Why can’t we live in peace?

[Strat-itis]

Right, but that is something separate from mystical or supernatural occurrences.

That's exactly what I said - it's not supernatural.

[DawgBone]

That's exactly what I said - it's not supernatural.

Yes, but holy communion is taken to be a mystical/supernatural thing. It falls outside the normal order of everyday life, as do other miracles.

[Strat-itis]

It doesn't say so in the Bible. It's posed as literal function between God and the world.

[DawgBone]

It doesn't say so in the Bible. It's posed as literal function between God and the world.

I think you're off base. Miracles are called miracles because they fall outside the realm of "natural" i.e natures order. Walking on water is not part of the natural order or boat sales would slump forever.

[Stringswinger]

You want the benefits of a belief system without believing. If it's not selfish, it's a parasitical mindset IMO.

Many of our most important founders (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Monroe, Paine) were fellow Deists. America is lucky for their "selfishness".

America's freedoms only work with a moral people. And in recent times, I see that morality as having been abandoned by many. Which I think is to our collective peril.

[Strat-itis]

I think you're off base. Miracles are called miracles because they fall outside the realm of "natural" i.e natures order. Walking on water is not part of the natural order or boat sales would slump forever.

God being sovereign doesn't mean he uses magic outside of the processes of the world to operate rather than operating inside the processes that he authored, that's a bit silly.

[DawgBone]

Many of our most important founders (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Monroe, Paine) were fellow Deists. America is lucky for their "selfishness".

America's freedoms only work with a moral people. And in recent times, I see that morality as having been abandoned by many. Which I think is to our collective peril.

If you believe in American exceptionalism then a handful of leaders are less a part of it than the actual citizenry but I suppose I'm digressing.....

I agree it's to collective peril, but it is to be expected that people will abandon a moral code when they don't believe it has any actual backing, as unlike yourself, they are willing to exchange the greater good for personal "freedom" from ethical/moral behavior. We are reaping the fruits of that disbelief now as society sinks into total decay and chaos as scientific-technical achievements have replaced the tenets Christian faith in most minds, even those of many supposed believers.

[DawgBone]

God being sovereign doesn't mean he uses magic outside of the processes of the world to operate rather than operating inside the processes that he authored, that's a bit silly.

Miracles and magick are two separate things and are called as such because they fall outside usual worldly processes.

[Strat-itis]

Yeah. I believe in sovereign activity from God outside usual worldly processes, aka miracles. So agreed.

[frabarmus]

I guess, from a secular point of view (simply put): one can be upright and generous simply by relying on reason and empathy. Morality does not necessarily depend on a divine commandment, but on a conscious and deeply human choice. Ethics should be based on respect for others and for the environment, not on the fear of divine punishment or the hope of an afterlife reward. Human beings are the only ones responsible for their actions. Doing good therefore becomes an act from the heart and an act of civility and solidarity towards others. Altruism is written into our nature as social beings, cooperating and helping others is what has allowed humanity to evolve and survive. Of course this may sound a bit utopian and, of course, it's not the only point of view and there's plenty of room for other (possibly non violent) points of view...

[Mick-7]

Many of our most important founders (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Monroe, Paine) were fellow Deists. America is lucky for their "selfishness".

Yes, they were deists, not theists, which are distinctly different. Deists believe that a Deity created the universe, started it functioning, but is no longer actively involved in it, whereas theists believe that a Deity created the universe and continues to actively participate in the world’s activities and in human history. The latter idea is clearly at odds with the Christian conception of a benevolent God.

