The need to worship

[yukoncpa]

Folks, I’m really bummed out. My dad died recently, I just got off a miserable relationship, and I find myself back in my hometown, mostly to dry out ( keep away from drugs, alcohol et cetera ). But I’m surrounded by fundamentalist Christians and Mormons, who feel a need to worship and feel a need to follow a zealous leader, whether that leader is a religious leader or a political leader or both. Where in Maslow’s hierarchy does he mention a need to worship? Why do so many people need to worship? I find it vomit inducing when this stuff is jammed down my throat. Recently on Mother’s day, I went to church with my mom for the first time in twenty years. She was impressed by the spirit and thought I would be also. But all I could think of during the sermon, is how devious the speaker was in his attempts to get people to give more money to the church. Besides cleaning your room, doing your lawn chores, etc, the young members of the congregation were told that Mother’s would also appreciate it if you gave a proper tithing. I find the whole church thing of externalizing morality ( do what your leaders tell you ) to be repugnant. In my humble opinion, morality ought to come from within. One should take actions because one wishes to, rather than because one is told to.
I don’t mind how others feel, but I really don’t like it when they feel a need to waste large segments of my time preaching to me. To the point of sending missionary’s to my door, sending family members to my door time and again, begging me to go to church or see the light. These people are way more judgmental towards me than I could ever be towards any other human being. These people are going above and beyond trying to spread a comforting word and are doing their best to make me feel as guilty as possible for not adhering to their ways of thought. Why do people feel a need to do this?

[Peter666]

"Why do people feel a need to do this?"

Faiths that are emotionally based like the one's you mention require human action to get the religious feeling going in themselves. True virtue is difficult to adhere to.

And Maslow is wrong because worship has always been a trait of mankind from our earliest ancestors onwards.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
And Maslow is wrong because worship has always been a trait of mankind from our earliest ancestors onwards.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this an evolved trait? If so, how does one die young, if one doesn't worship?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
worship has always been a trait of mankind from our earliest ancestors onwards

[/ QUOTE ]

You can sound very authoritative, Peter. That, of course, doesn;t make you so.

This is pure bs.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And Maslow is wrong because worship has always been a trait of mankind from our earliest ancestors onwards.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this an evolved trait? If so, how does one die young, if one doesn't worship?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your question. But I do know from anthropology that the three characteristics distinguishing earliest man from the animals were: manufacture of tools, burial of the dead, and worship as reflected in art.

And since Midge thinks I am making stuff up, my reference is Grahame Clark, Professor of Archaelogy, University of Cambridge, as found in the monumental work "Dawn of Civilization" edited by Stuart Piggot.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
But I do know from anthropology that the three characteristics distinguishing earliest man from the animals were: manufacture of tools, burial of the dead, and worship as reflected in art.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have studied anthropology in a very strange setting, Peter. As has been mentionned elsewhere this is a culturally centric view. As calling art, worship, hey, if all else fails, I thought however that it refered to more contemporary art like Andres Serrano's. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Peter666]

Art reflecting worship is not my opinion, but the opinion of the world's greatest scholars in the matter. I am happy to note that most of the art was worshipping the power of fertility and not compassion.

And as for Andre Serrano, his art is probably a good reflection of the state of his soul.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Art reflecting worship is not my opinion, but the opinion of the world's greatest scholars in the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who may that be?

[ QUOTE ]
I am happy to note that most of the art was worshipping the power of fertility and not compassion

[/ QUOTE ]


Facts please, not culturally centred?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
And Maslow is wrong because worship has always been a trait of mankind from our earliest ancestors onwards.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Is this an evolved trait? If so, how does one die young, if one doesn't worship?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't understand your question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter,
What I was driving at, is that every basic need on Maslow’s hierarchy can be attributed to evolutionary forces.
I may have thought out the answer to my own question. In early man, those who didn’t snap to the instruction of a leader, were separated from the herd and left to die in a hostile environment. Man has the ability to think and reason, but thinking contrary to the precepts of a leader resulted in abandonment. Following the leader, thus became a prerequisite for survival, and this instinct led to the need to follow the philosophical ideals of leaders. Hence, the need to worship that which our leaders tell us to worship. Am I on the right track? It seems like worship is indeed an innate need among many individuals. Am I right? Wrong?

[MidGe]

yukoncpa,

The need to worship is not a trait, it is a cultural artefact. The strongest examples, of which there are a few, are those children found after havig be raised by animals. They surely had no propensity to worship, or even to talk for that matter.

As far as your explanation about following the leader, it should be noted that l3eaders are notoriously replaceable (usually by a younger one) and the allegiance could not be fixed but a response to the moment. This seems far from worshipping!

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
yukoncpa,

The need to worship is not a trait, it is a cultural artefact. The strongest examples, of which there are a few, are those children found after havig be raised by animals. They surely had no propensity to worship, or even to talk for that matter.

As far as your explanation about following the leader, it should be noted that l3eaders are notoriously replaceable (usually by a younger one) and the allegiance could not be fixed but a response to the moment. This seems far from worshipping!



[/ QUOTE ]

So you’re saying all this mumbo jumbo worship of a God that makes innocents burn in everlasting misery is a cultural thing only? Not an innate trait?
Why couldn’t I have been born when it was culturally expedient to worship the vagina?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
So you’re saying all this mumbo jumbo worship of a God that makes innocents burn in everlasting misery is a cultural thing only? Not an innate trait?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as your explanation about following the leader, it should be noted that l3eaders are notoriously replaceable (usually by a younger one) and the allegiance could not be fixed but a response to the moment. This seems far from worshipping!



