Antiseptic,

I suspected this was the case:

<<I'm not trying to build a case, I'm trying to explore ideas>>

That explains a lot (no patronsation intended there) but you need to not argue so strongly for just one side of the argument if you genuinely want to find answers.

<<The case you have put above is essentially elitist...>>

If that's what you think, then you have not understood the point of what I said. The bottom line is that nothing automatically becomes 'good' or 'bad' because of what another being - superior to us or not - says.

Ever.

Take slavery for example, the bible endorses slavery and at no point - in all those pages - does it bother to just say, "Slavery is wrong". At no point. Yet we eventually figured this out for ourselves.

<<...it assumes that those capable of thinking about their morality are better than those who simply "know" what is moral...>>

And they are, in that sense that they are capable of thinking about it least.

History has, so far, demonstrated that they are better, and again, slavery is a good example of this. Those who opposed slavery in the US did so by thinking outside the holy book that those who wanted it continued to refer to.

The act of putting thought into what is moral, and what is not, is ultimately all that counts - even if we get it wrong occasionally in the interim.

I have not had to assume anything in what I said.

<<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.>>

Maybe so, but we eventually get there. And either way, an edict attributed to some being is never better than having to think for one's self. Even if the outcome is not always as good.

<<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.>>

Continued...

...Continued

Correct, because they never assume that the person they are trying to do right by is going to be bothered by the right that they do by them.

Morality is not a riddle. Anyone who doesn't understand that it's about maximising well being would soon be removed.

<<They just want to be able to do what they do without worrying about that stuff.>>

Not only is this a gross generalisation, but modern history does not support it (e.g the slavery example).

<<I've already said why I think the "God-as-father" allegory is useful.>>

And I showed why that model was immoral.

<<It engages people at a basic level that they use themselves with children.>>

And I provided a better model for children (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15315#264809). Your only response was to retreat back to the very small demographic cosisting of very, very young children (even my 20-month-old can show sympathy when I explain to her why hitting isn't nice).

<<It encourages them to think about their own behaviour as though Mum or Dad might be watching.>>

Which, as I have already explained, only achieves compliance. Any child psychologist will tell you that.

<<Any fear of retribution can only be abstract - do you know anybody God has struck down for lack of morality?>>

No, and that goes back to my point about how God is an immoral example for humans.

<<My main concern with your argument is that it is based on a simplistic literalism.>>

I was addressing the simplistic God-the-father model you put forth. The only model you've put forth. Put a more sophisticated model on the table and I will address it.

<<Don't you think the symbolism and metaphor are more interesting?>>

Certainly. But a god that only wants to communicate in obscure ways that can be explain through more rational means doesn't sound very interested in communicating with me; is fairly inconsequential to me; and thus doesn't warrant wasting my time contemplating.

David that's all fair enough, but let's face it, there is a great deal of immoral behaviour within the US and by the US, so something isn't working with that model. How do you think that might be improved?

I disagree with your concern about chaplains in schools. Not only are they not all "fundamentalists, I went to one of the major church schools and rejected the religion that was proselytised, despite (or perhaps because of) the enforced attendance at chapel twice a week, RE once a week and the constant reinforcement of the dogma. It simply didn't resonate, perhaps because I was at an insufficiently advanced stage of moral development to grasp it.

AJ, if I "argue strongly" it's because a strong argument exists. I can't make a strong argument from thin air, don't you agree? I have to acknowledge that I think that religion has a central role in creating a moral society and that none of the secular models have approached it in efficacy.

What I find interesting is that your objection is essentially advocating the model of the Bible, which is that it's not enough to do good works, you must also praise God (have an understanding of why they are good) in order to be regarded as truly a good person.

I'm at a loss as to how you arrive at "God is an immoral example for humans". God is a metaphor for all that is quintessentially human surely?

I haven't actually put any model forth. All I've done is to point out that there are useful metaphors, including "God-as-father", within the Abrahamic religious canon. You then proceed to take a literalist approach, which I've pointed out is essentially the same as the fundamentalists. Try to remember I ain't one of them. If you want to argue with fundies, try Answers in Genesis or similar?

George, I don't see Confucianism or Taoism as religions so much as moral philosophies. They are a different approach to the same sort of question that religion tries to answer, which is "how shall we best live?" They place the individual in the context of the society rather than that of the cosmos and they tend to be prescriptive.

Confucianism was adopted by the T'ang (well over 1000 years after Confucius died) as a pragmatic approach to the problem of governing a large empire which was dominated religiously by the individualistic, somewhat anarchic Buddhist model. It fostered obedience to authority and reverence for tradition, which was a perfect fit with the bureaucratic needs of empire. It still is, as I said earlier. It creates Kohlberg's stage 3 and 4 reliably and repeatably and it is readily combined with any other ideology that might arise, such as the folk religion you describe, which also still exists alongside the Communist political organisation of modern China.

Islam was and is primarily a doctrine of cohesion. It arose in the most heavily trafficked, most cosmopolitan part of the world as it was then and it had as a central tenet the need to reduce friction over things that were not essential to trade and other forms of commerce. It worked very well at that, but it sacrificed some of the individual purpose that Christianity had introduced to the group-oriented Jewish model. God demanded just as much obedience than the Jews had conceived, but he was not exclusive like the Jewish model, but as inclusive as the Christian one and just as insistent on evangelism. He was happy to punish sinful behaviour when it happened rather than delaying it. Morality had to be imposed and no ifs or buts about it.

I wonder if Mohammed knew of Confucius? The Silk road means he might.

Lego, what do you think that all means? Try to get past your insistence on literalism. Why would those Suras be there? What was their purpose? Do you really think they were designed to produce a bloodthirsty fundamentalism? Why?

Dear Antiseptic: Please read what I wrote. I wrote about chaplains in public schools. Chaplains belong in church schools. I am concerned about chaplains in the public schools, and the last paragraph of what I wrote below makes that clear.

I have neither the patience of AJ Philips who will go through your post statement by statement nor the energy to go through all my past statements. If you want to address yourself to what I have written then please do so. The following is what I wrote on the chaplaincy.

As far as chaplains in the schools it is a direct violation of S. 116 of the Australian Constitution:

S. 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Scripture Union and Access Ministries which hire almost all chaplains require the chaplains to subscribe to various Christian creeds. That is certainly a religious test for office. The court has allowed it by weaseling that the government does not directly hire the chaplains but they are hired by Scripture Union and Access Ministries. As far as I can see the chaplaincy is a clear violation of the Australian Constitution which is allowed because the court does not want to challenge the power of the Christian churches in Australia.

Furthermore we live in a multicultural society and our public schools should be a place where children of all religious backgrounds and none should feel comfortable with all the personnel employed by the school. At 87 I have no children of school age but, if I had, I should not like them to go to Australian public schools where fundamentalist chaplains are involved in many activities. I also think that government financing of religious schools is also a violation of s. 116 and a judgment of a government which was not under the thumb of the churches would not allow it.

Antiseptic, old son, what you don't know about Islam would fill an encyclopaedia. You haven't got any idea about the nature or history of Islam. It is a good job you never told us where it was you learned all you think you know about Islam since it could only embarrass the institution