[GuyBoden]

No doubt, we'll just keep playing the guitar, while Rome burns.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

I guess, from a secular point of view (simply put): one can be upright and generous simply by relying on reason and empathy. Morality does not necessarily depend on a divine commandment, but on a conscious and deeply human choice. Ethics should be based on respect for others and for the environment, not on the fear of divine punishment or the hope of an afterlife reward. Human beings are the only ones responsible for their actions. Doing good therefore becomes an act from the heart and an act of civility and solidarity towards others. Altruism is written into our nature as social beings, cooperating and helping others is what has allowed humanity to evolve and survive. Of course this may sound a bit utopian and, of course, it's not the only point of view and there's plenty of room for other (possibly non violent) points of view...

i agree with you. It’s also thought of as Emotional Intelligence and with that the capability to love. All good in this world stems from our ability for feeling love. It seems easy to love family but far more challenging to extend this to humanity at large. Seems to me that religions have failed us, not for want of trying, but they seem ill equipped to expand the scope of our love much beyond small circles. Theism is more or less irrelevant in my world view.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Yes, they were deists, not theists, which are distinctly different. Deists believe that a Deity created the universe, started it functioning, but is no longer actively involved in it, whereas theists believe that a Deity created the universe and continues to actively participate in the world’s activities and in human history. The latter idea is clearly at odds with the Christian conception of a benevolent God.

Most likely scenario is that long ago and far far away, an alien race of humanoid beings scattered their DNA across space like so many dandelions in the wind. Seeding our world, and perhaps many others. Perhaps visiting from time to time, though probably not. This longing humanity has to be seen seems like nothing more than wishful thinking of the petulant child craving attention. Which reminds me- stop typing and pick up the guitar

[Tal_175]

If there is an absent creator god then what is the point of adhering to a moral code?

Because we are biologically tuned to behave in ways that facilitate social cooperation and survival. What prevents a mother from pushing her kids under a bus is not a moral calculation. It's a built-in system that exists in all animals to varying degrees. If you see a wild animal in distress that you can easily help or a drowning child that you can pull out of water but instead choose to just keep walking, if you are like most people, you will experience a very unpleasant and nagging sensation. It may haunt you for the rest of your life. Acting "morally" helps you avoid being in that state. That is how your biology is forcing you to act in a way that in the past gave your species a survival advantage. Morality is an abstract codification of the complex interactions between our built-in sense empathy, compassion, desires and constantly changing environmental mechanisms.


If a tribe has to murder, steal from, enslave and rape near by tribes for survival, that becomes their moral code. They become a warrior tribe. That's a hard living. Many of their most capable, young and strong members get injured or killed in each conflict. If the later generations of these tribes discover agriculture, they realize that it is in their advantage to cooperate with other tribes and trade goods and learn from each other. Than the moral codes adapt. It becomes "wrong" to murder and steal because it's counterproductive to achieving their desires.


Religion isn't the source of moral code, it's a product of it. All religions are flexible and accommodate contradicting interpretations happily when the times change. People who base their morality on their religion don't realize that their morality is subject to the same mechanisms that existed before their religion was around and they just retrofit evolving moral intuitions to their religion because it can conveniently accommodate any interpretation.

[mr. beaumont]

I really disagree with this. To me, inner peace is about having your internal and external world be aligned with what is right. If you have external circumstances that are detrimental and wrong, forcing your internal state to accept it and be grateful isn't healthy. You have to take action to fix it. Although some acceptance that things will never be perfect is necessary. Reciprocally, if you have internal wants that are inconsistent with the outer world, and can't be realized because they're impossible or wrong, then you have to realign your internal state.

But there's so much out of our control. Sometimes we have to accept things as they are.

As for right, people only choose "good." Some people just choose things that are only good for them, or good only in the short term. But there are a lot of people who understand that choosing greater goods benefits more than just themselves. There doesn't need to be a higher power approving or judging, or a promise of anything after-- what if there is no after? Why not just make the ride as nice as possible? Morality isn't a top-down rule, its really a bottom up survival skill.

[ruger9]

Religion isn't the source of moral code, it's a product of it. All religions are flexible and accommodate contradicting interpretations happily when the times change. People who base their morality on their religion don't realize that their morality is subject to the same mechanisms that existed before their religion was around and they just retrofit evolving moral intuitions to their religion because it can conveniently accommodate any interpretation.

This is so unfortunately true. It makes me sick how many people actually believe that the actions of Israel recently are "approved by" God. Or that Israel has America's best interests at heart by default. That's a whole 'nuther subject. But to see people who call themselves Christians be OK with what happened in Gaza, makes me very disappointed.

