Since recent activity in Iraq has fueled a major debate, I decided to put in a thread. Sure, not much of a link to American Atheists, but good for a weekend.So here it is. An open forum on Iraq. Have fun.BTW and IMO, I don’t really know what to do here. Sure, I think we need to be out, but it’s always easy to look back in time and make good decisions. In the present, in the real world, we made a mess, and we need to clean it up… or do we?
spanders:
I think that the conflicts you describe indicate that you have a moral compass. This compass assesses each situation in detail to try to find the right way. As the ground shifts under and around you your compass is always trying to find the right balance and point to the right way. This, I believe, is a universal morality that exists independant of religion but at some level, is incorporated into religions usually with some distortion. The literalists, for example, reject this universal compass in favor of the false dichotomy of right/wrong, good/evil. They refer to yours and my floating compass as moral relativism. I prefer to think of it as ‘steadfast’ in the midst of chaos. The right/wrong dichotomy of morality refuses to look at each problem as unique and prefers to pigeonhole the issue one way or the other. They put blinders on and make judgements at face value.
billh:
Hear, hear!
The trick I learned as a bullied child was reflected in 1 of my favorite shows, ‘Homicide: life on the streets’:
“You don’t bully a bully. You make them think.”
Of course, that’s on an individual basis. Not sure if it applies to nations per se.
The other trick I learned: make a friend out of an enemy.
& sometimes, the greatest strength is simply walking away.
Unfortunately, there are occasions where none of these are options: sometimes you just have to clock someone.
When the right way presents itself, how do you identify it? Bertrand Russell was asked much the same question by Frederick Copplestone. Russell’s answer was “on the basis of my feelings, what else?”. To characterize your compass as “steadfast” seems to assign some objective quality to it. Maybe you can clarify?
The truth exists independant of object and subject. We use our gut to tell us but really we are just trying to use our experience and our intelligence to make the best decisions possible. To try our best to obtain the truth rather than to pigeonhole a situation into a subjective or objective perspective.
The justice system fails in this way often. Instead of pursuing the truth about a case it is easier to provide a defense and a prosecution to present ‘either side’ of the truth and then pick one as the winner.
The truth is steadfast, I aspire to the truth and my moral compass is always searching for it. It may be wrong to characterize my compass as being steadfast. I intend that the value I hold in the truth and the aspiration of reaching the truth is the steadfast value that stands amidst the chaos of an ever changing world.
I might even go so far as to say that the truth and the aspiration of it is the meaning behind the metaphor that is ‘god’. If I was a xian this would be an example of what I should be spending my time on, finding out the meaning of the message. Ironically, as an atheist, I think I have more insight into this than most xians.
Hmm.
The truth, as you describe it, has an objective flavor. To “make the best decisions possible” implies a system of measurement. If truth is objective, what is the source? Are you referring to evolutionary ethics?
Actually, I’m trying to distinguish the truth from both object and subject. If I fail in doing so, it is because of my poor word talking.
I see what you are getting at though, and it doesn’t escape me either. We make the decision, how do we know?
The theists out there will say that using this model there can be no absolute proof of truth. They may be correct in theory. Joseph Campbell once pondered this issue and put it this way: (paraphrase) If there is no proof of tomorrow’s existence, would a blade of grass suddenly say to itself, “well what’s the use!”?
The best we can do is to try our best. This may sound simplistic but if you look at what we’ve accomplished in the past 10,000 years, I’d say we’re doing pretty good. I take a pragmatic approach to the truth which implies a materialistic, objective method. In this you are correct, yes, the scientific method is an objective method and it is one in which, to a lesser degree, we employ in our everyday calculations, human nature perhaps(we are made in god’s image perhaps?)
