ping SkyDog: Man of Steele (good article)

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, if I may be Socratic for a moment, what *is* the definition of religion?

Well Websters defines religion as:

1. 2. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   3. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

For example, Satanism is probably considered a religion by some (few?). I would imagine that Satanists would not believe that "belief in good is the very basic definition of [their] religious belief." Same with pagans maybe? Pagans are stil out there. I once temped for a wiccan.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I guess I don't know... but I'm comfortable saying that a purely prudent person might make decisions to act in kindness and respect for others, might develop true friendships and mutual relationships with others, and might conduct himself in a perfectly virtuous way by any objective standard. And I don't think that religion, as I'd picture it, is in any way a precondition to this case.

Is this sort of person, by embracing "goodness" in his life, a religious person by definition in your view?

I don't know that there is a standard academic definition of religion; I've seen definitions that explicitly included atheism, for example.

My question about your 'purely prudent' person, is WHY does he behave the way he behaves? Is it out of pure self-interest (in the hope that the good he sends out is returned to him), or out of some sense of duty to his fellow man, or for some other reason? It seems to me that describing behavior without motivations doesn't tell us much about a particular person.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Well Websters defines religion as:

1. 2. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   3. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

For example, Satanism is probably considered a religion by some (few?). I would imagine that Satanists would not believe that "belief in good is the very basic definition of [their] religious belief." Same with pagans maybe? Pagans are stil out there. I once temped for a wiccan.

I don't know much about Satanists, but I believe that their teachings are based on the idea that the Bible is a distortion of fact, and that Lucifer is, in fact, Good. I may be wrong, though.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't know that there is a standard academic definition of religion; I've seen definitions that explicitly included atheism, for example.

My question about your 'purely prudent' person, is WHY does he behave the way he behaves? Is it out of pure self-interest (in the hope that the good he sends out is returned to him), or out of some sense of duty to his fellow man, or for some other reason? It seems to me that describing behavior without motivations doesn't tell us much about a particular person.

I think you're right there are a number of motivations for why people do "good." I think you generalized the majority of them quite well with this post.

This is sort of what I was getting at in my initial and jumbled response to Bucc. In my mind, I think it is more admirable and more rewarding on a personal level to do "good" because it's the right thing to do (I guess out of some sense of duty to my fellow man or sense of compassion/justice), rather than doing "good" because I felt as if I would be rewarded/punished by some all-powerful invisible force in the afterlife. This is obviously a simplified view of things and there are many more justifications/motivations than that.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My question about your 'purely prudent' person, is WHY does he behave the way he behaves? Is it out of pure self-interest (in the hope that the good he sends out is returned to him), or out of some sense of duty to his fellow man, or for some other reason? It seems to me that describing behavior without motivations doesn't tell us much about a particular person.

And I'm willing to accept that virtuous acts committed out of self-service no not constitute a virtuous life or person. Fine.

I don't think that gets me any closer to accepting a super-broad definition of "religion," especially that has nothing to do with spirituality, higher powers, and the like. If "doing good things" is a religion, then it seems to me you're just appropriating the word out of its most common context. (Which, again, is fine by me -- but you can't expact a general audience to receive this immediately, which was my initial point)

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't know that there is a standard academic definition of religion; I've seen definitions that explicitly included atheism, for example.

But to me, that's not much of a stretch -- if religion is essentially one's beliefs about spiritual matters and the existence of and reverece for higher power(s), then it's not a complete stretch to say that a person who denies all of the above has adopted a "religion" of sorts. It's a modet semantic difference, to me.

Much less that the notion that I'm inferring from you, that religion is just a person's overall belief system about eveything, independent of whether it gets to matters of spirituality or higher power(s).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But to me, that's not much of a stretch -- if religion is essentially one's beliefs about spiritual matters and the existence of and reverece for higher power(s), then it's not a complete stretch to say that a person who denies all of the above has adopted a "religion" of sorts. It's a modet semantic difference, to me.

Much less that the notion that I'm inferring from you, that religion is just a person's overall belief system about eveything, independent of whether it gets to matters of spirituality or higher power(s).

I don't think that's what I'm saying, and it's definitely not what I think; what you are describing is what I define as 'cosmology.' I think of religious belief as a longing for goodness; some systems place that goodness within man, some place it without. First prerequisite would be belief in that goodness.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think of religious belief as a longing for goodness; some systems place that goodness within man, some place it without. First prerequisite would be belief in that goodness.

Again, I'll stew on that argument -- but I don't think there's anything self-evident about that definition.

