Back in the Rim: language, censorship, religion, rationalism

[jatay3]

To give a (hopefully) faily neutral example, I think that any tenet that says that it is acceptable to regard another human being as inferior for no other reason than that he does not belong to a particular religion, culture or society is just plain wrong.

I do not believe I am "superior" to those who hold a different religion-except in the sense that I am "superior" to someone who can't discuss philosophy over the internet. That is I have been blessed with a knowledge that others don't have but which I desire that they should have. Others have knowledge that I don't have.
Equality or inequality has several meanings. A just judge judges without respecting persons(and has no right to give favor to a Christian in court, if the judge happens to be one). In that case they are equal. However two given people(or even groups) might be unequal in a different sense. This is a healthier group than that of the KKK is it not?
God is no respecter of persons and all who repent are welcome in his church(that is The Church: a given preacher might be a snob, of course). The Church is not an elite club, it is where the Fallen go to be Redeemed. Sinner's Anonymous so to speak.

 

[robject]

Pedalling fast to bring the thread back on course:

Back in the [Solomani] Rim:

IMTU

Language

As always, "Anglic" will be ubiquitous, though many, many people never learn it, being content to remain on their birth world.

Censorship

On a given world, relative liberty depends on the Law Level. On an interstellar level, suffice it to say that I think the Confederation are generally a bunch of jack-booted thugs with a superiority complex.

Religion

"Science" in the common mind is the supreme act of human agency (or, rather, Solomani achievement) to dominate nature (the galaxy). True science is carried on under more reasonable conditions, but really isn't generally very interesting and so doesn't pop the bubble of Solomani hubris. Also, the power to control nature is really in the hands of a very small number of people, and only in the vaguest sense is it wielded "by humanity" or "for humanity". Generally it's wielded *against* humanity more often than *for* it.

Rationalism

Rational thought is held above all else, in theory. In practice, well, decision makers have to live with compromise, which isn't a bad thing, except when groupthink tends to a low common denominator. Luckily the military doesn't sink to a low denominator, and is really better than its principles.

 

[jatay3]

Thank you Robject. I like the philosophical arguing(to a point) but most come for Traveller.
The books suggestion(leave it to the GM) is good. Religion is more than a matter of taste in real life, but it is just taste in an RPG.
In my private "world"(which is strongly influenced by Traveller)the existance of Christianity is assumed, but only as part of the background. I go there to "play" not to meditate.

 

[Straybow]

The Religion of Science might predominate in some worlds of the Solomani Rim, but that would not be characteristic of the Solomani Rim. Traveller seems to assume that America and Western Europe maintain a dominant economical and scientific position over China and India. Nonetheless, Earth culture will always be divided, as will some of her colonies.

I would think the Solomani Rim would be the most likely place to find colonies with strong traditions from Earth-based religions: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, perhaps Judaism.

I can see how some Jews might prefer to start a colony on another world just to escape the conflicts and antisemitism that seem to erupt repeated on Earth.

A colony sponsored by the Indian government (whether part of a global governance or independent matters not) might be militant Hindu, prohibiting immigration and limiting visitation by non-Hindus.

A colony springing from Iran or southern Iraq might be Shi'a, restricting not only non-Muslims but also Sunni. Sunni itself is divided into four schools of theology, each dominant in one geographical area. Any colony established from a core population of one school might well become isolationist.

Some of these worlds would be zoned Amber, a few zoned Red. Others would be open to commerce and pose no ideological threat to 3I or SolCon.

 

[jatay3]

I hope you enjoy it; it does sound plausible. I would have a hard time doing that because I am unknowledgeable on non-european names. If any would-be amateur sci-fi writers,GM's,taletellers,etc. like finding names I would be interested; I find it a nuisance. Of course if a character is non-Terran it becomes easier; all you have to do is arrange sounds in a cool-sounding way(and add a story to the name if you are of a mind.

