Diane101 asked me how you can commit a transgression when you do not have to appeal to a higher power. She also asked me how you can be ‘someone’ without a soul, and how you can judge a life to have a value if they do not have a soul.
I’m not going to parse Diane’s words because I know what she is getting at.
I’ll start with a brief discussion of the soul. The soul is an abstract concept. It can be described in various ways. But there are two main components of the idea of a soul. One is identity. What makes me the same person that I was when I was five years old? What is it that has been constant over the intervening thirty years?
None of my cells are the same, but there is an indisputable something that connects the 35 year old BooMan to the five year old BooMan. And that something is a continuity of character, or personality, or memory. Nothing physical is the same except for certain secondary characteristics like my eye color and skin tone.
Someone who has known me my whole life can say things like, “Boo has always been inquisitive, or Boo has always liked blueberry pie, or Boo has always been a slob.” What is it that allows them to say that about me?
For many, that something is my soul. And that leads us to the second characteristic of the idea of soul. That second characteristic is the indestructibility of the soul. Since my soul, or identity, or character is not synonymous with or (seemingly) dependent on my physical characteristics, many feel that my soul must be something non-physical, and therefore not subject to physical laws.
But this view is erroneous. My identity can be altered by any number of factors: disease, brain injury, chemical imbalance, to name a few. I can go from being talkative and trustworthy to pensive and untrustworthy, artsy to scientific, coherent to vegetative, and so on. Any number of physical events can change my character so that my friends and family will no longer recognize me as the person they have known all their lives. My character and my identity is totally dependent on a certain health and continuity of my physical makeup. Death will destroy that physical makeup within a few minutes.
No serious scientist, neurosurgeon, or neurophilosopher will use the concept of ‘soul’. Understanding the way the brain works pretty much rids you of the belief that your soul or identity can survive death, so that you might be recognizable to your loved ones in an afterlife.
But even if your identity or character could survive death, it would be no use to you if your brain had been damaged by alzheimers, or a stroke, or some other accident. Unless, God restores your soul to some ideal point in your life where your brain had not deteriorated, the damage in life would be eternalized in death.
Secularists, following the science, do not believe in a non-physical constant in a person’s consciousness. Any consistency there is, is also a consistency of physical features. Therefore, a meaningful afterlife is impossible.
Now, how does that effect morality? First of all, it means that this life is all you’ve got, and that you will never be reunited with your loved ones after you die.
Therefore, the taking of a life is immeasurably more significant than if the killed were merely to go on existing, possibly in a happier place. When death is final, the snuffing of life is absolute. This makes the secularist take the value of life more seriously than the heaven-believing Christian or Muslim.
No secularist would ever tell someone they can get rewards by committing suicide. They won’t console you by saying that someone is in a better place, unless life had become more unbearable than non-existence.
To a secularist, there can no greater crime than murder.
But why does a secularist value life? Life is fragile but incredibly complex. It is the closest thing we have to a miracle in this world. Human life is the most complex of all, and we feel a kinship with all other human life. It might help to study complexity theory and the works of Stuart Kaufmann, but suffice to say that there is a degree of awe and respect due to nature’s ability to create life, and to create consciousness, and that level of complexity should not be lightly destroyed.
We do not act morally because we expect a reward, or because we fear punishment. We act morally because a just society demands that we treat each with respect, compassion, and even-handedness. We do not kill, because it is a terrible thing to destroy something as beautifully complex as a human being, and a human consciousness.
I hope I have kept this is simple as possible. It is not easy to talk in layman’s terms about the philosophy of mind. It’s not easy to discuss secular moral philosophy in a brief diary. But maybe I can expand in the comments.
Never heard this term before — what does this mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurophilosophy
No, what do YOU mean by it?
This represents EXACTLY the way in which you are using the term?
is a discipline within the philosophy of science. It encompasses quite a few things. First, a neurophilosopher must familiarize themselves with the latest research in neuroscience. They do not have to be able to perform surgery, but they must understand each region of the brain, what it does, what happens when it is damaged, how memory is stored, where it is stored, how it is stored, etc.
Then the neurophilosopher begins to think about questions like what constitutes identity, what is character, how are they defined? How can they be changed. This knowledge doesn’t need to be so clinical as to qualify one to dispense medicine, but it must be comprehensive.
Inevitably, a neurophilosopher will touch on the possibility of maintaining one’s character, identity, or soul after one dies.
Almost invariably, they will conclude ‘no’.
K, thanks!
Does it ever occur to these neurophilosphers that every conclusion that they are coming to about the brain they are doing with the brain? Or is it this kind of question that they poo-poo?
Or have some of them returned for “death” to report?
Brin, I just loved this comment…can’t say anymore that would add to it.
yes, it occurs to them. That is why they are very paranoid about having brain embolisms 🙂
that neurophilosophers try to answer, or at least comprehend, is what is consciousness. Thinking about that issue must, by definition, lead one to explore tangential issues of morality, legal punishments, the nature of dualism, and ethics, and, or course, whether or not to be a natural materialist.
Most neurophilosphers are natural materialists. Until I read a bit about this subject, I had no label for my own belief system other than secular humanism. Now I identify with this more precise and scientific philosophy.
Neurophilosophers, through their study of consciousness help to clarify muddy thinking, especially on such topics as the currently popular intellectual scam — “intelligent design.” They are careful to separate facts from values; something “ID” proponents are unable to do, primarily because they commit the Naturalistic Fallacy.
This fallacy in thinking occurs when someone tries to draw a conclusion about the way something ought to be based solely on how things are in fact.
It’s best illustrated by the following:
Competition is natural — fact
Competition is good — value
And it’s often seen at work in the neo-con “logic” that there’s no reason to protect the environment, because the Rapture is coming soon; or social programs for the poor go against Ntural Selection, the poor just aren’t as good as we are.
Nature is not good, it simply is. This issue was also a stumbling block among theosophists around the time Darwin was publishing Natural Selection. The late Stephen J. Gould wrote an excellent essay titled, “Nonmoral Nature,” which deconstructs the metaphorical idea of Nature as ethical (or has lessons for man) because God (his plan, his hand) created the world.
Of course, if you are a natural materialist who bases her beliefs on the theories of Neurophilosophy, then there is no room in an internally consistent mind for a soul. Naturally, this leads one to face the fact that ethics, values, morals, etc. do not exist because god “put them there,” but that they are natural products of evolution.
There’s nothing frightening in that concept.
Just trying to get the terms straight here.
And, um, this,
It is not easy to talk in layman’s terms about the philosophy of mind
just my opinion, mind you, seems a tad bit condescending — did you mean something else, or am I misunderstanding what you mean by “philosphy of mind”?
I would have done so.
for the “obviously” unenlightened — what do you mean? I don’t know whether or not to take this as a funny, even though it’s YOU! ow, my head hurts!!
PS Please don’t give me a link to wikipedia. Thanks!
it ain’t worth it… I was just trying to condense and maybe be a little funny… as I understand Boo’s arguement, the gist of secular morality would be based upon a reverence(if I may be allowed) for the circle of life and death… hence circular mortality… ; )
pretty close Bood.
It’s actually less circular than it is preservative. It takes so much to build up a complex system and so little to destroy it. It’s a reverence for complexity, not for the tug and pull of life and death. That’s a more eastern concept, but one that is not inconsistent with a secular outlook.
interesting – I’ve got too much on my plate to really respond to this diary and the comments – but thought I’d bop in and make a note
a “reverence for complexity” is the driving force behind my user ID. Too often we humans want to reduce things to simple answers, black and white, logically predictable.
I think things are far too mysterious and chaotic to do that – it’s only simple if we ignore the complexity –
now that’s useful, even necessary sometimes – and some things are predictable ENOUGH that we can count on them – but at the far edges of science – things like quantum physics and chaos theory – I, frankly, encounter the divine.
this is not a simplistic – “god of the gaps” arguement – and my belief in a creator with a purpose in NO WAY supports the idiocy of the ID crowd – indeed – I would counter that if we are, indeed, created in the image of God – then our rational minds and our ability to DO and comprehend science is at the essence of that.
too often – FAR too often – we religious types have tried to make God into our image – saddling “him” with our body type, our hatreds, and our limitations. Given that sad history – and given the latest renewed public display of idiocy of Pat Robertson for example. – I really can’t blame those who reject “organized religion” altogether.
I think we each need to find our path and journey on it. I cherish crossroads like this one where we try to explain our separate paths to one another – I rejoice at the commonalities and I respect the differences. Look at creation – there isn’t one way to be a flower, tree, or even galaxy. Light is both particle and wave. Why the hell do we think God would favor one way of being in communion?
Our differences matter. Namaste.
link
Oh Boo, you have sure opened a lot of cans of worms here.
I will just tackle one:
Indentity, surviving death, identity as soul.
This all presuposes that a soul is discrnable matter, and I do not think ‘identity’ can be equated with soul, per se. I would like to hear more about how you think the ‘brain studies’ can in any way be realted to the soul or the passing of identifiable identity.
Oh this is such a hard thing to rationally discuss, words are failing me.
Let’s try to keep it simple then.
If you picture an afterlife, do you not picture yourself in that afterlife? I mean, don’t you picture Diane, who has such and such a mother and a father and siblings, and went to this school, and had these pets, and married this guy, and had these children?
And when you picture being in heaven (or hell) with your loved ones, don’t you picture yourself recognizing them by some means? Either you can see them, or you can sense their basic character, their presence?
If your father spent his last hours in a coma after a stroke, do you picture him as a stroke victim, or more happily as the man who taught you to ride a bike or whatever?
The point is, that you cannot retain memory, or identity in death. In fact, you can retain them in life, if you are damaged.
So, this sense that we have of continuity is really dependent on health, and physical balances in the brain.
For that reason, I say, secularist do not believe in the possibility of a meaningful afterlife.
No I do not picture me as me in an afterlife, nor do I picture my family as physical beings in an afterlife.
I picture me and all of the other beings as being in spirit form.
Spirit, soul, that unmeasurable, unfindable, something that is not concrete in any way. How can you equate that with physcial reality.
You are also presupposing, at least it sounds that way to me, that knowlege or beingness is only contained in the brain, and not as I believe in particles of our being that are not physical or at least in the measurable or in a visible reality. Could it be somthing that is not understood at this time in the scientific world you are quoting and perhaps never be able to be scientifically validated.
And I hate having to spell all these words.
btw, thanks boo for putting up this diary, but I cringe at my ‘handle’ on the title of every comment…lol
to know exactly what you mean. So, I hope you can flesh it out for me a little.
I understand that people have spiritual beliefs and I don’t intend to denigrate them. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, only answers that relate to how the minds works, and how someone’s charater and identity are dependent on the brain.
So, it is sometimes hard to know what the worth of an afterlife is, if you don’t even remember yourself.
And they base this
For that reason, I say, secularist do not believe in the possibility of a meaningful afterlife.
On how what evidence? Someone returned from after life and told them there is nothing meaningful there?
Matter is energy. Please explain the destruction of this energy to me.
let’s keep it simple. There is a spider in my garden. This little spider is using energy to keep itself alive, spins its web, digest its food.
I spray it with bug spray. It shrivels up and falls in the soil. The electrical and chemical processes come to an end, but the atoms keep whirring about. They biodegrade into the soil, and no energy is lost.
People are no different.
particles biodegrade into the soil, (all the known particles, that is), and do any fly about in the air, get breathed in by other beings….are all particles in a human being in the physical reality,. I say no, i say we are multiple dimensional even while we perceive ourselves to be in only one dimension and that would be the physical reality.
Oh my head is hurting now!!!!!!!
have been theories about non-physical particles, and of course you can’t rule them out. But, it seems to me, that is important to know whether we need to resort to anything non-physical to explain the behavior of the brain, and of a human being. And most neuroscientists do not believe we are missing anything that we need to explain human behavior.
The brain is the repository of your feelings, memories, and whatever it is that defines your character. If you doubt that, we can play with your brain and change your feelings, memories and character.
So, the secularist doesn’t believe in a meaningful afterlife, by which I mean, you won’t retain any personality traits or memory.
But Boo, our soul is not our brain…and our character or identity is not our soul.