[albionmoonlight]

To me, a belief system that attempts to describe and affect human behavior that does not include the existence of a transendent realm is ethics and/or philosophy.

A belief system that attempts to describe and affect human behavior that does include the existence of a transcendent realm is religion.

Transecedent is defined for these purposes as an existence that it not able to be commonly perceived by our 5 senses.

Edit--or maybe a better way of putting transcendent is to say that it exists outside of the observable physical universe.

(Though both of those definitions could be nit-picked by someone looking at things like other dimensions, etc. If you beleive in a being from the 5th dimension, is that a religion by my definition? I have no idea.)

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

And I'm willing to accept that virtuous acts committed out of self-service no not constitute a virtuous life or person. Fine.

I don't think that gets me any closer to accepting a super-broad definition of "religion," especially that has nothing to do with spirituality, higher powers, and the like. If "doing good things" is a religion, then it seems to me you're just appropriating the word out of its most common context. (Which, again, is fine by me -- but you can't expact a general audience to receive this immediately, which was my initial point)

I think most 'general audiences' would have contentious arguments about the definition of religion. I don't think it's an easy question at all. We each have pre-concieved notions based on our own experiences, education, etc.

The question which got me involved in this discussion was (paraphrasing) "Can a man be virtuous without religious beliefs?" I think it's clear that you can't answer that question until you have some idea of what you mean by 'religious beliefs.' And, as I have said, it is not an easy question.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think most 'general audiences' would have contentious arguments about the definition of religion. I don't think it's an easy question at all. We each have pre-concieved notions based on our own experiences, education, etc.

The question which got me involved in this discussion was (paraphrasing) "Can a man be virtuous without religious beliefs?" I think it's clear that you can't answer that question until you have some idea of what you mean by 'religious beliefs.' And, as I have said, it is not an easy question.

Fine, but incorporating anything to do with goodness or virtue under the umbrella of "religion" seems like a serious stretch to me. (Not that I totally disagree with your elucidation ths far)


I'd go back to my original statement, and simplifiy it to basically be: "Isn't it possible for someone to deny the existence of God, but still be a good person?" That is, essentially, what I was seeking to ask. Sorry if my sloppy semantics led us down an unproductive path.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Fine, but incorporating anything to do with goodness or virtue under the umbrella of "religion" seems like a serious stretch to me. (Not that I totally disagree with your elucidation ths far)


I'd go back to my original statement, and simplifiy it to basically be: "Isn't it possible for someone to deny the existence of God, but still be a good person?" That is, essentially, what I was seeking to ask. Sorry if my sloppy semantics led us down an unproductive path.

I would describe your semantics as 'revealing' rather than 'sloppy.'

Anyway, I'll stew on your new wording and see what I can come up with tonight. Til then, cheers.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The question which got me involved in this discussion was (paraphrasing) "Can a man be virtuous without religious beliefs?" I think it's clear that you can't answer that question until you have some idea of what you mean by 'religious beliefs.' And, as I have said, it is not an easy question.

I think you can't answer that question until you have some idea of what you mean by "virtuous" before ever getting to the question of religious beliefs.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

In my mind, I think it is more admirable and more rewarding on a personal level to do "good" because it's the right thing to do (I guess out of some sense of duty to my fellow man or sense of compassion/justice), rather than doing "good" because ...

Do you think the feeling of "reward" is natural/biological? In most cases that feeling comes from very un-natural acts, like mercy and self-sacrifice. In any case it is uniquely human.
Essential to the notion of religion is community. If it were not for others there would not be religion. For example, was Adam religious, was he even practicing a religion? Given that religion is community driven, and humans depend upon experiences with the other in order to define and know themselves (externalism, objectivation, internalization), one can argue brother Durkheim was right in say saying religion is a communities idealized image of itself. Therefore, we can say one can act "good" without being religious, but rather they are conforming to the ideas of their society so that they can better know themselves and the world around them. In a sense, by abiding by this "social contract" we have the foundation to build relationships, which again is essential for our own existence. Just a thought.

[st.cronin]

more thoughts

Naturally we have to know what we mean by 'virtuous' as well. Without providing a specific meaning, I would assume that we all agree that to be virtuous is to be law-abiding, honest, hard-working, generous, and accepting of one's role in society. We could perhaps also include other qualities as well, and situational modifiers and qualifiers, etc.

The question before us is "Is it possible for a man to be virtuous without belief in God?" I think obviously it *is* possible. What is perhaps less clear is whether it is possible to want to be virtuous without belief in God?

