I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've been comments on me ducking the issue. I am more than happy to discuss it; its just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it. >Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says >nothing about how men should treat each others without an additional >assumption that 'those created in the image and likeness of God must >be treated in such and such ways'.
Right, just as if one points out how valuable $100 bills are, there is nothing said about burning them being a bad idea. Rather, they are simply called valuable. I cannot imagine picturing someone as the image and likeness of Love and Truth and Goodness, and still thinking there is nothing at all wrong with harming them. >So you might as well ditch the >'image and likeness of God' part and go directly to the 'must be >treated in such and such ways' part. God is a redundant assumption >that adds nothing to the line of argument. No, not really. To me, the real question/the real dividing point is whether one accepts the transcendental. Once one does this, one is arguing theology when one sees Love and Goodness as self-aware and the foundation of all existence or as non-self aware principals. I certainly will not claim any proof of God's existence by simplicity; I was just pointing out having one starting point for self worth, the foundation of Love, the foundation of right and wrong is not really a matter of complication. > I would add that although the concept of god IS redundant to that > argument, it may have been useful in persuading people to the 'must > be treated in such and such ways' point of view. But I question its > usefulness for that purpose today in places where we are enlightened >enough not to need fear and superpower to motivate and comfort us. Its amazing that such a large number of folks arguing with theists argue against a 6th graders understanding of God. Why, if you are so sure of your position, don't you consider the understanding of God put forth by serious adults? For me, the question of God is not fear of punishment if I break the rules. It's a more being out of sync with Truth and Good when I do wrong. I really worry little about heaven and hell, but worry a good deal about how my actions jib with actually living out love. >Are we not mature enough to persuade people to morality by honest >argument, trusting them to make their choices with their eyes open, >rather than tricking them into believing in fairy tales and fearing >boogey-men? What constitutes having their eyes open? It certainly is not pretending that morality comes from genetics, since we have inherent tendencies to do both immoral and moral things. Rather, it comes from accepting the implications of one's position. One of the reasons I enjoyed Weinberg's arguments in a recent discussion in Houston on God and science is that he readily acknowledged the difficult conclusions that could be derived from his position. He regretted, but accepted, the unpleasant consequences of atheism, rather than waving his arms and pretending that could eliminate them. One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics. It was one of his greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for ethics. It was clear, by the nature of his statements, that he accepted that ethics have no firm foundation in his worldview. Indeed, he volunteered this when he was asked about regrets. There's an atheist with his eyes open. I respectfully differ with his position, but he certainly has strong integrity. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
