Why is social conservatism generally associated with religion?
I remember becoming a social conservative first, and a theist second, and yet most folks claim to go the other way around. Why is there an association of religion and social conservatism? To me it would make sense to be the other way - if someone can first accept social conservatism - ie natural morality - they can accept religion much more easily... So what do you think? Is there a link between social conservatism and religion, and if so, why?
Comments (126)
The reason I do this is because there is a statistical correlation.
I have no clue why, I just recall surveys that show that those who express religious beliefs also tend to be politically conservative or vice versa if you like.
Okay, but if they did issue such decrees, and religion itself is a myth as atheists claim, then it follows that they never issued such decrees for religious reasons. So why did they issue them? Just like today we issue laws in order to prevent wrong-doings and harm, so too, they must have perceived harm in those behaviours that they issued religious injunctions against. And therefore it seems quite clear that the position of social conservatism, given that take, would be separate from the position of religion - given atheism. Why are there so few atheist social conservatives?
No one is saying they're identical. You asked why they're associated with each other. That's why. An association is different than not being separate. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are associated with each other. They're separate people, however.
Also, I'm not sure if you focused on the fact that I said, "certain sorts of behaviors . . . " and noted that the content in question doesn't change.
Okay, but then why are there so few atheist social conservatives? Because remember, the few back in the day religions were founded, who were in power and had brain compared to the uneducated majority, if atheism is true, it would mean they founded religions and allowed them to flourish in order to justify their actions to the people. They could justify much more easily by "God said it" to the uneducated majority, than by explanation - the uneducated majority couldn't understand explanation, but they could understand "God said it". But this means that these people with the brains had been atheists themselves, and used religion merely as a tool. If so, they must have had independent reason - reason apart from religion - to issue the social conservative decrees they did. So this proves that there are independent reasons for holding to social conservative positions, and raises the question as to why there are so few atheist social conservatives today?
What are you talking about? Are you positing something like the idea that "atheists created religions"??? (And what would that have to do with the topic you presented in this thread?)
Anyway, there are definitely social conservatives who are not religious.
Re atheists and their political and/or moral stances, I'm not actually aware of any widespread statistical surveys of that. I wouldn't say I know what most atheists political and/or moral stances are. I also never had an impression that either most atheists have some political and/or moral stance in common or that there's a widespread belief that they do.
I am saying that if atheism is true, then atheists created religions. Head over to a website like Quora, or Reddit, and so forth, and you'll see most atheists there always associating social conservatism with religion, to the point they think that folks cannot be socially conservative unless they are religious. And yet this seems strange.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Because if atheism is true, then atheists themselves (those who created religions) had independent reasons to hold to social conservative positions - so it seems strange to see today so many atheists who would find social conservatism as anathema to their position, and equivalent to basically being religious.
What do you take atheism to be, first off?
Lack of belief in God.
In other words, if it's true that some poeple have a lack of belief in God, or if the lack of belief in God has right what the world is like, then that implies that atheists created religions because _________ ?
I am not sure, but I believe at different points in US history voting habits and religious views were not so clearly defined as they have come to be in more recent times.
.
Aquinas says basically this:
Quoting Agustino
Group think and peer pressure.
Atheism being true obviously doesn't mean a lack of belief in God is true. It means there is no God.
Okay, so if the atheistic belief has right what the world is like, then that implies that atheists created religions because _____? (And then what's the argument there?)
That implies atheists created religions because the folks who have created religions were the educated - those who could, first of all, write, and write very well. If you look at some of the Books from the Bible for example, they are very well written, and they illustrate quite complex points. Clearly they weren't written by idiots, or uncultured men and women. If there is no God, and if no God actually communicated with them, it is obvious that they would be aware of this when writing the religious texts. As for why they created religion - simple - to have an easy way to teach and enforce morality on their fellow men.
What? But nothing in that sentence is implied by "The atheistic belief has right what the world is like."
This conclusion works just as well: "The atheistic belief has right what the world is like, and religious believers created religions."
Also, you're adding "Atheists are those who were educated and could write well"???
Quoting Agustino
And here you're attempting some correlation with intelligence, being educated and writing well with religious beliefs (including a lack of the same)???
None of this follows from anything else.
First of all I struggle to understand this sentence - the atheistic belief HAS right?? What the hell does that mean?
And it does follow - because it implies that folks who created religions must have been atheists. It's impossible to claim God communicated with me, unless I really did have consecutive experiences of God communicating. But if atheism is true, then God didn't communicate with me, and I darn well know he didn't.
Quoting Agustino
it's not at all impossible to claim that x communicated with you without really having an experience (or consecutive experiences if you like) of x communicating with you. How is that possible? By lying.
Of course, it's also possible to claim that x communicated with you where you really did have an experience (or consecutive experiences) of x communicating with you but where no x communicated with you. In other words, your mental phenomena could be illusory, or you could be mistaken about how your mental phenomena correlate with the world.
It's not at all the case that the people who created religions had to be atheists just in case there are no gods. The people who created religions could have been (and surely were) religious believers. It would just be the case that their beliefs were mistaken (re correlations to the world).
Sorry but such expressions are totally foreign to me. It gets right? How can something get right? Something may BE right, but GET right?
Quoting Terrapin Station
Yes I agree. Therefore if they lie about it, they are atheists.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Yes but it would require this to happen consecutively, over almost an entire life-span. That's highly unlikely and dubious. Apart from this, I would need to suffer of no sort of mental illness which impedes me from influencing my fellow men in order to be able to start a religion.
Quoting Terrapin Station
No but they certainly probably were, and surely I have no reason to assume otherwise.
Quoting Terrapin Station
How would they come to religious belief if there is no God? Moses for example, claimed to come to religious belief and came down the mountain with tablets written by God. He surely must know if God really communicated with him or not. And if God didn't, and he is lying, then he knows he is lying.
That certainly doesn't follow.
Joe believes in God. Joe doesn't believe that God has communicated with him. Joe says that God has communicated with him. Joe is lying about this. Well, Joe believes in God. It's not true that Joe is an atheist.
Quoting Agustino
I'm guessing that you're talking about a specific case here, rather than just any instance of someone claiming that god communicated with them.
Quoting Agustino
Implication in logic isn't the same thing as "high degree of likelihood." So that something is highly unlikely/dubious doesn't imply that the alternative is a logical implication. Logical implications only obtain when the alternative is (logically) impossible.
Quoting Agustino
At least we know now that you believe that no political leaders, no cult leaders, no powerful business executives, no highly influential artists, philosophers, etc. had mental illnesses.
Quoting Agustino
If I had believed you were simply talking about probability rather than logical implication, I would have proceeded very differently.
Quoting Agustino
Via attempting to explain natural phenomena, various regular occurrences, various disasters, etc.
Okay, how does Joe form a belief in God? He tells others that he believes in God because God has spoken to him. If that isn't so, why doesn't he give the real reason for his belief? I'm not saying that these that you list aren't possibilities - they are logical possibilties, but I don't care about that, because they're very unlikely.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I'm talking pragmatically here not logically. I don't care about having an air-tight logical argument for this.
Quoting Terrapin Station
If you look at religious texts, these are very rarely cited as reasons, and most of the religious texts don't deal with explaining science or the reason for the occurrence of natural events at all. They mostly deal with history and morality.
Right, so first off, if we're talking about a probability argument, what sort of data are we using for our probability statements?
I think conservative-christians/progressive christians mirror social-conservative/progressive democrats.
In our culture's christian value systems provide the basis for many conversations. My guess is that religious conservatism has as much natural affinity towards social conservatism as social conservatism has toward religious conservatism. A progressive christian social conservative seems to me to be impossible.
I think religion is a means of giving and maintaining order. It was tapped early on in the formation of societies. People bought into it because it made sense of their world and gave them a way to contend with their fears. As people found rational foundations for their beliefs, their reliance on religious explanation declined, but their reliance on religious value system (by both Atheists & Christians) remains strong, because is still is very effective in keeping order.
Isn't a least part of the reason why the merging of Christian and Moslem cultures so difficult, is the fundamentalist Moslems value systems does not match up well with contemporary Western value systems, making the conversation difficult, and each side view the other's actions as fundamentally flawed.
But so it is with everyone. This holds for progressive liberals too - they can't suddenly be anti-gay marriage and still be progressive liberals...
