Posted on 08/29/2006 6:51:14 AM PDT by headsonpikes
We all know the basic alternatives that form the familiar "spectrum" of American politics and culture.
If a young person is turned off by religion or attracted by the achievements of science, and he wants to embrace a secular outlook, he is told--by both sides of the debate--that his place is with the collectivists and social subjectivists of the left. On the other hand, if he admires the free market and wants America to have a bold, independent national defense, then he is told--again, by both sides--that his natural home is with the religious right.
But what if all of this is terribly wrong? What if it's possible to hold some of the key convictions associated with the right, being pro-free-market and supporting the war, and even to do so more strongly and consistently than most on the right--but still to be secular? What if it's possible to reject the socialism subjectivism of the left and believe in the importance of morality, but without believing in God? ....
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Somewhat. I said "few" not "no" other religions have certain characteristics. I am defending a Christian basis for morality in the US. I didn't know that Buddhism was a contender. Yes, I know some claim Buddhist influences in Christianity.
I tried to start a discussion of the origin or authority for morality and had pretty much no takers.
I understand the claim to the authority of the Bible, but I see people every day who have extended their understanding of morality beyond what is required by the Bible.
For example, there is nothing in the Bible that says it is immoral to own another person as chattel or to beat the person to near death for failure to obey orders, and yet most people consider this to be immoral.
Similarly, there is no prohibition in the Bible of cruelty to animals, and yet most people cringe at the thought of hurting a dog or cat for pleasure.
. . .Wiki defines it as "the ability of an individual or group to keep their lives and personal affairs out of public view, or to control the flow of information about themselves" which seems a pretty good definition and shows how government can go too far in protecting it.
The government can only infringe upon a person's rights when that person is committing a crime and due process of law finds that person guilty.
Which is why privacy can't be considered a right.
Randian objectivism had nothing to do with the freeing of the slaves or the ending of Jim Crow.
Sorry, thought you were arguing that there is no basis for morality outside of God.
I don't deny that societies have laws and rules nor that they are necessary. I am simply pointing out that you cannot define an immutable morality through logic alone. Laws have reasons for their existence which have a logical basis and often a moral basis but the laws differ.
;-)
No, you misunderstood. Every individual in the world feels that person's self deserves to be treated well.
You need at least one other proposition to get to a conclusion. You are making an unstated assumption that you and I are in some way equivalent (a Christian notion).
Phooey to that. The Bible does not consistently uphold equality of all human beings. In the Old Testament at times foreigners were to be exterminated without mercy. They were not morally equivalent to the Jews--they could be enslaved and their children kept as slaves forever. Women were certainly inferior to men. In the New Testament things are a bit better. Women are still inferior to men, but equality is extended to gentile Christians. However, slavery is still allowed, with cautions for masters to be decent (what solace).
The proposition is that all human beings are equal. The reason for this is logic--is there any rational reason why I am inherently better than you? The only reasons I might be able to come up with are basically emotional reasons based upon my natural self-love. Rationally we are all merely human beings, none with any greater inherent worth than any other.
So starting from the premises that it is morally wrong for others to harm me and that there is no rational reason why I have any greater value than you do, we reach the conclusion that it is just as wrong for me to harm you as it is for you to harm me.
The government can also infringe upon people's rights to life, liberty, property, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to bear arms, freedom to assemble, etc. when that person commits a crime and due process is followed. Does this mean that these can't be considered rights? Of course not!
Oh really? As soon as you come up with a reason why everyone thinks slavery was bad (despite the Bible), I'm sure you will post it.
I had a Sunday school teacher that got upset with me for wanting to know why Ecclesiastes 10:19 said money was the answer for everything.
Still haven't gotten an answer to that question.
"For a Christian, God did not "suddenly disappear" but remains with the world."
I was addressing your argument not your belief.
You made the following statement:
From my perspective, in a world without God, there is no right and wrong, only actions and consequences.
That statement, as an argument, makes the assumption that God is the cause of the morals we have and if God disappeared those morals would change or become completely arbitrary. You are *not* considering a scenario where God never existed.
Now it may be that you had no intention of considering a 'Godless' world as an argument and were just throwing out your opinion that if the 'belief' in a God disappeared then humanity would have no reason to follow 'Christian principles'. If that is the case then I grant you your opinion as you granted mine.
I can see that my statement "Typical atheistic reasoning" can be construed as a slight. Believe me when I say that my intent was to let you and others know that I have heard this before and disagree with it.
Atheists are no more biased against God than theists are biased for God.
I am not sure I understand this point. "Theists" are biased in favor of the existence of God. I thought "atheists" were biased against the existence of God. Those with no bias are better described as "agnostics".
there are a number of moral tenets that cross time and culture.
No disagreement with this but I suspect there would be disagreement on the reason for it.
Where are those 'Christian principles' from?
The simple answer is from God. Of course if you don't believe in God this makes no sense and you need to come up with your own explanation.
If evolution is the driving force behind moral beliefs then those 'Christian principles' are a product of evolution. In fact, if evolution is all there is, the belief in God is an evolutionary adaptation.
You believe this, I deny it.
Remove God from the equation 'completely' and nothing would change. God, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, atheism,... would all be the product of evolution.
If you think there is no God then this could be your belief. I believe that if you "Remove God from the equation 'completely'" then everything would change. Most fundamentally, there would be no Christianity, Islam, Hindu, atheism,..., or evolution to discuss. Of course neither of us would be here discussing it so it's a moot point.
Actually it was 65 percent of those who never went to church that voted for Gore. Yes, I would call the secularists.
That doesn't support your assertion that 'The regligion of those who vote Democrat is mostly atheism'. The numbers don't add up.
What about those that don't attend church every week but attend church sometimes? You know, the ones who didn't fall into either the group who say they do and the group that say they never do? Are they secularists?
What about people who've read the Bible, never attend church, but try to live by it's tenants? Are they secularists? What about people whose religion doesn't require they attend church every week? Are they secularists?
angkor I don't see how that's at all inconsistent with what I've been saying, so unless you sharpen your argument it sounds like you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
I disagree with the idea that God and Christianity has no place in the formation of morals in the US. Your post seemed to imply that a bias toward life and against death was universal. My point is that the bias is very local. Without a religiously informed morality the local bias can and does easily tend toward death of the "other"
"Entrap"? Hardly. Just pointing out that every time you touch your keyboard on these threads, we get a half-dozen new signups. Am I supposed to tell you to stop or something? :)
This was not my statement but comes from post 96 by Protagoras
Confusion is understandable given the extent of this thread and the number of contributors. My opinions closely match those of Protagoras but not exactly.
"I disagree with the idea that God and Christianity has no place in the formation of morals in the US."
That's your mistake then, since I said nothing of the kind.
I did say that the impetus toward life and procreation, and away from death and decay, is more or less universal. There are exceptions. We recognize those exceptions as being wrong, perverse, bizarre, etc.
Religions generally support the articulation of a positive social morality, but all (OK most) are a priori based on the notion that the creation and enhancement of life is fundamental.
I guess I have to turn this around: do you think there is no universal morality outside of Christianity?
You are not alone.....
I took your first comment as an indicator that you believed being an atheist precluded objective reasoned responses. Guess I was wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.