BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 11 May 10 - 05:53 PM

Willie: Religious belief however involves accepting irrational statements

Some does.

Whilst accepting that religion is a proxy for having power over others, that aside it certainly looks like a superstition to me?

Are you the person who gets to define "superstition"? Or is this just post-modernism in disguise?

There is no difference between the existence of a god and the existence of a hobbit that lives in my pantry but is invisible and therefore I cannot see it. Neither can exist unless and until somebody proves otherwise.

Perhaps no difference you can see. But there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy. Lots of things exist that nobody has proven yet. If they didn't exist you couldn't prove them.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 May 10 - 08:34 PM

""But they also have a lot of wise and pithy syaings which are useable as general guides in the confusions of life and which although they are not material can certainly be deemed rational.""

Plenty of Atheists and Agnostics have produced equally useable and equally wise words.

Religion is not an indispensible prerequisite for a moral, or ethical, compass. I have naught against religions, and I understand the need some people have to believe in a deity, but to assert that the only way to lead a moral and ethical life is through religion simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

In point of fact, religion is not even an indispensible prerequisite for belief in a deity.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 10 - 03:17 AM

With all the statements slamming 'religions', one must point out that there IS a difference between 'religions' and the spiritual side of things, or even the 'dimensionally' unseen part of both our existence, and reality.
Religion, as a man made, provision to provide 'righteousness' as a 'ticket' for one, or a group, is usually absolute nonsense. In contrast, those who have a conscious valid link, to the unseen, including the unseen collective consciousness, or any other communications, from the origin of life, is quite another thing!..

Come to think of it, why am I posting that here??? I wouldn't think robot parrots would have the slightest clue what the hell I'm talking about!

Oh boy, here they come!.....of course, a response without thinking it through........

Have Fun!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 12 May 10 - 03:29 AM

"I wouldn't think robot parrots would have the slightest clue what the hell I'm talking about!"

Actually, I do and, to a point, I agree with you. This is something I've been studying for over 40 years - from the neol;itic maind and the early philosophers, through Jung's archetypes to Sheldrake's morphic resonance and the thinking on the nature and origins of consciousness by that superb modern philosopher, David Chalmers, in his book The Conscious Mind. I firmly believe that spirituality, the nature of the 'soul' and even memory and experience are linked to consciousness, including both collective consciousness and the collective unconscious. Once, if ever, the nature, origins and development of cosnciousness are understood, then the nature of spirituality will also be revealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 12 May 10 - 03:35 AM

Apologies for the typos - my eyes and fingers aren't working yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 10 - 04:34 AM

theleveller: "Apologies for the typos - my eyes and fingers aren't working yet"

So heavenly minded and bound, that you're no earthly good???....Wink!

GfS

P.S. My man has done his homework!!..Take a bow!

Think of it as peoples minds are like 'modems' that plug into the master conscious computer 'in the sky', from where all collective consciousness and life, being a form of living consciousness, originates. ..Gotta' watch out for those viruses, called politics and religion, though, which keep your feet nailed to the floor(makes it hard to fly)...gotta' keep your filters clean, and able to process the information coming in, as not to screw up one's objectivity, and therefore damaging the data to be analyzed.

As I posted before: Intelligence is the ability to process information. Speed, is a Bi-product of accuracy!...........and at that, Good Night, (morning).

Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 12 May 10 - 11:35 AM

Robot parrots? At least my hobbit stands a chance of existing.. Robot parrots cannot exist as I would determine the term "robot" to denote made by other beings, (humans normally as my dog hasn't got past the opposing thumbs dilemma yet, although he can lick his own balls, which puts him on a higher plane of existence than me in that respect.)

If you are made by others to carry out their function, ergo you don't exist. It is a bit like a company setting up a department, as opposed to contracting to another company.

All this of course has little to do with religion and its standing in law. Of course, it is a dilemma when you try to make a case or agree with a stance, knowing that touchy buggers will get all self righteous and upset that by not agreeing with their superstitions, you are aggressive towards them personally. In my case, not true. I don't begin to understand stamp collecting or Morris Dancing but so long as laws don't exist to make me put penny blacks in wallets or wear bells, I have an infinite live & let live attitude. I even allow a good friend to keep telling me what a great time you have Morris dancing, keeping you fit whilst drinking beer from a leather tankard. Heady stuff...

