I have always viewed Raskolnikov's comment in quite the opposite way to what Dostoevsky intended it to be taken. If God doesn't exist, then it's time to move beyond moral agreements based upon baseless superstition: instead let's base our morality solely on shared human experience and evidence. Time to evolve. Humanists and Brights argue for this all the time.
Why be moral without God? By my measure, it's impossible to be truly moral * with* God since -- by absolute definition -- your morality is a base and dishonest thing. A low-minded and self-deluding conspiracy. You do good, or bad, with one eye to celestial judgement or your lot in the next life. In terms of a discussion on moral philosophy, you ain't even invited to the table. Your motives can't be trusted. I think human-beings are capable of a much more sophisticated morality; throwing off the shackles of Bronze Age religion is the first step. For a majority -- until we reach that Star Trek-like utopia -- fear of punishment is still essential. It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. However, that punishment should be fair, considered, and entirely this-worldly. And subject to democratic change. God is a hindrance to our moral progress, he's done enough damage already. Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
