Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Religious and Social Ethicality and Personal Identity


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
50 replies to this topic

#1 DenizB1992

DenizB1992

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:25 PM

Posted 17 February 2016 - 11:46 AM

Before I start to dive into the questions that really matter I would like everyone (admins, mods, BC members, and guests) to please take this post as an informative and educational reference towards the ethics of religion in today's society and the morals that follow it.

 

*DISCLAIMER*

  • This in no way bashes/criminalizes/defames/hates on any particular religion.
  • All religions (atheism, agnostic, christian, catholic, islamic, hinduism, etc...) will be discussed and used as an example especially when I state ALL RELIGIONS. 
  • Please keep distasteful and ignorant comments to yourself.
  • Be friendly and open minded while reading and posting your own feedback.

 

NOW TO BEGIN>.....

 

Religion as we know in most of the world is an important corner piece for many people. For as long as history has been written, religion has played an important role in how we congregated, evolved, and lived our lives. As a devout Agnostic I neither believe in God(s), Devil(s), or an afterlife but if evidence to support those claims of existence were presented and verified then I will accept all knowledge toward those findings. But for several of my colleagues their understanding of their specific religion (won't jump into the specific ones) are the only way of existence. Many have also imposed those beliefs on children not yet able to make informed decisions on their own (babies and children). While I believe it is important to believe in something, I believe it would be more beneficial for a person to come to their own conclusion instead of being told what is and what isn't. As our societal pressure dwindled and many more people are coming to the acceptance of others despised what certain texts or understandings demand from us I want to bring the question of:

 

Is it morally wrong to impose your own ideals on a child or infant whom has no understanding of the world yet?

 

Would you impose those ideals on your own child?

 

Would you consider forced religious teachings to be the same as brainwashing?

 

Do you feel if you weren't brought up in a certain religious background your thoughts would either be more or less valid due to self understanding instead of biased behavior/expectations from authority figures and respected peers?

 

Personally I wouldn't impose anything on my child and allow him/her to come to their own conclusion of the age old question... Is there an afterlife and what happens next? I believe being able to let them come to their own understanding would allow them to pass into an understanding of who they are as individuals and how they identify themselves in a world where originality is slowly becoming something everyone else is.

 

I would like to hear what the community has to offer on this topic. Please again be courteous towards others and no bashing.



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,826 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:25 PM

Posted 17 February 2016 - 05:04 PM

I have always had an open mind to others opinions and points of view, even learned some things along the way.  I never influenced my children to do anything that was essentially their choice.  Their beliefs, based mostly what they learned at home and balanced against the schooling and what friends say have been as righteous as anyone can expect.  Having experienced the attempted  forced Christian teachings of some "groups" find them offensive to anyone who graduated high school.  The many teachings that appear to have some common links only points to what religion has done to the real stories.  Religion corrupted beliefs to the point of pitting them against each other because they don't believe the same teachings of their respective religions.  Just like what politics has done to democracy.  Corruption to the point of physically attacking each other.  To make this world work, we have to put away our differences and work together to solve the plights that tear at the world society.  Lets not talk about what makes us different, lets build on the strengths that make us alike.


Edited by mjd420nova, 17 February 2016 - 05:06 PM.


#3 JohnnyJammer

JohnnyJammer

  • Members
  • 1,117 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QLD Australia
  • Local time:01:25 PM

Posted 17 February 2016 - 07:04 PM

What makes me laugh when it comes to religions is that a  lot of other religious type people always laugh at Scientology (That cant be true, Zeus or Voltar the God created earth bl;ah blahb lah), but for people such as my self who dont believe in sky fairies or fire pits under the earth is that they are all basically the same.

They all want your $ and use scare tactics of some sort in order to huddle the masses and basically rob you dry.

 

Also no i dont think you should ever force your own perceived, twisted view on life and how life began to a young brain which is trying to develop its self.

People can believe in anything they like but the second they start to tell me im going to hell or trying and push their view on to me and the people i love then sorry, i will fight back with facts and stated evidence, you know science.

