Dear Antiseptic,

We don't have to replace the morals we get from religion since we already have something. In a previous post I wrote:

I try to be honest, caring, kind, considerate, obey the reasonable (My conscience might tell me to violate an unreasonable law.) laws of Australia and question authority. What more is needed?

I repeat. What more is needed?

What sort of law would I violate? In the United States before the Civil War the Fugitive Slave Act required people to return escaped slaves to their masters. Many Americans violated that law by either hiding slave or helping them on their way to Canada where they would be free. I would also violate such a law.

In Australia I might hide an asylum seeker.

Auntipeptic,

Actually, that would be the first time I've used that term for many years. But to make my comment more comprehensible for you, I'll put it another way:

All religions are attempts by people, without the means to understand much of the world, to impose their social systems on nature, and on the world, that the world works much as their ramshackle society does - in other words, how they dignify and justify their particular pile of rubbish is given the term 'religion', but it is still rubbish.

I'm tempted to add that some religions are much more rubbish than others, but I'd be hard put to identify any religion which isn't 100 % rubbish. So I guess they're all perfectly rubbish. We haven't needed them for many centuries, since the imperfect Enlightenment, the recognition of eternal uncertainty and incompleteness, started to gradually see the light of day.

Joe

AJ, If you read the link, you obviously didn't bother trying to understand it. Go back and read it again and this time, try actually thinking about it.

Yes, we need a moral framework to avoid the need to impose rules by force. No, religion is not the only possible way to achieve that. Many people never do get beyond stage 4, which is a rigid adherence to law as a means of preventing chaos. From your utterances here, you seem to be one of them. I didn't say that was simple, quite the opposite

I also didn't do any jumping "without warning", I referred you to the source of that "jump", which is Kohlberg, among many others from Aristotle on and no doubt there were people making similar points before that.

You are trying to score silly debating points, not to have a conversation, as is your wont. If you want to continue in that vein, then you're welcome to play by yourself. You can play in the corner and I'll speak with the grown-ups.

If you'd like to try to hold an actual adult conversation, I suggest you start back at the beginning and try to follow along. A moderately intelligent 12 year old should be able to follow the reasoning.

Karl X, you're funny. A "challenge" is not simple gainsaying. Ask your rabbi...

David, how did you develop that sense of morality you claim? Were you born with it, or was it derived from your upbringing, education and experiences? Try to engage with what I say instead of your cognitive biases, it saves so much time and typing.

Moe, I think I hear Larry, Curly and Shemp calling for you. Not sure why, perhaps they need a real Stooge to make them feel better about themselves.

Sorry, Antiseptic, I read the link again and still don't know what you're referring to.

<<No, religion is not the only possible way to achieve [a moral framework].>>

I agree. An alternative is our secular framework that I mentioned earlier in which theists have recognised the superiority of, adopted for themselves, and now cherry-pick their holy books using.

<<Many people never do get beyond stage 4, which is a rigid adherence to law as a means of preventing chaos.>>

I'd believe that. I remember reading that part too. Twice now. 

<<From your utterances here, you seem to be one of them.>>

An ad hominem fallacy now as well. Well that was low. Why was that necessary? And how do my "utterances" indicate that?

<<I didn't say that was simple...>>

You certainly implied it: "The model I discussed is intended to teach them how to do just as you say."

What do you call that if not "simple"?

<<I also didn't do any jumping "without warning", I referred you to the source of that "jump", which is Kohlberg...>>

So how does Kohlberg's theory get you from...

"My point was simply that religion and especially a concept of a disengaged but very much aware God ... is not unlike the parental model I personally favour."

...with a caveat of...

"...children aren't up to complex moral reasoning."

...to...

"I would say that every religion is intended to try to inculcate a more sophisticated moral sense"?

You still haven't explained this. Unless, of course, you think that the fact that many people get stuck at stage four of Kohlberg's theory is the missing link in your reasoning?

It can't be, though, because you didn't just make an unexplained leap, you completely contradicted yourself.

<<If you'd like to try to hold an actual adult conversation, I suggest you start back at the beginning and try to follow along.>>

I've already done that. I devoted an entire post to it too. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15315#264856)

How about you give it a try now so that maybe I can see things from your perspective a little better?

Dear Antiseptic,

You apparently want to believe that religion is necessary for moral guidance even people with pre-Abrahamic religions got their moral guidance from other sources than religion and were apparently just as moral. I see no point in arguing with belief for which there is no evidence.

Antiseptic,

As usual, I find your posts very insightful.

>> Joe, "mumbo jumbo" is often used to refer to things we simply don't have the capacity to understand. You seem to use the term a lot.<<

“True, human beings may abound
Who growl at things beyond their ken,
Mocking the beautiful and good,
And all they haven't understood ...
(J. W. Goethe, Faust)

>> I would say that every religion is intended to try to inculcate a more sophisticated moral sense.<<

This is what I thought until I read Rodney Stark’s interesting book "Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief, HarperCollins 2007 (see also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580#154255), where he concludes that

“Some have identified the sixth century (BCE) as the Axial Age in recognition of the pivotal shift in religious perception that occurred along an axis from the Mediterranean to northern China. Even more remarkable than their number … is that all these faiths discovered “sin” and the conscience, as each linked morality to transcendence. Contrasted with the prevailing conceptions of immoral and amoral Gods, this was revolutionary. (p. 20)”

So your sentence should probably be about “every Western (or Abrahamic) religion”.