And if you lived 200 years ago, you would not know what the nurophil……..’decided/concluded’ and transferred through education to you and your answer to this would be far different, I suspect.
Extrapolate that out to 200 years from now, when science just may make discoveries about the brain, body and soul/ spirit that are not known today, then your answer might also be different.
So where does this leave this discussion, ‘firmly’ in the area of conjecture to my mind. body and soul.
that advances in science can and will change what people think about a variety of subjects.
However, it’s not conjecture that your memories will be destroyed if you get a degenerative brain disease. And dying is the worst kind of degeneration. So, no memory in the afterlife.
Unless a restorative miracle takes place.
And if it does, at what point in your life do want to be restored? The innocent 8 year old? The spry 16 year old with a crush? The wise 50 year old? You can see how this quickly becomes absurd…
You are still ‘assuming’ that all memories/knowedge are carried in the physical, ie. brain cells and in the physical earth life we are currently existing in or within.
I do not find that point valid. At one time in our history we did not know there were germs, then atoms, then particles, and so on.,,,scientists at all phases were adamant that they knew no such things as germs existed, Pastuer time for example.
How do you know your references for this are not anti pastuer types for this period of earth history..
a disclaimer”
So Socrates decided he would try and find out if anyone knew what was truly worthwhile in life, because anyone who knew that would surely be wiser than him. He set about questioning everyone he could find, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer. Instead they all pretended to know something they clearly did not.
Finally he realized the Oracle might be right after all. He was the wisest man in Athens because he alone was prepared to admit his own ignorance rather than pretend to know something he did not.
So, as a philosophy student, I abide by Socrates’ wisdom.
Having said that, I do not believe that there is a back-up disk somewhere containing your memories in all their impreciseness.
When your brain begins to break down, or dies, your memories are as fried as any hard disk after a nasty virus gives you the blue screen. Actually, more so, because there will be no FBI to come reconstruct your fried information.
Am I sure of this? No. But I am as sure as any human being could possibly be about such matters.
Being sure without knowing — this is faith, no? 🙂
you discard scientific knowledge as worthless, and on an even par with myth.
Either it benefits you to learn how the brain/mind works, or it is meaningless, and any fool can understand consciousness as well as the best researcher.
Your memory, your identity, your character, are all formed, maintained, and controlled by a functioning brain. To think that you can keep those characteristics in death, is not much different than thinking that your grandfather can overcome his advanced dementia and be 20 years old again.
Sure, there is an element of faith in following science, but it can never be equated to faith that disregards science.
For example. A biologist need not kill and dissect every frog that exists to make the statement, “All frogs have hearts.”
No one would expect that that scientist would have to change the status of this fact to an article of faith because he didn’t kill every frog in order to “prove” his theory.
Does that help?
do you argue the spider has a rational mind? I think people are different.
I’ve been giving some thought to the idea of both soul and afterlife lately – my beloved grandmother died monday night.
Her suffering in this life is over. I believe that somehow she continues to exist. Maybe that’s just in my heart, my memory. Maybe that’s “heaven” – whatever that is.
It IS tremendously comforting to imagine that “we” meet again – but while I think there’s something to that – I don’t think it’s in the form of our earthly bodies reanimated. I think that whatever the afterlife, next life, etc is – it’s both different and better than this – that we have more awareness and fewer limitations.
I’ve thought many different things at many different times – right now I’m in more of a “we return to the ground of all being, becoming one with the energy and spirit of the universe” sort of place.
but to me the afterlife doesn’t really matter – I cannot comprehend it, I cannot affect it, it is beyond – what matters is the here and now. Even Jesus preached that “the Kingdom of Heaven is upon us”. A focus on some future nirvana is a distraction from our present work – and is far too often used to justify hatred, inequality, and injustice here and now.
I don’t think you intend to suggest that anyone thinks spiders are rational. Perhaps we can also agree that they are not conscious beings, either, in the sense that the spider has no awareness that the sun will come up tomorrow, or that gravity works.
I think one must ponder the fact that the spider, just like us (a mamalian example of animal) evolved. And that the pattern of evolution is the same for all living things, whether animal, or for that matter, vegetable.
Once we acknowledge that, then we can understand that the characteristics of humans evolved from pre-existing entites (such as nerve cells organizing into organs systems such as the CNS) and from adaptaion to the enrironment in order to fill an available niche.
That said, than it becomes apparent that it’s disingenuous to suggest that man has a soul while no other creatures do — that man is special, that god made man special — if you believe in evolution as most educated people do (according to Woodrow Wilson). Because it is evident that man’s soul could not be derived in some pre-existing “proto-form” that occured in one of man’s ancestors, nor could a soul have been endowed as an adaptation, since there is no niche in Nature for such a thing.
That is obvious, because if such a niche existed, all successful life forms would have souls. And in all monotheistic religions they do not. In pantheistic religions they may. Now, it’s obvious that no understanding of Nature can come from religion, we cannot accommodate both beliefs, which are mutually exclusive. And religion offers us no empirical evidence for the existence of the soul, while Nature offers much evidence for its non-existence.
will not be comforting to you regarding your grandmother. First of all, I’m sorry for you loss.
A spider has a rudimentary brain of sorts, but nothing you could describe as rational. However, there is nothing different about a spider versus a person that would change what happens to us when we die.
If we would go on living in the sense of having some consciousness and awareness and selfhood, the spider would go on thinking about spinning webs, or eating bugs. Maybe the comparison would be easier if we chose a creature with thinking capacity, like a dog or an ape. My dog has vivid dreams, undoubtedly involving chasing squirrels as well as reliving his horrible fight with a pitbull.
If he were to die there is no reason to think his consciousness would be treated any differently from mine. But, your consciousness is wholly dependent on your brain, just as your superior reasoning ability to my dog can be explained by differences in your respective brains.
When it comes to an afterlife, the question is why would anyone want one if they had no memory, or idea of continuity, of selfhood? How is that different from ceasing to exist? Terry Schiavo was gone before she died. Whatever it was that made Terry, Terry, was destroyed when her brain was damaged. But at least she had some electrical activity. When we die, we eventually have none.
Well explained – thanks.
I do enjoy the points where our paths and different understandings intersect, especially when we explain our differences with respect for the other.
as I said – I think “grandma” continues to exist on some level – maybe that’s just in my memory. If that’s all it is – it’s enough. I think it’s something more – but none of us will ever know – or be able to prove/disprove – what, if anything, that is (in this life). There are no empirical tools to do so.
Some of you (for example limelight’s post above) think that means such possibilities don’t exist. So be it – as long as we all remain free to believe as our experiences and understandings lead us to – and in that I will readily grant that my co-religionist are far more dangerous in trying to make everyone conform to their worldview.
to some, like limelight above – it’s obvious that faith and science are mutually exclusive. He(?) likely thinks I’m deluded, I think he(?) is missing out on a larger connection. I don’t know that we’ll ever overcome such an impasse.
I think faith and reason are different sides of the same coin and that we only really get in trouble when we insist that we fully understand – and that our understanding is the only correct view.
Even as we differ – we can unite in maintaining the separation of religion and state, in science classrooms that are free of creationism under whatever guise, and in mutual respect for our different paths.
thanks again
It’s a common misunderstanding that matter equals energy and so is covered by the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be destroyed.
Mass is equivalent to energy by the Energy Equation, E=MC2. But matter isn’t merely mass; it’s a mass that occupies space in virtue of being composed by a class of elementary particles known as fermions.
In brief, matter can be destroyed and is so all the time. Its associated energy then converts to other forms. One may believe in an afterlife if one wishes, but there is nothing in the laws of physics suggesting it.
I think if you read some more of Steven Hawkings you will perhaps see some physicists disagree with you. He is only one, but one of the better known.
What do you mean, “some more of Stephen Hawkings”?
I haven’t read him at all, so perhaps you can enlighten me as to how he disagrees with what I wrote above? (With precise quotation, please.)
has a famous book,
A Brief History of Time
in which he explains the latest (as of its publication, and since corrected for some erroneous theories regarding black holes) thinking concerning the existence of the universe and predicting its method of cessation.
You May also wish to read William H. Calvin’s (a neuro-scientist and Neurophilosopher)
The River that Flows Uphill
for more on Beginnings and Time.
Those are just two of a slew of excellent books that make modern physics and astro-physics “available” to the lay reader.
I know who he is, thank you, and William Calvin too. I was interested in the specific argument advertised above.
please help some of us less educated, less capable, less familiar with the “neurophilosophical” aspects of life understand here.
Are you saying then, that we are our Brains? What our brains contain, contains us? Very confusing. What then are our emotions and why do we have them? Brain can function just fine without emotions, sometimes actually better without them. How is it that we feel things in our chest, a place we call heart, when actually it is just an intellectual exercise? And where do thoughts and creativity and original discovery come from. What part of the brain encapsulates such things. How does it work that “new” thoughts can come forth from the mechanical brain? What physical, electro-magnetic process takes place to create something never before known?
I am very curious, and I hope you can explain it to me.
Why would extreme “happiness” cause tears? What causes extreme happiness? I really have a hard time getting a handle on why the brain uses or even needs emotions. Seems very counter productive to me.
I am not being a smart aleck I really would like to understand.
I’ll try to give you something but I can’t answer all that right now, if ever.
If I want you to feel fear, panic, joy, ecstasy, or any other emotion, I can produce them with electrodes, and/or drugs.
They are physical processes, brought on by complex chemical and electrical processes. In a normal human being, a perceived threat will cause you secret chemicals in the brain which will cause your heartbeat to rise, make you perspire, and make your muscles ready for flight or fight.
But I can bring about all those physical manifestations of fear articifially.
If you are a happy person, I can change that by removing a small piece of your brain, or by giving you certain drugs, or be electric impulses to certain areas of your brain. The reverse is true if you are an unhappy person.
The brain is like a computer chip with a billion microcircuits running in tandem. It is far more complex than any computer, but in some ways, far less efficient than any computer. It also has a ton of redundencies that allow for it to continue to function if one part is damaged.
Creative or original thought is possible because we have novel experiences. No brain has had the same input as any other brain. Even twins will have different experiences.
Einstein wouldn’t have gotten very far as a caveman, although I’d give him a better chance than you or me at conquering the world.
“”Creative or original thought is possible because we have novel experiences.””
so our creativity/original thought arises out of our novel experiences. That does not make sense to me.
I know you love this type of discussion boo, so I won’t feel quilty for starting it.
I am now using my ‘novel experience’ to ‘create’ this prediciton, this will be a loooooooooong diary.
Yes, although I may not be able to participate for too much longer tonight.
Novel experiences: if Einstein had lived 500 years earlier, he would never have discovered relativity. He might have made some other grand discovery, but there wasn’t enough accumulated information for any human being to discover relativity in 1505.
Many musicians would never have come up with their music if they were born before Howlin’ Wolf, Elvis, the Beatles, or James Brown.
Everyone has unique experiences built on the experiences of those that came before. Everyone has original thoughts because no one else has the same capabilities and experiences.
A healthy person will be somewhat creative and have unique contributions never before seen, and some of them never again seen. Another reason to value human life for the secularist.
work interesting. He is the head of Neurosurgery at University of Iowa, and doing research on:
Professor and Head of Neurology
Research:
The division of behavioral neurology and cognitive neuroscience is developing neural models of higher cognitive processes. In addition to neuropsychological and neuroanatomical work relating to vision, memory, language, emotion, decision-making, and consciousness, there are ongoing studies on the nature, diagnosis, and treatment of the dementias.
There is a lot of very interesting information for those who care to look at it. the article can be found
HERE
My favorite quote is:
Each will and does decide for themselves. And it is not my purpose to change anyone’s mind about their belief. Science is the religion/belief of some, philosophy, mathematics, tea leaves or traditional religions for others. Some worship beer and parties, football, babes, and dirty dancing. To each their own. But as for PROOF. . .I think there is no definitive proof for any school of thought. JMO
Without getting into the unknown areas (and the unknowable ones if you believe both Godel and Ramamchhandran on this), what you think, feel, and interpret are all at the mercy of brain function — and dysfunction.
What may help — or confuse even further! — is that in these discussions we all acknowledge that “brain” is not “mind” is not “brain.”