There was a funny quote from a comedian that went something like..

 

"I i asked my christian friend what he thought about dinosaur bones that are millions of years old and he said God put them there to try and test our faith"

 

Yes crazy isnt it! When you have witnessed people die in front of you or when you hold their hands when they take their last breath then im sorry there is no beam of light, there is no hovering or special type mystery, you stop breathing and thats the end of that.



#4 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 8,621 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:11:25 PM

Posted 17 February 2016 - 08:05 PM

DenizB1992 wrote:
Religion as we know in most of the world is an important corner piece for many people. For as long as history has been written, religion has played an important role in how we congregated, evolved, and lived our lives. As a devout Agnostic I neither believe in God(s), Devil(s), or an afterlife but if evidence to support those claims of existence were presented and verified then I will accept all knowledge toward those findings. But for several of my colleagues their understanding of their specific religion (won't jump into the specific ones) are the only way of existence. Many have also imposed those beliefs on children not yet able to make informed decisions on their own (babies and children). While I believe it is important to believe in something, I believe it would be more beneficial for a person to come to their own conclusion instead of being told what is and what isn't. As our societal pressure dwindled and many more people are coming to the acceptance of others despised what certain texts or understandings demand from us I want to bring the question of:
 
Is it morally wrong to impose your own ideals on a child or infant whom has no understanding of the world yet?

--------------

Personally, I think that this question itself is unanswerable, except for very specific beliefs like religion, belief in the scientific method, belief in specialized hypotheses/theories, etc.

While I'll buy the whole "tabula rasa" bit with regard to children, there is no way to be a parent without "imposing" your own ideas on a child, even if only by introducing them to those, and others. Most children find, as they make their way to adulthood, and regardless of their upbringings, that they either strongly gravitate toward certain beliefs of their parents and actively reject certain others.

As a parent a part of your role is to mold and form your child as best you can. That's not the same thing as being a constant "enforcer" with them and their every belief. You couldn't do that even if you wanted to, and my observation is that those brought up under the most restrictive circumstances, particularly religious restrictions, very often rebel against these far more strongly than those who are given exposure, even strong encouragement, to adopt a stance but are ultimately allowed to make that determination themselves.
 
--------
Would you impose those ideals on your own child?
--------

I think I've already answered that above.
 
-------
Would you consider forced religious teachings to be the same as brainwashing?
-------

Seriously, what is a "forced" religious teaching and how does religious teaching vary from any number of other teachings? You can force religious practice (or the appearance of it) and you can force individuals (children and adults) to mouth the sentiments you want to hear when power dynamics allow it, but I don't think that religious teachings are any more forced than other things you teach them.  It's impossible to teach everything, and a travesty to teach nothing.  You are going to pick and choose what you teach your child, about anything.  You can expose a child to a single religious outlook but, in the world we live in now, it is impossible to limit them to hearing just what you're saying. Also, rigidity of thought can be promulgated in many areas other than the religious, and often is. People just love certainty, and some people deal far less well than other with uncertainty, and those who deal less well tend to be rigid, period.

Also, I've seldom seen any person become spiritual/philosophical/religious "spontaneously." By our very nature we tend to focus on the temporal because that's (relatively) easy to contemplate. I don't think it's harmful to any child to begin looking at the "big questions" that are taken up by the world's religions. One of the best professors of philosophy I ever knew was capable of presenting the viewpoint he was presenting as if he believed it to his very core, though he didn't believe a lot of them. He had a belief in examining philosophical questions thoroughly. (I also found out later he was a minister in a protestant denomination. Which one I cannot recall all these years later.)
 
--------
Do you feel if you weren't brought up in a certain religious background your thoughts would either be more or less valid due to self understanding instead of biased behavior/expectations from authority figures and respected peers?
--------

Actually, for my self, I think they'd be less valid because they'd probably not even be well formed. My religious upbringing was a springboard for the contemplation of the self and understand my relationship with others. I haven't been "caged" by that upbringing.
 
