Thought For The Day

[NeilC]

On BBC Radio 4 they have "Thought for the day" which is usually some religious person (from different faiths) giving you something moral to think about.

This morning the Xtian guy was saying how government ministers are accountable for their actions and how we take this for granted in Western democracies.

More to the point, he stated that the reason this is the case is because we have a christian history which has pushed personal accountability.

How much of that do you think it true? There are differences in Western/Eastern government - do they stem from religion?

[geetarmoore]

I often hear that western governments stem from religion, but I don't buy it at all.

Western governments are based on what it takes to maintain a civil and productive population. Historically, we see an evolution of governing styles from ten thousand years ago to finally get to where we are today - where the most productive and civil societies are largely free from religious influence from the government.

Personal accountability is really a atheist core value, if you ask me. Atheists have no one on which to shoulder the blame for their actions, nor do they perceive an afterlife for which to make up for poor decisions in this life.

It seems to me that these religious leaders have to propagate ideas to make people believe that religion serves some value added purpose in society. This is precisely where we get the nonsense about successful governments being the result of religious affiliations.

Just my opinion.

[Iacchus]

Does personal accountability stem from religion? Isn't that in effect what the ten commandments represent?

[cyborg]

Does personal accountability stem from religion? Isn't that in effect what the ten commandments represent?

Law coming from a god represents personal accountability for moral and ethical decisions how now?

[Iacchus]

Law coming from a god represents personal accountability for moral and ethical decisions how now?Well, if you understood that there was a greater authority than yourself and, that you will be held accountable (contingent upon being ethical and moral that is), you might be inclined to buy into it.

[cyborg]

That's not personal accountability. That's following the dictates of a dictator. Someone who considers personal accountability important may well go against dictates.

What you propose is the antithesis of personal accountability - that no moral or ethical decisions you make are based on what you consider moral or ethical.

[Iacchus]

As opposed to what? The laws of the Jungle? This is what happens when we all become our own authorities. What's the point in creating any kind of rule, if we weren't meant to abide by it? Wouldn't that be something if we didn't have to abide by the laws of gravity? Or, is that just a myth? :D

[cyborg]

As opposed to what? The laws of the Jungle?

Eh?

This is what happens when we all become our own authorities.

Yes. We attain personal accountability. That is what it means. We are our own moral authourities.

What's the point in creating any kind of rule, if we weren't meant to abide by it?

Er, yes. You're not really forming a counter-argument here.

Wouldn't that be something if we didn't have to abide by the laws of gravity? Or, is that just a myth?

What? More irrelevancies from you yet again.

Irrelevent should be stamped on your head.

[slingblade]

Does personal accountability stem from religion?

Not from Christianity, in my opinion.

Those who say God has a plan for all people, and that living a Christian life means turning one's life over to God, do not have a good exemplar for developing personal accountability, or responsibility, as I prefer to put it.

Either one is responsible for one's life, or one turns it over to a God. Asking Him what one should do before one makes any choices or decisions seems to me to be abrogating one's responsibility (to oneself) to make choices or decisions based on facts, knowledge, and reasoning.

Then, if the choice or decision made turns out to have been a poor one, the believer can always say, "It must not have been God's will," and so never learns how to avoid such mistakes in the future.

Further, whenever anything goes wrong, a Christian always has the option of declaring:
Satan is attacking me.
God is testing me.
This is God's will and I must bend to it.

For these and other reasons, Christianity seems to me a most unlikely philosophy by which to learn or accquire personal accountability/responsibility.

[BJQ87]

Further, whenever anything goes wrong, a Christian always has the option of declaring:
Satan is attacking me.
God is testing me.
This is God's will and I must bend to it.

For these and other reasons, Christianity seems to me a most unlikely philosophy by which to learn or accquire personal accountability/responsibility.


And if I simply say "Satan is attacking me" how does this suggest anything to do with accountability? It is when you say this and suggest that Satan is to blame for your actions that you suggest accountability.

Now I see no where in the bible where it says that I should blame Satan for my actions. I do however see plenty of places in the bible where it says that human beings are held accountable.

