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 (17539)	5/26/2004 8:15:46 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"You are jumping on the word "ability" and saying what that means is that you can't choose anything" No. What you DID say was that if we are a product of evolution then we CANNOT judge between right and wrong. And that is patently absurd. "What I am saying is; if evolution is all there is (no God) then there is no obligation to do one thing over another. In fact right and wrong become meaningless words since there is no ethically compelling "ought"." More nonsense. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the "oughts" people fashion in either religious or secular societies. "Oughts" do not require the threat of eternal torture from a monstrous sadist to legitimize their meaning or value. "To say it another way; since there is no "RIGHT" whatever you do is". That is not saying "might is right" in another way. It is a separate statement but equally as ridiculous as your previous reference to atheists as logically embracing might is right. Now you are saying that all things are right which is more absolute nonsense. "No; it's what happens when all ethical constraints are removed" Evolution doers not remove ethical constraints. It has nothing to do with ethics. It is simply a law of biological adaptation and change. Ethics are created by people in order to live and function in society. All creatures act in accordance with their nature. Most creatures lack reason and thus may act to their benefit only through instinct. Generally they have short life spans because instinct is short-sighted and simplistic. Humans have the capacity to reason and thus may formulate ethics based on free will or choice--with the benefit of hindsight, foresight, and analysis, and predicated upon values chosen with the intention of preserving life and promoting happiness. Now, you have a problem with humanists because their ethics ARE choices based on reason and love of life rather than on blind obedience to someone or something claiming ultimate might and therefore right. Every human society in the history of humanity has had ethics, Greg. All people from all ages have had opinions about how best to behave in society--about how to act toward one another. They have always considered two basic answers: 1). One ought to act to create value or benefit in accordance with reason, or 2). One ought to obey whatever particular Deity is in vogue in a particular community in a given time and place, so that one may get rewarded (happiness) or avoid punishment (suffering). The moral direction based on reason relates to a common apprehension of reality and thus may promote unity, objectivity, and general agreement. The moral guide from supernaturalism relates to multiplicity and divisiveness, and it may promote hatred, contempt, discord, and war. "Might is right" religiosity which relies on a Supreme declaration as to what is right is not amenable to reason or rational appreciation of human needs, and thus simply sets all Gods and their followers against one another in mindless clashes of might. The only rational concept of ethics relates to the benefit of individuals. The point of ethics is to protect the life and property and freedoms of individuals. However, your system, Greg, is not a rational ethical system. It is grounded in "might is right" and justified by the Declaration of Supreme Authority to command. The God you choose to believe in is "right" because you believe Him to be all powerful. You obey Him because He commands it. If He tells you to burn a witch, then you burn a witch. You believe you will be rewarded if you obey and that He won't hurt you. Nothing you do or don't do is any credit to reason because reason has nothing to do with your ethics. Nor is there any exercise of free choice or will, for you simply OBEY what is supposed to be His Will. You obey out of self interest in order to avoid punishment. If He told you to stone an old man to death for gathering firewood on the seventh you would DO SO--Just as your primitive predecessors did in Hebrew mythology. You cannot deny that without denying your faith. So, do I want people like you to have political or social power? Surely not. To the extent that you buy into the "might is right" justification for standards of behaviour, to that extent do you lack any true sense of ethical choice. If obedience to primitive commandments takes precedence of action regardless of cogitation then you cannot be said to exercise any rational values of free choice. At least, one could say that you exercise one ethic only: To blindly obey whichever God, voice, or ideology you have chosen to obey. And your only motives would be fear of punishment and greed for reward. On the other hand, where the benefit of humanity (by which I mean the individuals) is taken as the raison d'etre of human ethical guidelines, then reason rather than groveling becomes the vehicle for determining the norms of human behaviour and personal interaction. I'll repeat one more time for your understanding: Evolution has NOTHING to do with either religious or secular ethics. Ethics are guidelines for human conduct created by humans in order to live in society without chaos and mayhem. All people, all societies have them. Atheists have them, humanists have them, Jews have them, and Muslims have them. Ever since humans associated with one another, they have invented the rules by which they choose to live and to work and to play. Human Beings can choose how to respond rather than simply acting instinctively. It is this choice which is the fulcrum of ethics. Those whom despise their reason may simply let all their actions reflect commands from some God or another. Sometimes these ethics are sound and worthy, but there is nothing to ensure they will be, nor that they will be rational; for they are not valued for their rationality but for their imagined source. Now go and do the right thing.