Antiseptic,

Do I "care to have a go"? Heck, I was hoping you'd ask! I've already covered this many times before on OLO, but once more won't hurt.

<<...how is a secular framework superior?>>

Secular frameworks (or more broadly speaking, secular morality in general) are superior because they require thought and effort. Religious morality, on the other hand, is for the lazy and thoughtless; those who would be duped into thinking that something becomes ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ simply because of an edict attributed to some other being. The only advantage religious morality has over secular morality is that, as even you note, religious morality is simplistic.

Going back to the religious framework that you've been arguing for, if a god sits idly by and watches, say, a child being sexually assaulted, as if to say, "You can do that now, but I'll make you pay for it later", is that a moral thing to do? What kind of a moral example is that? If you witnessed such a crime, would you not feel obliged to stop it continuing any longer? If so, then how can you challenge me, as you just have, in the tone that you have, as if to suggest that I'd be hard-pressed doing so? What kind of a standard is that? And if you want to argue that it's not God's standard, then what good is a moral framework in which the central character is immoral enough to take the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do approach to law enforcement?

The Abrahamic god - that so many worship and claim to get their moral values from - cares more about dishing-out justice when it suits him than helping out victims when it really counts. Not a very good central character for a moral framework if 'leading by example' means anything.

[Note: If you want to argue that I'm only talking about the fundies here, and run with the god-prescribed morality that George has mentioned, then fine, but you then need to demonstrate that God had indeed prescribed our morality to us for your argument to hold any weight.

Continued...

...Continued

You would also need to either retract the carrot-and-stick moral framework that you've arguing for (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15315#264800), or reconcile the two somehow.

You would also be back at square one and need explain what on earth this framework is that you now want to argue is so critical to maintaining peace. The idea, alone, that a god prescribed our morality to us does not explain why we need it.]

<<What are the outcomes that it can provide that a religious one can't?>>

That would depend on the framework that was derived through secular morality. Given what I've just pointed out, however, if it didn't yield better outcomes, then it would only indicate that more thought needed to go into it. Either way, one outcome that I think secular frameworks would inevitably always derive would be thoughtfulness, as opposed to blind obedience, fear of punishment and anticipation of rewards. 

Nevertheless, I don't think it's just a coincidence that we are becoming less-and-less violent (as Stephen Pinker explains in his book, The Better Angel of our Nature) as religion continues to play less of a role in our society.

<<Why is it less likely to lead to abuse through colonisation of the authority structures by vested interests?>>

I didn't claim that it was. I see no reason why it would be more likely to though.

<<What is the essential difference in principal between a secular and a religious model?>>

I believe I already covered this at that start.

<<I'm interested in those questions, not trying to score points.>>

All I have done is sought to clarify what it is that you're saying (since you have taken no care at all to remain consistent). It's all a part of having a productive discussion. That you jump to the conclusion that I am merely point-scoring here suggests a sense of compunction on your behalf.

Anyway, I have shown you the courtesy of answering your questions, how about you start answering some of mine?

David F,

Thank you for that, it is most inspiring.

Yes, religions seem to demand obedience and deference to authority - perhaps that's why some of the pseudo-Left go for it, the warm bosom of totalitarianism. Zygmunt Bauman compares the Adam-and-Eve story (of questioning and seeking for oneself) to the Abrahamic and Mosaic stories (of obedience and 'thou shalt ....') and comes down very srongly on Adam's side. Lovely man.

Best wishes,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

David, I wasn't "insulting" you, far from it. I was actually implying that you are inherently a better person than the type who misrepresents others.

Thank you for your lengthy explanation, which I think you might agree supports my point that your morality didn't spring fully-formed from nowhere, but is a product of your cultural and educational experiences.

I had much the same experience and reaction to the bible as you, although I always recognised that there were underlying moral and even practical lessons within it. I was of the view that I didn't need to be told what to do and rebelled from the idea that someone might do so. For a time I also took the somewhat extreme libertarian view that you have expressed, although I regarded the US model as something of a failed experiment and hold even more strongly to that these days. Part of the reason for the failure, it seems to me, is that the US has far too little separation between church (religious authority and hierarchy, not religion) and state, which has allowed vested interests to become dominant by pandering to those church authorities. It's a model that purports to be "flat", but is actually incredibly hierarchical.

However, your post explains why you dislike authoritarianism, it doesn't address how morals should be induced in people. You do certainly agree that a sense of morality is a good thing, but you seem to be willing to throw away a structure that can produce it for reasons that I don't think are consistent. As I said earlier, if we can't assume people will act well toward each other, then we must either accept anarchy, or impose good behaviour by force and that seems to be a much worse set of outcomes. The failed US model is moving in that direction because people have seen the lack of morality of their leaders and churchmen and have rejected their teachings.

AJ, I'm not trying to build a case, I'm trying to explore ideas. IOW, it's not about being "consistent", it's about following a line of thought to see where it goes. Sometimes it goes down a dead end, other times it takes us to interesting places we haven't been before. In my case it's taken me to the interesting place of thinking about religion as positive, when my life has been spent thinking the opposite!

I'm glad you're willing to discuss the ideas and I hope you can also become willing to accept that I am not trying to convince you of anything or imply you are inferior. If I thought you were I'd ignore you. Fair enough?

The case you have put above is essentially elitist - it assumes that those capable of thinking about their morality are better than those who simply "know" what is moral and act on it without being able to explain why they know. For the same reason it's impracticable. Many people want to be "good", but few people want to have to try to work out what being good means in every case. Even more, they don't want to have to try to work out how the person they are dealing with thinks about morality and how that might affect them. They just want to be able to do what they do without worrying about that stuff.

I've already said why I think the "God-as-father" allegory is useful. It engages people at a basic level that they use themselves with children. It encourages them to think about their own behaviour as though Mum or Dad might be watching. Any fear of retribution can only be abstract - do you know anybody God has struck down for lack of morality?

My main concern with your argument is that it is based on a simplistic literalism. Don't you think the symbolism and metaphor are more interesting? They demand thinking about, they don't necessarily spring from the page. Sometimes they act subliminally, as in the God-as-Father idea.

George, I'll respond when I can post again.

Dear Antiseptic,

Certainly my morality is largely a product of my education and culture. I never denied that. What I denied is that the morality imparted by religion needs anything to replace it. I want to get rid of it because I think it has caused much more harm than good. In what you labelled ‘rant’ I stated my reasons at length.

Much of my morality has been formed by my connection to the United States. I am a dual citizen of Australia and the US.

In WW2 and the post war period Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the US might have become the superpower. I have been politically active against US policies and the unnecessary wars it has promoted and pursued. However, as flawed as the US is, I think it better that the US is the superpower rather than the other alternatives of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

In Australia Kevin Rudd was bounced from PM because those who knew him could not work with him. He would break down what separation of state and church we have by his chaplaincy program which subjects little children in school to the primitive ministrations of fundamentalist chaplains from Scripture Union. I think it better to encourage children to think critically. Those children are our future. Rudd so little understands the limitations of water and other natural resources in Australia that he talks of a 'big' Australia. He races Tony Abbott to the bottom in getting tough with asylum seekers. My vote is determined by what I think is right, my hopes and my fears. I shall put both Labor and LNP well down on my ballot. Since I am more afraid of what the Libs will do than what Labor will do I will preference Labor above the Libs. The Libs are backed by Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch. IMHO That makes them worse than the very flawed Kevin Rudd.

We can’t choose perfection. We can only choose the least bad alternative available.

That means to me the US, Kevin Rudd and the secular state.