Posted on 11/30/2002 7:42:38 AM PST by A. Pole
Allocating one of your three sentences to a back handed insult is only an indication of your own discomfort. Do it again and it's an indication that you're unable to defend your claims thoughtfully.
Regarding your earlier question as I understand it, observation and reason is the tool for developing a moral framework. The "guide" as you say, can be any number of things, starting with parents, experience and education (including historical outcomes of "trial-and-error").
Care to elaborate some comparison between those "most religions".
Let me start with couple examples to start you going:
Christ said:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect(Mat 5:43-48)
Confucius said:
Someone said, "What do you say concerning the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness?" The Master said, "With what then will you recompense kindness? Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness." ( Analects XIV.36)
Muhhammad teachings were again different, see the analysis and samples at:
The Hardening of Muhammad
I would say that humans were created knowing right from wrong, therefore the source of my morals is God.
Sure.
Now, about redirecting a belief system to encompass both society and economics is a whole other thing
Seems to me that that is the fatal mistake the sand-maggots made and continue to make...
I wouldn't even go there.
The Bible describes these events, and as a Christian I do believe the Bible. However, I think the philosophical Moral Argument, while not without its problems, is quite compelling.
For instance if someone is drowing and you can help, you know you should, but why? Perhaps it is a "herd instict" that tells you to help, but what is the "voice" in your head that tell you it is right to help and wrong to let the person drown. The "voice," your conscience, is not the herd instict, but something different because it does not force you to help, it just tells you that the should because it right
I beg to differ. My question ("...is it only a process of becoming comfortable with yourself?") is in earnest. You see, as one maps out an ethical framework in a Godless world, one necessarily has to have criteria by which to decide what to include, and what to reject. Your primary criterion ("'good' is that which promotes greater actualization of that universe through it's highest known aspect: life, human life") can only be interpreted subjectively by the individual. Therefore, even the most honest and stringent self-disciplinarian could well reach a point in this process where he says "I don't know all the answers, but I am comfortable with the ethics that I have constructed for myself thus far, and can be content with living within them."
And there he rests, having individually taken his best shot at "...that which promotes greater actualization of that universe through it's highest known aspect: life, human life."
What are we to think of such an individual? Are we even qualified to hold an opinion of such an individual? Remember, this is Godless space, and so our judgments carry no more weight than our own chutzpah can bring to bear. He has completed a rigorous process of self-examination, honest inquiry, and discipline, and ends up with no better assurance of having moved toward the collective ideal of "good" than having become comfortable with himself.
Speaking of which, there's a point that I failed to bring up before when it was more appropriate, but cannot bear to let it pass unnoticed... earlier you said explicitly that human life is the highest known aspect of our universe. That strikes me as an awfully egocentric thing to say in a Godless cosmos. Why should one complex electrochemical process consider itself "higher" than another?
Are you claiming the authors words, that I quoted at post #35, have a different meaning to you, than to me? Care to comment on #35 in words that we both can understand?
Hmm, you responded to:
"All great political causes have failed."
"I don't believe that our cause, that of a Constitutional Republic, - has failed, - yet."
Yes, it did not fail yet. But judging from the context by the "great political causes" the author did no mean the constitutional structure of American Republic.
He was writing of America. From the quote:
-- "liberal reform in America has at least for a time passed away, leaving stubborn injustices and widespread cynicism; conservatism has come to stand for an illogical combination of market economics and truculent nationalism."
__________________________________
Religion has no direct role to play in our government, by the choice of our founders, who knew its political dangers. Let us all pray that it stays that way.
Why would you PRAY, and to Whom?! Do you claim that this republic requires prayers and Divine support to last? You seem to contradict yourself.
Not at all. You want to play a word game with the meaning of the word 'pray'. As you noted in your first comment above, look to my context.
BTW, the founders did not want to exclude/separate the religion from the state - they only wanted to prevent the Establishment of a particular church as a state religion. A very big difference.
