Do you like Sam Harris?

[Farm Boy]

Ah! Ok, so if you drastically reinterpret the tone of the posts, would it help you reinvision the whole exchange?

 

[timtofly]

The only thing, that I see, is the point at which an ideology becomes a truth. I was not raised in a cult, so truth to me was never the "wrong" truth. Forcing a person that something is true, when from their perspective it is clearly not, is the whole basis of indoctrination. I agree with that point. No one seems to see the pointlesnesss of indoctrination, and the phobia of indoctrination.

To admit that means that such a person can never think for themselves, and people driving home the irrational acceptance that indoctrination is a thing, just enforces that fact to such a person. However if another human steps in and attempts to force any other human they are wrong in any manner of their life, they are attempting indoctrination that they are so insistent on correcting. If indoctrination is wrong then stop pointing out to others they should stop indoctrinating.

The whole point is to express to those humans one is entrusted to raise is that they can figure life out on their own. The whole reason that religions are formed is to figure things out, but to tell people, they are wrong hardly gets one any where. Cults take it a step further, and do claim truth. But humans cannot come and change that.

People will only change if they see the need to. It is never because someone tells them they are wrong no matter how much their concern is and how genuine their intentions.

The fact is all religions do not have the handle on truth, else there would be only one religion, because there can only be one truth.

Truth is not relative. Only how one perceives the truth. If a religion starts out wrong, it can never be the truth. If it had the truth, but changed it over time, due to human foibles how would one figure out what the original truth was? No human wants to be wrong, nor can any human actually claim the truth, when other humans are unwilling to see it that way.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I am an actively rearing father. It is my obligation and responsibility to teach my son right from wrong. What actions are optional, what actions are obligatory, and what actions are unacceptable. I am also responsible, whether I want to be or not, for his indoctrination. Critical thinking skills develop over time. He didn't start with them developed and they aren't fully in place by the time kids start asking questions. He wants and needs to know why to act and not. He wants to know why his mom acts certain ways. He wants to know why his friends act certain ways. He wants to know why I act certain ways. He needs to know why he's being punished when he's punished, and he needs to know it's not arbitrary. ...

If what you're asking is whether or not I'll love him regardless of his choices, I'd be taken aback.

Nobody has suggested you don't love your son. Of course kids have questions.

If what you're warning me about is not teaching my son things like it rains because God has to pee, I'd be taken aback.

I'm not sure how to interpret this - are you saying that is what you told your son, instead of an age-appropriate version of the water cycle?

If what you're telling me to do is answer my son's big questions all with, "I don't know" or "Catholics think this, Hindus think this, Muslims think this, Agnostics think this..." No, that won't do. He wants to know what I think. Then he wants to know why I think it. I'm Dad. I'll tell him. If I don't, he'll get it from somewhere else. TV. The internet.

"I don't know" is an honest answer, if you really don't know. There is nothing shameful about "I don't know" unless you're saying it falsely or out of apathy. An honest "I don't know" is better than a lie to make the questioner think you know the answer.

He's going to get my doctrines until he's old enough to possess the developmental skills that will result in his accepting or rejecting them whether or not I want him to. He'll get enough indoctrination from his teachers, his peers, Hollywood, the music industry as is. I am not going to paint these alternative sources of doctrine and inculturation as equally worthy of respect and emulation, they're not. By calling me to de-emphasise my own, not only is there the implication that mine is damaged, there is a call that a different is so superior that the only moral thing I can do is to teach somebody else's. I refuse the shame.

Define "alternative sources of doctrine." Nobody is suggesting that you should teach your son to accept the word of a Hollywood celebrity over people who actually know what they're talking about. But you come across as saying that only you tell the truth and only you are fit to speak to your child and impart new knowledge if he asks questions, and that it's shameful to allow anyone else to tell him anything.

Unless you plan to homeschool, I foresee a lot of confusion when the teacher says something that is inconsistent with what you told him. It sounds as though you don't consider his future teachers to be good enough to teach, that teachers are not worthy of respect.

What are you going to say when he tells you that some kids in his class don't believe in God? Will you do the ethical thing and say that not everyone believes the same thing and that's okay, or will you tell him to avoid those kids because they're bad or liars or confused or rebelling?

I've had all those slurs thrown at me, to my face and online, and it hasn't made me too fond of the people who stick their noses in the air as though religion automatically makes them better people.

 

[Farm Boy]

No, I don't tell my son rain is a mystical blessing of urine. If you suspect I might, I am taken aback.

It is still a blessing. God in his grace has given us much to be thankful for. Like dedicated teachers.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

No, I don't tell my son rain is a mystical blessing of urine. If you suspect I might, I am taken aback.

It is still a blessing. God in his grace has given us much to be thankful for. Like dedicated teachers.

Taken aback, as in shocked? Insulted?

Now you know how I feel when I'm accused of being "confused" or "rebelling against God" or engaging in devil worship. Since I don't believe in either of them, it's a pretty stupid thing to say to me (speaking generally, since I know you yourself have never said them to me).

 

[Farm Boy]

I think the only word I want to quibble with in that post is "Now." But I haven't figured out how to dance to that tune gracefully enough, so I'll leave it implied, if that's alright.

