Secularism and Church Attendance

[zombie0]

without specifically attempting a conversation without knowing backgrounds and experiences of everyone, and without sharing all of mine...heres something to add to the conversation.

religion is the willful attempt to influence, even control that which is beyond our means.  the universe seems to have the capacity to continue for lengths of time far far far beyond our lifespan.  the universe has a starting point that is equally impossible to control.  i personally think that intelligent design explains everything very well.  that something far more powerful and impossible to comprehend created/controls the way things are actually makes sense to me.  the part that doesnt follow is that humans/cats/plants have any influence or control over it.  consider the following

im going to create something that is capable of a range of possibilities.  an appropriate example is a 20-sided die.  then im going to reward each die that lands on the 20th side, and not 1-19, but no one rolling knows which side it is.  in order to get the reward, one needs to guess the correct side with sincere faith, assuming you are able to be aware of the option (never ran into Muslim, which is the hidden right answer?  sorry, too bad).  all of this is based on assumptions out of nowhere that there is a right answer, the reward will actually happen, what the reward is in the first place, and ...  see the problem here?

how do some, no LOTS of people make the leap from "there is intelligent design" to "we understand the design and GUARANTEE eternal results"

sorta occurred to me after a guy approached me at the bus stop with a rather pushy invitation to repent (or else) and go to his church

religion - guarantee not guaranteed i suppose

exactly why do people feel that anything they do will make any difference in their ultimate fate?  you didnt control being born, or the way the universe is set up...why do you expect to control what happens after death?

tl:dr  http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html

[OldTrees]

 Man does not knowingly er or do wrong. At the point of choice of action it was correct so it was done and only after observation of the result can one decide what they had done was wrong.

This does not account for a person who gives into impulse while believing the impulse to be immoral. A thief's morals can be overcome by their greed and have the impulse cause the theft.

(Not all theft is described by the subtype above)

However you are right that man does not do what is wrong because it is wrong. There is always (I hope) another reason for the action.

The thing is, the Thief thinks it is right to Steal.
Greed describes the reasoning but does not change the fact that he thought it was right to do the action.

I would have to disagree with you. Many people can separate their normative impulses (their beliefs of right and wrong) from their animal impulses (pleasure, pain, greed, hunger)
Those who are weaker of character often have the animal impulses win over the normative impulses. In these cases you would have a person that is doing something they think is wrong but that belief is not strong enough to overwhelm the desire to do the deed.

As such some thefts are examples of this kind of greed overwhelming morals instead of the rationalization model you proposed. Most thefts are best modeled by the rationalization model just not all.

[jmizzle7]

I'm with OldTrees on this one. In addition to his point, people can choose to neglect to do the "right" thing, which would, in essence, be doing the wrong thing. For example, if a person sees a man choking in a restaurant and does not know how to help, but believes that the right thing to do is to try to help people in urgent need, it would be wrong not to help. However, the person's ego is telling them not to help for many reasons (not qualified to help, someone else would do it better, don't want to draw attention to oneself, etc.). The person must make a choice - to help or not to help. Not helping is not only wrong in this case, it is easier than helping, and is fairly likely to happen as a result.

[Kael Hate]

I'm with OldTrees on this one. In addition to his point, people can choose to neglect to do the "right" thing, which would, in essence, be doing the wrong thing. For example, if a person sees a man choking in a restaurant and does not know how to help, but believes that the right thing to do is to try to help people in urgent need, it would be wrong not to help. However, the person's ego is telling them not to help for many reasons (not qualified to help, someone else would do it better, don't want to draw attention to oneself, etc.). The person must make a choice - to help or not to help. Not helping is not only wrong in this case, it is easier than helping, and is fairly likely to happen as a result.

If the person knows that helping will be the best effort they will. If they suspect trying to help will cause more issues than not doing so they won't. Right and Wrong have nothing to do with that.

If the person dies because they did not help and they question the result that the risk may have been worth taking then they may now feel what happened was wrong but at the time the decision was made they chose not to because they thought it was right to do so.






The same is with the thief above. If he steals he may no it is against the law, but the law may not be right to him. Why should such traditions be against the need to aquire. The aquisition may be of need physically or need mentally but in either case it is a judgement of the result before seeing the result and choosing to do the act is seeing it as right at that time.

Stealing money using violence from a bank will be right to a robber. He sees any action that will come to course as insignificant to what he is about to do and the result will be beneficial in a way. Now after the fact he may enjoy the money, it was still right. Its only after he is persecuted for his actions will he call his act wrong and that is because the result is now no longer as desired.



Why do you move a piece in chess? do you ever do it because it is wrong? or is it only after you see a result you had not predicted do you consider the move wrong?

The same occurs in life. You make descision based on the information you have at hand. If the sum of that information is right you do the action, if wrong you don't. Never does anyone knowingly do wrong. Note that this is not the same as questionable or illegal. Those terms mean something totally different.



Socrates is right "Man does not knowingly er or do wrong"



Edit - After reading this I also had to add another section to it. Firstly right and wrong are perceptions based on experience. You can share your opinions of right and wrong and maybe that shared experience will affect my view but the resulting knowledge of right and wrong belongs to the person making the choice. You can say I am wrong, but regardless of that I can know from the information at hand I am right.