Yes they did intend to 'separate'. They forbid congress from making law that respects such establishments. -- They also wanted to prevent the establishment of any particular religion as being sponsored by government.
- I agree of course, they did not intend to 'exclude' religion, as is obvious by the prohibiting line of the 1st.
They believed after Montesquieu and others, that a free republic is based on the laws, that laws are based on the good customs/morals and that good customs are based on religion. A free and virtuous society has its foundation in the religion, even if indirectly perhaps.
I have no objection to those ideas. I even agree in principle, as per my 'golden rule' comments on another post here.
-- But, imo, the founders did want to separate religion from our 'state'.
- For good reason, -- they had good first hand knowlege of the abuse of the church/state connections in europe.
You need to change your name.
Sweeping statements are always a trap, specially when you invent them as a substitute for thinking.
How?
thus you deem me 'disagreeable'
You are, not just this time, but always. I call a spade a spade.
Please, explain the 'scenario', and then what your point was in making your comment.
Here's a good discussion of the Hawk/Dove simulation.
You are upset that I called your dove/hawk scenario a straw man, [that is exactly what it was] -- thus you deem me 'disagreeable'.
Please, explain the 'scenario', and then what your point was in making your comment. {of course, you could have made such a reply initially, right?}
How?
How was your reply a straw man? -- Because you did not address my posts point, but instead infered I was taking some position in your inane hawk/dove 'scenario'.
You are ['disagreeble'], not just this time, but always. I call a spade a spade.
Now you're making yet another personal attack, because you can't refute my logical argument. - It's a petty tactic, just like your straw dog.
-----------------------------
Please, explain the 'scenario', and then what your point was in making your comment.
Here's a good discussion of the Hawk/Dove simulation.
Immaterial. -- You've proven that you can't back up your positions. -- Thanks
Even interpretations or extrapolations from scripture will be judged with a subjective bias, even if it's by a clerical authority. But that doesn't detract from the objectivity of the source or negate the ultimate validity of one interpretation over another.
I'm not sure of the significance of the source of the ethics of the individual that you described. No matter how he reached the end of the road in his spiritual development, atheistically or theistically, it's his actions rather than rationale that should be judged. And our propensity to judge them is going to vary widely among both atheists and theists groups. In the end, a society dominated by either will develop a legal and punitive system to manage the most offensive behaviors and social systems to effect others.
Regarding the reason to place human life above all else known, I think at its base is a recognition of the development of the universe. From some unknown start to a single element expanding to stars and galaxies, to molecules of greater complexity, to life and then to a being uniquely aware, capable and accomplished. I don't think it takes "egocentricity" to recognize that pattern.
I suppose one could look at that entire progression as an example of decay, as a drain on the universe from its previous nature at rest or balance. If so, then one searching for a pattern in nature would have to value death.
From what little I know of cosmology, the development of stars, planets and life is the dominant story, and we're at its apex. One can be for or against the continuation of that progression (for or against life) but there's nothing that I'm aware of that's of comparable significance (theology excluded) that would challenge this basic pattern for a value system.
This of course presumes that people consider it of any significance at all. There was no model like this to compare to the certainty of religious values 100 years ago, but religions will connect with people on a more personal and deeper level than what I described, perhaps more so than any way it could be described.
This list (I saw it) is misleading (made by those who think that Islam is religion of peace). The quotes I brought show the essencial difference between Christian teaching and other religions. Christ teaches His disciples to forgive wrongs, to love enemies and to see all people as our brothers including unbelievers or strangers. It is much more then selfish/individualist rule - live and let others live. We all need to be our brothers keepers if we do not want to be stigmatised with the sign of Cain.
Provide one example where a man remaining in fellowship with God, through Christ, indwelt and filled with the Holy Ghost has degenerated without the man first drifting away from God via Christ and denying the Holy Ghost, by acting or even thinking first independently of God's will.
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.