Best religious ethics books according to redditors
We found 111 Reddit comments discussing the best religious ethics books. We ranked the 24 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 111 Reddit comments discussing the best religious ethics books. We ranked the 24 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Guy who studies Christian Ethics here. Actually, many Christians adhere to a kind of religious ethics where they have to act morally because God commands it.
Sure, it's not the popular view. Neither is it the exclusive motivation for Christians to act morally. But to say that's not why any Christian believes they are supposed to be moral is just patently false.
See "divine command theory." Popular proponents include John Hare and, my own professor, Robert Merrihew Adams.
Just study the Gita with Madhusudana Saraswati's commentary (online PDF version here and Sridhara Swami's gloss (online PDF here),the Bhagavata Purana with Gita Press edition,and the Narada Bhakti Sutras (PDF online http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/Volumes/PDF/english/001/index.pdf) and do constant nAma japa.
> it's hard to discuss ethics and morality apart from religion
I know what you mean., it is hard to talk about morals without religion. Someone like Sam Harris should write a book about it. It should have a nice and simple title that conveys the subject of the book without hyperbole, something like The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
I've read the Letter to a Christian Nation and the Moral Landscape. Like the derpy gentleman below said, LTCN is very short and easy to read. I'd recommend starting with that over the Moral Landscape, which is a denser book.
>Actually, we can source our morality beyond subjectivity.
Sam Harris wrote a book about this.
https://www.amazon.com/Who-Am-Judge-Responding-Relativism/dp/1621641651
Isn't that series really, really old? Best not to read translations that are too old.
You can't just jump in and read stuff like the Upanishads or the Veda. They are neither rigorous philosophical texts presenting a certain position, nor commandments, though some vidhi (injunctions) relating to practice are present, nor are they the life of somebody which the Gospels are.
So you must approach with an introductory text, and then read the Upanishads with a particular commentary. Also, many texts will ignore the Shaiva and Tantric traditions, which also need to be read.
Here are some links to looking at the Upanishads from the Advaita perspective
1
2
3
As for introductory books, I recommend three.
The Essentials of Hinduism: A Comprehensive Overview of the World's Oldest Religion
The Spiritual Heritage of India: A Clear Summary of Indian Philosophy and Religion
Hinduism: A very short introduction
You can get all three for $35. After that you can go into more detail.
I've seen this video before, it's not the best, but at least it's opening up a dialogue. He's basically re-hashing several (but not all) the arguments from Helminiak's "What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality" and he's less complete then the text, obviously given time constraints. http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Really-About-Homosexuality-ebook/dp/B005BTQEQ4/ref=pd_sim_kstore_2
I have an MA in Biblical Studies and Theology, so this topic is one I'm well versed it. My favorite book on the topic is Jesus the Bible and Homosexuality by Rogers. Check it out.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Bible-Homosexuality-ebook/dp/B004ASOY7I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344788410&sr=8-1&keywords=Jesus%2C+the+Bible+and+Homosexuality
It depends what you mean by "Moral ethics" and what you mean by "opinions". I'd suggest you read Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape for a pretty interesting examination of this topic.
If you think of ethics as rules intended to maximize the well being of sentient creatures, then they hard to measure and quantify, but no, they aren't opinions. Torturing a child to death, while we can't really quantify how bad or wrong it is, is clearly a departure from the maximum well being that could be achieved.
Analogously, we can't really quantify health. We can't say "How healthy" something is, and yet, it isn't an opinion to say that smoking isn't healthy for you, or that a person with a broken limb is less healthy than an Olympian in their prime.
>I don’t regret having one, just extremely ashamed of being sexual and communicating it to girls and also showing it to the world. Attracting girls’ attention and whatnot isn’t very hard but progressing things to dating, holding hands and eventually sex is impossible. I can’t even call them or message them on Facebook or Whatsapp because I just feel like an idiot for doing so. Making a move in clubs and bars is also difficult although I once got close to leaving with a girl but she didn't want to. I got made fun of a lot growing up for not having a girlfriend and this made me feel like i do not deserve one. It doesn't matter if I've got the green light to go ahead I just feel really ashamed do it. Even something like looking at a fit girl wearing a short skirt makes me feel bad for checking her out and that I shouldn’t be doing it.
I know what you mean. I've been there myself, but even when I was there I was entirely self-aware of my shame and I was skeptical of the validity of my emotional reactions; I realized they were ingrained. Being aware of your emotional reactions allows you to be emotionally proactive. Your sex-negative problem is mostly an emotional issue, and not much else, right? I've been there. I wouldn't doubt that you are also decent looking and have both latent and actualized social skills. Most intelligent introverts have a lot of potential to be who they want to be because they know themselves more deeply than others. You must use your introverted nature to your advantage and recognize the differences in others and yourself. In all honesty, there are an infinite number of unwritten rules; everyone's abstract/emotional logic is different. Many of them are foundational and predictable, however; including yours and mine. Like anything else, being emotionally predictable is not a black/white issue. It is a grey area, and you have to balance your reliability with creativity.
