Burden of Proof

Ron Webb wrote:   My old quotes are green, you are red....   Shasta'sAunt wrote: If this were the cae we would have no need for laws or punishment. Everyone would just automatically do the moral and ethical thing. I did say that our natural instincts can be distorted by bad parenting and indoctrination with false teachings.  It is for those people that we need laws and punishment. Don't you think it could be for those very same reasons that spiritual guidance is also necessary?   I trust my own instincts, but I was not born all knowledgeable. Nor was I, but I think as a mature adult I have all the knowledge I need to be a good person.  Frankly, I think you do too. But you were taught that knowledge. God sent us guidance to teach us.   It would be interesting, if I had the time, to go through the various religions and  break their teachings into three categories: (1) basic instincts and human needs (e.g. love, respect, community) that virtually all religions share and which all of us should know intuitively; (2) abstract ethical principles and institutions (justice, charity, government) that can be logically derived from those instincts and needs; and (3) arbitrary dogma (ritual, taboos) having nothing to to with either of the above two.  I think all of us have (1), even if it has been suppressed or distorted by false teaching; and all of us can discover (2), perhaps with help from others.  As for (3), I see no value in it.   (1) sense of community, love, respect are not intuitive. They have to be taught and nurtured. If you drop a newborn in the jungle with no human input they will not be intuitively loving, respectful, or community minded.   (2) each society has it's own set of ethics, justice, charity... What one person or society considers just you might find abhorrent: burying baby girls, isolating the elderly or sick so they will die, selling children into slave labor. Religion gives humans guidelines and principles that are not always logically derived from man's basic instincts   (3) I think Chrysallis gave a great answer. Getting up everyday, taking a shower, going to work, marriage, etc... are all examples of rituals. Paying taxes, voting, obeying laws are all examples of dogma. We all follow both, they are what make the fabric of a working society and are necessary [quote]I think it is clear. But perhaps I have a different standard than you. I don't need God to appear in Times Square and announce Himself. I see God's Work in the perfection of reproduction, the genius behind the mechanics of sight and sound, a million different ways.

And you cannot imagine that these things could have evolved naturally.  That is the fundamental difference between us.

I can imagine they did, I simply do not believe they did.

 

 

Prophets are just human beings like the rest of us. They receive the Word of God because of their strong moral character and total submission. A question, if you were going to elect a treasurer for your town or city, would you elect someone who had a scrupulous reputation for honesty and truthfulness whose life was an open book, or would you elect a three time felon who had done prison time for theft and robbery and who refused to answer any personal questions?

As you pointed out in "Higher Authority", prophets are not earthly rulers (and I don't know why you allow Muhammad as an exception).  They are messengers, and messengers have no authority except to transmit the message.  The only qualifications required are a good memory to remember the message, and the integrity and reliability to transmit it without errors or alterations.  Most ordinary people could do the job.

I'm not really sure of your point here. I pointed out not all Prophets are earthly rulers. There are those who were: Moses, David, Mohammed... My point was that being a Prophet or Messenger of God does not necessarily make you an earthly ruler. That does not mean that being a Prophet or Messenger bars you from being an earthly ruler, if that is the Will of God.  

I cannot even pretend to know why God chose the people He chose to be His Prophets and Messengers, other than what God has told us about them. I'm sure those chosen thought they were just ordinary people, humility often being one of the virtues of Prophethood. 

 

I don't know. Why aren't we all Albert Einstein or Vincent Van Gogh, or Mozart, or Hemingway, or Michael Jordan? Why do we need teachers or coaches or trainers? Why aren't we all born with a complete education, knowing everything there is to know about everything, with the ability to perform any task, partake in any sport, create great art, and write insightful literature?

All good questions.  Why does God save His best work for only a few lucky people, and leave the rest of us to muddle along with inferior abilities and incomplete information?  The Quran says that Allah guides who He wills, and leads others astray.  It never made any sense to me.

Allah doesn't lead anyone astray. If someone has chosen that wrong path, free will, then Allah leaves them on that path. Once we have chosen the correct path, Allah shows us His guidance. 

 

14:3 (Y. Ali) Those who love the life of this world more than the Hereafter, who hinder (men) from the Path of Allah and seek therein something crooked: they are astray by a long distance.

14:4 (Y. Ali) We sent not an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom.

 

 

Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 03 May 2009 at 2:32pm

Shasta'sAunt wrote: Ron Webb wrote: I did say that our natural instincts can be distorted by bad parenting and indoctrination with false teachings.  It is for those people that we need laws and punishment. Don't you think it could be for those very same reasons that spiritual guidance is also necessary?

Not necessary, but it might be helpful in some cases.  However, if by "spirituality" you mean traditional religion, for a skeptic like me it would probably do more harm than good.  Nothing would alienate me faster than some guy blathering about my immortal soul or God's wrath.

I think some form of counselling should be offered, but it seems to me that no guidance or counselling or anything else can reach some people.  Unfortunately we will always need laws and punishments.