And anyways, just because someone has the option of saying something doesn't mean it's legit. So I don't see how someone having the option to say something has anything to do with the qualities of christianity.

[Ausmerican]

There are differences in Western/Eastern government - do they stem from religion?

Almost certainly, but not as stated there. Those Eastern governments that have less accountability? Many of them are theocratic forms of government. Most if not all Western democracys are not.

Democracy is law by commitee where a group representative of the populace sets laws representative of the populace. Theocracies are law by god(s). 'This is how deity wants it so this is how it's going to be no matter who is in charge.'

Which of these leads to personal accountability? Certainly not the second, there is no personal accountability if your fallback position is "I was just following the will of our deity."

[slingblade]

And if I simply say "Satan is attacking me" how does this suggest anything to do with accountability? It is when you say this and suggest that Satan is to blame for your actions that you suggest accountability.

Believing Satan is attacking one is a way to relieve oneself of personal responsiblity: "It's not my poor choices which have caused my problems. I'm being attacked by an invisible evil entity, and that's the source for my troubles, not me."

Now I see no where in the bible where it says that I should blame Satan for my actions. I do however see plenty of places in the bible where it says that human beings are held accountable.

I never cited the Bible, so congrats on a lovely strawman. The point is, if you think someone/thing else holds you accountable, you aren't holding yourself accountable, which is of course what the word "personal" means.

And anyways, just because someone has the option of saying something doesn't mean it's legit. So I don't see how someone having the option to say something has anything to do with the qualities of christianity.

Well of course it's not "legit." It's a fallacy, a fantasy, and an abrogation of personal accountability and responsibility.
I have a hard time believing you simply could not grasp that from my post. Might be an example of a lack of critical thinking?

[Iacchus]

For these and other reasons, Christianity seems to me a most unlikely philosophy by which to learn or accquire personal accountability/responsibility.And what if we simply based what we think said and did upon the fact that we didn't think someone else was looking? There would be no need to look at ourselves would there? If there was no greater standard, there would be nothing to adhere to would there?

[Cosmo]

And what if we simply based what we think said and did upon the fact that we didn't think someone else was looking? There would be no need to look at ourselves would there? If there was no greater standard, there would be nothing to adhere to would there?

Iacchus, you are being a complete buffoon. Do you honestly think that all atheists are morally bankrupt simply because they don't think that Daddy is watching?

Let's look at it the other way. If your fear of Daddy is the only thing keeping YOU in line, I submit that you're the morally bankrupt one here.

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, you are being a complete buffoon. Do you honestly think that all atheists are morally bankrupt simply because they don't think that Daddy is watching?

Let's look at it the other way. If your fear of Daddy is the only thing keeping YOU in line, I submit that you're the morally bankrupt one here.Or, maybe it's more along the lines of hero worship? If we didn't believe in Superman, we wouldn't try to emulate him now would we?

[Cosmo]

Or, maybe it's more along the lines of hero worship? If we didn't believe in Superman, we wouldn't try to emulate him now would we?

Once again, I make the mistake of assuming that Iacchus' response to my post would have something to do with...my post.

[Iacchus]

Once again, I make the mistake of assuming that Iacchus' response to my post would have something to do with...my post.I am referring to something that exists which is greater than ourselves. Something representing a higher standard in other words.

[Cosmo]

I am referring to something that exists which is greater than ourselves. Something representing a higher standard in other words.

My point stands. Are you trying to torture me by ignoring what I say and posting whatever you feel like in response to my posts?

[Roboramma]

My point stands. Are you trying to torture me by ignoring what I say and posting whatever you feel like in response to my posts?
You're just now figuring this out?

[Cosmo]

You're just now figuring this out?

I've certainly seen him do it elsewhere, but I suppose I was holding out on judgment until I had an interaction with him of my own. Nothing to see here, move along. :)

[Roboramma]

I am referring to something that exists which is greater than ourselves. Something representing a higher standard in other words.
Let me put it this way Iacchus. I know superman doesn't exist. Nor any comic book super heros. Nor god.

Yet I still want to do good. Impossible you say? No, it's not.

