NationStates Jolt Archive

Does our views on metaphysics change our views on life? How much of of an effect does it make? Sure, religious people tend to live their lives by the dogma of their church, and follow their holy books so that they won't end up in "hell". But what about the people who don't believe hell exists? Does their morals and beliefs suffer because of it?

Does our views on metaphysics change our views on life? How much of of an effect does it make? Sure, religious people tend to live their lives by the dogma of their church, and follow their holy books so that they won't end up in "hell". But what about the people who don't believe hell exists? Does their morals and beliefs suffer because of it?
I seriously doubt there is any significant difference between "religious people" and anyone else. I've known lots and lots of people in my life, religious and otherwise, and I can't tell the difference when it comes to morality, except that religious people feel guilty about not following what they say they believe.

Fear is a poor motivator anyway. :p

I seriously doubt there is any significant difference between "religious people" and anyone else. I've known lots and lots of people in my life, religious and otherwise, and I can't tell the difference when it comes to morality, except that religious people feel guilty about not following what they say they believe.

Fear is a poor motivator anyway. :p
so does one's metaphysical views actually make a difference in his/her life?

I seriously doubt there is any significant difference between "religious people" and anyone else. I've known lots and lots of people in my life, religious and otherwise, and I can't tell the difference when it comes to morality, except that religious people feel guilty about not following what they say they believe.

Fear is a poor motivator anyway. :p

Amen. :p

To the OP: In how far is this thread different from the one the other day asking if atheists or agnostics can have morals, too?

I already ranted at the creator of that thread, so you're lucky :p

I mean, why on earth should my "morals and beliefs" suffer because I don't believe in hell (or God, for that matter)?

Do you really think humans can be moral only when they believe in, say, a ten point list of "Dos & Don'ts" in some holy book? You think they wouldn't know by themselves that, say, killing somebody is wrong?

Fear my seem like a poor motivator but it's consistantly been used and has proved to be one of the most long lasting effects.
Visualising paradise can be hard without being selfish, or without breaking other tenants of the faith, but most people are familiar with suffering so people that base religion on fear of suffering are going to get their message across a lot clearer.

With regard to metaphysics, everyone has their own view even though most are blissfully unaware of it. most people are given a view by their environment when they're very young and never think to question it.
It's why some nations have such trouble understanding other cultures, key differances in their metaphysical basics.

Amen. :p

To the OP: In how far is this thread different from the one the other day asking if atheists or agnostics can have morals, too?

I already ranted at the creator of that thread, so you're lucky :p

I mean, why on earth should my "morals and beliefs" suffer because I don't believe in hell (or God, for that matter)?

Do you really think humans can be moral only when they believe in, say, a ten point list of "Dos & Don'ts" in some holy book? You think they wouldn't know by themselves that, say, killing somebody is wrong?
Perhaps we would, but we violate that injunction all the time as well. Face it, humans are all over the map on morality. Some have very rigid moral codes. Some have no morals at all. And all the points in between. As with most things, it's probably a combination of genetics and socialization. As to what to do about it? Perhaps someday they will find the "morality gene," as well learning how to prevent/cure extremes of behavior in people. Question is: would you want them to change people that much? Hmm.

*grunts*
*shrugs*
*goes off to eat cake*

Fear my seem like a poor motivator but it's consistantly been used and has proved to be one of the most long lasting effects.
Visualising paradise can be hard without being selfish, or without breaking other tenants of the faith, but most people are familiar with suffering so people that base religion on fear of suffering are going to get their message across a lot clearer.
Fear is only a motivator insofar as it exacts minimal compliance/performance in whatever arena. To be fully effective, people have to be self-motivators. True leaders recognize this and try to lead by example and persuasion and hope that people will understand and decide to follow.

Amen. :p

To the OP: In how far is this thread different from the one the other day asking if atheists or agnostics can have morals, too?

