↪Athena Reason is not faith based. That is why we still have religion and science, and why they want to be distinguished as mutually exclusive. — LuckilyDefinitive

I see problems with religion. If Christianity stayed with the Bible and didn't claim everything good as Christian, that would help. Especially when it comes to morality and democracy. We really do not want to go back to the dark ages, and our progress did not come from the Bible. Especially our morality should not be left to religion! The US is having some serious problems because of the Christian myth of our democracy and the false notion that morals are a religious matter, not a secular matter. We should know without a doubt that a moral is a matter of cause and effect and virtues are habits we develop over a lifetime that help us be moral. Absolutely no religion required.

That depends on the decinition. THe definition I used bases morality on a religion, and ethics simply as a societal standard. So yes, if you do not believe in religion, you can have ethics without morality. But of course if you use a different defintion, you get to a different conclusion. — Nobeernolife

That is a serious problem with religion. It totally screws up our understanding of democracy which is rule by reason and dependent on moral reasoning (cause and effect). From there it screws up every other notion of humanity and after screwing up every thought with false and superstitious ideas, it leads people to war. We live with a notion that we can not avoid war because it is in our nature, but what about the religious cause of war? So is wetting our pants in our nature, until we learn to control our bladders. Throwing tantrums is in our nature until we learn to use our words. The goal of adulthood should be learning to control our animal impulses and to live with a sense of social justice and reliance on reason. Really when the reasoning for democracy is understood, so is the advancement of humanity understood and religion stands in the way of that.

That is a serious problem with religion. It totally screws up our understanding of democracy which is rule by reason and dependent on moral reasoning — Athena

1. This attributes the faults of specific individuals who claim to be religious to religion itself. You might as well say "Speech creates a serious problem because some people lie."

2. In what world is democracy rule by reason and dependent on moral reasoning? Certainly not this one.

1. This attributes the faults of specific individuals who claim to be religious to religion itself. You might as well say "Speech creates a serious problem because some people lie." — Pantagruel

I don't think religion is about truth. I believe we evolved as all animals evolved and we are not specially made from mud by a goddess or god. Which explanation of humans a person holds strongly matters. and I have a strong preference for basing decisions on truth.

2. In what world is democracy rule by reason and dependent on moral reasoning? Certainly not this one. — Pantagruel

Democracy is an ideology. It is not universally understood and that is most certainly true in the US! The US is Christian and Christianity supports autocracy and the US is more autocratic than democratic. I doubt if anyone in the US can write 10 characteristics of democracy, while a professor in Syria, I met online, had a far better understanding of democracy than people in the US. When I praise democracy it sure is not the US I praise.

Fascinating. You have completely failed to respond to point 1, that you have committed the fallacy of generalization, by employing the fallacy of misdirection.

Meanwhile, while you are not willing to allow religion to assume an idealized character, independent of the shortcomings of its adherents, you are more than willing to be an apologist for democracy.

Do you see the irony?

That is a serious problem with religion. It totally screws up our understanding of democracy which is rule by reason and dependent on moral reasoning (cause and effect). From there it screws up every other notion of humanity and after screwing up every thought with false and superstitious ideas, it leads people to war. We live with a notion that we can not avoid war because it is in our nature, but what about the religious cause of war? — Athena

You should stop generalizing about "religion". There are very different religions out there, some more beneficial or dangerous than others. I.e. How many wars were fought on behalf of Jainism, Buddhism, or Bahaism? Can you spell zero?
Typically when people like you generalize about "religion", they are thinking about medieval Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. But that is not all there is. Generalizing about "religion" is like generalizing about "ideology".... as if all ideologies were the same.
So please stop doing that!
Thank you.

You should stop generalizing about "religion". There are very different religions out there, some more beneficial or dangerous than others. I.e. How many wars were fought on behalf of Jainism, Buddhism, or Bahaism? Can you spell zero?
Typically when people like you generalize about "religion", they are thinking about medieval Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. But that is not all there is. Generalizing about "religion" is like generalizing about "ideology".... as if all ideologies were the same.
So please stop doing that!
Thank you. — Nobeernolife

Which religion would like to rule the nation where you live? We may have a good discussion if you focus on the thoughts and not on me. :flower:

Fascinating. You have completely failed to respond to point 1, that you have committed the fallacy of generalization, by employing the fallacy of misdirection.