Doing good for its own sake, rather than for the sake of getting a pat on the back from some deity, is true morality.

If someone was dying in the street, and you decided you didn't want to help them, but then changed your mind when she offered your $100 for your aid, I don't think anyone would call that a good act.

It's the same if god is the one handing out $100 bills.

[Iacchus]

So, what is good? Do we have a meaningful standard by which to measure it?

[Genesius]

So, what is good? Do we have a meaningful standard by which to measure it?

You might wish to read http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/goodness.php .
A short excerpt:


The way to be moral is to learn what causes harm and how to avoid it. This means investigating nature--especially human nature: who we are, what we need, where we live, how we function, and why we behave the way we do.
Why should I treat my neighbor nicely? Because we are all connected. We are part of the same species, genetically linked. Since I value myself and my species, and the other species to whom we are related, I recognize that when someone is hurting, my natural family is suffering. By nature, those of us who are mentally healthy recoil from pain and wish to see it ended.


I love how that man writes. Anyone think we could get him for TAM5?

[geetarmoore]

So, what is good? Do we have a meaningful standard by which to measure it?

Don't do something to someone that you wouldn't want them to do to you.

Do things for others that you would appreciate if it were done for you.


I say it like this....


'Don't do things that would cause someone to want to cave your head in with a rock'.

[SuperCoolGuy]

How much of that do you think it true? There are differences in Western/Eastern government - do they stem from religion?

Coming from an Islamic perspective, the way a leader was to be determined is purely democratic. The caliph or any amir (leader) is selected by the people and would ultimately be accountable to the people. Meaning no elected official was above pre-established law or the will of those the official served. So the concept of elected, accountable leadership was never purely Christian.

Also, democratic style European governements are fairly recent and most are newer than America's. And while unification of the American states had a strongly Christian aspect, the formation of the government was much more molded by Enlightenment thinking.

I believe many democratic governments that have existed from ancient times had a strong religious character, but today's governments that are truly accountable to an electorate rely on being more secular.

[Iacchus]

You might wish to read http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/goodness.php .
A short excerpt:

The way to be moral is to learn what causes harm and how to avoid it. This means investigating nature--especially human nature: who we are, what we need, where we live, how we function, and why we behave the way we do.
Why should I treat my neighbor nicely? Because we are all connected. We are part of the same species, genetically linked. Since I value myself and my species, and the other species to whom we are related, I recognize that when someone is hurting, my natural family is suffering. By nature, those of us who are mentally healthy recoil from pain and wish to see it ended. I love how that man writes. Anyone think we could get him for TAM5?So, as a means of perpetuating the species (ours), this man claims to be standing on moral grounds? What about those species that we deem less inoffensive than ourselves? Indeed, how does such a thing come about in a world which is so-designed where one thing feeds upon the other?

[Genesius]

So, as a means of perpetuating the species (specifically ours), this man claims to be standing on moral grounds? What about those species that we deem less inoffensive than ourselves?

Every time I try to figure out what the f:eek:k you're talking about I get a major headache. . . Barker didn't say a bloody thing about "perpetuating the species".

Seriously, Iacchus. Is there any way for me to travel from here to whatever plane of reality you inhabit? If I could understand the context of your reality it might help me to make sense out of anything you write.

[Iacchus]

Every time I try to figure out what the f:eek:k you're talking about I get a major headache. . . Barker didn't say a bloody thing about "perpetuating the species".In the natural scheme of things, this is exactly what it boils down to ... regarding the "safety in numbers," or a collective or, "gang rule." I see no implications of good here, at least for those species which are exploited as a result of this.

[Genesius]

In the natural scheme of things, this is exactly what it boils down to ... regarding the "safety in numbers," or a collective or, "gang rule." I see no implications of good here, at least for those species which are exploited as a result of this.
You asked for a meaningful standard by which to measure good. I think "The way to be moral is to learn what causes harm and how to avoid it." qualifies, at least as a starting point. Your inability to discuss a topic without drifting of into irrelevancy is something else again.