But if he told me there should be a law preventing me from taking the piss out of him, I draw a line. And that is the situation I have with religions. A bloke with a dog collar once told me I should be arrested for blasphemy. So I told him that if I was around 2,000 years ago and saw a bloke we could blame for the Spanish inquisition, Crusades etc., I would get my hammer and nails out and do the job myself.

Didn't go down too well. I am barred from his crummy church and he is not welcome in the pub until he apologises to the landlord for provoking and upsetting his regulars. So you see, religion and I don't even get the chance to to exist.

Anyway, ability to process information is just the start, you need to analyse and assess before you spout. In any case, metaphysical considerations make circular arguments, which makes me have to reboot the old brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 10 - 12:01 PM

mousethief: "Lots of things exist that nobody has proven yet. If they didn't exist you couldn't prove them."

ummm... how about "Lots of things may exist that nobody has..."...etc.

And the 2nd part is a tautology that tends to suggest that 'because you haven't proved them yet, they probably exist'.
I am not being facetious...I have heard essentially this argument made.
It is SO easy to make a mis-step on the slippery slope of our own language and begin embedding assumptions of the sort.. 'if we have words for it, it kinda validates its existence'.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 10 - 12:42 PM

"If something does not exist you can't prove it" does not mean "if it is unproven, it probably exists" Bill. No way, no how.

Any number of impossible things can be emvbedded into words before breakfast, and believed, too. It should be obvious, I would think, that belief and actuality are independent variables!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: frogprince
Date: 12 May 10 - 12:55 PM

Gfs, I believe I get, and can relate to, a lot of your last couple of posts. I know people whom I consider to be genuinely spiritual, although not at all religious. I know others who are markedly religious, but for whom the trappings do not appear to interfere that much with their genuine spiritual connection. I also know too many, with their religious definitions locked up so tight that they are entirely surrounded by the unrighteous "them", in whom I can't see a trace of actual spirituallity.

On the other hand, You seem to be setting yourself up as one who has a direct spiritual connection undistorted by religious or political indoctrination, so that you are able to arrive at "objective" spiritual truth. How can this be safely distinguished from someone who hears the voice of "God" in his head, possibly telling him to do things that any of the "robot parrots" around him would find appalling? Who "objectively" determines what is the "objective" truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 May 10 - 01:39 PM

Frogprince: "so that you are able to arrive at "objective" spiritual truth. How can this be safely distinguished from someone who hears the voice of "God" in his head, possibly telling him to do things that any of the "robot parrots" around him would find appalling? Who "objectively" determines what is the "objective" truth?"

In regards experiencing spiritual Truth, Gnostics call that sudden overwhelming awareness "Gnosis" - a Greek term describing *divine* Knowledge, distinguished from it's mundane brother term Episteme reffering to *intellectual* knowledge.

As for the supposed "gnosis" telling someone to do 'appalling' things, some speak of "unverified personal gnosis" - in contrast to personal 'verifiable' Gnosis which has strong features common to the gnosis of others. In other words you'd have to be around people of like mind, to contrast and compare your visions or individual mystical experiences. Mind you, that it itself opens a whole great can of worms...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 10 - 01:46 PM

Can, or Diet?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 May 10 - 02:18 PM

""On the other hand, You seem to be setting yourself up as one who has a direct spiritual connection undistorted by religious or political indoctrination, so that you are able to arrive at "objective" spiritual truth.""

Yep, GfS does indeed present a front of spirituality, devoid of religious influence, then spoils it entirely by quoting the bible, which, as I have pointed out, was written by religious leaders, NOT by God.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 10 - 04:28 PM

Amos.. no one said"If something does not exist you can't prove it" neither mousethief nor I.

The line I took issue with was "Lots of things exist that nobody has proven yet." That has a certain ring to it...at least it rings MY alarm bell. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 10 - 05:10 PM

Got ya Bill.

Well, the counter position is "everything that exists has been proven..." which is equally untenable.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:39 PM

Yes..untenable...but a straw man, and not the only possible counter position.

If I had time, I'd do 7-8 Venn diagrams of the alternatives...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 10 - 07:32 PM

God does not have a "voice". Like any spiritual power, he transmits thought which brains turn onto concepts (stage 1 step-down) cultural representations of concepts (stage-two step-down) language (stage 3) and ones own vernacular (stage 4 step-down) AFTER filtering through one's personal capacitance filter to ensure only those patterns which one is already willing to think are allowed through.