Some thoughts on definitions... I could easily define God as the highest possible Good (a fairly common equivelance). I assume that when Quick says God, he is allowing for the possibility that God has many names (Allah, Yahweh, etc.) I am not sure if you are willing to allow that God can have many aspects; in other words, God is not merely the Creator and Shaper of our World, not merely a sentient judge, not merely the imprint left on the world by Siddhartha or Jesus, or Plotinus' One, etc. Knowledge of God is given to us in all these ways, and this is only off the top of my head - I have an entire section of library on this stuff. I think it is foolish to presume that one's own idea of God is the only idea of God.

There is a complex psychology to religious belief which is only vaguely understood by me (and, I assume, only vaguely understood by psychologists and theologians as well). There have been many attempts (notably by William James) to find the universal in religious belief; I am not sure anybody has succeeded.

I apologize for the rambling nature of this post; it may require some editing for clarity.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The question before us is "Is it possible for a man to be virtuous without belief in God?" I think obviously it *is* possible. What is perhaps less clear is whether it is possible to want to be virtuous without belief in God?

The answer to both of these questions is: 100% unequivocally yes.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Dola, and virtuous unbelievers are arguably more virtuous, since they are acting on their own moral compass and not out of fear of Hell or whatever. It's not hard to be good if you think you will be tortured eternally for being bad, or if you think you will get some kind of heavenly reward for being good. But if you think, like I do, that at the end of the day we're all worm food, from Hitler to Mother Theresa, your good actions are motivated purely by your own internal sense of what is right.

Basically, I am a good person without having to pretend someone is watching me.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Dola, and virtuous unbelievers are arguably more virtuous, since they are acting on their own moral compass and not out of fear of Hell or whatever. It's not hard to be good if you think you will be tortured eternally for being bad, or if you think you will get some kind of heavenly reward for being good. But if you think, like I do, that at the end of the day we're all worm food, from Hitler to Mother Theresa, your good actions are motivated purely by your own internal sense of what is right.

Basically, I am a good person without having to pretend someone is watching me.

What you are arguing against is the exact opposite of what I was suggesting. I originally suggested that religious belief was centered on longing for good; you are presuming it is based on fear of something terrible. I *know* that your assumption is false when it comes to my own religious belief, and I believe it is not based on anything other than prejudice. I don't know anybody who believes based on fear.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Early in my career, one of my mentors reminded me that "communication is not about what you say, but about what they hear."

Semi tangent but I just wanted to say that this is the most true statement in this thread. It's true not only of speech though. In this thread you read what I didn't write so to speak over the term "african american" for example.

It's really shocking but a few years ago I tried an experiment. I was working at the hospital and I was taking patient information calls. At one point I deliberately misspoke the names I was given and clearly misspoke them and 75 percent of the callers agreed that I'd given them the right way when I asked them.

"I'm looking for Joe Johnson."

"So that's Joe Ronson?"

"Yes sir"

It was simply amazing but try it sometime.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

What you are arguing against is the exact opposite of what I was suggesting. I originally suggested that religious belief was centered on longing for good; you are presuming it is based on fear of something terrible. I *know* that your assumption is false when it comes to my own religious belief, and I believe it is not based on anything other than prejudice. I don't know anybody who believes based on fear.

Prejudice? I have no idea what you're talking about there.

I think it's hard to argue that "fear of hell" or a "reward in the afterlife" is not an essential part of almost all religions. It's certainly a big part of their "PR" package when trying to convert people. I didn't mean to imply that this was all there was to everyone's religious beliefs, but rather that it is absent from all irreligious people's beliefs.

Also, I still don't think that religious belief is centered on longing for good. There are as many Reasons for religious belief as there are religious people. Perhaps some people, like you, believe for a long for good. Perhaps other people believe because they like the ceremony or simply can't or don't want to believe that there is nothing else out there. Or other people, like me unilt my late 20's, just believed because it was what I had been told and taught since I was a child and never thought much more of it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Prejudice? I have no idea what you're talking about there. If you would like to continue to debate this issue I would ask that you do so without personal attacks.

Pointing out possible prejudice is not, under any circumstances, a personal attack, and as a society we would be well-advised to discontinue that understanding of the word; had I called you a bigot, you would be right to be defensive. I simply meant that you are JUDGING without considering all available evidence.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Pointing out possible prejudice is not, under any circumstances, a personal attack, and as a society we would be well-advised to discontinue that understanding of the word; had I called you a bigot, you would be right to be defensive. I simply meant that you are JUDGING without considering all available evidence.

Fair enough. A stupid thing to have said. I retract. Rest stands though.