If a female tried to get into the priesthood session of GC...

[LVAllen]

No, there are actually other patriarchal denominations that are worse...

http://www.sltrib.com/csp/mediapool/...44&pid=2876334

Serious question: with the exception of the misspelling of the word "acquired" and the cringe-worthy "see your children called on and used by the prophet," is this job application really something that would be unheard-of in a YW lesson? Maybe mix up the training and skills, but this, or something very similar, is something I can see some well-meaning leader using in a Beehive class.

[ERCougar]

But those are relative to society's consensus on what qualifies. Traditionally, society endowed or the organization just grabbed moral authority to impose upon society. (You said you are old-fashioned and hence recognize the authority of traditional organizations).

However, with the rejection of the authority of traditional entities, there is a vacuum and no authority. Society is devoid of authority and is a vast wasteland of authority. Nobody is empowered to define bad or good.

Good and evil need to be relative something. What is that something? If one rejects religion, what is the moral basis? Science? Science does not in and of itself have limits. There are those within science who wish to establish a consensus of what is proper to do but there is rarely a complete consensus. Society can impose a de facto morality by ostracizing those who do not comply.

Just because society decries an act doesn't inherently make it good or bad, but simply acceptable. There was a time when homosexual activity or relations were considered by a majority as "evil." Now society has defined it at least acceptable and now by some "good."

Why is not that the abolition of organizations such as religious institutions not an abolition of moral authority in society in absence of substitute entities or organisms?

You start off with a paragraph decrying the loss of any moral authority and finish by pointing out that homosexuality is no longer considered immoral (or unacceptable--I'm not sure I see the difference, at least how you're framing things). So what authority has deemed it morally acceptable?

Point is, I disagree that there is no moral authority absent religion. In fact, I think there is always some underlying general ethic and the various religions through history do more to reflect it than to define it.

Also, despite the apocalyptic tone of our and other Christian religions, I think it's pretty tough to argue that the general ethic is not moving in the right direction.

[Topper]

You start off with a paragraph decrying the loss of any moral authority and finish by pointing out that homosexuality is no longer considered immoral (or unacceptable--I'm not sure I see the difference, at least how you're framing things). So what authority has deemed it morally acceptable?

Point is, I disagree that there is no moral authority absent religion. In fact, I think there is always some underlying general ethic and the various religions through history do more to reflect it than to define it.

Also, despite the apocalyptic tone of our and other Christian religions, I think it's pretty tough to argue that the general ethic is not moving in the right direction.

Morality is the largest sense is what society accepts. For large parts of human experience society delegate the authority to religious bodies. Btw, I am not decrying the loss of authority, I am explaining the vacuum created by the disintegration of institutions.

And perhaps religions were always inadequate, but they were what society ultimately agreed upon in many instances. No institutions have replaced them for generally accepted consensus on morality. There are obviously pragmatic morality principles such as not murdering each other, not stealing from one another, or other aspects of resolving conflicts. However, some items such tribal dictates on chastity have dissolved away and will continue to evaporate, unless disease would dictate otherwise.

There are no logical vessels for moral authority any more. And perhaps society no longer needs moral authority. Perhaps humanity is becoming practical to the extent each individual can decide for himself what is acceptable for him to do in light of practical realities. The greatest achievements by society now are not moral but arise by virtue of technology. Advances in medicine, public health and water supplies. Vast engineering advances and continuous expansion of the physical sciences will dictate what mankind can do. Thus, humanity will continue to improve life by taming its surroundings and squeezing out more from nature and harnessing the elements. We do not need moral authority over us any longer. Humanity does not to have others from religious, governmental or any other sector hovering over it with authority.

[swampfrog]

I've commented on some reading I've done in different threads, but it seems applicable here. Before we can declare that institutions, (which historically have contained some body of defined "moral values" which are instilled in their adherents), are no longer needed, we must first know how moral values are actually imprinted. Are we born with them, are they learned, is it a combination? If learned, when is it learned? How is it learned? What mechanisms are involved? How do authority figures affect it? How are societies and institutions involved? Is it intuitive?

Interesting work is being done by cultural psychologists in better understanding how morality and ethics are actually constructed within the human psyche. Given the very diverse ethics seen worldwide, it's obvious that it cannot be completely innate. See:

http://www.moralfoundations.org/

[Topper]

I've commented on some reading I've done in different threads, but it seems applicable here. Before we can declare that institutions, (which historically have contained some body of defined "moral values" which are instilled in their adherents), are no longer needed, we must first know how moral values are actually imprinted. Are we born with them, are they learned, is it a combination? If learned, when is it learned? How is it learned? What mechanisms are involved? How do authority figures affect it? How are societies and institutions involved? Is it intuitive?

