So yeah, our threads on religion have long since died out, so I figured it would be time to start afresh here!
Do you believe God exists (I know almost all of you don't)? Do you feel religion is important today? Is it a force for good? Discuss everything related to that here!
I'm going to start the ball rolling:
We all know about the rise of ISIS and the terrible acts it perpetuates. Does that show that Islam and religion in general is an awful concept? Is it the people who twist it? Or is it fundamentally an evil force?
Yeah, I was wondering where this was going as well. Personally, I would define these terms by just looking in a dictionary. Definitions just tell us what words mean when ordinary language users say them.
Are you after something deeper than a definition, maybe? Something like an analysis or reduction of these terms? It might be helpful to let us know where you're going with this so we can provide more informed answers.
@Moegreche You're right. I just wanted to get a definition on a "gut level" for now because I didn't want to ask for something too deep from you guys without being ready to provide those definitions myself. I am building a list of words and definitions based on my own experiences and making connections between them; I'm using my experiences to define words in order to communicate a worldview.
For example: Love is ultimately good and hate is ultimately bad. Patience and kindness are good because it builds relationships and cultivates good character. I know this through experience when I help my brother with his math homework. If I'm angry at him, he tends not to learn the material and he gets frustrated with me. If I'm patient, he tends to listen better and understand better, and we get along. Patience is good, so love is patience.
This agrees with the Bible's definition of love. By doing this, I'm hoping that my worldview based on experience agrees with my faith. I asked you guys to define these words to see how they align with my definitions. I guess it would have been more appropriate for me to ask for your definitions based on your experiences in the first place, but I wasn't sure if you guys were willing to provide them without my input first.
My logic is that if having faith is the only way to the ultimate good, then the object of that faith is true. That is assuming that the ultimate good is having a peaceful and advancing society or at least influencing someone else's life so that they are thriving with joy. Like Plato wrote, happiness is the ultimate good. How do you get to that happiness? Christians like to use the word joy because happiness implies pleasure in worldy objects while joy comes from fulfillment in worshipping Christ. That is just an example of a difference in definitions because a Christian can argue that joy is the ultimate good and a nonbeliever can argue that happiness is the ultimate good when looking from another point of view, they are the same thing. So hopefully in this discussion, we can find and connect those differences in our own definitions.
I mean, religion is based on and constantly influenced by society, so naturally there will be many overlapping aspects of such basic concepts as emotions.
Christians like to use the word joy because happiness implies pleasure in worldy objects while joy comes from fulfillment in worshipping Christ.
That may be a language/cultural thing. To me joy and happiness are synonyms; though if I had to separate the two, I'd say joy is more immediate/physical, and happiness more of a general state of mind. Weird, huh?
Also, happiness is not absolute, at least I don't think so; just as I don't adhere to absolutes like good and evil. I'm pretty sure that from a neurological point of view, you can't be 100% happy all the time, unless you're psychotic in some way. You need something to contrast it with. Joy will feel less intense if you are already happy, and much more intense if you're currently neutral or not so well. I aim not for perpetual happiness but contentedness, which I consider a much more stable basis. Also, this might be one aspect of why I think something like eternal bliss in heaven cannot really work.
Patience is good, so love is patience.
Both blood and ketchup are red, and yet blood is not equal to ketchup.
If you'll allow me a last comment, it almost sounds like you're not sure yourself about what ultimate good really is. Just noting, not criticizing. Am I wrong?
it almost sounds like you're not sure yourself about what ultimate good really is
I really like lozer's project here, but I share this worry.
When we talk about something's being good, we are making an ethical claim. Now, depending on what ethical theory is operating in the background, this is going to either be: (1) a claim about rightness, or moral correctness, or (2) a claim about value.
We know that it can't be (1) because 'love' is not an action, nor is hate. So they can't be morally evaluated along these lines. That leaves (2), so what you're after is a claim about value. This would match up really well with a theistic view, so that's okay. Christian love, for example, would have value in this sense. It's a nice fit.
But here's my worry. You're trying to argue that patience is good, therefore love is patience. Now, Doombreed has correctly pointed out that this is an invalid argument. That's going to be a serious problem for your project. But I have another worry: the argument you give that patience is good is a consequentialist argument. In other words, you explain why patience is good by pointing at the good consequences it brings about.
This is a problem because it's antithetical to your value claim from above. The reasoning here gets complicated and I'm happy to explain it--I just didn't want to derail the discussion with this line of thought.
