Global Citizenship: My Personal Philosophy Replaces Religion

[Augustus]

The idea that religion can lead the way to moral progress has been tried. It failed. Its legacy has been the division of humanity into thousands of quarreling sects. Religion is an obstacle to be overcome in our drive toward global harmony.

The idea that there is a global humanity evolved from monotheistic religions, as did the idea of universal morality. It really is remarkably rare in human history.

Also the idea that religion divided people is the exact opposite of the anthropological understanding of the origins of religion. Religions were a way to unite people unrelated by family or tribal ties into ever larger groups. Thinking that we evolved to be one big happy human family is a major failing in your logic.

Without religions we likely never would have got close to modernity, and certainly nowhere near your globalist dream. You could make a case that in modernity religions could be replaced by ideologies, but ultimately ideologies have all of the same problems as religions.

 

[joe1776]

I do not believe it is an either or as both are operative.
The Church is an indispensable help in conscience formation. But, "always let the Church be your guide" misses the fundamentally persoal character of conscience. Forming conscience rightly does not mean blind obedience to the moral teaching of any community, including the Church, for blind obedience does not include a personal appropriation of moral conviction in freedom and with understanding. Blind obedience cheats conscience of its dignity.

Conscience refers to a moral law outside of us that we must obey, also it refers to the voice of God in the deepest part of ourselves. One , the work of conscience is obedient submission to moral laws that are objective and binding, the other, conscience is the activity of discerning God's particular will for me.

Our difference of opinion begins with a definition of the term "moral authority." I'll try to explain my opinion on it.

An example of the Catholic Church leading its people astray happened in 1866 when Pope Pius IX declared that he saw nothing wrong with slavery even though most of the nations in the world had abolished it by then. What caused the abolition of slavery if not troubled consciences?

So, to Catholic adults living in 1866, their Church is teaching one thing but their conscience is saying another. How do they resolve the conflict? Whichever they choose, they have accepted as their moral authority. Morally... "one cannot serve two masters."

So, if there's a conflict, and Catholics always resolve it in favor of conscience, the moral instruction of the church is only coincidentally correct when it agrees with one's conscience -- the way a stopped clock is coincidentally correct twice a day. And, when it doesn't agree, it's a potential bias that could throw a moral judgment off course.

 

[metis]

Morally, we can't serve two masters. Let's assume a Catholic's conscience is in conflict with the teachings of his church. If he resolves the conflict in favor of conscience, then conscience is his moral authority. If he resolves it in favor of the Church, then the Church is his moral authority.

But Vatican II changed that as one of the decisions made by the council was that the individual can also be inspired by the HS, therefore the individual does have the right of personal opinion on matters of faith even if the Church officially teaches something else. Even prior to VII, there were many Catholic theologians who argued as such, so it wasn't just something decided spontaneously by the council. This decision was not fully accepted by many of the bishops and priests, thus leading may of them to resign.

And , if I'm right that the judgments of conscience are intuitive. Then his church can't possibly inform conscience. It's something we're born with.

And where would the "intuitive" come from? IOW, what's the ultimate source, iyo?

 

[joe1776]

The idea that there is a global humanity evolved from monotheistic religions, as did the idea of universal morality. It really is remarkably rare in human history.

What do you mean by "global humanity?" How did it evolve from monotheistic religions? Which is remarkably rare in human history, global humanity or universal morality?

Also the idea that religion divided people is the exact opposite of the anthropological understanding of the origins of religion. Religions were a way to unite people unrelated by family or tribal ties into ever larger groups.

Who cares about "the anthropological understanding of the origins of religion?" There are 30 to 40 thousand sects in Christianity alone.

Thinking that we evolved to be one big happy human family is a major failing in your logic.

Evolution isn't finished yet. But, you won't see the upward moral trend that has been happening for centuries if you don't want to.

Without religions we likely never would have got close to modernity, and certainly nowhere near your globalist dream. You could make a case that in modernity religions could be replaced by ideologies, but ultimately ideologies have all of the same problems as religions.

Morally, the religions are making progress. They are conscience-driven advances that have nothing at all to do with the doctrine of their faith.

 

[metis]

An example of the Catholic Church leading its people astray happened in 1866 when Pope Pius IX declared that he saw nothing wrong with slavery even though most of the nations in the world had abolished it by then. What caused the abolition of slavery if not troubled consciences?

But slavery was allowed in both the OT and the NT, so what was the Church to teach other than what was found there?

OTOH, it was more the liberal wing of the CC that took the position that the Biblical allowance of slavery was just a reflection of the times, and it was this group that over time won the argument. This might shock some fundamentalists who believe in scriptural inerrancy, but the CC never endorsed such literalism.

