Most people are not very aware of "Argument from Authority Fallacies", or "Appeal to Authority Fallacies". It is an easy path for someone to tell you something is true that you did not witness for yourself. It is easy for someone to wonder what happened when something unusual occurred and then push one of their ideas (speculations) of what might have happened as though that was the actual explanation. This is a pretty normal thing if you observe human nature and ever happen to be somewhere with a group of people when something strange occurred.
I have several times. I've speculated. I normally offer many different possibilities never settling on one. I also tend to say these are just me guessing and they are likely not correct. The other people present will often do the same.
I've several times been around some of these group members in the future months, years, or decades later. The strange situation came up. I then so far without fail have heard at least one of them begin recounting the tale. Yet they will have no longer viewed all the possibilities and their own idea as speculation. They now recount the story and are stating one of those speculations as fact. Nothing changed other than time...
I observe human nature. We all do. I've noticed that we like things to be simple and mentally manageable. We will think about things until we have an explanation. This explanation will let us put that in a mental box and label it. This is refreshing. Our mind can cease scrambling for understanding because we have decided that something is true.
We embrace the path to easy. Yet when it is something unusual that we cannot reliably repeat, test, etc. then those speculations cannot be called true. Yet it is common for us to treat them as if they are.
I have stated before that I am a Deist. I believe that it is likely there is a creator. I don't think that creator is anything that is presented to us as Gods. To me those are too simple. They have too many fallacies and too much human nature baggage. They also are protected by indoctrination techniques designed to trigger defense mechanisms for any challenge. To me this is a sign of someone benefitting.
I have seen religions (all of them) help someone in one way or another. Often those ways that they help are held up as why a religion is good. Yet some good things do not make a good excuse for the bad things.
If a particularly religious man volunteers for multiple causes, helps many family, has saved lives, etc. yet at home he regularly beats his wife. Those good acts do not excuse the bad ones.
For me this is true of religion.
I do think there are times religion helps and for some reason people some times cannot really seem to find morality unless some authority (religious person) tells them what that morality should be.
I'd rather have that than no morality at all.
Yet that same tendency to trust the authority figure has been abused frequently and repeatedly even by the supposedly most peaceful and loving religions.
Human nature...
The human you are trusting as an authority is just that... a human.
They often benefit from their position of authority. That doesn't mean all of them are bad. Some of them are great people. I've been friends with quite a lot of great priests, fathers, etc. (aka Religious authority figures).
The problem is that those great people do not excuse the bad people that wield that authority just as the good acts of my earlier example do not excuse beating his wife.
I am no fan of organized religion. Though I am a collector of religious texts and have been for the majority of my more than half a century life.
I can find morality and good teachings in all of them I have researched. They need those good things to survive. If they were purely negative then they would not be appealing to people. Which one appeals the most depends upon the place, the time, how your life has gone, and how the message is delivered by the authority figure.
I do not recognize the authority figures of religions as anything other than another human. I will talk to them. I'll listen to their ideas. Sometimes I even take those ideas and incorporate them into my own way of life. I simply don't think I must take everything they tell me just because some of their ideas are good. I also don't discount everything they say because I think some of their ideas are bad. I listen, I observe, and I use reason.
Does that mean I am right? No. I'm making lots of mistakes and changing my mind a lot. That is the adventure of life. The simple times are forgotten. The challenging times are remembered.
As a Deist I believe there is a creator. I said likely is a creator earlier because I do not like to lock my mind in stone. I still leave a sleight chance this is not the case. I just personally think it is highly probable there is a creator. I come to this conclusion through observing for me what is the only true bible. Reality itself. What is written into physics, biology, life, nature, and the cosmos. To me those things show signs of intelligence.
The seed for this post today was reading a comment somewhere where a person was talking about a creator and how the "big bang" didn't happen so that is proof there is a creator. I immediately thought to myself that even if there was a big bang that doesn't remove the possibility of a creator either. It may contradict some concepts of that creator in written religious texts yet that doesn't mean there is no creator. It simply means the creator as described by those particular texts is being challenged.
