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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (17284)	4/26/2004 12:20:58 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"Why can't you have a discussion without resorting to name calling" Although it may be suggested that my reference to you as saying something "stupid" was perhaps less than amiable, nevertheless it must be admitted that it is not in error; nor can it be pretended that your accusation against me of being immoral did not invite the apposite return. Indeed, as the clear implication of your remark that I have no basis for morality is to insult ALL non-Christians (from the Dalai Lama to the great philosophers and moralists past and present), it is rather difficult to allow such an insult to pass without comment. As to your present paste which you aver shows me the "moral vacuuousness" of my position, it shows, of course, no such thing. What it does is highlight your consistency. All people have a basis for their morality, and ALL people have a social structure to regulate behaviour. Whether someone believes in the "categorical imperative" of Kant or whether one believes in the simple Buddhist precepts of doing no harm to others or to self, one has a basis on which he or she acts. It may be possible for some rare individuals to believe that a distinction between right and wrong is unnecessary, but to accuse all non-Christians of such psychoses is rather too large for you. I do enjoy this remark by Dr. Richard Taylor: "I profoundly believe we should be loving, kind, and the other virtues he enumerated. In order to say that, do you need, do I need, to think that God is watching? Does any of us need to think that we are going to be punished if we are not loving, kind? Do we not see something worthwhile in being loving, kind, treating people in certain ways, and so forth, which doesn’t require us to talk about "objective standards," doesn’t require us to refer to Scripture, refer to any sermon that anyone’s ever heard? We can see this. We can see this because human beings are born with the capacity for this and are quite capable of seeing its propriety. No one would suggest that I have no reason for being loving, kind to those who are dear to me and, indeed, to my enemies. We can see this without God telling us that. We can see this without clergymen telling us this. We can see it because it is an inheritance of a wise culture, and it is the declaration of a refined mind, heart, and sensibility"

To: Greg or e who wrote (17284)	4/26/2004 12:28:18 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

"In transcendental thinking, the chain of causation runs downward from the given ought in religion or natural law through jurisprudence to education and finally to individual choice. The argument from transcendentalism takes the following general form: The order of nature contains supreme principles, either divine or intrinsic, and we will be wise to learn about them and find the means to conform to them. Thus John Rawls opens A Theory of Justice with a proposition he regards as irrevocable: "In a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests." As many critiques have made clear, that premise can lead to unhappy consequences when applied to the real world, including a tightening of social control and a decline in personal initiative. A very different premise, therefore, is suggested by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974): "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do." Rawls would point us toward egalitarianism regulated by the state, Nozick toward libertarianism in a minimalist state. The empiricist view, in contrast, searching for an origin of ethical reasoning that can be objectively studied, reverses the chain of causation. The individual is seen as predisposed biologically to make certain choices. Through cultural evolution some of the choices are hardened into precepts, then into laws, and, if the predisposition or coercion is strong enough, into a belief in the command of God or the natural order of the universe. The general empiricist principle takes this form: Strong innate feeling and historical experience cause certain actions to be preferred; we have experienced them, and have weighed their consequences, and agree to conform with codes that express them. Let us take an oath upon the codes, invest our personal honor in them, and suffer punishment for their violation. The empiricist view concedes that moral codes are devised to conform to some drives of human nature and to suppress others. Ought is the translation not of human nature but of the public will, which can be made increasingly wise and stable through an understanding of the needs and pitfalls of human nature. The empiricist view recognizes that the strength of commitment can wane as a result of new knowledge and experience, with the result that certain rules may be desacralized, old laws rescinded, and formerly prohibited behavior set free. It also recognizes that for the same reason new moral codes may need to be devised, with the potential of being made sacred in time." theatlantic.com

To: Greg or e who wrote (17284)	4/26/2004 6:00:30 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 28931

You want to reject revelation (both special and general)as a basis for morality. Without natural theology there can be no natural law. Without natural law all you have left is to make stuff up and appeal to peoples emotions to try and manipulate people into accepting things without foundation. That is an utterly priceless retort , how you maintain your uniqueness and your direct relationship to "God" and all his mystery and glory . What do you mean by general and specific "revelation" ? And what is your unique claim to what follows as you say "naturally" to wit : "Natural Theology" ? You mean that before Jesus or Paul , people did not observe very well on their own that once born the infant knows how to suckle off its mothers breast for milk , and that there is a great powerful bond between them ? That there begins the mystery of love and deep affinity and caring ..and that all were ignorant of this before you came along ? Without natural law all you have left is to make stuff up and appeal to peoples emotions to try and manipulate people into accepting things without foundation Acts of charity , great humanitarianism , moral & chaste behavior and even celibacy & abstinence .... poise , grace and personal growth , ethical and philosophical strivings , selfless caring do not depend on the existence of your feigned knowledge and righteousness religiosity. That the condition of "child molestation" exists because of some arbitrary humanist scheme of relativist morality. Why you would choose to repeat over and over again (parrot?)use this "appeal to people's emotions" is beyond me , when the most glaring cases of widespread child molestation in recent many decades has been within the prieshood of Catholic Church. Your statement before Greg , of humanists (or any body from the past of artists, scientists, doctors of medicine , and philosophers ) "cherry~picking" all it's best foundational reason , knowledge and insights into the deeper mysteries of life , nature and reality ...of love , bonding and kinship with the elan vitale --->to virtue , self sacrifice, self control or the compassionate.... is an absolutely rediculous statement to make as ever could be made , and thoroughly rebuffed by Solon . Its one thing to be a humble part of the mosaic and the pious salt of the earth , and another to pose the most shallow self-serving nonsense that cries out an ignorance of History and incredible contributions that have been made by men and women of reason , and men and women from faiths other than you own , that your statements are abysmally shrouded in some very skewed ways of seeing things from a darkened window. Your statement before of humanists cherry~picking all the good & best things from christianity is about the most absurd thing anyone who cared a wit about History could ever say .