Once established, (period of centuries) religions accumulate cultural and material assets. They become a 'vested' interest, which they wish to preserve. Individuals who identify as members of the religion become both asset and preservation police. They want what they joined to maintain its attractive features. Members and administrators regularly police the boundaries and inner precincts of the religion to prevent subversion and decay.
That's very simplistic, of course. Christianity went through a lot of social and theological upheaval prior to the Reformation; Luther wasn't the first disruptor, and he wasn't the last, obviously enough.
But what is a more interesting question, Agustino, is why and how some people make of the conservative religion a springboard into very non-conservative, even radical, religious practice? I'm thinking of Dorothy Day, here. (You may not be familiar with her). She was at best a lapsed Christian, maybe moving towards atheism; a journalist, socialist, who in the 1930s experienced a reconciliation with the Catholic Church and (with Peter Marin) founded the rather left-wing Catholic Worker, which practiced a radical hospitality for the burgeoning numbers of homeless men and women in New York. She died sometime in the 1980s, and is on track to sainthood -- something she would have abhorred. "Don't call me a saint," she said. "I don't want to be dismissed that easily." There were maybe a hundred Catholic Worker houses of hospitality at their peak; some of them are still operating.
Day didn't soften up her radical views as she aged, but she was always faithful and obedient to the Church. (Granted, she sometimes had to look for a bishop with views friendly to her own.)
It isn't very common that that people do this--launch "revolutions" within the church, yet preserve their conservative faith. The Berrigan brothers come to mind--both priests, both involved in radical political activity.
Quoting Agustino
Well, I am one of the few, but I have got to say that I have become more sympathetic towards religion (especially Christianity).
Quoting Thorongil
edit: Christopher Hitchens is the only commie I respect.
You *may* (but I would dispute even this) be correct about Christianity, but Judaism and Islam were conservative from the very beginning. Although both passed through times when the conservatism advocated by the religion was actually neglected. Baghdad during the Golden Age of Islam was similar to New York today :P
Quoting Bitter Crank
What do you think of Reinhold Niebuhr?
How did you arrive at your social conservatism?
Quoting Emptyheady
But CH wasn't a social conservative for sure :P
The only way to keep a white post white is to, every now and then, repaint it white no? If you avoid change, you're not conservative at all, ultimately.
Well I did take tendency in an absolute sense, but apart from that I guess I would question that conservatism (or at least my conservatism) prefers traditionalism for its own sake. I see good reasons to preserve it.
(In fact, I am quite against the type of conservative who thinks we should do something that way, because it's always been done that way. I hate that actually - in my country for example, there's a lot of that type of conservatism - for example you have men who think women should never hold a job, etc. but that seems stupid to me - there's no reason to believe or hold to that - it's irrational )
Wait a minute, how can you call a religion conservative from the beginning that spread as fast as Islam did, disrupting one society after another? Are you classifying Islam conservative (at its birth) because religion was allied with conquest and control of territory and people? Or are you saying that Islam became fixed and rigid very early?
Judaism probably began as one of several religions in the inland territory at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, and from that perspective might have hatched out as conservative from the get go. Is that why you classify Judaism as conservative from the beginning? I would think Egyptian religion would be a better candidate for "conservative at its birth". What about Greek and Roman religion?
I won't deny that you can be very intelligent and be religious and socially conservative. But I will affirm that, at least in my experience, encounters with people of this dual nature tends to leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Both positions may be reasonable but from my own experiences the vast majority of participants are not.
In fact, now that I think about it, the same applies to the opposite spectrum. There are some really stupid liberal atheists.
Conservative in the sense that it was spreading itself and keeping with the spirit of other religions of the time, looking to gain adherents and have them share their beliefs.
This is a good question. I am not sure how I exactly ended up here. I think the same way I became an atheist (from Christian theism); a Christian convinced me of atheism and a commie (Hitchens) convinced me of social conservatism. They got the ball rolling and got me here.
The Christian told me not the take my beliefs for granted and actually critically think about them -- the road to atheism started at that point. Hitchens provided some strong insights on the issue of abortion and why he considers himself pro-life, I started to think about it and quickly realised how disgustingly vulgar and poor the leftist/progressive arguments are.
My life has been quite ironic so far. I wouldn't be surprised if one day a redneck convinces me abstract art deserves appreciation.
I almost went to art school. I ended up choosing Engineering and Business school. Better career pro$pect$ anyway. :-$
Social conservatives generally believe in authority as being necessary for creating social cohesion. God is associated with the idea of genuine authority. Only the author has genuine authority, and God is usually understood to be the author of the world. Absent God authority is a merely contingent matter, upheld by worldly power. Absent God the desirable socially harmonizing force of authority is left with no solid, non-arbitrary foundation.
1. Progressive liberals
or
2. Reactionaries
What I mean by progressive liberals is clear, but what I mean by reactionary is different. Alt Right, Men's Rights, etc. such groups I qualify as reactionary. They are reactionary because they revolve around primitive notions of - for example - gender relations. For example, they think women should be servile towards men, they think the most powerful man should have the most choice of women, they use double standards - promiscuity for men, chastity for women - and so forth. To me, they are almost just as bad as progressive liberals, but they are easier to deal with than progressive liberals are, because they never claim to have the moral high ground. Such reactionaries often speak in the language of alpha males - a language that I find demeaning to women (the idea that a woman would choose a man because he is the most powerful is demeaning). But I never worry too much about them. It's only a matter of time before they will be defeated. I only worry that if they are defeated the progressive liberals will take over. So I would rather ally with them, than with progressive liberals. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
So if I am to speak of social conservatism - let's take one view - that abortion should be limited to specific cases such as rape, incest, or when the woman's health is in danger - then I get one of two reactions - (1) women should be allowed no abortions or (2) ewww that's disgusting, women should be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies (and I hate the second reply).
Or take sex outside of committed relationships. I get two responses - (1) what, are you stupid? Don't you want to fuck women without having to worry about them ever again? Do you want to be a woman's slave? or (2) When and how two consenting adults have sex is their business. Women should be allowed to have sex with whoever they want, and however they want. I find both responses much more unintelligent, uninformative and immoral than my own social conservatism. So there's few which treat sex with the same dignity and respect that I treat it with.
Not necessarily - they don't believe in authority for authority's sake.
I didn't say they did.
Sure but then it means that - granting atheism - God becomes merely a tool of enforcing morality - a morality which has an entirely different foundation than God.
But how is Hitchens socially conservative? I mean his position regarding gay marriage, sex outside of marriage, value of family etc. are completely the opposite of what a social conservative would hold. Abortion is possibly the only commonality.
Sure, atheists could use the belief in God to create the illusion of absolute authority.
Should you not for example have written "recommending" rather than "achieving"? Because otherwise I am having difficulty parsing your statement.
Maybe - I meant that achieving it in thought, obviously not practically achieving it.
Alright I can make sense of that. :)
Because conservatism by its very nature wishes to conserve tradition - that which has been found to be true and good, that which is handed down by the prior generations. Conservatism is suspicious of innovation. (Although oddly, Jesus Christ was not conservative in the least - he was a revolutionary in many ways.)
But in today's world, which is characterised by an ever-increasing rate of change, conservatism wishes to maintain the golden thread which leads back to the original revelation and connection to the true good.
That quote from Aquinas is illuminating, thank you.
I think there is a bit of a metaphysical difference. The traditions of the past focus on a particular underlying foundation (God, Nation, etc., etc.) where is the behaviour and values of the modern "non-traditionalists" focus on the world itself (at least with respect to post-modern Western liberalism). Their traditions (freedom, equality, etc.,etc.) are understood to serve the present world and it people, rather than a foundation. In a way, we might say to values the world (that which exists at some point in time), rather than an idea (a particular notion of a foundation). I think this is a bit of a significant change. The "non-traditionalists" don't understand behaviour and values, their traditions, like the traditionalists do.
I think that's many atheists reason for rejecting God, but then I think that make sense.
I mean what is God without the "traditionalist" elements? If God is not a moral arbiter or enforcer of the world, God becomes sort of irrelevant. What does it matter if there is some being if it has no impact on the world? The question of believing in God becomes equivalent to whether one thinks there is some astroid in some galaxy we haven't observed. God without the "traditionalist" stuff is so benign that no-one has a beef with them-- well, apart from the traditionalist theists, who cannot stand the notion because it would mean the absence of their moral arbiter and enforcer.
