Where is the outrage from religious moderates?

[barmar]

A century ago, when Einstein figured out Special and General Relativity, some people might (and probably did) wonder "That's interesting, but what is it useful for?". At the time, they probably couldn't have come up with a good answer -- it was just knowledge for knowledge's sake. But it turns out that we have to take the effects of Relativity into account in GPS systems -- they depend on timing between the satellites and the receivers, and the different speeds of clocks, as predicted by Einstein, must be adjusted for.

 

Whether the discoveries of science are the "true reality" of the universe is a difficult philosophical problem. But the practical nature of them is clear: we can make accurate predictions from them, which allows us to do things. Statements about nature that come from religion generally can't solve similar problems. In some cases, religious tenets have directly contradicted actual facts (e.g. when the Church continued to preach that Earth was the center of the universe), and it's practically impossible to get useful results when your premises are false.

 

There is a way in which religion can solve problems, though. People have psychological needs, and many people find that religion and/or spirituality fills those needs. Science is mostly good for fulfilling material needs. Many people do find that pharmaceuticals, developed by science, can solve their psychological needs, but this is often frowned upon except in extreme cases.

 

Most things that are good in moderation become wrong when taken to extremes.

[kenberg]

A century ago, when Einstein figured out Special and General Relativity, some people might (and probably did) wonder "That's interesting, but what is it useful for?". At the time, they probably couldn't have come up with a good answer -- it was just knowledge for knowledge's sake. But it turns out that we have to take the effects of Relativity into account in GPS systems -- they depend on timing between the satellites and the receivers, and the different speeds of clocks, as predicted by Einstein, must be adjusted for.

 

Whether the discoveries of science are the "true reality" of the universe is a difficult philosophical problem. But the practical nature of them is clear: we can make accurate predictions from them, which allows us to do things. Statements about nature that come from religion generally can't solve similar problems. In some cases, religious tenets have directly contradicted actual facts (e.g. when the Church continued to preach that Earth was the center of the universe), and it's practically impossible to get useful results when your premises are false.

 

There is a way in which religion can solve problems, though. People have psychological needs, and many people find that religion and/or spirituality fills those needs. Science is mostly good for fulfilling material needs. Many people do find that pharmaceuticals, developed by science, can solve their psychological needs, but this is often frowned upon except in extreme cases.

 

Most things that are good in moderation become wrong when taken to extremes.

 

 

I see it much your way, or at least so it sounds. How should I live my life? Science and reason might help me in carrying out a plan, but really they are pretty much useless for the fundamental choices. It's a bit of a pickle. I simply do not believe that there is any God, any supernatural being, with authority to supply me with even a hint of an answer about how to live. Still, all in all, many religions suggest answers, though I do not accept their authority, that would benefit mankind as a whole if they were followed (and very definitely some religions have some suggestions that are not so great). How to choose? Existence precedes essence, Sartre tells us (the 1950s were my formative years). Or Man defines himself, is the way I might put it. Not that such a formulation helps all that much. Frogs never (so I assume) reflect on how their actions impact other frogs either now or in the future. But I am not a frog.

 

Religion goes most wrong, I think, when it is most certain it is right. People without religion can also make that error, I know some of them, but they are usually blessedly disorganized. Except when they aren't.

 

We choose, no way around that.

[mikeh]

I think there is a useful distinction to be made between philosophy and religion. A philosophy can and should attempt to set out a basis upon which we can proceed to live our lives. A philosophy can allow us to decide that a 'good' life requires kindness to others, selflessness, compassion and indeed every idea that we see as morally correct. Of course religion can as well.

 

However, a philosophy will at least attempt to explain and justify its tenets based on reason, logic and, dare I say, observed evidence.

 

Religion can espouse similar moral values (whether we see them, in any particular case, as 'good' or 'bad') but does so by imposition of them, usually accompanied by threats and the inducement of fear. Thus when I was a young catholic-in-training, going to Sunday School, the notion of sin, and punishment for sin was a stick intended to scare us into compliance with the commands of those in power within the church.

 

I suspect that the Mycrofts of the world practice a far gentler, less coercive form of religion that the ones I usually address in my criticisms, and I suspect that if all religions were mycroftian ones (to coin a phrase), I'd be less concerned that we ought to differentiate between philosophies, as guides to living, and religions. I'd still far prefer a reality based guide to morality than any system of belief that is founded on irrationality, but the differences in practice would likely be minimal.