[/ QUOTE ]

Leaders being notoriously replaceable, sounds like the propensity of a wolf pack. Human leaders are selected, not on strength, but on intelligence. Intelligent leaders would not be replaced by younger members of the tribe, on the contrary, older members of the tribe would tend to retain power.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Human leaders are selected, not on strength, but on intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may have been so in quite recent times. Too short a time to be the work of evolution. Plus, given the current clowns that are leaders of most countries I would dispute even that! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Going back a few hundred years, to the beginning of nation/states, there is no doubt in my mind that the most poweful physically were the leaders. Look at the robber barrons. Only subsequently did they invoke divine right as their foundation of power, making it effectively unreacheable by anyone else.

Intelligence as a product of evolution has to be differentiated from leadership. There is no evidence of a causal relation, imo.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Human leaders are selected, not on strength, but on intelligence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That may have been so in quite recent times. Too short a time to be the work of evolution. Plus, given the current clowns that are leaders of most countries I would dispute even that!

Going back a few hundred years, to the beginning of nation/states, there is no doubt in my mind that the most poweful physically were the leaders. Look at the robber barrons. Only subsequently did they invoke divine right as their foundation of power, making it effectively unreacheable by anyone else.

Intelligence as a product of evolution has to be differentiated from leadership. There is no evidence of a causal relation, imo.

Edited by MidGe (06/25/06 03:19 AM)


[/ QUOTE ]

Midge,
I’m only debating this because I enjoy debating with a great mind. Maybe you folk in Australia can out box a kangaroo, but I doubt ancient man in Africa was competing against the lions and elephant on brawn alone. Surely, even two million years ago, the human animal was surviving on pure intellect. He who controls the making of the tools , rules.

[MidGe]

yuconcpa,

I agree with what you said (about brawn alone and lions etc...). That still doesn't imply a causal relationship between intelligence and leadership.

From what I see today and what I know from history, in fact, I would suspect some reverse causal relationship, nothwithstanding some great leaders /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
yuconcpa,

I agree with what you said (about brawn alone and lions etc...). That still doesn't imply a causal relationship between intelligence and leadership.

From what I see today and what I know from history, in fact, I would suspect some reverse causal relationship, nothwithstanding some great leaders


[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, today’s leaders are wimps, forget about George Bush as a great lion hunter, think Teddy Roosevelt. The human animal is not only intelligent, but has always hunted in packs. We are a pack animal. ( if I’m wrong, please elaborate ). As a pack animal, we choose our leaders, not from brawn, but from intelligence.

[MidGe]

yuconcpa,

you are right, we are a pack animal.

You are wrong in thinking that we choose our leaders (except in recent times). Leaders imposes themselves by sheer forces. Having those strong leaders may have had a by-product of protecting and enusing survival of the weaker/nerds of the tribe, and that in turn may have contributed to a progression of intelligence.

So, the only place I disagree with you, is, where in my opinion, your are giving a pre-eminence to intelligence with regard to leadership. Both concepts being nebulous and really undefinable, we may never agree. I also disagreee that the need for worship is a trait. I do note the opinions you have as valuable ones. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong in thinking that we choose our leaders (except in recent times). Leaders imposes themselves by sheer forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woops, I did make a mistake there. I do indeed believe that leaders have always imposed themselves on us rather than us choosing them. I do however reserve my judgement that leaders, even 2 million years ago, pulled off this stunt, not by brawn, but by intellect.

[godBoy]

The only part about worship in your post is the title. I won't try to explain why your family make you feel bad..

I need to worship, the act of worship is where I meet God, that impact with Him leaves indents..
All I know is that now my life is so much better, I now have a peace that is truly indescribeable.. There's a psalm or a proverb that says "I expound my lifes riddle with the help of a harp".. In worship you can find answers.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people feel a need to do this?


[/ QUOTE ]
Religon is fit because an integral part of being infected is the belief that its important to infect others.

Sorry about your dad.

chez

[Peter666]

"Hence, the need to worship that which our leaders tell us to worship. Am I on the right track? It seems like worship is indeed an innate need among many individuals. Am I right? Wrong?"

This is a very interesting question which a I remember a history professor of mine bringing up. What you refer to as evolutionary worship was basically the evolution of anthropomorphism, or giving human characteristics to things. It was actually not something that occured because of the need for survival, but the exact opposite. The more humans took control of the environment, the more worship became complicated and political.

Studies in primitive people, even those existing just a few decades ago and not touched by modern civilization showed that it is common for all to have belief in ONE Creator or higher power, and this belief would be acknowledged and acted upon by small sacrifices or rituals. It is a simple and pure human expression, uncomplicated and not motivated by selfish reasons.

When civilizations began to emerge, the belief of one began to turn into the belief of many, and classifying each with their own separate powers or specialties. And these mini gods were no longer good or omnipotent, but had the same troubles and foibles of regular people. We see this well in Greek mythology.

So it appears that worship is indeed a simple and innate need and expression of humans, and the more complicated we get, the more people distort this simple natural desire with their own opinions and ideas.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
yukoncpa,

The need to worship is not a trait, it is a cultural artefact. The strongest examples, of which there are a few, are those children found after havig be raised by animals. They surely had no propensity to worship, or even to talk for that matter.

As far as your explanation about following the leader, it should be noted that l3eaders are notoriously replaceable (usually by a younger one) and the allegiance could not be fixed but a response to the moment. This seems far from worshipping!