Interesting work is being done by cultural psychologists in better understanding how morality and ethics are actually constructed within the human psyche. Given the very diverse ethics seen worldwide, it's obvious that it cannot be completely innate. See:

http://www.moralfoundations.org/

How can it not be mostly a learned function? That doesn't mean tendencies can be created by evolution through our genetic code, but it would be difficult for me to argue that very much of ethics is anything but a learned function. There are self-preservation elements imprinted in our genes which probably impact our "morality", but first we need to look at defining "morality" to decided which elements would be innate.

[swampfrog]

How can it not be mostly a learned function? That doesn't mean tendencies can be created by evolution through our genetic code, but it would be difficult for me to argue that very much of ethics is anything but a learned function. There are self-preservation elements imprinted in our genes which probably impact our "morality", but first we need to look at defining "morality" to decided which elements would be innate.

If you follow the link, Moral Foundation Theory does support that it is mostly learned--but there are evolutionary selected foundations that ground the learning. Which makes the question important--How does that learning occur? Knowing the answer to that question is important before you remove institutions that might be foundational in instilling values/ethics that we accept as universal, but really aren't. Even the self-proclaimed atheists among these psychologists are concerned about what might happen if religion is removed from the equation. It's not that simple.

[Topper]

If you follow the link, Moral Foundation Theory does support that it is mostly learned--but there are evolutionary selected foundations that ground the learning. Which makes the question important--How does that learning occur? Knowing the answer to that question is important before you remove institutions that might be foundational in instilling values/ethics that we accept as universal, but really aren't. Even the self-proclaimed atheists among these psychologists are concerned about what might happen if religion is removed from the equation. It's not that simple.

It never is, but technology and the eroding usefulness in modern society is removing religion from the equation. It is still part of the equation in rural, agrarian societies, but modern, technologically advanced, the failure of religions to answer questions as quickly as other sources is making religion less relevant. Of course, pockets where religion remains relevant will remain but the loss of even fervent LDS in the numbers we experience show that even a religious group that grew steadily for a sustained period can lose steam and relevance. There may be nothing religion can do because it can't answer many questions any more. Once upon a time the priest was counselor, adviser for many of life's decision and the combined collective wisdom of a people was transmitted through the priest. Education centered around the Church. Today moderns rely upon a multitude of experts and finding less need to consult religionists.

[swampfrog]

It never is, but technology and the eroding usefulness in modern society is removing religion from the equation. It is still part of the equation in rural, agrarian societies, but modern, technologically advanced, the failure of religions to answer questions as quickly as other sources is making religion less relevant. Of course, pockets where religion remains relevant will remain but the loss of even fervent LDS in the numbers we experience show that even a religious group that grew steadily for a sustained period can lose steam and relevance. There may be nothing religion can do because it can't answer many questions any more. Once upon a time the priest was counselor, adviser for many of life's decision and the combined collective wisdom of a people was transmitted through the priest. Education centered around the Church. Today moderns rely upon a multitude of experts and finding less need to consult religionists.

The concerns that surface is if the multitude of experts that moderns are relying on are going to turn out to be as effective as the past institutions. Again exactly how are moral values learned? By reading? By hearing? What about by doing and seeing others do? It's not necessarily as simple as there are other places to learn. Moralities appear to be built in a lot more complex manner than that. A loss of the dogma may not be concerning, but the loss of regularly participating in a moral community might be.

“The very ritual practices that the New Atheists dismiss as costly, inefficient and irrational turn out to be a solution to one of the hardest problems humans face: cooperation without kinship” --Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind

And another quote I've thrown out before, which I believe deserves careful consideration. Jonathan Haidt is a self-declared atheist.:

“Societies that exclude the exoskeleton of religion should reflect carefully to what will happen to them over several generations. We don’t really know, because the first atheistic societies have only emerged in Europe in the last few decades. They are the least efficient societies ever known at turning resources (of which they have a lot) into offspring (of which they have few).” ― Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind

[Topper]

The concerns that surface is if the multitude of experts that moderns are relying on are going to turn out to be as effective as the past institutions. Again exactly how are moral values learned? By reading? By hearing? What about by doing and seeing others do? It's not necessarily as simple as there are other places to learn. Moralities appear to be built in a lot more complex manner than that. A loss of the dogma may not be concerning, but the loss of regularly participating in a moral community might be.