[SuperCoolGuy]

So, as a means of perpetuating the species (ours), this man claims to be standing on moral grounds? What about those species that we deem less inoffensive than ourselves? Indeed, how does such a thing come about in a world which is so-designed where one thing feeds upon the other?

The key then is balance. Non-human species operate within this boundary of feeding off other species but not to the point of causing extreme damage to many other species or to the eco-system. We, as humans, feed of other species, but we can quite easily upset the balance and consume more than we need. If we think enough about other species, we can respect their right to exist while still feeding off them. Animals may or may not realize this type of morality, but they nevertheless operate within its bounds. We can as well.

We can also expand on this concept of morality when we think about social interaction within our species. We "feed" of each other in terms of labor, trade, government, and war. Our experience as a civilization has been trying to find the balance, where we get what we want without taking more than we need, thus causing harm to others.

A wolf can kill only enough to satisfy its hunger, and that's what it does. However, once satisfied, it can continue to kill because it's fun, or its bored. But it can't store its kill and it'll eventually run out of live animals to hunt and cause harm to itself by making hunting a bigger chore. That's why animals live within it's means. And humans have and continue to figure out how to as well.

According to Genesis, humans were put on this Earth with a lot of animals and plants for us to live off of. "Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

So, we have a responsibility to act ethically to each other and to other species. The key is finding the balance. Thus, if we have to make a choice between the survival of the human species or the survival of some other species, we choose human because we easily recognize the need to take care of ourselves first. But that doesn't give us free reign to kill off other species if our survival is not in jeopardy.

From Genesis, we as humans might have dominion. But as moral creatures, we can readily recognize what harms humans, and what harms other animals, and maintain the balance that can benefit all. If animals can do it, why can't we, right?

[Iacchus]

You asked for a meaningful standard by which to measure good.Yes?

I think "The way to be moral is to learn what causes harm and how to avoid it." Oh, the fear of punishment and retribution in other words ...

qualifies, at least as a starting point.How so?

Your inability to discuss a topic without drifting of into irrelevancy is something else again.Yes, I often feel the same way about those who disagree with me as well. And your point being?

[Roboramma]

So, what is good? Do we have a meaningful standard by which to measure it?
I have ideas, though I don't know for sure. Do you?

In what way is god a meaningful determinant of morality?

[Roboramma]

Oh, the fear of punishment and retribution in other words ...
He didn't say, "what causes harm to me". What actions of yours cause harm? How can you avoid that?
That seems to be meaningful to me. Shooting someone in the head usually causes harm. As does stealing their land. This has nothing to do with whether or not you as an individual will be better off - but whether or not your actions will cause harm.

[Iacchus]

The key then is balance. Non-human species operate within this boundary of feeding off other species but not to the point of causing extreme damage to many other species or to the eco-system.Yes, there is safety in numbers, but I still don't see how this constitutes being "moral."

We, as humans, feed of other species, but we can quite easily upset the balance and consume more than we need. If we think enough about other species, we can respect their right to exist while still feeding off them.So, what makes us different from other animals then?

Animals may or may not realize this type of morality, but they nevertheless operate within its bounds. We can as well.So, what is there (for us) to realize then? Are you saying it's been given to us to operate outside of its bounds?

[Genesius]

I think "The way to be moral is to learn what causes harm and how to avoid it."
Oh, the fear of punishment and retribution in other words ...

NO! Why are you stuck in this B.S. rut that acting morally requires fear of retribution? It is wrong for another person to harm me without cause, therefore it is wrong for me to harm another without cause. No fear, no retribution. If you prefer to restate this as any of the permutations of the "Golden Rule", feel free to do so.



Your inability to discuss a topic without drifting of into irrelevancy is something else again.
Yes, I often feel the same way about those who disagree with me as well. And your point being?
The point being: why, for once, don't you concentrate on the discussion instead of drifting off into side issues and "clever" comments?

[Iacchus]

NO! Why are you stuck in this B.S. rut that acting morally requires fear of retribution? Ever get a ticket for speeding? Now why do you think people tend to drive slower? Because of what's posted on the speed limit sign or, because they're afraid of getting a ticket?