I'd say everyone has a beef with God because that God is inseparable from the tradition they are opposed to. Even the "descriptive" atheist (i.e. the worried about the presence or logical coherence of God) reacts because belief would mean partaking in a tradition they found abhorrent (e.g. believing in falsified states and/or incoherent concepts).
So think you are right about people having a beef with God becasue of tradition, but what exactly is God without tradition? I think you are ignoring it's the tradition that makes God God.
I think this is a historical reason for the lack of intersection between atheism and social conservatism. Social conservatism has ties to traditions inseparable from God. Within the political environment, both the traditional theists and their opponents promote the opposite. Since the social conservative tradition so many people are worried about is tied to God, belief in God becomes the battleground. To be a social conservative atheist, one is effectively building an identity without precedent. No one thinks of a social conservative tradition being necessary tied to an atheist identity.
The social conservative atheist is caught in the middle. To the traditional theist, they are a threat because they agree with the non-traditionalist that God is irrelevant to the definition of tradition. Although they are both social conservative, the atheist denies the foundation of the theist's belief. God is no longer necessary and rejected. That's a big hurdle to ask many theists to jump. In the current political environment, the socially conservative atheist doesn't have many pre-existing traditions to coalesce a movement around. Without the reactionary defence religious tradition or alt-right identity, it's difficult for the social conservative atheist to generate political appeal. I think, perhaps, they are in the most difficult position in the West at the moment. The embedded liberalism within Western culture makes it difficult for them to develop a movement on their own terms.
God doesn't 'happen to a part of it', but is the foundation of it. So if you want to get rid of the tradition, then start with the foundation. Replace it with something today's man in the street respects, like science. The rest is detail.
Unfortunately no.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I do read fiction, but I don't really like present-day fiction, I have an aversion to it. It's too progressive for my liking. I like reading the likes of Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Kafka, Garcia Marquez, Jane Austen, etc.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Well I don't know the book, but if you state the themes I could respond that way I guess.
If atheism is true, then God happens to be part of it, and not the foundation.
Okay but if this is so, then the case against God is political rather than intellectual, and it's good for both participants to realise it is so. Then it merely becomes a matter of pushing tradition, rather than God for the theist. The atheist will then have a hard time defending and claiming moral superiority once God ceases to be a central focus of the debate. Once the theist stops claiming that social conservatism depends on belief in God, it will be very difficult for the atheist to oppose. So long as the theist can't be cornered, and the atheist can no longer claim that the theist believes X because of his belief in God, then it will be very difficult for those opposing tradition.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, but the social conservative atheist, while not believing in God himself, could find belief in God useful for policing society, and so could at any time ally with the theist. Their mutual commitment to tradition is stronger than their commitment to God. Even more, since the atheist is a social conservative, he could find the preservation of religion useful for the set of morals it teaches, and not for its facticity. Then God becomes mere rhetorical device to help the propagation of a system of morality which ultimately doesn't rest on God - but on reason.
Interesting, I see genuine religion as being largely (if not wholly) at odds with nature. Especially 'nature' as conceived of, and glorified by, someone like Nietzsche; in other words in a non-Romantic way. I'm referring, for example, to the emphasis on overcoming egotism (which seems 'natural') for the sake of a much broader conception of the self-- or maybe even deconstructing the illusions that the self is prone to identify with--as found in the lives of figures such as Socrates, Jesus and Buddha. To acknowledge your ignorance, to love your enemy, to sympathize with rather than condemn, etc. do not at all seem to be natural human sentiments. I do however think these views are 'conservative' in one very important sense: they reject materialistic conceptions of life which eschew any and every 'spiritual' principle. And by doing this, they at least tacitly acknowledge something 'higher' than the satisfaction of those bodily and quite natural desires for food, sex, power, etc.
Now of course religions are diverse, with some probably being more aligned with natural impulses than others. And there have been clear appropriations of these exemplary spiritual figures which have dragged down the sublime and elevated aspects of their teachings to the level of practical (and cynical) social and political utility. But that distinction having been made, I do see authentic religiosity as being more in step with radical modes of thinking and acting that reject the status quo. Does that mean they're 'progressive'? No--at least not if that term is understood and associated with the guiding assumptions of modern liberal progressives. Relative to these things, religion in the qualified sense does appear to be socially conservative for the reason mentioned above.
It would also (hypothetically) respect the dignity of the individual while simultaneously acknowledging the intimate interconnection we as individuals have with others in our community. We're more than a mere aggregate of autonomous egos, although this does not necessarily preclude notions of selfhood and individual freedom. Resolving this libertarian/communitarian tension in my own thinking is something I'd like to explore in more depth. Seems like Aristotle had some interesting things to say in his Ethics and Politics, as did Hegel in various places from what I've read thus far. I even like JS Mill's musings on the topic in On Liberty, despite the fact that I don't agree with many of his other social or political positions.
I have ambiguous views regarding religion and social conservatism. I'm not a theist or conservative in any traditional sense, but I do reject the reductive tendencies of materialism that most progressives seem committed to. This has relevance for my tentative and developing views on a broad range of issues that make me sympathetic to certain tenets of social conservatism as typically understood, and supplemented by my more idiosyncratic way of conceiving it: I am pro-marriage (absolute commitment which could involve two men, two women, or the traditional man and woman), anti-abortion (with exceptions), anti-consumerist, anti-communist, anti-capitalist, etc. Basically, I cannot align myself with any movement, political party or 'ism' of any sort which I feel fails to acknowledge the at least latent profundity of human existence--or existence (being) more generally--and reduces all things, human and non-human alike, to the one-dimensional level of exploitable resource. That's the nightmarish world in which 'we live and move and have our being' at present, and one which I feel should be overcome.
I would also add that this sort of conservatism does not necessarily look back nostalgically for examples of order and social stability to imitate, but rather looks ahead to a new era of human existence; one that may have been glimpsed by previous thinkers (and is thus indebted to the past in this sense), but has yet to be implemented within the culture at large. So in a way radical revolutionary and social conservative may converge, with the caveat that this alliance entails a new understanding of these terms that's freed them from their current associations. So in a paradoxical way, conservatism can even be utopian (again in a qualified sense). Or maybe it's best to leave behind terms such as 'conservative,' 'progressive,' 'religious' and the like altogether, since the associations they conjure up seem much too strong to allow for their re-appropriation.
But yeah, I obviously have a bunch of muddled intuitions on this very interesting topic that aren't fully formulated as of yet. I do think one could be both an atheist and a social conservative in a pragmatic way that seeks the usefulness of human virtue for the maintenance of collective cohesion and stability. The ground seems a bit flimsy though without some 'higher' conception of reality which includes, but is not exhausted by, its material component. Man does not live by bread alone.
It's always intellectual though, for ethics is the reason that matters. For the theist, the God without the political is not God. If God is merely rhetorical, it is not The Truth. There is no cosmic creator , judge, enforcer and giver of eternal life in such a circumstance. For the theist, God is always intellectual, a necessary truth of reason always bound to the ethics/politics of a just society. To recognise that a God debate is really about hierarchy of cultural practice and values, as opposed to the presence of a being that necessitates justice, is to destroy the very premise of the theist belief.
In understanding it, one destroys God-- ethics and power become their own category, without a foundation that necessitates them. Ethics become necessary in-themselves and, in terms of practice, a contingent state of the world (i.e. Nietzsche--"God is Dead").
So there is no doubt the socially conservative atheist may find God a useful concept for policing society and grounding their values, but it comes at the cost of honesty. God only works as a foundation when it is believed. Only if people think God is intellectual, is inseparable of the intellectual and political ethics of a just world, can it help reinforce socially conservative practice. Their mutual commitment to socially conservative tradition is not stronger than the theist's commitment to God. If the conversation turns to metaphysics of ethics, the theist must disagree or else lose their belief in God.
The social conservative atheist's argument might rest on reason (or specifically an intellectual and binding ethical/political position), but they can't publicly state that and make rhetorical use of God. To keep the theists on side, the public face must claim God is true and equate social conservative values with religious belief.
Conservatists want to make people stupid. Religions tend to make people stupid. This is why conservatists use religions.