 

[jatay3]

Speaking of names it is a habit of Sci-fi or fiction writers to co-opt obscure references they know and no one else does. Rohan is an actual French province. Ferengi is Arabic(or Turkish, I forget which)for Frank: they used Frank as a synonym for Europeans in the same way we use "Arab" for "Islamic"-English were called "Ferengi" the way Kurds are sometimes called "Arabs"(naturally irritating both).
Aslan is of course Turkish for lion. And on and on.
Many writers have odd references at their command and find them useful.

 

[Jamus]

Would not a strong empire also have a strong standardized religion ala Dune and the emporors orange catholic bible? Religion has long been a unifying influence on cultures and i dont see that ending anytime soon or in the far future.

as sure as we live and breath you can count on the first benign emporor of the galaxy recieveing the blessing of the space pope at his coorination.

as they say, "there is nothing new under the sun"... i tend to see it as nothing new under the suns. or to put it another way "same as it ever was"

in the case of the solomani it would seem almost a requirment that a nation/state so totalitarian in nature would have a state religion twisted and used to its own ends to motivate the citizenry.

I think a good example of this is the Warhammer 40k background.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Jamus:
in the case of the solomani it would seem almost a requirment that a nation/state so totalitarian in nature would have a state religion twisted and used to its own ends to motivate the citizenry.

Except that the Solomani aren't "so totalitarian in nature".

They are actually extremely diverse. The Solomani Confederation is a looser organisation than the Imperium in most respects.

On an ideological level, they have the problem that _all_ Solomani religions are "equal"/"superior".

When I think about the Solomani Confederation, I tend to think about the old South of the US prior to the Civil Rights movement, Apartheid-era South Africa, present day Israel, or Northern Ireland. (Or, to a degree, Australia during the White Australia policy.)

In each case, there is a group that is given privileges from which other groups are excluded, and on the basis of this, a repressive social system is able to be maintained. This is true even in cases where the degree of "privilege" is rather marginal.

Provided they toe the line, members of the privileged group enjoy considerable freedom. The other groups - don't. And there is a sophisticated security apparatus to ensure that the line is toed.

It's good old fashioned divide and rule.

 

[jatay3]

Would not a strong empire also have a strong standardized religion ala Dune and the emporors orange catholic bible? Religion has long been a unifying influence on cultures and i dont see that ending anytime soon or in the far future.


Actually that is only a requirement if religion was the basis for the state. Most empires in history have
been content to rest on political justification. The Caesars were no exception: no one really believed Caesar was a god. The Pagans just said "sure one more won't hurt" and Christians and Jews refused.
The problem with making an artificial religion for political purposes is that it will sound artificial. If the Imperium was to make a standardized religion no one would take it seriously.

 

[flykiller]

Actually that is only a requirement if religion was the basis for the state. Most empires in history have been content to rest on political justification.

I have trouble thinking of any state that did not rest on religious justification. religion is a view of why the world is and how it should be, thus a polity is always based on religion. the chinese "mandate of heaven", the moslem practice of religion as state, the christian doctrine that the state good or evil is appointed by God, the practice of many states that the supreme ruler is also the supreme priest, all point to religion being the seminal influence on politics. "we hold these truths to be self-evident" and all that. even communism in its denial of God was most certainly a defacto religion, with its own versions of sin, judgement, salvation, jihad, saints, and future heaven. and even when the rulers themselves don't believe the religion - and just how many rulers wouldn't care for a religion that places them at the top - their citizens most certainly do. when the people stop believing the religion, that's when the state is at its most vulnerable.

 

[Drakon]

Hmm.. here is my 2 credits

Religion is a cultural phenomena. Its primary function is to move the decision loop along. It really does not matter whether you refuse to kill/rob/rape etc. because "God says so", or because you have a solid logical and objectively verifiable argument. The fact is that you do not do some things, and do others. It is the physical actions that impact the objective universe and have objective consequences that anyone can observe and respond to.