I already ranted at the creator of that thread, so you're lucky :p

I mean, why on earth should my "morals and beliefs" suffer because I don't believe in hell (or God, for that matter)?

Do you really think humans can be moral only when they believe in, say, a ten point list of "Dos & Don'ts" in some holy book? You think they wouldn't know by themselves that, say, killing somebody is wrong?
Well, many philosophers in the past seemed to have believed that athiesm is bad for the very reason stated above. Personally, I don't think that's true either. However, I think you DO have a list of "does and don'ts" because if you didn't, you wouldn't have rules and morals to live by. And if one's been raised in a society where killing is acceptable, then I really do believe they wouldn't say killing is wrong.

Fear is only a motivator insofar as it exacts minimal compliance/performance in whatever arena. To be fully effective, people have to be self-motivators. True leaders recognize this and try to lead by example and persuasion and hope that people will understand and decide to follow.

Indeed, however true religeons leaders are in the minority, in history as a whole, The majority often fall back on fear as their primary "proof" for their religeous persuasions.

Sorry to pick a emotive example, but the semi-religeous crusade by the Nazi's against certain groups had a lot of self motivated people, but even that was born of the fear of those groups, a fear created by the leaders of the movment.

i hope this thread is not about religion stuff ^^

Metaphysics, if i understand this term correctly, do not affect everyday life, but can make someone able to make an important decision the one wouldn't think of otherwise. Without knowing and lateron understanding different views on universe, life and its meaning one's bound to follow blindly mass-culture cliches or religious dogmas.

Perhaps we would, but we violate that injunction all the time as well. Face it, humans are all over the map on morality. Some have very rigid moral codes. Some have no morals at all. And all the points in between. As with most things, it's probably a combination of genetics and socialization. As to what to do about it? Perhaps someday they will find the "morality gene," as well learning how to prevent/cure extremes of behavior in people. Question is: would you want them to change people that much? Hmm.
Yeah, but do you really think those with very weak or almost non-existant morals would be "better" if they were very religious?
I don't think so.
Religion is basically one of the means that we as humans have used to set up some kind of regulatory framework to make sense of the world and to put down the rules without which human society couldn't survive.
If somebody doesn't (maybe for the reasons I bolded in your text) have the sense that these basic values and rules are important, then they won't suddenly change just because I stick a piece of paper in front of them telling them that, yes, indeed they are. Because, see, God said so.
They'd just end up one of the already way too many hypocrites whose morals couldn't be more pathetic 6 days a week, yet who always sit in the front pew come Sunday.

Yeah, but do you really think those with very weak or almost non-existant morals would be "better" if they were very religious?
I don't think so.
Religion is basically one of the means that we as humans have used to set up some kind of regulatory framework to make sense of the world and to put down the rules without which human society couldn't survive.
If somebody doesn't (maybe for the reasons I bolded in your text) have the sense that these basic values and rules are important, then they won't suddenly change just because I stick a piece of paper in front of them telling them that, yes, indeed they are. Because, see, God said so.
They'd just end up one of the already way too many hypocrites whose morals couldn't be more pathetic 6 days a week, yet who always sit in the front pew come Sunday.
What if there was a religion that only taught morals and not dogma. Then would you support that religion?

And I hope this thread doesn't turn into another religion debate. What about the concept of reality? Or the meaning of life? Do those questions/beliefs change a person's views on life, or is it just something some people think about when they are bored?

Do those questions/beliefs change a person's views on life, or is it just something some people think about when they are bored?

They do change a person's freedom.

If somebody doesn't (maybe for the reasons I bolded in your text) have the sense that these basic values and rules are important, then they won't suddenly change just because I stick a piece of paper in front of them telling them that, yes, indeed they are. Because, see, God said so.

I dunno....Lots of people do things because a piece of paper (well, lots of pieces) says "God says so". Some would certainly try.

However, I think you DO have a list of "does and don'ts" because if you didn't, you wouldn't have rules and morals to live by.
Oh, I certainly think so, too (see also my post above this). What I was trying to say is that I don't need these basic rules wrapped in religion to appreciate their wisdom and value to our society.

