Interfaith Marriage and Children

[Nicodemus]

[MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION]: I would offer to you that viewing things in a determinisric fashion often provokes antisocial behavior

Then there is a problem we have to deal with. But, let me be bold and say: lies make bad solutions.

 

[UniqueMixture]

I would say simply that different perspectives require different information in order to grow.

 

[Lexicon]

Ok, I'll take you at your word.

Do you understand where I'm coming from now?
Do you still believe my first two posts were illogical?

Yeah- I follow. & I do appreciate you providing a contrasting perspective.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Can a moral relativist believe something is objectively naughty? Because I've seen some shit, ya know?

WTF HAPPENED TO THIS THREAD

 

[Lexicon]

Can a moral relativist believe something is objectively naughty? Because I've seen some shit, ya know?

WTF HAPPENED TO THIS THREAD

..Same thing that happens to every thread like this, Pinky..

 

[Cimarron]

Also, regarding parenting: After my parents divorced, my Mom started talking with a Pakistani man she had known through work. He was also divorced, with a daughter around 10 years old or so. I sensed even back when they were colleagues that there was an admiration between them... Well, once they considered dating, a few issues arose. He was not sure how to explain to his daughter that he was bringing an adult-figure into the family who wasn't Muslim, and my Mom gave him her terms again: You have to decide how much this means to you. Would you give up on a chance for love and maybe marriage because of this? How long can you hide this from your daughter? In the end, he couldn't bring himself to tell his daughter the interreligious situation, so that romance broke off. My Mom thought that the way he handled it all showed a weakness of character.

 

[Beorn]

But, let me be bold and say: lies make bad solutions.

I agree.

They listen to their hearts to find out what is desirable.

What's this heart you speak of? Surely not the material heart as it pumps blood and looking at it wouldn't profit much, What is your evidence of the existence of this heart people look into?

In the same sense in which I believe in the rules of digestion.

Explain, please.

[MENTION=5789]Beefeater[/MENTION]

If something is good because God wills it, then morality is something completely arbitrary. It would be redundant to say that God is good, as it would be merely stating that God acts in accordance to his own will; and from that it follows that any ethical statement of the form "God wills us to do what is good" is logically empty and identical with the statement "God wills us to do what he wills us to do".

Now to avoid a state of affairs where everything is or could be permissible as long as it is done in accordance to any perceived understanding of the will of God, one would have to assume that God has somehow decreed what is always morally right and wrong, for which The Bible seems a good candidate. But in such a case one could simply ask what if God has already decreed that lying is morally good and thus wills it that everyone should always lie, and being consistent with that, so would his word be a lie.

Or do you hold that God is also subject to some moral authority, either internal or external?

If there is a God there is plenty of natural evidence that he is a God of order and that he is not arbitrary.

I believe God is limited by his own character.

Note that the story of Abraham and Isaac actually demonstrates God is not morally arbitrary. It is meant to show that while the God of Abraham demands the same level of obedience to his will as pagan gods he is unlike them in that he holds himself to a higher standard. He doesn't simply do everything he has a right to do, but does what is good and merciful.

I agree that logic can be used as a tool, and consistency of thought can be used as a guide... but people arrive at different conclusions using the same logic if their initial assumptions differ. Just because two guys swing the same bat in the same arc doesn't mean their ball will land in the same spot -- it depends on the size of the man and his musculature, and the size of the ball, and the speed of the wind, among other things. Initial conditions change the answer.

I actually agree quite a bit with this. That's why I don't totally buy into scholasticism. I don't think you can reason your way to God because that is premised on certain presumptions. But, I do think we can arrive at some agreed upon logical conclusions. My whole point in arguing this issue is to show people that everyone is basing their opinions on unprovable assumptions. Whether someone takes one side or another on a religious issue ultimately revolves around what unprovable assumptions they make. Christians are just more honest about the faith involved in their thinking than others who rely just as much on faith, but won't admit it.

[MENTION=5789]Beefeater[/MENTION], I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am advocating a set of universal principles on which morality should be based. So while all feelings have equal "weight" on an individual level the values which benefit the most individuals on a global (or larger) scale are more important in my opinion. I recognize this may piss you off, but in my opinion humanity > Christians alone.

In the murder scenario, I would sentence the person to life imprisonment for several reasons. 1) It is cheaper than litigating for the death penalty. 2) The death penalty is irreversible and does not allow for the possibility of restitution 3) Often people are falsely convicted and if they are dead, then they cannot be freed so some semblance of justice can occur.

In the case of the Christian theocracy, I imagine I would disagree with much of what would be decided there because I believe humanity should focus on integration to face global and universal challenges such as colonizing other worlds or curing disease.

However, if you saw my post on creating "prosocial" communities I would be ok with a community dedicated to christianity however, I think it may turn out very different than you I'magine if all of the principles of pro-sociality were followed.

Why should we prefer morals that benefit humanity over the individual?
How do you determine what is a benefit and what is a detriment to humanity?
You do realize that I believe my moral opinions benefit humanity the most, right?