How? The conservative atheist has his own independent reasons for adhering to tradition - reasons which are independent from God. His "belief" in God is not dishonest - it's merely a mask he uses to communicate with others in a language they can understand.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
But - what if believing in God is equivalent with adhering to tradition? What if believing in God is simply doing the Will of the Father? What if faith is simply upholding the virtues? What if this is simply all we mean when we say someone believes in God?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, but that's other people from the conservative atheist's position.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
They could, as I have outlined above.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Sure, but this is different from having social conservative values being the outgrowth (or consequence) of belief in God. Rather, in this case, social conservatism is simply equated with belief in God, in such a way that anyone who is a social conservative is an (anonymous) Christian, for example.
But dumbing the masses down in order to manipulate them is also a tactic increasingly being used by liberals these days. I spoke with a young employee of mine yesterday about racism, and she said she has an unqualified dislike of white people because 'they've done a lot of bad things'. We have, of course, but when pressed to provide concrete examples she had nothing, not even the obvious cases of slavery, genocide, etc. She was uncritically parroting what she'd been taught in her 'progressive' public high school. So even the Left tries to inculcate a certain set of simplified and dogmatic assumptions about the world that are to go unchallenged. Anyone who does try to inject some balance, context and/or nuance is accused of racism, sexism, and other such things.
So I see both sides as gladly subordinating truth to their agenda, of demonizing those who disagree with their Manichean worldview, and off attempting to stifle contrary opinions (as being anti-American in the case of conservatives and the aforementioned racist, sexist, fascist in the case of progressives). This being the case, I have fled from my previous attachment with the Left and now have a much more independent outlook on things that contains elements of progressivism and conservatism. In other words I've distanced myself from party loyalty and rigid ideology. I humbly suggest that others do the same.
I don't think this follows at all. What about someone like Epicurus - you really can't get more atheistic and materialistic than that. And yet, Epicurus was very pious, and probably quite close to social conservative values. It's not materialism that is the problem. Politics comes before materialism - and materialism is merely the post-fact rationalisation for a certain kind of politics. There is no necessary, or even likely link, between materialism and liberal progressivism.
Because that's what leads to well-being and happiness for yourself and others? If you read Epicurean works - take De Rerum Natura by Lucretius - you'll see that one, for example, should be free from lust because being a slave to lust makes one suffer - it diminishes their strength. One should be bonded in friendship with others because friendship makes everyone stronger, and none weaker. Giving in to your greed or lust isn't, paradoxically a way to satisfy the grandest ambitions of the ego - but a way to destroy them - it's the ego self-destructing because of lack of restraint.
But this of course involves a non-material principle: I betrayed the trust and loyalty that my wife placed in me and which should have prevented me from succumbing to the temptation of physical pleasure. Furthermore, I should have done so for the sake of (at the very least) a mental contentment that comes from knowing that I can constrain my desires and natural impulses, and this affirms my belief that I'm more than a mere beast out to to satisfy its natural desires. I see no reason why a hedonism, albeit of a sort mitigated by 'reason' and good sense, should necessarily lead to a life of virtue. A genuinely virtuous life, like that embodied by Socrates (and contrasted with the appearance of virtue of the sophists), would appear to be quite painful in fact relative to the other less principled and more practical human beings.
Same thing with friendship. Without a belief in anything more valuable than my own happiness and well-being, why not just use other human beings in a utilitarian way to the extent that they can assist my attempt to achieve things like bodily health, longevity, etc. I see no grounds here to do unnatural things like lay down my life, or sacrifice my own well-being, for the sake of another person, and I would not expect them to do so for me if they were guided by similar considerations. And friendship does not make everyone stronger. It depends upon the type of friends one hangs around, and the values they adhere to.
But again, I've probably built up a straw man due to my ignorance of the Epicureans. I'll look deeper into it. It just seems in principle to result in the type of atheistic pragmatism that I already mentioned could reasonably align itself with social conservatism. No disrespect intended for the likes of Epicurus. I'm making certain assumptions based upon my limited knowledge of his work. I just cannot fathom how materialism could lead to virtue in anything more than a practical way. And things founded on practicality can shift depending upon the given context. Spiritual values seem much less prone to the sort of instability which I take to be characteristic of the a life guided by considerations of my own physical well-being.
The material universe which expresses meaning and value. A reality in which God is not a foundation of the world or meaning, but rather an expression of existing states. God defined by non-existence: a series of necessary truths which can defy existence(e.g. the ethical truth that remains despite everyone acting otherwise) precisely because they aren't "in" the world.
A piety that matters because it is what the world expresses: the importance of family, a community where people are honest and can trust each other, the needles suffering which ought be avoided, a sacrifice of life so someone else can live, etc., etc.
In all cases, states of the material world which have significance, which demand action. No one needs to go hand-wringing over how to make the lives of loved ones matter or what makes feeding the starving child important. This states of the world express significance all on their own. The world is replete with meaning. Its expression is a necessary truth.
Yes.
Quoting Erik
If that were so, then you should go ahead and join them. Then there would be no way for social conservatism to win - it would be impossible. If satisfaction of sexual desires with as many partners as possible really would make most happy, then that is the end. No amount of spiritual pleading could ever convince them otherwise, if they rationally perceived it to be so. The only alternative would be deception and force, but even they would probably fail in the long-run.
Quoting Erik
An Epicurean wouldn't accept the distinction physical/spiritual. They would claim that the mind is what is meant by spirit, and the mind is also material. And so since sexual pleasure is felt in the mind, it is of the same kind as what you call spiritual pleasure, and in no way different in substance. However, the pleasures of the mind are to be preferred over the pleasures of the flesh simply because the pleasures of the mind can be achieved more easily, at lesser costs. Thus Epicurus would argue that the sage isn't interested in sex, because there is nothing to gain from it - the costs always outweigh the benefits.
Quoting Erik
Going away from traditional Epicureanism now, which discourages physical love and attachments. The question isn't only that you betrayed the trust and loyalty that your wife placed in you. The question is that if you do this, then your wife will also (likely) do this, and you do not want that because you would experience jealousy then. So you merely feel guilty because you know what awaits you. If even you cannot be trusted, how could your wife be trusted? And this becomes the problem. If you fail, then not only have you failed her, she has also failed you.
There are some people for example who don't care if their wife cheats on them. These are the very same people who don't care about cheating on their wife either - they wouldn't feel guilty. It's the fact that you care about your wife cheating on you that makes you feel guilty if you cheat on her - it's an outgrowth of the golden rule. You do want the physical pleasure of sex, it's just that you realise that most scenarios of getting it lead to you ruining yourself. So you choose to abstain. You recognise that gaining it simply isn't in the cards for you. And you accept it.
Quoting Erik
Sure, do that, but they might not be your friends for long :)
Quoting Erik
You would see them, when you have no alternative. Say your wife is in danger. If you don't risk your life to save her, will you ever have another wife? Probably not - probably people won't respect you anymore. You'll be considered a coward and a wimp. Nobody will want to be around you anymore. And so it is better to risk losing your life, because if you don't, then you've already lost what is of value in it. And consider the alternative - you risk your life and manage to save her and survive - everyone, including your wife, will consider you a hero! You've won big league as Trump would tell you ;)
I stand firm at present in my belief that rejecting the 'spiritual' element (not to be confused with belief in the immortality of my individual soul, or a desire for an afterlife of everlasting bliss) would ipso facto drain the 'higher' values of much of their significance. I would feel no deep pangs of conscience for fucking a woman other than my wife, I would not willingly sacrifice my life for my children without hesitation, or even more unpractically, for an abstraction like freedom of thought and belief. I would probably seek happiness in the moderate satisfaction of physical desires and other pleasant diversions, but this would not lead to the type of elevated love that Jesus showed for others, or that Socrates willingly chose to die for. They didn't posit other worlds either; no, the 'spiritual' is here and now and all around us.
Anyhow I'll try to respond in more detail later though after chewing on this a bit. I intuitively feel that Dostoyevsky was right: if God doesn't exist then anything is permitted. For me God could mean the non or supra-material aspect of life which gives meaning and significance to the tangible world beyond human projections. If the ancient Greek atomists had a conception of matetr which allowed for this, then count me a materialist in their sense.
Plato's meditations seem fixated on justifying philosophy--which should result in a life of virtue--in the face of the impractical and even dangerous possibilities it contains for its practitioners. My guess is that Epicurus would have made many concessions to the dominant social and political forces that Socrates (and Jesus) was unwilling to make, and that the reason for this could be traced to their respective understandings of human existence and, more specifically, to the existence or non-existence of a 'soul' whose needs can be at odds (at least on occasion) with the desires of the body. But this is obviously conjecture on my part.