Many of what we call emotions are electro-chemical, endocrinal, and hormonal stimulations and reponses acting on neurons at specific sites of the brain. Now, while there are many well-defined areas of the brain “responsible” for cetrtain outward or bodily functions, they are not — and this is VERY IMPORTANT — isolated, one from the other.
The power and the mystery of the brain is its interconnectedness. What some also refer to as complexity. And that last word, in itself, has only within the last 25 years or so become its very own science!
Murray Gell Mann is one of the pioneers of that science which, according to him, may be the Theory of Everything Biological and Physical. In short, it may unite the living and inanimate worlds. You’re right — WOW!
Have you read his The Quark and the Jaguar? (You can tell from the title what a phenomenal new field of science this is.)
gawd I can’t spekk — SEE!!!!
I think this is a good discussion to have. Mr. Boma does diaries on humanism, which I think are relevant. I find the issue of why we embrace morality interesting.. you, wrote:
What I came up with, in response to the question why be moral?, is the idea of being aware of how are actions affect one another. I think morality is the understanding of the likely outcomes of our behavior.. For me, it’s mostly about responsibility, and acknowledging… being honest with how we shape the world by our decisions. </surfacelevelphilosophy>
Just exactly the kind Neurophilosphy tries to answer.
And the answer may be: Because we’ve evolved that way! Think about it; there are many examples you can imagine when it is truly in one’s best interests (maybe not immediate interests, maybe not personal, but perhaps altruistically, for one’s DNA. . .?) to do the “right” thing. In fact, scientists have for decades gathered increasing evidence of “moral” behavior in other animals.
I find that comforting because it counters many of the monotheistic religions’ arguments that man is born in sin. On the contrary, it appears that he is not completely “impure.”
There’s even data that suggests some plants have capabilites and “behaviors” (through chemical communication) that can lead to greater “good” for the community by transmitting information about invasive pests/diseases. Stunning to me who always thought of plants as barely a step up from inanimate objects.
Ah, live and learn.
Yes, the evolutionary questions are interesting.
I was watching a special on chimpanzees which showed that the males were tribal and would go around in packs.. and sometimes if they saw a stray chimp that did not belong to its group they would maul it to death.
This behaviour could have some interesting implications to human behavior.
is probably the most basic biological imperative to recognize and react to.
Don’t forget, chimps also hunt other primates — baboons are among their prey animals — (and mammals) for food.
Just for the heck of it, here is the definition i just found online for soul!
soul
Pronunciation: (sōl), [key]
—n.
I very strongly believe, one can be moral without being religious.
A book, or teachings, can instruct you to not kill others. Wise elders can teach you not to commit a “victimless” act like adultery.
One can also notice that humans have made laws and rules that have absolutely nothing to do with religious teachings, yet have a beneficial effect on life, and make things more fair.
But from that, its a small leap to derive the “big” rules. Don’t kill — if you were killed, it would end you. If its okay for you to kill, then its okay for others to kill — and maybe they’ll kill you, or someone you love.
Or “Don’t covet your neighbor’s spouse”. Well, if you could make yourself really happy by wooing your neighbor’s spouse, and your neighbor never found out, who would it hurt? Well, would you feel betrayed if it happened to you? If your neigbors are undermining each other’s families, would that make your life better or worse?
There’s really nothing special about most “religious laws”. Many overlap with what could be considered secular laws. Others are great teachings for making peaceable communities (the coveting bit), but the consequences a society can enforce by law (fines, incarceration, forced service) are not seen to improve the situation (well, that particular example is not universal, obviously. Some societies differ). And some teachings are only abstract at best in religion, but are very important in civil society (do not put litter or human waste on your neighbor’s lawn).
So, moral teachings can be derived from an examination of what makes a safe and fair and just society.
What about the non-law moral religious teachings? “Take care of the poor and the sick”? Well, again, the golden rule is just good common sense — “do onto others as you would have them do onto you”. That can be reasoned out without the aid of religion. Or a more cynical non-religious viewpoint could be as simple as:
Civility is simply “willingness to follow the norms of society”, in this usage. Politeness is encouraged, but not required…
But then, just because one can have morals without religion, certainly doesn’t preclude the validity of religion.
Think about kids:
By definition, the last is not taught, and its not modelled on examples of behavior, so its not religion — it follows no teachings. At best it is an example of a philosophy in action. Which is great. But then, do you really think the child through this through as an extension of a religious philosophy? Or did they just do what felt right to them?
Now, if you’re religious, “God” is often a parental figure — Father or nurturer. So as “children” of God, what would please him more? That we did exactly as we were told? Or that we figured out to do the “right” thing on our own?
Secular, religious… it only separates us if we make it.
let alone put down into words. In such a small community (relatively speaking) as BooTrib, I really can only partially understand the whole “identity” each of us bring to our writings. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy the online life tremendously — I owe the happiest years of my life to meeting my wife from 3500 miles away, a chance encounter that I don’t see any other way of happening other than a chat area known as IRC.
However, I cannot see the facial expressions, mannerisms, pauses in conversation, etc. that face-to-face communication allows. Yet, that is part of our “identity”, and also subject to change given an accident or disease. I do not; however, take the next step and relate that to my concept of a soul.
([Self Update] I just had to open another tab, and read up on several other great comments added to the discussion.)
I agree with comments that there is no reason to believe that a “soul” would necessitate fond memories of pre-ill relatives. Does our “soul” “die” as our brain changes as physically the organ is either preserved, digested as worm food, or cremated in a high temperature oven? That sounds pretty limiting, and I don’t like to have my concept of a “soul” limited by such physical things. I find the same restrictions unnecessary when discussions of alien life forms are discussed. Hollywood movies may be comfortable with two eyes and two legs in our “aliens”, but how arrogant are humans to believe that any life form would even be carbon-based or anything that we can even relate to given the current state of our knowledge?
I will be so un-bold as to say I cannot give a definition of a soul as mathematically sure as A squared plus B squared equals C squared. In fact, I would find such a definition boring, and it is far more interesting for me that there is NOT a physical manifestation of a soul that can be bottled and preserved with formaldehyde.
Afterlife? Well, I doubt I’ll be able to type in a blog what it’s like. I haven’t a clue if my physical form here is the beginning or the end or somewhere in the middle along the pathway known as the miracle of life. That doesn’t restrict my morality or my concept of soul or my value of life or my choice in religion.
I am a member of several wonderful communities. One of them is here. Another is a United Methodist Church, which isn’t just the brick building that I go to on Sundays. It is the people and the ministers and the volunteering and the nourishment and the laughter and the sense of warmth. I believe that science is coming close to putting electrodes or using neurotransmitters to replicate these communities, at least in the way we can describe them to the scientist administering the chosen method of replication. But I do not believe it to be the same, even if a PET scan or subjective comments say they are exactly the same. But, I am not learned in this field, just offering my opinion.
([Self Update] #2 I again had to refresh the other tab, just to keep up on the great comments.)
The real reason I wanted to jump in on this conversation was to say that I have heard it said that evolution may very well have developed a moral compass that keeps us from killing each other (or, in reverse, to value other lives.) This evolutionary “survival of the fittest” adaptation may manifest itself in the world’s religions, almost all of which have a form of “Do unto others …” I would not (prior to reading this diary) have described the secular moralists desire to not kill each other by saying “When death is final, the snuffing of life is absolute. This makes the secularist take the value of life more seriously than the heaven-believing Christian or Muslim.”
For most of my life, I did not have a brick building with the word “church” on the front of it as one of my communities. Nor did I read the Bible in an attempt to learn more about myself as I do now. The concept of a “God” was so foreign to me that I would have described myself for fully 80% of my life as a secularist. But I did not kill other humans (or animals), and it was not out of fear of punishment, nor for a higher value of life because I didn’t think there was a Heaven. I would have to say I don’t kill people because I like people, and that same feeling carries through my whole life — both as a secularist and as a Methodist.
I am logical by nature, and thrive on the structure of computer programming as a career. But, I am comfortable of a world not only full of greys instead of black and white, but full of color. I find it wonderful that I don’t need to know what a soul is, or that I have the opportunity to spend the rest of my life seeking how others have tried to describe what they think it is. I’m okay that it doesn’t fit into a science book in 2005, and that I don’t know if it will in 500 years or not.
If this is what a secularist believes:
“To a secularist, there can no greater crime than murder.
But why does a secularist value life? Life is fragile but incredibly complex. It is the closest thing we have to a miracle in this world. Human life is the most complex of all, and we feel a kinship with all other human life. It might help to study complexity theory and the works of Stuart Kaufmann, but suffice to say that there is a degree of awe and respect due to nature’s ability to create life, and to create consciousness, and that level of complexity should not be lightly destroyed.”
Then wouldn’t abortion be classified as “murder?” Wouldn’t it be logical or consistent to oppose abortion?
Is the secularist’s morality only a guide for personal choices? Or does a secularist want and/or work toward shaping the society to have the same morality?
that you made the connection to abortion.
The reason this diary was written was because Tom Kertes wrote a diary called ‘Abortion is immoral’.
And in that diary Tom revealed that he didn’t believe in the concept of a soul.
Diane101 found those two concepts to be, let’s say, confusing, and asked a series of questions about secular morality.
I chose to try to explain why a secularist would tend to place a higher value on life than someone who believes in afterlife.
In no way am I defending Tom’s position on abortion, which I disagree with. But it doesn’t surprise me at all that he is a secularist, whose secularist beliefs lead him to think abortion is immoral. Once you give up on afterlife, life gains in value. Once you begin to revere the power of nature and the ability of nature to create complex systems, you begin to value complex systems as superior to systems that take no effort to exist.
You begin to feel that it is an act of violence to destroy any complex system, which may explain why Tom is a vegan.
But, I don’t draw such conclusions. We are complex systems, but we are also imperfect beings. Compassion, forgiveness, and humility are as important as any idealistic set of standards we might come up with for an ideal world.
I caught Tom’s diary and a bit of the discussion, but life away from the computer pulled me away. It was with abortion on my mind that I read your diary.
In a book by a man (Roger Foust?) who has taken chimps used in experiments and/or trained to sign and created a place for them that is safe and somewhat “natural,” he wrote about a woman who worked there. She had a miscarriage, fairly early in her pregnancy. One of the animals signed to her asking about her baby. When the woman signed back that the baby was gone, the chimp responded with signs for sadness.
Is there a place in the brain that we can activate empathy? Compassion?
Maybe we should be working to have all elected officials be required to undergo empathy and compassion “enhancement” sessions.
Thanks for your response.
Bullshit Boo…
Tom is a paid propogandists… with “selective” morality.
Again, I bring up the analogy of homosexuality which Tom is… he finds nothing “morally wrong” with that even though there are millions of “secularist” who do… just go to any Sports Bar and you will find many men WITHOUT faith who believe homosexuality is morally wrong.
this is not a typical post from you and I am inclined to attribute it to an unfortunate excess of spirit imbibement. I don’t mean that in disrespect at all. I frequently blog while blitzed, with varying results.
However, I can’t take your post at face value without becoming indignant at what I see as a spiteful characterization of Tom. Tom is gay. Tom says that he doesn’t feel that being gay is wrong. Tom acknowledges that other people do feel that being gay is wrong, and his respects their right to feel that way. Tom feels abortion is wrong. He acknowledges that other people do not feel that abortion is wrong and he respects their right to do so.
You seem to be saying that Tom cannot hold a moral position that is not also approved by homophobes. Clearly you need to put down your drink and be more merciful in your posts?
Boo I am sitting with a cup of coffee in front of me…and I see and read perfectly clear.
Tom is a proogandist… it seems he is being paid to popularize “Morality” that is not connected to wingnuts.
I put the same question to Tom who is gay… if he beleived that homosexuality was morally wrong… he disagreed.
So what is his point… “That non christians have morality too” … if so then I again make the analogy that millions of non-christians and non wingnuts think homosexuality is wrong.
So what the hell is his point of proclaiming the abortion is morally wrong…even to non-winguts.
his point is that he personally thinks it is wrong to have an abortion. He seems to be willing to make exceptions to that judgment. But that is still his basic position. Why is this so amazing? Why does this make everyone suspect him of being insincere?