Being made fun of for not having a girlfriend is just as sexist as being made fun of for not having a boyfriend; gender equal too. Were you ever shamed for not having a boyfriend? It's clearly a matter of groupthink and extroverted style; not for everyone. Dating relationships, for extroverts especially, are often attention-getting and showy. They wear their relationships like trophies won. Usually introverts prefer a more private relationship because they have less social desire and are often shamed because of it. Introverts are “themselves” more often in private. Extroverts are “themselves” more often in public. There is no shame deserved either way, regardless of popular opinion. Both styles have their strengths and weaknesses, and you should try to introject some of the traits that you enjoy in others; regardless of type. That is how you become balanced.
>I’m receiving counselling from a pastor who advocates the whole “no sex before marriage” thing and believes that people should only date to get married and sex is only for making kids which is stupid IMO because I do not plan on getting married anytime soon.
Counseling from a Catholic pastor? Watch out, that is one of the most notorious sex-negative societies out there. They own the abstinence-only charade while they parade horribles. Marriage is not the answer to anything; it is an institution of the state. Anything else attached is sentimental.
If you haven't already, I recommend doing an in-depth study of animal sexual behaviors; especially the most intelligent animals. All animals have sex for pleasure, but some animals are only driven to have sex at certain times of the year; humans are on a 24/7 system.
>I’ve tried the no fap route and gotten very high days counts but that hasn’t really helped me at all.
Sexual frustration doesn't help anyone. If you are mindful, then you can use your libido to further your goals, but it is not an all-cure.
>Got any sources to help overcome sex-negative perspectives? I’m interested in recreational sex not baby making sex.
Absolutely. I recommend starting with actual sex science and learning about male and female psychology and neurology. Then work your way into reading about sex culture. You should also study developmental psychology as you will probably need the clinical context in order to objectively self-evaluate your childhood influences; it is necessary for self-therapy. The best therapy will always be self-therapy; no one will ever know you better than yourself.
Evolutionary Science and Morals Philosophy:
The Selfish Gene
The Moral Landscape
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?
Sex Psychology, Science, and Neurology:
Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex
The Female Brain
The Male Brain
Why Men Want Sex and Women Need Love
What Do Women Want
Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)
Sex: The world's favorite pastime fully revealed
Behavioral Psychology and Abstract Economics:
How Pleasure Works
Freakonomics
Quiet: The Power of Introverts In A World That Can't Stop Talking
Thinking Fast And Slow
We Are All Weird
Developmental Psychology:
Nurture Shock
Hauntings: Dispelling The Ghosts That Run Our Lives
Empathy Building:
Half The Sky
The House On Mango Street
Me Before You
The Fault In Our Stars
Also check out James Hollis' Understanding The Psychology of Men lecture if you can find it.
Movies: XXY, Tom Boy, Dogtooth, Shame, Secretary, Nymphomaniac, Juno, Beautiful Creatures, and The Man From Earth.
All of these things are related, but it is up to you to make the connections; pick and choose which material suits your interests best. These are the things that came to mind first, and they have all influenced my perspectives.
Welcome to the sub!
I was raised Catholic. Becoming an atheist was difficult, not socially but intellectually. It never really made sense, but all the smart kids in the philosophy department were doing it. Derp.
I had a series of LIGHTBULB experiences while studying the old school arguments years later: G-d exists per logical necessity, but that doesn't entail any of the world's religions. I rejected Christianity for reasons outlined here. Through a process of elimination I concluded it's either Torah Judaism or Classical Theism Unaffiliated.
My favorite evidence for the Torah's Divinity. After a year of watching their weekly Torah portions, the "documentary hypothesis" seems like a Tristram Shandy outtake.
This former Christian went from Protestant to Catholic to Greek Ortho to a few others before finding the Noachide position. His writing can change your life. (And his. He went from Reform Judaism to Orthodox on the Rationalist express.)
Sources in the Torah for the 7 Laws. Were they really derived from one verse?
What does a Noachide do? The minimalist answer. I post often about getting as close to G-d as possible via your intellect. That's why G-d gave it to you. Maimonides believed that understanding the first 5 Principals of Judaism is necessary to attain a share in Olam HaBa -- according to this interpretation of his writing.
Check out the Divine Code Daily Dose. Consider the aquisition of this GEM. And this, my favorite intro.
If you are confused and are interested in learning more, he wrote a book that might help explain his thoughts in greater detail.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01L9TGIME/
Using the "scholarly reception" link you provided, it looks like "qualified" people actually do recommend the book, albeit with a warning on sensationalism. Of the 5 sources there, 2 of them are positive, 1 is nebulous, and 2 are negative.
The 2 that are negative are comprised of a Christian Apologetics author ( https://www.amazon.com/Need-God-Good-Anthropologist-Considers/dp/1785352172 ) and a generic graduate student.
This is certainly just quick, off-the-cuff googling but I figured I'd point that out in case you were interested in finding a reason to give it a read and decide for yourself rather than label and tell others it is "pop science".
The following is a list of basic books that will help you get a good handle on traditional Judaism. All the books listed are broadly recognized as being reliable, and many are considered classics in their own right:
> I'm kind of flabbergasted that you suggested I get a book about Christianity that isn't the bible.