Everything old was once new and "progressive."
Quoting Agustino
Perhaps get your hands on it, I think you may like it.
I think not. Again, there never is a time when not acting virtuously is better pragmatically than acting virtuously. And thus, even if the character in question is a sociopath, they could never "show their face" so to speak. And if they can never show their face, and therefore they never do anything sociopathic, in what sense are they even a sociopath? The problem with sociopaths is that they hide and hide - but at one point they have to show their true colors, otherwise in what way are they sociopaths? For them, this showing their true colors ultimately is their undoing. Virtue is its own reward, and evil self-destructs. Even your so called sociopaths don't think sufficiently in the long-term. They are irrational.
Quoting Erik
Epicurus wasn't interested in politics, and advocated that his followers live a tranquil life, focused on study, exploration of nature, friendship, and enjoyment, and away from potential sources of pain, such as politics, sex, and the like.
Quoting Erik
I don't find this in myself.
Quoting Erik
Then you are a very strange human being, who would willingly advance towards his own destruction, and who, if he wouldn't have a notion of the spirit, would willingly pour poisons down his throat...
I for one, for example, do feel pangs of conscience - even if I were to believe there is no spirit at all. For example, I feel pangs of conscience for fucking a woman other than my future wife. I don't understand why, absent spirit, you would go head long doing that. It's like, absent spirit, I wouldn't want my wife to be special to me and me to her. It's like, absent spirit, I wouldn't care about what my future wife is currently doing (and what I am currently doing). It's like absent spirit I wouldn't care if my wife is a loose slut or not. That is so foolish, as Spinoza said, that it's hardly worth refuting.
Quoting Erik
If you were Socrates, would you have chosen to die or to live? I would have chosen to die. We all have to die in the end, better to die as a great hero that all of history will remember, than die as a coward, begging for a few more days of life, humiliated and despised for my weakness by all, and suffused in such great shame. Such a life would indeed have been worse than death! Socrates, and Jesus, simply didn't have any better alternatives. They picked the best path they had available.
Yes but my problem isn't just that they are "new". My problem is that their ideas, and even their characters, seem quite superficial and uninteresting, it's like such people don't have anything of value to teach me. Someone "forced" me recently to read "Revolutionary Road" by Richard Yates - such a great disaster! Honestly the story is so disgusting and serves nothing more than illustrating pure stupidity. It's the story of an alcoholic couple who nevertheless are well perceived by their suburban conservative world, both with serious problems who ultimately self-destruct because of their restlessness, unrestrained ambition and simple lack of intelligence.
You know, when I read a novel, I must learn profound things from it. Otherwise, why am I spending my time reading it?
Organized religion in the West is fundamentally dependent on revelation and faith. Reason is a secondary concern. Many in the Church hierarchy were greatly concerned when the works of Aristotle became available again in Europe and were widely admired, because those works indicated revelation and faith were in most cases unnecessary; reason, instead, would serve to explain the world; certainly, Christian faith and revelation were unknown and unnecessary to the man they called "the Philosopher."
I suspect that if social conservatives are mostly religious it's due to the fact that religion disregards reason and the results of the application of reason when it conflicts with doctrine or cherished views and customs. This is not to say that all social conservatives are against reason and science all the time, but that they think they may disregard them when they conflict with what they believe to be true and proper regardless of them. In other words, with what they believe to be true and proper on grounds which can't be arrived at through the application of reason; which are in effect beyond reason.
You think so? In developed economies, are high rates of sexually-transmitted diseases, and large numbers of children born outside marriage, not to mention epidemics of cybersexual addiction. This simply a kind of hedonic fantasy that equates pleasure and happiness.
Quoting Erik
I think any real philosophy ought to recognize the perilous nature of existence itself. I was reading a summary yesterday of a PhD research programme concerning Western practitioners of Buddhist meditation - the working title being 'A Precarious Path'. It detailed how many difficulties and obstacles practitioners face. And that is as it has to be! Life is perilous and precarious, and a real philosophy has to acknowledge that. Whereas, increasingly, the 'philosophy' of the consumerist society is bent on making the world a safe place for the ignorant; the whole social order is based on encouraging 'consumers' by stimulating their demands for often useless products, or engaging in ridiculous escapist fantasies through screen entertainment and the internet.
The significance of Jesus, Socrates, Plato - the 'spiritual examplars' - is to call attention to the ultimate reality of human experience - which is death. Socrates said 'philosophers make dying their profession' (according to Arthur Hermann Plato vs Aristotle).
How many adult atheist progressives migrate to the opposite end of the spectrum and become religious conservatives? I would guess few. Similarly, how many religious conservatives make that trip and become atheist progressives? Again, not very many. Why?
As Alexander Pope noted, "Tis education forms the common mind, Just as the twig is bent the tree's inclined."
Conservative believers and progressive atheists alike are usually the product of their education -- not just formal schooling, but the education that comes from living in a particular milieu. There may be backflips off the high board along the way -- the offspring of the conservative religious parents who in college becomes quite the progressive. Usually that progressive fit fades away, and a few years out of college the one-time white campus champion of colored people, gays, women, migrants, etc., is a member of the Chamber of Commerce and Rotary.
The same can happen to the boy from the wrong side of the tracks whose parents are union folk and at best lukewarm towards the church. He might do the Collegiate About Face and get into Republicanism and religion, maybe because it confers an advantage among his immediate peers. But like his opposite, a few years out of college and he'll be back among the progressives, and will be trying to get his workplace unionized.
There are exceptions, of course. But a common theme among people aging out of youth into middle age is how they find themselves resembling their parents more and more. They find themselves doing the annoying things that parents used to do. They start thinking more and more like their parents did. (That one is becoming one's mother and father is a humbling realization.)
Posters have offered various reasons why religion is associated with conservatism, and they are good observations. But the effect of inter-generational instruction has to be counted too. We were not blank slates until we were old enough to have political opinions. We had already absorbed a lot of politics, from radically conservative to radically revolutionary. Language, diet, politics, hygiene, etc. are all heavily shaped by upbringing.
I think it's fair to say that religion has been the binding force in nearly all, if not all. cultures. And religions have always been associated with origins, which means with ancestors and traditions. So, it seems odd in the light of that to refer to the link between religion and conservatism as an historical contingency, as though it could just as well have been otherwise.
Apart from that there's another logical connection religion has with conservatism, in that religions are usually concerned with the afterlife, with the spiritual world, which means that behaviors are not necessarily ethically neutral even when they don't impact on one's physical health or on the health or happiness of others. The spiritual effects on oneself of one's own behavior becomes an issue of authority insofar as one does not feel confident in one's own intuitions. And of course authority in these matters is conserved from one generation to the next by tradition, meaning that cultures governed by such preserved traditions to whatever extent, are naturally conservative to that extent.
Whether being "religious" and being "conservative" has always gone together depends, to some extent, on the historical contingency of how you look at the past. I look at Jesus as someone who was (presumably) very religious (what with his being God and all) and was decidedly not a conservative (what with his overcoming death, and inaugurating the Kingdom of God, and all). Somebody else might look at Jesus and arrive at a different conclusion.
On the other hand... Most of the Pharaohs were presumably religious and conservative -- except for the revolutionary Akhenaten who was a monotheist in a long line of polytheists. The Vestal Virgins of Rome were both religious and conservative, they being servants of Vesta, the goddess of hearth, home, and family, and also the keepers of important documents, like the Emperor's will. Agustino thinks Islam was conservative from the get go. That may be. Others might not look at it that way.
But whether YOU are religious and paleo-conservative or religious and a left wing revolutionary is largely a historical contingency.
I think there are many factors involved here. First, though, I want to make it clear for anyone who hasn't read my previous posts in this thread that I don't personally adhere to this hedonistic view. I'm simply trying to grasp what the highest 'good' would be in a life which rejects belief in anything superior to our own physical and psychological well-being. I can definitely see Agustino's point regarding the compatibility of atheism and social conservatism, and I even admitted that atheism would not preclude a pragmatic conservatism in which social stability and personal happiness are valued as goods despite not being grounded in typical religious beliefs like an eternal soul, an afterlife in which rewards and punishments are doled out based upon our actions, or even a vague belief in something transcending the material aspect of existence.