 

One does not need a god or god figure to work out that treating others as one would want to be treated is a smart approach to life (other than, arguably, for masochists). Equally, one could readily, and without recourse to superstition, determine that an eye for an eye is no longer a valid moral approach to life, regardless of the antiquity of the proposition, and so on.

 

I am not saying that the worst philosophy is better than the best religion...far from it. I am saying that we need not seek inspiration in superstition or revealed wisdom to find a guide to a morally good life. I also think it is far too easy a cop-out to argue that anybody 'needs' religion. People think they need it because they have been indoctrinated in it. Does any poster here, other than perhaps Fluffy, think, for example, that if Fluffy substituted any of a number of philosophies of life for his religious beliefs he would become a mass murderer?

 

When one chooses a philosophy of life, the odds are, it seems to me, that one has actually thought about it to some degree and arrived at conscious moral choices. When one gets one's morals from a hierarchical religion, then there is a real danger that one will unthinkingly follow the powerful, within the religion, even when they direct conduct that is contrary to the professed values of the church. Thus members of a religion which numbers as a commandment that thou shalt not kill happily slaughter thousands of people. Adherents to a religion that espouses the turning of the cheek routinely endorse capital punishment. Adherents to a religion that says the meek shall inherit the earth routinely enrich tele-evangelists who scam them out of their money. Adherents to a religion that says one should love one's neighbour send missionaries to Africa to preach hatred and persecution of people born homosexual.

 

Why? Because the leaders of the sects in question have the power over their followers that flows from training people from early childhood to not think for themselves, to not form their own value system, but to accept the values of those in power. I don't think that such is likely to arise within a society in which people are invited to form their own value judgements based on a discussion of morality devoid of the concept of revealed truth.

[Trinidad]

Existence precedes essence, Sartre tells us (the 1950s were my formative years). Or Man defines himself, is the way I might put it. Not that such a formulation helps all that much. Frogs never (so I assume) reflect on how their actions impact other frogs either now or in the future. But I am not a frog.

But Sartre was. ;)

 

Rik

[mike777]

I think there is a useful distinction to be made between philosophy and religion. A philosophy can and should attempt to set out a basis upon which we can proceed to live our lives. A philosophy can allow us to decide that a 'good' life requires kindness to others, selflessness, compassion and indeed every idea that we see as morally correct. Of course religion can as well.

 

However, a philosophy will at least attempt to explain and justify its tenets based on reason, logic and, dare I say, observed evidence.

 

Religion can espouse similar moral values (whether we see them, in any particular case, as 'good' or 'bad') but does so by imposition of them, usually accompanied by threats and the inducement of fear. Thus when I was a young catholic-in-training, going to Sunday School, the notion of sin, and punishment for sin was a stick intended to scare us into compliance with the commands of those in power within the church.

 

I suspect that the Mycrofts of the world practice a far gentler, less coercive form of religion that the ones I usually address in my criticisms, and I suspect that if all religions were mycroftian ones (to coin a phrase), I'd be less concerned that we ought to differentiate between philosophies, as guides to living, and religions. I'd still far prefer a reality based guide to morality than any system of belief that is founded on irrationality, but the differences in practice would likely be minimal.

 

One does not need a god or god figure to work out that treating others as one would want to be treated is a smart approach to life (other than, arguably, for masochists). Equally, one could readily, and without recourse to superstition, determine that an eye for an eye is no longer a valid moral approach to life, regardless of the antiquity of the proposition, and so on.

 

I am not saying that the worst philosophy is better than the best religion...far from it. I am saying that we need not seek inspiration in superstition or revealed wisdom to find a guide to a morally good life. I also think it is far too easy a cop-out to argue that anybody 'needs' religion. People think they need it because they have been indoctrinated in it. Does any poster here, other than perhaps Fluffy, think, for example, that if Fluffy substituted any of a number of philosophies of life for his religious beliefs he would become a mass murderer?