In sophonts, actions are predicated on thinking, on perception of reality. Sometimes that perception is in error, but as long as the actions have a beneficial outcome, generates beneficial results for the actors as well as others inhabiting his environment, all is ok. The thinking is secondary to the acting, and of less importance.

Because of this cause and effect relationship between actions and consequences, you get an evolutionary system built up that affects the memes. Memes that produce actions that result in beneficial results succeed. Memes that get its actors killed off, die out along with their adherents.

I often feel that saying "God says so" is a shorthand for "This is the way things work out best. I don't know how or why it is like this, this is just the way it is." Saying God says so is an argument ender, an appeal to a convienent authority. What God ends up saying is going to end up agreeing with what is best for the species, what is most beneficial for it, by simple evolution.

I do want to note one thing about those "self evident truths" People do live, they are free to choose their actions, and generally speaking they will pick those actions that they think will make them happy, will result in beneficial consequences primarily for themselves. This is not quite the same thing as many of the religious propositions floating around, as this can be asertained by simple observation of a large enough sample of humanity.

 

[flykiller]

I often feel that saying "God says so" is a shorthand for "This is the way things work out best. I don't know how or why it is like this, this is just the way it is." Saying God says so is an argument ender, an appeal to a convienent authority. What God ends up saying is going to end up agreeing with what is best for the species, what is most beneficial for it, by simple evolution.

one notes that humans are singularly ill-equipped to survive, let alone advance socially, using evolution as a measure or guide. using unguided trial and error, with survival being the only communication of success, would result in sustained barbarity if not human extinction.

human survival and advancement consists of rising above the immediate animal and substituting a different, artificial, and unnatural mode of behavior. appeals to "I don't know, it just works" don't succeed because there is simply too much pressure to act otherwise. further, such appeals presume previous success - they do not create it. appeals to God do work, because they do create success. an appeal to God is more than just short-hand for something else, it's a whole new standard that does not arise naturally.

 

[jatay3]

I often feel that saying "God says so" is a shorthand for "This is the way things work out best. I don't know how or why it is like this, this is just the way it is." Saying God says so is an argument ender, an appeal to a convienent authority. What God ends up saying is going to end up agreeing with what is best for the species, what is most beneficial for it, by simple evolution.

If morality is just another way of saying,"whats best for us" why do people despise traitors and cowards on the enemies side? You would think we would admire them if benefit was the only issue. Why is the guy who deliberatly insults you resented more than the guy who accidently inconveniences you-even though the first actually does less damage. And above all why should I care as long as theres enough idiots out there to make the world convenient for splendid little me? It is not convenient for me to obey Thou Shalt not Steal: it is only convenient for everyone else to obey it. In other words why should I care about others? Or is it an instinct to care about others? Yet if that is true why the need for a moral code which is usually noticed when it requires supressing instincts(what is good is also what we want it becomes academic). And doesn't human history make one suspicious of the strength of our inate desire to do what is best for one another? Finally on what basis is it decided what is "best" for humanity, as on your argument there is no "best".

 

[jatay3]

It really does not matter whether you refuse to kill/rob/rape etc. because "God says so", or because you have a solid logical and objectively verifiable argument.

And by what solid and objectivly verifyable argument should I refuse to "kill, rob, rape, etc". Is it better for others? But why do I care about others? Is it better for my own self-interest? Not necessarily.
"Logical and objectively verifiable argument" is about chains of corallaries. A=B and C=A therefore B=C. Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all thy heart and soul and mind and love thy neighbor as thyself-therefore thou shalt not steal. The coralary hinges on what is self-evident. If you deny that something is self-evident debate is impossible has been reached. But what if nothing is self-evident? Well there goes the argument as well, for you are trying to disprove the foundation of reason and hence you are trying to disprove reason.
Reason cannot exist on it's own. It needs faith to back it up. Faith in what? Seek and Ye shall find.
and a stalemate has

 

[jatay3]

I have trouble thinking of any state that did not rest on religious justification. religion is a view of why the world is and how it should be, thus a polity is always based on religion. the chinese "mandate of heaven", the moslem practice of religion as state,


Perhaps so but it can't rest on a religion that was obviously made for the states benefit like the "Orange Catholic Bible", or the Caesar worship or "Reason Goddess" of the French Revoulution. The states got on okay but their "religions" didn't. They were extremly incompetant at being hypocrites.
To be a good liar you have to be believable.