With all that alteration, it is mighty presumptuous to assert you are hearing the voice of God, as Mister Presumption Bush himself did in respect to invading Iraq, I think for him the voice came through his hairdryer or somp'n.   



A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 May 10 - 08:42 PM

Has anyone noticed how discussions of religion always turn into war?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 10 - 12:34 AM

Huh??...Look at how all the 'assumptions' you've made about what I posted turned into 'how I set myself up'..then Amos says " God does not have a voice',...then this, amazing insight from one who professes to be a Christian: "Yep, GfS does indeed present a front of spirituality, devoid of religious influence, then spoils it entirely by quoting the bible, which, as I have pointed out, was written by religious leaders, NOT by God."....and then this: "How can this be safely distinguished from someone who hears the voice of "God" in his head, possibly telling him to do things that any of the "robot parrots" around him would find appalling? Who "objectively" determines what is the "objective" truth?"

To answer the last question first, I'm sure Robots don't understand LIFE, and are presumably 'appalled' at it, being as being 'appalled', required emotions...which of course robots don't have.

I mean, shit guys, give me something to work with!

Mention God, and watch all the confused, make even less sense, and not even see THAT!

Anyway, I'm tired, I might check this out later.

G' Night..Slan,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 13 May 10 - 12:37 AM

I fail to see any war; I only see reasoned and calm discussion.

ummm... how about "Lots of things may exist that nobody has..."...etc.

Nope. I'm certain there are things that exist that nobody has proven. Million of them. They have to exist before they can be proven. Proving them doesn't bring them into existence. If the moons of Jupiter didn't already exist, Galileo couldn't have proved they did. His proof didn't make the moons, the moons made his proof (so to speak).

Willie said, Neither can exist unless and until somebody proves otherwise.

Nope. They can exist without waiting for your puny proof. Not saying they do. That's a whole 'nother can o' worms™. But your proving or disproving them doesn't change their ontological status a foothair.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 13 May 10 - 12:36 PM

In a decision of this sort, it's important to look beyond the specific case to the broader implications and to the precedent set.   This ruling does not apply only to right-wing bigots. Many progressives cite religious beliefs to buttress their political arguments. Religious minorities in the UK make legal claims based upon faith. Will this ruling be applied universally to enforce the secularization of society? Or will it be used a bludgeon against particular groups? It's a troubling decision either way.

" . . . religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence."

The same could be said for matters of conscience in general. Go back and read your Nietzsche. Are you certain you want to discard anything that cannot be empirically verified?

" . . . a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified."

I don't know how one determines whether a position is "purely" religious, and I question whether such a distinction can even be made, but it doesn't take a scholar to see that this line of reasoning can be used against any position based upon religious faith. Well, there goes the 'Higher Law' argument made by abolitionists in the antebellum United States. So much for the arguments of Liberation Theology, and the opposition of some Christian groups to the Reagan administration's "low-intensity warfare" and support for right-wing dictators in Central America during the 1980s. And I'm afraid this ruling does undermine much of the basis for conscientious objectors, sophistic distinctions between 'religious views' and 'personal conscience' notwithstanding.

Finally, if matters that cannot be empirically verified have no valid legal standing, and if matters of religion and conscience are equally unverifiable, then what remains? It seems to me that this ruling – whether deliberately or not – essentially claims that law itself is the source of truth. You might want to ponder the implications of this philosophical position.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: frogprince
Date: 13 May 10 - 01:11 PM

"I'm sure Robots don't understand LIFE, and are presumably 'appalled' at it, being as being 'appalled', required emotions...which of course robots don't have."

That's quite an "answer" to the question. Allow me to exposit it:

If the truly spiritually connected person picks up the message that he should drown his children in the bathtub, hey, that's life; the "robot parrots" may be appalled, because they have nothing like real working minds with which to grasp the greater truths of life.

