Warren Ockrassa wrote: > > I know too many people whose morality seems to be > > hinged on their religious beliefs. And I'm not sure how > they would act > > if that constraint is removed. Y'see, they are devout believers who > > seem more worried about offending God than about causing pain to > > another person. > > That's one of the objections atheists occasionally run into. "If you > don't believe in a god, what's stopping you from being a terrible > person?"
I know. > The answer is: Empathy. The ability to put myself (or try to put > myself) into the shoes of another, to understand that just as I > wouldn't like it if someone mugged me, I shouldn't be willing to put > someone else through that same unhappiness. Yep. Which is why I specifically mentioned those who lack empathy in the lines you have quoted at the beginning of this reply. > It's a > fundamental trait of > a developed and whole personality. Again, I agree. But how many people with developed and whole personalities do you come across? Most are empathic when their friends and family are concerned. Few bother to extend the courtesy to those they consider 'Others'. > > I'd really rather have them afraid of God's judgment if that means > > that they behave better. :) > > But that's not what it means, demonstrably. See, this "god's > judgment" > thing has a back door. Many people who claim to "love" and/or > "fear" a > god don't seem to live by it, because they've got that "repentance" > escape route. They can be perfect bastards, and often are, and feel > they're going to be OK because they can confess or fall back on some > atonement myth. While that hold true for Christianity, it doesn't hold true for Hinduism. Nor for Jains, Sikhs, Bahais, Parsis or Buddhists. Dunno what the stand of Judaism or Islam is on the issue. > Frankly, self-responsible atheists have much more motivation not to > fuck up, and to do their best to make amends in the *here and > now* when > they do fuck up, than many religious people do. 'Self-responsible' is the key here. Self-responsible believers also seem to feel the same way. > I'm very dubious of the value of religion overall, and I'm certainly > not inclined to agree that I'd rather have someone believe > than not in > order to keep that person in line. While I'd agree from a personal point of view [and indeed I tend to avoid associating with people who need to be reminded of religious strictures to see that hurting someone else is bad], I definitely do not agree from the administrative/political point of view. I'll gladly spout as many religious strictures as needed if that would save someone from being hurt or killed. When the Mahant Gyandas of the Hanumangarhi temple in Ayodhya organises his supporters to patrol and protect the Muslim localities from the murderous VHP mobs, I don't care that the basis of his protest is his firm faith that his God would be appalled by such behaviour. I am just glad that he is taking a stand against what is so obviously wrong. > If a person's sense of > human ethics > and decency is so askew that the only thing keeping him under control > is terror of retribution, then that person is a weakling, emotionally > and psychologically crippled, and certainly should not be > permitted to > have influence on the lives of others, much as we wouldn't allow a > person with an IQ of 50 to run a nuclear reactor (though being > president is fine). That is all well and good, but saying that doesn't stop manipulative, murderous jerks from talking such people into going on a killing rampages. And if religion is the language these people understand than I'd rather stop them using that language than tell them that they are weak and emotional cripples for acting that way. > But that isn't really *faith* -- it's occultism given > legitimacy. Whatever. They seem to think it is faith and they definitely do respond to it. > Real > faith is much harder to nail down. Yep. > You don't have to > have a religious focus to have faith in *something*, even if > it's in an > innate decency in people, any more than you need to have faith to be > virulently and hatefully religious. I don't recall ever saying anything to the contrary. In fact if you read my first mail, the bit at the end says what you said in the first part of this sentence. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
