".)
It fits, that no matter whom the Romans conquered, they could keep their religion. Because religion was something personal and everyone could pray to and believe in everyone they want.
The same thing is true for the old Germanic religion, for the Egyptian religion, the Greeks and others - I'm no expert on all the religions of the world, so I don't know.
But naming a couple is already enough, because you said religions suggest a morality. They don't, AS A RULE.
Hinduism is something in-between. Karma and rebirth LOOK like morality stuff - but it isn't normative. You can do whatever you want, because the "reward" is automatic. It says, basically, we are all in the midth of building a big house, but if you nake a mistake in building, you'll lose part of it and have to restart the building. However, the ultimate reward is basically a heroin overdose, which is akin to a movie scene where someone is starting to torture someone else and then says, if you tell me what I want to know, I'll give you a painless death.
Are the monotheistic religions suggesting a morality? You'd tend to say yes at first sight, but it's not that easy. For one thing, they all are based on the Jewish religion. What IS the Jewish religion? The story of a certain people (or, depending on how you want to see it, 3 peoples). But you might also say, it's the story of one god trying to bring a people to worship him, and ONLY him.
Now, what is different here, is that this god has such an interest in this people. He actively tries to bring them around to him, and for the followers there is just one moral: obey god (don't sin). That's the reason for interesting morale conflicts, like Sabbat and what can you do on that day, when God says you should rest?
With that comes a religion-bound codex of laws, and that is, in which the Jews differ from others, when you look at it the other way round. Their codex of law is reinforced by its status - given from the most powerful being Himself, so it' a GODLY law.
However, the result is GOD'S moral, not that of humans. That of humans is DON'T SIN. So, say, if God tells you to sacrifice your son, you better DO IT. And if God tells everyone to stone the adultress - you do it, and God DOES tell so.
Morality? Yes. Normative? Yes.
For all I know, Islam works the same way.
Christianity is somewhat different, because Jesus actually left something else: Love your neighbour as you love yourself. This goes back to far-east philosophy and is quite interesting, because it's the start of what we Westerners would call a moral, because it's basically a principle. It doesn't do away with the old laws, but instead it says, "the old laws only go so far; if in doubt, take that as a principle, and if something seems harsh as a penalty, remember the fundamental moral".
This could be understood (and the stories about Jesus and the Scriptores would support this) as an encouragement to get away from the strict DON'T SIN and develop a self-responsible law, a law virtually not carved in stone.
Of course, the Jews didn't accept that, and the Christians, once in power didn't either, and DON'T SIN was kept more or less until the last century, when things became more secular.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 08, 2019 03:20 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:24, 08 Nov 2019.
|
I think that’s quite a narrow look on what morality can constitute. Yes, pagan gods took bribes in a more literal sense, but then Abrahamic religions also have a sense of praying or feasting for favors. They also have sacrifing animals in Judaism, which keeps on in Islam and in Christianity, the sacrifice is the prophet himself, he is “the lamb.”
Any social structure has normative moral values and it would be a very strange idea to assume that the religions they came up with were totally isolated from that. Since religions meant a lot to people. Roman religion is mostly a rephrasing of Greek religion, Zeus becomes Jupiter, Venus becomes Aphrodite, Ares becomes Mars and so on... All these gods, or the gods of Egypt, expected people to behave in some certain conduct, their expectations are not exactly the same with Abrahamic gods but it is not extremely different either, sex is less of an issue, belief in other gods is not a problem obviously, since it’s politheism. But you must be humble in front of the gods, not mess with the order of things, act virtuous to your fellow men etc etc. When king Tantalos made a fake peace with his enemy and served him the flesh of his cooked son, the gods punished him in eternal suffering, he was forever trying to reach fruits of a tree that kept helding back, forever trying to drink water when it escaped him as well. (Hence the word: Tantalize.) Now, this is a moral story: Do not cook people and have their father eat them or you will be penalized with eternal hunger and thrist. While pagan religions are not as contractual as Abrahamic ones, they still constitute moral norms.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2019 03:54 PM |
|
|
And I think your idea of "moral" dilutes the whole concept.
Don't Sin (whether in the strict sense of Abrahamic religions or the "cautionary tale" sense of the polytheistic religions (which are on the same level than superstituous cautionary tales like "don't walk under a ladder", "don't step on seams between tiles" and so on; there is no service or sacrifice ASKED or in any way mandatory, it's just kind of a precaution)) isn't a moral, it's simply a command which doesn't imply any moral. If some absolute sovereign with unmimited power who owns your life commands something, there is no moral involved.
You say: Quote:
Any social structure has normative moral values and it would be a very strange idea to assume that the religions they came up with were totally isolated from that.
Well, it's not strange it's a fact, because in those non-Abrahamic cultures religion was, as I said, a PERSONAL thing (easily to check), not a SOCIAL thing (which is why conquered people could keep their religion in Rome - socially spoken, religion was meaningless, it was only personally important, but whether someone was pious and would sacrifice at any opportunity or not was of no importance.
Keep also in mind that Rome had a quote complex code of laws - and Iustitia has nothing to do with that at all.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