Shasta'sAunt wrote: Ron Webb wrote: Shasta'sAunt wrote: I trust my own instincts, but I was not born all knowledgeable. Nor was I, but I think as a mature adult I have all the knowledge I need to be a good person.  Frankly, I think you do too. But you were taught that knowledge. God sent us guidance to teach us.

I have certain instincts which are intrinsic.  From the moment of birth my brain was programmed to recognize human faces and to react emotionally to them.  No one had to teach me that killing innocent people is wrong because I have an empathy toward them, so killing them would feel a bit like killing myself.  Nobody taught me that.

I was taught more complex ethical concepts, not by God but by my parents and by life experiences.  In most cases I have since been able to verify those ethical concepts by tracing their logical origins to those primal instincts and to natural laws.  No, I don't think God had anything to do with it.

(1) sense of community, love, respect are not intuitive. They have to be taught and nurtured. If you drop a newborn in the jungle with no human input they will not be intuitively loving, respectful, or community minded.

Human interaction in the first weeks and years of life is essential, not just for psychological development but for life itself.  If you drop a newborn in a jungle they will almost certainly die.  We have an innate need for community, for love and for respect.  These are not taught, they are "hardwired" in our brains, and will inevitably emerge as personality traits when we begin to interact with other people.  I don't have time to track down the references, but there are numerous studies that confirm this.  Even animals exhibit these needs, and nobody taught them.
 

(2) each society has it's own set of ethics, justice, charity... What one person or society considers just you might find abhorrent: burying baby girls, isolating the elderly or sick so they will die, selling children into slave labor. Religion gives humans guidelines and principles that are not always logically derived from man's basic instincts

It's true that societies have different ways of defining who is "human" and is accorded human rights, and who is a lesser being.  Some of the judgements they make may be justified by circumstances (perhaps it is more humane to let the elderly and sick die if the society cannot look after them properly anyway), but clearly some societies do get seriously warped.

Unfortunately it's not at all obvious to me that religion is exempt from these prejudices.  In fact, more often than not, religion itself is the cause.  Even Islam allows slavery, for instance; and notwithstanding your own beliefs in gender equality, a great many Muslims treat their women as lesser beings, and claim religion as their justification.
 

And you cannot imagine that these things could have evolved naturally.  That is the fundamental difference between us. I can imagine they did, I simply do not believe they did.

If you can imagine a natural explanation, why would you choose a supernatural one instead?

I'm not really sure of your point here. I pointed out not all Prophets are earthly rulers. There are those who were: Moses, David, Mohammed... My point was that being a Prophet or Messenger of God does not necessarily make you an earthly ruler. That does not mean that being a Prophet or Messenger bars you from being an earthly ruler, if that is the Will of God.

No, but it means that the attributes that would qualify you as a leader are not a necessary requirement for a messenger.

Shasta'sAunt wrote: Ron Webb wrote: My mistake, and thanks for the correction.  Rituals do have psychological and social benefits.  What I meant to say is that the content of those rituals is unimportant.  Christians and Jews get the same benefit from their rituals as Muslims do from theirs, and the same can probably be said for any other religion. It may be unimportant to you but it is not to those performing the ritual.

Only because they are familiar with it.  Christians and Jews derive the same degree of comfort and satisfaction from their rituals, and believe as fervently in their own dogma, as do Muslims, for instance.

"Even Islam allows slavery, for instance; and notwithstanding your own beliefs in gender equality, a great many Muslims treat their women as lesser beings, and claim religion as their justification."

Religion did not invent slavery, and Islam greatly discourages slavery and orders that slaves be treated as family members. People can claim many things as a justification for what they do. That does not make them correct.  Muslims who use religion as a justification for mistreating women should be asked to produce irrefutable proof that Islam allows such behavior.  I wonder what justification non-Muslims use for mistreating women?

Gibbs wrote: I disagree. Parental rearing (or your respective social environment) taught you. Babies spontaneously do not generate the understanding of ethics, our learning comes from stimuloi other than ourselves.

Well, we'll probably have to agree to disagree about that, because I don't think it can be proven either way (at least not yet).  It seems to me that certain ethical principles such as the Golden Rule, rules against lying or murdering, etc., are universal among all cultures.  That universality suggests to me that they must be innate in some way, because every other aspect of culture (styles of dress, musical preferences, and so on) shows such wide variability.  Moreover, these basic ethical principles cannot have come from God, because they exist even among cultures whose religions and concepts of God are vastly different.

You should have used the bold statement in the previous italicized sentence, because the latter contradicts the former, sorry to be anal but it seems unclear to me as I read it. Instead of saying nobody, someone obviously influenced you.

Sorry if I am being unclear.  What I'm trying to say is that in addition to those basic innate ethical principles, there are more complex ethical ideas that are derived from the basics but are probably taught by parents rather than (or in addition to) being discovered or developed individually by young children.  So while a basic principle such as fairness might be innate, the concept of cleaning up after yourself in a shared space because not doing so ultimately results in unfairness to others might not be.  It is something that a thoughtful child might be able to work out for himself, but more likely the parent will have to teach it at least initially.