--------
Personally I wouldn't impose anything on my child and allow him/her to come to their own conclusion of the age old question... Is there an afterlife and what happens next?
---------

Personally, I think that everyone does come to their own conclusion to this question. It can be strongly colored by one's religious background, but for everyone who's accepted what they were taught hook, line, and sinker and without questioning it there are those who've come to the same conclusions, and diametrically opposed conclusions, because their background brought the very contemplation of this question to their minds.
 
-------
I believe being able to let them come to their own understanding would allow them to pass into an understanding of who they are as individuals and how they identify themselves in a world where originality is slowly becoming something everyone else is.
-------

I don't believe that anyone, really, comes to their own understanding of anything in a vacuum. I also don't think that instruction in matters religious and philosophical need be (not that it often isn't - I can't deny reality) a mental cage, but can be instead a scaffold.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#5 ScathEnfys

ScathEnfys

    Bleeping Butterfly


  • Members
  • 1,375 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Deep in the Surface Web
  • Local time:11:25 PM

Posted 24 February 2016 - 08:59 PM

Are we not "forcing" scientific doctrines on our children too? Sure, the majority of scientific beliefs are provable, but some other things bother me (the fact that extremely small particles behave according to different laws of physics than the objects we interact with, for one).
Proud system builder, modder, and watercooler.

GitHub | SoundCloud | Keybase

#6 PhotoAce

PhotoAce

  • Members
  • 165 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Local time:03:25 PM

Posted 24 February 2016 - 09:06 PM

There is a world of difference between scientific education and religious indoctrination. One gives the tools to understand the world we live in, the other seeks to control your inner world.


Edited by PhotoAce, 24 February 2016 - 09:06 PM.


#7 ScathEnfys

ScathEnfys

    Bleeping Butterfly


  • Members
  • 1,375 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Deep in the Surface Web
  • Local time:11:25 PM

Posted 24 February 2016 - 09:12 PM

@PhotoAce
Both can be used in both ways. Unfortunately people often ignore science's ability to control and religion's ability to explain. I personally use the two as complementary tools to keep each other in check. People forget that philosophy can be used to understand the external world as well as the internal.
Proud system builder, modder, and watercooler.

GitHub | SoundCloud | Keybase

#8 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!


  • Members
  • 3,159 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:11:25 PM

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:15 PM

Science is about study and the quest to better understand things.

Religion is just saying "god did it"

really without scientific understanding we would still think the cold was caused by demons and we would all live in mudhuts.

 

Yes I am a atheist why do you ask? :D


Edited by MadmanRB, 10 March 2016 - 06:23 PM.

You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

ljxaqg-6.png


#9 cynical_guy

cynical_guy

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England
  • Local time:10:25 PM

Posted 29 May 2016 - 07:46 AM

Excerpt from DenizB1992

 

Is it morally wrong to impose your own ideals on a child or infant whom has no understanding of the world yet?

Would you impose those ideals on your own child?

Would you consider forced religious teachings to be the same as brainwashing?

Do you feel if you weren't brought up in a certain religious background your thoughts would either be more or less valid due to self understanding instead of biased behavior/expectations from authority figures and respected peers?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Yes, I think it's extremely wrong to impose such.    Wouldn't dream of imposing ideals.   Yes, forced teaching I feel is same as brainwashing.   Yes, I agree with the last.  Let one form his/her own opinions.    It's no wonder kids grow up to be...confused? rebellious? 

 

I've been an atheist since I was 10yo.  Would also say based on above question, that is the reason I've always been rebellious, etc.



#10 MajesticFailure

MajesticFailure

  • Members
  • 137 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:25 AM

Posted 29 May 2016 - 06:09 PM

Re: Post #8

 

    "Science is about study and the quest to better understand things.
    Religion is just saying "god did it"
    really without scientific understanding we would still think the cold was caused by demons and we would all live in mudhuts."


Science and Religion are perfectly compatible. I don't get why New Atheists must bang on about this Straw Man, that there is somehow a conflict between Religion and Science and that Religion doesn't use rationalism. Sure, some religious texts are incongruent with our present understanding of the universe. But l'm talking about Religion per se. Science is always eating itself anyway, hence the constant flow of new textbook editions. Also, rationalism is nothing new in Religion, only a cursory look at the history of any time-honoured religion will tell you that.