That being said, I also think there are many people who do indeed view sexual gratification--or physical pleasures more generally--as the highest good (the only good) within an atheistic universe which isn't grounded in any sense of spiritual significance. I think there are quite a few out there who clearly envy the ability of a wealthy businessman, a famous rock star or a professional athlete to have sex with multitudes of attractive women whenever they like. If you use condoms or other forms of birth control then you can largely eliminate many of the unintended/undesirable consequences of living such a lifestyle that you pointed out. That way of life can obviously bring temporary pleasure and happiness. But it cannot lead to the type of deep and abiding contentment which accompanies knowing that while we could do whatever we choose (given our specific context) if we wanted to, we freely choose not out of the sake of higher principles (e.g. trust, loyalty, compassion, sacrifice, love).
There was admittedly a time in my life when getting laid was the primary motivation of my actions. I was fortunate enough to meet my future wife after this trial (mawkish, I know), and my values shifted significantly. This shift coincided with an openness towards 'spirituality' which had previously been lacking. My wife was much more than a clump of matter that satisfied my desire for physical pleasure. She was more than someone I wanted to have sex with. I actually cared about her in a way that I hadn't previously experienced. I went from being a selfish prick to being at least a less selfish prick. And then we had a child, and after that my perspective shifted even more radically. I worked jobs I hated to make them happy (or so I felt) and this sacrifice brought me more 'pleasure' than sex with random women ever did. This sounds like romantic twaddle, of course, but alas that's my disposition.
So circling back for a minute, I guess I could simplify my take on this as a contrast between practical and spiritual conservatism. I think the former is grounded in something much more precarious than the latter: I restrain my natural impulses out of fear of the possible consequences of my actions (shame, dissolution of my marriage through my wife's anger, STD's, unwanted children, bad for business and the like)--but I do so out of fear rather than out of the sublime sort of love that flows from a heart genuinely gripped by a firm faith in the inherent value of existence beyond it's brute materiality. Poorly articulated, perhaps, but that's the gist of it.
Quoting Wayfarer
I definitely agree with this, but I also feel that philosophers are atypical in their (theoretical) desire to cut through the type of social and cultural conditioning which most of us uncritically adopt and use to form a stable sense of personal and collective identity. These illusions give us a sense of comfort and security (incidentally this is not specific to theists, IMO, as atheists too have their useful illusions) and relief from noticing the groundlessness of our existence.
I definitely have my comforting illusions (despite a half-hearted attempt to make my beliefs transparent)--for one, my 'faith' that we're something more than 'mere' matter--and I feel life would be overwhelming without them. Existence is enigmatic. Our consumer society is successful in the sense that, while debased, it does generally keep us distracted from the mystery of our existence. To acknowledge that mystery of ourselves, of our world, and of Being in totality, is to set out on a perilous path indeed. Only a small fraction seem cut out for it. I've supplemented my own life experiences by studying philosophy for 20 years now, and to be perfectly honest I feel like I'm just now beginning on the path towards something akin to 'wisdom'. I see arrogance and smugness and complacency and ego and ignorance all around, first and foremost in myself.
But, as usual, I'm making baseless claims and talking nonsense. In all sincerity I agree with Socrates that coming to grips with my own ignorance and tendency towards self-deception seems the highest form of honesty and wisdom possible. There's something elevated about this stance and, dare I say, something profoundly 'spiritual' about it too. It is not necessarily atheistic, as I see it, but neither is it 'religious' in the traditional sense of the word. I also think it's congenial to a form of social conservatism which finds the divine in even the mundane features of everyday life. Marriage, raising children, genuine friendships and other such supra-mundane things are perceived as even more sacred. I'm inclined to think that genuine wisdom and spirituality would go so far as to embrace even the darker elements of Being as somehow holy and divine. As Heraclitus noted, to God all things are good and just, but men think some things good, others evil..
Apologies for getting off track. I appreciate the input others have given here, including of course my friendly nemesis Agustino.
Bingo. That's the 'sweet spot' right there, if philosophy is anything, it's that.
This sounds strange - to me. There never was such a time in my life. I did see it in others, but I've never been that way. I've had other sins, or what you'd consider base desires, but certainly not this one. In a way it is strange. Given theism, I can see why one is overly concerned about sex. It's seen as a sacred, and special act of bonding with the beloved person. But given atheism, why? Just why? If sex is something that all the other animals do, and sex serves just reproduction, why "get laid" instead of say, masturbate? What's the easiest way, least likely way to bring about consequences, to get sexual pleasure? Masturbation right? So if all one cared about was sexual pleasure, why not become like the Japanese who don't have sex anymore? (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex) Seriously, why would anyone in their right mind go after something that requires effort, that involves other people, that has multiple ways it can backfire in serious ways (STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc), when they could just masturbate - especially given all the technological advances and sex toys that must be available today? If sexual pleasure is all one cares about it makes no sense - sure, sex can be somewhat better than masturbation (however I think technology may be catching up, which is why the Japanese, which are very much into technology - don't have it anymore!), but the marginal benefit, is never greater than the potential marginal cost. So Epicurus is right - it can be a very rational option, given atheism, to avoid sex at all costs - run away from it like monks run away from the plague! >:O And indeed - I have met quite a few atheists who have that attitude towards sex - and it's impossible to convince them otherwise (they're not interested in love - they think love is a disease, they're interested just in friendship with the opposite sex). They're harder to convince than theists.
For me, before I ever had a girlfriend, it was never about having sex, so much as it was about having other girls interested in me. Having a lot of girls interested in me always gave me choice, but I never exercised it until I got a girlfriend. I only got very much more interested in having sex once I had a girlfriend, but that was because I loved her. If that wasn't the case, probably I wouldn't have bothered.
Quoting Erik
I am not so sure. I don't restrain my natural impulses out of fear at all. I simply understand what my natural impulses are aimed towards (and I seek with all my strength to satisfy that). I don't have a natural impulse just to have sex for example (and I would doubt you have such an impulse). I have a natural impulse to have sex in such and such a circumstance and with such and such a person. So there's no question of restraining anything. My natural impulses are what they are because of intelligence - not because of love nor fear for that matter.
What happens to you if you ever end up in a position where you morally fail? What if temptation overcomes you? For me, there's no excuse of temptation overcoming me. Either something is intelligent, or something isn't. If it's not, then I probably won't do it. If I still do it, then I've made a mistake. You must, on the other hand, have some "firm faith" in some inherent value of existence beyond brute materiality - if your faith is shaken, is it fair to say, as Spinoza put it, that I will see you return to your natural dispositions? :P And if so, aren't your natural dispositions the real you anyway, and everything else a mask - a projection of who you would rather be?
Quoting Erik
8-)
That report is false.
http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/yes-japanese-people-still-have-sex/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/23/are_japanese_people_really_having_less_sex_than_anyone_else.html
Love =//= sex.
Not necessarily. That doesn't mean that love can't include sex.
Why?
Fine, if sex is an amoral act, there is nothing contradictory in sex occurring during love. However, there is something contradictory when sex occurs outside of love, because the intention is always to use someone else as a means to your own end - your own pleasure - rather than an end in itself.
"During love" doesn't make any sense. If one is having sex, there isn't anything one is doing in addition to that. And one does it because it brings one pleasure. Again, however, there's nothing moral or salvific about obtaining pleasure.
Replace "during love" with "while in love". Certainly sex doesn't occur in a vacuum and it occurs within the framework of the entire relationship that's going on between the two people in question.
Maybe you're a bit low on the testosterone? People vary a lot in this regard. Look at poor old Augustine, the sex maniac!
The issue is more that it's frequently immoral to obtain pleasure because sex involves and interaction between two (or more) people. Without love (and I use that term sort loosely here), people are only interested in what they want, setting the stage for the abuse of others. Ethical sex (or perhaps avoiding unethical sex and the harm it causes people) always involves a deep concern for others.
Even causal sex, in a relationship which lasts no more than a night, needs "love" to be ethical. If it's not understood to be the mutual expression of people, it becomes destructive. People become content to use each other.
The idea sex is just "obtaining" pleasure is absurd. It's never just a presence of someone getting pleasure. By definition, it involves people who act towards each other, who care (hopefully) or do not care about other people. The atomism of sex exists only in pretence.
>:O Do you want to lend me some from your big sack then?