 

[joe1776]

But Vatican II changed that as one of the decisions made by the council was that the individual can also be inspired by the HS, therefore the individual does have the right of personal opinion on matters of faith even if the Church officially teaches something else. Even prior to VII, there were many Catholic theologians who argued as such, so it wasn't just something decided spontaneously by the council. This decision was not fully accepted by many of the bishops and priests, thus leading may of them to resign.

I don't blame the bishops and priest who resigned because the position of the Church as moral authority was relinquished. Morally, we can't serve two masters.

And where would the "intuitive" come from? IOW, what's the ultimate source, iyo?

I don't know its ultimate source. But intuition emerges from the unconscious part of our brain which holds lots of mysteries.

 

[joe1776]

But slavery was allowed in both the OT and the NT, so what was the Church to teach other than what was found there?

Oh, I agree. According to scripture, the pope was right.

OTOH, it was more the liberal wing of the CC that took the position that the Biblical allowance of slavery was just a reflection of the times, and it was this group that over time won the argument. This might shock some fundamentalists who believe in scriptural inerrancy, but the CC never endorsed such literalism.

I don't think you can call that "literalism." The men who wrote the Bible condoned slavery because they were citizens of cultures that condoned slavery and they were not divinely-inspired as they claimed.

 

[Thief]

until we have Star Trek tech......

we shall endure the give and take this life has dealt us

the rich get richer.....unless you take it from them
the poor will be poor....unless you give to them while they have not earned it

and the producers will not keep whatever they have wrought.....
it belongs to the rich guy that owns the property

and of course the everyday chaos of people taking on the world
by word
by gun
by any means that justifies the end

philosophy that replaces religion??????
Man has never dealt with either item

He seeks what he wants....at any cost

 

[metis]

Morally, we can't serve two masters.

Actually we can, but not to 100%. Frankly, I don't know of anyone personally who doesn't listen to and sometimes take the advice of some others. IOW, at least to a certain extent, we all tend to pick & choose which sources we believe in.

I don't know its ultimate source. But intuition emerges from the unconscious part of our brain which holds lots of mysteries.

What if that "unconscious" in us tells us to kill someone? That has happened a great many times you know. Freud covered this with his concept of the "id", which he acknowledged could be very dangerous without the "ego" and "superego" kicking in.

 

[metis]

I don't think you can call that "literalism." The men who wrote the Bible condoned slavery because they were citizens of cultures that condoned slavery and they were not divinely-inspired as they claimed.

That's what I was saying, although the issue of "divine inspiration" is more of a question to me than an answer. I've come to grip with my limitations, and this is just one area where my "credentials" fall short.

 

[joe1776]

until we have Star Trek tech......

we shall endure the give and take this life has dealt us

the rich get richer.....unless you take it from them
the poor will be poor....unless you give to them while they have not earned it

and the producers will not keep whatever they have wrought.....
it belongs to the rich guy that owns the property

and of course the everyday chaos of people taking on the world
by word
by gun
by any means that justifies the end

philosophy that replaces religion??????
Man has never dealt with either item

He seeks what he wants....at any cost

I'm optimistic about humanity's future. Here's some recent science for you.

UC Berkeley Press Release

 

[Quintessence]

I said this: "A government has to make decisions that will benefit its people. Some aren't going to like the decisions no matter how wisely they're made." So, you made the logical deduction that I'd be in favor of the big oil company screwing over indigenous tribes? Wow.

You're missing the point.

Again, the specific example does not matter. It was for illustrative purposes. The point is, your model demands some group(s) make sacrifices to achieve your vision.... because. You haven't addressed this problem:

Why should other cultures give up their ways of life to put some ethnocentric vision of "global welfare" or "global community" first? Again, the idea inevitably represents some particular group's interests or values and demands sacrificing others do not share these interests or values. What if others don't agree with your priorities? What if others don't want to abandon their cultural ways of life to prioritize your idea of what global community means? ​

Many have to sacrifice to make your vision happen. What do you have to say to these folks?

Anybody with the ability to reason can decide.

You're aware these visions are not going to agree with each other, right? That folks have very, very different ideas of what what the welfare of the global community looks like? Who decides which vision wins? Who sacrifices? Whose needs get trampled over or eliminated?

For example, Donald Trump wants to build a wall between the USA and Mexico, our neighbors to the south. If all countries built walls between them and their neighbors, would that serve the welfare of the global community? The obvious answer is "no," so a Global Citizen living in America would not support his president on that issue.

The obvious answer isn't no. That's a conclusion you came to based on your values and your appraisal of the situation. Why should your interpretation of "global interests" take priority? What do you do about those who inevitably don't agree with you?

 

[joe1776]

Actually we can, but not to 100%. Frankly, I don't know of anyone personally who doesn't listen to and sometimes take the advice of some others. IOW, at least to a certain extent, we all tend to pick & choose which sources we believe in.

