- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
I would have said the universal truth view tends to produce Satan’s plan given that most religions become oppressive because they have literal views of universal truth.
jmb275, yea, maybe the animal instincts was not a good comparison, I think that popped into my mind because I view us different than animals because we can choose our actions, but maybe that is brining a whole other thing into the conversation.
I guess what I was trying to say was that Satan’s plan was no free will, everyone will just live life without options or free agency. Although some other religions become oppressive and seem to impose that style would suggest Satan’s involvement to raise false priests who oppress. I do not believe true religions do such. I do not believe Mormonism does such, although some people feel the high standards are restrictive, there is no doctrine to support it is oppressive and free agency should be restricted by the church. We believe all men should be allowed to worship how, where, or what they may. Believing in a universal truth and oppressively imposing that belief on others are two different things.
I believe there is one universal truth, and one God who upholds that in our universe, and that one day all of us will have our eyes opened to it again where we will see it and realize that most honest religions were close in agreeing on such (love your neighbor, sacrifice brings blessings, honesty is the best policy, etc) and we agree more with other religions than we disagree with. But there will also be some things that some people were wrong about, like if God has a body or not, and we will realize the truth, which is not up to everyone to decide. It is what it is, we will all learn what that is one day and what we were wrong about and what we were right about.
Does that clarify? I’m a universal truth believer, and do not feel I can have confidence in a universe where truth is decided individually.
Heber13 wrote:Does that clarify? I’m a universal truth believer, and do not feel I can have confidence in a universe where truth is decided individually.
Yes, I understand. I am very much undecided on the issue still. Maybe they are not mutually exclusive and I just tend to interpret it as such. And maybe, I don’t have to actually decide. That’s what I prefer to do. I am comfortable with admitting that I don’t know, and simply try my best to live in the best way I can.Some more thoughts about whether or not “morality” is universal (some of this discussion seems to be linking “universal truth” with “collective morality.”) Studies have shown that there are five components to morality that are universal, although groups have different thresholds and definitions for applying these. There was a pretty good article on this at the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1 The 5 areas are:
Harm– Rape is pretty universally repugnant, as is murder. We have a strong reaction to others being harmed, unless another of the 5 areas is triggered even more strongly (such as protecting another from harm or ingroup loyalty). Also, the more removed we are from the harm (killing by pushing a button vs. knifing someone), the less strong the repugnance. Fairness– This is related to reciprocal altruism, the ideals of justice and personal rights. Community– This is the desire to protect our own tribe. For example, if we heard someone say, “that’s so gay,” and we consider ourselves not gay or don’t associate gays as part of our personal tribe, this statement doesn’t trigger offensiveness. If someone were to say,”Only a Mormon would say something that stupid,” that might trigger a tribal response. This is also the basis for all persecution complexes, which is one of the things that makes groups cohesive, a shared sense of being persecuted (seriously, pick any group). Authority– The classic example is the difference between someone slapping a clown doing slapstick humor and someone slapping a priest. Also, different groups respect different people as authorities, and some groups deliberately denigrate some authorities. For a drastic example, a prisoner for life might increase his standing by shanking a guard, but that same prisoner would respect the dominance of another inmate in the prison yard, and would never disrespect that person’s position. Purity– Some like to equate this to the religious term, which is not what is universally meant. Purity is squeamishness toward something we consider unclean. An example is the difference between actors on stage acting silly or actors on stage urinating and defecating on stage. A less stark example is Jerry Seinfeld being repulsed by George Costanza sticking his “disgusting index fingers” in his jar of peanut butter. Vegetarians also generally have a ‘purity’ trigger when they see meat. When our sense of morality is triggered, we are indignant, repulsed, shocked, or outraged, and these reactions happen without a second thought usually. While different people or groups might have different thresholds or definitions, all groups have them for each of these. But, as noted above, if your sense of tribal loyalty / community is stronger than your sense of authority, you get the infamous “Mormon Extermination” order. If your sense of tribal loyalty / community, combined with fairness (Laban was cheating them and threatened to kill them), is stronger than your sense of preventing harm, you cut off Laban’s head (although you feel conflicted about it). Of course, in my case, my sense of purity is also triggered by that story when he puts the headless corpse’s clothes on. Yech!
[There were a lot of studies where individuals were stating that self-professed liberals were only motivated by #1 and #2 while conservatives also held #3, #4, and #5, but I disagree. I believe that is applying a conservative definition of #3, #4 and #5 to liberal respondents. For example, if you apply a liberal definition of #5, you may find that conservatives don’t bat an eye at “meat” as being an impure thing, but a vegetarian would be disgusted. That doesn’t mean that conservatives don’t have a ‘purity’ reflex, just that they find different things impure than do liberals.]
hawkgrrrl wrote:[There were a lot of studies where individuals were stating that self-professed liberals were only motivated by #1 and #2 while conservatives also held #3, #4, and #5, but I disagree. I believe that is applying a conservative definition of #3, #4 and #5 to liberal respondents. For example, if you apply a liberal definition of #5, you may find that conservatives don’t bat an eye at “meat” as being an impure thing, but a vegetarian would be disgusted. That doesn’t mean that conservatives don’t have a ‘purity’ reflex, just that they find different things impure than do liberals.]
Brilliant hawk, loved the post. I actually was going to bring this up as I was reading your post, and then you added it. Jonathan Haidt is one of these. He did a talk for TED (seen herehttp://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html I agree this tends to make liberals look unloyal, disrespectful of all authority, and immoral. This is a gross miscategorization IMHO. They simply have different views of these things.
Great insight!
ditto. good post!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.