While I agree this Seder guy got absolutely pantsed, I think there's a distinction between preference -- which suggests the possibility of choice -- and a seemingly self-evident sense of fairness that isn't the product of conscious choice or decision-making.
I also don't think saying "feels good" as a way to undermine whatever Seder's position is is completely fair since adherence to faith and devotion also feels good.
Yes but in seder's position and anybody that take his ideals, they don't draw any lines whether it harms another party or not. They selfishly impose their ideals on unwilling people. Not saying rellgious people aren't guilty of that either but Sam Seder and his ilk are far guiltier than any that force their own beliefs onto the rest of us. To me that's the crux of the problem, they are forcing the ideals built on shaky concepts they can't even define well enough.
Adherence to faith doesn't always feel good.
In fact, sometimes it outright sucks.
Especially when you are tempted to do something that most definitely would feel good and you don't because of that very adherence to moral doctrine (don't commit adultery, don't kill, etc).
My point is that religion is something at least some people do not because it feels good because they know deep down it is good regardless of how it feels, much like eating healthy food or exercising.
That happens with law all the time too though. It can feel bad to want to hit someone and realize there are consequences, but most of the time you recognize the good in that the law should be preventing randoms from doing the same to you or your children.
The comfort of community and belief in God and the afterlife etc. outweighs the bad overall. Impulsivity will lead to clashing with all kinds of things that mostly feel good, whether it's religion, law, romance, whatever. Just because it doesn't always feel good doesn't mean it doesn't feel good overall. I bet that's true for being gay, which was what this example was originally about.
While I agree this Seder guy got absolutely pantsed, I think there's a distinction between preference -- which suggests the possibility of choice -- and a seemingly self-evident sense of fairness that isn't the product of conscious choice or decision-making.
I also don't think saying "feels good" as a way to undermine whatever Seder's position is is completely fair since adherence to faith and devotion also feels good.
Yes but in seder's position and anybody that take his ideals, they don't draw any lines whether it harms another party or not. They selfishly impose their ideals on unwilling people. Not saying rellgious people aren't guilty of that either but Sam Seder and his ilk are far guiltier than any that force their own beliefs onto the rest of us. To me that's the crux of the problem, they are forcing the ideals built on shaky concepts they can't even define well enough.
I'll disagree.
Adherence to faith doesn't always feel good. In fact, sometimes it outright sucks. Especially when you are tempted to do something that most definitely would feel good and you don't because of that very adherence to moral doctrine (don't commit adultery, don't kill, etc).
My point is that religion is something at least some people do not because it feels good because they know deep down it is good regardless of how it feels, much like eating healthy food or exercising.
That happens with law all the time too though. It can feel bad to want to hit someone and realize there are consequences, but most of the time you recognize the good in that the law should be preventing randoms from doing the same to you or your children.
The comfort of community and belief in God and the afterlife etc. outweighs the bad overall. Impulsivity will lead to clashing with all kinds of things that mostly feel good, whether it's religion, law, romance, whatever. Just because it doesn't always feel good doesn't mean it doesn't feel good overall. I bet that's true for being gay, which was what this example was originally about.