Religion and Morals

[mfbukowski]

I would be... whatever the Chinese name for Mordecai is... right? Regardless, that's a real stretch to say that when I do good for society, it's selfish, particularly when my motive was not selfish and the actions didn't help me, other than an unintended side-effect of feeling good about how unselfish I was. I will concur that pretty much all behavior involves the self. Still, it's taking things too far if your thoughts and behavior were focused on other people's feelings and not your own, but you still say that's selfish.

I never used the word "selfish" and all I said to you involved your assertion about the independence of the "self" from the "culture".

We cannot survive without our cultures- literally. Imagine putting a baby in the desert by itself for a few hours if you don't believe that. ALL our values are programmed by our cultures, which include being "unselfish".

That's why if indeed we put that baby in the desert and someone heard it cry, the chances of its survival would be excellent.

[WalkerW]

My first introduction to evolution was actually from a critic:

Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (Broadway, 1997). He argued that random mutation mathematically wouldn't work out, though (from what I can remember) he has no problem if nature is teleologically "programmed" to evolve. Simon Conway Morris argues for the inevitability of homo sapiens in the evolutionary process:

http://www.publicchristianity.org/Videos/sohu.html

I read these two articles prior to hearing of Morris. It made it easier to accept Morris' hypothesis.

Speaking of Schroeder, I plan on checking out his new God According to God (HarperOne, 2010). The summary should raise the eyes of LDS members:

In this groundbreaking exploration, a biblical scholar and M.I.T.-trained physicist combines decades of research to change the debate between religion and science, presenting a new paradigm of how to understand God.

Gerald Schroeder has spent his career revealing the hand of God in the intricate discoveries of physics. Now, for the first time, he turns his attention to this Force, examining both the Bible and the physical world to discover the true nature of God - God according to God.

Schroeder argues that we have ignored those traits of God we find unappealing, replacing them with our personal desire for the all-knowing, all-loving, neverchanging deity that so many worship today. This leads to the age-old problem: How can there be such a God when the world is filled with tragedy? Yet Schroeder reveals that this troubling juxtaposition is really smoke and mirrors. The God revealed in the Bible is 100 percent compatible with the world as we know it today. It is our misconception of God that causesdisparity. In fact, the concept of God that atheists rail against and that believers defend is inaccurate.

In God According to God, Schroeder presents a compelling case for the true God, a dynamic God who is still learning how to relate to creation. The key to God's action in the world, says Schroeder, can be found in a well-known verse in Exodus that is typically translated "I am that which I am." Schroeder's correction that it should be translated "I will be that which I will be" reveals a God that changes Its presence to fit the ever-changing world.

This opens our eyes to other characteristics of God that we have long overlooked despite their being present in some of the most popular stories in the Bible - a God who regrets (the flood of Noah), a God who wants us to argue with Him (Jacob wrestling with God in the desert), and thus a God who changes His mind (Moses convinces God to spare the Israelite people), and a God who allowed nature, and the creation itself, from the very start, to rebel (Adam's and Eve's betrayal in Eden).

With riveting chapters on the origins of life, a scientist's view of creation, and the unique place of our planet in the galaxy, God According to God offers a radical paradigm shift that will forever change how we understand God.

[Mordecai]

...all I said to you involved your assertion about the independence of the "self" from the "culture".

You didn't use the word but the implication was that since society is part of the self, helping society is selfish. At least, that's what I got out of it, despite you not using the word. I also never said people were independent of the culture. I said the self is not the culture or society.

We cannot survive without our cultures- literally. Imagine putting a baby in the desert by itself for a few hours if you don't believe that. ALL our values are programmed by our cultures, which include being "unselfish".

We're not talking about babies, though. We're talking about adults. And we're not talking about the unselfishness of not committing genocide. I'm talking about, I don't know, reading books to old people, maybe your invalid Aunt Bertha.

[mfbukowski]

I'm talking about, I don't know, reading books to old people, maybe your invalid Aunt Bertha.

You're THAT guy? Why I oughta....

[mfbukowski]

My first introduction to evolution was actually from a critic:

Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (Broadway, 1997). He argued that random mutation mathematically wouldn't work out, though (from what I can remember) he has no problem if nature is teleologically "programmed" to evolve. Simon Conway Morris argues for the inevitability of homo sapiens in the evolutionary process:

http://www.publicchristianity.org/Videos/sohu.html

I read these two articles prior to hearing of Morris. It made it easier to accept Morris' hypothesis.

