Global Citizenship: My Personal Philosophy Replaces Religion

[joe1776]

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.

My understanding of a "global community" happened because its pretty obvious in my era that, regardless of cultural differences, we humans are more alike than different. That observation wasn't possible before humans figured out how to cross oceans to encounter other cultures. It was travel, not religion, that educated us. Today, technical advances in communication further advances that understanding.

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

I think we'd be one giant step closer to global harmony because that would be one less group attachment separating people from other people.

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

It's # 9 adjusted for population but unless you can explain why an aggressor-Nazi armed with a machine gun is more immoral than an aggressor-Crusader armed with a bow and arrow, your statistics are not measuring the morality level of the average human being.

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?

Unless you're going to do some serious spinning of scripture, you won't be able to make a persuasive argument that the Bible opposed slavery. Yes, there were Christians who opposed slavery. They were human. They had consciences that were troubled by the injustice like everyone else.

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?

If my views were strongly conditioned by my culture, they would be mainstream. Mine, obviously, are not. They derive from reasoning and analysis as I strive to take a realistic view of the evidence.

 

[pearl]

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.

A literalist would have no such concept, only what is written. As for Catholic fundamentalism it pertains to Catholic dogma of which most is not to be found in Scripture, with the exception of Baptism. Catholic fundamentalists refuse to accept the development of doctrine, that frequently doctrine had been phrased in "the changeable conception of a given epoch."

 

[joe1776]

A literalist would have no such concept, only what is written. As for Catholic fundamentalism it pertains to Catholic dogma of which most is not to be found in Scripture, with the exception of Baptism. Catholic fundamentalists refuse to accept the development of doctrine, that frequently doctrine had been phrased in "the changeable conception of a given epoch."

Are Catholics informed of the fundamentalist's position? If so, can you link a source?

 

[Augustus]

That observation wasn't possible before humans figured out how to cross oceans to encounter other cultures. It was travel, not religion, that educated us.

That was 50,000+ years ago.

Also a common reason to cross oceans historically was to fight the people on the other side.

I think we'd be one giant step closer to global harmony because that would be one less group attachment separating people from other people.

How would primitive societies have formed large cultural groupings necessary for social and technological advancement?

Also, religion is not replaced by 'nothing', it is replaced with an alternative ideological worldview.

It's # 9 adjusted for population but unless you can explain why an aggressor-Nazi armed with a machine gun is more immoral than an aggressor-Crusader armed with a bow and arrow, your statistics are not measuring the morality level of the average human being.

It certainly wasn't 9th. Where you pluck that figure from? Almost all historical conflict numbers are massively overstated, often probably by factors of 10 or more.

Unless you're going to do some serious spinning of scripture, you won't be able to make a persuasive argument that the Bible opposed slavery. Yes, there were Christians who opposed slavery. They were human. They had consciences that were troubled by the injustice like everyone else.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/

If my views were strongly conditioned by my culture, they would be mainstream. Mine, obviously, are not. They derive from reasoning and analysis as I strive to take a realistic view of the evidence.

They are pretty much generic Secular Humanism slightly boosted on the globalist metric. They are highly mainstream in most regards.

That you are completely oblivious to the fact that your views are the product of your culture and believe they are really impartial reason is why you mistakenly believe they are universal.

 

[joe1776]

They are pretty much generic Secular Humanism slightly boosted on the globalist metric. They are highly mainstream in most regards.

Secular Humanism is not mainstream in my American culture and its not really much of a philosophy. It's a concept that I agree with.

That you are completely oblivious to the fact that your views are the product of your culture and believe they are really impartial reason is why you mistakenly believe they are universal.

The American culture I have known all my life is predominately Christian, competitive and materialistic. But that fact won't change your mind, will it?

 

[Augustus]

Secular Humanism is not mainstream in my American culture and its not really much of a philosophy.

It's perfectly mainstream, just not a majority view. And in the globalised, media driven world your culture need not necessarily be driven solely by your immediate surrounds. It's the totality of your experiences.

And if it is not a philosophy what is it? Feel free to replace philosophy with worldview, ideology, etc. if you prefer.

The American culture I have known all my life is predominately Christian, competitive and materialistic. But that fact isn't going to change your mind, is it?

By your logic, the worldview of a US Muslim convert wouldn't be influenced by Islamic culture because he was raised in a Christian society.

If you had been born into an isolated indigenous tribe deep in the Amazon jungle do you think you would have the same worldview you do now?

 

[pearl]

Are Catholics informed of the fundamentalist's position? If so, can you link a source?

Referring to biblical fundamentalism, Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: Methods and Approaches
Scroll to 'Methods and Approaches for Interpretation, F. Fundamentalist Interpretation Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limits.

