Religion is fundamentally divisive. That's not helping!

[Augustus]

moral relativism doesn't reject the existence of generically goods and evils

Imo it does.

You'd have to explain what you understand relativism to be and why it accepts those things.

How do cultural constructs form if not through the basis of our biology?

I think they form from an interaction between our biology and our environment but that they are not infinitely malleable.

 

[icehorse]

What is your vision of a realistic global order than is more united? What values will underpin it?

(I believe we can create a world that is a bit less antagonistic, but not one that is substantially more united)

I believe I understood most of the post that the above came from. You made a lot of points. I'm going to try to summarize where I am at this point. If I miss a key idea, it's not intentional, just let me know. I'm trying to contain this to a manageable list of ideas.

1 - I continue to see you point to examples of humans misbehaving. We have NO disagreement here. Humans behave badly, A LOT! So yes, I'm happy to grant you that humans misbehave.

But they also behave, A LOT ! It could be that where we disagree is about the ratio of misbehaving vs. behaving? It seems to me I think behaving is predominant and you think misbehaving is predominant?

2 - You also point out how often humans are irrational or biased or fear based or... Again, I agree. But again, I think the ratio of rational to irrational is far more on the good side than you seem to think?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe I understood most of the post that the above came from. You made a lot of points. I'm going to try to summarize where I am at this point. If I miss a key idea, it's not intentional, just let me know. I'm trying to contain this to a manageable list of ideas.

1 - I continue to see you point to examples of humans misbehaving. We have NO disagreement here. Humans behave badly, A LOT! So yes, I'm happy to grant you that humans misbehave.

But they also behave, A LOT ! It could be that where we disagree is about the ratio of misbehaving vs. behaving? It seems to me I think behaving is predominant and you think misbehaving is predominant?

2 - You also point out how often humans are irrational or biased or fear based or... Again, I agree. But again, I think the ratio of rational to irrational is far more on the good side than you seem to think?

How do you know if I am misbehaving? I mean it. How do you know that? Not opinion, not belief. How do you know that?

 

[Augustus]

If I miss a key idea, it's not intentional, just let me know.

It would be helpful if you address these points, particularly the 2nd one as unless you explain your position on this it is hard to have a discussion based on what you think is reasonably plausible.

If there were a global environmental and economic collapse related to climate change, do you really think powerful countries would act for the good of humanity, rather than for the good of themselves?

Will Americans and Chinese go hungry just to feed some folk in Chad and Somalia? Or will they use their militaries to get what they need if it comes down to that?

What do you think?

I know you said we only need to "unite enough", but given that religions that unite up to 20% of the world's population (to some degree), across ethnic, national, linguistic and cultural boundaries are in your view "divisive", what do you mean by uniting just enough?

Of course we can, and do, cooperate transactionally based on common interests, but religions don't really prevent this any more than alternative value systems do. Even the crusades/crusader states were dependent on transactional relationships with Muslims.

What is your vision of a realistic global order than is more united? What values will underpin it?

 

[icehorse]

It would be helpful if you address these points, particularly the 2nd one as unless you explain your position on this it is hard to have a discussion based on what you think is reasonably plausible.

In reference to the environmental disaster scenario:

The short answer is "it depends". I think that good leaders with long term perspectives and a systems thinking orientation could persuade their people to work towards more universal solutions. In recent years I would say most of our leaders wouldn't be up to the task, but a few of them would be.

Another way to view this is that even a heartless systems thinker might conclude that it serves their interests best to find more universal solutions.

In reference to "uniting enough".

First off, I'll take a whack at an answer, but the quality (or lack thereof), of my answer is independent of the OP. Again, it's often the case that the first step in solving a problem is simply to make it explicit. Solving the problem often comes in later steps. Notice that this is mostly how science works.

With that said, I think an incremental step would be to look at each of the major religions and isolate the divisive messages from the rest. Muslims could still be Muslims, Christians could still be Christians and so on. But we could reform these religions and excise all the energy they direct towards denigrating "the others".