And no, I don't even begin to imagine that that is anything like what you meant; it's just that your statement was so incoherent that it could mean that, or almost anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 10 - 01:44 PM

If the truly spiritually connected person picks up the message that he should drown his children in the bathtub

From a false premise, all things become possible. "Truly spiritually connected" people (speaking in general) learn to discriminate (just as intelligent, non-spiritual people do) between messages that are coherent, relatively rational and which aid broad well-being, and those which emanate from the deep black wells of psychosis. Just because a voice is "spiritual" (a very loose term, here) does not mean it is sane, and knowing the difference is critical to "spiritual" survival (another somewhat oxymoronic proposition, but that's another thread). Ghosts tales and voodoo stories are full of examples of "spiritual" entities in the grips of insanity. One could argue, even, that it takes a certain measure of madness to become a ghost at all, obsessing about the past, revenge, incomplete discussions, and the like.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 10 - 01:55 PM

Gooser: "The same could be said for matters of conscience in general. Go back and read your Nietzsche. Are you certain you want to discard anything that cannot be empirically verified?"

Saw this quote carved on a rest stop wall in California: " God is dead
!-Nietzsche.............."Nietzsche is dead."- God

Amos: "God does not have a voice',...THEN: "Just because a voice is "spiritual" (a very loose term, here) does not mean it is sane, and knowing the difference is critical to "spiritual" survival (another somewhat oxymoronic proposition, but that's another thread). Ghosts tales and voodoo stories are full of examples of "spiritual" entities in the grips of insanity."

Neil Young: "Is it hard to make arrangements with yourself?..."

I think you might need to think this through, Amos..and figure out just what exactly you're trying to say. It sounds like,

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
I'm a schizophrenic,
And so am I!??

Winking,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 10 - 03:39 PM

Both statements are perfectly valid, GfS, once you understand them. It is clear to me that you do not, yet.

1. Spiritual "voices" may be rational or irrational just as human voices are.

2. There are so many vias, filters, alterations and translations between any pure spiritual intention and the form it takes in the average confused human mind that there is no reliability.

3. Spiritual impulses or thoughts are not "voices" but they can be translated into seeming like "voices" by step-down transformations, filters, dub-in and all kinds of other human twists.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 10 - 06:34 PM

Amos: "2. There are so many vias, filters, alterations and translations between any pure spiritual intention and the form it takes in the average confused human mind that there is no reliability."

Do you know this from 'experience'...or from something you heard some one say, or logic you came up with..or what?

Yes, I understood you the first time...but you weren't making sense, from your original statement, of "God has no voice'...now he does, from your second statement. I was just wondering if you were changing your thought on it, or modifying your argument?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 14 May 10 - 07:41 AM

Mousethief reckons things can exist without us seeing them.

Depends.

I have every faith in the fact Tokyo exists yet I haven't ever seen it. So does it? After all, there is more documentary assertions that God exists than there is Tokyo, yet I know Tokyo does and I know God is a human abstraction designed to fill in the gaps of knowledge and useful as a tool of subjugation.

If things can exist without us experiencing them, then god is as tangible as Tokyo. If you have experienced either, you are either well travelled or schizophrenic.

Just out of interest, this thread ventured into quantum mechanics earlier. Heisenberg shows that nothing at all exists unless and until it affects us. Interesting, as that means when I can't buy a washer for a leaking tap on a Sunday, it is proof that god exists after all...

Oh shit...

Nice God, get down boy. there, there, who's a frisky little god then eh? Do you want to go walkies???

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 14 May 10 - 09:07 AM

Before we venture too far down the existentialist, epistomological, ontological or experientialist arguments as to whether god exists or not, can I just reiterate that, as far as British law is concerned, he/she/it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 May 10 - 09:45 AM

"...as far as British law is concerned...."

Fine.   It's interesting that Goose Gander's excellent points have not been addressed by any atheist.

If God has no standing in British law, how about conscience?   Also no standing?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 14 May 10 - 10:13 AM

Better ask a lawyer about that. Richard?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 14 May 10 - 10:54 AM

But but but...

I just proved that God DOES exist. Worse, I don't believe in all that nonsense....

So if he / she / it does exist, (and the local B&Q shutting at 4.00pm on Sunday proves it,) then it is either inside or outside of the law. Leveller asserts it does not have standing in UK law.

So, in that case, it is an outlaw concept.

Ok, put bars on the church windows and lock the ruddy doors whilst they are clapping and hugging each other. Might be able to enjoy my Sunday mornings without them knocking on my door smiling too much.