Speaking of Schroeder, I plan on checking out his new God According to God (HarperOne, 2010). The summary should raise the eyes of LDS members:

In this groundbreaking exploration, a biblical scholar and M.I.T.-trained physicist combines decades of research to change the debate between religion and science, presenting a new paradigm of how to understand God.

Gerald Schroeder has spent his career revealing the hand of God in the intricate discoveries of physics. Now, for the first time, he turns his attention to this Force, examining both the Bible and the physical world to discover the true nature of God - God according to God.

Schroeder argues that we have ignored those traits of God we find unappealing, replacing them with our personal desire for the all-knowing, all-loving, neverchanging deity that so many worship today. This leads to the age-old problem: How can there be such a God when the world is filled with tragedy? Yet Schroeder reveals that this troubling juxtaposition is really smoke and mirrors. The God revealed in the Bible is 100 percent compatible with the world as we know it today. It is our misconception of God that causesdisparity. In fact, the concept of God that atheists rail against and that believers defend is inaccurate.

In God According to God, Schroeder presents a compelling case for the true God, a dynamic God who is still learning how to relate to creation. The key to God's action in the world, says Schroeder, can be found in a well-known verse in Exodus that is typically translated "I am that which I am." Schroeder's correction that it should be translated "I will be that which I will be" reveals a God that changes Its presence to fit the ever-changing world.

This opens our eyes to other characteristics of God that we have long overlooked despite their being present in some of the most popular stories in the Bible - a God who regrets (the flood of Noah), a God who wants us to argue with Him (Jacob wrestling with God in the desert), and thus a God who changes His mind (Moses convinces God to spare the Israelite people), and a God who allowed nature, and the creation itself, from the very start, to rebel (Adam's and Eve's betrayal in Eden).

With riveting chapters on the origins of life, a scientist's view of creation, and the unique place of our planet in the galaxy, God According to God offers a radical paradigm shift that will forever change how we understand God.

You gotta read some A.N. Whitehead- but he is not easy. He creates his own vocabulary so it takes a while to get the hang of it all.

Process and Reality is famous for its defense of theism, although Whitehead's God differs essentially from the revealed God of Abrahamic religions. Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism gave rise to process theology, thanks to Charles Hartshorne, John B. Cobb, Jr, and David Ray Griffin. Some Christians and Jews find process theology a fruitful way of understanding God and the universe. Just as the entire universe is in constant flow and change, God, as source of the universe, is viewed as growing and changing. Whitehead's rejection of mind-body dualism is similar to elements in traditions such as Buddhism.

The main tenets of Whitehead's metaphysics were summarized in his last and most accessible work, Adventures of Ideas (1933), where he also defines his conceptions of beauty, truth, art, adventure, and peace. He believed that "there are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil."[8]

Whitehead's political views sometimes appear to be libertarian without the label. He wrote:

“ Now the intercourse between individuals and between social groups takes one of two forms, force or persuasion. Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion. War, slavery, and governmental compulsion exemplify the reign of force.[9] ”

On the other hand, many Whitehead scholars read his work as providing a philosophical foundation for the social liberalism of the New Liberal movement that was prominent throughout Whitehead's adult life. Morris wrote that "...there is good reason for claiming that Whitehead shared the social and political ideals of the new liberals."

[WalkerW]

Yeah but aren't we materialists? Spirit being "more refined" and all?

Too true. A better word would have been "reductive."

Usually when I refer to "materialism," I mean the rather outdated, mechanistic materialism of the Enlightenment era that still pops up in layman conversations. This philosophical outlook, in my view, doesn't jive with the materialism described by, say, quantum theory.

And just to make sure: this isn't meant to imply anything about Chris or his comment (both of which I like very much).

I'm just appeasing the board's philosopher of language.

[WalkerW]

You gotta read some A.N. Whitehead- but he is not easy. He creates his own vocabulary so it takes a while to get the hang of it all.

Truman Madsen peaked my interest in Whitehead. I keep putting him off. I'll have to make myself pick up his stuff soon.

[Chris Smith]

When I said it seems less inspiring, I wasn't referring so much to the implicit materialism as to the implicit elitism.

[WalkerW]

When I said it seems less inspiring, I wasn't referring so much to the implicit materialism as to the implicit elitism.

I caught that too.

I just wanted to be clear that I was not saying you were an outdated materialist talking about our beloved plan of happiness.

Didn't want you or other readers to misinterpret. That's all.

[WalkerW]

When I said it seems less inspiring, I wasn't referring so much to the implicit materialism as to the implicit elitism.

