Religion and scuba

[dfx]

So, prior to the Supreme Court ruling there was no such right?

In some states, no, there wasn't.

And prior to the Civil War slavery was okay?

That depends on what you mean with "okay." Have people thought it was okay? They sure have. Most of them, anyway. Was it socially acceptable? Most definitely. Was it uncontroversial? Not sure, probably not, but that doesn't really matter much. Was it actually okay? Most definitely not.

So what happened there? Has morality changed over time? Is it all just a matter of consensus?

What happened was that people based their morality, or rather their sense of morality, on false premises. There were several of these false premises. People thought the black people were an inferior human "race" up to the point of likening them with animals. They had no feelings, lower intelligence, etc etc all kinds of crap. This gave people the sense that slavery was OK. Other people disagreed, thought that humans are humans no matter what the colour of their skin is. Depending on what area or what time period you're looking at, they may have been in a minority or a majority.

So here we have two different opinions. One says that certain people are inferior to other people, the second says that there are no human "races" and that we're all equals (highly simplified). So there's a conflict here. How do we go about figuring out which one is right?

We use evidence! Evidence shows us that people are just as capable of doing all kinds of stuff as other people, completely independent of the colour of their skin. There are no inferior "races." We're all just humans. You don't need to look at DNA to figure this out, but DNA did confirm this conclusion just in case there were any doubts left.

Race is just one of the reasons that led to slavery. At certain times, people enslaved other people regardless of their "race." This is where we look at happiness and suffering. You don't want to be enslaved, so you shouldn't enslave others either. It's really not that hard!

There are moral truths to be known and they're based on evidence. But we don't have all the evidence in yet and perhaps we never will. This means we don't have all the moral truths yet. We keep learning though, and that's a good thing. Perhaps in a hundred years, things that we think are perfectly OK today will be considered horrific. A society's sense of morality is subject to development, just as the scientific understanding is subject to development. The more developed a society is, the closer its understanding of morality will be to the (perhaps unknown) moral truths.

So where does this leave your god and the bible? The bible not only condones but explicitly endorses slavery. It lays out rules for slavery, says that you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die from it and that it's OK to rape your female slaves. Today we know that this is clearly wrong (to put it mildly). It's not only wrong today, but it was wrong before the civil war and was also wrong during biblical times. So why has your god laid out these rules for slavery? If morality is absolute and comes from god, why isn't there a commandment "thou shalt not own other people as personal property?" Has your god changed its mind about slavery? Was your god wrong about it, has it made a mistake? Does the bible suggest that some people are inferior to others? (Spoiler: yes it does.)

I think the Christian view tends to run more similar to what was stated in the Declaration of Independence; that man was endowed by His creator with certain inalienable rights. That because we (or at least our ancestors) were created in the image of God and are valued by Him, that this gives us worth. And I believe this mindset, or similar ones, has had a lot to do with shaping our culture.

So where does this "Christian view" come from? From the bible? Most definitely not. Nothing in the bible talks about inalienable rights for everybody. I'm sure you can find some passages that could be interpreted that way, but I can find passages that say exactly the opposite. The whole idea of having a "chosen people" seems to contradict the very concept. As do the different rules for slavery for Jewish slaves and other slaves.

When the value of human life and human rights simply become matters of social policy based on contemporary popular opinion & legal codes, I think we lay a foundation that in time will favor eugenics and who knows what else?

Now this totally is the slippery slope! I've been waiting for that!

 

[drrich2]

In some states, no, there wasn't.

I know, legally. What I was questioning is whether the pro-gay rights people believed gays in states where gay marriage was legally forbidden at the state level had a moral right to gay marriage. You speak to similar ideas here, in your last sentence:

That depends on what you mean with "okay." Have people thought it was okay? They sure have. Most of them, anyway. Was it socially acceptable? Most definitely. Was it uncontroversial? Not sure, probably not, but that doesn't really matter much. Was it actually okay? Most definitely not.