I don’t agree with his reasoning, but I am happy to tell him why, rather than confuse his opinion with his sexual preference.
Okay… will you support me or anyone here if I wrote a diary entitled:
Homosexuality is Morally Wrong
but I doubt it.
There is no equivalence that I can see.
Sure there is if you want to talk about “MORALITY” then lets go all the way back to the Dark Ages…
There is no equivalence that I can see.
Tom thinks that sex between two men harms no one, that nobody else is involved and that the real problem is with fertilized eggs and women who refuse to use contraceptives or refuse to use their bodies as incubators to bear children they cannot afford to feed. I know that sex between two men sometimes harms others, indeed sometimes kills others. I know this because I’ve done a lot of hospice work with people who have AIDS. And I’m about as far from homophobic as it’s possible to be and still be straight. It’s just that Tom has a great many self-referential blind spots which are most annoying when someone presumes to lecture on ‘morality’.
The fact of the matter is that sex and particularly promiscuous sex harms a great many people. Likewise, prostitution harms people and often people who aren’t part of the original transaction. The problem with Tom he refuses to recognise or address unpopular and politically dangerous realities involving male sexuality. Indeed most of the folks whose avocation it is to lecture us on the morality of human sexuality and abortion are wont to do this. Thus we have the CC refusing to provide child support when one of their Priests fathers a child on a single woman, thus we have spirited defenses of lowering the AOC, a child support compliance rate of 37%, and on and on.
If Tom is going to lecture us (and, mind you, I suspect the women here who are still of childbearing age are as well informed about contraception as they are about how anti-choice Democrats vote in Congress) about the morality of human sexuality he needs to go back to his particular drawing board and consider that males have a great deal to do with the problems he’s so concerned about and that a partial sentence about condoms does not begin to address their responsibility.
This is a guy for whom the medical decision of saving the potential life of a fetus and the life of an adult woman is a “grey area”. That’s how much Tom celebrates the lives of women.
I don’t understand why his arguments stand or fall based on his personal life. Even if he is hypocritical in some sense, it really isn’t a rebuttal to discuss his sexual orientation.
I think it’s rude and off point.
Maybe he would agree that he is immoral and still insist that other behavior is immoral too.
I have done immoral things in my life, and I haven’t given up the right to call others immoral as a result.
I don’t agree with Tom but I am really shocked at how many people are attacking him using his sexual orientation as a justification.
I stand with you on this one Booman, and I have written a similar comment on another thread.
I don’t understand why his arguments stand or fall based on his personal life. Even if he is hypocritical in some sense, it really isn’t a rebuttal to discuss his sexual orientation.
I don’t think his arguments fall on his sexual orientation and certainly did not intend to imply that. I think his arguments enrage people and also fall because of their decided bias. Any argument about the morality of any aspect of human sexuality which places the onus so completely on one gender (as Tom’s undoubtedly does) is repugnant to me.
I don’t agree with Tom but I am really shocked at how many people are attacking him using his sexual orientation as a justification.
Does it seem to you that that was what I was/am doing? I’m attacking his notions of proper morality because I think they’re biased and completely one sided and therefore both harmful (to women and children) and insulting to many of us.
Colleen, I do see that as what you are doing.
I agree with Sirocco completely and wholeheartedly.
Parker’s attacks on Tom are totally out of line, as is troll rating Sirocco for calling her out on it.
Tell Tom why his argument angers you and why you think it is sexist. But do it with some respect.
Jesus, at least 30% of the country has more of a moral objection to abortion than Tom, and most of them aren’t gay. Are you going to personally attack all of them?
First you should try to understand the philosophical underpinnings of Tom’s philosophy, which leads him to oppose the death penalty and to be a vegan. Are you going to suggest that his positions on those issues are compromised because he is gay?
I think you should think about why he has trouble choosing between the life of a fetus and the mother who carries it. It isn’t because he hates women.
He troll rated me before I answered him…
There is no difference with Tom than the Log Cabin Republicans… who support a fucked up administration that oppresses not only others but gays as well. Tom is in the same category as LCR and Black Gopers… hypocrits…
It is personal when he says that he would “celebrate” a birth from a rape victim…
going to make one try at his Parker, and I am issuing you a warning about what I consider to be posts that are dangerously close to outright gay-bashing.
Tom has attempted to explain his beliefs, and I think I understand them well enough to explain them to you.
Tom believes that all life is an astounding miraculous thing. If he could live without eating plant life he would. He wants all life protected, and he sees any conception as a manifestion of this wondrous miracle.
He doesn’t understand why the unborn baby that is born of rape should be condemned for the sins of others. He doesn’t understand how someone could take it upon themselves to end such a magnificent thing as a new life.
It is unthinkable to him that someone would snuff out the life, or potential life, of a human being, or an animal.
You’re right that he allows his reverence for life to blind him to the dozens of issues a woman faces when she becomes pregnant (through rape or otherwise).
But you are totally off-base to think his position arises out of self-loathing, or stands or falls on whether he is gay or not.
This is FAR FAR from gay bashing…
I even stated that I am freer the more Gays, Women and Minorities are free… I would fight for civil rights of gays however… Tom seems intent on “framing” the idea that “Even non christians are against abortions”… that I find dispicable.
It is sad that Tom has a limited view of freedom and a set of values centered only around himself… ie he is a hypocrit
I am only going to try once.
Try explaining to Tom why the values he is ignoring should trump the values he is focused on.
I know it is hard to listen to someone suggest that a rape victim should take a pregnancy to term. But if you LISTEN you will see that the place he is coming from is well-intended.
It’s not about him being gay, it’s about him placing a higher value on a potential life, a fertilized egg, than he does on ANYTHING else. It’s not just women he disregards. How about a starving African that has caught a rabbit? Should that person be subjected to Tom’s disapproval for eating meat?
Tom’s argument has many weaknesses, but there is no reason to attack him personally just because you find his argument offensive.
Explain why you find it offensive in a respectful manner or don’t respond at all. I said in the FAQ that no one should be made unwelcome because they are anti-abortion. Least of all, someone who is against criminalizing it.
Except that Tom “bends” his moral compass when it is convenient:
Tom Kertes is a hypocrit…
Kertes IS advocating that women should not have abortions
It seems to me the anti-choicers wingnuts have cornered themselves and now they have to come up with the goods for their wingnuts follwers…which was never their intention when they politicized abortion. This was a tool used by politicians to whip up the winuts and to fundraise… now that the Democrats have their own wingnuts on power Reid et. al. they don’t want to criminalize it but still want to politicize abortion for their own greedy purposes.
Tom is trying to spin for who ever is paying him a Criminalization-less Anti-Choice non wing-nuttery stance on abortion … typical Democratic bullshit on being on all sides of the fence
a rabbit and has not choice, then they will not only most likely eat the rabbit but I and almost every vegan would understand what he did. It would not matter what we thought about the morality of the situtation, the man was starving and he ate a rabbit.
But the overall issue is this: What alternative could there be to getting to the point that killing and eating a rabbit is the only choice available? What moral duty do we, as the rich West, have to making it possible for more people to have plenty of plant-based food to eat. The rabbit aside, if someone is starving we have a moral duty to get food to them.
The way to end poverty is by directing the massive wealth and orgnizational force of our government to ending poverty. 1 billion people in the world live in absolute poverty. What is wrong with our morality that we allow this to continue, especially when we live in the richest and more technologically advanced period in human history?
For me, abortion is one small symptom of an overall moral bankrupty of our society. I don’t talk a lot about abortion because I think we have bigger challenges ahead. But I do think that many attitudes about abortion and life are reflected by a society that can stand by as a 15 year food and medicine blockcade is taken by the richest country in the world against the people of Iraq, and then can stand by when over 100,000 civilians are killed in a land and power grab. I am sickened by this – and I am doing what I can to shift our moral values towards something oriented towards life and compassion.
I am not focusing on abortion – the people attacking me are. I have written and posted only one essay on the topic ever – in my life. I hold the position, but I hold many others. My priorities are clear. While I believe that abortion is immoral, I think that there are other things that I can and should focus on now. Those things are early care and education, poverty, animal compassion and pro-peace causes.
Mother Nature wants lots of babies, so She does things to make that more likely to happen, which puts women at a disadvantage in that human females are biologically assigned to expend energy towards the next generation whereas human males are not likewise biologically forced.
When someone writes “abortion is immoral”, even if not backed up by the force of law, that’s still discrimination. It translates to: “Women are 2nd class citizens, suck it up.” If someone appeals to biology — “but it’s life” — and life is defined by the community, that person is asking me to accept that I am inherantly inferior. That’s what I “hear” you saying, and that’s why I agree with some of the people who are “attacking you”. By your definition, nature has made women inferior to men. I won’t accept that, not without some socially acceptable compromise what makes up for nature’s sexual discrimination.
If a culture accepts that “life” does not begin until a pregant woman accepts the potential child, then men and women may be equal, if the culture is not otherwise sexist. That’s the compromise I want.* I can’t think of any other compromise that isn’t some variation of “separate but equal” or “some people are more equal than others”.
Please don’t advocate for something that equates to “women are inferior and should accept that” unless you have a plan about how to fix Nature’s sexism.
—-
*I think it’s true not a compromise (a “fetus” isn’t an “unborn child” until the mother wants her/him), but in respect for people who believe otherwise, I will go along with calling it compromise.
we constantly reintroduce the concept of slavery. I can see how slavery, in a Capitolist Society, could be really useful.
I for one, think we need to rehash that over and over and over again – in a respectful tone of course.
and that is that I do not think I am blinded by my views on life. (And thanks, Booman for reading my posts so carefully, the paraphrase was spot on.)
I disagree with the assertion that I am blinded simply becuase it my awareness of the issues that each woman faces that makes me think abortion should remain safe and legal, despite my moral views on the practice of abortion. Imagine how much anti-abortion folks would find my view totally crazy and out of line with the values I say I have towards human life? I am conflicted by this, but error on (and think society should as well) on the side of the mother by keeping abortion safe and legal. I think we can end abortion without make it criminal or inaccessible.
“I think we can end abortion without make it criminal or inaccessible.”
Thousands of years man has not accomplished this… so pray tell how do you expect to do so WITHOUT violating a woman’s civil rights? And without CELEBRATING Rape Births…
Colleen, I do see that as what you are doing.
Well then you have some problems, Boo or I’m not communicating. The folks I see supposedly attacking Tom for his sexual orientation were objecting to his blowing off the moral pronouncements of others (we are trying to invent a ‘left’ morality here aren’t we?) in regard to his sexual orientation. This is slippery ground but Tom holds that, presumably because two men having sex produces no potential child, no harm, no foul. The indisputable and ugly fact is that there are a great many more manifestations of human sexuality which harm others besides abortion. The fact of the matter is that his original statement which was something along the lines of “Two men having sex is their own business and harms no one else.” is sometimes demonstrably untrue. Pointing this out does not make me homophobic, it makes me someone who has done a lot of volunteer hospice work with AIDs patients and is willing to speak the truth.
Tell Tom why his argument angers you and why you think it is sexist. But do it with some respect.
What did I say that was disrespectful? And, btw, Tom’s biased notions of morality are what I’m stressing here. My sense is that he, like most moralists, does not include anyone remotely like himself (which means all males in this case) in his moral judgements and this does not further the discussion.
First you should try to understand the philosophical underpinnings of Tom’s philosophy, which leads him to oppose the death penalty and to be a vegan.
I quite understand the moral underpinnings of Tom’s philosophy. I think that neither you nor Tom see the gigantic holes in that philosophy.
I think you should think about why he has trouble choosing between the life of a fetus and the mother who carries it. It isn’t because he hates women.
I have no notion of what his personal attitudes towards women are and you do not either. What I do know is that his morality dehumanizes women and presents an viewpoint which is unworkable and would, if implemented, cause great suffering. Part of the reason it’s unworkable is because he focuses almost exclusively on abortion rather than view abortion in the context of everyday realities.
Are you going to suggest that his positions on those issues are compromised because he is gay?
No I’m saying that his positions on those issues are compromised because he dehumanizes women and places all onus of responsibility on us. The sole concession I could get him to make (after repeated tries) on any sort of male responsibility was condoms. And, in discussions about the morality of human sexuality and reproduction this is neither acceptable or workable.