“The very ritual practices that the New Atheists dismiss as costly, inefficient and irrational turn out to be a solution to one of the hardest problems humans face: cooperation without kinship” --Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind

And another quote I've thrown out before, which I believe deserves careful consideration. Jonathan Haidt is a self-declared atheist.:

“Societies that exclude the exoskeleton of religion should reflect carefully to what will happen to them over several generations. We don’t really know, because the first atheistic societies have only emerged in Europe in the last few decades. They are the least efficient societies ever known at turning resources (of which they have a lot) into offspring (of which they have few).” ― Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind

There are alternatives. Remember, this debate has been raging since the early twentieth century. Emile Durkheim was at the forefront and address this in Elementary Forms of Religious Life.

"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into a single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
For moderns, the individual and individual rights evolve to become the new sacred phenomena. It is through the process of understanding individuality and individual rights that individuals will learn "morality."

[swampfrog]

There are alternatives. Remember, this debate has been raging since the early twentieth century. Emile Durkheim was at the forefront and address this in Elementary Forms of Religious Life.

"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into a single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
For moderns, the individual and individual rights evolve to become the new sacred phenomena. It is through the process of understanding individuality and individual rights that individuals will learn "morality."

But is that enough? Sure, they have new sacred objects, places, values, etc. but without the community, including the experts in the community, will the values take the same hold as before?

“Religions are moral exoskeletons. If you live in a religious community, you are enmeshed in a set of norms, relationships, and institutions that work primarily on the elephant to influence your behavior. But if you are an atheist living in a looser community with a less binding moral matrix, you might have to rely somewhat more on an internal moral compass, read by the rider. That might sound appealing to rationalists, but it is also a recipe for anomie—Durkheim’s word for what happens to a society that no longer has a shared moral order. (It means, literally, “normlessness.”) We evolved to live, trade, and trust within shared moral matrices. When societies lose their grip on individuals, allowing all to do as they please, the result is often a decrease in happiness and an increase in suicide, as Durkheim showed more than a hundred years ago.”

“I’ll show that religion is (probably) an evolutionary adaptation for binding groups together and helping them to create communities with a shared morality. It is not a virus or a parasite, as some scientists (the “New Atheists”) have argued in recent years.”

“If you think about religion as a set of beliefs about supernatural agents, you’re bound to misunderstand it.”

“We humans have an extraordinary ability to care about things beyond ourselves, to circle around those things with other people, and in the process to bind ourselves into teams that can pursue larger projects. That’s what religion is all about.”

― Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind

[Topper]

But is that enough? Sure, they have new sacred objects, places, values, etc. but without the community, including the experts in the community, will the values take the same hold as before?

“Religions are moral exoskeletons. If you live in a religious community, you are enmeshed in a set of norms, relationships, and institutions that work primarily on the elephant to influence your behavior. But if you are an atheist living in a looser community with a less binding moral matrix, you might have to rely somewhat more on an internal moral compass, read by the rider. That might sound appealing to rationalists, but it is also a recipe for anomie—Durkheim’s word for what happens to a society that no longer has a shared moral order. (It means, literally, “normlessness.”) We evolved to live, trade, and trust within shared moral matrices. When societies lose their grip on individuals, allowing all to do as they please, the result is oftiien a decrease in happiness and an increase in suicide, as Durkheim showed more than a hundred years ago.”

“I’ll show that religion is (probably) an evolutionary adaptation for binding groups together and helping them to create communities with a shared morality. It is not a virus or a parasite, as some scientists (the “New Atheists”) have argued in recent years.”

“If you think about religion as a set of beliefs about supernatural agents, you’re bound to misunderstand it.”

“We humans have an extraordinary ability to care about things beyond ourselves, to circle around those things with other people, and in the process to bind ourselves into teams that can pursue larger projects. That’s what religion is all about.”

― Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind

And the revolves to my original question to Seattle Ute. I suppose education and rational thought will be what binds us. He only insulted but gave no answer. There is no replacement on the horizon yet I believe humanity will turn to technology to bind it and to develop shared values.

[cougjunkie]

OMG, STFU Topper and Swampfrog.

[swampfrog]

OMG, STFU Topper and Swampfrog.

Sincerely curious. While this is a BYU sports based board, this forum is distinctly about religion. We were discussing religion and its place in the future (and I thought reasonably). I learned something and had my world view expanded.

Exactly what generated this response?

[Topper]

Sincerely curious. While this is a BYU sports based board, this forum is distinctly about religion. We were discussing religion and its place in the future (and I thought reasonably). I learned something and had my world view expanded.

Exactly what generated this response?

Ignore the natives as sometimes they are restless. He is a product of religion so he can't help himself. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration.

[SeattleUte]

Sincerely curious. While this is a BYU sports based board, this forum is distinctly about religion. We were discussing religion and its place in the future (and I thought reasonably). I learned something and had my world view expanded.

Exactly what generated this response?

He's a radical LDS and he hates intellactuals.