[/ QUOTE ]

All humans have the propensity to communicate including those raised by animals. And I don't know how you would know whether wolf boy has an innate desire to worship or not, since you are not able to talk to him personally to know his desires.

[Schmitty 87]

See: Dostoevsky, The Grand Inquisitor

(most chilling 10 pages I've ever read)

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Studies in primitive people, even those existing just a few decades ago and not touched by modern civilization showed that it is common for all to have belief in ONE Creator or higher power

[/ QUOTE ]

What about all the primitives who were polytheistic or monistic?

[hmkpoker]

Personally, I think worship (in abrahamic faiths) is about personal security. If you can convince someone that there's a hell (through fear), and it's infinitely bad, and that there's also an infinitely good heaven, it becomes logical to highly, highly prioritize getting into heaven.

This level of priority is what gives the church so much power. If people are willing to do whatever is necessary to increase their chances of salvation, the church authorities can make a killing.

[Peter666]

The primitives who were polytheistic were more advanced than the primitives who were not. There is no primitive people who went from basic animal instincts to polytheism over night.

Monistic thought or Pantheism doesn't really contradict the notion of one Creator or main power containing the substance of all things.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Monistic thought or Pantheism doesn't really contradict the notion of one Creator or main power containing the substance of all things.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are very different things. Monotheism (in the abrahamic religions) proposes that there is a god, who creates the world and the people in it, who are distinct from him. It is specifically dualistic.

Monism is non-dualistic. It proposes that there is no "creator" or "created"; only "creation." All are a part of god and god is a part of all.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Monistic thought or Pantheism doesn't really contradict the notion of one Creator or main power containing the substance of all things.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are very different things. Monotheism (in the abrahamic religions) proposes that there is a god, who creates the world and the people in it, who are distinct from him. It is specifically dualistic.

Monism is non-dualistic. It proposes that there is no "creator" or "created"; only "creation." All are a part of god and god is a part of all.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the philosophical sense there is a huge difference, but in the practical sense there isn't. People can claim to be part of god, but they are still limited in their actions and are subject to the higher powers of nature which are "god" too.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
In the philosophical sense there is a huge difference, but in the practical sense there isn't. People can claim to be part of god, but they are still limited in their actions and are subject to the higher powers of nature which are "god" too.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is how you define the practical sense, aren't one's beliefs irrelevent? Secular atheists are limited in their actions and subject to higher powers (natural law), there's no denying that.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the philosophical sense there is a huge difference, but in the practical sense there isn't. People can claim to be part of god, but they are still limited in their actions and are subject to the higher powers of nature which are "god" too.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is how you define the practical sense, aren't one's beliefs irrelevent? Secular atheists are limited in their actions and subject to higher powers (natural law), there's no denying that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, beliefs are irrelevant in application of natural law. But I don't see how that changes the innate desire to worship the lawgiver or conduct rituals that correspond to one's belief.

Nobody is quite as good at organizing irrelevant holidays, parades, or hero worship like secular atheist states.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Folks, I’m really bummed out. My dad died recently, I just got off a miserable relationship, and I find myself back in my hometown, mostly to dry out ( keep away from drugs, alcohol et cetera ).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to hear about the tough times. Sounds like you are taking the right approach to cope with it all, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Where in Maslow’s hierarchy does he mention a need to worship?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's very clearly covered in level 3 -- love and belongingness. As I understand, he doesn't postulate that everyone needs to worship, but that for some people, it could be the best way to satisfy their level 3 needs.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it vomit inducing when this stuff is jammed down my throat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, even though I'm a theist. Talking to some Jehova's witnesses, Mormons, and other aggressive, pro-active, recruit-more-followers-type theists, I find they agree that ramming something you don't want down your throat is wrong, but they need to see clear evidence that you don't want it before they will acknowledge any wrongdoing. If you engage in discussion about the topic at all, they will see it as a sign that you have some interest and therefore they are not ramming anything down your throat.

[ QUOTE ]
I find the whole church thing of externalizing morality ( do what your leaders tell you ) to be repugnant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would recommend to reject church then, but not God. These devious methods are used on people who won't get the message any other way. They are too dumb to have direct contact with the Lord and so they need a fallible, sinful intermediary. You may be intelligent enough not to require a middleman, so why not give it a try?

[ QUOTE ]
In my humble opinion, morality ought to come from within. One should take actions because one wishes to, rather than because one is told to.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, as it applies to intelligent person. Suppose, though, that you are one of those intelligent people, yet there are millions of dumdums out there who are incapable of thinking for themselves. They will flock to SOMEONE who gives them what they want, ie. nice-sounding slogans designed to dupe them in exchange for larger-than-life promises that they will somehow believe, mainly because of their stupidity. Now if you had to choose between the church and the advertising industry to control these people, wouldn't you choose the church as the lesser of the two evils? Is there a REALISTIC third option for them?

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people feel a need to do this?


[/ QUOTE ]

Chances are their motivations are similar to my motivations for writing this post...

They want to recruit more people on their side of their struggle to improve their chances of success.

The difference between them and me, though, is that I recognize your above-average intelligence while they assume you're a random dumdum and try a pitch which works on a lot of them but clearly backfires with you, even though there may be fundamental agreement on the big issues (which, IMO, is the most important, even to them, although it's often hard to see it)

[godBoy]

Christ made it clear how simple it was to reach heaven.. This type of continual earning of salvation is bs. Worship is not about us trying to reach heaven when we die, it's to reach it in the here and now.

