Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Forgiveness and morality are borrowed by religion, not created or sustained by it. They like you to think they are indispensable to both, though. But religions are just part of society, not its wellspring.
I actually never said that an "eye for an eye" was about "violence."
I did mention violence in "turn the other cheek" in regards to MLK rejecting a violent response when being met with violence.
The video clearly connects "eye for an eye" to violence in the context of the Cold War, military conflict, and the near risk of nuclear war between the USA and USSR - for example applying this to the real world like their example of Stanislav Petrov.
Again, I didn't use the word "violence" nor did I use "revenge" when discussing "Eye for an eye." I used the phrase "retaliate to aggression," which does not have to be violence.
Based on the video:
In the game prisoner's dilemma after simulating many different strategies the strategy that performed best was called "tit for tat."
Tit for tat by mathematical fact can't win in a single match up of prisoner's dilemma, it can only tie or lose, but it consistently earned more coins than any other strategy over the long term when totaling match up after match up against different strategies, because it garnered better outcomes of cooperation and was not a push over.
Tit for tat:
[b](1) Starts out nice to cooperate.
(2) Only defects if the other program defects first.
(3) Quickly forgives and cooperates again if the other program goes back to cooperating.
(4) Is very clear on it's reactions. Strategies that were programmed to be random did not do as well. Programs where consequences were clear to the opponent performed better.
It was the professor himself in the video that stated that the best performing program, "tit for tat," was NOT Christian "turn the other cheek," but rather "eye for an eye."
If you think I am misinterpreting the video, I will gladly stand corrected if you can provide specifics from it.
Indeed....
....I'll try to only post when I have time so I can be more clear, which isn't often as I have a 3 year old, 1 year 10.5 month old and a 6 month old...so I am often too busy to deep think and write well.
Thank you for the clarifications, QB. Again this was a great post, a lot to contemplate, and perfect for this forum. I am sorry you were so badly misunderstood.
So the “eye for an eye” is not a defection entirely from an understanding between the parties, but a consistent willingness to quickly regroup and try again. If we are talking wars, as the prof. does, this would be using diplomacy rather than total annihilation, words rather than bombs.
Thank you for the clarifications, QB. Again this was a great post, a lot to contemplate, and perfect for this forum. I am sorry you were so badly misunderstood.
So the “eye for an eye” is not a defection entirely from an understanding between the parties, but a consistent willingness to quickly regroup and try again. If we are talking wars, as the prof. does, this would be using diplomacy rather than total annihilation, words rather than bombs.
I think that it would also involve a willingness to respond in kind, militarily if need be. That is the "don't be a push-over" part. It is why the MAD doctrine has, so far, worked -- much as I hate to admit it. Even today, even the likes of Putin's Russia understands clearly that a nuclear attack (even, to an extent, a limited tactical strike) surely means their end. And so they haven't indulged. And even they, with their immoral and opportunistic approach to everything, would only do so in such an extreme situation that they felt they had nothing at all to lose.
Where the diplomacy comes in, is as a first effort / default. And the weakness of diplomacy is that it requires both parties to negotiate in good faith. Yet it is the default, and must be pursued even in the face of past failures of diplomacy or past transgressions / betrayals of war. Military responses must be the last resort and only when the innocent are under assault. Even then they must be proportionate and not seeking the annihilation of the aggressor. One need not cast far in the modern world to see examples of proportionate and disproportionate military responses.
I think that it would also involve a willingness to respond in kind, militarily if need be. That is the "don't be a push-over" part. It is why the MAD doctrine has, so far, worked -- much as I hate to admit it. Even today, even the likes of Putin's Russia understands clearly that a nuclear attack (even, to an extent, a limited tactical strike) surely means their end. And so they haven't indulged. And even they, with their immoral and opportunistic approach to everything, would only do so in such an extreme situation that they felt they had nothing at all to lose.
Where the diplomacy comes in, is as a first effort / default. And the weakness of diplomacy is that it requires both parties to negotiate in good faith. Yet it is the default, and must be pursued even in the face of past failures of diplomacy or past transgressions / betrayals of war. Military responses must be the last resort and only when the innocent are under assault. Even then they must be proportionate and not seeking the annihilation of the aggressor. One need not cast far in the modern world to see examples of proportionate and disproportionate military responses.