A sexual morality based on controlling women will not solve the problems Tom is so concerned about anymore than blowing up Iraq will solve the problem of Wahabbi terrorism. Indeed, as with the invasion, it will have the opposite effect. I don’t believe that his sexual orientation has anything to do with this. (Indeed half my close men friends are gay and they are able to grasp what I’m saying and see this bias for what it is more than my straight male friends). I was annoyed that he would say that there are no problems which affect the lives of others when any two men have sex with one another, it’s dishonest and myopic. The truth is that no one gets a free pass.
morality of war and you will see that I apply standards to men as well as women. In fact, I have written one, and only one, essay on abortion – ever. It is not a priority for me – it has just become a big deal here and that is why it may seem like that is all I ever write about.
I have never attended an anti-abortion rally, been to a meeting with anti-abortion organizers, worked for or with a campaign or project on the abortion issue. I choose to devote my time to issues of poverty, early care and education, compassion towards animals causes and the pro-peace cause. I do these things becuase of the moral issues at stake, becuase I am morally motivated to do so. And they are a priority for me because I am deeply concerned about the lives of chidren, the poor and animals.
Read what I say about the morality of war and you will see that I apply standards to men as well as women.
Tom I am not talking about your notions of morality as they apply to war. I am talking about your notions of morality as they apply to human sexuality and that is quite a different thing. You have a noticeable and glaring bias in this area which would and does inevitably result in the opposite of what I consider moral.
sexual morality as it relates to sexual pleasure. I am interested in the issue of what to do with regards to protection of human life in all stages of development. For me, the issue of abortion is about protection of the life of the fetus. It has nothing to do with sex.
If men correctly use condoms and women use birth control pills at the same time, the issues of reproduction and sexual behavior start to become decoupled. Yes, the reality is that it may not always prevent pregnacy. And I would say that bringing the child to birth is the right thing to do. That said, I still think that abortion should remain safe and legal.
Additionally, heterosexual couples can have sex without having babies. I know this because I experience an intercourse-free sex life that is fully satisfying. For those who are really concerned about not having an abortion, they can have non-intercourse sex like bunnies and to their heart’s content.
I don’t see sex being consenting adults as a moral issue. I do see empty sex as sad and not healthy, but I don’t see that as anything remotely moral in nature. That said, we do have a moral obligation to prevent the spread of HIV and other forms of STDs, which we can do by always engaging in safer sex.
I am not interested in sexual morality as it relates to sexual pleasure.
I’m not either.
For me, the issue of abortion is about protection of the life of the fetus. It has nothing to do with sex.
Yes, quite so. This is precisely what angers me, this myopia and the ‘moral’ result of a morality developed from such a myopic view. What I’m saying is that because your focus is so very narrow and biased (because conception always has something to do with sex. always.) and you refuse to integrate reality into this morality that your claims to being on a different plane are self aggrandizing.
Additionally, heterosexual couples can have sex without having babies. I know this because I experience an intercourse-free sex life that is fully satisfying. For those who are really concerned about not having an abortion, they can have non-intercourse sex like bunnies and to their heart’s content.
You make me crazy. You really do. Do you really think that women, married, coupled or single, always have a say in this matter? There are lots of women who have never have had much of a say and in this country too.
Whatever are you thinking?
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother let me pull the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast first the beam out of thine own eye, and then chalt thou see clearly to pull the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
I have said that abortion is wrong, as practice. I have never said that women who have an abortion are wrong, or bad, or worthless or should be shamed. I have said that the practice of abortion should become something viewed as unacceptable behavior, but that is not the same thing as attacking those who engage in that behavior. In fact, I have said (and still think) that the fact that so many women think that abortion is morally right is one reason to keep abortion safe and legal. The morality of abortion, like that of fighting in a war of aggression, lacks social consensus. We have a lot to still figure out, and how we do that is by talking about the moral issues at stake.
I have never said that women who have an abortion are wrong, or bad, or worthless or should be shamed. I have said that the practice of abortion should become something viewed as unacceptable behavior, but that is not the same thing as attacking those who engage in that behavior.
So pray tell how do you make viewed as unacceptable behavior without attacking those who engage in that behavior?
fair in your attacks against my views. I trust that readers will read what I wrote themselves before drawing a conclusion based on what you are saying.
I take it very seriously that you would say that I do not celebrate the lives of women. How insulting! I take the lives of women very seriously. In fact, when asked what I thought about cases involving the life of the women, I said something like this (which reflects my only view on this): The woman decides what to do. Her doctor respects her wishes and does as she asks. We all support her, regardless of what she decides. Period.
My main thrust on abortion is this: How do we as a society cherish life? What are we doing to make it clear that each and every life matters, human and otherwise? I believe that when you go in this direction you are headed in the right direction. But when it gets applied to specific instances, such as abortion, things get complicated. The morals get murky. And that is why, despite my belief that abortion is wrong, I believe that abortion should remain safe and legal.
What?
And that is why, despite my belief that abortion is wrong, I believe that abortion should remain safe and legal.
But you just wrote:
“I think that abortion should be ended.”
Ended by changing the culture around abortion, by changing the kinds of choices people make with regards to abortion. Making abortion criminal or inaccessible won’t end it – it will just push it underground and harm women.
Ended by changing the culture around abortion…
Like “celebrating” rape births?
his point is that he personally thinks it is wrong to have an abortion.
People who think it is morally wrong to have an abortion should not have them or should tell the women in their lives that they disapprove. Then they should not interfere in the personal lives of women they do not know.
Imagine women posting diaries stating that it is morally wrong for men to have vasectomies, no matter what.
I’m going to jump in here with Parker. I think Tom is insincere because we’ve seen his posts in the past. He spent a lot of time at DKos last winter putting up diaries only to promote his own website, then telling people if they wanted to discuss, he would only do it at his website.
He would put up diaries to generate interest, and delete them along with the comments people had taken the time to write…even if something was on the recommended list. It became obvious to many he was just seeking attention. I just plain wouldn’t even to bother to read his diaries (an approach I plan on continuing after today).
Last night, on a comment in one of his own diaries on DKos, he mentioned being a paid consultant on a project designed to help Hillary Clinton. I don’t remember him saying that here, although he said he worked for nonprofits.
Coupled with the attack on women’s rights that has come from within the Democratic party through the blogs (and you’ve seen it yourself, although it is less noticeable to you) and the Democrats for Life upcoming push for their 95-10 agenda (which I can’t see being accomplished without criminalizing or regulating abortion out of existence), people are rightly suspiscious. There is a concerted effort to push women back into the roles they had in the 50s, and it’s coming wrapped in Red, Blue, and even orange packaging…I don’t think he’s a right-wing shill, I think he’s a Democratic shill.
To top it off, Tom only seems to be preaching and lauding his own morality since his re-appearance here.His response to my comment yesterday was a bunch of incoherent, self aggrandizing gobbledygook.
People think Tom is insincere for good reason.
Link to the comment I mentioned; read both comments in the thread.
Did you see his comment after that…
The project is guerilla and grassroots. More on it later…
That was the one that made me think…”Did he not think anyone from Booman would see this?”
Unbelievable.
But since I was making a comment direclty about Hillary, and repsonding to EternalHope’s comment about Feingold, I added the disclaimer so that she would have more context as to my comment regarding Feingold.
It did not occur to me to say, “I am working on a project for Hillary” on every post about every topic because it was not not relevent to anything I was writing about. Also, I want to be very clear about this. I am not working for anyone directly connected to Hillary. I don’t even know anyone, have not spoken with anyone, be contacted by anyone or been funded by anyone connected to Hillary or to the Democractic Party, to Hillary’s PACS or other organizations. I am working solo, as a grassroots supporter of Hillary on a campaign to help her get to the White House. I would seem a bit presumpous to disclaim that I support Hillary and am working on a project unrelated to her on every comment that I make.
Finally, everything that has been found out about me is because I have linked to it (my site) or have stated it. I have nothing to hide. I will answer questions directed at me. I am value transparency and believe that disclaimers are important.
I don’t think he’s a right-wing shill, I think he’s a Democratic shill.
Yes, this is my take too. I think he’s testing spin.
issue. (http://draftfreedom.org and http://dailydraftdispatch) It reflected my values and beliefs about the war in Iraq, and so it made since to promote the site. From that experience, I learned a lot about blog etiquite, and I learned that my approach to blogging violeted some of the basic rules of conduct. And so I changed my conduct. I took out the ads, the constant one message posts and comments. I calmed down. I ended the old me – Liberation Learning – and started using my own name to make myself more accountable. When I started blogging I saw this as something akin to chatrooming, not a real space for civic discourse. I learned that I was wrong, and now behave totally differently.
That said, the views that I expressed then I hold today. I remain totally opposed to the war on moral grounds. I think that the pro-peace forces should focus on moral failure and not logistical failure. I believe that the draft issue is one of the best issues for pro-peace forces to talk about the war in moral terms (but that was before Camp Casey, which is much more effective). I still think that liberals should become more effective communicators, focus more on individual morality and get serious about governing. I remain committed to economic justice, to an end to poverty, to racial justice, and end to racism. I remain a steadfast supporter of human rights, of secular government, of liberal democracy.
If you don’t believe that I think these things are important, there is nothing I can do. But hopefully just thinking that someone would be faking to hold these views is enough to get them out there.
I fail to grasp how a moral stance on one issue should be regarded as a predictor of a moral stance on another.
How is that done?
Moreover, Tom cherry picks his morality.
I believe in Human Rights for all not just the selected few… Others freedoms make me free.
I am freer if Gays have their freedom
I am freer if Women are free
I am freer if Black are freer
Freedom does not enslaved. Nor is it finite…ie if Gays have a big piece of pie that leaves less for women or Blacks. Freedom is infinite and should be cherished not like Tom who wants to “label is immoral”.
Tom’s hypocrisy is telling… he believes that he is NOT immoral as a Gay but women who have abortions are. Tom is like that GOP consultant who developed the gay wedge issue… who just recently married his gay lover in liberal Massachusettes and adopt a child. There is a lot of self hatred coming through in his posts… or just incredible hyppcrisy… or more likely he is just getting paid.
What the fuck is wrong with you Parker?
You’re so way out of line here that it is astounding.
What the fuck is wrong with you and Kertes:
I don’t agree with Kertes on abortion, never said I did. So why are you insinuating otherwise? Because that’s your MO, I suppose.
Perhaps you should read the posts before making hasty stupid comments.
Truly I can’t stand you.
Do you really think I give a shit?
Why does he find it necessary to say he is celibate when he published the fact that his lives with his partner Ron? Why does he think that being a “celibate gay man” is more “moral”…
You should work on your reading comprehension skills. He doesn’t say he is celibate. He’s rhetorically asking why he should be celibate, given that homosexuality harms noone.
No it isn’t… read the comment he is referring to.
And the feeling is mutual I can’t stand jerks who jump into a debate CLUELESS and start swinging blindly… not much intelligence in that.
Here’s the relevant snip of the comment he is responding to:
To this, he responds as above.
You evidently can’t understand plain English even when spoonfed the VERY OBVIOUS meaning. How’s that for clueless?
I thought you said you were going…
Who is clueless?
Wow, you really are a blockhead, aren’t you?
Here is what he says on his personal sex life in the comment you link to (I note that you never care to make actual quotes; you just link and, presumambly, hope noone will pay close attention):
Does that sound like ‘celibacy’ to you?
yup
Oh, OK. Let’s have the full quote:
I guess you also think Bill Clinton practised celibacy with Monica Lewinsky.
that I was responding directly to
that Parker recognizes the basis in biology for homosexuality, rather than relegating it to the strictly Christian dogma camp? Therefore, it ceases to be a “moral” issue for him.
And could it not be that he can not do that for elective abortion?
That’s hardly “cherry-picking.”
On Internet-land no one really knows anyone else, so I guess you can just make stuff up. I trust that Parker is very concerned about monied interests being use to cloud liberal blog spaces, and so I don’t mind so much that he is questioning who I am. I wish he’d stop though, since I would like to not be known as something as vile as a paid hack for the Right-Wing forces that I so deeply oppose.