 

When one chooses a philosophy of life, the odds are, it seems to me, that one has actually thought about it to some degree and arrived at conscious moral choices. When one gets one's morals from a hierarchical religion, then there is a real danger that one will unthinkingly follow the powerful, within the religion, even when they direct conduct that is contrary to the professed values of the church. Thus members of a religion which numbers as a commandment that thou shalt not kill happily slaughter thousands of people. Adherents to a religion that espouses the turning of the cheek routinely endorse capital punishment. Adherents to a religion that says the meek shall inherit the earth routinely enrich tele-evangelists who scam them out of their money. Adherents to a religion that says one should love one's neighbour send missionaries to Africa to preach hatred and persecution of people born homosexual.

 

Why? Because the leaders of the sects in question have the power over their followers that flows from training people from early childhood to not think for themselves, to not form their own value system, but to accept the values of those in power. I don't think that such is likely to arise within a society in which people are invited to form their own value judgements based on a discussion of morality devoid of the concept of revealed truth.

 

If you don't believe The God or any God exists fair enough.

 

See Pascal

[mikeh]

If you don't believe The God or any God exists fair enough.

 

See Pascal

you've referred to pascal before. As many have noted, his ideas were somewhat flawed :P

[helene_t]

. But I am not a frog.

 

But Sartre was. ;)

Possibly, but actually the British nickname for the French is a bit ironic:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/15/wiltshire-dig-frogs-legs-eaten-british-before-french

[kenberg]

If the French and the English wish to dispute which culture first discovered the joy of eating frogs, I am most happy to sit on the sidelines and hold their toppers and berets while they fight it out.

[barmar]

Religion can espouse similar moral values (whether we see them, in any particular case, as 'good' or 'bad') but does so by imposition of them, usually accompanied by threats and the inducement of fear. Thus when I was a young catholic-in-training, going to Sunday School, the notion of sin, and punishment for sin was a stick intended to scare us into compliance with the commands of those in power within the church.

 

Part of the problem with statements like this is that "religion" has a wide variety of meanings. There are strict, organized religions that impose many requirements and pronouncements on the members, like Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, and Fundamental Islam. But there's also the opposite extreme of personal spirituality. In the middle there are moderate forms, like Buddhism, Conservative Judaism, and Unitarianism. (I may be wrong in some of my characterizations, I'm not a comparative religion expert, but I hope you get the gist.)

 

So when you paint all religion with one brush, you're going to miss the mark with many people who consider themselves religious.

[blackshoe]

Possibly, but actually the British nickname for the French is a bit ironic:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/15/wiltshire-dig-frogs-legs-eaten-british-before-french

Two comments: Toads are not frogs, and maybe those folks at Stonehenge were French tourists. B-)

[mikeh]

Part of the problem with statements like this is that "religion" has a wide variety of meanings. There are strict, organized religions that impose many requirements and pronouncements on the members, like Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, and Fundamental Islam. But there's also the opposite extreme of personal spirituality. In the middle there are moderate forms, like Buddhism, Conservative Judaism, and Unitarianism. (I may be wrong in some of my characterizations, I'm not a comparative religion expert, but I hope you get the gist.)

 

So when you paint all religion with one brush, you're going to miss the mark with many people who consider themselves religious.

I used the word 'usually' and I stick by it. The fact that minority sects such as Unitarians, who would likely have been executed by their co-religionists, for denying the divinity of Jesus, during much of the past 2 millennia, don't worship some monster of their imagination, but (rather) a fairly benign, hands-off creator entity doesn't make my usage inappropriate. Virtually all large and most fringe sects in Xianity use fear as a tool for instilling obedience.

 

I suspect that even Unitarians have subtle coercive measures at play, such as fostering a sense of community (which sounds and often would be 'nice') that punishes, by expressions of disapproval ranging up to exclusion from the group should one not comply with the doctrine of the church. I think all 'groups' inevitably do that, and that it is simply part of our being a social animal so I am not being critical of any group that does that. It is, as best as I can tell, one of the things that makes a group a group.

 

Buddhists are in a different category, as best as I can tell. They do not worship an anthropomorphic entity as god.