And if one's been raised in a society where killing is acceptable, then I really do believe they wouldn't say killing is wrong.
Well, yeah, there are (and, mainly, have been) societies where not all killing is wrong, but even there there are rules that govern this. For example the "honour killings"/blood feuds in Albania are an abomination in Western eyes, yet were (and often still are) completely justified in the eyes of the people there. Interestingly enough, it is based in traditional law and is practiced independently of the respective religion of the families, many of whom are in fact Christian (which also means that it's not an Islamic thing, as is so often believed).

So yeah, moral rules and values *are* essential, obviously, I just don't think that religion is the only way to instill them into people. Basically, to look at it really small-scale, just because somebody isn't religious doesn't mean they can't be a good person or can't raise their children to be good persons, with values and morals intact.
And honestly, sometimes I think they'd actually do a better job than many of the oh-so-pious believers, simply because their not as smug and self-conceited as the holier-than-thous.


ETA: Oh, and only saw your post right now - no, I don't want to start a debate on religion. :p I don't have anything against religion at all, I just get a bit touchy when people seem to imply that only the faithful can live a "moral" life. Which you didn't really, so no offense.

Does our views on metaphysics change our views on life? How much of of an effect does it make? Sure, religious people tend to live their lives by the dogma of their church, and follow their holy books so that they won't end up in "hell". But what about the people who don't believe hell exists? Does their morals and beliefs suffer because of it?

Not necessarily. The very question preassumes the idea that the greatest or sole motivation for human behavior is fear, shame, desire to conform, etc., and that all or most humans are blind, irrational followers. I, for one, try to hold out hope that things are better than that.

Believe it or not, some people actually follow a moral-ethical philosophy based in reason.

Not necessarily. The very question preassumes the idea that the greatest or sole motivation for human behavior is fear, shame, desire to conform, etc., and that all or most humans are blind, irrational followers. I, for one, try to hold out hope that things are better than that.

Believe it or not, some people actually follow a moral-ethical philosophy based in reason.
Do you think your hopes of better things set your apart from those who believe most humans are blind irrational followers? if so, how?

Yes, but where do these morals and ethics come from?

Yes, but where do these morals and ethics come from?

Figuring out that killing someone isn't usually a good thing?

Do you think your hopes of better things set your apart from those who believe most humans are blind irrational followers? if so, how?

Yes, but where do these morals and ethics come from?

a) In context of religion, yes. Religion as a moral code and belief system is primarily motivated by fear, shame, desire to conform, and desire to abdicate the necessity of independent thought and judgement to a "higher authority". It's a negative v. zero outlook that traps people into a framework of suffering and nonbeing. It's simply pathetic.

b) Reason.

what the bleep do i know?

Yeah, but do you really think those with very weak or almost non-existant morals would be "better" if they were very religious?
I don't think so.
Me either. I thought that's what I said. [ confused look ]



Religion is basically one of the means that we as humans have used to set up some kind of regulatory framework to make sense of the world and to put down the rules without which human society couldn't survive.
If somebody doesn't (maybe for the reasons I bolded in your text) have the sense that these basic values and rules are important, then they won't suddenly change just because I stick a piece of paper in front of them telling them that, yes, indeed they are. Because, see, God said so.
They'd just end up one of the already way too many hypocrites whose morals couldn't be more pathetic 6 days a week, yet who always sit in the front pew come Sunday.
I don't disagree with any of this. Kewl, huh? :D

What about the concept of reality? Or the meaning of life? Do those questions/beliefs change a person's views on life, or is it just something some people think about when they are bored?
Reality exists, no matter how some might wish it were different or that it would simply go away. :)

Life has only that meaning which we ascribe to it. There is no great, wonderful, pie-in-the-sky, objective MEANING OF LIFE!

