Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (10271)	4/4/2001 8:37:00 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Actually, most theists understand that one can have ethics without religion..." Rather than suggest that the essayist's efforts were directed at a non existent opponent, I think it is reasonable to suppose that he was addressing the contrary opinions and assertions of some theists--that without a belief in God, there is no sound or reliable basis for moral behaviour. This seems to be a common contention amongst theists of various stripes; At least, it is one that has been expressed by almost all of the theists with whom I have engaged in light argument. Thus, it seems reasonable, from my limited point of view, to conjecture that Mr. Edwords may have had similar encounters to which he was responding. Theism, the belief in a God or Gods, is not a neutral belief which merely admits of the possibility; Rather, it is an opinion which rests on argument, whether it be a particular scriptural reliance, or whether it be based on other knowledge. Theism includes all the myriad God beliefs that exist in unlimited variety amongst and between peoples and cultures across the breadth of our planet. I don't contest your authority to speak for "most theists" or to bundle their beliefs into comprehensible packets; I acknowledge your right to collate their beliefs into a sytem of thought that seems appropriate to your own understanding. Additionally, most theists understand that God is beyond any predicate used to describe Him, and outside of time and space, and therefore without a body. Again, I have not experienced this homogeneity amongst theists, but I accept and acknowledge your right to speak for most of them. For the theist, morality is woven into the fabric of things, and is therefore available to persons from various faith traditions I don't have any idea what you mean by this. I know that various cultures have often written their precepts and rules down on parchment or have expressed them as expectations--with corresponding rewards or punishments... God is responsible for the moral law in the same way that He is responsible for the law of gravity, or the second law of thermodynamics You seem to be differing here with the conclusion expressed by Mr. Edwords, that humans create their values by a consensus of "what matters". He demonstates this convincingly by evidence that we can grasp with our senses--and with our faculties of logic and reasoning--without attempting to pass either responsibility or accountability onto any invisible authority. How do you propose to demonstrate that "God is responsible for the moral law"? And what is the "moral law"? Whose theistic conception of God takes precedence in defining this moral law as the spokesperson for God? The Zoroastrians were theists who believed in Ahura Mazda as the Creator of all that is, and as the author of all morality and the lawmaker and judge of all people. Ahura Mazda's counterpart in evil is Ahriman, also a creation of Ahura Mazda. Ahriman has his own host of angels to represent the evil aspect of this dualism. There is to be judgement followed by a separation of the morally upright into the Kingdom of light, and the morally corrupt into the everlasting darkness--to be followed by an everlasting paradise for those redeemed and resurrected from the dead. If this is what you were referring to as "God is responsible for the moral law" in your bundling of theistic beliefs--I can only say that most theistic gods are apprehended in ways very diverse and often contrary to the rather unique visions of Zoroastrianism. For instance, the moral code of this theistic system prohibited sacrifices, whereas many theistic systems insist on various sacrificial rituals as moral purification and cleansing. Frankly, your assertion that God has woven morality into the fabric of things rings rather hollow (at least to my ingenuous sensibilities)--for lacking any offer of proof or justification--and for failing to reconcile the diverse morals and opinions of the myriad theistic gods whom exist in the fancies of people all over the world. Kipling recognized the extreme variety in the habits, customs, mores, and morals of the diverse peoples of earth: "East is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet...". Those people who believe in a higher authority for their moral standards, just happen to believe in different authorities--and their moral codebook is never the same. Many of these peoples are so different in outlook and in belief, that they actively war against one another on a daily basis. Many humanists, and others, do not consider the behaviour of these layered soldiers of layered gods to be moral--but what would we know about morality, anyway??