• Defining what the Science of Morality Studies
    Interestingly, for Hegel, this historical question is central the ethics proper. Both what we "have done," and what we "ought to do," are ultimately driven by reason's propelling humanity towards the accomplishment of human freedom.Count Timothy von Icarus

    Freedom from what?

    I for one, would rather have a sense of duty than freedom. I want a life based on principles, not a life without them. And I want a society that values virtues, duty, principles, and an understanding of being part of something much bigger than myself.

    I forgot to say I want liberty that is curbed with morals.
  • Defining what the Science of Morality Studies
    Descartes wanted to achieve a scientific moral code. Due to the fact he couldn't, he came up with a provisional morality whose maxims, more or less based on common sense, are given in the Discourse.Lionino

    "God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice." Cicero
  • Defining what the Science of Morality Studies
    Many sources talk about the science of morality, but I find no agreement on how to define what it studies.Mark S

    The relationship between cause and effect.
  • What is 'Right' or 'Wrong' in the Politics of Morality and Ideas of Political Correctness?
    As for the idea of political correctness as a 'horror show', I am wondering who determines what the horror is exactly?Jack Cummins

    :scream: Nazi, Germany-fascism! The essentials for that are firmly planted in the US because it adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education. The good intentions of a fascist political organization are good but poorly thought out.
  • What is 'Right' or 'Wrong' in the Politics of Morality and Ideas of Political Correctness?
    I was going to start a thread about Christian Nationalism and Shia law and Muslims. In the US past people did not discuss religion as we do today, and they did not blend religion and politics because they held a passion for liberty. That is all changed and today. We have much to fear from Christian Nationalist as we reason to fear Shia law and Muslims. The only difference between the Christian Nationalist and Muslims is the Christian Nationalist out number the Muslims. Both want to control us through politics because both believe this is pleasing to God.

    Never mind what such belief has to do with the state controlling everyone, and fascism, and the end of liberty. Both Christian Nationalists and Muslims want the power of God in their hands, to interpret and enforce the will of God as they see fit.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Yes, I’m not speaking about any particular mythology, or even necessarily God. (I did use dead grandma to make the same point.) I’m saying if there was any unexplainable physical event someone experienced (maybe unexplained because they were stupid), but unexplained by all reason they can muster, AND, that fantastical miracle forced into their face came with words and a message, AND those words showed a meaning to that person that was bigger than they knew before - then they might say “no wonder the bush didn’t burn, or the phoenix rose from the ashes. Something even more than all of this happened here. I am now included in this new meaning, by hearing this new message.”

    You don’t have to say more here. The point is made. Amadeus gets it and rejects it.

    I do think I’d need a pretty big, crazy miracle, with some trusted witnesses around maybe to compare notes, before I delved to deeply into the message. But I’m just guessing how I’d be listening to a “sprit” or something.
    Fire Ologist

    This argument might do better in a different thread. What exactly is the experience? Words can be "heard" but they do not "show" meaning.

    Any sense of meaning comes from the thoughts of the person hearing the words. We are observing animals and attempting to explain the meaning of the noises they make. Only after we have ascribed meaning to the sound do we know the meaning of the sound. Otherwise, the meaning is not implicit in the sound.

    If someone believes a burning bush and a loud voice means a god is present, that meaning is based on what that person believes. In other words, you have to believe in gods and that gods do such things, before you can think that is the meaning of the moment.

    Nonbelievers just can not believe such stories. If I had an experience like that, I might look for aliens but not a god.
  • Deductive Logic, Memory, and a new term?
    If you are interested in how deductive logic 'emerges' from neural networks, you might like G. Spencer Brown's The Laws of Formunenlightened

    Now that is a little more interesting than the Bible and it goes nicely with my math books. Thank you.
  • Deductive Logic, Memory, and a new term?
    Retrospective accuracy is not a commonly recognized scientific term or concept in the field of science or research. It does not have a specific definition or understanding within the scientific community.
    However, based on the words themselves, "retrospective accuracy" could potentially refer to the accuracy of information or data collected or analyzed after an event or study has taken place, looking back in time. This could involve the evaluation of past records, memories, or historical data to assess the accuracy of previous assessments or predictions. It could be a way of determining how well something was predicted or measured in hindsight.
    Josh Alfred

    As I read this, what I thought you were talking about was how we judge if something is believable or not. For example, one may be persuaded to believe the mythology of Christianity, if one already holds an idea of gods who make things happen and who punish or reward humans. Whereas, if one had no concept of such supernatural beings, the mythology of a god punishing sinners and saving people, may not be believable. Do my beliefs make what is said of a god a possible reality? How empirical is that?
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    So my point was there may be more reason to think a burning bush was an impossible miracle of God, not because the bush burned but wasn’t burned, but because of the words that were communicated. Something, to that person (not you, I don’t know what words might give you pause, because I’m not God), something to that person brought awe and fear and inspiration and power, something overwhelming making one willing to say God, just because of the words spoken.Fire Ologist