Yes, agreed.
As for the immorality of actions, Russia is not the only culprit. US should do some deep introspection about the immoral wars and killings it has committed, sponsored, or supported with arms and funds. There is a lot of money to be made in arms sales and it will never stop. The whole thing is a dirty, foul, immoral situation.
This has manifested in the silencing of the constitutional right to free speech and protest demonstration with the sending in of the military machinery. It is a sad day.
As for the immorality of actions, Russia is not the only culprit. US should do some deep introspection about the immoral wars and killings it has committed, sponsored, or supported with arms and funds.
Sure, I was speaking with the Ukraine invasion specifically in mind but no the US is not pure as the driven snow in all things.
Forgiveness and morality are borrowed by religion, not created or sustained by it. They like you to think they are indispensable to both, though. But religions are just part of society, not its wellspring.
Forgiveness and morality are borrowed by religion, not created or sustained by it. They like you to think they are indispensable to both, though. But religions are just part of society, not its wellspring.
Forgiveness, compassion, mercy, generosity, all those humane feelings are inherent in us. Religion isolates them and fosters them, explains why expression of these in action is good for our mental health and happiness. That which religions say pleases God, also pleases us, because the same spirit dwells in us, we are never separate from God. It is when we move away from these principles, when we deny ourselves what is in fact our nature - goodness, kindness, non-violence, forgiveness, that we feel separate from God, wounded, angry, and vengeful. Suffering is the consequence. So yes religions did not create anything. It only tries to teach you to know your true nature, because it is easy to forget.*
*My thoughts are naturally influenced by my study and practice of Advaita Vedanta. However this is true of all religions although the words and expressions may be different, just like my use of the word God. The spirit behind them all is the same.
How did religions became just part of society? There must have been a need.
We humans tend to complicate matters as much as possible, when they can often be reduced down to their most basic elements, for simple and basic focus. I know I'd rather say something in a few sentences, rather than dozens of paragraphs. The more we speak adds no 'points' or shows wisdom; it just shows that we can't be can't be concise.
Forgiveness, compassion, mercy, generosity, all those humane feelings are inherent in us. Religion isolates them and fosters them, explains why expression of these in action is good for our mental health and happiness. That which religions say pleases God, also pleases us, because the same spirit dwells in us, we are never separate from God. It is when we move away from these principles, when we deny ourselves what is in fact our nature - goodness, kindness, non-violence, forgiveness, that we feel separate from God, wounded, angry, and vengeful. Suffering is the consequence. So yes religions did not create anything. It only tries to teach you to know your true nature, because it is easy to forget.*
*My thoughts are naturally influenced by my study and practice of Advaita Vedanta. However this is true of all religions although the words and expressions may be different, just like my use of the word God. The spirit behind them all is the same.
How did religions became just part of society? There must have been a need.
To begin with, I have a little difficulty finding that those humane feelings are "inherent in us", since I have known MANY people over the years that fail to demonstrate any of those humane feelings. If you believe they are inherent in us, then you'll have a hard time explaining all the wars in history (37 million people in the world have died in wars since 1800), slavery, lynchings, rapes, kidnappings, the caste system, theft, greed, and on and on.
Second, sometimes religions foster those things, and sometimes religions do just the opposite, such as supporting slavery, not to mention religious wars to convert (or kill, if they don't convert) people.
Third, by saying the bolded, you are essentially saying that religions are manmade phenomenons. Okay.
How did religions became just part of society? There must have been a need.
Religion fills a need, in fact it's well-adapted to do so. Whether it's actually effective at meeting that need or just a popular distraction from better ways of relating to reality or a fulcrum of control over people, is a separate question.
One can say the same thing about almost anything. There must have been a need for Hitler, he certainly resonated with enough Germans that it raised him up to be Chancellor, and he conquered quite a lot of territory in the process. He was part of society, too. So was his ideology. But we rightly rejected it and apart from the nutters who claim he was a great guy, still reject it.
I am not putting religion on the same level of harm as that, but I am just saying that its mere existence doesn't validate it, either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