It is wrong for another person to harm me without cause, therefore it is wrong for me to harm another without cause. No fear, no retribution. If you prefer to restate this as any of the permutations of the "Golden Rule", feel free to do so.Would it be wrong for an asteriod to smash into the earth (i.e., the earth and asteroid being roughly equivalent) and blasting it to smithereens?

The point being: why, for once, don't you concentrate on the discussion instead of drifting off into side issues and "clever" comments?Well, obviously, my meaning of good is not the same as yours.

[Genesius]

Ever get a ticket for speeding? Now why do you think people tend to drive slower? Because of what's posted on the speed limit sign or, because they're afraid of getting a ticket?

Yes, I've gotten tickets for speeding. Hasn't stopped me from speeding, just means I'm more careful about it. Remember the Eleventh Commandment: Don't get caught.

Would it be wrong for an asteriod to smash into the earth (i.e., the earth and asteroid being roughly equivalent) and blasting it to smithereens?

Right & wrong doesn't come into it unless you think some guiding agency directed the asteroid towards the Earth. Forces of nature aren't moral, they just happen.

Well, obviuolsly, my meaning of good is not the same as yours.

Thanks for making my point about "clever" comments.

[Iacchus]

Right & wrong doesn't come into it unless you think some guiding agency directed the asteroid towards the Earth. Forces of nature aren't moral, they just happen.So, what makes human beings different than any other force of nature? Are you implying that we somehow exist outside of it?

[Genesius]

So, what makes human beings different than any other force of nature? Are you implying that we somehow exist outside of it?

Unlike the asteroid of your example, some of us have an intellect that allows us to consider the consequences of our actions and decide to change our actions.

[Iacchus]

Unlike the asteroid of your example, some of us have an intellect that allows us to consider the consequences of our actions and decide to change our actions.So, what attributes would you ascribe to intelligence? What makes something more intelligent in other words? Why should intelligence be the determining factor in morals and ethics? Is it something "other" than what occurs naturally?

[slingblade]

And what if we simply based what we think said and did upon the fact that we didn't think someone else was looking? There would be no need to look at ourselves would there? If there was no greater standard, there would be nothing to adhere to would there?

Now that I truly understand what it means to love and respect oneself, I know what you propose is utter blind BS. I am my higher standard. Shakespeare had a better "gospel" when he said that if you are true to yourself, you can't be false to any other. I know what's right, what's wrong, and when. I'm a mature woman, and I hold myself to a much stronger standard now than I did when I was Christian because there is no one watching but me. And I refuse to let myself down.

My first husband was Catholic but converted to Pentecostalism when he married me. He was an alcoholic, a constant adulterer (which I know because after our divorce, he told me "There wasn't a day of the week I wasn't sleeping with someone else"), a cocaine addict, a crack addict, a wife-beater, an emotional abuser, controlling, manipulative, and more.

And yet he went to church every Sunday, and most Wednesday nights. He was considered a sterling member of the church. He could quote the Bible all day. Our pastors (there were many, since we had to change churches a lot) always thought he was the apple of God's eye. They considered me mentally ill, because I'd make up these "terrible stories" about my wonderful husband. Until, that is, they found him out. They always found him out. Then we'd change churches, and it would start all over again. He even beat me over the head with the Bible, screaming at me to "submit, submit dammit!" (I had suggested that God might not like it that he hit me.) He belonged to Promise Keepers. He was a Royal Rangers leader for the children. He was, to all appearances, the perfect Christian man. He often wept and prayed over his failures, and was quite aware God was watching him. That never stopped him from taking another drink, or giving me another bruise.

He believed in God. He always told me that "God understands" why he was so abusive.

So how did his faith orient his moral compass?

I won't even bring up the popular televangelists who have been caught with more than their hands in carnal cookie-jars. But surely they knew God was watching. Why didn't that stop them?

[SuperCoolGuy]

Yes, there is safety in numbers, but I still don't see how this constitutes being "moral."

I wasn't referring to safety in numbers. And "moral" in the "law of the jungle" constitutes living within the balance I was discussing.

So, what makes us different from other animals then?