For those who don’t know me, I am a radical liberal. I opposed the first Gulf War, and protested and organized against it. I voted for Ralph Nader two times. The first presidential candidate Democrat that I voted for was John Kerry, becuase in all other elections I voted for the furthest left candidate. I was an AIDS activist when I was 19-22, and then I worked with day laborers and public housing residents. I owned a children’s book and toy store, taught preschool and adovcated on early childhood issues. I am opposed to the death penalty, to immoral and illegal war. I am vegan. I support welfare and universal health care. I support quality public schools, progressive taxation, multi-lateral foriegn policy.
I don’t know what I can say more about how far I am from being a right wing mole or hack. I find the charges not only baseless, but a little bit insulting. Just becuase I take one unpopular stance on one issue, I am now being branded as something that I am totally opposite of and opposed to. Yuk!
As for how I make a living, I do two things. First, I organize political messaging campaigns that reflect my values and political viewpoint. These are funded through individual donors and from the sale of campaign-related t-shirts, buttons, etc. I am currently working on two projects, one to draft Hillary for President and one on meat production and consumption. Second, I am part owner of a liberal t-shirt (anti-Republican) line. If you want to have the links to the site, send me an email at kertes@tomkertes.com. I only don’t post the site because I don’t think its appropriate to hack my goods here. In addition, I work for organizations that do not pay me directly. I use the funds raised from the other paying projects to devote about 50% of my time to these projects. These projects focus on economic justice, the end to poverty, early childhood issues and leadership development. I help plan protests, media events, media and messaging strategy and other aspects of communication and message.
Finally, I particpate in Booman as a pastime not as part of my job. Of course, the views I express here reflect the same views and values that I advance in my political and communications. I am, afterall, the same person. I trust that the reader can respond to the text itself, and form their own judgments without regard to intent. Additionally, I include a link to my website with every comment, which describes my work for all to see and evaluate.
Postulating a theory here”
You have a bunch of cave men running around, fighting, killing each other, striving to survive in the most base and elemental way. Now do they come to some point where they all or most say, ‘hey lets not kill each other, life is special, lets make friends.’
Heck we can’t even do that today, nor the forceable future.
So I ask you booman, where does all this “secular morality” generate from, give me the earliest evidence.
Seems more like ‘speciailized morality’ if you go from the secular model presented above by booman and sirocco, man evolved into a ‘limited morality’ based solely on the ‘circumstances’ in which he finds himself. War is Ok, killing is ok, everything might be ok, in the right circumstances. We have been attacked, therefore we can kill. Morality!
Secular morality is ‘circumstantial’, spiritual morality is not. Correct me if I am wrong as I know you will.
My thoughts exactly. Our secular morality is mighty “convenient.”
If I had no beliefs in anything outside of my fabulous brain. . . then my way should be supreme, and why would I care about anyone else? If I am strong enough to hold my space in a society, and I can defeat others with my words, deeds and thoughts. . .why should I care one whit about anyone else, as long as I am doing well? Does not compute.
The mere basis of caring about how things go in a society, no matter how small, comes from somewhere. Where? Some smart dude figured it out in his brain?
Can’t find anything to grab ahold of in that one. Sorry.
” If I am strong enough to hold my space in a society, and I can defeat others with my words, deeds and thoughts. . .why should I care one whit about anyone else, as long as I am doing well?”
As a secularist and a biologist, I’d say that if you don’t care about anyone else, you will not be doing well. We are a social species, and love is necessary to our survival, as well as our happiness. Think of babies who die of “failure to thrive” in warehouse-like orphanages where they receive no love.
A person who is loving and giving and caring is one who is likely to be loved and cared for. It’s built into our very nature, written in our genes.
I have often thought that the philosophy of the right is, “I’ve got mine, so screw you.” This is to secular me, morally wrong, because it violates our human nature. One who lives this way is rarely truly happy because they have no capacity for real love, and in turn, receive none. The most miserable people I have known are those for whom “looking out for number one” is their core value. (Though they are often rich.)
To me, human nature – our genetic endowment – leads us to sharing, cooperation, and love. The small bands of humans who were our ancestors would not have survived if they had not had these traits. Physically, we are relatively weak and vulnerable. What made us strong was our ability to work together. And we work together best when we form bonds – love – others.
The fascinating thing for me is that we human beings can choose to violate our natures and render ourselves miserable in ways that animals do not seem to able to do. I think it has to do with the complexity of our brains which allows us to be self-conscious. Which in turn, gives us the ability to make more choices than animals can. Our interactions with others become very complicated, have almost infinite possibilities, and therefore, we often make choices that are wrong, in a moral sense, and thus in ways that threaten our happiness, and our very survival.
Janet, your comment hints at what I think of as a person’s spirit. It is more like the intake of air, breath, life from our surroundings.
Even when we are alone we are nourished by the love we know and have known.
I love Faulkner, one of my favourite writers.
While I agree with much of what you wrote, I think it’s an excellent refutation of Ayn Rand’s Egoism, a just had a few thoughts.
While I do think that it makes sense to look at biological, anthropological, and psychological studies to look at how human beings depend on each other and find happiness this way, I still think that one must be cautious in defending secularist morality on the basis of human nature or evolution.
What I mean by this is to say that sometimes secularist morality can seem to be anti-evolutionary in nature. For example, look at people who are not good at survival who are born with severe mental concerns. From an evolutionary perspective, one could argue that it would be typical in less developed societies for these people to die, unfortunately.
Now, of course, there is room to say, well it is in our nature to love one another and therefore helping people with such circumstances is just the manifestation of this aspect of our nature. Well, that may be true as well, but I still think the point is valid. I don’t think we sit down and do a cost benefit analysis of whether it is worth it to help certain people in relation to our own survival. Furthermore, people have their own genetic make-ups.. certain people are more caring than others. If one doesn’t feel the empathy toward the sort of person I described above does it make it morally permissible to neglect that person? In sum, while I agree with your assessment of human nature, I think it is a dangerous thing to build a moral system exclusively around that principle.
“I don’t think we sit down and do a cost benefit analysis of whether it is worth it to help certain people in relation to our own survival. “
I think that was the point Janet was making. we don’t sit down and think about it because it’s “in the hard wiring” at a more primitive level. You hear stories about people running into burning building buildings to rescue children, or diving into icy flooded rivers, or running in front of trains, or into traffic. And the common thread when questioned about it afterward is that “I didn’t have time to think, I just did it.”
It seems pretty obvious that having such a trait in the hard-wiring, to happen automatically without thought, would be a good survival instinct, and would thus tend to be favored by natural selection…
Parental and familial instincts could fall into the same categories, to a degree.
So a certain amount of our activity that we have traditionally classified as “moral” is in fact hard-wired (Which probably means you don’t get a cookie for it in the afterlife, if you believe in an afterlife).
I’m not going to say all morality is hard-wired, because then we wouldn’t know what to do when confronted with novel situations, and our adaptability is one of our traits as a species that has allowed us to survive and thrive.
Morality then could be seen (from a biological perspective) as a series of “guidelines” that tell us how to apply the hard-wired core truths that define us as a species to novel situations. And some confusion and disagreement is to be expected as we personally and collectively work out the new situations in which we find ourselves.
It would tend to be good for the species, as it would result in the saving of mothers and children. It mightnot be a good survival skill for the individual. Which is why it’s NOT something you think about – if you thought about it you’d say “let 911 handle it.”
But survival of the species, not the individual, is what nature is concerned about. If I was rewriting the 10 commandments, one of them would surely be “It’s not about you.”
Well, I just want to say up front that I think we probably agree more than we disagree.. I agree with the gist of your last post.
In regards to my comment about cost benefit analysis, the interpretation you gave was in the context of snap judgments. Perhaps I was unclear, but what I meant was that there are many situations in which we do debate the morality of certain issues and I don’t think that the proper moral decision is inherently in relation to our nature.
Off the top of my head, I think ethical concerns about abortion provide a good example. As a kid and some of my teen age years, I was against abortion. From an emotive, or hard-wired, perspective this can make sense, I felt that there was a wrong in taking a human life, it was an extension of my compassion. However, I later on became compelled to support a women’s right to make the decision on her own. There was a change in my morality which was not based upon an instinctual impulse, or so I would like to believe.
Perhaps this would fit into the point you made in your last paragraph, but I still think the point I raised in my post above still makes sense. That one must be cautious about looking to human nature and emotion as a guiding ethical principle, especially since there are differences amongst our natures. Which is to say, if 100 people were confronted with the same situation of witnessing children in a burning building, is it morally correct for say 10 of those 100 people to walk away if they did not feel it was necessary to run into that building?
Wanted to clarify.. The comment about cost-benefit analysis was also supposed to highlight the idea that it may seem common for us to want to help those in our society who can’t help ourselves, but in a less civilized arena we may notice the conflicting aspects of survival and human nature.
Although, I agree that it seems likely that we are a social species.. in certain cirumstances people may act more selfish, i.e. under extreme hunger one may fight for food, as can be seen when UN workers hand out food to certain people where food is scarce and people fight for it or when vans do the same in cities giving food to homeless people. In sum, there are sometimes conflicts in survival and both actions can be justified in aspects of human nature.
I would also add that caring one whit is quid pro quo, it proves nothing to me about the existence of soul. Survival of the species is not altruism, it’s pure, unadulterated self-interest.
Where we disagree, I don’t see human beings choosing to violate our natures even when the outcome of our choices is misery. Rats forego food, water and sex for cocaine. There is self-interest in destructive, unhealthy behavior , that’s why all behavior modification, like rehab, involves lowering the actual or perceived benefits of unhealthy behavior and increasing the actual or perceived benefits of healthy behavior.
Whether secular or spiritual, we need each other to survive and thrive. Treating each other and all living things with respect, living in harmony is mutually beneficial. Domination, greed, war is not. I chose to see this very much like I do evolution. Intelligent Design is completely bogus as science. When we agree on scientific fact, we are free to believe that there is some unseen spiritual or mystical aspects beyond our comprehension. I personally choose to believe that there is a spiritual collective, something that binds us all beyond the elements that make up our physical being. But my belief does not change my choices one whit. I prefer to live in health and harmony no matter if my personal spiritual beliefs are wish fulfillment or as yet undiscovered science.
juggling my own personal beliefs with giving a good representation of the broader field of secular morality.
I’m also trying not to resort to giving you references to historical philosophical debates.
Hmmm….
Ok. Let’s take the 10 commandments and throw out the stuff related to God, and the proper way to revere God.
Don’t murder, steal, lie, screw your neighbor’s spouse, or covet his goat.
Why would someone make such rules?
Well, look at Iraq. If you kill someone, their tribe will come kill someone in your tribe. If you steal, someone will get mad and come kill you. If you fuck your neighbor’s spouse they will come kill you. If you plot stealing your neighbor’s goat, you might actually act on the conniving plotting. And if you lie, someone might come kill you for lying, and then your brother will have to go kill someone in revenge.
Now, anyone that wanted to create a society where people have peace and security is going to discourage these types of activities and thoughts. Telling you not to do them because it is bad for the tribe is not as convincing as telling you that your immortal soul is in the balance.
But the rules just plain make sense.
This comment is along the same lines as what I was trying to say above.
I also appreciate what you said about murder and killing being even more appalling to those of us who do not believe in an eternal soul.
I once read a talk given by Stephen Jay Gould (an atheist) in South Africa during the last days of apartheid in which he said something like, the tragedy of apartheid is that every single human being who exists is unique, has a unique combination of talents and potential, and when you deprive anyone of the opportunity to make whatever they can of their potential, the world loses something that will never exist again. This, of course, is even more true of killing.
When I have discussed my atheism with believers sometimes, they will say, “But if there is no God, if there is no reward or punishment in the afterlife, there could be no good. We would just act on human instincts, and be totally evil.”
But I’ve often thought, if I am right (no guarantees) – goodness and caring for others do surely exist and therefore goodness and caring must be part of who we are, our human natures, not imposed on our evil natures by commands and threats from a Higher Being. Of course, what we call evil is also part of our potential. The thing I find interesting is why some choose to strive for “goodness” and others embrace “evil.”
