Hi Steve, > Steve: > >> Can you give me a definition of "rights"? If so I might be able to > >> better understand why you think they come from God. > > Platt: > > Rights that belong to the essential nature of man to which every > > individual > > is entitled, including the rights to life, liberty and property.
[Steve] > I am not sure about property. How do you argue that property is part of the > essential nature of man? > Do you consider yourself a Deist? I consider myself a Mysterian. But Deist will do. > Steve: > In a liberal society, rationales can be criticized. Religious dogma we are > told is above criticism since it is a matter of faith. What is dogma to you is belief to others. I argue that all belief includes an element of faith. > Platt: > > Incidentally, does > > the current adoration of the Obama remind you of religious hero > > worship? It > > does me. > > Steve: > Definitely. Is he a prophet or a politician? It doesn't bother me > enough, however, to support Clinton over him and I don't think the > Republicans deserve another minute in power. Likewise, the sleazy Clintons. > > Steve: > >> The other point is that it is not only happiness but suffering that > >> Harris says we need to consider in judging morality. Certainly > >> religion continues to be a great source of suffering. > > > Platt: > > Compared to the state as a source of suffering, religion is heaven. > > Statists tend to forget that Communism and National Socialism were > > responsible for over 125 million deaths in the last century. > > Steve: > I still see this as a non sequitur. It is certainly not an argument > that faith (as the idea that it is good to belief things without reason or > evidence) really is a virtue. Not a non sequitur if suffering is your criterion of evil as it seems to be for Harris, not to mention Reagan.. > >> In the MOQ the truth > >> about whether or not their are gods is more morally important than how > >> we feel about the answers. > > > > Truths in the MOQ are like paintings in a gallery whereby you choose which > > truths have more quality than others. Given the quality of the political > > philosophy of Locke and the Founding Fathers, I am not about to knock > > religious belief as something we must dispense with outright. Like all > > beliefs we should judge them according to how well they promote individual > > freedom. In the case of Locke and the Founding Fathers, quite a bit I > > should think. > > Steve: > I am not necessarily arguing that religion needs to be dispensed with. I am > simply saying that beliefs must be evaluated based on intellectual quality > rather than accepted on authority of magic books. If religion really is > wroth anything (and I think it is) then there will be something of value > left once dogma is rejected in favor if reason. Your faith in reason can be viewed as dogmatic as religious belief. Speaking of John Locke, would you agree with what he wrote in "Civil Government?" "To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and this is , a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other." To me this sets out the fundamental battle between the intellectual and social levels as outlined in the MOQ. Regards, Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