This goes along with Genesius's comments. Animals have some amount of intellect to understand that certain actions bring harm to themselves, their family, other members of their own species, and other species. Asteroids have none. We, as humans, have a much keener insight into the consequences of our actions than animals. You can thank our species's ability to develop culture for that.

So, what is there (for us) to realize then? Are you saying it's been given to us to operate outside of its bounds?

No, we cannot operate outside of the bounds of the "law of the jungle". For a while, yes, but it eventually would catch up with us. However, with greater development of technology and more complex social constructions, it will require more of our own intellect to keep the balance and not result in the destruction of ourselves.

[Genesius]

What makes something more intelligent in other words?

After reading way too many of your posts, I think the intelligence scale goes something like this:

Iacchus < asteroid < everything else

[Iacchus]

I won't even bring up the popular televangelists who have been caught with more than their hands in carnal cookie-jars. But surely they knew God was watching. Why didn't that stop them?Yes, I agree, there is such a thing as practicing what you preach. Perhaps these folks really didn't believe as much as they would have other folks believe?

[Iacchus]

After reading way too many of your posts, I think the intelligence scale goes something like this:

Iacchus < asteroid < everything elseWhat is intelligence, if not an advanced form of structure? So, where does structure come from?

[slingblade]

Yes, I agree, there is such a thing as practicing what you preach. Perhaps these folks really didn't believe as much as they would have other folks believe?

I don't know that it was their strength of belief that was lacking, but maybe their adherence to it, or devotion to it, or the lack thereof.

So you think strength of belief determines behavior? Is there any way to gauge the strength of a Christian's belief? How can one know who really believes and who doesn't believe as much as they need to?

[Mercutio]

What is intelligence, if not an advanced form of structure?That is not a definition of intelligence. Not by any of the researchers or theorist who study intelligence. If you wish to propose it as a definition, you will have to support your contention.
So, where does structure come from?Given the fact that it is not intelligence, your question is irrelevant.

[Iacchus]

That is not a definition of intelligence. Not by any of the researchers or theorist who study intelligence. If you wish to propose it as a definition, you will have to support your contention.
Given the fact that it is not intelligence, your question is irrelevant.If all is a by-product of structure, which it is, where does structure originate? ... That which is bereft of structure?

[Cosmo]

If all is a by-product of structure, which it is,

Stop right there. Where is your proof that "all is a by-product of structure"?

Or, better yet, before you provide your amazing proof, perhaps you could define what you mean by "structure"?

[Roboramma]

If all is a by-product of structure, which it is,
What's sad is that you don't see anything wrong with this statement.

Try this Iacchus. Support your contentions before using them to prove an argument.

You can't say "all is a by-product of structure, which I don't want to define, therefore god exists, therefore god is the source of morality" without, at the least, supporting your initial contention - that all is a by-product of structure.

Please show your work.

[Roboramma]

I don't know that it was their strength of belief that was lacking, but maybe their adherence to it, or devotion to it, or the lack thereof.

So you think strength of belief determines behavior? Is there any way to gauge the strength of a Christian's belief? How can one know who really believes and who doesn't believe as much as they need to?

Isn't it obvious, those who live a good life must be the ones with the strongest beleif. Which obviously shows that belief causes people to live a good life.
And if you find immorality in someone who professes belief, well, clearly they're just making it up so that they look profound.

[cyborg]

Why should intelligence be the determining factor in morals and ethics?

If a rocks can't dicuss morality and ethics it's probably not worthwhile to ask what a rock thinks about smashing into a planet.

[SuperCoolGuy]

I'm sorry, but based on Iacchus's posts, there's no point in debating him.

Intelligence = structure? No basis for that statement.

Rather than making a clear link between the two concepts, Iacchus decides to raise the issue of where structure comes from, which as of yet, has no bearing to this discussion.

learning what causes harm and avoiding it = fear of punishment and retribution? No clear link except in Iacchus's mind, which they haven't formulated and posted in this forum yet.

I'm done. Christianity can encourage personal accountability, but as a religion, has not been the primary motivator for accountable government institutions in recent times.