 

But even Buddhism, usually shown as a pacifist belief system, other than as portrayed in the Kung Fu television series of yesteryear, has some dubious elements. The Chinese seem definitely to have been in the wrong when they invaded Tibet, but at the same time, the regime they invaded was a fairly rigid and, for the peasants, tough theocracy, where there was little freedom and no democracy (not that those problems disappeared with the invasion, of course). The dalai lama seems like a very 'good' guy, but the regime over which he was to rule was pretty nasty by western standards. Sort of like the new pope, who has gotten a free pass from a non-critical media, but whose core beliefs, including a belief in demonic possession and the exorcism thereof, and the lust to create saints, are very much redolent of medieval Catholicism. Nice on the outside...just don't look too closely at what he does, or in the case of the dalai lama, would do with power.

 

I can't really say much at all about conservative Judaism, but what little Wikipedia told me didn't exactly suggest that they disavow the god of the Torah. Who remains one of the vilest characters that the human imagination has ever created: far worse than Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot rolled into one.

 

I don't expect any member of a mainstream branch of any religion to ever agree with me. I would love to think that somebody, sometime, is going to ask themselves 'why have I been believing all this stuff? What on earth made me think that any of it was real?' but to think that anything I write would have that effect would require a greater suspension of disbelief than would be required for me to start worshipping anyone's god...and that ain't happening any time soon.

[Vampyr]

I used the word 'usually' and I stick by it. The fact that minority sects such as Unitarians, who would likely have been executed by their co-religionists, for denying the divinity of Jesus, during much of the past 2 millennia, don't worship some monster of their imagination, but (rather) a fairly benign, hands-off creator entity doesn't make my usage inappropriate. Virtually all large and most fringe sects in Xianity use fear as a tool for instilling obedience.

 

I suspect that even Unitarians have subtle coercive measures at play, such as fostering a sense of community (which sounds and often would be 'nice') that punishes, by expressions of disapproval ranging up to exclusion from the group should one not comply with the doctrine of the church. I think all 'groups' inevitably do that, and that it is simply part of our being a social animal so I am not being critical of any group that does that. It is, as best as I can tell, one of the things that makes a group a group.

 

Who are the co-religionists of Unitarians? Are you suggesting that they are Christians? They are not, and as far as people disagreeing with their doctrine, I am not sure they have any. Certainly the Universalist Unitarians in the US are pretty clear that members can believe whatever they want about a god or gods. Atheists are in the majority, but I really don't think that any pressure is brought to bear on believers.

[mikeh]

Who are the co-religionists of Unitarians? Are you suggesting that they are Christians? They are not, and as far as people disagreeing with their doctrine, I am not sure they have any. Certainly the Universalist Unitarians in the US are pretty clear that members can believe whatever they want about a god or gods. Atheists are in the majority, but I really don't think that any pressure is brought to bear on believers.

Wikipedia, never a completely reliable source, I concede, makes it seem pretty clear that they believe in the same god as do mainstream Christians, but see Jesus as divinely inspired but not actually part of god. I think this is a fine distinction that maybe makes them non-Christians in one sense, but since they appear to believe that Jesus was speaking for god (if only by way of inspiration) they definitely appear to be a form or outgrowth from Christianity. I have nothing invested in this view and would have no problem accepting that I (and Wikipedia) are wrong. I like to think that I generally like to learn when I am wrong, but I suspect that in at least some areas I am no less vulnerable to bias and prejudice as are others :D

[mike777]

fwiw if you accept that humans are 100% fully nature rather than supernatural beings do you accept that something called "conscious" exists?

 

If so how do you define and measure it??

[mikeh]

fwiw if you accept that humans are 100% fully nature rather than supernatural beings do you accept that something called "conscious" exists?

 

If so how do you define and measure it??

I think the reason I never seem to understand your posts, and maybe vice versa, is that while we write in the same language, we have fundamentally different views of the world. You seem, for example, to think that the supernatural, as an explanation, is the default state and that in order to reject it, I must have a non-supernatural explanation for everything. I concede that your view is very popular with a lot of people. However, I reject it utterly.

 

Unlike a lot of people, I and (I think) most secularists and rationalists are quite comfortable with the notion that there are aspects of the universe that we, as individuals and as a species, do not understand. There are far fewer of them, for us as a species, than there used to be, but we are barely scratching at the surface of the unknown. I mean, just when cosmology was starting to look like it was yielding to our intellects (not mine, but those of some very smart people working in the field), along came dark matter and dark energy :P Well, not really....they were there all along but had not yet come to our attention.

 

Where you see room for and maybe grounds for belief in the supernatural, I see questions that need answering.