Meanwhile, while you are not willing to allow religion to assume an idealized character, independent of the shortcomings of its adherents, you are more than willing to be an apologist for democracy.

Do you see the irony? — Pantagruel

Okay, I will try again. Which religion do you think is based on truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes, I am devoted to democracy and I don't see any irony in that. Please, explain the irony.

Yes, I am devoted to democracy and I don't see any irony in that. Please, explain the irony. — Athena

The irony is that, in your devotion to democracy, you are prepared to defend the abstract ideal of democracy, despite the shortcomings of its implementation by specific individuals. Whereas you completely deny that exact same freedom and right to the ideal of religion.

The irony is that, in your devotion to democracy, you are prepared to defend the abstract ideal of democracy, despite the shortcomings of its implementation by specific individuals. Whereas you completely deny that exact same freedom and right to the ideal of religion. — Pantagruel

Well of course. Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth. Religion is not. Democracy is about human excellence, religion might strive for that but the way it attempts to achieve that is very problematic because it is not based on truth.

Well of course. Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth. Religion is not. — Athena

Firstly, that isn't even close to any definition of democracy that I have ever seen.

Secondly, it isn't about what democracy is or isn't, or what religion is or isn't. It is about whether one allows that an ideal can still exist, even if it fails to be implemented well or effectively. If Democracy can be corrupted, yet still be an ideal towards which we strive, then so can Religion.

I am always amazed how frequently otherwise open-minded people stop using reason and start reacting from prejudice as soon as the word "religion" comes up. You do know that "religion" is a generic term, and is therefore not the same as "Catholicism" or "Christianity" or "Buddhism"? Just like "democracy" does not reduce to "American republican democracy" or "British socialist democracy", etc.

Which religion would like to rule the nation where you live? We may have a good discussion if you focus on the thoughts and not on me. — Athena

None. I live in a place with a pretty good attitude towards religion.
Anyway I am not interested in discussing you or me.
My point stands. Do not generalize about "religion". There are very different ones out there.

Well of course. Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth. Religion is not. Democracy is about human excellence, religion might strive for that but the way it attempts to achieve that is very problematic because it is not based on truth. — Athena

WHICH religion? You are still generalizing about "religion" which makes absolutely no sense. Also, where do you get the idea from that "Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth"`? You completely made that up, didn´t you.

Democracy is an ideology. It is not universally understood and that is most certainly true in the US! The US is Christian and Christianity supports autocracy and the US is more autocratic than democratic. I doubt if anyone in the US can write 10 characteristics of democracy, while a professor in Syria, I met online, had a far better understanding of democracy than people in the US. When I praise democracy it sure is not the US I praise. — Athena

Lol, we don't have a democracy in the United States of America. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy can be explained pretty simply (if fifty-one wolves and forty-nine sheep get to vote on what is for dinner we're havein lamb chops). That is not the way things work in the US.

Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth — Athena

Your position smacks very much of the social problem that is criticized in the book I just started reading, Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action.

Basically a fallout of the Enlightenment, when people came to have an unreasonable belief in the inevitable superiority of the rationalist-reductive approach, inspired by Newton's accomplishments. Culminating in the dreary technical anomie of our modernist world.

"The progress of societal rationalization...turned out to be, according to Weber, the ascendency of purposive rationality....not a reign of freedom, but the dominion of impersonal economic forces and bureaucratically organized administrations"

So much for the ideal of democracy as an ideal of rational human excellence.

I'm curious what you mean by "secular" vs "religious" matter; in practice most of those popular dichotomies are false.

For example, the Common Law system evolved from older ones, including "religious ones", though most would call it "secular" and not belonging to any specific religion or "sect", despite the influence of Christianity and other systems such as Roman on its development.

Well of course. Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth. Religion is not.
[/quote]
Well, when you say "democracy", none of the governmental systems in the US, UK, or Europe are "direct democracies", and were never intended to be; the US is considered a "democratic republic", or a "federal Constitutional republic".

