are you an atheist?

they live amongst youuu...
i'm not super versed in modern atheist movements but my understanding is they came directly out of these religious analytical traditions, and to this day many atheists are still within those theological seminaries. not to make it sound like they are sleeper agents or anything.

seems like a pretty big leap from Maimonides to Madeleine Murray O'Hair but what do I know

god forbid you admit your conception of religion is cartoonish and innacurate

don't you judge me!

Tbf, it would make sense that those who read the religious analytical tradition in the west and remained unconvinced would end up, well, atheists or agnostics. I read a book not long ago about Biblical errancy by an ex-evangelical who kept doing post-grad at pretty religious schools and developed a great fluency with the Bible but also ended up an atheist.

Speaking of cartoonish and inaccurate: Bible-Toting High School Cheerleaders Continue Futile Quest to Get God to Care About Football

It ain't like this shit is rare, not in the USA. Academic theology is one thing, religion as practiced is entirely another.

god forbid you admit your conception of religion is cartoonish and innacurate

Kinda harshes the whole 'free will' buzz, tho

that's funny, I thought they both fell under the umbrella "religion". I think the distinction you're looking for is between smart people and stupid people.

xp

Phil D. I wonder how you pronounce that high school's name.

xp, obv

I don't understand how you can separate rules from the understanding.

Perhaps you have forgotten about epicycles? The planets have, to the best of anyone's knowlege, always perfectly obeyed physical laws. At one time our understanding of those laws was that planets followed circular orbits modified by other circular motions known as epicycles. As new discrepancies between the evidence and the rules were observed, new epicycles were introduced to account for them.

I thought all this was pretty basic. Maybe I used unclear terminology. However, I don't think the standard model has yet been accepted as rising to the level of universally acknowleged physical law.

If God is an unknowable force, I am fairly confident it has no opinion whatsoever on whether I eat shellfish, what I do with my genitals or who wins high school football games.

xp nah even smart people fall prey to that behavior

lol Michael White, that slipped right by me.

Aimless, I agree withe method, I just don't see why the assumption necessarily follows that there aren't exceptions to the rules. Sure, it has been our faulty understanding or perception before but that doesn't mean that our understanding isn't occasionally rationally unsatisfying; light is both wave and particle?!

If God is an unknowable force, I am fairly confident it has no opinion whatsoever on whether I eat shellfish, what I do with my genitals or who wins high school football games.

fair enough, but the denial of the latter does not require the denial of the former

"it would make sense that those who read the religious analytical tradition in the west and remained unconvinced would end up, well, atheists or agnostics."

I think what Shakey is protesting is my assertion that they don't actually need to be unconvinced to be in the atheist/agnostic tentpole, or at least founding fathers of that tentpole. To me, at that level, such an abstract belief versus nonbelief feels like a wrap/burrito distinction.

Also re: handwringing over self-labeling, you can call yourself a pisces without adhering to astrology, so it doesn't seem like if you have any other cultural ties to a religious tradition that belief ought to be the primary reason for labeling or not labeling yourself of that group.

fair enough, but the denial of the latter does not require the denial of the former

True enough, but then we get into Occam's Razor territory for me.

Or even more succinctly, if I deny the latter, then the former has no effect on my life whatsoever.

fair enough, but the denial of the latter does not require the denial of the former

then where does morality come from?

there are lots of different arguments about that. personally I think morality is a relative social construct developed to ensure the survival and cohesion of the tribe/country/species. I don't accept the existence of some kind of universal moral law.

don't see why the assumption necessarily follows

I said: "The rules, such as they are understood, are evidently never broken. This would imply that our understanding is imperfect, not that the rules are imperfectly followed."

By "evidently" I was referring to evidence. The rules of the standard model of quantum physics are currently claimed only to reliably describe what happens at a quantum level, for obvious reasons. However, within that domain, no evidence has been observed that these rules are broken. That's what my first sentence was meant to convey.

Nor did I say that it necessarily followed that there are not exceptions to the rules, only that there was an implication that our understanding of what rules apply is currently ill-formed. This implication exists because of the axiomatic strength of the Law of Uniformity. Past experience would show that contradictions between rules (which exist below the level of axioms or laws) and evidence are generally resolved without having falsified a physical law.

light is both wave and particle?!

As far as we know, yes.

depends how you're measuring it

that's what she said

personally I think morality is a relative social construct developed to ensure the survival and cohesion of the tribe/country/species. I don't accept the existence of some kind of universal moral law.

sorry, I thought you were arguing that upthread but I guess it was just mordy.

yeah well you know what you get when you put two jews in a room? three opinions

i accept the existence of some kind of universal moral law! some kind at least. i think most ppl agree w/ that too.

In a Chomskian kind of way, I think I agree w/Mordy.

yeah well you know what you get when you put two jews in a room? three opinions

One of my favorite jokes.

by universal, I presume you mean the universe of human interactions, not the universe of galaxies.

What do you get when you put two Irish Jews in a room?

three opinions and a fistfight?

i accept the existence of some kind of universal moral law! some kind at least. i think most ppl agree w/ that too.

well most people believe in god so, yeah.

xxp yes, i don't believe stars have an ethical imperative not to explode + consume galaxies. universal for humans

erin go bracccchhhhh ?

alotta latkes?

Morality comes from evolution, the higher brain functions of mammals versus reptiles, things like compassion, raising your young, etc. are evolutionarily recent phenomenon.

not that i've ever met an ethical snake, but why can't reptiles have morality?

distracts from gerbil-eating

reptilian moral imperatives: eat! don't be eaten! reproduce! repeat as needed!

you forgot sleep

snakes can't make pals? (i never had a pet snake but people who do seem to like them all the same)

morality is a collective endeavor, something that governs relationships between members of a group. snakes don't belong to groups, not even family units (cf. Aimless' reference to raising young etc.)

interesting to consider the question for social animals tho... say, ants.

Plus that snake would eat you if it thought it could get away with it.

someone better warn slash

pet snakes are fed, making them docile. the snake owner supplies the palsy-walsy feelings.

Adam B referenced raising o' young.

oh sorry

huh. where DO ants fall in this taxonomy of morality?

interesting to consider the question for social animals tho... say, ants.

you already kinda answered this:

I think morality is a relative social construct developed to ensure the survival and cohesion of the tribe/country/species

well right I was just idly thinking of what other animals moral systems would look like. QUEEN GOOD, OTHER ANTS BAD