And here:

At certain times, people enslaved other people regardless of their "race." This is where we look at happiness and suffering. You don't want to be enslaved, so you shouldn't enslave others either.

There are moral truths to be known and they're based on evidence.

Perhaps in a hundred years, things that we think are perfectly OK today will be considered horrific. A society's sense of morality is subject to development, just as the scientific understanding is subject to development. The more developed a society is, the closer its understanding of morality will be to the (perhaps unknown) moral truths.

On the other hand, it's quite possible that some things we now consider horrific will be thought perfectly okay in the future. To many people from the past, the vast number of fetuses aborted today would seem an atrocity to dwarf the holocaust, if only in sheer numbers. But many people conclude they're not human. Even the partial birth abortions where the body's pretty well formed. Makes eugenics seem quite possible. I get what you mean about the slippery slope angle; it is, however, worth being aware of as a potential consequence of the mindset. Especially as you seem to believe religion inspires people to cause harm to others (as if atheism won't?).

Okay, a few followup points to address:

1.) Slavery was a social institution of the day. I believe some people sold themselves into slavery for employment (today, you can enlist in the military & once in, they can do things like send you into combat and other highly hazardous situations), and I suspect some would have been criminals or POWs. The sort of people we lock up in cages for years, where some of them rape each other. And we rip off the tax payers for huge amounts of money to fund this. Oh, and chain gangs look to be a form of 'slave labor.' If someone sold himself into slavery for a time, then apparently in his own judgment, his alternatives were worse. And for criminals & POWs, well, it was a time in history when they were much more liberal in applying the death penalty than today, although I suspect those who'd rather be dead could've had their wish. While I dislike the institution of slavery, I believe it's far more complicated that the mindset many of us have today based on African slaves in the early U.S. and which we now deem evil.

2.) The Bible does teach about human worth. Created in the image of God. Love thy neighbor as thyself. That is then a basis by which many infer rights. Interpretive, but reasonable.

Richard.

 

[Storker]

Countries lacking a separation of church and state are obviously vulnerable

OTOH, in a country like the US of A, which has an explicitly secular constitution, an openly atheist (or gay) person has about the same chance of becoming the leader of the nation as a snowball has of surviving a week in hell. While in a country where the constitution requires the King to be a member of a specific version of a religious community (in my example, the Lutheran church), an atheist (or gay) PM wouldn't raise an eyebrow in the public community.

It's not about formal separation of state and church (although I think that that's the only sensible alternative). It's about how secular or religious the society is.


--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug

 

[dfx]

On the other hand, it's quite possible that some things we now consider horrific will be thought perfectly okay in the future. To many people from the past, the vast number of fetuses aborted today would seem an atrocity to dwarf the holocaust, if only in sheer numbers. But many people conclude they're not human. Even the partial birth abortions where the body's pretty well formed. Makes eugenics seem quite possible. I get what you mean about the slippery slope angle; it is, however, worth being aware of as a potential consequence of the mindset. Especially as you seem to believe religion inspires people to cause harm to others (as if atheism won't?).

Two things here. Something being potentially true or possibly true doesn't make it true. This is why I emphasize evidence so much. Evidence gives us reason to believe that something is actually true. Something being possibly true doesn't mean jack. We need to look at the evidence to make that determination.

And secondly, no, atheism doesn't cause people to harm others. Now I can anticipate your responses to this because I've been though this a few times. Stalin, Lenin or other communists certainly had atheism on their mind, but they didn't do what they did because of atheism. Hitler wasn't an atheist at all. I can elaborate on this further if you wish and if you think you still have a point.