Would you ever use commentaries or Bible dictionaries? The Bible is a big book, and it is often useful to read other peoples opinions about what it says.
"What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality" is a good place to start. "The Children Are Free" is good too.
> why the Catholic faith is the only true faith as opposed to just "one of many paths," a.k.a. religious relativism
> Basically I need a book on how to counter moral relativism
Good books: 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris and 'Sense and Goodness Without God' by Richard Carrier.
Yes... And...? Did you expect someone on the internet to provide you a dissertation? If so, see here and here.
edit: Just BTW, you actually say you agree... "yes society says that, and drugs being bad is pretty much objectively true by most peoples definitions"
When George Bush dies some people will celebrate and they will be either right or wrong to do so, I'm not going to debate either side on that but there is a right answer.
Killing is sometimes wrong and sometimes right depending on the situation.
I believe that there are situations too morally ambiguous to ever get to the bottom of, but there is always an answer. I'm not gonna get too deep on philosophy on a fucking wrestling forum (how did I get here again?) but a lot of my views on this issue were influenced by The Moral Landscape. If you haven't read it and these conversations are interesting to you I would recommend it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine/dp/143917122X
And I have a new book to read! Here is a link to the Amazon page in case anyone is interested.
I loved The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris.
This is the central thesis of Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape. Not exactly that there is an objective morality... but that science and rational inquiry are better tools with which to answer questions about how to maximize human wellbeing. Excellent read.
You're welcome! I'm glad you enjoyed reading those texts. There's always something to be gained by reading the mythology of a culture as long as you see it as allegorical.
The Panchatantra and some of the stories in it may already be familiar to you. They're very much like Aesop's Fables.
Getting to Shaivism... generally when you look at Hindus, they will either be worshippers of Shiva (the god of destruction) or worshippers of Vishnu (the god of preservation) each with further sub-sects. From looking at Wiki, I see that Kashmiri Shaivism is a sub-sect. If you're looking for a starting point, you should check out Devdutt Pattanaik's Shiva - An Introduction.
Would recommend this one too as well first too
https://www.amazon.com/Madhusudana-Saraswati-Bhagavad-Gita-Sarasvati/dp/8175051949
Thank you very much for this recommandation. I've also read another thesis which in a way generalizes Fromm's. People want to restore their faith, not necessarily because of the erosion of the economy (although especially for americans, the cult of money does exist), but precisely because they abruptly lost their previous faith. It is explained, among many (very) controversial things in Who is Charlie? by french historian Emmanuel Todd. In fact, he claims that nazism in Germany and more generally the german Reichs are partly caused by the fall of the Protestant cult in the late 19th century. People lost their faith, gained freedom, didn't know what to do with it.
These are some good books that convinced me to go from pro-choice to pro-life. The first two are history books that demonstrate the universality of the pro-life movement as opposed to it often being relegated to being a conservative issue. The latter two are books that address major concerns held by pro-choice people. They're pretty academic and respectful of the other side.
This Atlantic article article demonstrates how modern medical advances have given the pro-life movement new and important ground.
If you'd like more resources, I'd be more than happy to supply more links to good resources online for pro-life arguments.
There's the reading list in the side-bar, but that doesn't really have secondary books on Hinduism.
There's Gavin Flood's An Introduction to Hinduism. I haven't read it yet, but it's the only thing I got off the top of my head. If you want, I can look through the copy I found on the sidewalk and tell you about it.
But Flood seems to have a pretty good pedigree. But I don't know if he's a Hindu. I would also recommend Eknath Easwaran's translation of the Bhagavad Gita. I have it, and his intro goes into Hindu concepts. This book also seem well-received, though I don't have it.
There's a public domain book called The Religion of the Veda: The Ancient Religion of India. There's also The Wonder that was India, which is good. And apparently the same guy wrote The Origins and Development of Classical Hinduism.
Most Indian history books talk about Hinduism, so maybe the Cambridge History of India?
> If you deny this, then I don't see what "objective" basis for morality you could possibly have. All morality would simply be relative to the observer, and the idea of "evil" would be meaningless.
Have you actually looked into different kinds of non-theistic morality? Shelly Kagan does a great job of demonstrating the basis and validity of atheist morality in this debate with William Lane Craig.
Also, Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape goes into the subject of morality with God very in-depth.
Theistic claims of morality are only "more objective" if you accept a laundry list of extraordinary claims that are not supported by evidence (e.g. the idea of a personal God, divine inspiration of scripture, etc). Many people find humanistic, scientific, reality-based systems of morality to be much more "objective" and valid.
> The idea that the mind is in some way non-physical.
The mind is a product and an element of the physical brain. It may not be concretely tangible (i.e., you can't hold a mind), but that does not mean it is not a part of the physical universe. Physics explains the mind quite well, actually. The neurons in our brain are developed in compliance to the laws of physics and biology, the neurochemicals in our brain are physical substances, and the electric currents in our brains that communicate signals between neurons operate in compliance to the laws of physics.