I also fail to see the correlation between "democracy" and "discovering truth", or why "religion" as is ambiguously and probably incorrectly being defined is exempt from that.

Democracy is about human excellence, religion might strive for that but the way it attempts to achieve that is very problematic because it is not based on truth.

I don't understand what that means, what difference is there in a religious moral "truth" such as prohibition of murder, and a "secular" system such as Common Law asserting a moral truth or rule against murder?

The dichotomy is somewhat false, given that many "religious" systems were also legal systems, and even "secular" systems developed out of systems which were considered "religious" and incorporated various truths or axioms from them.

The basic premise or philosophy of the law is the "golden rule", which is an axiom that is also part of world religions, and as far as "truth" goes, I'm not sure how one could "prove" this axiom to begin with in a religious or a secular context, it's something which one either merely has to accept or not, or run the risk of punishment or retribution from the law if they decide to break it or ignore it.

Excuse me for talking about something you don't know.

If you follow this link you might have a little better understanding of democracy and then we might have a discussion I might enjoy.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Aristotle+and+puruit+of+excellence&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS481US483&oq=Aristotle+and+puruit+of+excellence&aqs=chrome..69i57.26676j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Come on this is a philosophy forum. We will get no where talking about the US or the UK unless we are talking about where the idea of democracy began and why some people were willing to risk everything to have a democracy, instead of a monarchy when Christianity taught God choose who will rule and who will serve, and going against the king is equal to going against God.

I'm curious what you mean by "secular" vs "religious" matter; in practice most of those popular dichotomies are false.

For example, the Common Law system evolved from older ones, including "religious ones", though most would call it "secular" and not belonging to any specific religion or "sect", despite the influence of Christianity and other systems such as Roman on its development. — IvoryBlackBishop

That is an intelligent question. It is a matter of where a person looks for truth in how things work and if a person is questioning the knowledge or going on faith. This is really as much about "how" people think as it is about "what" they think.

Your position smacks very much of the social problem that is criticized in the book I just started reading, Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action.

Basically a fallout of the Enlightenment, when people came to have an unreasonable belief in the inevitable superiority of the rationalist-reductive approach, inspired by Newton's accomplishments. Culminating in the dreary technical anomie of our modernist world.

"The progress of societal rationalization...turned out to be, according to Weber, the ascendency of purposive rationality....not a reign of freedom, but the dominion of impersonal economic forces and bureaucratically organized administrations"

So much for the ideal of democracy as an ideal of rational human excellence. — Pantagruel

Yeah! You know enough to make this a good discussion! :love: It isn't just that you know the enlightenment had something to do with democracy, and that high hopes became discouragement, but you did not attack me and questioned me instead. That is about how you think. Those who attack me are reactionary and that is not the kind of thinking that advances knowledge. It is pretty futile to argue with reactionary people. But you opened the door for a good discussion.

I think what is really important here is understanding how we think is just as important as what we think. The higher-order thinking skills must be taught because they do not come naturally. Unfortunately, in 1958 our public schools dropped the Conceptual Method and replaced it with the Behaviorist Method. Now our young lack the concepts of democracy and also the thinking skills needed for better thinking. They are reactionary and this has serious social and political ramifications.

I seriously what to argue for the education that we had, that was modeled after the education of Athens, for human excellence. We must allow for the reality of very few people getting more than an 8th-grade education until recently. Our education system was doing good if it could at least convince the young of the importance of education, but even if that effort succeeded, people didn't earn good wages and few could afford books. They did not have the media we have today. Mostly they were rural people and Christian. Let us look at our history and base our judgments on that knowledge. We have come a long ways, and I don't think those who felt discouraged would be disappointed if they could see us today. But, they would surely be alarmed by what the change in education has done to our consciousness.

Also, and this is very important, we did not know that much about how we think and how a child's brain develops. What we have achieved is amazing considering all the challenges our republic has faced. That is a republic in form, that once upon a time, had a culture for democracy and understood the importance of unions, granges, and fraternal organizations. For darn sure, without education for democracy, it is not known! We have a Christian Republic and that was not the goal of the enlightenment.