1.) Slavery was a social institution of the day. I believe some people sold themselves into slavery for employment (today, you can enlist in the military & once in, they can do things like send you into combat and other highly hazardous situations), and I suspect some would have been criminals or POWs. The sort of people we lock up in cages for years, where some of them rape each other. And we rip off the tax payers for huge amounts of money to fund this. Oh, and chain gangs look to be a form of 'slave labor.' If someone sold himself into slavery for a time, then apparently in his own judgment, his alternatives were worse. And for criminals & POWs, well, it was a time in history when they were much more liberal in applying the death penalty than today, although I suspect those who'd rather be dead could've had their wish. While I dislike the institution of slavery, I believe it's far more complicated that the mindset many of us have today based on African slaves in the early U.S. and which we now deem evil.

Now you have some explaining to do. Is or was slavery actually wrong or not? Just a few posts ago, you gave slavery as an example of something that most definitely is wrong, but now you seem to be defending it. What gives? Were people actually right to own slaves before the civil war? It was a social institution of the day, did that make it right? That's exactly the example you gave. You really need to make up your mind.

And it's really not that more complicated. The bible talks about buying slaves from the heathens. Passing them on to your children as property. It talks about slaves "being as good as money." Is this moral? Has it ever been moral?

You should really take up tap dancing, I think you would be very good at it.

2.) The Bible does teach about human worth. Created in the image of God. Love thy neighbor as thyself. That is then a basis by which many infer rights. Interpretive, but reasonable.

And at the same time, it teaches how unbelievers, i.e. "other people" aren't worth anything. I can quote-mine too, you know?

 

[drrich2]

Now you have some explaining to do. Is or was slavery actually wrong or not?

Depends on the circumstances. I consider involuntary slavery of a person who's done no wrong to be wrong. Thus, I consider the institution of slavery in the early U.S. to be wrong. Voluntary slavery or enslaving criminals I'd have to look at on a case by case basis. The idea of turning prisons into self-sustaining profitable factories does not bother me much.

The bible talks about buying slaves from the heathens. Passing them on to your children as property. It talks about slaves "being as good as money." Is this moral? Has it ever been moral?

I'd have to ask God the ins & outs on some of it. I don't think the Bible started it; I think it provided some guidance regarding something that was already in effect.

To a person who believes in God and accepts the Biblical record, the missing pieces are expected to fit in somewhere. And this also speaks to the question of what value systems are based in. Modern U.S. culture has been so programmed with an anti-slavery mentality that the topic triggers a knee jerk reaction without deeper thought (e.g.: the Draft, prisoners). Not unlike your slippery slope; link the Bible to slavery and, because people have been indoctrinated to hate slavery (based on the one kind we're familiar with & modern sensibilities), goad them to discount it by association.

While I don't think atheism directly causes people to harm each other, the move from 'inalienable rights' to 'rights are just social policy, not inherent, subject to whim' paves the way to legitimize practices that by modern standards are deplorable. I brought this up because you tend to vilify religion as a bad influence on the human race we'd be better off without. I'm not convinced many generations of highly predominant atheism in society is going to be an improvement.

Richard.

 

[dfx]

Depends on the circumstances. I consider involuntary slavery of a person who's done no wrong to be wrong. Thus, I consider the institution of slavery in the early U.S. to be wrong.

Meanwhile, this is exactly what the bible endorses.

Voluntary slavery or enslaving criminals I'd have to look at on a case by case basis. The idea of turning prisons into self-sustaining profitable factories does not bother me much.

Wow, that's some serious stretch of the imagination there. Prisoners are not slaves. Slaves are owned by people. OWNED, "like money" as the bible puts it. If you think that there's even the remotest similarity, then your moral compass is seriously skewed.

I'd have to ask God the ins & outs on some of it. I don't think the Bible started it; I think it provided some guidance regarding something that was already in effect.

No, the bible certainly didn't start it. But if (involuntary, as you call it) slavery is so utterly wrong, why doesn't the bible outright condemn it? Where's that verse that says: thou shalt not own other people as personal property?

To a person who believes in God and accepts the Biblical record, the missing pieces are expected to fit in somewhere.

