[_Stefan_]

By the way, when do our fellow primates get a chance to think, be educated, be warm, fed, comfortable and safe, use computers and indulge in religion? Yet they still have altruism and primitive ethical systems comparable to humanity's.

[lyner]

Which "Western society" does without Religion, btw?

Have you not seen film of 'adultery', war, murder and lying amongst the African wild Chimpanzee community? Have you not also seen the 'guilty' behaviour of chimps who have offended the system in some way? As I don't speak Chimpish, I couldn't say whether or not they believe there is some superior being who is 'watching them'.
It may be that, as their system is so elementary that it may not be possible to classify them as Religious or Humanist (Apeist).

I think the noble savage idea of primates was discredited long ago. But is the comparison really valid?

And I am still waiting for you to produce an example of a society which fits your prediction. It would have to consist of all layers of society, remember, and not a subset of intellectuals.
Remember, my point is that religion can't be replaced by purely intellectually based humanism. I didn't say I believe in God and I didn't say that individuals or small groups can't be successful humanists. Why can't you accept that most humans need a 'crutch' and that, so far, we haven't thought of one which is so effective as a religion. It may be an intellectually offensive idea (I even agree that it strikes me as a bit offensive) but I think we are stuck with it for a long time yet.

[_Stefan_]

I didn't say their system was perfect - why would anyone expect jungle-dwelling apes to be as ethical as the the best humans? My point was that they have a system that has arisen naturally by necessity that we have no reason to think is based on religion. In other words, we have evolved a natural capacity for being good within society.

While it's true that religiosity decreases as education increases, why do you assume that all the over 500 million nonreligious people in the world have actually thought through their lack of belief? It's also possible that many are irreligious through lack of childhood indoctrination or other reasons.

I find your insistence that entire societies must be nonreligious in order for secularism to be considered truly ethical, to be rather like saying that AIDS isn't a real problem because only 33 million humans are affected worldwide. Or that Buddhists can't truly follow Buddhist principals because there are only about 324 million of them. Yet these are massive populations - you asked for millions and you got millions, and that's still not good enough.

Speaking of which, there you have Buddhism which is considered in many ways to be compatible with and even embrace science and reason. The 4th largest religion in the world.

And you seem to think that there is something special about religious teachings that people can't do without. Have you really read the bible (and Koran)? They are full of terrible examples of ethics condoned by God that no moderate Christian could follow and still be considered ethical by today's standards. The fact is that people pick and choose which ethics they like, and reject what they don't.  But if they get their ethical sense from religion, how can they do this? It's because societies have developed ethical systems independent from religion.

I have never disagreed that some people need a crutch. My original disagreement was that religion is not effective at providing real ethical advice on important issues like scientific/medical ones. This should be clear to anyone. It's not true that there are no effective alternatives; It is true that the existing majority has already been seized by the religion.

You never told me how religion can possibly give real ethical advice on science/medicine that is both consistent with reality and is inspired by the religion itself and not the result of changes to accommodate the real world.

I think it's clear by now that we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Astronomer_FB]

You never told me how religion can possibly give real ethical advice on science/medicine that is both consistent with reality and is inspired by the religion itself and not the result of changes to accommodate the real world.

I think it's clear by now that we will just have to agree to disagree.

What about abortion the Qu'ran says that only abortions can be made if the mothers life is at risk during the birth of the baby.  Also the Qu'ran says not to take substances that mess with your head (alochol and drugs) how are these not ethical and can be used today? 

[_Stefan_]

Here's a nice overview of the history of abortion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

The thing is, the religious objection to abortion is due to the tangibly false idea that an embryo and early fetus is a child and person.

So I accept that anti-abortionism is 1 example from religion, but it's also an example of an illegitimate reason for an ethical guideline.

Further, since abortions have been practiced for about 5000 years, the objection to it is not unique to religion. Aristotle had a more modern reason:
'Aristotle wrote that, "[T]he line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive."'- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion#Social:_History_of_abortion_debate


The drug law is a nice example. It was somewhat contradictory though, because hashish use has continued throughout Islamic history.

By the way, don't forget Islam had a scientific/intellectual golden age, which doubtless influenced the religion.

[lyner]

Stefan

I find your insistence that entire societies must be nonreligious in order for secularism to be considered truly ethical, to be rather like saying that AIDS isn't a real problem because only 33 million humans are affected worldwide.