I just don’t accept the principle that “humanness” is fundamentally evil or selfish or bad and that only something outside of us can cause us to behave with kindness and love.
Hi Janet, are you back from your trip.
I have some comments to make reg. your comments, but it is much to late for me to even think, so I will get back to this diary in the morning.
For the record, the sole argument I have made on this tread, aside from the business over Tom Kertes, is one about whether the laws of thermodynamics imply an afterlife. I have not argued the above and am not at all sure what it even means.
Sorry Sirrocco, at this point in the whole discussion I have no idea where I got that from.. I just thought at the time that you had presented something along the lines of what boo was saying and please forgive me for including you if that was not the case.
This whole thread has gotten so big, I cannot even wade back into it to see what I might have thought then.
This thread was started at my behest due to the size of the previous diary and the original intent is now so far lost it doesn’t seem to be the same subject.
I am going to take a break now from this subject and go attend to my site, Sirocco have you been there yet, if not please accept my invitation to go there and have a look, non political site, you know. Link is on sig line.
Ouch! As a long-time (ago) descendant of at least two cave persons, one male and one female, I’d like it to be known that they did not spend there time running amok among each other’s caves.
Anthropology has lots of evidence to the contrary as in this article.
Dammit, this is just my kind of diary, but I am too busy at the moment for writing.
But “this one will run and run”, I hope…
I hold the same views as Booman in this subject.
At the same time I have the utmost respect for the Great Spirit and all other aesthetic worldviews. Each one is nevertheless a construct evolved to deal with the mystical state of being. Each one is a state of mind, and particular to that mind.
By aesthetic, I mean dignified. By dignified, I mean the choreography of existence. This is it. You do it now, with grace and love, and when your performance is over only the memory remains in the minds of those who watched you.
You know my stance “If our brains were simple enough to understand, then we’d be too stupid to know what a brain was”
I see the fundamental problem with a discussion like this as follows,
Historically, from the beginning of human language, inexplicable phenomena have been named. (Inexplicable by the cumulative knowledge of the time), These names and phrases are things like ‘spirit, god, miracle, oracle, the holy ghost, the music of the spheres, voodoo, etc – you get my point.
They are namings that facilitated discussion. Nobody knows quite what they are, but it is useful to have them, just as it is useful to have the word ‘architecture’ even though most could not agree what architecture is – but could probably agree as to what it was not.
But what was a miracle 2000 years ago, science has subsequently revealed as explicable. Galileo proved that all that crap about the cosmos, built up over hundreds of years and multiply edited to serve the political needs of the Chistian leaders of the time, was a figment. The ‘miracle’ could be explained. Just as Uri Geller’s miracles can be explained.
The problem is – these old namings survive. You can’t kill words. Words die a natural death when they no longer have a use in communication. Or they evolve, shorten, or acquire new meanings.
But words have great power – especially when they become detatched from the immense arguments that have tried to define them over the centuries. Words survive even when the ideas that brought them into existence have long been discredited or discounted. Such words/names are gravestones in the language cemetery marking the passing away of ideas and concepts.
The difference between science and religion is this:
Religion starts in the fervour of absolute, perfect and unquestioning belief, and then slowly dissipates as knowledge about that belief is changed by a more complete understanding of the society in which it originally emerged.
Sciences start in disbelief, questioning the rules of systems. Sciences begin imperfectly, but build upon theories and verification to continually improve the accuracy of the model.
And now I ran out of time because the office needs me 😉
Sven, I’m throwing down the gauntlet. Explain Uri Gellar’s spoon-bending miracles.
My friend Klaus does it as a party trick. I’ve lost a lot of spoons that way.
The point about all magic of the conjuring kind is that it only works because your attention is focused by the magician on an apparently meaningful act, movement or words whilst elsewhere the real ‘switch’ (and they usually involve a switch of some kind) takes place.
The problem is that religious leaders, politicians and celebrities also discovered the art of prestidigitation. Religion and conjuring are the same thing to me. For a certain susceptible audience George W Bush is a master prestidigitator – the art of making you look over here, while the real stuff happens over there. You might say he was a master conjurer. But you also know that he is never ever going to produce a white dove.
Whether the bending of spoons and the staring at goats are party tricks or a massive waste of taxpayer money, there is certainly much still to be learned about the potential of the human brain. If we all believe that the spoon is bent, does the reality of the spoon even matter?
Maybe and maybe not.
and I’m just now seeing this? Great, great diary and discussion! Emotion is my field of research in science, and I wish I had seen this earlier – but perhaps another day. Must talk about Kohlberg and moral development with you all! And about emotion and how the brain operates, and links between emotion and moral development. . .oh, phoo, it is just too late and i’m deeply out of it. You have all made such interesting comments and raised great points!
Please bring this up again when it’s not a “school night”.
I’m pretty much w/ Booman on this one, though I think that the question of when all of those electrical processes and chemical interactions become “conciousness” is a little more complicated than he would have it.
For this secularist, “soul” is a word that I feel safe thinking of as a byproduct of “memory.” Well, actually the feedback loop of our physical brain, our movements & actions with accumulated personal and cultural memory are combined to create an individual “self,” or “soul.”
I think the use of the various “ghosts” in the series “Six Feet Under” convey this idea poetically. Many people who’ve grieved a deceased love one have encounters with their “ghosts,” and while we can say that this is just the mind operating under stress, while a person is experiencing it it can be very real. In a sense, the loved one “exists” after death. They continue to exist, at least as an echo, as long as people remember them.
This is what I think of as a “soul.” Nothing religious about it, just human, gloriously human.
….of consciousness is, that unlike a computer which has ‘central processing’, the brain has multiple terminations which all can receive information and send ‘commands’ autonomously (while informing other processing areas of what they have done) The Visual Projection System is one. The Cerebellum is another, which, while mostly dealing with fine motor movements, nevertheless receives all the same info as for instance the whole neo-cortex – but by a separate system which is wired left to left instead of left to right.
My contention is that it is the multiple terminations that create consciousness ie sentience is a function of complexity.
Our 100 billion neurons and how they work together and autonomously are clearly in a different league than the 8 neurons of the sea anenome.
interesting, but that leaves the problem of how those multiple terminations interact w/ one another, which is what would result in conciousness. I would assert that it’s the combination that I describe. The terminations are just functioning as ways of gathering and storing input, if I’m understanding you correctly, but it’s through action and memory that a “self” would be formed.
offered for discussion rather than argument. Your first understanding of soul,
is pretty much exactly the Biblical understanding of “soul”. It’s what makes you, er, you. As for brain injuries, Alzheimer’s, etc., the Biblical writers weren’t exactly set up to analyze these things. It was pretty much you’re alive or you’re dead. They did apparently have some rudimentary understanding of insanity, which they put down to demonic possession. In any case, it’s literally not until after Kant that anyone had a concept of the self, as opposed to the soul.
The difference being that souls belong to God, while the self belongs to the individual. Big difference, of course. But Christian opposition to killing stems in part from that notion of soul. To kill is to take a power unto ourselves that properly belongs to the Lord, and to “steal” something that doesn’t belong to us. The resurrection shouldn’t egg anyone on then, since ending a life isn’t the issue.
I mean, it is, but you get the idea.
Also, you say:
To understand Christian morality–or really, Jewish or Islamic morality–in terms of reward and punishment is severely reductive. As with secularists, these religions understand virtue as its own reward. That reward might be cast in terms of enjoying the presence of God, but the idea of St. Peter standing at the Pearly Gates saying, “you’re in, you’re out” is a fancy, nothing more.
You might point to Jesus’ warnings of “fire and gnashing of teeth” in the New Testament, but these are really metaphorical. Those passages are pungent ways of discussing the consequences of immorality, as outlined above.
I see your point about “a just society demand[ing] that we treat each with respect, compassion, and even-handedness,” but I’m not sure I find it ethically tenuous. Yes, we ought to try to live up to our highest virtues, but the world patently does not meet those same aspirations. What then are we to do in a world that seemingly has no regard for respect, compassion, and even-handedness? Is it safe to assume that those values are universal, and if so, how do we know that? Lastly, what does it say about human nature or character that we have so manifestly failed to meet those ideals? At what point, if any, do we say that humans are not able to achieve a perfect world on their own?
Again, I’m not trying to argue for one system over another. I’m just trying to find areas where more development of the system you propose is needed.
we can say right now at the outset that human beings cannot create a perfect would on their own, or even with help.
Even worse, most attempts to create a perfect world are all too willing to stifle free will and create tyranny.
Don’t believe in Athanasius’s theology? To the pyre with you. Don’t buy Leninist economic theory? To the stalag with you.
To me, an imperfect and heartbreaking world is a given, and it doesn’t require either redemption or explanation.
Progress can and has been made, but it must be made in the context of individual liberty coupled to social responsibility. Caring for the poor is not just an altruistic thing, it is also highly pragmatic.
On a last point, I was raised in a liberal protestant household. But I view liberal protestantism as a late creation that is highly sublimated and spiritualized. I view traditional protestantism much more in the eyes of Luther and Calvin. And for them, it was all about rewards and punishments. Just look at Luther’s treatment of James.
well, probably true, but we can continuously approach a perfect world, as a curve approaches an asymptote. The important thing is to try to define that goal, then work together to figure out how to get closer to it.
Isn’t that the whole point of the Enlightenment?
People run into trouble when the HOW gets equated with the GOAL, and then the pogroms begin.
some neo-orthodox writing, in your copious spare time(!).
Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, they all addressed exactly the same issues you’ve mentioned above. (And perhaps not surprisingly, they’re where I key into theology.)
As for redemption, no, it’s not required. But it is offered, free of charge. Heh.
I’ve read a sickening amount of Tillich and I respect him a lot. I’ve also read a limited amount of Barth and Niebuhr.
Personally, if I could somehow keep a foot in my protestant upbringing I would be with Spong. But I no longer see the point.
When I talked about spiritualization and sublimation I was thinking of Tillich and Spong, actually.
That sounds about right. It’s Barth and Niebuhr who are the hardcore “blood and guts” Christians. But yeah, you can’t fake the feeling.
Not entirely true, at least, not according to the definition of “secularist” that I’m familiar with. Even leaving aside religion, this is considered to be something of an “open question” in philosophy. Even understanding the brain and emergent phenomena, it’s very hard for me to see how a purely physical emergent phenomena could be aware of its own existence in the same way that I am.
To be more accurate, your stance is that of a materialist or physicalist. (See the Wikipedia article on the mind-body problem) It is perfectly possible to hold both secularist and dualist beliefs, or possibly even secularist and phenomenalist beliefs, though I think that one would be more difficult. Note that the linked wikipedia articles on all those topics are woefully incomplete.
I think the important thing to note here is that morality does not necessarily derive from religion. In fact, if my knowledge of the history in question is correct, modern Western “religious morality” very probably evolved from ancient (Greek and Roman) philosophy, which itself was an attempt to explain the universe without resorting to gods and spirits.
I am also an egomaniac – it really is all about me because God gave me this life and this brain to learn all I can with it. I get to choose what I will be – if I steal then I am a thief, if I kill then I am a murderer. I’ve known ugly abusive people so I don’t want to be one of those.
My God has given me the choice to define myself.
but your enzymes, specifically monoamine oxydase A. If you suffer a mutation such that it metabolizes three neuromodulators (serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine), thereby inactivating them, then you tend engage in antisocial behavior.
As they say, could it be that badness, like madness is in the brain?
I would ask Diana101 in return how you can claim morality when you do something out of fear of a higher power, and why would you attach any value to life if you beleive there is another life after?
back in my undergraduate philosophy major days, I used to joust w/ theology students. I was completely blown away by Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard and de Bouvier were also really influencing the way I looked at the world, and at morality.
Anyway, the “God’s reward” thing always bugged me, and when it was launched my way, I’d ask if that meant people were just pets that needed to be housebroken. After all, an either/or choice like that: “Accept my love/grace/forgiveness, or BURN” isn’t much of a choice, is it?
Like yelling out a stray: “Let me know when you have to go out, or BACK TO THE POUND.”
Never did get a good comeback to that point from any of them.