"We Catholics, we have a few, even many fundamentalists. They believe they know absolute truth and corrupt others," he said, adding: "I can say this because this is my Church."

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/pope-francis-says-fundamentalism-is-a-disease-of-all-religions/

"No religion is immune from its own fundamentalisms," he said. "In every religion there will be a small group of fundamentalists whose work is to destroy for the sake of an idea, and not reality. And reality is superior to ideas." https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/for-pope-francis-religious-fundamentalism-diverts-us-from-the-true-god-16824

 

[joe1776]

Referring to biblical fundamentalism, Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: Methods and Approaches
Scroll to 'Methods and Approaches for Interpretation, F. Fundamentalist Interpretation Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limits.

"We Catholics, we have a few, even many fundamentalists. They believe they know absolute truth and corrupt others," he said, adding: "I can say this because this is my Church."

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/pope-francis-says-fundamentalism-is-a-disease-of-all-religions/

"No religion is immune from its own fundamentalisms," he said. "In every religion there will be a small group of fundamentalists whose work is to destroy for the sake of an idea, and not reality. And reality is superior to ideas." https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/for-pope-francis-religious-fundamentalism-diverts-us-from-the-true-god-16824

Thank you for your effort in putting this together for me. It's more than expected. I'll do some reading this evening.

 

[joe1776]

And if it is not a philosophy what is it? Feel free to replace philosophy with worldview, ideology, etc. if you prefer.

In my previous post, I labeled it a concept.

By your logic, the worldview of a US Muslim convert wouldn't be influenced by Islamic culture because he was raised in a Christian society.

Irrelevant. The topic was MY worldview. The values of my American culture are very different than those I hold. That fact makes it OBVIOUS that my culture didn't influence me.

If you had been born into an isolated indigenous tribe deep in the Amazon jungle do you think you would have the same worldview you do now?

Not unless I had Internet access because my personal philosophy is evidence-based.

 

[Quintessence]

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

They should be simple questions to answer, even if it's with a humble "I don't know." I'm not surprised you won't respond to them; it seems like you've been evading these uncomfortable questions throughout the discussion.

Why do you feel the questions are "simply argumentative?" Do you reject the notion that enacting your vision for global human welfare and community requires others give something up? If you don't reject that inevitability, do you not care about these sacrifices because you tell yourself it's for the "greater good" or some other cause you value? What's going on here?

I don't necessarily disagree with everything you propose, but I'm concerned that the ramifications of what you suggest haven't really been thought through. I do think relating to something greater than ourselves is important. I think that American culture in particular is too individualistic and needs to consider things beyond itself more than it does - things like community. I take that even further than most humans do, actually. For me, "community" does not mean "human persons and cultures" it means "all persons and cultures, human or otherwise." I include the land, the sea, the sky, and all things that dwell within them.

Even if one only thinks community applies to humans, there are competing interests to account for amongst community members. And there are always competing interests. There are always tradeoffs; when one interest gains, another looses. The questions I ask are really, really important to think about. Who defines the greater good and what is sacrificed for this vision of it? Am I okay with the consequences of my values? If not, do I have the courage to change?

 

[Shad]

The values of my American culture are very different than those I hold. That fact makes it OBVIOUS that my culture didn't influence me.

Do not discount a negative influence as a factor.

 

[joe1776]

Do not discount a negative influence as a factor.

I didn't forget that, but I'm sure that the poster I responded to meant a positive influence because he called my views a product of my culture.

 

[Shad]

I didn't forget that, but I'm sure that the poster I responded to meant a positive influence because he called my views a product of my culture.

Okay. I interpreted "product of your environment" in his comment including negative factors. Hence my comment.

Best to ask him to clarify so you are not talking passed each other due to different idea of what "product of your environment" means

 

[joe1776]

Okay. I interpreted "product of your environment" in his comment including negative factors. Hence my comment.

Best to ask him to clarify so you are not talking passed each other due to different idea of what "product of your environment" means

You got me thinking about it more. I don't think I'd accept the word 'influence' even in a negative sense. That would make my philosophy sound like a rebellion against my culture. Still, there's no doubt I included the flaws I see in my culture as evidence and I won't deny being influenced by the evidence.

 

[Shad]

You got me thinking about it more. I don't think I'd accept the word 'influence' even in a negative sense. That would make my philosophy sound like a rebellion against my culture. Still, there's no doubt I included the flaws I see in my culture as evidence and I won't deny being influenced by the evidence.

I think that was a point Augustus was making but you will need to check with him. You have different ideas regarding the meaning of words and phrases that is atypical in my view. That could be the cause some of the issues thus back and forth over the influence topic.

Rebellion isn't a bad thing. The context and results are what determines that factor.