 

So I can't really define consciousness, but I see no reason, based on that state of ignorance, to invoke a silly answer. You do. You might want to think about that. While you are at it, rather than recycle that rather fatuous Pascal trope you seem to think is so deep and clever, google 'The God of the Gaps'. I think you'll recognize yourself.

[mike777]

If you believe that humans are 100% fully nature ok.

 

If you cannot define and measure conscious ok.

 

that is the start of a discussion.

 

If we cannot define and measure it, then perhaps conscious does not exist, then perhaps morality is what? At the very least can we agree that morality is not based on something that does not exist.

---

 

clearly you find Pascal a fatuous trope, that pretty much ends Pascal discussion. Trust me I have heard the name calling all before.\

Pascal's analysis of human anxiety and his subsequent relationship to religion is tied up with his status as a modern.

 

In a sense we are lucky to suffer from the anxiety of Pascal.

 

Modernity gives us the freedom of anxiety.

[mike777]

Speaking of modern morality and modern law.

 

 

If for sake of discussion in the Western World we accept the "ten commandments " as the start of a debate.

 

 

Most of us are lucky to tell you 3 of them, most of us have no idea what the ten are.

 

Yet this is the basis of law and morality.

[Winstonm]

One assumption made is that only the highest order (i.e., humans) is self-aware. Observers of the great apes and other animal species have seen when a mate dies what appears closely aligned to grief reactions of humans. To claim only human consciousness is a disprovable contention.

 

For example, the so-called mirror test, developed by psychologist Gordon Gallup in 1970, is a test of self-awareness in babies and animals. A colored dot is placed on the face of a baby or an animal subject positioned in front of a mirror. If the subject recognizes that the dot in the mirror is the same as the one on its own body, it is said to be self-aware. Babies show self-awareness after about 8 months of age. Animals such as chimpanzees, dolphins and even octopi show it, too.

 

My premise is simple: any explanation that is knowledge-based (i.e. reality-based, based on known or unknown natural laws) is automatically superior by an infinite magnitude any explanation that claims actions of a supernatural and unverifiable source. (To be clear, gravity is an unknown natural law - we can describe what happens because of gravity but we cannot explain the mechanics of gravity or its cause.)

 

Consciousness is no more scientifically perplexing as are smell and color. We have no clue as to how the brain transfers nerve signals into certain smells or colors or whether an orange looks and smells the same way to each person. We could say this conversion is magical, but is that really an answer?

 

It seems to me that the power of any supernatural being has diminished over time commiserate with the increase of human knowledge - why going forward that should change does not make logical sense, to me, just as assuming the sun will not rise tomorrow is a long-shot bet, at best. It seems to me that holding to old arguments and old ideas about magical solutions is similar to a bet against sunrise.

 

As for the consciousness debate, modern neuroscience is discovering more and more about the brain and how to duplicate previously-thought extraordinary experiences that have been claimed by the religious as proof of an unnatural world that co-exits with the natural world. One of the strongest arguments against that religious claim is that consciousness is physiologically-dependent, i.e., when the plug is pulled on the body consciousness dies with it, somewhat like a computer program is dependent on the operating system. If the OS crashes, so does BBO on that computer. This conclusion is evidence-based to a degree. Modern neuroscience has been able to track brain activity of the conscious and the coma patient and to a degree map brain areas that are active when we are conscious. There is at least a correlation between electrical activity in certain areas of the brain and known consciousness - the argument against this is that consciousness must be separate from the body and thus this correlation is meaningless.

 

In my view, it is more likely to be a cause/effect relationship than a magical, meaningless one.

 

I think there is a good case to be made for increased human self-awareness and natural selection - the larger the brain size relative to the body the more capacity for other uses; the more need to be self-aware, as in humans needing to lure and keep a mate and grow a family and thus perpetuate species, the more need for self-awareness. It would seem to me that a natural explanation for the development of self-awareness (what we deem consciousness) could indeed have been a piecemeal development over generations.

