The proper analogy is this: the belief that there is a certain underlying order to the physical universe is essential to move from magic to science. Yet even once that belief prevails, one might believe in phlogiston, or the four humors, or spontaneous generation, before improvement in observation, refinement of theory, and development of instrumentation and method prove them false and gets one on the right track.
This is the noble pursuit of science. But it sticks in my craw that methodological naturalism asks us for the sake of science to pretend that the material world is all there is. But once science comes to be taken as the only universally valid form of knowledge within a culture, it follows at once that methodological and metaphysical naturalism become for all intents and purposes indistinguishable. They are functionally equivalent.
Sureley science does not need to make everyone an atheist for it to proceed further?
Similarly, the belief that there is an underlying moral order to the universe, which means that there is something (Tao or God) that instills it, is essential to making solid progress in the development of moral philosophy, even though one might begin believing all sorts of nonsense, or have a lag in overall societal impact as a result of improved views.
IMO, Each and every one us at one point in our life come face to face with the universe. That is our defining moment, when the universe reveals itself to us. Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb" is probably as articulate as it gets on this topic:
When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown, the dream is gone
I have become comfortably numb
To me, that fleeting glimpse is a glimpse at the Tao. A recognition that actions have consequences. This is a universal law. If the universe is in a battle with chaos, and an act by a human allows chaos to claim universal matter, then that act is negative. This is how I describe moral order. Right and wrong.
Polytheistic religions, by and large, are not theist in the sense required, because there remains a considerable amount of caprice in the moral order, something about which Plato complained. Only when philosophies like Vedanta or Stoicism begin to change the substance of pagan views, in favor of an uncorrupted source of moral order (the Dharma, the Logos) are the "theist" in the sense intended by gao.......
Yes, that is what I meant. Because a society has gods does not mean it is moral. Also, I have to say that because a society deems itself moral, as ours does, does not mean it always behaves in a moral manner. For instance, Africa is being overwhelmed by Marxists. Where is the moral outrage? |
