View Single Post
  #4  
Old April 7th 04, 01:29 AM
David Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

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?


Quite the contrary. I certainly agree that a humanist or other ethicist

can
have ethics or morals without appealing to Deity, Christian or otherwise.

My
point is that these ethics and morals are not necessarily more rational

than
those derived from religion.

....
But what is the real difference between the two positions? An atheist must
assume that we are nothing more than random sacks of chemicals. Our

actions
must necessarily be of almost infinitely small consequence to the

universe.
What does it matter what happens to any of us? Why should we care about
ourselves, let alone others? The religionist answers that we care because

we
are commanded to. The ethicist answers that we care for evolutionary
reasons.


No, I think that's a mischaracterization, although I'll struggle to find the
right pithy words. But while doing so I'll hand a freebee to your side of
the argument, Chris. The many people today who are areligious but moral and
ethical (there are many in Europe, for example) are practicing a form of
secular humanism whether they like it or not. This makes secularism look
good, because it is coming up with good results (hey, I know that's a value
judgement, but let's assume we all agree on basic definitions of goodness;
we seem to; even we liberals aren't all moral relativists). The challenge to
that view is that we are living in a moment of history where, even if
Christianity is dying in some societies, the results of the, forgive me,
indoctrination brought about by its teachings are still strong influences in
the society. To be concrete, my grandmother and all my elementary school
teachers were Golden Rule Christians, so how can I behave otherwise; I got
wired. How long can that meme survive without the influence of an externally
applied Spirit? I don't know. There is scant opportunity to look for an
answer by studying historically pagan societies that are otherwise parallel.

Viktor Frankl pointed out that there are really only two kinds of

people --
those that derive meaning in life from their relationships with others and
those that derive meaning in life from only from the power and control

they
exercise over others. I think you will find both types of people in all
religions as well in all varieties of secularists.


Many Christians are perfectly clear that there is at least a third kind:
those that derive meaning in life from their relationship with Jesus. Today
it often seems to be a personal buddy relationship, so it might resolve to
Frankl's first group. But there is a more traditional mystical relationship,
often found in the monastery, that I think is genuinely different.

I have to admit that I enjoy this discussion, even though it is off topic.

I
would not ordinarily have bothered, but any suggestion that religious

views
have no place in the political landscape strikes me as too dangerous to go
unchallenged. It is that kind of thinking that leads to concentration

camps
and genocide.


Sorry, I must side with Tom on this one, although with less vituperation,
and with the caveat I referred to above: maybe contemporary secular views
are religious views we can't shake.

I hope you don't object to the trimming: I just wanted to respond in
specific places.

-- David Brooks