AKA squaring the circle. Explaining away those inconvenient facts.

While I don't think atheism directly causes people to harm each other, the move from 'inalienable rights' to 'rights are just social policy, not inherent, subject to whim' paves the way to legitimize practices that by modern standards are deplorable. I brought this up because you tend to vilify religion as a bad influence on the human race we'd be better off without. I'm not convinced many generations of highly predominant atheism in society is going to be an improvement.

Maybe you want to look at the statistics I posted a few pages back. Predominant atheistic societies tend to be wealthier and happier.

It's very ironic that you condemn "rights are just social policy, not inherent, subject to whim" as being bad. A while back, you said that your god is the ultimate authority on morality. Whatever your god decides is moral, is moral. How is that not subject to whim?

And that's not even mentioning that the (still straw man) argument that secularism promotes morality based on just social policy or whim is completely inaccurate. If you still believe that, then please re-read my last few posts.

 

[BRT]

"We use evidence! Evidence shows us that people are just as capable of doing all kinds of stuff as other people, completely independent of the colour of their skin. There are no inferior "races." We're all just humans. You don't need to look at DNA to figure this out, but DNA did confirm this conclusion just in case there were any doubts left."

You should try to explain this to the NBA!

 

[LeadTurn_SD]

At my age, I pray every year for another year of diving. I don't know if it helps, but it can't hurt.



Bob
------------------------
I may be old, but I'm not dead yet.

Best answer yet, dammit!!

Ooops, I blasphemed... but I'm a "recovering Catholic", of the Irish Catholic variety, and thus I am perpetually guilty (of some sin or other), so... what is one more "strike" added to my long list?

Can I answer that now the Ocean is my God, and scuba diving is the practice of my Religion?? Although I do tend to hedge my bets with the odd Hail Mary if the surf is up... Ohhh, I think I blasphemed again.

Best wishes.

 

[drbill]

As a scientist, I tend not to be a theist but also recognize that I don't know everything and can't prove the existence or non-existence of a god or what happens after this life. I try to live my life according to the Golden Rule common to many beliefs and would do so whether there is a God or not. On Sunday I attend "services" in the Kelp Kathedral to appreciate the wonders of this world.

 

[Rhone Man]

OTOH, in a country like the US of A, which has an explicitly secular constitution, an openly atheist (or gay) person has about the same chance of becoming the leader of the nation as a snowball has of surviving a week in hell.

I am not convinced that is true. It was a pretty open secret that Reagan was basically an atheist who papered over it for political reasons. And atheism is far more acceptable now than it was in the early 80s. Sure an openly atheist candidate would struggle today, but I don't think we are that far away. A gay President may take a little longer.



---------- Post added July 21st, 2015 at 10:26 AM ----------

I'd have to ask God the ins & outs on some of it. I don't think the Bible started it; I think it provided some guidance regarding something that was already in effect.

To a person who believes in God and accepts the Biblical record, the missing pieces are expected to fit in somewhere. And this also speaks to the question of what value systems are based in. Modern U.S. culture has been so programmed with an anti-slavery mentality that the topic triggers a knee jerk reaction without deeper thought (e.g.: the Draft, prisoners). Not unlike your slippery slope; link the Bible to slavery and, because people have been indoctrinated to hate slavery (based on the one kind we're familiar with & modern sensibilities), goad them to discount it by association.

The Bible is (in part) a moral code, or at least a record of moral codes (10 commandments, teachings of Jesus, etc.). But that code was written between 2,000 and 2,500 years ago, so it is scarcely surprising that it more closely reflects societal norms of the day. The rules it sought to impose were simple and basic, but in many cases were relatively enlightened in terms of its social background.

People who like to attack the Bible as hypocritical in modern times are shooting at straw men. You have to look at the emphasis of the teachings (love thy neighbour as thyself; do unto others, etc.) rather than the granular rules (prohibition of usury, levels of chastisement appropriate for spouses and slaves).