    How about this.... You are speaking of a mythology and not about a god. Do you have anything to say of the concept of "god" that is not dependent on the God of Abraham mythology?
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    The United states likes to think of itself one of the strongest democracies. But it does not rank with Europe, Canada and Australia, as much as with India, Brazil and Indonesia.Banno

    This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread but here is information about the space efforts made by all the nations. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-space-programs

    It was the USSR that was the first to enter space. The Sputnik launch changed everything!!! That is one of my most passionate arguments because it is what resulted in the 1958 National Defense Education Act that replaced US liberal education with education for technology. https://www.nasa.gov/history/sputnik/index.html

    Also if you follow my arguments, I credit the Prussians and Hilter's Germany for where the USA is today. Had it not been for the Prussian bureaucratic order and WWII and the USSR developing a nuclear weapon and a satellite that circled earth, the USA would not be the country it is today. Like if you and others want to argue with me about perceived US elitism, I am willing but that should be a different thread. I don't think my arguments are the arguments you expect from a US citizen.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Sis, it is not an emergency. There are always enough competing selfish interests to balance things out.L'éléphant

    Hum, I should never post when In a rush. My post was missing a lot of words. But to get back on subject, I don't think selfish interest are much good compared to having a good understanding of what is so and why.

    "Unless we're motivated by principle in our voting, we walk into a mirrored echo chamber, where there's no coherence," Kucinich
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    am currently watching Fareed Zakaria's Sunday program on CNN. During his "Fareed's Take" segment at the beginning of the show, Zakaria discusses religiosity and political events in the US and elsewhere.

    It's worth checking out for people interested in this topic.
    wonderer1

    Thank you. He seems well-informed and pleasantly rational. He says it as it is without emotionalism. I think he is right up there with Walter Cronkite. :up:
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Doesn’t mean it might not still be a hallucination or just a dream, or a fantasy wish, but if what was said really meant something, and hit home to you, and it was new, you might have to wonder about God.Fire Ologist

    Reading these posts and thinking about them often is an enlightening experience. I am holding a new concept or get a deeper meaning of a concept and then wonder why it took me so long to realize it before. When we old we have a much broader perspective. We may have trouble learning facts, but our ability to understand meanings increases.

    However, if Einstien were to speak to me about math concepts, I am quite sure I would not understand him. If God spoke to me, he would have to make it very simple. It worries me when someone thinks s/he can know the word of God and God's will. I don't think things work that way.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Notice the contradiction in "Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace." Does soft despotism give the illusion of control or induce fear?

    Sure, there were mistakes made in education, as there were in health, economics, International relations. None of these are determinative of the course of history.

    Perhaps the problem is a turning against 'merca's own expression of liberal values. Or were they ever broadly understood?
    Banno


    What a delicious question about despots!!! How do we organize ourselves so the Government can do what Government has to do? The answer may not be that easy. I kind of what to stick with the subject of the thread so I will point out that the organization problem was a big problem for the Church. The Church had to rely on kings to take care of worldly matters. In the competition for power and authority, some kings aligned themselves with the Church to legitimize their claim to power and authority. Then the Church loses the struggle for power and Protestants are broken up seats of power that in the US is no power at all without the blessing of the Government. :lol:

    This gets even messier because when Franklin Roosevelt came to power he with the help of Hoover adopted the Prussian model that is Prussian military bureaucracy applied to the masses. This is a huge shift if power and authority away from the people, and the people in the US are clueless. They have no idea that this happened and the are virtually powerless because they are so ignorant of the bureaucratic change and what it has to do with them.

    Hum, why would say education does not influence the flow of history? :gasp: How did you come to that notion?

    “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” Aristotle

    "Give us a child till he's 7 and we'll have him for life." a Jesuit

    "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
    Vladimir Lenin

    Every nation prepares its young for life, just as tribal people did with storytelling and rituals. The word "civilize" means to make another one of us. In some ways, this is even more important in a nation dependent on technology. The US has forgotten what education has to do with being civilized and it may self-destruct as culture wars tear us apart. We began preparing our young to be products for industry. Immigrants who have not had this preparation are not of much value. For military and industrial reasons our children must be prepared as we are doing it but this is not the culture we once had that made us strong in wars.