A person steals to feed his family is right because from what he knows it is the best action. A person who is an authoritarian will follow the law and say his actions are wrong and may even let his family die as a result. You can question the actions taken but only they know what is right.

[OldTrees]

Maybe this example will give you a better insight into the kind of situation I am describing:

Imagine a person who became an Alcoholic and later began to believe it was immoral to drink. What would you classify an addiction overcoming the mental willpower of the persons moral convictions?

[BluePriest]

This conversation is starting to reming  me of this. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,7114.msg83938.html#msg83938l)

[Kael Hate]

Maybe this example will give you a better insight into the kind of situation I am describing:

Imagine a person who became an Alcoholic and later began to believe it was immoral to drink. What would you classify an addiction overcoming the mental willpower of the persons moral convictions?

If this is in response to me I don't understand your direction.

Becoming an Alcoholic is not a choice. An addiciton adds an extra need. It hasn't overcome his will power, he wants to sate the need and chooses what he thinks is right to do so. If he knows the result is worse than not drinking he will not drink. If the result is better in that it sates the need then he will drink. Regardless the person always chooses what is right at the time of making the choice.

A person who kills themself has made the right choice at the time. It was justified that the expected result of death is better than an other action and as such they kill themselves. A person who drives home drunk may know there is a risk in doing so but expects that the result will be favourable, again they have done what they think is right when they make the descision.

[johannhowitzer]

I disagree.  I think people often make decisions they know to be bad ideas - or even immoral by their own standards.

[OldTrees]

Maybe this example will give you a better insight into the kind of situation I am describing:

Imagine a person who became an Alcoholic and later began to believe it was immoral to drink. What would you classify an addiction overcoming the mental willpower of the persons moral convictions?

If this is in response to me I don't understand your direction.

Becoming an Alcoholic is not a choice. An addiciton adds an extra need. It hasn't overcome his will power, he wants to sate the need and chooses what he thinks is right to do so. If he knows the result is worse than not drinking he will not drink. If the result is better in that it sates the need then he will drink. Regardless the person always chooses what is right at the time of making the choice.

I am trying to explain the inner conversation of a person with conflicting motives only 1 of which is their moral beliefs.

Maybe I can try to explain it in another method
Favorable option: The most valued option
Moral option: The option that coincides with the persons moral beliefs
Pleasurable option: The option that creates the most pleasure for the actor

For some people they occasionally value the pleasurable option more than the moral option. In these cases the favorable option in their mind is the pleasurable option not the moral option. In these cases the person voluntarily chooses the pleasurable option even if it is the immoral option.

[johannhowitzer]

I am participating in this exact same debate on two forums right now.  It's kind of confusing, I can't keep track of who said what on which forum...

[Kael Hate]

I am trying to explain the inner conversation of a person with conflicting motives only 1 of which is their moral beliefs.

Maybe I can try to explain it in another method
Favorable option: The most valued option
Moral option: The option that coincides with the persons moral beliefs
Pleasurable option: The option that creates the most pleasure for the actor

For some people they occasionally value the pleasurable option more than the moral option. In these cases the favorable option in their mind is the pleasurable option not the moral option. In these cases the person voluntarily chooses the pleasurable option even if it is the immoral option.

You are trying to split them into 3 categories when they are not. Morals define pleasures, pleasures define needs, needs define morals. Altogether they are evaluated as a sum of the experience for known.

A person knows no lust until after they have been exposed.

[OldTrees]

I am trying to explain the inner conversation of a person with conflicting motives only 1 of which is their moral beliefs.

Maybe I can try to explain it in another method
Favorable option: The most valued option
Moral option: The option that coincides with the persons moral beliefs
Pleasurable option: The option that creates the most pleasure for the actor

For some people they occasionally value the pleasurable option more than the moral option. In these cases the favorable option in their mind is the pleasurable option not the moral option. In these cases the person voluntarily chooses the pleasurable option even if it is the immoral option.

You are trying to split them into 3 categories when they are not. Morals define pleasures, pleasures define needs, needs define morals. Altogether they are evaluated as a sum of the experience for known.

A person knows no lust until after they have been exposed.

I am sorry but those categories are distinct

I like food. It tastes good. I do not think eating is moral (neither do I find it immoral).
This is anecdotal evidence that the pleasurable and the moral are not 1:1. They do happen to overlap and in some people they are 1:1 however most people have examples where they are not 1:1.

When I was a child (that was still old enough to have opinions about right and wrong) I decided the gain from a small theft was more favorable than the little weight I gave morality at that time.
This is an an anecdotal evidence that the favorable and the moral are not 1:1. They do happen to overlap and in most people they are 1:1 however some people have examples where they are not 1:1.

Morals do not define pleasure. Electric impulses in the pleasure center define basic pleasure and pride (and other higher emotions) define more complex pleasures. One of these sources of more complex pleasures is the morals of the individual but not all.
Consider if Morals were the sole source of pleasures:
Does an apple taste good? Not unless there is a moral imperative attached to believing the apple tastes good.
Does pain hurt? Not unless the pain is not morally permissible.
I do not know about you but to me Apples taste good (aka cause pleasure) because they trigger chemical reactions that respond with my chemistry that tell me it tastes good. I also find all pain painful even morally permissible kinds like shaving.