Casual sex can't be ethical, because by default, by its very means of happening, it involves using the other as a means of obtaining pleasure. If you really cared about the other, you wouldn't forget about them the next day, and go on living your life as if they never existed.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Ehm... no, in practice, this is most often the case, for probably 99% of people, including, unfortunately, those who are married.
Aren't you assuming that I am highly sexed? I might be just like you. :P
In any case testosterone is not, as far as I am aware, fungible. :D
Yes, people have already been telling me about it!
Quoting John
Ahhh, you want to keep it all for yourself - yes, I see, I understand how you're playing this ;)
For those who don't care about the other person, sure. This is not always the case. Sometimes casual sex is a mutual expression of a a short term desire. One doesn't forget about them the next day. The people involved just don't need to maintain a sexual or romantic relationship.
My point was the idea was an illusion. People who think sex is only the obtaining of pleasure are pretending. And, indeed, it is unfortunate.
A short term desire cannot be love, love by its very nature is eternal. Thus, when sex is the result of whatever short-term desire you're talking about, it is merely another selfish act, which desires (temporary) possession of and pleasure from the other.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
But for most people sex is simply obtaining pleasure, or, in some cases, self-esteem. Many - perhaps most people - measure their self esteem by who they manage to have sex with or not. For most folk, sex is just some other activity one needs to do in order to be considered a good-standing human being, just like - I don't know - confessing your sins used to be considered an activity that everyone of good standing would engage in in the past. Most people, for example, can't even imagine there are people who aren't that interested in sex. They think people like me don't even exist! That's how ingrained it is in the cultural understanding - that life without sex is impossible. They cannot even think of themselves as existing without thinking of sex >:O and I just find that hilarious!
It's eternal. The expression of the one night when they were meant to have sex doesn't die because they don't continue a sexual relationship. Desire for each other may be shot-lived, but that doesn't take away the meaning of what happened.
Indeed, that's why it works. If a participant did desire an ongoing relationship, this eternal expression would be lost. Someone would be hurt badly and the night of casual sex would be unethical in one way or another.
I think that's an image. People think and say that, but I don't think that's how most people behave. Don't get me wrong, plenty of people have sex for a social status, but they don't do it with just anyone. or everyone. Those people tend to try and possess particular people-- the attractive, the popular, the known, those people at the party or those they know will accept their advances.
In practice, the abusive don't just seek to obtain pleasure. They seek to obtain others, to possess and mislead ignore them, to obtain them for only their own benefit. I would say that the idea that these people are just trying to obtain pleasure is part of the atomistic pretence that sex is this isolated from everyone else.
You say such people are trying to obtain pleasures if it is all they are seeking. It's not. They are seeking to use, possess, mislead, ignore and hurt others. Put it this way, "just seeking pleasure" isn't really what is wrong with their actions. Or at the very least, it doesn't do justice to what's happening.
It's their intentions that matter more than behaviour. Their intentions - like worms - grow in their heart, and give birth to immorality. However, for most, their immorality is restrained by elements of decency they have learned to respect from society. Because they never question such norms, their immorality can never truly manifest itself completely in their behaviour.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I never claimed they did it with just anyone, and in fact, if they are seeking it for status, this is exactly what we would expect. (Maybe they'd be morally better [but still immoral] if they did it with anyone than if they did it for status with select few people actually)
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
What you're describing here is merely something that is more immoral and outrageous than the immorality that most people practice. But just because there are worse people out there, doesn't mean that what most people are doing is fine. It's like comparing killing a child, with hitting a child. Both are immoral - it's just that one immorality is worse than the other.
Why is it, in fact, more immoral and outrageous? Because there is even less love in it - they don't only want to gain pleasure from others - and hence use them as a means to an end - they want to humiliate them, deceive them, dominate them, and so forth. This means they want to gain pleasure from others' suffering, not merely to gain pleasure regardless of others' well-being.
If I care for someone, I cannot just care for them for the 30 minutes we're having sex for, or for just the night we have met. That's simply impossible, and I would be deceiving myself if I thought I care about them. I may appreciate them, I may find them interesting people, and so forth - but CARE about them? Impossible. If I actually care about them, then I will go on caring tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that, and so forth. That's what caring means.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
It's not eternal if it ends. Nor do they intend for it to be eternal, which is the even bigger problem. And the idea that they were "meant to have sex" is nonsense. There was no destiny compelling them to do it. It's their own choices that led to it. Furthermore, the fact that both of them will be hurt is inevitable - anything which is lost, will be - sooner or later, perceived as a loss. And even if this isn't so - it would still be running a Russian Roulette. One never knows if they, or their partner, may actually fall in love and hence end up hurt badly.
I'd suggest that its because religion tends to precede atheism. I'd also suggest that individualism, closely related, also evolves late in the game. To conserve is apparently to halt what might be a sort of "natural" movement away from religion as technology and the division of labor requires the increased differentiation of individuals.
Eh not by today's standards. In his day, sure old Augustine used to have lots of sex as a young man, but it was mostly (perhaps always) with the same woman.
That's reportedly true. But he was very attached to sexual desire, and it caused him a great deal of consternation. One who naturally has very little sexual desire to begin with certainly has less to struggle with.
He had a very sensitive morality about him, not to mention that he was conflicted because of his mother's views of his relationship.
Quoting John
I'm not sure because for me at least, I've found that sexual desire doesn't happen regardless of context - it's context dependent. Like I don't just have some vague sexual desire that makes no reference to a context in which it would occur, and latches itself on whatever person is present. I never had such a desire. After I broke up with my second girlfriend for example (because the first and the second were too close in time, so virtually no time in-between) - I did have sexual desire which troubled me, but it wasn't sexual desire in the sense of I just want to have sex. It was sexual desire in the sense of I want to have sex with a her who loves me and whom I love - not otherwise (and the "her" in question wasn't at the time any of my two previous girlfriends, they stood merely as symbols for her, or as Plato would say, as shadows for her - mere intimations). And that's in some regards more painful, because it can't be satisfied at any time and anywhere, and with just about anyone. I couldn't just find some girl and have sex with her, because that wouldn't do. So I spent quite a few months afterwards just languishing with little interest in anything else except finding someone to love and who would return my love at the same intensity. So it took me quite a bit of wrestling with that desire before I could subdue it and return to living peacefully. All in all, I don't think I've eradicated that desire - as Napoleon said, once one has tasted of romantic love, it's hard to give it up - it's there, only that it's dormant. It's the sleeping dragon as the Chinese say >:O
It's a funny thing, how much it used to trouble me, and how little it troubles me today. There is a certain growth of acceptance in there - that's I think most important, acceptance of your circumstances, and yet unyieldingly holding onto the desires of your heart. It's always the one who is prepared to walk away who closes the deal. And I've become like this in quite a lot of aspects of my life, whereas before I was impatient and wanted quick results. Now I want certain results, but not necessarily quick. Time is no longer a concern. Nor is achieving things a concern. To be on the certain path of achievement though - even if one never achieves, for whatever reason - that alone is sufficient. So nowadays, the question of sex rarely, if ever arises to my mind. I had one more girlfriend afterwards, and never even had sex with her, nor was interested in having it before marriage (to the point I had to refuse her). So the desire is quite context-sensitive for me, especially nowadays. In my experience, there is no blind desire for sex - so I find it a bit strange that others have a blind desire to have sex - for the sake of sex.
There's a kind of exhibitionism involved in it, I think. Also, I believe, a sort of perverse self-aggrandizement. "See how wicked I was, and now by the Grace of God and my own efforts and by acknowledging my sins, I'm the Bishop of Hippo!" I'd have found Coleridge's Ancient Mariner very annoying if he confronted me, especially if he did so while I was on the way to a wedding, and wouldn't have stayed to listen to his tale of sin and redemption.
All relationships end in the sense of the world. Our lives are not eternal. Life-long love in the sense is only transfinite— a continuing series of finites states where two individuals are in a relationship. Here the eternal never appears. It’s in the expression of states that the eternal is found, in the meaning which cannot be overcome or destroyed within the passageof finite states. The eternity of a life-long relationship is not in lasting forever, but an expression of a particular series of states that end— a world of particular meaning.
An eternity, in this sense, is expressed all states. A night of passionate causal sex no less has a meaning that’s etched into the history of the world. It just involves different states. The difference between a life-long relationship and night of casual sex is not in eternity, but rather in the world. One is the existence of a sexual and/or romantic relationships across a life time, the latter is the existence of a sexual connection for a night. What matters to you here is not eternity, but trying sure only states of the former expression exist. You aren’t trying to defend the everlasting over the finite, but rather the existence of life-long relationships over any casual sex.