    Oh yes, our liberal values were understood, but the meaning was not shared. In different degrees none Whites were excluded from the benefits of our nation, and most White people saw discrimination and exploitation of the powerless their right. Oh, oh, oh, this has so much to do with the change in our bureaucratic order but now I put so many points into this thread it has lost its coherence. My grandmother walked away from a teaching job when the Principle interfered with her authority in the classroom and today we are seeing teachers, nurses, and doctors walk away from the corporate control of them. Today's reality is not the one I grew up with, where women accepted low pay or did things for no pay because they believed what they were doing was the right thing to do and very meaningful. Our liberty is tied to a sense of dignity and self-worth. We have destroyed that.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    There are well known problems with historicism. That civilisations collapse is a Western notion, an expectation that we must reenact the fall of Rome. The collapse of the British Empire was felt keenly in the decline of Great Britain. It did not bring with it social collapse in Australia, Canada, India, and Africa, these nations seeing it instead mostly as an opportunity. The end of the 'mercan hegemony will similarly have the greatest impact inside that nation.Banno

    I think our economies are intertwined and the fall of the US would strongly impact other economies and possibly technological advancement as well. Which other country could maintain the satellites and earth studies? I expect China to become a technological leader but it is taking longer than I expected. Japan is very impressive but it is too small to have the economy for space projects. Again I am not confident of what I think but it sure is fun making the effort to think. What if the world united to save our planet and advance technology for the good of the whole world. :groan: That is not going to happen with religion or leaders like Trump because religion relies on a god not the potential of humanity. The religious still have not adjusted to reality of what we have done to feed the world, keep the young and old alive with medicine, improve life on earth with clean water and in-door plumbing, etc.. We have over come evils with science but the religious folks don't see it as what we have done with our desire and effort.

    I am watching college lectures about the rise and fall of South American civilizations and they also lived with a prediction of doom. I am thinking, their expectation of doom caused their doom just as it could cause ours. Whoopy, we could be entering a world war and prove all the religious people right about the will of God is to destroy us just it destroyed Mayans and Aztecs who walked away from the great cities.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    am not disagreeing. However, doesn't this apply, even if to varying degrees to: Communists, Capitalists, Racial Supremacists, Certain groups of Academics and Scholars, etc. Note also that while historically, the same might not have applied to "Hinduism," but the Hinduism of Modi?ENOAH

    I am out of time but want to say all this is very complex and it is my hope when have a good understanding of the complexity, we will gain power and avoid disaster. A lot is going on here beginning with evolution gave us some thinking power but enough to manage without a strong way to work together.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Democracy is underpinned by a liberal system of values. that system was distorted to individualism and greed in the Seventies, and has been exposed to oligarchic alternatives with the opening of trade and travel since then. Libertarian absurdities abound, community institutions are underfunded, the common wealth has been striped to feed private wealth.Banno

    I am reading and rereading what you said and that brings me to a second thought. Around 1835 Tocqueville wrote "Democracy in America" and he warned because of Christianity, Christian democraies would become despots.

    Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.[1]

    Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace.
    Wikipedia

    "habits of the heart" come through education and the US replaced its liberal education with education for technology and left moral training to the church in 1958. The US added training for technology to education in 1917 for military and industrial reasons but it kept its education for citizenship as a priority until the 1958 National Defense Education Act.

    Because of forum communication, this change seems to be universal, even in third-world countries. So the only question would be how might things have been different before leaving moral training to the Church? How has technology birthed a backlash against science? What might the New World Order have to do with destroying family order?
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    I agree with you but I don't know enough to organize that complexity in my head. I am also loath to give up the notion that this is related to education and a failure to understand the importance of culture and how it is transmitted. However, I want to know more.

    What about the book "Immoderate Greatness> Why Civilizations Fall" Might this book be worth buying?
    Book Overview
    *Immoderate Greatness* explains how a civilization's very magnitude conspires against it to cause downfall. Civilizations are hard-wired for self-destruction. They travel an arc from initial success to terminal decay and ultimate collapse due to intrinsic, inescapable biophysical limits combined with an inexorable trend toward moral decay and practical failure. Because our own civilization is global, its collapse will also be global, as well as uniquely devastating owing to the immensity of its population, complexity, and consumption. To avoid the common fate of all past civilizations will require a radical change in our ethos-to wit, the deliberate renunciation of greatness-lest we precipitate a dark age in which the arts and adornments of civilization are partially or completely lost. This description may be from another edition of this product. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/immoderate-greatness-why-civilizations-fail/9180382/item/7370178/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=pmax_high_vol_scarce_%2410_%2450&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwwr6wBhBcEiwAfMEQszmao1Nvr8VQL1R4emGu6cGu0hSDDjBWtbAQhuk2cgBNivMVNrFS6RoCo-MQAvD_BwE#idiq=7370178&edition=8527883
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    There is a tone of 'Mercan chauvinism in your posts. But your democracy is broken by far more than a touch of religious thinking.Banno

    Please explain. Do you mean you think that I think the democracy in the US is superior to all other nations? If so why do you think that?