The modern scientific method ("the approach to investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge, based on the gathering of data through observation and measurement, followed by the formulation and testing of hypotheses to explain the data") can be attributed to a religious scholar of Islam (which goes to show how fanatics and terrorists are nothing to do with religion). There were also famous religious personalities in Christendom who were great scientists, e.g. the monk Gregor Mendel, father of Genetics.



But these men were scientists despite their religion? If you say so, but then you admit that the two things are on different planes and not incongruent. QED.



As for living in mudhuts, that appeals more and more to me when l see shopping trolleys and car tyres dumped in rivers with ducks and swans weaving in and out, and some poor miserable Siberian native fishing in a river glazed over with rainbows from oil pollution. Yeah one day l'd love to live in a Hobbit hole, no need for heating even in the dead of winter. I think we're entering a whacky New Age, lighten up, open your mind, accept that we know n / infinity, which approximates to zero; enjoy the rollercoaster ride. When the planets align and a monolith appears outside the cave, it's only the whacky ones that will take their cue therefrom and infer a way to break the light barrier and explode onto the galactic stage, while the stuffy know-it-alls remain in the cave, content with watching shadows and denying the light (in the name of science!).

Food for thought.
 


Edited by MajesticFailure, 29 May 2016 - 06:10 PM.


#11 ScathEnfys

ScathEnfys

    Bleeping Butterfly


  • Members
  • 1,375 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Deep in the Surface Web
  • Local time:11:25 PM

Posted 29 May 2016 - 06:20 PM

@MajesticFalure

Thanks for reminding me of the Islamic Empire.

Not only were Muslims responsible for safeguarding the knowledge of earlier societies during Europe's Dark Ages, they made many scientific breakthroughs of their own - a fact that many Europeans/"Westerners" like to forget.

Furthermore, these breakthroughs occurred because the Islamic Empire saw science as a tool to better understand their faith. They understood that small "facts" in their holy books may not line up with scientific fact. They accepted that science would change their understanding of the world from the perspective imposed by interpreting their texts as absolute fact. However, this did not shake their faith.

I honestly think those Muslims perfectly modeled the lifestyle that religious folks like myself should follow: trust God, but don't shun that which can be proven to be true.
Proud system builder, modder, and watercooler.

GitHub | SoundCloud | Keybase

#12 MajesticFailure

MajesticFailure

  • Members
  • 137 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:25 AM

Posted 29 May 2016 - 07:28 PM

Hi ScathEnfys, l know what you mean, l think there's an Arabic / Islamic proverb: Trust in God but tie your camel.

 

To me that means, Religion is valid, but don't forsake your intellect. (= keep your eyes open, be cautious, be in the world - that is science in a nutshell isn't it?)

 

I guess it's like how, just because it's glorious sunlight above the clouds every day, we on the ground still need to be mindful of meteorology :-)



#13 Al1000

Al1000

  • Global Moderator
  • 7,875 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland
  • Local time:04:25 AM

Posted 30 May 2016 - 04:54 AM

"Science and Religion are perfectly compatible."

Science holds that mankind evolved from more primitive lifeforms. The Bible says that God created Adam in the Garden of Eden then created Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

Either our species evolved, or the story in Genesis (or perhaps some other religious book) is true. You can't have it both ways.

Edited by Al1000, 30 May 2016 - 04:55 AM.


#14 MajesticFailure

MajesticFailure

  • Members
  • 137 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:25 AM

Posted 30 May 2016 - 05:14 AM

Hi there,

 

Preamble:

 

I'm kinda neutral in this. I don't believe any religions are legit anymore, and church must be separated from state. I can only speak for Religion in general. What l was saying was that Religion is not as guilty as New Atheists make out.