Evolution also provides insight into the development of consciousness. While, sure, humans are the only terrestrial species with advanced enough consciousness to develop religious and philosophical ideas, we know now that many animals have forms of consciousness and proto-consciousness like what we would expect if humans evolved consciousness from simple origins. The mind is perfectly explainable through naturalistic sciences, and our naturalistic model of human consciousness makes predictions that are falsifiable.
I'd suggest reading Steven Pinker's How The Mind Works. Here's a talk he gave on the book. I'd also suggest his The Stuff of Thought, The Language Instinct, and The Blank Slate.
I'd also suggest Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape. While it's main thrust is to show how science can inform morality, it offers some pretty decent layperson explanation of consciousness, and it is written by an accomplished neuroscientist (whatever your opinion on his religious works may be). His pamphlet-esque Free Will also covers some good ground here.
> All able-bodied humans are born with the ability to learn language.
Not at all true. You can be able-bodied and learning disabled. There was a nonverbal autistic student at my middle school years ago who ran track. Trivial point, but still incorrect.
> I would argue humans also have a Spiritual Acquisition Device.
I would argue that this argument is SAD. (pun; sorry.)
You're positing a massively complex hypothetical neurological infrastructure to link human brains to a divine alternate universe or dimension that has never been shown to exist. Not only has this neural uplink never been observed, but it is entirely unnecessary, as neuroscientists and psychologists have a perfectly functional, testable model of consciousness without it. You're adding a new element to that model that is functionally redundant and untestable. Occam's Razor would trim away your entire posited element out of extraneousness and convolution.
I started here about 2 months ago: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1884852041/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497565431&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=essentials+of+hinduism&dpPl=1&dpID=51MpBCIuOJL&ref=plSrch
A really good read and covers a lot of the basics. From there I did a bunch of research online.. a lot of Wikipedia and YouTube. I also wrote down what I believe in spiritually, how I wanted or think I should live the rest of my life and also philosophical/spiritual questions I was searching for answers to. I kept meditating on it and researching and found Vaishnavism was my fit. Specifically, the beliefs concerning Krishna. So I recently finished the Gita and discovered the Hare Krishna mantra and I am loving every step of this journey so far.
Here is a quick example of how powerful the mantra can be. My job is rather laborious and I am constantly moving. With that said, I recite the Hare Krishna mantra in my head while working and I am trying to get to a point to where I can recite the mantra while doing something at the same time without stopping either one. Any who, while reciting and working today, I experienced a brief vision of Krishna along with pure bliss. I had to stop for a second in amazement. I didn't know something like this could happen but the experience confirmed for me that I am progressing. I am overjoyed.
I am still rather new to it all but I am constantly learning and committed.
Namaste. ✌️
Well... you get sermons like this. And books like this.
This is the best one I've ever read. Totally non-religious in content.
Source: am moral theologian.
Here
Have any of you read this book? I’m looking for an impartial resource of the ethical arguments for and against abortion, and this was the first result.
Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World
Bullshit Jobs: A Theory
The Moral Landscape
Team Human
ding ding ding we have a winner!
and this is my entire point!
Religious people love to say that without religion objective morality cannot possibly exist. But this is the opposite of what the word objective means. Objective means:
>(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral .
see that word FACT? that means something that can be seen verified studied analyzed quantified etc etc etc etc
The whim of a supernatural entity can never be " objective". Only observable reality is objective.
You ask if i think people can never be wrong... well of course they can! Given that I believe that no God has ever given moral instructions to humans i see ALL moralities as made by man. Some of them are wrong. Plainly and unequivocally, because they lead to pain and destruction for humans and their society.
here is in my opinion, an excellent book on this subject
which shows how we can arrive toa a truly Objective ( ie -fact based) sense of justice and morality.
"When, why....if" by Robin Wood covers the topic well. Also a search of Amazon for "Wicca ethics" brings up a number of others.
I recommend this book.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005BTQEQ4/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
You may be interested in reading Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape. He takes the position that scientific inquiry can identify and evaluate moral systems, using human well-being as the metric for measurement.
Many professional philosophers have criticized his work, and there are many others who disagree with him, but you may find the book to be very relevant to your inquiry.
I wouldn't be writing this sentence if it weren't for the intervention of modern healthcare at several specific moments in my life. Yammer on all you like about the virtues of the noble savage over the horrors of science and civilization... I prefer to have a heartbeat ;)
Only a stunning level of insulated privilege can produce the idea that a life defined by preventable disease, parasites, infant and child mortality, famine, drought, and the ever-present threat of disability, disfigurement, and death is preferable to the luxury of having our basic needs so adequately met that we can afford an afternoon of philosophical discussion on the internet. Or... from a quick glance at your profile, every afternoon.
I fully support the idea of questioning where we should try and evolve our civilization from here, and how to best get there, but not if the only purpose is to shit on the idea of progress altogether and resort instead to vague claims that there is no way to rationalize that some states of existence could be preferable to others. If you really believe that's the case, I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts about the line of argumentation outlined here. Otherwise your contribution here is just run-of-the-mill /r/im14andthisisdeep
Read The Moral Landscape.
Second, read this.
Third, read this.