    I so envy Europeans who in my opinion have a much better sense of democracy than Americans, and on the internet, I met a Syrian Professor who was amazing in his knowledge of democracy as it came from Greek philosophy and through the history of that region. Maybe we can establish some talking points?

    No one saw democracy in the Bible until there was literacy in Greek and Roman classics. That literature is essential to defending democracy and Americans stopped transmitting a culture based on that literature when liberal education in grade schools was replaced with education for technology and moral training was left up to the Church. God has not chosen Trump to be our leader. But evangelicals believe Trump is God's choice. These people have a lot of power.

    I am, trying to keep the focus on the subject of the thread. This is a matter of power and authority and the abuse of religion. In America Protestants were thrilled with science that was part of the break from Catholicism. Now they believe telling people to wear masks, wash their hands, and get vaccinated is a conspiracy of the government that did those things to have control over us, not because science says that is the best way to deal with a pandic. What is happening here, happened in Germany only today it is rural Evangelical Christians causing the problem not Nazis. The Evangicals can get the upper hand because of mass ignorance and emotional appeal, just as Nazis were able to win by being emotionally appealing to rural people with a strong belief that God is in control and evil is real like Satan and devils.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Thank you for bringing Hypatia's into the discussion. Can you expand on your comment about cultural/political importance. What Christians are loath to do is acknowledge what made America great was the people they call pagans. All around us is complete denial that Christianity pulled us into the Dark Age of ignorance and that did not end until the power of the Church was broken and Protestism with all its divisions was unable to gain the power of the Church on a national level, until maybe recently? Evangelicals lining up with political power could be the New Rome?
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    ↪Hanover, ↪Athena asked if there were a problem with the "God of Abraham religions that we might resolve with reason. ↪Ciceronianus suggested that it's "not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so". I am just pointing to a common root, the place from whence the idea that faith trumps rationality might issue.Banno

    I think you are right. But we can not be sure without a good fight. By that, I mean making a strong effort to raise awareness. This may not change the minds of strong believers but it may build the strength to oppose this threatening tragedy.

    Then comes the prediction of a Blood Bath. :chin: Our history is a history of blood baths that we learned about when Protestant-controlled schools taught the young about the Holy Wars and Chruch. We know during the US civil war both sides claimed God was on their side. I think we should take the threat of a blood bath seriously, and throw all our energy into raising awareness of history and why the US broke away from Christian Europe and created a New Social Order.

    In the book "Preparing for War" the author mentions how the belief that we are in the last days plays into this coming Holy War. What can we do to raise awareness?
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Yes, but it is also what happened in Germany, a strong Christian nation when the Nazi party rosed to power. I look at videos of Hitler and he is not at all appealing to me, but he was seen as very charismatic. So is Trump charismatic to some.

    Also, the Nazi party never stopped campaigning. It went to the rural areas and questioned people about what made them angry and then their speakers used this gathered information as subjects of speeches. They rented large buildings for these speeches and at times, used entertainment to attract people.

    This follows Christianity and the Prussian control of education that kept education focused on technology for industrial and military purposes. I think we underestimate the power of public education and the importance of culture. This brings me to the subject of the Protestant opposition to the Catholics having control of the US. This is a power and authority issue and nothing is more powerful at any time in history than what people believe is the "power and glory" of God. (Bush jr. and the invasion of Iraq to oppose evil.) We adopted everything German that we opposed in world wars. This blend of controlling education and setting its priority on preparing for war, and then the politics, and religion that go with this superpower. We are Nazi Germany (Holy Roman Empire) on steroids and it is awful that the Christians do not see this. Is there any chance of raising their awareness?

    You bring up awareness of what technology has to do with the problem. The Evangelical preachers with modern media have a huge advantage compared to the Nazi party doing surveys and then renting a dance hall to rile up support for the Nazi party.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    good is rewarded, evil is punished,schopenhauer1

    Yes, that is the understanding of logos that seems to be universal. The problem is knowing right from wrong. From one point of view cutting down the forest is a wonderful idea and from another point of view, it is a terrible idea. Then the ones who want to cut down the forest may come to an agreement with those who want to protect the forest and both sides get part of what they want. This thinking does not require religion, and denying non-religious people also weigh the good and the bad, is just wrong. I say so because I have dealt with Christians who think they have morals and people without God, do not have morals. While coming from a science point of view, science deniers lack morality and are the problem.

    How do we know truth?
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Yes that is an ominous change in the lexicon.

    Ideology enforcement is what I was ranting about. Having an ideology isn’t in itself bad. It is good actually. Encourages people to think if all goes well. At worst it is imposed on others or forced in society. Theron lies the problem
    Metaphyzik

    Today this forum is really challenging my poor little brain and I have come so close to saying something I would regret. I am by nature a conservative, and I was going to object to the long list of words related to ideology. My conservative self was jumping and screaming too many choices, too many choices. On an emotional level, I can 100% appreciate clear thinking that imposes "the right thought" on all of us.