If you ask a Muslim (as I have many times), what are the core values or ideas in Islam, they almost always talk about ideas like family and charity. They almost never say "mistrust of non-Muslims". In fact they mostly deny their scripture calls for it. So why not reform the scripture?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

If you ask a Muslim (as I have many times), what are the core values or ideas in Islam, they almost always talk about ideas like family and charity. They almost never say "mistrust of non-Muslims". In fact they mostly deny their scripture calls for it. So why not reform the scripture?

Because they have to do it and not you.

 

[icehorse]

Because they have to do it and not you.

I revise my thinking all the time. I've had to do it professionally to stay current.

I would say "grown ups sometimes have to change their minds, get over yourself"

 

[Koldo]

Imo it does.

You'd have to explain what you understand relativism to be and why it accepts those things.

This is one of the best descriptions I have come across so far:

"Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons." - source

There many moral standards that are frequently present among different cultures.

I think they form from an interaction between our biology and our environment but that they are not infinitely malleable.

Moral relativism doesn't necessarily entail that morality is infinitely malleable.

 

[Augustus]

In reference to the environmental disaster scenario:

The short answer is "it depends". I think that good leaders with long term perspectives and a systems thinking orientation could persuade their people to work towards more universal solutions. In recent years I would say most of our leaders wouldn't be up to the task, but a few of them would be.

Another way to view this is that even a heartless systems thinker might conclude that it serves their interests best to find more universal solutions.

They can't really do that now when everything is pretty good.

If the global order breaks down, all of our "moral progress" will be lost, just as we've seen in Ukraine, or we see in the Sudan, but at a larger scale. Barbarism is as much a part of our nature as civilisation.

In reference to "uniting enough".

First off, I'll take a whack at an answer, but the quality (or lack thereof), of my answer is independent of the OP. Again, it's often the case that the first step in solving a problem is simply to make it explicit. Solving the problem often comes in later steps. Notice that this is mostly how science works.

With that said, I think an incremental step would be to look at each of the major religions and isolate the divisive messages from the rest. Muslims could still be Muslims, Christians could still be Christians and so on. But we could reform these religions and excise all the energy they direct towards denigrating "the others".

If you ask a Muslim (as I have many times), what are the core values or ideas in Islam, they almost always talk about ideas like family and charity. They almost never say "mistrust of non-Muslims". In fact they mostly deny their scripture calls for it. So why not reform the scripture?

It doesn't really answer the question, and I think what you suggest here is completely impractical as it assumes you can fix human irrationality by appealing to reason, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume it works.

Why would this unite us to any significant degree more than we are at present though? It might have a minor impact in a few places, but I can't see how it would be a game changer.

What degree of global division do you think is caused by religious scripture? What current problems are being prevented form being solved because of religious scripture?

Do you think religious differences stop Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and India finding common interests?

Personally, I think the biggest impediment to transactional cooperation is making moralistic demands of others rather than agreed mutual non-interference.

And if your alternative is something more than a proposal of transactional cooperation, it must be based on some form of shared ideology, not simply reforming religion. But what would that shared ideology be?

1 - I continue to see you point to examples of humans misbehaving. We have NO disagreement here. Humans behave badly, A LOT! So yes, I'm happy to grant you that humans misbehave.

But they also behave, A LOT ! It could be that where we disagree is about the ratio of misbehaving vs. behaving? It seems to me I think behaving is predominant and you think misbehaving is predominant?

2 - You also point out how often humans are irrational or biased or fear based or... Again, I agree. But again, I think the ratio of rational to irrational is far more on the good side than you seem to think?

As you haven't ever explained what degree of unity you think is possible, it is hard to respond.

I think there is no ratio between the things above, they can all manifest themselves to a greater or lesser degree based on a number of factors which constantly change.

Hence history goes in cycles rather than displaying progress (either linear or a fluctuating upward trend). The best case scenario is we can make slightly better decisions and reduce the frequency of the systemic shocks, but there is no real evidence humans collectively learn from experience or transcend their animalistic nature to consistently act rationally for a collective good rather than based on factional interests (and plenty of evidence against it).