 

[Straybow]

Somebody Famous (can't remember who) analyzed morality as six levels or stages:

Premoral or preconventional morality
•Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience (might makes right)
•Stage 2: Instrumental Exchange (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours)
Conventional morality
•Stage 3: Interpersonal Conformity (do no harm is the highest good)
•Stage 4: Law and Order (following the rules is the highest good)
Postconventional or principled morality
•Stage 5: Prior Rights and Social Contract (liberty is the highest good)
•Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles (the Golden Rule)

In this analytical model, it appears that a person can only understand moral standards one level higher than the level at which that person currently operates.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by flykiller:
human survival and advancement consists of rising above the immediate animal and substituting a different, artificial, and unnatural mode of behavior. appeals to "I don't know, it just works" don't succeed because there is simply too much pressure to act otherwise. further, such appeals presume previous success - they do not create it. appeals to God do work, because they do create success. an appeal to God is more than just short-hand for something else, it's a whole new standard that does not arise naturally.

I disagree. First off, is thinking, in your opinion, "unnatural"? Picking actions based on goals, and perception of the environment?

From a physical standpoint, you have a point. Physically speaking, humans are not as fast as, say the cheeta, (although some may consider such a comparison cheating) nor as strong as even our closest relatives. All humans have going for them is their brains, and the content of those brains.

But we have brains, and we do think. I don't see this as unnatural, just different from what other species have developed in order to survive.

Second, I have to ask if your rejection of my idea is based on a percieved slight I pose to religion in general? I mean no disrespect. I was attempting a qualitative description of how religions play out in the physical realm. I do see an evolutionary effect here, in that ideas, such as morality, that get its adherents killed off, die out. Ideas are dependent on minds. Without minds, ideas cease to exist, and have no influence on the physical environment.

Any religion is essentially a collection of ideas. Usually its epistemal standard is an appeal to some authority, like a book, or a preist. Which ultimately is an appeal to God, who as a non-corporal entity, is not making public appearances or holding press conferences to clear things up. Appeals to authority are not logical arguments. And yet, despite this lack of logic here, religions and people of religious faith survive and even thrive in the real world.

That there is pressure to "act otherwise" I don't doubt. What I see is the effects of "acting otherwise". Death and failure. Again, if you kill the brain, the mind and its contents go with it.

Appeals to God do work, and many religions have produces many admirable moral codes and behavior in their adherents. You are right that it does not create success ab nilio, but does build on previous success. Both before such a religion and moral code are established as well as afterwards.

Try it this way. Moral codes arrise from a process of trial and error. After they have arrisen, and folks start looking for explainations for those codes, then religions become established explaining them. Why do they work? "Because God says so." It may not answer the question, but again, that is all secondary to whether the actions produce the desired result. The fact the people are living, is proof of some measure of success.

And "God says so" is *an* answer. Whether the answer is right or wrong, is secondary to the point the answer works. It gets folks to do what they "should" rather than what they want to. (If there was no conflict between what is right and what one wanted, there would be no need for a code of morality to regulate behavior. What one wanted would be the code.) It moves the decision loop along and gets action, whereas the alternative is constant contemplation, worrying about what the "right thing" to do is.

Or alternatively, suppose you are God, (just for the sake of argument) Suppose further that you have some affection for these thinking critters running around your planet. What rules are you going to give them? Ones that get them killed and make them miserable? Or ones that will keep them alive, and help them thrive? In short, lie to them, or tell them the truth about how the world works?