Let me put it this way - I was born a Hindu, raised one, and have become more serious about my practice in the last twenty years. Even I haven't done much with the Vedas - it requires a lot more study and commitment, and, as folks have said, it really should be studied in Sanskrit.
I know a few hymns that are relevant to my spiritual path from the Vedas, and have studied just those verses in some detail.
Smriti texts are definitely the way to go. Honestly, there are a lot of good "introduction" books that go into better detail.
My favorite is:
Essentials of Hinduism, by Swami Bhaskarananda.
Ah man, good luck. Let me see if I can add anything... probably already been said.
Basically, like all teenagers, you're just in a holding pattern until he gets into his mid 20s and becomes the man he probably would have regardless of belief structure. Give him structure, maybe stop spying on him, let him know you're there to help him and that you love him even if he's going to hell.
If he's a reader:
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/143917122X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394670215&sr=1-1&keywords=Moral+Landscape
http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Animal-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1
You might want to check out What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. It's straightforward and not very long. It helped me reconcile some things back when.
Read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris
Watch The Superiority of Secular Morality by Matt Dillahunty.
Neurology disproves the western notions of the self, so there isnt any object to even HAVE liberty/freedom. Something wholly fictional isnt a useful first principle.
I believe you may be interested in Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. There is a brief Q&A if you scroll down.
His first principle is the well being of sentient beings. The methodology is science. Right up your alley.
It all depends on the goal. If OP wants to send a message, then choosing The God Delusion or God Is Not Great would certainly send that message. If OP wants a book that's a good read, both are still good choices, but now there're other books that are equally good choices.
The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, The Portable Atheist, On Bullshit, On Truth, The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, The Moral Landscape, The Demon Haunted World, Religion and Science, and many others are excellent reads, but don't send that little (possibly unnecessary) jab.
If you get the chance, read "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, talks about science and morals
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/143917122X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324583856&sr=1-1
Read The Moral Landscape and it will answer that for you.
I would read Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape or watch Matt Dillahunty's lecture The Superiority of Secular Morality.
Their stuff sums up pretty well where I stand. Basically, I am a moral objectivist.
Sam Harris wrote a whole book on the subject of secular morality.
also read his book
The Moral Landscape
I did not say that.
You imply that secular humanism (relativism in your words) is the cause of evil in the world. Yet people are oppressing and killing in the name of their absolute morality. It seems we've had this dominant "absolute mortality" for a while and I don't think it has had a good track record.
If you want a groundwork for secular objective morality maybe you should read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. And you should also look up the Euthyphro Dilemma.
I don't know much about the others, but I really don't think Sam Harris is someone to try to gain wisdom from. His central thesis is just wrong and awful.
You should speak to as learned a Rabbi as you can find and ask to learn Pirkei Avot, and to go deeper with what's known as mussar. There are many books in this category, but probably the most famous and foundational is Mesillas Yesharim. It's quite an advanced text, but it is also very accessible on a simple level. I wouldn't recommend trying to learn it on your own, but if you are interested in starting with Pirkei Avot on your own, I've heard that this is a very good commentary for beginners.
It's obviously much easier to give a Jewish perspective on a specific issue than to provide you with sources for getting the Jewish perspective on everything, so if there's something in particular on your mind (or that you'd like sources or maybe even lectures to investigate further), you're welcome to ask and I can do my best.
I def recommend The Sibyl by Par Lagerkvist. And both The Courage to Be and The Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich. Also for Christianity, On Free Choice of the Will, by Augustine is great.
Contemporary continental philosophy is really Hegelian, so sadly you basically have to read the Phenomenology of Spirit, even though in school no one really reads it they just pretend to.
In general, my advice for philosophy is to find good secondary sources, and use those as you read the main material. For example, Being and Time is so hard to understand, but there's a book called Heidegger and the Question of Time by Francoise Dastur, which makes it a lot easier. The trick is finding reliable secondary scholarship.
/u/Jayk is correct here because of this. Sam Harris tried to address this problem in "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values", but he didn't really overcome the problem. Others have tried as well, but it still comes back to science being unable to actually determining anything other than how to achieve a goal, rather than opposed to which goals to achieve in the first place.
Idk about all that god talk, though...
Says who?
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/143917122X
You should really give this book a read:
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/143917122X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499307509&sr=8-1&keywords=sam+harris+the+moral+landscape
Wrong under all circumstances. Important book for those who are interested in the serious and hardline position against abortion.
What on Earth are you talking about? This isn't about being stoned (which I don't do anyway). It's about being well educated about evolutionary biology and pointing out that your assertion that humans will be like this forever is inaccurate.
What is so difficult to grasp about that simple point?
Further, as I've also pointed out multiple times, understanding the neurobiological reality of the human mind right now has important implications for how we treat our fellow human beings right now in relation to society, the justice system, etc.
That is very real and very much right now.
I'm not sure how to make myself any more clear.
If you're not smart enough and/or educated enough to grasp modern neurobiology and neuropsychology, on top of my explanations that should be explaining clearly enough the ramifications of those modern day objective realities... that's your shortcoming my friend, not mine.