I've actually wondered about this. I'm not really sold on the clear cut division of kingdoms. I'm definitely not convinced that it is a heavenly caste system.

The whole concept of "cleaving" in D&C 88 and going where you are willing to go leads me to believe that the celestial glory isn't so much a forced class distinction as it is the inevitable outcome of the type of unity taking place.

To use an economic analogy, one country may liberalize its markets and prosper. Another may increase its governmental coercion and stagnate. The prospering of the one over the other does not make it elitist. These are the outcomes of the conditons they chose to abide.

An imperfect analogy, but hopefully it gets the point across. I am very much of the view that celestial attainment is about voluntary relationships.

[Mordecai]

You're THAT guy? Why I oughta....

::ducks and covers::...

In all honesty, I've never read to my invalid Aunt Bertha. That's more something like what my mother does, though. Now, she is unselfish.

[Chris Smith]

To use an economic analogy, one country may liberalize its markets and prosper. Another may increase its governmental coercion and stagnate. The prospering of the one over the other does not make it elitist. These are the outcomes of the conditons they chose to abide.

An imperfect analogy, but hopefully it gets the point across. I am very much of the view that celestial attainment is about voluntary relationships.

Actually, I think makes your point quite well. So to translate your analogy into theological terms, some people simply may not want to be ministering angels or populate planets for all eternity. These people may have the chance to live a more carefree existence in the Terrestrial or perhaps even a hedonistic one in the Telestial, according to their inclinations. Thus the Celestial might appeal to someone who is highly committed to moral "glory," but the people in the other kingdoms would perceive their arrangements as far more preferable and better suited to their priorities.

[WalkerW]

Actually, I think makes your point quite well. So to translate your analogy into theological terms, some people simply may not want to be ministering angels or populate planets for all eternity. These people may have the chance to live a more carefree existence in the Terrestrial or perhaps even a hedonistic one in the Telestial, according to their inclinations. Thus the Celestial might appeal to someone who is highly committed to moral "glory," but the people in the other kingdoms would perceive their arrangements as far more preferable and better suited to their priorities.

I think that translates fairly well, though there are a number of factors that would be involved. Exaltation, for example, may be something that an individual wants, but the conditions and priorities they have chosen make it impossible. Much like a heavily regulated economy may want to attain great prosperity, but they have in a sense strangled themselves by their system of choice.

[mfbukowski]

Too true. A better word would have been "reductive."

Usually when I refer to "materialism," I mean the rather outdated, mechanistic materialism of the Enlightenment era that still pops up in layman conversations. This philosophical outlook, in my view, doesn't jive with the materialism described by, say, quantum theory.

And just to make sure: this isn't meant to imply anything about Chris or his comment (both of which I like very much).

I'm just appeasing the board's philosopher of language.

I'm just saying that all three ways of seeing it- 1- as a Utilitarian or 2- as a social evolutionist or 3- as a Mormon who believes in progressive revelation, it all amounts to about the same thing, in three different "language games" or contexts.

We as Mormons might not like the Utilitarian or evolutionary language, but the meaning behind the words are about the same. There is a way of life which promotes the general welfare, which also has survival value and which ultimately gets us to the Celestial Kingdom- and that way of life is opposed to the way of death- (in the Didache) and is what is commonly known as "morality".

It's all the same because, pardon the phrase, "it works", as all truth does.

[mfbukowski]

I've actually wondered about this. I'm not really sold on the clear cut division of kingdoms. I'm definitely not convinced that it is a heavenly caste system.

The whole concept of "cleaving" in D&C 88 and going where you are willing to go leads me to believe that the celestial glory isn't so much a forced class distinction as it is the inevitable outcome of the type of unity taking place.

To use an economic analogy, one country may liberalize its markets and prosper. Another may increase its governmental coercion and stagnate. The prospering of the one over the other does not make it elitist. These are the outcomes of the conditons they chose to abide.

An imperfect analogy, but hopefully it gets the point across. I am very much of the view that celestial attainment is about voluntary relationships.

How about that nasty nasty word "evolution"? Each organism in the ecology for which it is best suited? Now THAT does away with the "implicit elitism" doesn't it???

But honestly, I have often looked at it that way; it is the only way we could possibly be truly happy for eternity if that elitism was gone, imo.

I mean how much "glory" could you have in the telestial kingdom always having to deal with those snobs in the Celestial? Or in the Celestial being so proud of your self not having to associate with those biker dudes in the telestial?

Surely there has to be some sense of that "This is where I belong and I am perfectly happy".

[mfbukowski]

::ducks and covers::...