On a serious note, conscience does have a standing in law; it is called judgement. the guys with the silly wigs, once they have finished playing top trumps with points of law have to use conscience to interpret the spirit (now there's a word...) of the law when the word of the law isn't enough. Sentencing is society's instruction to a judge to use his or her conscience, (coupled with political tariff nonsense.)

(If I changed all my taps for quarter turn ones that don't need washers, would God stop existing? Just a thought.)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:11 AM

"I just proved that God DOES exist. "

If you were staying in a Greek holiday resort you'd have a much harder job proving that plumbing exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:34 AM

(And to add an answer to GfS's question, my assertions about spiritual matters is entirely my personal opinion.)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 May 10 - 12:13 PM

" . . . religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence."
The same could be said for matters of conscience in general."

Not at all. As far as memory serves, contemporary moral philosophers will usually use non-religious reasoning in their arguments.

"Conscience" IMO is pretty much founded on a biological mammalian instinct to care for and support the group (including 'self sacrifice'), the finer details of which tend to be something we learn in order to integrate successfully with our society, however it happens to have developed.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:49 PM

If God doesn't exist in Britain, why do they have an established church?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:54 PM

You might as well ask "if fairies don't exist, why are there fairy stories?"

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mauvepink
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:00 PM

We have chocolate. Of course there's a God!

What other proof do you all need?

;-)

On a more serious note it all comes down to faith in the end. Faith cannot be seen or measured as such but we know it when we come across it. Does not loving each other call for faith of sorts? What is trust?

So many things we cannot see and yet we accept them every day. For those who have a God so be it. Until it is proved otherwise, one way or the other, I'll keep an open mind I suppose

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:05 PM

You might as well ask "if fairies don't exist, why are there fairy stories?"

No, it's more like, if I don't believe fairies exist, why do I keep writing them a cheque every week?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:07 PM

There's a very fine line between an "open mind" and gullibility. It takes constant work to discern where one is treading.... more work than many are willing to do. Still, a genuine open mind is a wonderful thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:13 PM

Does not loving each other call for faith of sorts? What is trust?

Two very different questions. For the former, no love doesn't necessarily imply 'faith' (it doesn't for me) - it's an attachment based on strong human empathy, attraction and compatability - and even emotional dependency at times. I have NO "faith" in love - but nevertheless it seems to endure..

What is trust? Umm, a basic need if you're tiny, so it comes as a default setting in response to certain pre-programmed key triggers. Otherwise, we trust what we learn to know doesn't kill us. Basic empirical pragmatism.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:21 PM

I aught to add that us Gnostics are not too into 'faith', experience is everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 10 - 06:52 PM

The word 'faith' can have several interpretations under different circumstances.
It can simply mean 'trust'...which in matters of love can be just a 'hunch' or even a set of feelings and indications that some sort of reciprocal caring can be discerned.

But **faith**, as a matter of accepting claims or ideas or entities for which no direct evidence can be easily found, is on another level....which is why the language has words like 'belief' to say certain things.

Defending having faith by giving examples of one sort, when the issue is about another, leads to slippery arguments.

Similarly, 'conviction' and 'certitude' get tossed into discussions, often with careless references as to exactly what is meant.

It can be REALLY hard to find the right words to state precisely what you want to say about some things...and many upsetting arguments are a result of people mistaking what the other is saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 10 - 07:03 PM

By the way... there is a specific term for misusing words in the manner I noted.

"Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)."

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 14 May 10 - 08:36 PM

"Not at all. As far as memory serves, contemporary moral philosophers will usually use non-religious reasoning in their arguments."

That has nothing to do with my argument. Anyone - even a 'contemporary moral philosopher' - can construct an internally consistent argument. Just as theologians can and do construct arguments that are logically sound and consistent, as long as one accepts the underlying premises. But neither can be verified empirically.

I do believe there is a biological basis to conscience, compassion, empathy, etc. There are biological bases and evolutionary advantages to aggressive behavior as well. There may well be an evolutionary advantage to religious faith, for that matter. But specific points of religious faith and matters of conscience remain empirically unverifiable.

So where does truth reside?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:24 PM

I notice no lawyer has come on to tell us if conscience has any standing in law. Interesting question, because what some people call God is called conscience by some others--as has been pointed out earlier.