I can suggest a couple books to help you get a better grasp on this subject... two very approachable and enlightening books I can recommend are "The Moral Landscape - How Science can determine human values" by Sam Harris (a doctorate of cognitive neuroscience) and "Braintrust - What neuroscience tells us about morality" by Patricia Churchland
Is there some other way I can get you to grasp that these are contemporary issues of objective scientific understanding of our own minds right now and how they function right now and how that relates to what we believe, how we relate to each other, how our societies function etc right now?
I understand that you feel the chronospecies issue doesn't have any real bearing on issues right now. I've agreed with you on that in every comment I've written. But that doesn't change the validity of everything else I've said, and for some reason you just seem postively obtuse on that point.
I'm seriously not trying to fight with you, so I'm not sure what has you so upset and so stubbornly resistant to grasping the simple objective realities I'm pointing out, which include some that are very much relevant to right now in our modern society.
Sure.
NGT:
>“Up until early 20th century philosophers had material contributions to make to the physical sciences. Pretty much after quantum mechanics, remember the philosopher is the would be scientist but without a laboratory, right? And so what happens is, the 1920s come in, we learn about the expanding universe in the same decade as we learn about quantum physics, each of which falls so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair that the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to the thinking of the physical scientists was rendered essentially obsolete, and that point, and I have yet to see a contribution — this will get me in trouble with all manner of philosophers — but call me later and correct me if you think I’ve missed somebody here. But, philosophy has basically parted ways from the frontier of the physical sciences, when there was a day when they were one and the same. Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher, the word physicist didn’t even exist in any important way back then. So, I’m disappointed because there is a lot of brainpower there, that might have otherwise contributed mightily, but today simply does not. It’s not that there can’t be other philosophical subjects, there is religious philosophy, and ethical philosophy, and political philosophy, plenty of stuff for the philosophers to do, but the frontier of the physical sciences does not appear to be among them.”
Harris: "The Moral Landscape: How Science Determines Moral Values".
Dawkins: Tweet here.
Science can also be used to understand our moral compass.
Recommended book: The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
The first two are trivial but the last one is not, and I don't suggest you try and deploy evolution as the principle defense of your morality, as that approach tends to be insufficiently rigorous (although it's true that morality evolved, that doesn't mean any particular action is 'good', for instance), especially if you aren't well read on the subject. This approach can be unpersuasive, and if you end up in a debate with someone well versed in moral moral philosophy, you might find yourself very quickly disarmed.
Instead, here is a book I highly, highly recommend.
You must have heard of Sam Harris by now, but if you haven't, check him out online. There are several of his debates and talks (moral landscape, free will, comparative religion, link between belief and behavior, spirituality) up and I think you'll find it interestingly difficult to disagree with him.
I ordered this. If anyone knows of any other good books. Please let me know.
The Essentials of Hinduism: A Comprehensive Overview of the World's Oldest Religion
I mean... what you claimed is analogous to:
> Please go ahead and link me to the literature claiming that objective morality exists.
Have you heard of Kant? The vast majority of moral philosophy since Kant is positivist. Consequentialism, utilitarianism, realism, cognitivism, humanism, etc.
> I refer you back to my last comment. An individual can believe that something is moral but not be obligated by it. I am certain that you are not obligated to do every single thing that you believe to be moral.
Then you aren’t a moral agent right? And if you are a moral agent, then to be a rational actor you’d have to act rationally. To be a rational actor, are you obligated to act rationally?
PS do you want me to write a summary of why moral realism is so prevalent so you don’t have to read them all? It’s super straightforward logically.
> How would you use science to learn anything about morality?
Here's two books, written roughly a century apart, that elaborate on how science can and why it should be used as the main approach to tackle moral issues :
While Stoddard and Harris may disagree on the implications of this position due to living in different time periods with a different scientific consensus, their overall concept of how science should inform morality (rather than eg. religious or ideological dogma) is fundamentally the same.
For an introduction into Harris's perspective, see also this TED talk.
> Science is best viewed as a subset of philosophy, dealing with the limited context of things as they are , rather than the far more expansive and interesting things as they might be.
Science is the only reliable tool to determining the consequences of actions.
I don't see any added value for philosophy or religion whatsoever, really.
In my experience, all they add is blurriness & prejudice rather than clarity & reason.
Its not anger (unless I am the victim or a family/friend of the victim of one of these heinous crimes). Im merely discussing the death penalty with you. But you cant seem to detach yourself from personal attacks
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
How is something that is created by humans any less legitimate than something natural? Murder is natural. Shall we embrace murder and shun justice systems because they are man made?
There is a case for objective morality too. I suggest this book. The author is quite famous and has a PhD in cognitive neuroscience from UCLA.
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/143917122X
> Sam Harris seeks to link morality to the rest of human knowledge. Defining morality in terms of human and animal well-being, Harris argues that science can do more than tell how we are; it can, in principle, tell us how we ought to be. In his view, moral relativism is simply falseâand comes at an increasing cost to humanity. And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our âculture wars,â Harris delivers a game-changing book about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation.
Morality and ethics have existed long before religion. Human interaction and being benevolent towards ones fellow tribe are how we survived in the first place. Morality is derived from evolution and human fulfillment can be measured within the brain. Therefore we can make claims that there are universal truths about actions that lead to more fulfillment or to more suffering.