[Nielsio]

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Worl...sesofmind.shtml (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.shtml)

[yukoncpa]

Thanks Darryl and Niesio for your reply’s. I remember Borodog, a while ago, posted about the viral mind Memes.
Darryl makes several good points. This is so true: “If you engage in discussion about the topic at all, they will see it as a sign that you have some interest and therefore they are not ramming anything down your throat.”

I have a weakness of being overly polite. It’s too bad, you have to be down right rude ( perhaps firm is a better word ) to some of these people before they grasp that you’re really not interested.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks Darryl and Niesio for your reply’s. I remember Borodog, a while ago, posted about the viral mind Memes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the article? It's a good read. You can skip the part about the computer analogy.

Also:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3

Let me know what you think.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me know what you think.


[/ QUOTE ]

I enjoyed this: “One is tempted to quote Lewis Carroll's White Queen, who, in response to Alice's ``One can't believe impossible things'' retorted ``I daresay you haven't had much practice... When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Religions are like this. If you wait until you’re 40 years old to peep inside a church for the first time, you’ll observe some extremely bizarre behavior that the rest of the congregation is taking for granted as “normal”.

Some mind viruses may not be bad and may indeed do some good for the host. I was impressed by his discussion of how “spongy” a child’s brain is; how it can soak up all sorts of information, like language. A virus that infects children’s brains is the belief in Santa Clause, but I don’t see how this can be a bad thing.

Perhaps “virus” shouldn’t be thought of in the pejorative sense, but merely as a framework in which all ideas are spread ( good and bad ).

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
A virus that infects children’s brains is the belief in Santa Clause, but I don’t see how this can be a bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will after you listen to the podcast mp3 file.


[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps “virus” shouldn’t be thought of in the pejorative sense, but merely as a framework in which all ideas are spread ( good and bad ).

[/ QUOTE ]

The important thing to understand about virusses is that they are self-serving. And we use the scientific method of logic, consistency and empiricism to judge truth from falsehood. So it is the method of spreading of ideas that you should be critical of (outside of consistency, etc). As religion certainly is a virus of the mind, it is not spread through this method; so it leaves the only other way of spreading ideas: manipulation, pressure, false arguments from morality, etc.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A virus that infects children’s brains is the belief in Santa Clause, but I don’t see how this can be a bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will after you listen to the podcast mp3 file.


[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps “virus” shouldn’t be thought of in the pejorative sense, but merely as a framework in which all ideas are spread ( good and bad ).

[/ QUOTE ]

The important thing to understand about virusses is that they are self-serving. And we use the scientific method of logic, consistency and empiricism to judge truth from falsehood. So it is the method of spreading of ideas that you should be critical of (outside of consistency, etc). As religion certainly is a virus of the mind, it is not spread through this method; so it leaves the only other way of spreading ideas: manipulation, pressure, false arguments from morality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's more to it than that. The religon virus makes the host feel good, it feeds deep seated desires for importance, meaning, hope etc. Also, it may well make the host behave in a way that is of benefit to the host.

It inhabits the mind in the same way music does, truth has nothing to do with it. An interesting thing about religon is that it independent of the truth of the belief, religon could be good for the host and false.

chez

[RJT]

Yukon,

[ QUOTE ]
…Religions are like this. If you wait until you’re 40 years old to peep inside a church for the first time, you’ll observe some extremely bizarre behavior that the rest of the congregation is taking for granted as “normal”...

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you will enter one and observe it on very superficial level. What you witnessed was a minister preaching to the faithful. He wasn’t trying to convince folk to donate. These people already find such behavior acceptable. The main purpose in sermons during liturgies is continuing education to the faithful. In Christian services a review of the scripture that was read prior to the sermon is normally the topic of the sermon. The minister usually explains and expands on the idea of the words from the Bible just read.

The money part relates to charity. I can’t evaluate the particular sermon you heard nor the minister preaching (he could have be really bad, some are), but the context is very relevant. You need to keep in mind to whom (the faithful) he was talking and about what (should have related to charity or something similar, generally speaking.)

Your experience is no different than someone who knows nothing about poker watching the WSOP final table on TV. One can look at it and say, “These guys are idiots. They risk all of their chips on xx offsuit. (This is not to say the service you went to wasn‘t totally off the wall - some are.)


Btw, best of luck with the things you are dealing with at the moment.

RJT

[RJT]

Nielsio,

[ QUOTE ]
…And we use the scientific method of logic, consistency and empiricism to judge truth from falsehood. So it is the method of spreading of ideas that you should be critical of (outside of consistency, etc). As religion certainly is a virus of the mind, it is not spread through this method; …

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope when you used the word “we” in the first sentence above that you were using it in the collective way only and not literally. That is to say, I hope you personally don’t do science.

Because if this:

[ QUOTE ]
…so it leaves the only other way of spreading ideas: manipulation, pressure, false arguments from morality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

is your idea of empiricism “we” (the non-scientific world) are in trouble.

RJT

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielsio,

[ QUOTE ]
…And we use the scientific method of logic, consistency and empiricism to judge truth from falsehood. So it is the method of spreading of ideas that you should be critical of (outside of consistency, etc). As religion certainly is a virus of the mind, it is not spread through this method; …

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope when you used the word “we” in the first sentence above that you were using it in the collective way only and not literally. That is to say, I hope you personally don’t do science.