The irony is that, in your devotion to democracy, you are prepared to defend the abstract ideal of democracy, despite the shortcomings of its implementation by specific individuals. Whereas you completely deny that exact same freedom and right to the ideal of religion. — Pantagruel

WHICH religion? You are still generalizing about "religion" which makes absolutely no sense. Also, where do you get the idea from that "Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth"`? You completely made that up, didn´t you. — Nobeernolife

Yes, belief systems that are based on fiction are problematic.

The notion that democracy is something very different, and is about discovering truth, comes from philosophy, the Greek and Roman classics. The idea also comes from an old grade school textbook series called the "Democracy Series" and other books written as we mobilized for the second war world, clarifying why our democracy must be defended.

Back in the day our democracy was defined like this...

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." (General Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" Congress on Education for Democracy, August, 1939.)

There are usually 12 characteristics of democracy listed in the books and one of them is "The search for truth". Coming from math and the art of medicine, Athens was leaning more and more to scientific thinking. This was lost to us when Rome fell and it resurfaced during the Renaissance leading to the Age of Enlightenment. That is what Renaissance means, the return of that knowledge and reasoning. You know, the thinking the church suppressed and that eventually lead to modern sciences. Religion must be taken on faith, that is not the same as basing one's life on reason and demanding proof of evidence.

When the Protestants split for the Roman Catholic church and these different religious groups began killing each other and persecuting Jews do you think you would have taken one side over another or talked about religious tolerance? On what grounds would you defend heretics and those who promote religious lies and serve Satan? Is there a moral we can learn from that history-based on faith in God and Satan, not self-evident reason?

Lol, we don't have a democracy in the United States of America. — SonOfAGun

Very true. We have a Christian Republic, not a democracy.

Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men — Athena

You do realize that the notion of all people being equal is a concept based on Christianity, don´t you? As are other concepts fundamental to Western civilization, such as the sanctity of life or neighbourly love. Islam, for example, has none of those.
So PLEASE stop this stupid naive repeating your dogma of generalizing about "religion". there is no such thing a chararacteristic of "religion" that they all share.
You are really running around in circles, returning to your original false assumption.

If your morals forbid theft, then you never steal, even if your hunger is more painful than the hunger of the guy who steals not due to fear of criminal charges and of what they might lead to. — god must be atheist

If your morals forbid theft, then you never steal, even if your hunger is more painful than the hunger of the guy who steals without fear of criminal charges and of what they might lead to.

That's my take, my understanding of what you wrote. There's a bit of a change, but... would you agree with it?

Is that what you mean? Does "without" stand in place of "not due to" without loss of meaning?

The basic premise or philosophy of the law is the "golden rule", which is an axiom that is also part of world religions, — IvoryBlackBishop

It is an axiom in many world religions, but not in al. For example, in islam there is no Golden Rule.
Like Athena, you should stop generalizing about "religion" or "world religion" in your case. It is a romantic, but delusional idea. Religions are very different.

Thank you for asking, Creativesoul.

I think what I meant is that it is of no consequence how MUCH your anti-moral act would change your life situation from the worse to the better, if your morals forbid an action that would make your life situation better, you still don't do it. No matter how much suffering by you could be avoided and how much pleasure could be attained.

For instance, if a religious person considers my position on faith in a god, he would say ""God must be atheist" would rather forego the pleasures and rapture offered by a heavenly life and choose eternal suffering in hell, by refusing to believe in the holy spirit and accepting the way of life and deity of Jesus, in order for him to obey his own spiritual morals, which forbid him to believe in supernatural beings."

I fail to understand what your saying, or what this has to do with "Romanticism"; as far as Islam in specific, I haven't studied it in depth.

I fail to understand what your saying, or what this has to do with "Romanticism"; as far as Islam in specific, I haven't studied it in depth. — IvoryBlackBishop

I said nothing about romanticism. I just addressed the "Golden Rule".

I'd argue your statement is not particularly relevant here, in asserting that there's no "Golden Rule", or whatever your point is or was.