Foucault, the Disciplines, and God as the Watcher

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

If the argument isn't accepted that (what we'd call) moral behaviors could have naturally developed as part of both an evolutionary pressure and a natural consequence of higher mental faculties, then I can see the 'sensible' conclusion would seem to be that some kind of 'watchful eye' is required to 'keep people in line'.

*shrug* I guess the conclusion depends on the premise.

Moniker wrote:So what of cultures where there isn't the history of the Abrahamic faiths that still have ethical mores that deal with fundamental "right and wrongs"? It's not built into our society because of faith or religion -- religion is just a reflection of these human traits-- imho.

Totally agree.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:If the argument isn't accepted that (what we'd call) moral behaviors could have naturally developed as part of both an evolutionary pressure and a natural consequence of higher mental faculties, then I can see the 'sensible' conclusion would seem to be that some kind of 'watchful eye' is required to 'keep people in line'.

*shrug* I guess the conclusion depends on the premise.

Moniker wrote:So what of cultures where there isn't the history of the Abrahamic faiths that still have ethical mores that deal with fundamental "right and wrongs"? It's not built into our society because of faith or religion -- religion is just a reflection of these human traits-- imho.

Totally agree.


'Cause life is easier for you when you just agree with me? Or you actually agree? ;)
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

Moniker wrote:'Cause life is easier for you when you just agree with me? Or you actually agree? ;)

Heh! Both!
Hopefully you've caught the bits where I've been saying this for a while... :)
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

I didn't catch this earlier cause I've been trying to skip over some of your posts.

Coggins7 wrote:
But why has the god idea been perpetuated? What appeal does it have?

There are multiple psychological advantages for believing in god, and escaping a fundamental aspect of one's personal responsibility is merely one of them. There are other avenues for escaping responsibility, too. I'm not saying there's a one to one relationship between god belief and irresponsibility, but there is certainly a relationship.



And that relationship is precisely what? Many of the greatest minds in human history have noted that disbelief in God is highly correlated with personal irresponsibility, and hence, Dostoevsky's famous quip.


Personal irresponsibility defined as what precisely? Would that be akin to Gaz's remarks about bed hopping?

by the way, what say you about this quip of Dostoevsky?

It's not God I don't accept, understand this, I do not accept the world, that He created, this world of God's, and cannot agree with it.

You know, the idea that belief in God in some manner diminishes personal responsibility is just a crutch that props up the very real inability of some individuals to deal with the concept of God in an intellectually and psychologically mature manner. Personal responsibility is an individual characteristic that exist in certain people and not in others regardless of belief in God, but when the idea of God is substantially abandoned by a critical mass of a population, say, since the late sixties, there is a reason for the explosion of social pathology in that society as compared to previous eras. It was the nations that abandoned God--Socialist Russia and National Socialist Germany--that brought on the bloodiest century of all human history. It was the attempt to solve all human problems at home through the force of social engineering, social control, and political diktat, without God and without regard to his teachings, that destroyed the inner city black family, and launched the largely successful assault on the family, marriage, sexual morality, individual responsibility, and common civilized decency that now characterize much of American and western society.


I agree that personal responsibility manifests in theists and non-theists alike. I'm so glad you brought in the 60's again, Coggies. What teachings (not of God) of Jesus go against society attempting to help the downtrodden? Charity -- where does that fit into Christ's teachings? What is found in the KJV of the Bible that talk about social control? I'm not familiar with it -- I'm thinking though even outside my understanding of much of Christian ideology that there isn't much in there that mentions a welfare state. :) Aren't we supposed to look to the meek? To those that are suffering? Help those in need? How does this fit into the rights agenda to oppress certain groups and how does that fit with the tradition of INTOLERANCE that was the hallmark of our society pre-60's?

It was the Atheists that gave us Buchenwald, not the Corrie Ten Boom's who suffered within them. It is the Atheists who have given us Socialism, Communism, National Socialism, Fascism (of which the previous three are all forms), the sexual revolution, the drug culture, The anti-human environmental movement and animal rights movement, our 50% divorce rate, our filled to capacity rehab centers, the exponential rises in violent crime beginning in the late sixties, our birth dearth (which threatens the entire western world with potentially catastrophic economic problems well within our life times), our infatuation with the killing of our unborn children; indeed, it is Christians and others of religious conscience who have stood against these things while Atheists have cheered them on.


Well, then it's the theists that give us suicide bombers. Right? :)

What's wrong with the sexual revolution? It's wrong for women to be treated as human beings rather than property of their husbands? It's against God's will that a woman can choose when she desires to have children? God is not too keen on the idea of individuals taking a spacy shroom trip every once in a while? He better talk to some dude that saw burning bushes if he's not happy 'bout psychedelics. :)

I hope you fully perused my earlier link and I expect a frothy creative rhyme when you return.
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

Moniker wrote:I see what you're getting at. Yet, I think that we placed these traits upon God. These are HUMAN traits that we assigned to God to make him reflect who WE are.

So what of cultures where there isn't the history of the Abrahamic faiths that still have ethical mores that deal with fundamental "right and wrongs"? It's not built into our society because of faith or religion -- religion is just a reflection of these human traits-- imho.


That's exactly what I've been thinking lately. The strong nihilist position of being empowered through the realization that "God is dead" (and further never existed) is empowering because humans realize that the moral codes they have attributed to God in fact come from the people, and thus the moral codes are still useful because we humans have thought them up. They weren't assigned to us by some Supernatural Force, we of our own free will agree to a set of moral codes. In practice we write our own rule books, rather than reading and following someone else's rules.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

Some Schmo wrote:But why has the god idea been perpetuated? What appeal does it have?