Because if this:

[ QUOTE ]
…so it leaves the only other way of spreading ideas: manipulation, pressure, false arguments from morality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

is your idea of empiricism “we” (the non-scientific world) are in trouble.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Learn to read

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
As religion certainly is a virus of the mind, it is not spread through this method: so it leaves the only other way of spreading ideas: manipulation, pressure, false arguments from morality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read that as:

Religion spreads its ideas through manipulation, pressure and false arguments from morality ,etc.

So religion spreads its ideas through manipulation.
Religion pressures its follows.
Religion has false arguments from morality. (I am not even sure what that means.)

Please correct my reading comprehension.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As religion certainly is a virus of the mind, it is not spread through this method: so it leaves the only other way of spreading ideas: manipulation, pressure, false arguments from morality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read that as:

Religion spreads its ideas through manipulation, pressure and false arguments from morality ,etc.

So religion spreads its ideas through manipulation.
Religion pressures its follows.
Religion has false arguments from morality. (I am not even sure what that means.)

Please correct my reading comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As religion certainly is a virus of the mind, it is not spread through this method: so it leaves the only other way of spreading ideas: manipulation, pressure, false arguments from morality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read that as:

Religion spreads its ideas through manipulation, pressure and false arguments from morality ,etc.

So religion spreads its ideas through manipulation.
Religion pressures its follows.
Religion has false arguments from morality. (I am not even sure what that means.)

Please correct my reading comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I was correct. So I stand by my original point.

Perhaps I wasn’t’ clear enough with my point. What I am saying is - if that is your experience of what Religion is ( your empirical data) then “we” (the non-scientific community) are in trouble. That isn’t how Religion works.

If that has been your experience, then you either have observed Religion practiced poorly and make judgments using bad data or observed wrongly what you saw.

Btw, can you please explain what you mean by “false arguments from morality”? Do you mean one starts with a certain morality then makes false arguments - if so what is the source of the morality? Or do you mean that one makes false arguments and attributes it to morality? Or do you mean something else?

RJT

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As religion certainly is a virus of the mind, it is not spread through this method: so it leaves the only other way of spreading ideas: manipulation, pressure, false arguments from morality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read that as:

Religion spreads its ideas through manipulation, pressure and false arguments from morality ,etc.

So religion spreads its ideas through manipulation.
Religion pressures its follows.
Religion has false arguments from morality. (I am not even sure what that means.)

Please correct my reading comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I was correct. So I stand by my original point.

Perhaps I wasn’t’ clear enough with my point. What I am saying is - if that is your experience of what Religion is ( your empirical data) then “we” (the non-scientific community) are in trouble. That isn’t how Religion works.

If that has been your experience, then you either have observed Religion practiced poorly and make judgments using bad data or observed wrongly what you saw.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying there is a theory of religion x?

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, can you please explain what you mean by “false arguments from morality”? Do you mean one starts with a certain morality then makes false arguments - if so what is the source of the morality? Or do you mean that one makes false arguments and attributes it to morality? Or do you mean something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

A false argument from morality is an argument that appeals to your biological sense of morality (morality rules the world, people do things because they think it is good), however those arguments are false and thus immoral.

These false arguments from morality are easily recognized as they are not consistent.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux7.html

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As religion certainly is a virus of the mind, it is not spread through this method: so it leaves the only other way of spreading ideas: manipulation, pressure, false arguments from morality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read that as:

Religion spreads its ideas through manipulation, pressure and false arguments from morality ,etc.

So religion spreads its ideas through manipulation.
Religion pressures its follows.
Religion has false arguments from morality. (I am not even sure what that means.)

Please correct my reading comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I was correct. So I stand by my original point.

Perhaps I wasn’t’ clear enough with my point. What I am saying is - if that is your experience of what Religion is ( your empirical data) then “we” (the non-scientific community) are in trouble. That isn’t how Religion works.

If that has been your experience, then you either have observed Religion practiced poorly and make judgments using bad data or observed wrongly what you saw.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying there is a theory of religion x?

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, can you please explain what you mean by “false arguments from morality”? Do you mean one starts with a certain morality then makes false arguments - if so what is the source of the morality? Or do you mean that one makes false arguments and attributes it to morality? Or do you mean something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

A false argument from morality is an argument that appeals to your biological sense of morality (morality rules the world, people do things because they think it is good), however those arguments are false and thus immoral.

These false arguments from morality are easily recognized as they are not consistent.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux7.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Can anyone else help me out here? I guess I am an idiot.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As religion certainly is a virus of the mind, it is not spread through this method: so it leaves the only other way of spreading ideas: manipulation, pressure, false arguments from morality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read that as:

Religion spreads its ideas through manipulation, pressure and false arguments from morality ,etc.

So religion spreads its ideas through manipulation.
Religion pressures its follows.
Religion has false arguments from morality. (I am not even sure what that means.)

Please correct my reading comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I was correct. So I stand by my original point.

Perhaps I wasn’t’ clear enough with my point. What I am saying is - if that is your experience of what Religion is ( your empirical data) then “we” (the non-scientific community) are in trouble. That isn’t how Religion works.

If that has been your experience, then you either have observed Religion practiced poorly and make judgments using bad data or observed wrongly what you saw.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying there is a theory of religion x?

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, can you please explain what you mean by “false arguments from morality”? Do you mean one starts with a certain morality then makes false arguments - if so what is the source of the morality? Or do you mean that one makes false arguments and attributes it to morality? Or do you mean something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

A false argument from morality is an argument that appeals to your biological sense of morality (morality rules the world, people do things because they think it is good), however those arguments are false and thus immoral.

