Antiseptic,

Why would you favour that?

<<My point was simply that religion and especially a concept of a disengaged but very much aware God that won't intervene in our misbehaviour but will punish us later for having been bad is not unlike the parental model I personally favour.>>

Wouldn’t you prefer that they did what they did (and didn’t do) because they knew why they should and should not do it, and wanted to do the right thing?

<<Unless you have some model to replace that means of inculcating personal responsibility…>>

Well, I’ve just given you one (a better one, in fact, if inculcating personal responsibility is your aim, rather than just achieving compliance) and while it may be easier said than done, it’s not impossible - especially not for a god.

<<…then removing religion is simply going to lead to a need for more draconian regulative frameworks and less personal freedom.>>

How do you know this?

The holy books of the Abrahamic religions are like choose-your-own-adventures. There’s enough in them to justify anyone’s morality if they simply cherry-pick the bits they like - which is precisely what they do.

If religion is such an important moral framework, as you claim it is, then why is it that, for centuries, Christians have been adopting the morality of the secular societies that surround them?

Davis F,

That was partly the point of the thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5860
and it is no coincidence that religion and totalitarianism seem to go well together, while the Enlightenment, imperfect as it inevitably has been, and secularism seem to also go well together: basically, do we rely on an external force, emperors or gods, or on ourselves ? Should power be left in the hands of people 'above' us, or in our own hands ? Should we leave it to higher powers to do everything 'right', or should we have the courage to make our own decisions, and our own mistakes ?

Do we need gods ? Do we need 'authorities' ? Do we need an all-embracing but totalitarian society to 'look after' us ? Or do we stand up and become human ?

Just a thought.

Joe

Craig Minns

Jews started it. Then Jesus, the Messiah of prophecy - whom the Jews certainly recognised but rejected as imposter. 600 years later comes an Arab with a vision from angel Gabriel, starts a new movement based on Old Testament (Jewish) beliefs. Part of his spiel was Arabic peoples were descended from Ishmael, son of Abraham out of his wife's handmaiden, born before Isacc and claimed by Muhammad as the true promised son. Probably most profound difference between Judaism and early Islam. Jesus means no more to Islam than Judaism with exception one views him as a prophet of no importance, other as usurper.

This illustrates exactly as stated earlier - There is always more than one version of history, depending on where one stands. The truth is - We'll never know the "truth". We undoubtedly don't know every truth about modern history either but in recent and current events at least we are part witnesses to much happening in the world - thanks to technology.

Whichever version one accepts - we can only live in the present and plan for the future.

Right now we have Judaism, not pacifist but intent on defending it's peoples/territories rather than conquest, nor interested in conversion by force or death.
Christianity preaching pacifism and despite scandals involving various churches and clashes with popular culture still highest by example as the religion of love, peace and tolerance.
Islam - preaching non-acceptance, virtues of holy war, by contrast whose societies are wracked by violence within and without.

Muslim individuals, mostly regular folk want to live well, enjoy their families, life in general. Sure! Difference being their religion, which demands precedence over secular law in non-Islamic States, decrees anyone not Muslim 'infidel' with as much importance as animals.

As LEGO observed - Taliban shoot to kill a Muslim schoolgirl because she promotes female education, silence from the Faithful is deafening. Danish cartoons 'insulting' Islam incite world-wide protests, riots, by the Faithful leaving hundreds dead.

Assuming you're infidel, this is the viper you would clutch to your chest?

Hi David, the way I train my dogs is a useful illustration. My mate Max has never work a collar except on the rare occasion I have to pretend to tie him up whilst at the shops and he goes along with that pretence. On those occasions we both know he could easily slip the overlarge chain-link collar over his head, but he doesn't because he knows he's expected not to. The rest of the time he is entirely free to act as he wishes. My home isn't securely fenced, but he knows the boundaries and doesn't exceed them very much. When he does he is growled at. When we go for walks he is not put on a lead, but is free to be my companion rather than my slave.

Everybody comments on how happy he is and I agree, he's the happiest dog around - tail up, never barks nervously at strange sounds, completely open to new people, new dogs. In other words, he's comfortable in his place and his role and doesn't feel threatened. Isn't that something we all want for ourselves?

Now, Max may not be typical, but after 11 dogs I can say he's certainly normative and that the methods I use to train him are entirely applicable to other dogs. He doesn't know he's been "trained", he knows I'm his best mate and he trusts me not to steer him wrong. In return I trust him to do the right thing without having to be dragged around by the throat. It's mutualism in action.

You say you don't like the idea of "fundamentalist Chaplains" being in schools, which seems to be rooted in your concept of individualist libertarianism. I do tend to agree that much of the way religion is promoted is archaic and that is why it is becoming irrelevant. The "god as monarch" model is an outdated, but possibly necessary metaphor for some. Have you read Kohlberg's theories of moral development?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

I'm striving toward a more appropriate model. Any ideas?

Hi AJ, children aren't up to complex moral reasoning. The model I discussed is intended to teach them how to do just as you say.

I mentioned Kohlberg to David. One of the things he points out is that many people never progress beyond some of the earliest stages in his schema. Their experiences/training/education are such as to lock them into a particular way of thinking that is focussed intently on their own outcomes and ignores the effects on others.

I would say that every religion is intended to try to inculcate a more sophisticated moral sense. If we remove the religion without replacing it with some other mode of doing that then we are perforce going to need to replace the self-regulation that morality enables and presupposes a potential to reach Kohlberg's 6th or even the 7th (universal morality) stage, with at best a stage 4 rigid enforcement model.

The holy books are intended to provide metaphors to help understanding. Your interpretation is that they are literalist instruction books, which is the same mistake the most backward fundies make. I would have thought you capable of a more sophisticated, nuanced understanding.

Joe, we can only be "human" if we know how to be. Education is the key to being a fully human being. We have the motivation to be socially responsible, but we have to be taught how best to think in order to fully understand what social responsibility entails. A child is not "human", but has every chance to become one. Some never do thanks to poor education, which is not just formal schooling, but all of their experiences and the help they have to put them into a human context. The Western/US-corporate social model of the last 50 years reduces the proportion who will ever do so despite the great advances in some aspects of personal freedoms. The fundamentalism of some Islamic cultures is just as unlikely to do so.

It is important to remember that we are a social species, not just a group of individual animals who must rub frictively against each other.

Dear Antiseptic,

There is one fact that counters the idea that religion is necessary for guiding people to a moral life. That is the fact that people before the inventions of the Abrahamic religions lived together, and, as far as I can determine from my reading of history, were just as moral and caring as people were after the invention of the Abrahamic religions which connected religion with morality.

The Abrahamic religions accepted what we now do not accept in this society. They accepted slavery. It was only in the nineteenth century that slavery became unacceptable in western society. In the United States it took a horrible war to do it. The Abrahamic religions accepted the subjugation of women. It was only in the twentieth century that women became full citizens in western society with the right to vote and hold property independently of the husbands.

Both slavery and the subjugation of women were justified by appeal to Christianity. F. G. Wood’s “The Arrogance of Faith” tells how the Christian religion has been used to justify slavery. One can get it directly from the English Standard Version of the Bible
.
Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

From the early beginnings of Christianity it has been used a tool to subjugate women.

1 Corinthians 14:34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

The above attitudes sanctioned by Christianity for much of the past are now recognised as immoral according to the current standards of western civilisation. The Bible is now a guide to immorality.

continued