"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more
and
more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old
wives
tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
religionist have been spouting for centuries.

No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of
morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more
objective
than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales,
try
looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for
centuries.

Such as? For some reason their words don't get out that much...something
about holy wars and purges...


But I think there are parts of this discussion that are foundering on
semantics.

Quite so. CJ doesn't comprehend what FAITH is (the acceptance of something
based on NO evidence, or even things counter to evidence) which is NOT the
way to invoke policy.

I'd assert that there are many people have deep reasons for
acting morally, with roots that are almost ineffable but have nothing to
do
with the various belief systems that we commonly think of as religions.

And that's fine as long as they keep it to themselves. Religions are beliefs
primarily based on what we often call "superstitions" and revelations.


If
the root is pure humanism, or the belief that what we call God is an
immanent creation of the entire human experience - I suppose you could
call
those religions because they involve some non-rational basis (hence the
semantic confusion).

Yeah...IF.

You could also construct a Darwinian derivation of
morals, where the organism that is struggling to survive is the society,
and
an ethical code (one we would recognize as such) turns out to be a
positive
adaptation.

Yeah, you could, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny either.


I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying
threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing
to
the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life?

I'd say "most definitely"...for one thing, religion comes from human minds,
whether they want to call it a "revelation" or "too much pizza before bed".

Or do
you at least require some externally existent (in some sense) and
influential spiritual force?

That'd be fine if we want to mimic the Middle East and turn humankind back
3000-500 years and have the high priest or Plato's "Philosophy Kings".


How about the internally located forces of
Buddhism? Do you deny the possiblity of secular humanism being a valid
wellspring of morals, even if it happens to lead to a secular St Francis?

If you say a humanist can't be ethical or moral, I'm starting to object.

I'm with you.

If
you say a humanist can act ethically or morally, but what matters is that
they aren't moral inside: well, I've heard that assertion and I don't buy
it. Maybe it's a question of definition again.

Not even definitions; CJ's trying to lump counter arguments into a slot
(humanism...in the context of modern day secular humanism, which I find just
about as dense as faith/revelations) that he feels comfortable with. but
knows very little about in reality.