These false arguments from morality are easily recognized as they are not consistent.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux7.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Can anyone else help me out here? I guess I am an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Guess again /images/graemlins/smile.gif

From the link [ QUOTE ]
promised to write about the argument from morality – which is also, in my view, how we will win – and so here it is.


[/ QUOTE ]
How we will win what ??

chez

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone else help me out here? I guess I am an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take every chance you get to think for yourself.

The question is simple: can religion be explained (definitions, causality, logic, etc), is there a theory of religion x, can it be disproven in any way, etc. ?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
How we will win what ??

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux6.html

http://ca.geocities.com/s.molyneux@rogers.com/Essays/politics/future_danger.htm

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How we will win what ??

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux6.html

http://ca.geocities.com/s.molyneux@rogers.com/Essays/politics/future_danger.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
No thanks, reading one of his diatribes was bad enough. if you can explain what his trying to win and from whom then please go ahead.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone else help me out here? I guess I am an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stefan Molyneux claims to be/have been a comedian. I guess the link is part of his repertoire. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How we will win what ??

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux6.html

http://ca.geocities.com/s.molyneux@rogers.com/Essays/politics/future_danger.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
No thanks, reading one of his diatribes was bad enough. if you can explain what his trying to win and from whom then please go ahead.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The fight of redefining the good (especially in terms of violence, the state, religion, the family, etc.).

[RJT]

Thanks chez and Midge. Wasn't sure if I missed something or not.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How we will win what ??

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux6.html

http://ca.geocities.com/s.molyneux@rogers.com/Essays/politics/future_danger.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
No thanks, reading one of his diatribes was bad enough. if you can explain what his trying to win and from whom then please go ahead.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The fight of redefining the good (especially in terms of violence, the state, religion, the family, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

Get back to us when you redefine it then.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks chez and Midge. Wasn't sure if I missed something or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a joke?

A bunch of guys blurp out a couple of ad hominems and you feel completely safe with your ideas again even though you got some good criticism of your logic?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How we will win what ??

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux6.html

http://ca.geocities.com/s.molyneux@rogers.com/Essays/politics/future_danger.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
No thanks, reading one of his diatribes was bad enough. if you can explain what his trying to win and from whom then please go ahead.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The fight of redefining the good (especially in terms of violence, the state, religion, the family, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

Get back to us when you redefine it then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, that's it. You're on ignore. Weak conformist..

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How we will win what ??

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux6.html

http://ca.geocities.com/s.molyneux@rogers.com/Essays/politics/future_danger.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
No thanks, reading one of his diatribes was bad enough. if you can explain what his trying to win and from whom then please go ahead.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The fight of redefining the good (especially in terms of violence, the state, religion, the family, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]
That cant be right.

That fight has winners and losers.
Morality helps win the fight - he says
If morality is good then winning the fight must be good
whats good for one is good for all - he says
therefore winning is good for all
winning this fight means others not winning it
therefore winning this fight isn't good
therfore this morality is inconsistent
therefore this morality is immoral

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How we will win what ??

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux6.html

http://ca.geocities.com/s.molyneux@rogers.com/Essays/politics/future_danger.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
No thanks, reading one of his diatribes was bad enough. if you can explain what his trying to win and from whom then please go ahead.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The fight of redefining the good (especially in terms of violence, the state, religion, the family, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

Get back to us when you redefine it then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, that's it. You're on ignore. Weak conformist..

[/ QUOTE ]

That was easy.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks chez and Midge. Wasn't sure if I missed something or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

the mark of the cult
[ QUOTE ]
The argument from morality can cost you friends, family, community – and so approach it with courage, and understand that, once you decide to use it, your life will never again be the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
That cant be right.


That fight has winners and losers.
Morality helps win the fight - he says
If morality is good then winning the fight must be good
whats good for one is good for all - he says
therefore winning is good for all
winning this fight means others not winning it
therefore winning this fight isn't good
therfore this morality is inconsistent
therefore this morality is immoral

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a nice little sequence. The lie is on line 4 IMO (the line in bold above). Dudes for whom popularity is important can't afford to say anything else because they'd then have to say who it's bad for and that would create quite a stir which would then jeopardize their popularity.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That cant be right.


That fight has winners and losers.
Morality helps win the fight - he says
If morality is good then winning the fight must be good
whats good for one is good for all - he says
therefore winning is good for all
winning this fight means others not winning it
therefore winning this fight isn't good
therfore this morality is inconsistent
therefore this morality is immoral

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a nice little sequence. The lie is on line 4 IMO (the line in bold above). Dudes for whom popularity is important can't afford to say anything else because they'd then have to say who it's bad for and that would create quite a stir which would then jeopardize their popularity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Also the idea that an inconstant morality is immoral is wrong. Being moral does not require perfection and a failure to be consistent at all times is at worst a small lack of moralty and probably a good thing in itself.

Its the second sign of the cult. If you don't obey the rules then you're bad. Of course the guy is more intelligent and persuasive than his followers so he makes the rules and can 'demonstrate' why anything else is inconsistent.

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the guy is more intelligent and persuasive than his followers so he makes the rules and can 'demonstrate' why anything else is inconsistent.


[/ QUOTE ]

... until an astute person comes along and points out an important contradiction. Then his reaction becomes very revealing. With the convenience of one-way media, though, there are plenty of ways to avoid having to react unfortunately.

