On arguing ethics with the religious

In a secular society, we can debate questions of ethics based on how various policies or behaviors affect human lives. But if we start from a position that it's possible to simply derive our ethics from some faith in some arbitrary authority, we can't even have a real argument about ethics. It's not possible to argue against an absolute authority by an appeal to rationality. We can only argue about their authority. And so, for the vast majority of the religious, we are left with only two possible arguments:

1) We can argue about whether the authority is real.
2) We can argue about whether it really says what they believe it says.

To convince someone of number 1, that it isn't real, one must, ultimately, convince them to renounce their religion. To convince them of number 2, that it doesn't say what they think it says, requires us to pretend their authority is real in order to argue with them. Those are the only two avenues for argument, and they are mutually exclusive. We have to pretend it's real to argue about its meaning, or we deny it means anything when we argue that it isn't real. Yes, you can argue some hypothetical "if your religion is real.... blah blah" pseudo-compromise, but all that does is make the pretense explicit.

I spend my time on the "is it real" issue, because that's the actual heart of the matter. The other is a tactic to make piecemeal gains on specific issues. It's often far more effective in that respect, and the short run, but it concedes the big picture problem, and the long term problem, that this authority *is not real*. The problem doesn't end there. For any given religious doctrine, nearly *every person in the world* believes its authority isn't real. The only way to achieve consensus this way is for one religion to dominate all the others, except on those particular issues (like hating gay people, for instance) where most of them already agree. Other than a few, usually either asinine or blindingly obvious (e.g. murder is bad) ethical positions, there is no religious consensus. So we have this big, messy stew of angry, and incompatible ingredients battling it out over which flavor the one true broth must be. In itself, this is pointless but not directly harmful. If it ended there, we'd still probably have had holy wars and inquisitions, but there would at least be a chance to make some sort of peace with it. But the great majority of religions don't stop with authoritative pronouncements about the unknowable. They also say things about our actual lives, about whether or not gay people should be able to marry, or whether women should be able to control their own lives, or whether maybe, just maybe the overwhelming scientific consensus that we are severely damaging our ecosystem just might be accurate. And when a religion gets those wrong, as they so often do, those things *are directly harmful to real people.* And even if your particular religion *doesn't* get most of those wrong, or if your religion has no actual ethical content, then bully for you. Seriously. That's the least one could expect from a person. You might believe you have pixies in your garden, but at least you don't think they want you to burn witches. But remember, while Democritus was right about atoms, he was right for the wrong reasons, and in some laughably wrong details. And eventually, the details will matter.

It's true that non-religion isn't a philosophy. It doesn't need to be. It's a starting point. A neutral ground, from which one can formulate an ethics relatively untainted by past prejudice and imaginary authority. That's all. There's no guarantee of getting it right. History has shown that well enough. It's not a solution, it's just a place where people can get together and argue over things as they actually appear to be, rather than as their sundry books and Popes and fakirs would have them be. And that's the only place we can do it for real.

but, good luck. No agnostic or nontheist I know is trying to convert anyone, and I'm not implying you suggested that.

I have no answers, just enjoyed the energy you put into trying to understand the impenetrable brick wall.

I don't make the attempt by the tried and true methods of weaseling into their confidence, or sowing vague doubts. I just point out what's stupid and make note of how stupid it is. That pisses people off quite a lot. I'm fortunate (in some senses) that I'm not very invested in whether people like me, so I can do that. But I don't actually *like* making people mad. I'm not doing it in order to piss them off (though many of them often probably believe otherwise). I just hope that, when they have their own doubts, as anyone with a working brain would, they will remember that it's possible to say the emperor has no clothes. That it's actually a valid option. That people, even people they find infuriating, seem to hold some very strong ethical opinions, maybe even opinions just like their own, without a god to give them imaginary heft.

Or maybe it's completely pointless. A snake is a snake, a dog is a dog. And I guess sometimes I'm a snake, or dog, or whatever.

to support strategies for discussion of ethical theory, as you propose

For a large majority of the religious people in the world, religion means some form of Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism. Of these, the vast majority of adherents believe in the authority of their particular dogma. Pretending that real world religion is as ineffable as a philosopher's airy nothing of a god, or any other vague whatever, is bullshit. Real world religion says real, concrete things, and has real, concrete effects on ethical debate. To pretend otherwise is just deliberate obfuscation (or simple confusion). But surely you noted that I already addressed that ridiculous position in the original post.

people in the world, so i am rather reluctant to assume i have significant insight into their individual views; i suspect those views vary considerably and that your summarizing their views as "religious" wanders into a meaningless vagueness

Nothing vague about it.

psychologies of some billions of different individuals; and, no matter how excellent the dictionary you might possess, I will remain skeptical that yours admitted such use

I didn't know you were religious.

by your so-called reasoning, one could never make any generalizations about social behavior ever. there is no more reason to interact with you, as you clearly are either incapable or unwilling to engage in anything resembling rational discussion. so hey, have at it. blabber away with whatever silliness makes you happy.

the argument always, always becomes an argument about their own particular insanity. no other argument is possible. that was my entire point. and you've illustrated it admirably. incoherently, but admirably.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself"
Nothing about authority there, just good advice.
Believe how you wish, faith enforced is no faith at all.
However, don't claim force when none is there either.
And don't attempt to force people not to believe, just because you don't.
Authoritism is never a good thing regardless of what the people believe who are applying it, irreligious or no.