    Your notion that that imposition might not be a good thing, wakes up my intellect. You used very strong stories to make the point of what is wrong with the leadership of tyrants.

    I know several people who didn't have a good start in life when they left home. Their home life may have been good or bad. Either way, they entered adulthood on a spectrum of fear to self-confidence. Christianity helped them deal with their fears, and socially, churches can be very supportive. That is a wonderful thing until we get to the downside of believing false things. For a while, Satanism was popular and filled the news with shocking stories. I don't think the belief in evil is a healthy belief. Taking the nation to war to destroy "evil" on the other side of the world, was not a good thing.

    Being an independent thinker and accepting the responsibility of citizenship can mean enduring uncomfortable feelings. Can anything be done about this?
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Thank you and I especially like "Correct, and I guess what I wrote can be interpreted one of two ways."

    I am struggling not with religion as much as with how we think. Empirical thinking is not natural. It is a learned system of reasoning. Gods do not manifest themselves on earth so we can not properly study them. I feel very nostalgic about worshipping a pharaoh and being a part of building his pyramid.
    I wish life were so simple, but my education made that impossible.

    It may not matter what individuals believe until we are no longer speaking of individuals. The authority and power of national leaders today have far greater ramifications than in the past.

    There never was a large population educated to think scientifically until the 21 century. This might matter more than knowing when all Jews were aware of Kosher foods, but that search for answers inspired my thinking. It might not matter when the Jews shared a concern about kosher food, but understanding how the idea spread does matter.

    Today, our culture war is a clash between different ways of determining the truth. Should we look for truth in the Bible or turn to science? The pandemic and how Trump managed it versus how Biden managed it makes the question of how we know truth a serious question. The decisions have global consequences. Where should the authority rest today, with the people?, with the pope?, with a president? What does education have to do with this?

    I think our Declaration of Independence is a declaration of individual responsibility. In a democracy, the people hold the responsibility of their government. Handling that responsibility without training for empirical thinking could be a problem. I don't think we can manipulate a god with our prayers and sacrifices unless that means giving up our dependence on fossil fuels. We will surely die if we do not get things right.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    This goes along with the uniquely Israelite spin on a god who protects his people if they maintain their faith in him.schopenhauer1

    :chin: Just about everyone had a patron god or goddess and around the world people have done all in their power to please the gods and goddesses. There is nothing unigue about believing the Nile or an irrigation ditch will flood or there will be a good harvest if a god/goddess is pleased and bad things happen when they are displeased. People turned on their leaders when it seemed obvious the gods no longer favored them. I don't understand what you said if you said others didn't have a god's protection.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    That is to say, there is no way you can read that text and not come away with the impetus of it, which is that faithfulness in God is what is necessary.schopenhauer1

    You put so much work into your post and I want to honor that. My questions are sincere wonderment, trying to figure out a puzzle about how we judge truth.

    Those men could not have experienced a god in an empirical way because that god is not made manifest on earth. So in want did they have faith? It seems to me they had a very high opinion of themselves, to think they could know god. What evidence of god were they using?
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Mao tse dong and the cultural revolution. Millions starve when farmers were supposed to do their own industry, and city workers grow their own crops.Metaphyzik

    It is my understanding Mao thought if seeds were planted deeper the plants would be better. Farmers knew better but the authority of Mao was unquestioned and strongly enforced. Only farmers far away from Mao's ability to control were able to plant crops properly, and this made matters worse. Farmers wanting to please Mao got plants from the far away farmers who had plants and they faked having a good crop. It makes me think of Trump and his denial of the science needed to limit the impact of a pandemic. Denial of science can cause a very serious problem and this why I write.

    I wrote of the Protestant opposition to the authority of the Pope, and I intend to wake Protestants up to the danger of giving authority and power to the wrong person. Democracy and our freedoms depend on science and ancient cultures, not a religion or leaders who deny science and attempt to have the power of Mao to rule over us.

    I like your opening statement
    IMHO there is no more problem with one religion more than another…. They are all capable of the worst traits imaginable.Metaphyzik

    From there you speak of ideology. There are different ways to understand that word. The changed meaning is alarming.

    i·de·ol·o·gy
    /ˌidēˈäləjē,ˌīdēˈäləjē/
    noun
    1.
    a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
    "the ideology of democracy"
    Similar:
    beliefs
    ideas
    ideals
    principles
    doctrine
    creed
    credo
    teaching
    dogma
    theory
    thesis
    tenets
    canon(s)
    conviction(s)
    persuasion
    opinions
    position
    ethics
    morals
    2.
    ARCHAIC
    the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.
    — Oxford Languages

    the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature. Is the most important definition because that is what separates an opinion from reason. This is a serious cultural matter. This is directly related to the change in education, our culture wars and the popularity of Trump or the power of the Pope. We are basing our notion of false or true on our feelings, not empirical thinking that demands a study of the subject.