I am afraid that the reference Booman made to my comments was not complete. My comments came out of remarks that were made and I simply asked the question to see the genesis of the opinions that were given on another thread.
I am not claiming to know morality any more than anyone else, I am just probing the questions.
Doing something out of ‘fear ‘of a higher power was never mentioned. I merely wanted to know the basis of morality as it applies in the secular world or to be more specific, morality without a soul force as stated in the other thread.
I personally do not see ‘fear’ of a higher power as a basis for morality, why ‘fear.’
Why would I attach any value to life to life if I feel there is another life after as you asked.
or to say it like this “If I think there is an after life therefore I am not going to value this one as I have a back up life”…is that your line of reasoning.
That does not compute with me. How does belief in an afterlife negate living this one with full intent and purpose.
The whole discussion was based on ‘souls or lack thereof’ and the morality coming out of those different concepts.
I asked originally, “what is the basis of your morality if you don’t bellieve human beings have a soul?”
Just a question, not a statement. I am seeking to know a ‘point of view’.
If you are “Good” because you want to please God and get into heaven, then you are opperating out of fear…fear that he/she will withhold a positive afterlife.
There is no question that someone who views life as finite values it over one who views it as infinite. This is what makes suicide bombers possible, is it not?
How does absence of beleif in an afterlife negate it? The answer is that it doesnt – it enhances it.
Well you are bring this down to being “good” and including “God”.
First of all I personally do not think in terms of “God” but rather “all that is”. I do not have a “God” to be ‘good’ for and therefore to get into heaven with my “good pass.” I do not have a “God” force that I have to ‘fear’.
‘All that Is,’ is the sum total of all the parts of the whole universe, and I am a part of the sum total, will be and shall be forever.
The part that I play in the ‘sum total’ is what concerns me, not a mythical path to “Heaven.”
I am ‘good’ which is not quite a satisfactory term, for the sake of my part of the whole that is “all that is.” not for any personal gain for me, but rather that it contributes to ‘all that is’.
My personal basis for living and for my morality is to live out of and through’ Love’, not ‘Fear…’.
For those that consider there is a ‘being’ called God, they may have a different take and may very well have the view you espoused.
So I would say the an “afterlife” does not necessarily and certainly not to me, have “God” with a good or bad pass to enter.
Hope that answers your question.
I do take exception to your “There is no question that someone who views life as finite values it over one who views it as infinite.” Value is very subjective and I don’t think anyone can presume to know who or what attitude values life more than any other attitude. Life is precious, no matter if you think afterlife or not.
about what role not beleiving in a soul plays in our morality. From what you have said beleiving in the soul plays nor roll in your morality.
Why not?
I asked the question of ‘Tom Kertes’ to try and understand his position, out of curiousity, not out of any other reason. Booman took up the question in this diary as the other was too long.
My personal morality has nothing to do with why I asked the question…nor does it have any bearing on the question.
I want to understand how and why people feel the way they do, what is wrong with that.
I don’t understand why you are asking me why…
It certainly was not to change my mind about anything, or to change anyone elses mind, just wanted to know.
Frankly now I am just tired of the subject as it has gone in all different directions that were not intended with the questions.
This was not about “my morality” or where it comes from…did I say believing in a soul has no bearing on my morality, btw.? I think not.
This thread was not about me or anyone but an abstract discussion, I just happened to be the one who asked the quesiton.
Indeed there is a question that one who views finite life values it over those who view infinite life. You are greatly mistaken in that. I am not talking mainstream religions whose purpose seems to be to control their followers by fear. I find your remarks insensitive and without merit.
Your assumption that all who believe in an afterlife are in fear of a “god” or higher power is without merit. It is based in no knowledge or understanding of what millions who are NOT part of mainstream religions understand. (a broad brush, and I know that some in mainstream religions do not have a fear of their concept of God)
Why would you possibly be in fear of your creator? Or a benevolent higher power?
Please do not tell others what they believe when you have no understanding of the concepts.
Excuse me but I’ll post my opinions here with the same freedom as everyone else. I’m not telling anyone what to beleive, but doing something to gain favor with a higher power is operating out of fear and rather than tell me that “I just don’t understand” why don’t you explain it. If you have such understanding you should be able to do that right?
In this statement:
You make a mighty assumption that all who believe in an afterlife do so out of fear or to please some concept of “God” in order to reap some supposed reward. My experience and studies and associations with large numbers of others who have understandings similar to mine have no such fear or motivations.
You are always entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to mine. An expanded explanation is in my post just below. Not asking you to believe in such as I do. Just stating as simply as possible that your statements do not match with my experiences and understanding.
I will refrain from sweeping generalizations, and I ask that you attempt to do the same.
Your opinions are valid for you. I am fine with that. Mine are valid for me.
That’s right and you were attempting censure ship. Please link the studies. This is after all the internet.
I have no idea what you mean that I was attempting censorship. I asked you not to tell me what you “THINK” I believe. Because you obviously do not know. If you wish to say, “In my opinion. . . .” then I don’t feel as if you are blatantly stating that you know what I and large numbers of others belive.
What studies? I am talking about face to face and personal phone and correspondant contact with hundreds and hundreds of people over the past 5 and 1/2 years. It is anecdotal. I never claimed that I have done “studies” or have studies to cite, and frankly working on my discertation as I am currently, I have no time to devote to such studies. And there would be no PROOF that what I or any other believe is what is, any more than there is proof what the secular moralists believe is true.
You believe what you wish. I believe what I wish. We disagree. That is okay. I have no need to convince you, you will not convince me. That is okay. I respect your right to whatever belief you choose to hold. I hope you will afford me the same consideration.
The misinformed idea that those who believe in an afterlife of whatever nature, just can or will throw “this life” away because they have a “backup” is absolute hogwash. It shows no knowledge or understanding of what is called reincarnation but in truth is really simultaneous, parallel and probable lives.
The description common to most of reincarnation is utterly without merit or truth. There is no past or future, there is only now, and until one can grasp that concept, there is hardly any common ground for discussion. Check with Einstein, or Hawkings, to name just two, and recall that the further into space or away from earth one goes, time does not exist, events occur simultaneously. Too damn confusing for human beings, so events seem to occur in linear sequence thus time seems to exist on this planet.
Of the many thousands I know (actually millions) who have a clear and deep belief of afterlife all are more motivated than ever to live a life of purpose and expanded knowledge of all things. I have never run into anyone who thought this life was one that could be ignored, wasted or tossed aside. And no it is not for some supposed “heavenly reward someday.” It is because life has purpose and the seeking and fulfilling of that purpose is more important than anything material, secular life has to offer.
My opinions after years of study, yours may differ. I have no problem with what others choose to believe, but please don’t anyone tell me what to believe, or what you suppose I believe.
Not directed at you Diane. . responding to the things you addressed in your comment.
I beleive that humans normally have an innate sense of what they beleive is right and wrong…like don’t kill another human – which incidentally is not specific to our speiceis.
I beleive its instinctive.
Just to approach it from the other direction, the moral messages that people derive from religious texts is hardly ever clear anyway.
The bible at one point as God ordering a genocidal slaughter. At others it has God encouraging people to discard all of their possession. Few moral people would consider doing either. The conclusions a primative Baptist draws from the Bible differ greatly from those drawn by a Unitarian Minister in Vermont who considers herself a Christian. There is a huge debate within Christianity theology itself over whether moral conduct during life is even relevant to an afterlife — although folk wisdom has it that it does.
Most religious texts are stories/histories/prophecies. And the parts that are most obviously law governing personal conduct, like Deuteronomy in the Bible, have rules so absurd that no one but ultra-Orthodox Jews and an occassion extreme splinter group of 7th Day Adventists feel that they are appropriate today.
Religious people and secular people alike draw on culture context to a great extent that any text is formulating their own moral codes. The reasoning that underlies what is and is not moral, more often than not, is closer to rationalization than a deductive process.
The axioms behind secular morality revolve around species survival, reciprocity (Do unto others . . .), fairness and truthfulness.
I consider myself to be a secular humanist. In the absence of God, we, collectively, are responsible for the state of humanity. No one person can solve all the worlds problems, but responsibility flows from an ability to act. To the extent that you can make the state of humanity better you have a responsibility to do so, because it is “your fault” as someone who could have acted, if our society fucks it up.
but instead of name-calling, how about asking why he is willing to support Hillary?
Obviousely… his morals allow it.
Assuming that someone eventually understands the way the brain works, it’ll be interesting to see if they agree with you. We certainly understand it a whole lot better than we used to, but mostly so far it’s led to a better understanding of how much we have yet to understand.
I’m not a scientist, neuro- or otherwise, but I’ve worked with some and have some familiarity with the topics. Anyone who makes a definitive statement about the soul based on our knowledge of the brain is — at best — expressing an opinion, not a conclusion.
and was brought back each time, I value life because I am alive. I value the life of others because they are alive and because I’m not contaminated by the fear that leads us to act against life.
As to transgression, it results from disharmony, often originating in the same sort of fear that is so easily inculcated into our psyches by people seeking dominion over others.
When you respect and value life, you don’t transgress on others. You don’t need to elevate yourself, and you don’t need to externalize worthiness into a form that you then feel compelled to worship.
If one is doing what they perceive to be “good” because they are hoping to be rewarded for it, this selfishness goes directly against the essential teachings of the philosophers we have refer to as prophets. There is no externally rendered reward or punishment for behavior.
Boo, first of all I want to thank you for catalyzing a great discussion here.
The analogy I like to use for souls is snowflakes – no two are alike, each has a unique pattern. While the pattern is embodied / made manifest in a particular bit of frozen water, the pattern itself also has an independent existence in the scientific properties of water molecules and how they behave on freezing. The symmetry of the snowflake is inherent in the chemistry and physics. Each snowflake is unique because of the untold billions of potential forms that the rules of freezing water in cold air permit. Similarly, what makes each of us unique is dependent on our genetics, our environment, etc.
When the snowflake melts, that particular embodiment of the physicochemical laws no longer physically exists, but that particular pattern is still there in the realm of the possible.
After seeing my grandmother’s mind slowly melt away from Alzheimer’s disease I knew that what we call “the soul” is no more and no less than the pattern of the snowflake – the circumstances that created her will never occur again. Yet in some sense she lives on not only in the memories of those that knew her, but as an example of a human life. That pattern remains as part of the potential set of all human lives. In that limited sense I’d allow that a soul exists.
Are such souls “real?” As real as the laws of mathematics, or the notes of an inspired musical improvisation that wasn’t recorded during performance, or the beauty of a sunset, or… a snowflake.
And where does this leave morality?
I don’t believe in a god who sends bad dogs to the pound, as someone else brilliantly put it in this diary. I believe in and stand in awe of the ineffable mystery that underlies this universe. I’m hesitant to call that god, because it’s so different from other people’s conceptions of god that to use the G-word only confuses the discussion. The closest term I’ve found is the Tao, or the “ground of being” if you prefer a term with less of a specific cultural context.
“Good” and “evil” are terms laden with cultural meaning; what is good to you might be bad for me, what is good today might be bad in other circumstances (Is it wrong to steal to feed a starving child?). I believe we create good and evil be defining and choosing between pairs of opposites; abortion is perhaps the preeminent example of this in our culture today. Is there then no basis for morality?
There is, and that basis is the nature of the universe itself; its tendencies, processes, “drives” (without getting anthropomorphic). Since we are a manifestation of the Tao / ground of being / nature / “rules that underlie the universe”, it makes sense that certain acts we might do would be in accordance with these tendencies, and others would not.
One could say that the former are “good” or “moral,” but down that path lies the dehumanization and demonizing of those you call “bad;” your “enemy.” As a result I’m much more comfortable framing the discussion in terms of acts which are “wise” or “foolish.”
How can I say that after 9/11? I admit, 9/11 was a jolt to this worldview, and I had to wrestle with the demons of doubt for some time. However, once you call someone “evil”, you no longer are likely to listen to the message that person is sending you, which might well be the very thing you need to hear. If some act of yours is so egregious that you’ve made an enemy over it, you’re less likely to have this matter brought to your attention by those who agree with you or eat from the same pot (i.e., make money from the same schemes), which you call “friends.”
The last four years speak for themselves in this regard.