There are multiple psychological advantages for believing in god, and escaping a fundamental aspect of one's personal responsibility is merely one of them. There are other avenues for escaping responsibility, too. I'm not saying there's a one to one relationship between god belief and irresponsibility, but there is certainly a relationship.


I think several options could be used for why the God myth is perpetuated:

1) It acts as a rubber stamp for strong willed people (People who are good at making their own decisions, but need that little extra encouragement that what they are doing is correct).

2) It acts as a moral compass for weak willed people (The sheeple who need someone to tell them to do just about everything in life...and these people do exist).

3) It acts as a tie breaker for people who are conflicted (People are fairly strong willed, but often might be having cog dis issues (such as loving their neighbor despite their neighbor being something their religion says is wrong (gay, whatever).

Those are off the top of my head in the general sense. I'm sure you could make a whole list of people who need "God" for one reason or another when it comes to making life decisions or making decisions about what is correct or not correct.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_John Larsen
_Emeritus
Posts: 1895
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:16 pm

Post by _John Larsen »

Bond...James Bond wrote:
Moniker wrote:I see what you're getting at. Yet, I think that we placed these traits upon God. These are HUMAN traits that we assigned to God to make him reflect who WE are.

So what of cultures where there isn't the history of the Abrahamic faiths that still have ethical mores that deal with fundamental "right and wrongs"? It's not built into our society because of faith or religion -- religion is just a reflection of these human traits-- imho.


That's exactly what I've been thinking lately. The strong nihilist position of being empowered through the realization that "God is dead" (and further never existed) is empowering because humans realize that the moral codes they have attributed to God in fact come from the people, and thus the moral codes are still useful because we humans have thought them up. They weren't assigned to us by some Supernatural Force, we of our own free will agree to a set of moral codes. In practice we write our own rule books, rather than reading and following someone else's rules.


Right. Once you accept this, you see that all good that has existed among humans has come from humans. Religionists believe that religion causes people to be good and the lack of religion is a baser state. But we can see that it is all possible, both good and bad.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Bond...James Bond wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:But why has the god idea been perpetuated? What appeal does it have?

There are multiple psychological advantages for believing in god, and escaping a fundamental aspect of one's personal responsibility is merely one of them. There are other avenues for escaping responsibility, too. I'm not saying there's a one to one relationship between god belief and irresponsibility, but there is certainly a relationship.


I think several options could be used for why the God myth is perpetuated:

1) It acts as a rubber stamp for strong willed people (People who are good at making their own decisions, but need that little extra encouragement that what they are doing is correct).

2) It acts as a moral compass for weak willed people (The sheeple who need someone to tell them to do just about everything in life...and these people do exist).

3) It acts as a tie breaker for people who are conflicted (People are fairly strong willed, but often might be having cog dis issues (such as loving their neighbor despite their neighbor being something their religion says is wrong (gay, whatever).

Those are off the top of my head in the general sense. I'm sure you could make a whole list of people who need "God" for one reason or another when it comes to making life decisions or making decisions about what is correct or not correct.


I think (not sure about this!) that it is merely passed down because it is indoctrinated into parents and they pass it down to their children. It seems that a threat from above works for some. That's why parents tell their children that Santa brings no toys if they're naughty. That's why I (to my UTTER horror) told my daughter a shadow monster would get her if she stayed outside and didn't come in -- BAD MOTHER! Yet, really what it comes down to, I believe, is that it is historically seen as necessary. That's why I've been hesitant to discuss religion -- it is a cultural norm -- yet, I'm not fond of holding onto cultural traditions merely 'cause they ARE a cultural tradition. I find myself questioning why religion is hands off for me. Should it be?

It's just passed down through the generations because of this tradition. The teachings can be there without God or the reward system placed upon it. Some truly find great comfort and reassurance by their thoughts on a loving God (know I seeked that in 2007) and the lovely thought that there is a meaning placed upon horrible tragedies that have NO meaning outside some external plan -- it's a way in which they can understand horrors and place some external justification upon these acts -- it's God's will -- or there's a plan, etc...
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

Moniker wrote:I think (not sure about this!) that it is merely passed down because it is indoctrinated into parents and they pass it down to their children. It seems that a threat from above works for some. That's why parents tell their children that Santa brings no toys if they're naughty. That's why I (to my UTTER horror) told my daughter a shadow monster would get her if she stayed outside and didn't come in -- BAD MOTHER! Yet, really what it comes down to, I believe, is that it is historically seen as necessary. That's why I've been hesitant to discuss religion -- it is a cultural norm -- yet, I'm not fond of holding onto cultural traditions merely 'cause they ARE a cultural tradition. I find myself questioning why religion is hands off for me. Should it be?

It's just passed down through the generations because of this tradition. The teachings can be there without God or the reward system placed upon it. Some truly find great comfort and reassurance by their thoughts on a loving God (know I seeked that in 2007) and the lovely thought that there is a meaning placed upon horrible tragedies that have NO meaning outside some external plan -- it's a way in which they can understand horrors and place some external justification upon these acts -- it's God's will -- or there's a plan, etc...


Alot of it is parents. But is it the parents fault when they were taught by their parents (in ignorance probably)? And the grandparents (who taught religious belief in ignorance of evidence)? And so on and so forth....at some level we have to recognize that the collective society which cooked up the believes and practices which became dogmatic rituals also is accountable. But yeah it's tradition, from several paths. Parents, extended family, the group as a whole, the religious authority figures, peers, siblings. The whole gang is involved.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

with personal irresponsibility, and hence, Dostoevsky's famous quip.


Which is what, Cog? Do I need to link the "Dostoevsky Didn't Say it" page for the twentieth time for an ignorant apologist?
Post Reply