    Please notice my irritating post when someone is finding fault with me. I may seem pity but it is about how we think and what this has to do with democracy. Putting me on the defensive and side-railing the thread instead of advancing arguments about the subject of disagreement has a cultural impact. (like mass murders) Democracy is rule by reason, not rule by passion. It evolves out of a notion of logus- reason, the controlling force of the universe. The Pope and Trump are not logos but they have a strong emotional impact on people. Democracy needs to be rule by reason to advance the human potential and that is what made America great, but education for that was ended and that brings the US to the cultures we have today. Winning an argument by finding fault in the poster does not advance knowledge.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    You've not described the decision process of either atheists or theists.Hanover

    The problem is your failure to understand what I said. If you want to maintain a discussion with me, do not begin your sentences with "You'. I am not the subject of this thread.
  • Christianity - an influence for good?
    I can not be sure if people are arguing for or against Christianity. I just know Christianity maintained kingdoms, a hierarchy of authority over the people, and the Bible is not a book for democracy. And Catholicism maintained a lot of ignorance. But Christians have not done much better because they also oppose science in education. All civilizations have benefitted from a religion. None of these religions is better than another and Christianity drove the West into a Dark Age that was not ended until there was widespread knowledge of Greek and Roman classics. The age of enlightenment and modern times changed by science came out of those past civilizations, not the Bible that held us in the dark ages.

    These oaths were basic to our democracy before education for technology replaced education for good judgment with education for technology and left moral training to the church.


    The Hippocratic Oath that doctors took came from ancient Greek.

    The Hippocratic Oath is an oath of ethics historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath — Wikipedia

    The Athenian Oath is important to democracy and something good might happen if children learn it in school.

    The Athenian Oath was recited by the citizens of Athens, Greece, more than 2,000 years ago. It is frequently referenced by civic leaders in modern times as a timeless code of civic responsibility.

    “We will never bring disgrace on this our City by an act of dishonesty or cowardice. We will fight for the ideals and Sacred Things of the City both alone and with many. We will revere and obey the City's laws, and will do our best to incite a like reverence and respect in those above us who are prone to annul them or set them at naught. We will strive unceasingly to quicken the public's sense of civic duty. Thus, in all these ways, we will transmit this City not only, not less, but greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.”
    Augustaks
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    The Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant.
    — Ciceronianus

    This is a feature that many faithful are loath to claim. Fundamentalists (whatever faith) not only claim it, they get high on it.
    BC

    Well so were the head hunters. :lol:

    Religion made it possible for us to include an extreme amount of others as one of us, but we still struggle with our natural limits and evolved reactions to those who are not one of us. One of the things I marvel at is some tribes were glad to deal with others, while others simply defended their territory as lower primates do.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Do Atheists all not agree as to what is moral and yet still proclaim to know it too?Hanover

    I love your question because hopefully, it will lead to debate. The most glaring difference is atheists do not believe they know God's truth. An atheist attempts to know truth through a process of reasoning and that process means we debate with each other until we have a consensus on the best reasoning, and even then that is not the final word. New information can change the reasoning. This is what is vitally important to a democracy versus a theocracy.

    A moral is a matter of cause and effect and we can argue about the effect of a cause until we agree on what is moral, but importantly, no one imposes their morality on others, except for those few notions of wrong that are so universal, violating it is unforgivable. A father having sex with a daughter is one of them, with one exception. There is a tribe that hunts rhinos and this is so dangerous a man may increase his strength by having sex with a daughter, but for all other known tribes that is a taboo.

    This is a philosophy forum so I will add the argument about there being no excuse for violating a law. The Roman concept did not apply to everyday laws such as where to park one's chariot or city rules that are likely to be completely unknown to immigrants and visitors. It is violating the universal taboos for which there is no excuse. Forbidden contaminating rivers is not a universal taboo, but once was a common practice.

    Can we hang with the concept of liberty and the notion we should not impose our notions of moral on others? That goes with Roe versus Wade. It is the reason I started this thread. Our privacy and liberty are being shredded and we need to debate the right and wrong of this. Not the pope or anyone else should have unquestioned authority over all.
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    Not caring how your words affect me, just got added to you saying I lied. If you want to interact with me you will have to do better. You know, cause and effect. I am not going to play with you if I don't like how you play. Is that an objective moral?AmadeusD
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    I doubt it. The Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant. It's not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so (a felicitous bit of rhyming, if I don't say so myself).Ciceronianus

    Yeap, especially when what knows is God's truth. Christians do not agree with each other about God's truth but that doesn't stop them from believing they know it.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    No? Isn't everybody trying to "rule America"? Isn't it becoming commonly accepted that so-called "liberal neutrality" was always farcical? There is a real sense in which progressivism quickened the demise of liberalism, but in this it only quickened the inevitable. Historically and in truth a separation between religion and politics is altogether artificial, and where separation is enforced quasi-religious ideologies sprout like weeds.Leontiskos

    What are quais-religious ideologies?