Perhaps those principles arose independently of any religion?

don't you know.

would kill an innocent to punish an offender:

... HAMMURABI'S CODE OF LAWS
(circa 1780 B.C.)
Translated by L. W. King
... 209. If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.
210. If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death ...
Ancient History Sourcebook:
Code of Hammurabi, c. 1780 BCE
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.asp#text

The actions of others, starting with original sin yet it has the golden rule in it.

When the bible is your preferred holy text?

Seriously?!?

And i'll be sure not to try to "force" anyone not to believe. While I'm at it, I'll make sure not to kick any babies or blow up the moon. Thanks for the heads up, there. I was in significant danger of going out and burning some non-heretics to put the fear of no god in them.

All one needs to do is point out that not everybody has the same religious beliefs. If one argues that it must be so because it's in the bible, one is essentially arguing from what is, at least to everybody else in the room, a fictitious starting point.

The particular part of the problem I'm talking about is that it is impossible to even argue about ethics with people who draw (or even just believe that they draw) their ethics from a religious authority. All you can do is argue about their religion. If you do not share a sufficiently similar religion, or are unwilling to pretend you do, your *only recourse* is actually just to say that their religion is untrue. In other words, this stupid idea that we should "respect their beliefs" is not just difficult. It's completely fucking impossible,, unless we just don't engage them on these issues at all.

Those who believe in absolute morality impossible to argue with, because can never be wrong. And that's why it's so important to argue the facts of these things. Very good.

In a recent op post I suggested that they come from experience, not from above. God speaks in and through experience, not through divine commands or laws. That is where religion has been headed for some time. You are just a few centuries behind where religion is. Don't put us back in a box that we left long ago. If you want to argue with fundamentalists good. so do I.

between regular experience that clarifies morality and God-inspired experience that clarifies morality? They appear to be exactly the same to a neutral observer.

No bible references, and all the rest of it? Enough. If your "experience" is an inviolable mystical experience, then it forms your authority too. If it really is no more, or less, than your actual experience, then you are one of the *non majority* of religious believers whose religion has no ethical content. Great for you, if so. But you aren't typical, and I'm not talking about you.

It's just one after another, with same silliness I already covered in the original post.

If you think God speaks through experience, not commands or laws, then the Bible is irrelevant - being the experience of largely unknown people from thousands of years ago that you cannot verify, not your own. It claims to have lots of laws from God in it, making it highyl suspect to your type of modern Christian.

This would seem to make your book "Building a Biblical Faith" a waste of time, wouldn't it? Or are you repudiating it?

"ethics through experience" and the priesthood of the believer?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers

" Protestants believe that through Christ they have been given direct access to God, just like a priest; thus the doctrine is called the priesthood of all believers. God is equally accessible to all the faithful, and every Christian has equal potential to minister for God. This doctrine stands in opposition to the concept of a spiritual aristocracy or hierarchy within Christianity."

What is the difference between the experience of one's relationship with Jesus and one's experience of a relationship with anything else?

then you can complain that in many cases the effects are harmful. However, we cannot wait until the debating society has reached conclusions, and popularized the conclusions. We need laws, and religion has influenced people who have the authority to vote in a democratic system. Their authority is real, regardless of whether or not their religious doctrines are authorized by God.

Meanwhile, some members of the non-religious debating society will achieve fame for the ethics that they formulate. They probably won't be known as "Popes" or "fakirs", but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. They may write their formulations of ethics in sundry books. The important point is that some people will accept some of these famous writers or their books as authorities.

Thus, you will face the question: is the given formulation a legitimate foundation for ethics? If it isn't legitimate, then you will have the task of persuading people to renounce it. Does that sound familiar? I hope that it does.

You wrote that non-religion is "just a place where people can get together and argue over things as they actually appear to be." However, there's no basis for an argument until there are shared assumptions. Also, you cannot discover the foundational principles of ethics by aiming a telescope or microscope somewhere. Careful observation of physically measurable stuff won't help you make any progress in discovering the foundational principles of ethics. If we are talking about ethics, then there is no easy way to get a clear view of "things as they actually appear to be." The things that are to be viewed are intangible things.

You dismiss that approach far too readily, I think.

You're very seldom going to be able to convince someone to renounce their religion by force of argument. You may sometimes be able to convince them to reinterpret it slightly, though.