 

[joe1776]

I think that was a point Augustus was making but you will need to check with him. You have different ideas regarding the meaning of words and phrases that is atypical in my view. That could be the cause some of the issues thus back and forth over the influence topic.

Really? That's the first time I've heard that. I've been posting in Internet forums for years and I've gotten compliments on my writing.

As for what Augustus meant, this is his original statement which refers to cultural conditioning. I've never heard of negative conditioning. Have you?

"But ultimately you define the global community in terms of your own culturally conditioned values."

Rebellion isn't a bad thing. The context and results are what determines that factor.

Of course context matters. In the context that I used the word 'rebellion,' that description of my philosophy would have been a mistake. Did you find something wrong with my usage of the word in that sentence?

 

[joe1776]

Referring to biblical fundamentalism, Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: Methods and Approaches
Scroll to 'Methods and Approaches for Interpretation, F. Fundamentalist Interpretation Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limits.

"We Catholics, we have a few, even many fundamentalists. They believe they know absolute truth and corrupt others," he said, adding: "I can say this because this is my Church."

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/pope-francis-says-fundamentalism-is-a-disease-of-all-religions/

"No religion is immune from its own fundamentalisms," he said. "In every religion there will be a small group of fundamentalists whose work is to destroy for the sake of an idea, and not reality. And reality is superior to ideas." https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/for-pope-francis-religious-fundamentalism-diverts-us-from-the-true-god-16824

The "Methods and Approaches" article was heavy-going. I think I got the general idea that Church fundamentalists aren't currently in power and the reasons why make sense.

 

[Ponder This]

a global citizen will ignore them

at his own peril, of course.

there is no cause more worthy than global harmony

that you have thought of? if everyone decides the best thing to do is hunt down and kill several animal species, does it matter that we didn't need those species? Or that we are living in "harmony".

Most people mistakenly think of group pride as a virtue

group pride is not mistaken virtue.. Family, teamwork, geopolitical interests, all are important from a perspective of being a member of a particular group.

Cooperative people give their fair share to the group effort and have a right to expect a fair share of the benefits in return.

a great idea... of course, the problem is in the details: what constitutes a "fair share"?

the unfairness of property rights undermines the effectiveness of a system built on cooperation for why should people born without those advantages cooperate

property rights are essential to the understanding of geopolitical interests. The notion that people who don't own property in a region have a right to make decisions about the property in those regions is misguided. And on the other hand, it is generally within the interests of people who own property to consider the interests of people who don't own property. that should not be confused with a right to own property. Property ownership is probably one of the most complex social constructs that exists.. with good reason.

We serve ourselves best when we act with the welfare of others in mind

Exactly, but don't confuse that with equality or fairness in all regards. That's a mistake.

 

[Shad]

Really? That's the first time I've heard that. I've been posting in Internet forums for years and I've gotten compliments on my writing.

That is in regard to how you see influence and rebellion.

As for what Augustus meant, this is his original statement which refers to cultural conditioning. I've never heard of negative conditioning. Have you?

Yes with reward/punishment dynamics and learning methods.

"But ultimately you define the global community in terms of your own culturally conditioned values."

Ask him about this.

Of course context matters. In the context that I used the word 'rebellion,' that description of my philosophy would have been a mistake.

Rebellion does not mean a mistake. Hypothetically rebelling against a tyrant to create a democracy is not a bad rebellion nor mistake.

Did you find something wrong with my usage of the word in that sentence?

Only with the negative emphasis you impart on words for little reason.

 

[Augustus]

Irrelevant. The topic was MY worldview. The values of my American culture are very different than those I hold. That fact makes it OBVIOUS that my culture didn't influence me.

You appear to be at the stage where you don't yet know enough to know what you don't know. You are so thoroughly trapped in your own cultural mindset that you are oblivious to the range of diverse views that exist across societies and eras.

You are a humanist (liberal Christianity minus the God bit) preaching a globalist salvation narrative (Jesus will return and unite the world reason and conscience will unite the world).

Christianity: teleological, universal, optimistic, salvation/utopian, progress guided by Divine Providence
You: teleological, universal, optimistic, salvation/utopian, progress guided by a transcendent universal human conscience
Almost all other historical societies: cyclical/chaotic, non-universal, tragic, capricious gods

Not unless I had Internet access because my personal philosophy is evidence-based.

I'd be hard pressed to think of an ideology that actually has more evidence proving that it is false than your own.

It is basically up against the entirety of human history as well as numerous sciences (particularly evolutionary psychology), anthropology, etc.

That you think all it would take would be the objective presentation of evidence to create your worldview, is demonstrative of your lack of appreciation for human cultural diversity and the effect (and affect) this has on human cognition.

If you won't take my word for it, this is from a scientific paper about Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies:

The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior – hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity

http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/WeirdestPeople.pdf


Reading it will certainly be worth your time.