[Winstonm]

duplicate

[gwnn]

That there is consciousness is not a contentious issue. The only question is, what exactly is it? Many people think (covertly) that there is a homunculus inside their Cartesian theatre, taking wholly autonomous decisions. When pressed on how this does not lead to an infinite regression (ever smaller homunculi but each with the same function as the next larger), they either shrug, or say with disdain "it just doesn't OK? The soul is a magic place, and your fancy pants logic need not apply! Besides, quantum mechanics! So I don't have to define or describe any of these terms, it is just magic." No, sorry, if you explain an slippery concept as consciousness with a completely mysterious and undefined concept as the "immaterial soul," you have done worse than nothing. The only viable route is to explain consciousness as an emergent property of a nearly infinite ensemble of non-conscious elements. Anything other than that, as far as I'm concerned, is just woowoo.

[kenberg]

If you believe that humans are 100% fully nature ok.

 

If you cannot define and measure conscious ok.

 

that is the start of a discussion.

 

If we cannot define and measure it, then perhaps conscious does not exist, then perhaps morality is what? At the very least can we agree that morality is not based on something that does not exist.

---

 

clearly you find Pascal a fatuous trope, that pretty much ends Pascal discussion. Trust me I have heard the name calling all before.\

Pascal's analysis of human anxiety and his subsequent relationship to religion is tied up with his status as a modern.

 

In a sense we are lucky to suffer from the anxiety of Pascal.

 

Modernity gives us the freedom of anxiety.

 

There is a difference between being conscious and unconscious and we should not distort words in a way that ignores the distinction.

 

But I want to address "At the very least can we agree that morality is not based on something that does not exist."

 

Actually I think that is pretty much exactly what we do.When philosphical push comes to shove, it's my opinion that there is no solid basis for morality.

 

I keep meaning to look up the exact quote someday, but I am sure Dostoyevsky went on about how if there is no God the everything is possible, repe murder, whatever. He might have noted, but I think did not, that widespread belief in a God has not exactly prevented these horrors.

 

In a nutshell, I choose and I alone hold the responsibility for the results of my actions. No God to rescue me or to punish me, no Savior to forgive me. I am conscious, I make choices, my choices have consequences, that's it.

 

I quoted your entire post rather than just the part I am responding to because you get upset otherwise.

 

In a way, this goes back to the OP. Where is the outrage? I am not outraged. Judge me as you will, I'm not outraged.

[mikeh]

Speaking of modern morality and modern law.

 

 

If for sake of discussion in the Western World we accept the "ten commandments " as the start of a debate.

 

 

Most of us are lucky to tell you 3 of them, most of us have no idea what the ten are.

 

Yet this is the basis of law and morality.

The 10 commandments are not the basis of law and morality. Try reading some history for a change. It might open that shuttered mind you have. Minor hint: look up Hammurabi and compare to the (fictitious) timeline claimed for those who believe in the historical accuracy of the OT. Bear in mind that even a modicum of research will lead you to compelling arguments to the effect that the entire Moses thing is a fantasy, since it seems pretty clear that the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt, which is sort of basic to the whole idea of the 10 commandments....no Egyptian captivity, no running away, and no years spent wandering in the desert before embarking on a little genocidal frolic through the promised land (which happened to belong to some neighbours, but what's a little coveting between neighbours anyway....oh...was that one of those commandments? Along with not killing? Hmmm....didn't take well, did it?

 

Reality sucks, doesn't it? Ruins all one's lovely little platitudes and uninformed opinions. However, if you want to have a real discussion, you have to deal with reality or else risk revealing profound ignorance. And there is no point having a 'discussion' with someone profoundly ignorant about the topic they wish to discuss, especially when they claim to know all the answers already.

[blackshoe]

I am not a Hebrew scholar, nor an expert on the Torah, but as I understand it, the injunction is not against killing, it's against committing murder. A minor detail in the current context, perhaps, but a detail nonetheless.

[gwnn]

A short video review on History Channel's "The Bible" miniseries has some connection to this thread. Not a lot, but it cracked me up at least.

 

[mikeh]

I am not a Hebrew scholar, nor an expert on the Torah, but as I understand it, the injunction is not against killing, it's against committing murder. A minor detail in the current context, perhaps, but a detail nonetheless.

so after winning a battle, and having the inhabitants of a city surrender, the deliberate killing of men, and in some cases women and children: that isn't murder? I guess it couldn't be, since God commanded the acts *sarcasm*

 

even if one accepts that nice distinction, it is revealing about the moral values of the giver of the commandments