So it's definitely a question we need a clear answer to--( naively assuming that there is such a thing as a clear answer in law)--British law being the one at issue, though the question should also be raised re: US law.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:08 AM

Religious faith and moral conscience are equally subjective, and in practice there is often no clear distinction between the two. A Quaker may oppose military service based upon feelings of conscience, which in turn are grounded in religious belief. Someone may turn to Buddhism, as friends of mine have, based upon feelings of compassion toward other living things. Speaking for myself, I believe members of civilized societies are obligated to protect the weak and suffering. I developed this belief while under the influence of Maryknoll sisters who taught me at school. Though my religious beliefs have faded - I am a collapsed Catholic, if anyone's wondering - I retain my core moral beliefs. But it is not possible for me to objectively prove that my social views are correct. Someone might argue that caring for the weak only prolongs suffering and prevents the down and out from bettering themselves. The whole 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' argument. While I might with time, persistence and a little luck convince such a person that my views are superior and healthier for society and individuals, I cannot empirically prove my beliefs, at least not to the satisfaction of my intellectual opponents.

And that's just about what I have to say about matters of conscience and faith. If someone would like to respond to the wider argument I outlined in my initial post regarding the legal decision in question, I'll be following this thread and would be happy to engage in further discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 15 May 10 - 07:01 AM

Do let me assure I was not trying to be slippery nor knowingly invoking quivocation with my questions below. What I was trying to point to is that there are things we all believe in with little proof of their existence but we still 'know' they are there, or think we do. The two things were meant to be two very different examples of such things. There are others.

Initial love is a chemical cocktail mix that flows around us giving us certain feelings. The longer lasting, steadfast type love takes a little more understanding and, whilst I accept it may not be an act of faith for many, in nonetheless shows a faith in someone.

Trust is harder to pin down. We know what it is and we know what it is not to have it. We know what mistrust does and feels like. Yet trust is a concept of some sort that cannot be demonstrated. That was all I was trying to point out.

In religion maybe love and faith should go hand in hand. Certainly in counselling you need trust. As in most relationships, trust is paramount. It will never work for you if you have no trust in the person counselling you nor if they do not trust you because you go against their core belief system.

Anyway, maybe my commets muddled thing ups a bit. If they did I apologise. They certainly were not meant to. I should have left it with my comments at the start of the thread

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: steve in ottawa
Date: 15 May 10 - 07:40 AM

Sorry, I didn't read ALL the posts. The first 30 or so seemed to uniformly agree that the fired person was the wrong person for the job, but many people worried about the judge's reasoning.

First: the thing we should be MOST worried about is that it's so difficult for an employer to fire individuals who turn out to be unsuitable for a job. That affects us all, every day. (And no, I don't want everyone to live in fear of a tiff with their boss, but clear and admitted evidence of non-performance...)

Second: the implications of one legal judgment don't necessarily carry over to the cases we see as logically similar. For example, while some people might see here a clear statement that a conscientious objector could no longer avoid being drafted into combat, it's unlikely that the judge in this case saw ANY similarity, or was trying to reverse older decisions of other courts relating to CO status.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 15 May 10 - 10:05 AM

Thought it would happen..

The word "faith" has quietly slipped in.

Oh dear.

Look, faith and religion are not necessarily exclusive terms but they can be. I have faith in Sheffield Wednesday. They lose, I say next time we will win. They get relegated, I say we will bounce straight back. They win, I accept this is their divine right.

Now... I know they are a board on behalf of shareholders just like any other club, there is no mystic metaphysical aspect to them. Just a ground with 42,000 seats, turf in the middle and a large echoey trophy room.

You see, I don't think there should be laws that everybody supports Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United supporters need to be removed from society. I can't understand why not everybody supports Sheffield Wednesday but at a push, I can just accept that the law of the land is not the place to ensure allegiance. The game after the one we just lost should be enough.

So, if I don't need laws to protect my right to faith, why should people need the law to protect what they have faith in?

There is no difference between having faith in your football team and having faith with a god concept. Each can give moments of euphoria and long periods of testing your faith when they move in mysterious ways. (Not playing wide enough, Johnson not getting enough possession, not making the rains come today, not turning disbelievers into a pillar of salt.)

Oh, and to those still harping on about it. Law IS conscience. Pillock..

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Leadfingers
Date: 15 May 10 - 10:16 AM

200