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by jatay3:

If morality is just another way of saying,"whats best for us" why do people despise traitors and cowards on the enemies side?

These are good questions. I think it may have more to do with traitors and cowards IN GENERAL are bad things to have around. The guy who betrayed his boss, might just as easily betray you. The coward who won't stand up for himself, won't stand for you either.

Why is the guy who deliberatly insults you resented more than the guy who accidently inconveniences you-even though the first actually does less damage.

This is an easy one. The guy intending you ill is more of a danger than the guy who accidentially does you ill. The accident guy can have his behavior corrected far easier than the guy willing your destruction.

Now granted in specific circumstances, the accidental guy may cause more imediate death and destruction. But he does not intend it, and will quickly realize the error. The guy who intends you ill, its a lot harder for him to see it as an error.

In other words why should I care about others?

Other exist in the world you live in. Why should you care about air, or water, or that big rock hanging above your head? You have many traits in common with other folks and because of that, it is fairly easy to imagine how you would respond if someone were to take those actions against you. Would you like the effect?

And those others have made it inconvient for you to steal from them, by the imposition of laws, courts, jails, and ultimately the gallows. You want to avoid those, you have to avoid those actions that will lead to those results.

As an added point, take a look at Ricardo's law of comparative advantages.

Or is it an instinct to care about others?

Hmm... this is a good question and I can't say I have a satisfactory answer. The nature of instinct is that it is sub conscious, part of the hard wiring of the brain. But being subconscious, it is difficult to determine what is, and is not an instinctive behavior.

I do know that some others I care about, and I find pleasure in that concern, of helping them out.

Yet if that is true why the need for a moral code which is usually noticed when it requires supressing instincts(what is good is also what we want it becomes academic).

You are assuming that running on instinct will always lead to what is best for the individual. That ain't always the case. Plus, as noted before, due to the subconscious nature of instinct, it is difficult to debug, or differentiate between what is instinct and what is a desire that comes from elsewhere in our minds.

Also, living with other people, and creating a civilization is in effect creating an artifical environment. Our early ancestors did not come from the cities, but the plains of Africa. We had to build cities, and adapt to that new environment we had created. One would not wear a parka in the Sahara (well during the day.) Why not? It would be stifling hot. One has to adapt to the environment one finds himself in. Or else.

And doesn't human history make one suspicious of the strength of our inate desire to do what is best for one another?

You may be asking the wrong person. And I could write an entire other article on the opposing views of selfishness versus altruism. [For one, you have an information problem in that you usually will not know what will make someone happy, without them telling you. If you don't know what they want or need, how can you provide it for them?] But I will note, if our desire to do 'what is best for one another' is to be questioned, and if that desire is instinctive, you've got far more problems with your argument. In essense that is part of my case for codified morality.

Instinct can be mistaken, and other desires can be mistaken for instinct. It is far less reliable than other means of thinking.

Finally on what basis is it decided what is "best" for humanity, as on your argument there is no "best".

It does not have to be best, just better.

But seriously folks, that has to be decided by you. What is best for you. What won't turn so many folks against you, who, in their own self defense won't rise up and kill you. Or steal from you, or rape you, or even be rude to you.

What is best for me, may not work out as best for you. While we are both human beings, we do have differences in talent, ability, tastes, and desires. We can work within those commonalities that all humans share to develope what is "best" for humanity as a whole, but it leaves a lot of stuff on the sidelines that we will have to deal with as individuals.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by jatay3:
And by what solid and objectivly verifyable argument should I refuse to "kill, rob, rape, etc". Is it better for others? But why do I care about others? Is it better for my own self-interest? Not necessarily.