If one does not genuinely strive for internal consistency, and that means honestly considering and responding to all sorts of objections, then there is a ceiling above which one cannot go in terms of morality IMO. Giving oneself such a ceiling casts great doubts about how serious one is about truly being moral.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the guy is more intelligent and persuasive than his followers so he makes the rules and can 'demonstrate' why anything else is inconsistent.


[/ QUOTE ]

... until an astute person comes along and points out an important contradiction. Then his reaction becomes very revealing. With the convenience of one-way media, though, there are plenty of ways to avoid having to react unfortunately.

If one does not genuinely strive for internal consistency, and that means honestly considering and responding to all sorts of objections, then there is a ceiling above which one cannot go in terms of morality IMO. Giving oneself such a ceiling casts great doubts about how serious one is about truly being moral.

[/ QUOTE ]
but consistency can be a trap. You have some moral principles and then a situation comes up when your principles tell you to do something that you believe to be wrong. Then sticking with your principles is putting something else ahead of morality.

You can the say that the principles were wrong and search for some new ones but there's no reason to believe you will find them. Yet, you can still be moral.

chez

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
That fight has winners and losers.
Morality helps win the fight - he says
If morality is good then winning the fight must be good
whats good for one is good for all - he says
therefore winning is good for all
winning this fight means others not winning it
therefore winning this fight isn't good
therfore this morality is inconsistent
therefore this morality is immoral

[/ QUOTE ]

You have assumed the context of a zero-sum game.

Why?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That fight has winners and losers.
Morality helps win the fight - he says
If morality is good then winning the fight must be good
whats good for one is good for all - he says
therefore winning is good for all
winning this fight means others not winning it
therefore winning this fight isn't good
therfore this morality is inconsistent
therefore this morality is immoral

[/ QUOTE ]

You have assumed the context of a zero-sum game.

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt, there was context before.
[ QUOTE ]
The fight of redefining the good (especially in terms of violence, the state, religion, the family, etc.).


[/ QUOTE ]
If that's a fight, it has winners and losers

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
You can the say that the principles were wrong and search for some new ones but there's no reason to believe you will find them. Yet, you can still be moral.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but to go from "there's no reason to believe you will find them" to "therefore it's not even worth trying" is a cop out IMO.

Even if you never reach 100% consistency you can get to a higher level each day than the previous day and that makes it easier to be moral in the many complex situations that arise daily in which you don't have enough time to decide the proper moral action on the spot.

This will eventually give you a higher probability to act morally in a random future situation than if you never put any effort into being consistent IMO, all else being equal of course.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can the say that the principles were wrong and search for some new ones but there's no reason to believe you will find them. Yet, you can still be moral.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but to go from "there's no reason to believe you will find them" to "therefore it's not even worth trying" is a cop out IMO.

Even if you never reach 100% consistency you can get to a higher level each day than the previous day and that makes it easier to be moral in the many complex situations that arise daily in which you don't have enough time to decide the proper moral action on the spot.

This will eventually give you a higher probability to act morally in a random future situation than if you never put any effort into being consistent IMO, all else being equal of course.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont agree with this at all view though it may be correct, I think its a totally misconceived view of morality.

Either way I don't think its a cop out. I'm not sure why you think it is?, care to expand.

imo trying to be moral by following a set of rules is doomed to failure and tends towards being immoral so I dont see how it can be a moral cop out not to do it.

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Either way I don't think its a cop out. I'm not sure why you think it is?, care to expand.

imo trying to be moral by following a set of rules is doomed to failure and tends towards being immoral so I dont see how it can be a moral cop out not to do it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're saying that an intelligent person with some experience and a good natural sense for what's right and wrong will probably act more morally just by taking each situation one at a time and weighing it based on his own considerations, rather than by subscribing to some pre-packaged system of morals with an army of excellent salesmen that can convincingly overcome whatever objections anyone can raise.

Am I close?

If so, I agree!

What I'm saying basically is that we are all following some set of rules whether we articulate it or not, whether we are conscious of it or not. You have seen others try to follow a set of articulated rules and fail. OK fine. That's them, not you. Those are their rules, not yours.

I'm saying that trying to find out what your own rules are and approaching it consciously and rationally will eventually improve results over just following instinct. Naturally the work-in-progress rules are not to be followed blindly. At each point at which a moral decision must be made there could be an instinctive veto which says "ok, instinct now, work on inconsistencies later" and you're no worse off this way. Any time spent deliberating on the rules could only be a bonus.

And eventually there could be a big payoff like when the really important decisions need to be made. If the situation is somewhere between 40-60 and 60-40, then instinct might not get it right and so some basis for rational deliberation would need to exist to improve the decision. That basis would have to be some sort of near-consistent set of rules.

The situation may have a such a big impact that it alone was worth all the effort in discovering and refining the set of rules over the years. (It also comes in handy if you have kids and they get into their "why" phase /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

So if you use veto power when appropriate, it's hard to argue that doing this kind of internal (and external) search would not improve things. And anytime you deliberately forego an opportunity to improve things, assuming it's important to improve and that the amount of expected improvement is worth the effort, then I call that a cop out.

If the expected improvement is not worth the effort OTOH, then I wouldn't call it a cop out. I suppose there is some room for debate there.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
And eventually there could be a big payoff like when the really important decisions need to be made. If the situation is somewhere between 40-60 and 60-40, then instinct might not get it right and so some basis for rational deliberation would need to exist to improve the decision. That basis would have to be some sort of near-consistent set of rules.