> In my opinion it should be the goal of society not to discover objective moral truths, but to create the best possible framework upon which a moral system can be established.
This is where everything about this view breaks down. By what basis can you possibly call one framework better than another if there is no objective better and worse to begin with? It makes no sense.
If good is to mean anything, than it means an increase in the well-being of humans, or even more broadly to all conscious creatures. And there are near infinite ways to improve overall well-being, and near infinite ways to make it worse, and it's up to us with our limited understanding and instrumentation to try to make the most sense of it-- but to a much more scientifically advanced civilization wellbeing would be as quantifiable as apples in a barrel.
A book called The Moral Landscape builds an even stronger case against moral relativism. If you haven't read it, it's well worth picking up and if you have I'd be genuinely curious to hear how you can square that circle and keep your perspective.
Nope but here's a fantastic book against abortion:
http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Abortion-Question-Routledge-Bioethics/dp/0415884691/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
I personally liked Sam Harris' book.
The Moral Landscape.
It deals more with morality rather than philosophy in general but yes I agree with you, philosophy won't be something that is simply going to just die.
> you are the one that was saying only sex is a prostitution act- wrong
You posted the definition yourself, you simpering half-wit.
> you are the one that was saying a striper can masturbate on stage
Bullshit. I said strippers aren't prostitutes, and yes, that includes even if they masturbate on stage (which wouldn't be legal for other reasons). Again, you posted the legal definition yourself. There's a perfectly legal industry of girls that masturbate online for money. If they aren't touching you, it's not prostitution, by the legal definition, which is why these women are not prosecuted. This isn't hard, you're just slow.
> wrong you are the one that was saying its ok to fuck a dog.
I specifically said that there's nothing morally wrong with something where nobody is being harmed. That's a conclusion of rational morality. That we find something gross doesn't make it morally wrong.
> can there be a sadder cliche than a old divorcee
*rofl* I have to assume your parents are divorced, because you keep using the word "divorce" as an insult (clearly oblivious to what this reveals about you). I'm not divorced, nor would I be ashamed if I was, but I promise you there is something vastly more pathetic: someone who creates a second user account to respond to his own posts, as you did.
Get help.
Get yourself a moral compass with some secular moral science. https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/143917122X
You'll be happier, I guarantee it.
See Sam Harris
Facts and evidence are a better guide than mythology and superstition.
Have a look at this book by Sam Harris where he argues "science can do more than tell how we are; it can, in principle, tell us how we ought to be. In his view, moral relativism is simply false—and comes at an increasing cost to humanity. And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our “culture wars,” Harris delivers a game-changing book about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation."
>All subjective.
No, they're really not. The goal is subjective, but the method to achieve that goal is not.
If you call those subjective, you'd have to call medicine subjective. The goal of medicine is "good health" which is also subjective, but the methods we use to achieve it are quite clearly objective. Morality when framed this way is no different, except that we're still practically medieval when it comes to our practice of it because for too long people have been calling it subjective when in reality we can and should begin to make a clear objective structure around it.
A book I highly recommend reading on the topic is "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.
I agree with your assertion that "realism is a positive position that requires support", but I'm inclined to hold that this has not always been the case. The Skeptics certainly held this, but early Christian theologians did not. Descartes' main contribution to the philosophic tradition was the fact of beginning from a more skeptical standpoint than others were willing to entertain at his time. Skepticism, at some times in philosophical history, has been the position requiring more positive support.
Arguably, that is the scrum. If realism is regarded as a positive position, skepticism is more tenable by far. There's no widely-accepted counterargument to the solipsistic view, for instance. On the other hand, if realism is the default (negative) position, then all that needs to be done is to appeal to the fact that skeptical concerns aren't conclusive enough to convince us to reject the realist position. As for the present, skepticism is winning out. There's a reason that the most basic alternative position is currently called naive realism.
-----------------------
That said, I think that the present default to a skeptical/nonrealist position is less of a nod to Descartes than an outcome of postmodernism. Also, as others have said, it is thought among some to be necessary to an acceptable ethical position. In conversations, people tend to take my not-relativistic ethical leanings to be impolite or pretentious. Yet there's an interesting tension between the prominent relativist aesthetic and ethical positions and the widespread trust (among educated people, primarily) in the objectivity of science.
This has resulted in interesting attempts to undergird aesthetics or ethics with science, which I think is regarded as the lone source of objectivity available. I've read articles that claim to demonstrate that the Beatles' music is mathematically-grounded, as well as one about The Edge's guitar delay, and then there's Sam Harris' attempt to create a kind of neuroscientific utilitarianism. From these kinds of efforts, I would love to see an epistemology or metaphysics that explains why they are possible or what this inquiry represents. But I don't think there's much concern about providing this kind of grounding, unfortunately.
Daniel Helminiak's What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality does a beautiful job of tracking society's attitude about sexuality throughout history. Here's the Amazon link:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005BTQEQ4/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
If there's no ultimate meaning there's no ultimate truth, in which case it's erroneous to say anything as a truth claim, such as there being no ultimate meaning, or the falsity of Christianity. I'd recommend the existentialist theologian, Paul Tillich's book "The Courage to Be".