    I don't think liberal neutrality was farcical. My grandmother never spoke of religion but she regularly attended church. Our relationship with God is a private matter. I love my Grandmother's three rules.

    We respect all people because we are respectful. It doesn't matter if the other is a mayor or a bum.

    We protect the dignity of others.

    We do everything with integrity.

    I think something we are missing is Athen's understanding of the difference between what is public and what is private. I remember when we allowed people far more privacy than we grant them today. I write so much because I am horrified by great increase in government control of our lives. It is very dehumanizing.

    Sparta did not value privacy. Sparta was so self-destructive it could not maintain a population large enough to defend Sparta. The US was the Athens of the modern world and Germany was the Sparta. Now it is the US that in many ways is the Sparta of the modern world. If anyone steps out of line the person is publically shamed and may lose his/her job. We have created a very mean reality for ourselves.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    We live in countries where the values, ethics, customs, etc., are based on Christian principles. If we look at the banknotes of the USA, it says: In God We Trust. The currency of a nation rests in a religious sentence. And so more around the Western countries, not just the United States.javi2541997

    Do you know when the US began stamping In God We Trust on money, the root of all evil? I must say I am disappointed in the book "Preparing For War" because so far it has said nothing about what our love of God has to do with war.

    "In God We Trust" (also rendered as "In God we trust") is the official motto of the United States[1][2][3] as well as the motto of the U.S. state of Florida, along with the nation of Nicaragua (Spanish: En Dios confiamos).[4][5] It was adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1956, replacing E pluribus unum ("Out of many, one"), which had been the de facto motto since the initial design of the Great Seal of the United States.[6]

    While the earliest mentions of the phrase can be found in the mid-19th century, the origins of this phrase as a political motto lie in the American Civil War, where Union supporters wanted to emphasize their attachment to God and to boost morale.[7] The capitalized form "IN GOD WE TRUST" first appeared on the two-cent piece in 1864 and initially only appeared on coins, but it gradually became accepted among Americans.[8] Much wider adoption followed in the 1950s. The first postage stamps with the motto appeared in 1954. A law passed in July 1955 by a joint resolution of the 84th Congress (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 84–140) and approved by President Dwight Eisenhower requires that "In God We Trust" appear on all American currency. This law was first implemented on the updated one-dollar silver certificate that entered circulation on October 1, 1957.[8] The 84th Congress later passed legislation (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 84–851), also signed by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declaring the phrase to be the national motto.[8][a] Several states have also mandated or authorized its use in public institutions or schools;[9][10] while Florida, Georgia and Mississippi have incorporated the phrase in some of their state symbols. The motto has also been used in some cases in other countries, most notably on Nicaragua's coins.[11]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
    — Wikipedia

    I do not trust the pope nor any man using religion to acquire worldly authority and power. No human being has more of God's authority and power than any other human being and promoting myth and war on money is not admirable.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Your text may be a fairly old one but may signify the role of Rome and Catholicism in ethical and political thinking. I am living in England and wonder to what extent what you are saying comes down to religious fundamentalism in its many forms. The dichotomy of religious beliefs and fundamentalist ideologies may be a strong factor in Amercaj politics and of so many other perspectives. In particular, the dialogue between religious perspectives and thinking may be important, especially where religious, and moral teachings are established.

    I don't live in America, so I wonder about the limits of the questioning in relation to both fundamentalism and Catholicism in.America?.Are you interested in American politics alone or the wider scope of politics on a global level?. Also, to what extent may the relationship between politics and religion be considered, and religious thinking in conservative, or traditional thinking of the social order?.
    Jack Cummins

    :cry: Thank you for taking me seriously and asking thoughtful questions. I cry because my religion is democracy and what is happening today in the US is not compatible with "government of the people, for the people, by the people". When our past president Lincoln said that, he was quoting Pericles of Athens (born c. 495 BCE, Athens—died 429, Athens). Our democracy began with the Greeks long before Jesus and was improved by the Scotts' common sense. Our democracy is about being humans, not the kingdom of God and if any humans are descendants of Paradies it is the people of Hawaii who have a loving culture. People around the world are not all prone to war and violence against each other.