However, the truth is not in our perception of it nor is it in the method by which we pursue it. The truth exists independant of both of these things. We do our best and keep an open mind, open to the truth, because even when our objective assumptions are proven wrong, it is only because we continue to pursue the truth. This process builds and climbs continuously. Literalists wish to stop this process entirely, ostensibly by criticizing one or two established theories. They apparently don’t realize that science is open to criticism and change. That is what makes it work. Adapt and change, in a continuous pursuit of the truth. Maybe absolute truth is inaccessible to us, I don’t think that really matters. We pursue the truth because it is in our nature. Not to do so would be to deny our humanity. This is why I said to GooseHenry “If you can’t trust humans to get the answers, you are a failure as a human being”. A bit hyperbolic I admit. To those who don’t like it I say this:
You want perfection, I want excellence.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply(ies).
I don’t see how the scientific method can influence the needle on one’s moral compass, though. Physical truth is, in my view, on a separate plane from moral truth. But you seem to suggest that we can determine the truth value of a given moral dichotomy by testing it in our “everyday calculations”. Close?
I have this uncomfortable feeling that I’m misinterpreting you.
I think that the best way of understanding it is that morality applies to physical truths just as it does to social and intellectual truths. They are at different levels like a computer program is at a higher level than the electronic circuits but are interdependant. We do have to make judgement calls to access the truth. The method should not be confused with the truth. We do the best we can with what we’ve got. We’ll make mistakes but the point is to get up and try again.
you people give bush too much credit. he didnt think of any of this. This was wolfy’s and cheney’s and rove’s doing. Bush is just the mongoloid puppet.
perhaps i should go on a shooting spree and say god told me to do it. apparently this is justifyable. I smell fascism(at the very least).
Many people are worrying about the soon to be civil war in iraq. This is not where your eyes should be. i am worried about the civil war in america. If religion keeps getting its dirty hands on politics we will have a civil war of our own to worry about.
I mean the social class gap is ever increasing. the middle class is merging with the lower class and upper class is rising higher and higher on the income chart. We will have another france on our hands.
maybe well have a coup and our problems will be solved
Physical truths or values are just one level of values. On top of those come the organic and then the biological level of values. Higher levels take precedence over the lower level values if there is conflict. Lower level values are essential to the higher levels as long as there is no conflict. Above the biological values come the sociological ones. The Victorians perfected this level of values, to name one example. And on top of this comes the intellectual level of values such as freedom, human rights, justice, etc.
I believe that through this framework it is possible to understand most conflicts and issues we are facing today. For example, we have rules that limit the sexual activities of the members of our society. This is for the good of the society. A sociological value trumps a biological one. The problem is we have many societies with differing rules. Up until recent history, we have placed society as the ultimate purveyor of the conduct of its citizens. Around World War I the citizens of the world realized that there had to be a better way, because the current value system did not take into account conflicts between different societies. Since that point, we saw the beginnings of a dominant intellectual value system emerge. The League of Nations, the United Nations, the American Civil Liberties Union, Workers Unions, Universal Healthcare(in most civilized countries). The emergence of ideologies, Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, intellectual concepts began to be trial run as higher value systems. Alternatively, the nationalists began to fight back. The struggles we see now around the world and in the US can be seen through the filter of a war between those who see the sociological level of values as supreme and those who see intellectual level of values as supreme. Are you a citizen of the world that values human rights, the geneva conventions, justice and liberty or do you believe that there is nothing wrong with being eternally at war with anyone or everyone as need be, with the right to detain and torture with no access to a fair trial?
This is a battle still in progress. Hitler fought back the intellectuals, so did the Soviets, and now so do the neo-cons. This is a dangerous path we are on. Retired justice Sandra Day O’Connor just stated that we are at the beginnings of a dictatorship in a recent speech. Iraq is just the disastrous beginnings of an imperialistic dictatorship that came to power through a silent coup d’etat. Iraq can’t be helped now, we have bigger problems.
spanders:
No apology needed, we are just sharing thoughts and ideas.
Reluctantatheist:
I have walked away from conflicts before, but have had to stand up to them also. In the real world, we have to realize that sometimes diplomacy will just not work, nor will ignoring conflicts work either. Violence should only be used as a last resort and the smart thing is to know when you have to use it. For example, you stop using diplomacy BEFORE the gunman starts to squeeze the trigger, by then it is too late.
Reconnaissance
RECCO Observations (non tropical cyclone) [ How to read ] Vortex Data Message [The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is the first of the Rob…