Removed. I believe I was wrong.

ant wrote:

It's interesting how you so quickly twist my words into us vs. them.

"We" is not a word that signifies a separate category?
Of course it is and you know it. If you don't it's a strong subconscious bias in play.

Have not religious regimes also rationalized acts that many would consider evil? This is a strawman in the making.

Of course. and no one here has denied that, have they?

Two things about that specific comment:

1) Despite the truth of your statement, it does not quite defeat my argument, does it?

2) It's actually a strawman of your creation if you dismiss what's been said in order to rail against evil acts committed because of religious motivations.

I'm lost. I'm not sure what you're saying or where our opinions differ..

Here's a recap of what I said. In response to Interbane's excellent post, I was saying that materialists like me—we— who seek naturalistic explanations for our beliefs/behavior would do well to think is such non-judgmental terms. I offered three examples in which a less judgmental attitude would be more appropriate than a judgmental one. 1) My father's political views; 2) a pregnant teenage girl; and 3) the attitude by materialists towards religious belief (which admittedly gets judgmental at times).

I would think this message of tolerance and humility would be something with which we (all humans) can agree.

Edit: to further clarify, I used 'we'—meaning materialists—because those of a religious persuasion do NOT typically accept naturalistic explanation for those human characteristics I outlined, which is that "humans are easily led astray by our own biology and a brain that has evolved to be easily manipulated by biases and emotions." etc.

Phew.

Edit Edit.

Interbane wrote:Removed. I believe I was wrong.

My first post was confusing and for that I apologize.

Here's a recap of what I said. In response to Interbane's excellent post, I was saying that materialists like me—we—

LOL

I never refer to "me" as "we"
Is your name Sybil?

Materialists (which signifies yet another set) are not a more rational people, nor are they less prone to irrationality, or likely to experience a rise in consciousness because they semantically change words like "evil" to "flawed"

As I tried to explain, language and emotion are inextricably linked. If you dull your language you are likely to constipate ACTION, dull your world, or justify heinous behavior.

Here's an example (I think):

In PKD's "Electric Sheep", a specialized (human) police squad were tasked with "retiring" androids that were exhibiting human characteristics. The line between human and machine became so blurred, it was questionable that "retiring" actually really meant murder.
Their actions were justified entirely by how their words rationalized their behavior.
When an android was retired, it was done zero feeling for its human characteristics.

What also was interesting about the zeitgeist in Electric Sheep was that there was no religion in the world.
In its place was a "feel-good" network people would tune in to in order to raise their emotional well-being.
The real world was dull. There were no more words like "good" and "evil" or "religion"



We're the Nazis flawed or evil?

ant wrote:
Materialists (which signifies yet another set) are not a more rational people, nor are they less prone to irrationality, or likely to experience a rise in consciousness because they semantically change words like "evil" to "flawed"

I think you're taking Interbane's words out of context. I'll let him respond.

ant wrote: We're the Nazis flawed or evil?

Since "we're" is a contraction for 'we are,' you're saying "we are Nazis." Who's the "we" here?

Since "we're" is a contraction for 'we are,' you're saying "we are Nazis." Who's the "we" here?

Were the Nazis flawed or evil, Geo?

Interbane wrote:

Shame will always exist as long as we are human. Should we elicit shame at merely being human? No, I don't think so. Yet there are family members and relatives who I know that expressed a sentiment close to what I'm getting at. They feel shame or guilt or whatever at humanity being "fallen". I don't remember what denomination they were. I don't know how widespread across Christianity this particular belief is.

I dont' think we should feel shame at being who we are. Instead, we should feel shame about harmful actions.

What your saying is more Nietzsche than anything else. Some of his philosophy about the origins of Christianity I find interesting. Other aspects of it I disagree with.

I'm not well versed on Christian doctrine but I'd say that shame and humility in relation to a Christian perspective are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary. You are stopping at "shame" and not including what immediately follows: altruistic deeds motivated by a healthy state of humility.
I think Flann would know much more about this, though.

ant wrote:

Since "we're" is a contraction for 'we are,' you're saying "we are Nazis." Who's the "we" here?

Were the Nazis flawed or evil, Geo?

Do you really have to ask?

The Nazis were evil. The ideology was 'flawed' too, but that word doesn't convey the moral repugnance I feel.

My two cents on shame and humility, those are emotions that fall more along a political axis than a religious one. It just so happens that mainstream Christianity frequently overlaps with conservative ideology, which may be why we conflate the two.

Geo wrote

Here's a recap of what I said. In response to Interbane's excellent post, I was saying that materialists like me—we— who seek naturalistic explanations for our beliefs/behavior would do well to think is such non-judgmental terms

So what' up with this doctrine right here...,

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Matthew 7:1

Is it biased or irrational because it doesn't have a naturalistic explanation attached to it?

Are we going to take it at face value or start to complain about how the god of the old testament was a meany?


You see, what we have here is naturalism attempting to claim some moral/rational advantage over, umm.., UNnaturalists (aka "THEM PEOPLE") simply because they seek (or should) natural explanations for behavior.
And yet history tells us a different story.

ant wrote:As I tried to explain, language and emotion are inextricably linked. If you dull your language you are likely to constipate ACTION, dull your world, or justify heinous behavior.

With respect to language being inextricably linked to emotion, I agree with you. The choice of words we use matters. When the definition is precisely the same and no meaning is lost between competing words, word selection should then depend on its effect on our emotion. Is that what you're saying?

Would I be using duller language to refer to the glass as half full rather than half empty? I don't think so, and I'm sure many would agree the former is a better reference, at the same time that both references are true. Yet there is a difference between them, in their positivity.

ant wrote:Were the Nazis flawed or evil, Geo?

If you read closely in my posts, I'm not saying we aren't flawed. The word "flawed" is accurate. I'm saying that the choice of language represents something about the worldview. The Nazis were both flawed and evil, if I had to judge. Perhaps not all of them were evil, but that's an impossible call to make.

ant wrote:What your saying is more Nietzsche than anything else. Some of his philosophy about the origins of Christianity I find interesting. Other aspects of it I disagree with.

I'm sure I'm echoing the words of many philosophers, who knows. But I would rather not appeal to them as a tactic. My words have merit on their own.

I'm not well versed on Christian doctrine but I'd say that shame and humility in relation to a Christian perspective are not mutually exclusive.

What I implied earlier is that they are causally related. Shame leads to a degree of humility. But shame is not the only path to humility, nor is it the only path to altruistic deeds. Even then, shame for specific harmful acts is healthy, due in part to the resulting humility a person experiences.

But there's another approach that bears mentioning here. The difference between shame and humiliation is that shame is warranted and agreed with, but humiliation is unwarranted(such as coming from a harmful insult). There may be grey area between the two. I see the aspect of being "flawed" in the Christian view to be as much humiliating than shameful. Both shame and humiliation lead to humility(amongst other things), but one is healthy and the other is not.

Geo wrote:

My two cents on shame and humility, those are emotions that fall more along a political axis than a religious one.

Actually, those were "religious" concepts that came well before and laid the foundation for political/secular bodies.

But, okay.., fine.