 

[Augustus]

This is one of the best descriptions I have come across so far:

"Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons." - source

There many moral standards that are frequently present among different cultures.




Moral relativism doesn't necessarily entail that morality is infinitely malleable.

Terms like relativism have a wide variety of meanings, But I don't see how that quote goes against what I have said.

For me it involves the idea we cannot judge one culture better than another as the values on which we would do so are the product of our culture rather than reflecting universal norms.

 

[Koldo]

Terms like relativism have a wide variety of meanings, But I don't see how that quote goes against what I have said.

For me it involves the idea we cannot judge one culture better than another as the values on which we would do so are the product of our culture rather than reflecting universal norms.

We can't judge as in we ought not to judge?
If so, that is a branch of moral relativism called normative moral relativism.

Other moral relativists can easily judge any given culture as inferior or superior. They however have to accept they are using their (or someone else's) values to make that assessment.

I am still intriguided though in what sense value pluralism subscribes to ethical naturalism. If you accept that the truth value of moral propositions depends on the mix of biological and environmental influences, how is it different from the claim made by meta-ethical moral relativism that the truth value of moral propositions depends on the culture? Isn't culture the very product of that mix?

 

[osgart]

Religion is often ignorance. Arrogance, ignorance, blindness, are the three things that cause division. Arrogance does so intentionally for power and gain. Ignorance causes division because people choose their views out of fear, or being easily convinced they have the almighty truth of things. Blindness is not discovering essential unknowns, or not being able to facts that illuminate matters.

Ignorance can be minimized, and sometimes changes occur in individuals that open people up to things they should not have ignored in the past.

Blindness can never be fully eliminated, those who have missed out on experiences, and education will do their best to minimize their own blindness.

However without virtues then nothing is maintained. So something in the realm of human natures manifests good results, and good will. Just that it doesn't happen as often as people would like.

 

[paarsurrey]

Religion is fundamentally divisive. That's not helping!​

Isn't non-belief in the truthful G-d really divisive, please, right??​

#84 icehorse:​

Humanity is facing enormous problems these days. Climate change will likely displace a BILLION people from their homes in the next few decades. We're running out of fresh water and topsoil. We're likely to face huge crop failures and food shortages.

We need to work together, if we're to survive.

Religion is fundamentally divisive, not inclusive. Sure, there are exceptions. But mostly religion is divisive. Either you're a Muslim, or you're not. Either you're a Christian or you're not. This "us vs. them" worldview is exactly what we DO NOT NEED at this critical juncture.

We need inclusive, critical thinking. We do not need divisive, magical thinking.

And while I'm at it, most identity politics these days shares a lot in common with religion. The most important / destructive way in which this is true is in the establishment and defense of DOGMA. We need new dogma like we need a hole in the head.

Back in the 60s and 70s we used to say "question authority". It's still good advice, but I'd amend it a bit and say:

"Question authority and question dogma". Unquote

paarsurrey said:
" Religion is fundamentally divisive, not inclusive. "
I don't agree with one here, the truthful religion is basically uniting, isn't it the non-belief in the truthful G-d that is divisive, please? Right?
Regards

ixxxxxxe said:#89

but religions do not agree with each other, right?

paarsurrey says: Don't all the shades of Atheism (including secular humanism) divisive among themselves, please, right??

ixxxxxxe said (in his signature): I'm a secular humanist, and I'll stand by that declaration.

paarsurrey says:
Will one stand with one's ism even when it is most unreasonable and wrong, please, right??

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Religion is fundamentally divisive. That's not helping!

Aren't Atheism people everyone of them a stand-alone position, so they are even more divisive, right??

Regards

 

[YoursTrue]

Religion is fundamentally divisive. That's not helping!

Aren't Atheism people everyone of them a stand-alone position, so they are even more divisive, right??

Regards

Here is what I believe: Bible prophecy will be fulfilled...it takes time to understand it.