I was raised Christian. I've had the most intellectual discussions with Christians of many different denominations. I've studied the history of Christianity the most thoroughly. It is not the only religion I have studied as like I said I collect religious texts.
I know things that would challenge any Christian's beliefs. Yet I do not speak of them unless a person expresses interest. Why? I do think for the most part Christianity helps people. It can and has been steered in some negative directions in the past by particularly influential religious authority figures that ended up being not so good people. I've seen what people tend to be like that have no beliefs at all, and those that follow a religion. If the authority figures they listen to do not try to weaponize them against other people they usually end up being pretty positive.
For me as a Deist I will observe, and use reason. I will read religious texts. I will have discussions about philosophy, and religion. I will give people respect even if I disagree with them until they give me reason not to. Such reasons usually occur if their go to becomes to ad hominem, or otherwise attack my character, or others. When they start trying to insult, discount sources completely, or latch onto single words to use as mental escape hatches (aka excuses for why they don't need to talk anymore). At that point my respect will be gone. That doesn't mean it cannot be recovered. I don't believe in treating people as forever damned. We all change our minds. We all hopefully welcome growth as a person. We all make mistakes. If that is the case then I can't really see treating people as though there is no path to redemption.
Morality - For me morality can be pretty simple. I don't need a religious authority figure to convince me. I just need to think about it... use reason.
Good = Building, being constructive, supporting life, creating, respecting the right of other people to make their own choices and be responsible for the consequences of those choices
Evil = Destroying, Forcing People either physically or coercively
Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "Treat other people the way you WANT to be treated".
That last one is important and predates Christianity by a long time. There are versions of it in texts in ancient Egypt.
Why is it important?
It says to treat people the way you WANT to be treated. It does not say treat people the way they ARE treating you.
That latter is closer to an "Eye for an eye".
Eye for an eye would leave the world blind.
The golden rule is not about how YOU are treated. It is about how you WANT to be treated.
I think a lot of people miss that.
I'll see some supposedly quite religious people often saying how "now it is our turn to do X" with X being some bad thing that has been done to them. If they've been persecuted or censored. They might advocate persecuting or censoring the others.
That is eye for an eye. That is not the golden rule.
The golden rule is difficult to do in some cases. Like I said before we like to try for the easy path. Difficult is often the better choice and more rewarding. It's pretty easy to be evil. It's not always so easy to be good.
I think there is one other thing that sums up my morality.
Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
I will not initiate aggression. That does not mean I will not respond to aggression and defend myself or others.
There is a risk with the NAP I've recognized in the last decade. It can be easy to be near sighted. People can get so fixated on the NAP that they only pay attention to overt in your face aggression.
If the fist is coming, the gun is fired, etc. Then they feel free to defend.
We need 20/20 vision because not all aggression and threats are overt and in your face.
You must realize that if you are standing on a foundation and someone is knocking out all of the pillars holding up that foundation one at a time that eventually that foundation will collapse with you standing upon it. They never threw a punch, never aimed an overt weapon at you, and if your NAP is near sighted you will be destroyed.
Aggression is not just short distance. If people are passing laws that will strip away your ability to defend yourself, shelter yourself, feed yourself, heal yourself, or educate yourself then isn't that worse than being punched in the face?
I embrace the NAP. Yet I try to keep my mental vision with regards to it as close to 20/20 as I can.
Here is my morality again... quick and simple...
- Creating things is good.
- Respect the right of other people to make choices and be responsible for their own choices.
- Destroying things is not always good. It is also far easier than creating things.
- Forcing other people physically or through coercion is evil.
- Treat other people the way you want to be treated.
- Non-Aggression Principle.
- Observe and use Reason.
I titled this "The Creator Said... And God Said..."
To me the language of the creator is far beyond such words. It is ALWAYS another human that tells us such things.
Much like a politician they say "Trust me... I am speaking the truth..."
Perhaps they are. Yet I don't think the creator is as simple as they so far have been presenting them. To me that is the work of man. I still see value in the philosophical journey and I will listen to them. I simply do not recognize their authority to dictate "truth".