'
My point was in ethics, there is no hierarchy. Sometimes actions do less damage or cost less, but that doesn’t affect their discrete ethical value. The young man intoxicated with the idea of picking at women, whose not make his intentions clear and is content to pray on the naive, has no less dome something he ought not have than the rapist— in ethical terms, he has and is trying to “abuse” another.
In terms of causal sex without love or care, to say “They are just trying to have sex” does not do what is happening justice. In the above example, the man is not just trying to have sex at all. He is trying to possess the woman he’s interested in, to do what he wants regardless of what she thinks or desires. To think that such a man is only trying to have sex is to ignore the dimensions of how that man thinks about others and the way he deliberately acts towards them.
As an understanding of sexual relationships, it is a sibling of “seeking sex is only question of someone getting pleasure.” Just as that terms sex only in terms of the sexual desire of the self, to use the description “it’s only about sex” reduces the motivation an action to merely a person sexual desire. It fails to talk about how the person acts and thinks towards others, as sex were somehow isolated in it’s own world. Sex is still treated as an individual status symbol (the self seeking to fulfil their sexual desire), rather than grasped as an action and value involving other people. I'm saying you a letting people off the hook for how they treat others here.
No doubt, but the critical question here is whether that involves having sex with them. I mean must you have sex someone to care about them? Is it impossible to care for a woman without having sex with her? You appear to hold the position that if someone has sex with someone, then they must continue to do so for the rest of their life, if they are to care for them.
Suffice to say, your insistence you don’t care about sex is a pretence. You understanding it as an all consuming component of status. So much so much so that, if people have sex, they are bound to having sex for life, or else have no care for each other. The horndog holds their status depends on getting sex from others, you set your status by continuing to get sex from someone. For you the question of caring is not one of thinking about others, what they think and feel and what matters to them. Rather, it’s about maintaining your status of having a lifelong sexual relationship.
Could you care about the woman you fell into bed with in a night of passion? Only if you keep having sex with her, you say.
This is Erik’s argument that you (correctly) called out as not even worth considering in the context of ethical reasoning. Supposedly, people possess this “natural” inclination (intention) which means they are pre-determined to act immorally unless held back by a threat of rule. The spectre of original sin, which doesn’t take into account what sins are actually committed (that would be behaviour), but creates this image that one has sin irrespective of their behaviour, as if our choices and actions had nothing to do with acting immorally. Like Erik was, you are approaching ethics in terms of an image. You’ve imagined what humans supposedly are without reference to their behaviour and taken choice, responsibility and description out of the equation.
Not from the reference frame of our own life. From the reference frame of our own life, there is no death - there is no end, because we will never experience an end. Death is nothing to us.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope, not in the sense I mean it in.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I disagree, and I think most people would also disagree. Murdering a child is worse than hitting a child.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Well it is, from the point of view of those seeking it.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, you don't have to have sex with them.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
If someone initiates a sexual relationship, then yes, if they are caring, they will devote themselves to that person - including in this case sexually - for the rest of their life (so long as that person doesn't reject them obviously). Otherwise, they shouldn't have had sex with them in the first place.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This is wrong for the mere reason that the two people involved don't need to keep having sex, they merely need to be devoted and faithful to each other sexually. For all practical purposes, they could be having no sex at all.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No - only if you are devoted to her sexually. That doesn't necessarily imply you keep having sex with her as you think. You could go on living with her, without any sex whatsoever. A celibate relationship - which probably is ideal at a certain point. And on top of that, one shouldn't be in a relationship if sex is what holds the relationship together, that just misses the point. Fact is, it takes a very long time to find the right person, or groom them and grow together into it. Most people don't have the patience.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No - you have done this when you say there is no hirearchy of wrongs in ethics. It sufficies for the rapist and the regular playboy to merely have the same intention, and they commit an equal wrong, according to you. However, according to my conception, the intention is very important, but it's not the only factor - factors of behaviour, actions, consequences and so forth are also relevant. That's why the rapist's crime is worse than the playboy's although both are committing a wrong and share the same intention to use another.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No they don't possess it naturally, they develop it, and hold on to it. They choose it.
I am fully willing to accept that gay couples can romantically love each other like heterosexual couples, but I am against same sex marriage.
I take no issue with casual sex, but I do have deep problems with irresponsible sex -- sexual behaviour that increases the amount of easily avoidable abortions, de facto making abortion an 'retro-active-anti-conception' method. 93% of abortions are committed by solely the reason of inconvenience -- utterly disgraceful.
At least conservatives teaches people responsibility.
I would legalise all drugs (and hypothetically abolish the FDA), iff we fully privatised healthcare. But If we are going to socialise healthcare, then my political views radically shifts towards authoritarian social conservatism on the spectrum.
I've only watched a few videos of him with regards to morality.
Quoting Emptyheady
Well there's two different issues here. One is the morality of gay sex, which I view as immoral. The other thing is, what political attitude one should have towards that. And in that case I am for allowing homosexuals to enter into recognised civil unions similar to marriage, but which go by a different name and yet have all the legal implications of marriage. So I'm similar to you on this, broadly speaking.
Quoting Emptyheady
That only means that you don't understand the potentialities of sex. "Casual sex". Is there any "casual prayer" too? Sex can never be "casual" - it plays too significant a role in life for it to be "casual". "Casual sex" is like "married bachelor" - nonsense. A lot of suffering in human life emerges out of or is related to sex. That's an observation. What follows from such an observation? That you need, at minimum, to be careful around sex. Being careful, or prudent, is antithetical to being "casual". When I casually play chess I don't really play for real - i'm not really concentrated to win. But sex just isn't the kind of activity that can be done casually (at least without high risks of injuring yourself or the other). And that's approaching it merely from the negative side. From the positive side, sex is too important to waste it, and engage in it "casually". It's too powerful and too significant for that. So at minimum - one will have no "casual" sex. One may have sex with a person they know for a long time, without being committed to them (given only the negative side) but certainly not casually (with say a stranger one just met). But if you take the positive side into account, then it seems that the only sufficient reason to have sex is if you're committed to the other person - if you love them. Otherwise (1) the risks are too high, and (2) you're just wasting your time, the rewards aren't great enough. So only people who (1) aren't aware of the dangers (and these aren't only physical dangers like pregnancy, STDs, etc. but also emotional dangers) or (2) don't respect sex enough can engage in casual sex.
Quoting Emptyheady
Hmmmmm... I would probably ban all of them :P I disagree on this one, because I don't think people are wise enough to be able to choose. They will just follow mass-culture, or what's cool to do. So there needs to be a force guiding them towards what's right.
However, if we focus on Christianity in particular, and its association with modern social conservatism, then this alliance has been well documented in the book One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America by Kevin Kruse. Kruse delineates the emergence of Conservative Christianity as a form of propaganda orchestrated by the business class during the 1930s in order to vilify and vitiate FDRs New Deal, which the business class saw as a threat towards Capitalism. FDR often used religious symbolism and direct quotes from scripture as apologia for the New Deal, and the worried business class sought to appropriate Christianity as a pro-Capitalist religion, and utilized the help of prominent preachers to help do so.
There is really nothing "inherent" in religion that would cause it to lean socially liberal or socially conservative in their modern day political implications. The current association is simply the result of about 90 years of business propaganda. Interestingly however, many modern businesses do seem to lean towards social liberalism at least as a PR move (e.g. Kellog's refusal to advertise on Breitbart, or various companies celebrating gay pride etc.)
Most Jews in the US, or most Jews in Israel? Because in the US most Jews lean liberal, but they aren't really Orthodox either - they're actually secular - like Bernie Sanders.
Quoting Maw
But the fact is that promiscuity, non-monogamous relationships, etc. - which I take to be the opposite of social conservatism - are actually huge cash cows. Diversity means more markets. Lust means more consumption. It all ties together. I agree though that in the past, business advocated towards religion, in large share because the big business owners were religious themselves. But their businesses have outgrown them, and they no longer really control them - nowadays Wall Street controls them.
It's not only a PR move - you have to be socially liberal to be in line with modern culture - it's good for business, you'll get more people being willing to work for you and buy from you. Big business is happy if you keep buying and working - they don't care about morality, and vice is always easier to sell than virtue.