I am building a list of words and definitions based on my own experiences and making connections between them; I'm using my experiences to define words in order to communicate a worldview.
I think using personal experiences can't communicate a worldview because you are trying to use a part of a whole to define the whole itself. More on that, the words you are trying to define are very subjective in the way people understand them on personal level. Of course on the surface they generally mean what they mean, but how people can act on things like faith are very different.
If I'm patient, he tends to listen better and understand better, and we get along. Patience is good, so love is patience.
I think I can safely say I agree with what the others have said but I'll add a little on to that.
So again I'm thinking a part of a whole is not the whole itself. I think love can be defined through many characteristics, not just patience. I am not just patient with who I love, I am also forgiving, respectful, deeply caring, generous, kind, understanding, etc. I think perhaps these characteristics together can define love, but individually simply mean different things. The problem is, love is such a loose term, and people love differently, but I think the common ground is that love towards a person brings in many positive underlying characteristics.
I'm speaking about love in this manner because of the situation you were using as an example, but I think I can say love generally works this way.
Patience and kindness are good because it builds relationships and cultivates good character.
1 What of relationships built on a mutual hatred for something/someone else?
2 What do you mean by 'good character'?
My logic is that if having faith is the only way to the ultimate good, then the object of that faith is true. That is assuming that the ultimate good is having a peaceful and advancing society or at least influencing someone else's life so that they are thriving with joy.
... Why?
If believing in the divinity of Snobgobgyz'zaz the Merciful makes me an all around better person, does it follow that Snobgobgyz'zaz is a real god?
You need something to contrast it with. Joy will feel less intense if you are already happy, and much more intense if you're currently neutral or not so well.
That's because the brain automatically adjusts its sensitivity to joy-inducing stimuli if it is constantly exposed to them. You don't really need other stimuli for comparison, because joy itself is a departure from the homeostatic baseline.
I think I can kinda see where @lozerfac3 is going with those points. Bear with me here
1 - So I think that there, those relationships founded on hatred of others, those aren't "good" relationships in the sense that they're not really healthy and "well-rounded". I don't think anyone is looking at any kind of hate group and aspiring to be as close to their friends as those guys for similar reasons. I think the hate there, even though it's mutual, turns what would be a "good" relationship into something poisonous. I'd say a good relationship is built on respect, caring for the other person, shared healthy interests. Anything built off of scathing negativity or hatred of others really can't ultimately be a considered a good thing. I think that's where that relationship would fail to meet most people's criteria for a good relationship in the general sense.
2 - We're all aware of things which make up "bad" characters. Things like impatience with others, short tempered, curmudgeonly, rude, condescending etc, those kinds of things, would generally be considered "bad" character traits and if those things were a constant, that person may be thought of as having a "bad character" overall. The opposites of those, patience, even tempered, welcoming, polite, respectful, those would be traits of someone with "good" character.
Obviously most people are always going to be a mix of the two, however you can get people who are mostly one or the other
It's the difference between people you avoid and the people you're happy to see
@Boofuss and while this is all well and good, I fail to see the correlation with faith. You can be all of those things without being religious. I don't understand how faith can be the only way to the ultimate good. Which shuts down the second bit of his logic, that the object of said faith must be true if that's the case.
1 - So I think that there, those relationships founded on hatred of others, those aren't "good" relationships in the sense that they're not really healthy and "well-rounded".
No true Scotsman. By redefining "relationships" as "good, healthy, well-rounded relationships" you automatically exclude all counterexamples for the weak assertion that relationship-building is a quality that makes something good.
2 - We're all aware of things which make up "bad" characters. Things like impatience with others, short tempered, curmudgeonly, rude, condescending etc, those kinds of things, would generally be considered "bad" character traits and if those things were a constant, that person may be thought of as having a "bad character" overall. The opposites of those, patience, even tempered, welcoming, polite, respectful, those would be traits of someone with "good" character.
In other words, "it is good to be kind and patient and bad to be unkind and impatient, therefore kindness and patience are good". That's begging the question.
Maybe I'm being too poetic. I drew inspiration from 1 Corinthians 13 where it says "Love is patient". It means that love is defined by patience. But patience is only one component of love. Love is also kind. Love is not self-seeking, not proud. Love does not envy, does not boast, is not easily angered, keeps no record of right or wrong, does not dishonor others, and never fails. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. According to 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.