 

 

Fallacy of Equivocation / Semantic Fallacy - Evolution is not Fact, Science is not a Noun:

 

As for the Theory of Evolution - it is a theory. The common response to that these days is that in Science, a theory is what plebs would call "fact". Not true, a theory in Science is a theory. It's something which works so far, so good.

 

I also remind you that Science is properly a method.

 

You may also note that those who believe in Creation also use Science to trump evolutionary theory and they do a stellar job of it (l deign to call them "Creationists", as that has become a proper noun for a movement which believes men and dinosaurs walked side by side, l'm quite skeptical about that).

 

 

Fallacy of Circular Logic - "It is not so ... therefore it is not so":

 

What you've actually just said is that Religion cannot have recourse to Science (i.e. "Evolution = Science, and evolution is anti-Religion, therefore Science is anti-Religion"), therefore Science and Religion cannot mix. That is circular logic.

 

 

Fallacy of Omission - "Certain facts be damned":

 

You've also completely cast aside what was linked to in Post #10, an article written by a Christian Arab Professor, who claims that a Muslim Arab was the first scientist, the father of the scientific method (and he would be correct in that). Sounds like l'm appealing to authority by saying the Muslim Arab was religious and a scientist, therefore on his reputation, religion and science can mix. Context is important though: he and the vast majority of polymath scholars that the Long Peace produced when the middle part of the world became one faith and borders and cultures became fluid, were never perceived to be flying in the face of religion by themselves nor their peers.

 

 

Religion <3 Healthy Skepticism:

 

Finally, l'm sure all Religion would stipulate, or at least should, that: there must always be an element of doubt, so that life without seeing God, has merit, because it is a test. Hence Religious folk are "Believers" and "Faithful", because they don't know for a fact.

 

 

Disclaimer - What I Personally Believe:

 

This is simple universal reason, and l don't wish to promulgate any religion. Islam is a fallen religion like all others, and pretty much all of the horror headlines today are based on one single premise: religion is dead, but some don't realise it yet, thus you have the absurd situation of veiled women walking past massage parlours, which makes the chastity of the veil into a form of unchastity because of how ridiculous the jarring clash in visuals is (strip joint vs. woman in veil pushing a pram) and because of the irreconcilable mindsets, when Muslims try to live a religious life in a secular and predominantly Atheist (?) milieu (that applies to Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt etc. as much as the West, they're all secular). I don't want to attack a woman for wearing a veil though, we're all human, but l think there should be something tactful done, like official classes on secularism. Same goes to Evangelical Christians, Messianic Jews, and New Atheists, each are rife with fanaticism, strains of a more benign but fallen, parent religion. Secular society is a round table where we find commonality and countenance alternative views, savour it.

 

In fact, l think l probably should have said Theism rather than Religion, as Religion is systematised and l guess scripture bound. All l believe is that there is something out there (of course l have doubts but l'm convinced there is something out there, and you know very well the universe is on the face of it, utterly Absurd, there can't be a border between something and nothing, and an Atheist isn't allowed to contemplate Infinity as in an infinite universe, as that is God), in an open mind, and a synthesis of spirituality with science (not New Age spirituality as we currently know it, but not too far from that) in a coming golden age. We can at least hope in getting off this planet :d  I'm all out of words, bye.


Edited by MajesticFailure, 30 May 2016 - 06:17 AM.


#15 Al1000

Al1000

  • Global Moderator
  • 7,875 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland
  • Local time:04:25 AM

Posted 30 May 2016 - 05:50 AM

"You may also note that those who believe in Creation (l deign to call them "Creationists", as that has become a proper noun for a movement which believes men and dinosaurs walked side by side, l'm quite skeptical about that) also use science to trump evolutionary theory and they do a stellar job of it."

How many Steves think that the story in Genesis is true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

"What you've actually just said is that Religion cannot have recourse to Science (i.e. evolution = Science, and evolution is anti-Religion, therefore Science is anti-Religion), therefore Science and Religion cannot mix.

I'm not sure if you're addressing me, but that's not what I said. What I said is: "Either our species evolved, or the story in Genesis (or perhaps some other religious book) is true. You can't have it both ways."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users