In all honesty, I've never read to my invalid Aunt Bertha. That's more something like what my mother does, though. Now, she is unselfish.

Yep- it's not an easy thing to aspire to!

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

I believe that we will receive all the blessings that we are willing to accept. So we will be happy in whatever Kingdom of Glory we end up in. Can't say that Outer Darkness is a happy place, but for those that go there, there is no other place they are willing to accept.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski:

I believe that we will receive all the blessings that we are willing to accept. So we will be happy in whatever Kingdom of Glory we end up in. Can't say that Outer Darkness is a happy place, but for those that go there, there is no other place they are willing to accept.

I imagine that those people are so wrapped up in being "right" that they will deny anything that they didn't think up themselves and curse the universe for not being the way it was supposed to be in their perfect plan, stupid God for doing it the wrong way!

They are like black holes who suck up light, but don't let any out because to do so would be to cast their pearls before swine. And besides that, they always think it is the other guy who is going to outer darkness, because they themselves are always right.

Uh oh.

[WalkerW]

How about that nasty nasty word "evolution"? Each organism in the ecology for which it is best suited? Now THAT does away with the "implicit elitism" doesn't it???

But honestly, I have often looked at it that way; it is the only way we could possibly be truly happy for eternity if that elitism was gone, imo.

I mean how much "glory" could you have in the telestial kingdom always having to deal with those snobs in the Celestial? Or in the Celestial being so proud of your self not having to associate with those biker dudes in the telestial?

Surely there has to be some sense of that "This is where I belong and I am perfectly happy".

The evolution analogy works quite well and fits with my analogy given the rise of evolutionary economics. As David O. McKay said,

Among the generalizations of science, evolution holds foremost place. It claims: "Man is a creature of development; that he has come up through uncounted ages from an origin that is lowly." Why this vast expenditure of time and pain and blood? Why should he come so far if he is destined to go no farther? A creature which has traveled such distances, and fought such battles and won such victories deserves, one is compelled to say, to conquer death and rob the grave of its victory. Darwin said..."Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he is now, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued, slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful." (quoted in Gregory A. Prince, William Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, University of Utah Press, 2005: 46)

[mfbukowski]

The evolution analogy works quite well and fits with my analogy given the rise of evolutionary economics. As David O. McKay said,

Among the generalizations of science, evolution holds foremost place. It claims: "Man is a creature of development; that he has come up through uncounted ages from an origin that is lowly." Why this vast expenditure of time and pain and blood? Why should he come so far if he is destined to go no farther? A creature which has traveled such distances, and fought such battles and won such victories deserves, one is compelled to say, to conquer death and rob the grave of its victory. Darwin said..."Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he is now, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued, slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful." (quoted in Gregory A. Prince, William Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, University of Utah Press, 2005: 46)

Wow.

Never saw that one before.

[Mars]

I imagine that those people are so wrapped up in being "right" that they will deny anything that they didn't think up themselves and curse the universe for not being the way it was supposed to be in their perfect plan, stupid God for doing it the wrong way!

In addition to this, I think they'll know and understand the plan of salvation correctly, and despite knowing what God wants for them, their desire to stick it to God and Jesus will be so great they won't put aside their pride and repent.

The utter antithesis of 'Thy will be done.'

[mfbukowski]

In addition to this, I think they'll know and understand the plan of salvation correctly, and despite knowing what God wants for them, their desire to stick it to God and Jesus will be so great they won't put aside their pride and repent.

The utter antithesis of 'Thy will be done.'

Yes, it is said that they have "seen the sun" and denied its brightness

Not even I am that bad! I guess only a few really qualify- those who have a perfect knowledge and then deny it.

[Rivers]

It seems to me that religious and non-religious people have somewhat different perspectives on morality. Religious people seem to think more in terms of black and white. Non-religious people see a lot more gray in everything.

[Mordecai]

Religious people seem to think more in terms of black and white.

I think it has to come down to something simple: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. That's the white. Everything else is the black. All the law and the prophets hang on loving God and your neighbor as self. Philosophically, it works quite well. A good will is good in itself, and that makes for a good person.

[Mordecai]

Yep- it's not an easy thing to aspire to!

No, it's not. I was trying to think of an example of me being unselfish and thought of where I stood up for a stranger against a bully. Interestingly, since I was standing up for a cashier at a restaurant, the manager gave me certificates for two free meals. ha ha It probably stroked my ego to stand up to a bully, too and kind of intimidate him. I probably didn't go about it the right way, but it was really interesting to be in that situation. I think most LDS folks would have done the same but would have done it better.