The more we discover about what reality is actually like, the more we discover that it's an inseparable whole; that the parts cannot be considered without reference to the whole. What this means in practice is that it's going to be tough as hell to "figure it all out."

Film at eleven. :)

They do change a person's freedom.
Or rather, a person's perception of their freedom. We are all, by nature, willy-nilly, free. Some people just don't see that as clearly as others.

Or rather, a person's perception of their freedom. We are all, by nature, willy-nilly, free. Some people just don't see that as clearly as others.
But we are restricted by society, are we not? Go run around starck naked on the streets and you'd get arrested. Start ranting about things other people don't believe in and you'd get shipped to a mental hospital. So how is that free?

Reality exists, no matter how some might wish it were different or that it would simply go away. :)

Life has only that meaning which we ascribe to it. There is no great, wonderful, pie-in-the-sky, objective MEANING OF LIFE!

The more we discover about what reality is actually like, the more we discover that it's an inseparable whole; that the parts cannot be considered without reference to the whole. What this means in practice is that it's going to be tough as hell to "figure it all out."

Film at eleven. :)
I've been here quite a few times at eleven, but never seen what film you were talking about. Is there truly a film, or is it all a figment of our imagination?

I've been here quite a few times at eleven, but never seen what film you were talking about. Is there truly a film, or is it all a figment of our imagination?

I vote the figment theory might be senile...

But we are restricted by society, are we not? Go run around starck naked on the streets and you'd get arrested. Start ranting about things other people don't believe in and you'd get shipped to a mental hospital. So how is that free?
I'm free to do those things, and others are free to stop me, if they can. You're only as restricted as you allow yourself to be.

I'm free to do those things, and others are free to stop me, if they can. You're only as restricted as you allow yourself to be.
*bow*

alright. I can accept that.

Reality exists, no matter how some might wish it were different or that it would simply go away. :)

Life has only that meaning which we ascribe to it. There is no great, wonderful, pie-in-the-sky, objective MEANING OF LIFE!

The more we discover about what reality is actually like, the more we discover that it's an inseparable whole; that the parts cannot be considered without reference to the whole. What this means in practice is that it's going to be tough as hell to "figure it all out."

Film at eleven. :)
Ironically, the film is "Monty Python's Meaning of Life", in which we discover that there is a meaning to life, and that it has something to do with hats :p

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". Psalms 111:10

Evidently, fear is a motivating factor. But anyways, onto the real stuff.

Metaphysics is the way we decern life. How a person judges right from wrong, good from evil, etc, etc.

How does this pertain to religion? Religion is a structure. It is a building of morals and ethics, bound together by steel faith. Faith in a god/s binds this building together, and people come and go from it. Sometimes the architecht of the building did not think it through, and five years after it was built, the building crumbles back into dust. But, if the building is strong, it can last for thousands of years. These buildings are huge, massive skyscrapers, and many people come to enjoy their warmth in the winter, and air conditioning in the summer. Some people only go into the building for these esthetic reasons, while others go into it hoping to make something of themselves. Some do, some quit, and some are fired. But as long as the structure holds, people will go into it.People like the sense of security the steel building brings them. They know what to do when inside it; they follow a strict code of etiquette.

But some people become restless in the building, finding the offices to small, or the cubicles wide open. So they leave the building. This does not mean that they lose their morals and ethics though. They still need a place to sleep, eat, and work. They find somewhere else. Not always a flashy skyscraper, but perhaps a shopping mall, a house, or even a cardboard box. As long as they are comfortable where they are, then they have a set of morals and ethics to abide by.

Noone really knows why we have this sense of duty to some things. Perhaps it is evolution. Not physical evolution, but an evolution of the mind. Metaphysics is just what our mind tells us to do, and what not to do. More subtle than a code of morals, which can change and fluctuate with society. Perhaps some of these morals have grown along with society and become rigid ethics (which are permanent, or, at least, not so easy to change); things that are 'just right to do'.

But I'm rambling, so go back to your fine day, the lot of you. :)