 

[Totenkindly]

I actually agree quite a bit with this. That's why I don't totally buy into scholasticism. I don't think you can reason your way to God because that is premised on certain presumptions. But, I do think we can arrive at some agreed upon logical conclusions. My whole point in arguing this issue is to show people that everyone is basing their opinions on unprovable assumptions. Whether someone takes one side or another on a religious issue ultimately revolves around what unprovable assumptions they make. Christians are just more honest about the faith involved in their thinking than others who rely just as much on faith, but won't admit it.

I agree with the gist of this, but I don't agree with the assumption that "all assumptions are equal." Yes, every piece of data has some kind of error in it (due to limitations of understanding and observation), yet some assumptions seem to conform better to reality than others. Otherwise I might as well go drink antifreeze because it "smells nice, hence it must taste good" -- there are some pretty lousy assumptions out there.

Hence, I think the last line of this paragraph is a stretch; value should be based on the reasonableness of the assumption itself, rather than on some tangential issue like you suggest -- which in the case of faith typically amounts to, "well at least I admit I'm assuming unlike you other guys who place more stock in what can be reasoned and observed" and yet in practice is morel ike, "To be honest, I actually believe I am correct 100% regardless, so it's still not really an assumption on my part." It all seems slippery to me.

 

[Beorn]

I agree with the gist of this, but I don't agree with the assumption that "all assumptions are equal." Yes, every piece of data has some kind of error in it (due to limitations of understanding and observation), yet some assumptions seem to conform better to reality than others. Otherwise I might as well go drink antifreeze because it "smells nice, hence it must taste good" -- there are some pretty lousy assumptions out there.

Hence, I think the last line of this paragraph is a stretch; value should be based on the reasonableness of the assumption itself, rather than on some tangential issue like you suggest -- which in the case of faith typically amounts to, "well at least I admit I'm assuming unlike you other guys who place more stock in what can be reasoned and observed" and yet in practice is morel ike, "To be honest, I actually believe I am correct 100% regardless, so it's still not really an assumption on my part." It all seems slippery to me.

I don't think all assumptions are equally valid. i just think that all assumptions are... well, assumptions.

Reason itself is based on unprovable assumptions so it's rather circular to rely on it to tell you which assumptions to rely on.

 

[Nicodemus]

What's this heart you speak of? Surely not the material heart as it pumps blood and looking at it wouldn't profit much, What is your evidence of the existence of this heart people look into?

It is, as you know, a metaphor. Unless you can prove that all the workings of the human brain are somehow connected to god, I do not see this line of reasoning going anywhere fruitful.

Explain, please.

The laws of logic describe patterns of thinking most human beings are capable of, but they are neither absolute nor a necessary aspect of humanity.

Yes, if that is so, there is room for your god and myriads of other nonsensical ideas, but still no reason to believe in them.

 

[Beorn]

It is, as you know, a metaphor. Unless you can prove that all the workings of the human brain are somehow connected to god, I do not see this line of reasoning going anywhere fruitful.

My point is that even though you say you don't believe in God or universal absolutes you can't escape using language laden with moral meaning. There's a reason why you chose to use a metaphor instead of saying a bunch of ultimately arbitrary chemical reactions go off in the brain and then people respond to those reactions.

The laws of logic describe patterns of thinking most human beings are capable of, but they are neither absolute nor a necessary aspect of humanity.

Yes, if that is so, there is room for your god and myriads of other nonsensical ideas, but still no reason to believe in them.

Sometimes I'm amazed at the amount of ground you concede.

I don't see how you have a reason to believe anything if even logic is not absolute.

 

[Nicodemus]

My point is that even though you say you don't believe in God or universal absolutes you can't escape using language laden with moral meaning. There's a reason why you chose to use a metaphor instead of saying a bunch of ultimately arbitrary chemical reactions go off in the brain and then people respond to those reactions.

I chose those words deliberately in order to find out whether you really wanted to go there. The way I describe things does not, sadly, determine the way things are.

I recommend chapter II - 'Persons Without Minds' - from 'Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature' by Richard Rorty.

Sometimes I'm amazed at the amount of ground you concede.

I don't see how you have a reason to believe anything if even logic is not absolute.

I am not absolute either, yet I reason, dream, feel and cannot help but do so. Evolution happens to have produced me this way.

When we have these discussions, I do not aim to prove that there is no god (because that is, for more than one reason, impossible), but I can show that your reasons for believing in one are, as it were, irrational (which, I believe, we already agreed on some time ago).

 

[tinker683]

I am an atheist, humanist, and Tao-cultivator. I suspect the odds are very strong that I'm going to marry someone with differing views of mine own (most probably a Christian) and as such decided that she could raise the children with whatever religious faith she grew up with so long as the values we teach are kids are grounded in empathy, fairness, and compassion.

She would also however have to accept that I may or may not convert or share her beliefs. If she did not accept that, then a long term union would not be possible.