I'll send you a copy of you're interested?
This is exactly what we're talking about right here.
>Pascal’s Wager
>The Authority of the Bible
>Quality of Life
Calling these arguments at all is very generous. Pascals wager comes the closest to being taken seriously but has multiple fatal flaws, such as the fact that if there is no God and you take him up on his wager so to speak, you waste your entire existence, making it a poor bet. Then there's the many gods problem as well.
>The Actionable Conclusion
This is neither an argument, nor supporting of a belief in God.
>Personal Experience
Hume has an excellent response to most of what could be considered an argument in here. However most of what you've written here does not constitute an argument, and should not rationally be enough to convince anyone else. It certainly doesn't qualify as, " any rational argument, supported by evidence."
>Kalam's Cosmological Argument
For the sake of time, I'm going to refer you to the wikipedia article here. There are numerous problems with the KCA, none of which can be satisfactorily resolved, and it does not have any supporting evidence. Since the argument is not logically sound, valid, and non-vacuous, it isn't taken seriously in modern debate except for it's role in the history of philosophy.
>Aristotle’s Cosmological Argument
This is no stronger than the KCA above, and has many of the same problems. It doesn't prove a God exists even if true, has no supporting evidence, and must resort to special pleading for the "first cause" to not have a cause itself.
>The Fine Tuned Universe Argument
This is probably the only argument in the batch that's even taken seriously at all, but it has the most problems, probably due to being more well-defined and claiming it has supporting evidence (which none of the rest can).
>Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!”
If you want more supporting evidence against fine tuning/god of the gaps, wikipedia has almost everything you could possibly want cited, and Victor Stenger has written a sound rebuttal to it and all common counter arguments within God: The Failed Hypothesis.
O wow, if you have seriously never heard of anyone who has made the case please go read http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine/dp/143917122X
There are others who have the made the case for objective morals as well.
Edit: Assuming you probably won't read them maybe you'll listen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c4F4tW7u_A&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJkhKZLPLwI&feature=plcp
If you guys dig that kind of stuff, you must read Sam Harris. His books changed my entire worldview -- especially The Moral Landscape. Awesome book.
Sam Harris is an odd bird, but I like him a lot. I may disagree with him in some ways, but that's okay.
First off, let me say I'm not ready to throw free will off the bus, myself. But I can see where Harris is coming from.
He's a neuroscientist who lived as a buddhist monk for a number of years, and actually believed the stuff (buddhism), but then lost faith and quit. If you're familiar with that doctrine, you can see echoes of it sprinkled everywhere in Harris' works. In some ways, his ideas are "buddhism for the materialist neurophilosopher". Of course he rejects free will. Both of his backgrounds do (kinda).
Buddhism is the only religion that does not believe in the existence of the soul, and states that everything that happens now is the result of a complex tapestry of cause-effect relations with roots in the past. It's as close to determinism as you can get, without actually using that label.
Modern neurophilosophy also tends, by and large, to reject consciousness and free will in the traditional sense; see Dan Dennett, etc. for state of the art ideas in the field.
So in that sense Sam Harris is not that original. Where he really stands out is his claim that moral values can be placed on a sort of scale that is both objective and absolute. In other words, there are unambiguous ways to determine whether women wearing burqa is a "good" thing or "bad", etc.
This causes unending uproars in the liberal academia (N.B.: I'm a euro centrist, but in the US I am labeled "leftist", lol) who, by and large, prefer to not label cultural conventions as either good or bad - or rather, if something is culturally determined, they tend to say that makes it automatically okay. Personally, I think that sort of relativism is bullshit.
You could say Sam Harris is a moral anti-relativist, possibly the most prominent one of this age. His book The Moral Landscape is relevant to this topic.
Fun stuff.
sitting around and debating the topic is exactly what I have a problem with. I am in no way qualified to answers these questions, and never claimed to be. I only pointed out that the philosophers aren't qualified either. Since this is /r/trueatheism, can I recommend a few books on the topic? Science of Good and Evil or The Moral Landscape are both good reads, and I think they have advanced the study of Ethics by leaps and bounds.
> so there is only one universal human moral system, the one you hold?
There's only one physics, only one math, only one morality. If you want my view on things, I'm in the Sam Harris school, see http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine/dp/143917122X
> this is not what rational egoism is
I didn't see a definition on the front page of your link, but Wikipedia defines it as:
"Rational egoism (also called rational selfishness) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest"
In other words, a selfish concern for ones own well-being (self-interest).
> how would it remotely effect my well being at all?
It would affect your access to sex and relationships, because generally people don't want to fuck or marry bigots.
> so there is only one universal human moral system, the one you hold?
Basically, it only makes sense to talk about morality in a universe that has conscious creatures, that are capable of happiness and/or suffering. It wouldn't make sense to talk about morality in a universe devoid of conscious creatures. Therefore, morality pertains to the well-being of conscious creatures.
>How can science answer questions about morality?
You're welcome.