Do you ever take advice that doesn't feel right morally? If not, you are following your conscience.

What if that "unconscious" in us tells us to kill someone? That has happened a great many times you know. Freud covered this with his concept of the "id", which he acknowledged could be very dangerous without the "ego" and "superego" kicking in.

Don't confuse unconscious with conscience. Conscience doesn't form intent. It doesn't tell you to do anything. It judges moral actions case-by-case.

 

[joe1776]

You're missing the point.

Again, the specific example does not matter. It was for illustrative purposes. The point is, your model demands some group(s) make sacrifices to achieve your vision.... because. You haven't addressed this problem:

Why should other cultures give up their ways of life to put some ethnocentric vision of "global welfare" or "global community" first? Again, the idea inevitably represents some particular group's interests or values and demands sacrificing others do not share these interests or values. What if others don't agree with your priorities? What if others don't want to abandon their cultural ways of life to prioritize your idea of what global community means? ​

Many have to sacrifice to make your vision happen. What do you have to say to these folks?



You're aware these visions are not going to agree with each other, right? That folks have very, very different ideas of what what the welfare of the global community looks like? Who decides which vision wins? Who sacrifices? Whose needs get trampled over or eliminated?



The obvious answer isn't no. That's a conclusion you came to based on your values and your appraisal of the situation. Why should your interpretation of "global interests" take priority? What do you do about those who inevitably don't agree with you?

I read your post and find it simply argumentative. I don't have the patience for it.

 

[metis]

Do you ever take advice that doesn't feel right morally? If not, you are following your conscience.

There are many times when I made decisions based on the advice of someone I respected even if I did have some doubts. But I'm a stubborn old mule who really digs his heals in when I think something is just plain old wrong.

Don't confuse unconscious with conscience. Conscience doesn't form intent. It doesn't tell you to do anything. It judges moral actions case-by-case.

I very well know the difference between the two, thank you, and conscience can very much form intent if we allow it to.

However, you didn't answer my question.

 

[joe1776]

There are many times when I made decisions based on the advice of someone I respected even if I did have some doubts. But I'm a stubborn old mule who really digs his heals in when I think something is just plain old wrong.

I very well know the difference between the two, thank you, and conscience can very much form intent if we allow it to.

However, you didn't answer my question.

Unless someone is hearing voices telling them what to do, I don't believe that conscience or the unconscious can form intent. I think only the ego forms intent. But, I can't supply science to support that opinion.

 

[Thief]

I'm optimistic about humanity's future. Here's some recent science for you.

UC Berkeley Press Release

nice article.....

so under research conditions and setups......we find we are able to be more.....human

too bad the everyday scheme of things is not setup to improve our humanity

and so...the rich get richer
the poor continue to struggle
and the resources go to the highest bidder

what we need is a machine that makes food on demand
( what do they call that on Star Trek?)

 

[Thief]

I've been reading Jordan Peterson's.....principles for life....

and there is a list of forty quotes offered ...

.40 Profound Life Rules from Jordan Peterson Everyone Should Know | High Existence

 

[joe1776]

I've been reading Jordan Peterson's.....principles for life....

and there is a list of forty quotes offered ...

.40 Profound Life Rules from Jordan Peterson Everyone Should Know | High Existence

Good stuff. Thanks

 

[Augustus]

What do you mean by "global humanity?" How did it evolve from monotheistic religions? Which is remarkably rare in human history, global humanity or universal morality?

That we belong to a collective group called 'Humanity'. We don't think of dogs as belong to a collective caninity.

It comes from the idea that god created humans. Why would pre-modern people without modern communication technology think in they had global responsibilities unless serving a bigger purpose?

Both Humanity and universality are remarkably rare. They go against all of our sense evidence and rely on some form of transcendent principle to make us believe in something so completely irrational.

Who cares about "the anthropological understanding of the origins of religion?" There are 30 to 40 thousand sects in Christianity alone.

If there had never been any religions, what do you think the current state of affairs would be?

Evolution isn't finished yet. But, you won't see the upward moral trend that has been happening for centuries if you don't want to.

We are only 18 years out of the most violent century ever (even if population adjusted its somewhere in the top 1-5).

This 'evolution' needs to get a bit of a move on.

Morally, the religions are making progress. They are conscience-driven advances that have nothing at all to do with the doctrine of their faith.

Every single human society practiced slavery. Some of the first people to argue against it were doing so specifically from Biblical exegesis. Why did 'conscience' not kick in in any of the hundreds of thousands of societies that existed of tens of thousands of years to make similar arguments?

Do you believe your views are strongly culturally conditioned and that you only believe these things because of the time and the place in which you were born? Or do you think they are just instinctive?