Umm, not really. Are you suggesting that love is good, so is patience, therefore love is patience?
Love surely entails patience but they are entirely different things.
Both blood and ketchup are red, and yet blood is not equal to ketchup.
You're trying to argue that patience is good, therefore love is patience. Now, Doombreed has correctly pointed out that this is an invalid argument. That's going to be a serious problem for your project.
Uh, no. That's called a false equivalence.
I apologize. I didn't mean to say they are equivalent. I meant to say that love is defined by patience in the same way that the bible verse did. I think a lot of the problems came from this misunderstanding, but let me try to understand your other points.
But I have another worry: the argument you give that patience is good is a consequentialist argument. In other words, you explain why patience is good by pointing at the good consequences it brings about.
This is a problem because it's antithetical to your value claim from above. The reasoning here gets complicated and I'm happy to explain it--I just didn't want to derail the discussion with this line of thought.
Thank you. Let's talk about it though because it is interesting.
If you'll allow me a last comment, it almost sounds like you're not sure yourself about what ultimate good really is. Just noting, not criticizing. Am I wrong?
You're not wrong. I cited Plato as an example of what the ultimate good can be.
1 What of relationships built on a mutual hatred for something/someone else?
How about I change it to say that patience and kindness are good because they build up healthy relationships. Relationships that do not physically or emotionally harm someone else and instead aim to enrich the other person's life.
2 What do you mean by 'good character'?
I mean like integrity and steadfastness and stuff like that.
If believing in the divinity of Snobgobgyz'zaz the Merciful makes me an all around better person, does it follow that Snobgobgyz'zaz is a real god?
Actually no it doesn't.
@Boofuss and while this is all well and good, I fail to see the correlation with faith. You can be all of those things without being religious. I don't understand how faith can be the only way to the ultimate good. Which shuts down the second bit of his logic, that the object of said faith must be true if that's the case.
I realized my logic is wrong here. I think I should just keep it as: If my worldview agrees with wisdom found in the bible, then the wisdom from the bible is true. There is still a gap in logic in there, but I think all I need to do is add the condition that my worldview must be true.
So, the Bible's wisdom is true if:
1. my worldview agrees with it.
2. my worldview is true.
Right now this isn't an argument for if my faith is true, but rather if the wisdom from the Bible, from which I derive my faith, is safe and sound. This can eventually be used as evidence for the truth of my particular faith. As you have correctly stated, you might be able to come to the same conclusions that are true. But, it is nice to know that Christianity isn't a complete sham.
No true Scotsman. By redefining "relationships" as "good, healthy, well-rounded relationships" you automatically exclude all counterexamples for the weak assertion that relationship-building is a quality that makes something good.
lozerfac said patience builds relationships and cultivates good character. I think it's safe to say he meant healthy relationships. Don't raise such a fuzz over one word missing. If he meant healthy relationships in the first place, if he meant relationships not built on mutual hatred for something else, then it can't be a No True Scotsman, just a misunderstanding/misdefining of a term. Look at his post above.
Right now this isn't an argument for if my faith is true, but rather if the wisdom from the Bible, from which I derive my faith, is safe and sound. This can eventually be used as evidence for the truth of my particular faith. As you have correctly stated, you might be able to come to the same conclusions that are true. But, it is nice to know that Christianity isn't a complete sham.
Well, there are certainly some values to be found, in Christianity, but I don't think it's any conclusion you cannot reach for yourself without a little common sense. Like, what is kind, how to be kind, things love entails, like patience. The lessons, the so called "wisdom" of the Bible are easily comprehensible by one's own soul searching really. And the rest of the things in the bible, well, let's not talk about those again to say they are "horrid" is a gross understatement.
Why would the wisdom in the bible, which really is simply how to have some basic human qualities, make your faith any more true? Just because the people who wrote this book, (the pioneers of this religion you could say) knew how to be kind, does not mean that they are right about everything else they say
Why would the wisdom in the bible, which really is simply how to have some basic human qualities, make your faith any more true? Just because the people who wrote this book, (the pioneers of this religion you could say) knew how to be kind, does not mean that they are right about everything else they say
This. I said something related to this in my previous post. If at least that 'wisdom' was specific to Christianity - but it's not.
Well those values are only one facets of the worldview. I guess another condition would have to be that my worldview takes into account all aspects of life.