I haven't said that secularism can't be truly ethical. I have said that secular societies are not any more ethical than religious societies.  The reason I make that stipulation of a 'complete' society' is because the only way you can 'prove' that secularism can be made to work is if you can show it operating successfully  and on a large scale, independently of a majority religious group. I have always agreed with you that, on an individual level, we can live ethical, secular, lives.
You appear to be arguing from a idealistic standpoint - fair enough, but I believe that you are too cross about the results of 'bad religion' to see its real place in human society. I am arguing from a pragmatic standpoint which says that, until someone can show me your system operating, I will continue believing that humans 'need' a religion of some sort in order to function as a society.
There are so many examples in politics, philosophy and education where well informed and highly intelligent people make the mistake of modeling the system on themselves. One has to acknowledge that there is some level of development below which, humans can't be relied upon to make the right decisions, based on reason. It's no use reasoning with a toddler not to run into the road - you just have to grab them and prevent them doing it. Teenagers cannot be relied upon (with some possible exceptions) to make appropriate choices of entertainment, food and behaviour; they need authority figures and, without them, there are problems.
Likewise, there are huge numbers (the vast majority) of adults who will not (cannot) think things through, optimally, and require a set of ideals to operate under.  This is where religion comes in. It supplies a framework of rules and an authority behind the framework and requires little or no 'thought' - ideal, if only the framework were perfect.
I agree that all religions have their (huge) faults. That doesn't disprove my theory. Yes - I read both OT and NT in my pious youth stage. I even did a 'Scripture Exam', once and I know that religious doctrine is full of un-ethical ideas. I might say that the problems often arise from the interpretation of what was written, rather than the original.
I wondered whether you might bring Buddhism into the argument. It would seem to be the nearest thing to your idea of a possible model. But it still involves a Deity. I guess that both you and I could meet somewhere in the Buddhist camp.

[_Stefan_]

I thought you might see Buddhism that way. Yes, it is a compromise of sorts. But if you are to accept Buddhism, which has only 324 million followers versus 500+ million nonreligious, as a compromise, then you must admit that there is something to secular ethics. Neither at this stage exists in a vacuum.

I think we can both agree that humans need an ethical system and that despite its massive flaws, religion is the major one we are stuck with.

Do you agree that humans have an innate capacity for morality?

Do you agree that ideally a better ethical system totally independent from religion should and could be adopted someday?

[lyner]

We seem to be converging somewhat. Wot no fighting?

I agree that human behaviour is guided by a need to look after the race as well as the individual. In a complex organism like humans, the mechanism is also very complex. We could call it morality but it is just a set of strategies (backed up by a urge, like the sexual urge but more mild) which give the species a chance of surviving / thriving.
To study that urge is of the same level of difficulty as studying consciousness and my thesis is that most people just give it a name and go along with it (or not if you are a sociopath or a successful nasty person).
Religions have a convenient way of providing a blanket term by which a large group of people can feel that they are talking about the same thing. In fact it is entirely personal.

I think you are being very optimistic about humans if you think they will all behave correctly just because it 'makes sense'. Religion - or at least a cause - is something that we all need; you have yours, too, although you don't acknowledge it as a religion. That is why I think religion will be with us for a long time yet. But I agree that religions may often do almost as much harm as good.

[lyner]

I just heard The Moral Maze (BBC R4).
Try to hear it on BBC Iplayer. Very entertaining.

[_Stefan_]

Alright then. I doubt we'll converge any further than this

Could you clarify what you mean by this:

"...you have yours, too, although you don't acknowledge it as a religion"

[lyner]

We make our final choices about what to do and how to think, on the basis of subjective, aesthetic and subconscious considerations. We always rationalise these  choices - because we can't admit that our conscious mind isn't actually 'in charge'. But there is evidence that we actually make most of our decisions 'before' we are aware of having made them. (Brain scans during psychological tests). So you have your views and I have mine (and the Christian down the road has his) but none of us really knows how we came up with those views. You claim rationality, 'he' claims faith and I don't really know, but we're all three pretty convinced and in much the same way. In the final analysis we just 'believe'.

[_Stefan_]

The sense of self is to the brain what the computer screen is the the modem. Of course the self is an illusory bystander. I fully accept that my brain's what's doing all the work to maintain a rational view of the world. When the computer says 2 + 2 = 5, is it a matter of belief that it's wrong?

[lyner]

I should say that the 'belief' in Maths is based on a lot of experience that it works. So, when you see 2+2 = 5, You can have a justified belief that it is wrong. There are a lot of people who may believe it to be true - but they may have not ever been taught the axioms of Maths.

I have a feeling that you took my statement as a slight insult. It wasn't intended as such. You believe that rationalism is the way. That is a belief,  and you believe that it makes perfect sense. Your belief has much more going for it than many beliefs - it's based on Science and logic, which assume that things are consistent. But that is, actually, an axiom. Tomorrow, everything could be different. We only assume that it won't be. It's a belief, based on experience, but that's all.

[_Stefan_]

Thanks for further elaborating.