I would argue that it is, in general, better for you AND others, if everyone, including you, obeyed the rules. If you are known as a rapist, murderer, or theif, people will react to you differently than if you are none of those things. That change in environment is, generally speaking, highly agreeable. Murderers, rapist and theives are threats to the well being of others, and as such, those others will take defensive actions. That can be catastrophic for yourself.

"Logical and objectively verifiable argument" is about chains of corallaries. A=B and C=A therefore B=C. Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all thy heart and soul and mind and love thy neighbor as thyself-therefore thou shalt not steal. The coralary hinges on what is self-evident. If you deny that something is self-evident debate is impossible has been reached. But what if nothing is self-evident?

I am not quite sure where you are going.

My car is green. To me that is a self evident statement of fact. So are the laws of cause and effect, that form the basis for the concept of evolution. You don't believe me, well look for yourself.

So my first response to this would be, what if the sky were green, or yellow, or some other color but blue? We don't live in that world, so how is the question even relevant.

But I suspect you would find this a poor answer and so would I.

People, humans, it has been my experience, may try to argue all sorts of potential and hypotheticals. Soem folks may never listen to logic, or reason, or even the divine word. But ultimately they have to live their lives, and you yours. If they pose a threat to your life, you have to deal with that threat. If not, you let them figure it out for themselves. You cannot force a person to agree with you, only force him to act as if he does. And if it just pretending, you have put yourself in a less than ideal situation.

You do hit upon one of the reasons why such discussions seem so commonplace. A lot of folks won't listen. And will do as they damn well please, come hell or high water. All you can really do is get out of their way. (You can observe them and learn from their mistakes.)

Well there goes the argument as well, for you are trying to disprove the foundation of reason and hence you are trying to disprove reason.

I am trying to do no such thing.

Historically, morality has been the realm of religion. Religion is not an appeal to reason, to logic, it is an appeal to authority. It has a completely different epistemological foundation. What I have attempted to do is to illustrate how such "irrationally derived" moral codes actually do have a rational or logical basis.

I think it is because of the connection between religion and morality, and the philosophical argument that "God is dead" that has led to a refutation of morality in general. You see it in the "do what feels good" attitude from a few years back. And the effect of that "moral decay" has been a bad thing. But folks who do not believe in God, have no reason to accept God's teachings concerning morality. The effect of this rejection can be catastrophic for the individual, as well as society as a whole.

The fact that many cultural taboos, such as say, mixing cotton with silk, or eating meat on Friday, gets mixed in and called "moral" adds to that confusion.

Reason cannot exist on it's own. It needs faith to back it up. Faith in what? Seek and Ye shall find.

If faith backs up reason, I see no problem. When faith is opposed to reason, then you have a problem. Which do you go for? More importantly, how does that affect your actions?

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by jatay3:
Perhaps so but it can't rest on a religion that was obviously made for the states benefit like the "Orange Catholic Bible", or the Caesar worship or "Reason Goddess" of the French Revoulution. The states got on okay but their "religions" didn't. They were extremly incompetant at being hypocrites.
To be a good liar you have to be believable.

And on the other hand, you have the Catholic church of the middle ages, who became the power behind the throne in most of Europe. You have the Eastern Orthydox church, which survived as a significant political force, until the fall of Constantinople.

And the Catholic church held sway until Martin Luther came along. One of the reasons for his popularity was the fact that it would free the local governments from Rome's influence.

So the question I have is what collection of memes led to their survival, while many others religions have fallen by the wayside, and cease to be major cultural or political forces? It is a topic for a discertation to be sure.

I do have one clue. Recently on the History channel they were discussing the conversion of the Germanic and Scandinavian countries. One point that was made was that the Norse religion promised Ragnirok, which sounds a bit like a bummer. Christianity offered a different kind of heavenly afterlife, and that help make it more appealing to the Norse tribes.

People just want to live and be happy. Whoever has the bigger, better deal is going to win out. Those that are the most right, whose dictates and theories more closely match reality as observed by anyone, has a distinct advantage.