[DawgBone]

Because we are biologically tuned to behave in ways that facilitate social cooperation and survival. What prevents a mother from pushing her kids under a bus is not a moral calculation. It's a built-in system that exists in all animals to varying degrees. If you see a wild animal in distress that you can easily help or a drowning child that you can pull out of water but instead choose to just keep walking, if you are like most people, you will experience a very unpleasant and nagging sensation. It may haunt you for the rest of your life. Acting "morally" helps you avoid being in that state. That is how your biology is forcing you to act in a way that in the past gave your species a survival advantage. Morality is an abstract codification of the complex interactions between our built-in sense empathy, compassion, desires and constantly changing environmental mechanisms.

I think you mean "the commandments are written upon men's hearts".

[DawgBone]

Religion isn't the source of moral code, it's a product of it. All religions are flexible and accommodate contradicting interpretations happily when the times change. People who base their morality on their religion don't realize that their morality is subject to the same mechanisms that existed before their religion was around and they just retrofit evolving moral intuitions to their religion because it can conveniently accommodate any interpretation.

I disagree with this btw. It's taught that the first moral law was that of Hammurabi, who was deeply religious, which would therefore follow that he wrote it based on his beliefs in deity/deities, rather than just at random. Also, 2000 years of orthodox canon also contradicts the idea of evolving moral intuitions. I'm happy to hear a counter argument though and I'm certain some faiths do alter their core beliefs over time.

[Hyppolyte Bergamotte]

That's completely untrue and a stereotype.


She's probably open carrying.

how do you explain the 15000 deaths per year in the USA caused by firearms ?

[joe2758]

how do you explain the 15000 deaths per year in the USA caused by firearms ?

I think that was meant as a joke

[Stringswinger]

I am of the opinion (and these days it is very much a minority opinion) that most, if not all of our major problems stem from overpopulation. Put too many rats in a cage and violence erupts. I am unsure how to fix that problem, I am just convinced that so long as there are too many of us, we will never know much peace.
That’s what our biochemistry professor, the Nobel prize Christian Deduve thought.
But why do you explain that even the caveman killed his neighbours who were not from his clan?

First off, I am happy to hear that a Nobel Prize winning professor shares(d) my view!

I think that natural selection does contribute to violent behavior of humans as cavemen violence indicates. We modern humans wiped out the Neanderthals, presumably with violence, though all of us who are not of Southern African ancestry do carry some Neanderthal DNA (so we must have been able to get along with them at times and to some extent). But as humans developed the technology to survive without the need for hunter-gatherer amounts of real estate, the violence was not as necessary and history is replete with long periods of relative peace among different peoples, so it seems to me that once we work out ways to survive without needing to be being violent, peace is both possible and preferable.

I think overpopulation has contributed to climate change and recourse depletion. As the world heats up, so do our tempers. But I do not think overpopulation is the only cause of human violence. A lack of morality, mental illness and cultural intolerance also contribute.

[Stringswinger]

Gun control and Gaza have the capacity to heat this thread up to the point that it disappears. Perhaps, some of you guys want to see Dirk nuke this thread? If that happens, my thanks to all who have contributed to an interesting philosophical discussion without resorting to politics.

[Tal_175]

I disagree with this btw. It's taught that the first moral law was that of Hammurabi, who was deeply religious, which would therefore follow that he wrote it based on his beliefs in deity/deities, rather than just at random.

There is nothing random about the mechanism I described. It’s grounded in evolution. Hammurabi attributing moral codes to his religion isn’t a rigorous argument; it’s an example of how human cognition externalizes norms to authoritative sources. We already understand the psychological and evolutionary mechanisms that give rise to religion, and that part isn’t disputed. These mechanisms provide reasonable explanations for the existence of thousands of religions, each with specific and mutually contradictory metaphysical claims.

[mr. beaumont]

how do you explain the 15000 deaths per year in the USA caused by firearms ?

Definitely a joke. The comment was meant to imply that little old ladies aren't carrying guns in their purses anymore, they're waving them out in the open.

For the record, I am 100% not anti-gun, but I also think there's waaaay too many people in this country who have absolutely no business having one.