    What is happening is not how I want the world to see us, and I hear how our elitism is causing international tensions to build. Our stories matter and if we believe creation stories or if we believe in science and evolution, it really matters. Fundamentalists seem to be tipping back to religious authority over the people, and I would like Protestants to remember why we held religion and politics separate.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    ↪Athena The pope seems to be having difficulty running his own shop, never mind the U.S. But Christian Nationalism is a real and present danger. Its main feature is its irrationality. A complaint I heard yesterday: Palm Sunday was not listed on a bank calendar -- proof that the state is trying to suppress Christianity. Other themes: White people are under threat. Liberals are a threat. The deep state is a threat. Woke is a threat. Law and order are falling apart. Children are disobedient. Story time with drag queens is a threat.

    Really, just about anything / everything. It's difficult to argue with people who are receiving these crazy bat signals. A lot of Nazi dogma was irrational too -- complete nonsense -- but it tied into inchoate prejudices of various kinds. White Christian nationalism likewise taps into discontents that arise from various sources (like the stresses of scientific rationalism on traditional beliefs; increased economic insecurity; social disruption; unwanted social change, etc. etc. etc.) Right-wing propagandists fan the flames of discontent.

    Your 1913 book is a reminder that this kind of conspiratorial thinking is not a new phenomenon in American culture, and it isn't so small and weak that it amounts to only a curiosity. The KKK of the 19th century is gone, but new versions have sprung up: different leaders, different followers, different centers of activity, the same bat-shit kind of thinking.
    BC

    I opened this thread with a lot of fear about being attacked and I am so thankful you got to the heart of why I posted it. Along with the 1913 book about the wonderful Protestants and the terrible Catholics, I am reading a 2023 book, "Preparing For War- The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism- and What Comes Next" by Bradley Onishi.

    The first argument in the 1913 book is to deny the authority of the Pope and this is done empirically, demanding the evidence. "Two hundred and fifty-five millions of Protestants fail to find in the New Testament a scintilla of evidence that either Jesus meant Peter to be the Pope, or that Peter regarded himself as Pope, or that primacy was conceded to him by the other apostles. ...

    A scientific age like this needs something more than traditions, however venerable, to compel its credence. The colossal assumptions of the Papacy are based upon the statement of Christ to Peter: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Then he goes on to argue the meaning of words and that not only was Peter not made Pope by God by the line of inheritance from Peter through all the Popes was fraudulent. That is a conclusion from researching the records. Like who cares?

    Well, we are talking about how God works and God's authority and that today ministers and their flocks are behaving as though God has chosen Trump to rule over us. How far is this from the false Catholic claims to authority? Is it different from accepting the authority of a Pope? Does God control our earthly affairs and as promised in the Bible does God choose our kings?

    Daniel 2:21
    21 He changes times and seasons;
    he removes kings and sets up kings;
    he gives wisdom to the wise
    and knowledge to those who have understanding;

    Romans 13:1
    Submission to the Authorities
    1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

    Revelation 19:16
    16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

    Is believing that, empirical? Is believing our new Bible salesman is God's chosen leader of Amercia a good example to the world of how government of the people, by the people, for the people works? Or are we talking about the authority over the people that Protestants once stood against? Really, is this how we want the whole world to be ruled? Would it work for communists and the Chinese if first they all became born-again Christians? If we think deeply about this matter, how do we feel? Does this feel true or is it questionable or OMG horrifying?
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    based a real climate event of a drought and flooding and return to a climate favorable to farming
    — Athena

    This seems to run quite counter to the science, though.
    AmadeusD

    Excuse me, please question what you do not know. It is precisely because of science and the work of archeologists and geologists that I said the story of creation and a flood appear to be a story of a climate event. The Garden of Eden was most likely in Iran. This is determined by evidence of the four rivers, a very long and harsh drought, and flooding. The Biblical story of creation being a Sumerian story of many gods and goddesses and a river asking a goddess for help it stay in its banks so it would not flood her plants again. The goddess used mud to create a man and woman and she breathed life into them.

    That understanding of the story is also based on knowledge of primitive peoples humanizing the world, sort of like we might name our car or a computer and speak of these things as living entities with personalities. These stories being much easier to remember than plain facts and often carry survival information. If the only human beings you know are the people around you, that leaves a lot information outside of your awareness, and when this lack of knowledge leads to saying I have lied, there is a problem. :brow:

    " the science isn't moral, nor does it inform morals" your inability to grasp the meaning of what I say about moral judgment is a source of frustration for me. Let's see if you can follow this moral reasoning- saying that I lie is offensive and I take that as an invitation to attack. Can you see that cause and effect of having bad manners? If you can't get informed this problem might get worse.
  • What the science of morality studies and its relationship to moral philosophy
    Earth sciences are very important to moral judgments about how we use and dispose of resources.
    — Athena

    No they aren't.
    AmadeusD

    Excuse me, how can a completely ignorant person make moral decisions about how we live on this planet? We have destroyed much of our planet and may have caused the end of life as we know it because of our ignorance. The greatest evil is ignorance.