 

[Lexicus]

But you come across as saying that only you tell the truth and only you are fit to speak to your child and impart new knowledge if he asks questions, and that it's shameful to allow anyone else to tell him anything.

It's weird because he doesn't come across that way to me, or, I would suspect, most other people at all.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think the only word I want to quibble with in that post is "Now." But I haven't figured out how to dance to that tune gracefully enough, so I'll leave it implied, if that's alright.

Are you saying you already knew how I feel about having such attitudes dished out at me? I'm looking for clarification here.

It's weird because he doesn't come across that way to me, or, I would suspect, most other people at all.

Uh-huh.

And you speak for most other people?

 

[Lexicus]

And you speak for most other people?

No, which is why I said "I would suspect."

 

[Valka D'Ur]

No, which is why I said "I would suspect."

It's implied.

Try being on the receiving end of remarks like that. It's an iffy thing to even have a casual conversation at a bus stop; I was chatting to someone while waiting for the bus at the college (in the early 1980s), and of course an obvious question is "what program are you in?". She wasn't pleased to hear that my major was anthropology. I got a lecture about how bad it was, how I'd better re-think being in this program since my soul needed saving, etc. and so forth. She was quite adamant that she wanted me to drop out and study something less "sinful."

Apparently studying human fossil remains and archaeology is a sin. Who knew?

 

[Ryika]

I think the only thing I really disagree with Sam Harris on is his view on Objective Morality.

No matter how often I listen to him talking about it, I always arrive at the same conclusion, that he is still making a subjective judgement when he sets a standard for objective morality.

 

[Berzerker]

subjective morality = what you believe
objective morality = what everyone believes

 

[Ryika]

But there's literally no moral position on which everyone who is alive (and everybody who has ever been alive) takes the same position. By that standard, Objective Morality is a meaningless concept.

 

[Synobun]

Objective morality is just a term people use when they want to pretend they have divine backing for their opinions.

 

[Traitorfish]

subjective morality = what you believe
objective morality = what everyone believes

Eh? "Objective" describes something that is true independent of belief.

 

[Berzerker]

Eh? "Objective" describes something that is true independent of belief.

And morality involves beliefs

"Moral universalism is the position in meta-ethics that some moral values, or moral system, can be applied universally to everyone — or at least everyone in similar circumstances. It is also known as universal morality, moderate moral realism or minimal moral realism, and is a form of ethical objectivism.

Moral universalism holds that moral values apply to individuals regardless of their personal opinion, or the majority opinion of their culture. Other characteristics such as religion, race or gender are also excluded from moral judgements.

Moral universalism does not neccessarily imply that morals exist apart from humanity itself, but considers sources of morality outside of opinion. Universal truths about human nature and/or reason may come into play as reasons for the universality and objectivism of morality."

http://www.philosophy-index.com/ethics/meta-ethics/universalism.php

linked from:

http://www.philosophy-index.com/ethics/meta-ethics/objectivism.php

A universal truth about human nature is one we share (objective), not one I believe (subjective)

 

[Ryika]

Moral universalism is the position in meta-ethics that some moral values, or moral system, can be applied universally to everyone — or at least everyone in similar circumstances. It is also known as universal morality, moderate moral realism or minimal moral realism, and is a form of ethical objectivism.

Moral universalism holds that moral values apply to individuals regardless of their personal opinion, or the majority opinion of their culture. Other characteristics such as religion, race or gender are also excluded from moral judgements.

I mean it's true in the sense that, if we agree that unnecessary suffering is morally bad, then it doesn't make sense to punish a woman for being raped even if some Islamic goat-lovers think otherwise. Their actions simply don't lead to the desired outcome, so by our metrics their behavior is morally wrong and should be condemned.

But to even define a desired outcome we still have to make the value judgement that "unnecessary suffering is morally bad". That's not objective morality, that's just subjective morality applied objectively.

 

[Traitorfish]

And morality involves beliefs

Well, sure. But "objective" describes something that is true independent of belief, not something that is widely or even universally believed. That's just the definition of the word.

 

[Berzerker]

I mean it's true in the sense that, if we agree that unnecessary suffering is morally bad, then it doesn't make sense to punish a woman for being raped even if some Islamic goat-lovers think otherwise. Their actions simply don't lead to the desired outcome, so by our metrics their behavior is morally wrong and should be condemned.

But to even define a desired outcome we still have to make the value judgement that "unnecessary suffering is morally bad". That's not objective morality, that's just subjective morality applied objectively.

Did you ask the goat lover if unnecessary suffering is morally bad? They might agree... But they might also believe the practice is necessary for their culture. Universalism doesn't care what he or the majority says, it seeks out what we have in common and not even the goat lover wants to suffer unnecessarily.

Well, sure. But "objective" describes something that is true independent of belief, not something that is widely or even universally believed. That's just the definition of the word.

From my 2nd link:

Moral objectivism is the position that moral truths exist independently from opinion.

There are several versions of moral objectivism, of varying levels of strength. They area, from weakest to strongest:

• Moral universalism
• Moral realism
• Moral absolutism

 

[Traitorfish]

That's what I sa- oh, forget it.