So if you use veto power when appropriate, it's hard to argue that doing this kind of internal (and external) search would not improve things. And anytime you deliberately forego an opportunity to improve things, assuming it's important to improve and that the amount of expected improvement is worth the effort, then I call that a cop out.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can see that makes sense starting from the belief that morality is ruled based but it makes no sense if you realise that morality isn't rule based.

No consideration of rules will ever help with 60:40 moral decisions imo, I'd argue the reverse which is that any system of rules that helps decide 60:40 situation isn't moral and is often immoral.

So the cop out bit is missing what we disagree about. In my view the equivalent to your considering rules, is to consider potential situations so a) you dont have to examine your moral feelings when there isn't time and more importantly b) you know which situations are likely to lead to bad moral actions and so can avoid them.

chez

[yukoncpa]

link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=38 18740&Searchpage=1&Main=3808623&Words=%26quot%3Bmo rally+irresponsible%26quot%3B+maurile&topic=&Searc h=true#Post3818740)

Hi Chezlaw,
I’ve been reading your’s and Daryl’s posts with interest. In the above link, Maurile, posited that the very act of worship is morally irresponsible. The reason I did a search for this, is because at one time, I could have sworn Maurile claimed that worship is immoral. But perhaps my memory doesn’t serve me and “Morally irresponsible” were his only words.
To me, worship is praying, singing, doing the hallelujah Jesus thing et cetera. I don’t see what’s immoral about any of this. Since Maurile isn’t posting anymore, could you please give your thoughts on this?
Thanks

[MidGe]

Hello yukoncpa,

sorry for barging in if unwanted. But I think that Maurile position is similar to the one I mentionned number of times. That is if there was a god as conceived by christians, then he is responsible for a lot of suffering. That is evil and therefore it is immoral to worship such an entity.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Hello yukoncpa,

sorry for barging in if unwanted. But I think that Maurile position is similar to the one I mentionned number of times. That is if there was a god as conceived by christians, then he is responsible for a lot of suffering. That is evil and therefore it is immoral to worship such an entity.



[/ QUOTE ]

You're never unwanted Midge, you are certainly one of my most favorite posters. Thanks for the info. I shouldn't of specified Chezlaw. Daryl or anyone may respond.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Hello yukoncpa,

sorry for barging in if unwanted. But I think that Maurile position is similar to the one I mentionned number of times. That is if there was a god as conceived by christians, then he is responsible for a lot of suffering. That is evil and therefore it is immoral to worship such an entity.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Midge,
If you truly don’t know that the God you are worshiping is evil, but rather, in your opinion, he is a God of love, then how is it possible that singing to him and praising him ( within the confines of your church) is immoral? You’re not doing others any harm by these specific acts.

[MidGe]

agreed... a big "if" though! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
agreed... a big "if" though!



[/ QUOTE ]

But the “if” is everything. There’s not a Christian alive that thinks he is worshiping an evil God. How can ignorance be immoral? As long as the Christian doesn’t infringe on another persons happiness, is his act of worship in and of itself an immoral act?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see that makes sense starting from the belief that morality is ruled based but it makes no sense if you realise that morality isn't rule based.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this with no success so far. Do you mean there aren't any rules at all, or just that whatever rules there are, there is no point in paying attention to them?

If there are no rules, then how can you know what morality is at all? A definition is a rule after all, no?

Is your approach just to trust your feelings without ever second-guessing them? If so, how can you be sure this is optimal? And if it's not optimal, why not try to improve?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, worship is praying, singing, doing the hallelujah Jesus thing et cetera.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think those are just rituals and acts which are designed to show worship, but they may not represent genuine worship if the person is just play-acting to satisfy expectations placed on him by his environment or whatever other reasons.

OTOH a stoic bus passenger may be deeply worshipping his god as he boards the 8:15 into the city donning his usual poker face.

True worship happens on the inside IMO, but I agree it makes more sense to focus on actions since thoughts can't be effectively policed anyway (thank God!)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=38 18740&Searchpage=1&Main=3808623&Words=%26quot%3Bmo rally+irresponsible%26quot%3B+maurile&topic=&Searc h=true#Post3818740)

Hi Chezlaw,
I’ve been reading your’s and Daryl’s posts with interest. In the above link, Maurile, posited that the very act of worship is morally irresponsible. The reason I did a search for this, is because at one time, I could have sworn Maurile claimed that worship is immoral. But perhaps my memory doesn’t serve me and “Morally irresponsible” were his only words.
To me, worship is praying, singing, doing the hallelujah Jesus thing et cetera. I don’t see what’s immoral about any of this. Since Maurile isn’t posting anymore, could you please give your thoughts on this?
Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that worship is moral or immoral. In general its the wrong sort of thing, like asking if watching cricket is moral or not.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can see that makes sense starting from the belief that morality is ruled based but it makes no sense if you realise that morality isn't rule based.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this with no success so far. Do you mean there aren't any rules at all, or just that whatever rules there are, there is no point in paying attention to them?

If there are no rules, then how can you know what morality is at all? A definition is a rule after all, no?

Is your approach just to trust your feelings without ever second-guessing them? If so, how can you be sure this is optimal? And if it's not optimal, why not try to improve?

[/ QUOTE ]
We're miles apart. You can't understand what I'm saying about rules because you want to optimise something. I don't think morality is about optimising something and much of the time optimising something in the name of morality is immoral.

chez