07 Mar 19
@fmf saidYou take "full responsibility" ... and do whatever pleases you.
This seems to be an oblique reference to the fact that, with the guidance of my normal compass, I take personal responsibility for my moral decisions and actions, which I do. In the world in which I live, I take full responsibility for the morality of my actions in so far as they govern my behaviour towards other people and to the community.
And that's your right.
You are a rational person created in the image of God, right.
But, as far as this goes as a precedent for the society, it results in much suffering when this becomes the norm because people, especially the young and the dumb, are incapable of moderating their desires affectively... even when they do have religion.
Thus a form of collective stoicism is needed, and that is best served as a religion.
07 Mar 19
@fmf saidYou still haven't dealt with the core of what is being said.
Our moral compasses are subjective. If one of the things you have absorbed or have been influenced by is a religious doctrine, that is simply part of your "nurture" (environment, experience).
I have also absorbed and have been influenced by religious doctrine and by cultures that are steeped in the influence of religious doctrine, but it's also simply part of my "nurture".
...[text shortened]... are not underpinned by a belief in supernatural causality, it doesn't make your compass "objective".
it does not matter if Joggye-jong Buddhism is not true. The precepts, the systems, everythign can be a lie. But it matters that the people follow it and look to it as an authority, and that they follow the proper teachings and pursue a noble path through life.
You can insert that with any religion.
It is actually destructive to exist in a vacuum. Secular humanism effectively creates a vacuum. The "utilitarian pragmatism" that it is is really just a form of nihilism.
That's the point I am making, and what I am interested in talking about going forward.
07 Mar 19
@philokalia saidI take full responsibility for doing what I believe is morally right in accordance with my moral compass. If that means I fall foul of my family, or my neighbours, or the community at large, or my colleagues in my workplace, or with law enforcement, or with the courts, and I face the consequences or sanctions that apply or those around me choose to apply, yes, I take full responsibility.
You take "full responsibility" ... and do whatever pleases you.
07 Mar 19
@philokalia saidPeople raising their young to take personal responsibility for the morality of their decisions - and face the consequences - is a good "precedent for the society". This can be done with or without believing in a god or gods.
But, as far as this goes as a precedent for the society, it results in much suffering when this becomes the norm because people, especially the young and the dumb, are incapable of moderating their desires affectively... even when they do have religion.
07 Mar 19
@philokalia saidIt is your prerogative to prescribe whatever you believe is best. KellyJay calls it a "north star" and I assume it has something to do with Jesus although he hasn't mentioned Jesus on this thread, to be fair.
Thus a form of collective stoicism is needed, and that is best served as a religion.
07 Mar 19
@philokalia saidNobody, least of all me, is advocating that we "exist in a vacuum". But I see what you did there. Please read my posts.
It is actually destructive to exist in a vacuum.
07 Mar 19
@philokalia saidI disagree. I think I have dealt with it.
You still haven't dealt with the core of what is being said.
07 Mar 19
@philokalia saidNobody is arguing against pursuing "a noble path through life". That is exactly what each person's moral compass is for. And in using it, they draw upon the influences of the authorities and teachings they encounter, the religions they follow, whatever they deduce is "proper". This is the stuff that a moral compass synthesizes.
it does not matter if Joggye-jong Buddhism is not true. The precepts, the systems, everythign can be a lie. But it matters that the people follow it and look to it as an authority, and that they follow the proper teachings and pursue a noble path through life.
07 Mar 19
@fmf saidGeez, do I have to absolutely connect every single dot for you?
Nobody, least of all me, is advocating that we "exist in a vacuum". But I see what you did there. Please read my posts.
The implication is that in a godless world there is no set value that is judged to be the ultimate.
This is a topic we've been over before, FMF!
If you pick up your heals when you walk, you can go faster!
07 Mar 19
@fmf saidNobody's individual "moral compass" is a "noble path."
Nobody is arguing against pursuing "a noble path through life". That is exactly what each person's moral compass is for. And in using it, they draw upon the influences of the authorities and teachings they encounter, the religions they follow, whatever they deduce is "proper". This is the stuff that a moral compass synthesizes.
We are born into a fallen world with base desires... And if we ever get to the point of having moral excellence, it comes through the externalization of the moral code.
@philokalia saidWell, you can't force people to be religious. And I doubt you can make people become religious by arguing that the opposite of living religiously is living in a vacuum.
Secular humanism effectively creates a vacuum.
If you believed Turkey was "under threat" from the things you described a few pages back [anarchy and atheism etc.], what would you propose that the nation should do to prevent its people from being atheists or to prevent the norms of Turks from evolving?
07 Mar 19
@philokalia saidI am not attacking anything. I see myself as describing human nature and the human condition and what a moral compass is, how we get it, and what it's for.
Outline what you are attacking and attack it, or maybe just make some final post about how you think you did a good job.
07 Mar 19
@philokalia saidThe way I am posting is fine and I am not going in circles. But I see what you did there.
Now, I would advise you to get more strict with how you are discussing this because we are starting to go in circles.
07 Mar 19
@fmf said... How can values "evolve" if there is no such thing as progress..?
Well, you can't force people to be religious. And I doubt you can make people become religious by arguing that the opposite of living religiously is living in a vacuum.
If you believed Turkey was "under threat" from the things you described a few pages back [anarchy and atheism etc.], what would you propose that the nation should do to prevent its people from being atheists or to prevent the norms of Turks from evolving?
Or is there such a thing as progress?
Or does evolution not mean "progress?" It just means "change?"