On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Platt, > > > Platt: > > Today's NYTimes has an interesting article entitled, "Morals Without > God?" The > > author, a biologist, writes: > > > > "It is impossible to know what morality would be like without religion. > It > > would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was > > religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause." > > > > Some cultures come very close to being "without religion." Their > contribution > > to human well-being is somewhat less than Harris would approve. North > Korea > > comes to mind. And looking back at cultures without religion in the 20th > > century -- "The horror!" Concentration camps, gulags, the Great Leap > Forward -- > > those are just the tip of the human misery from "rational" social > policies, > > exceeding by far the suffering caused in the name of religion. > > > > The author concludes with this observation: > > > > "Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to > > produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own > > devoted followers, so it will soon look like any old religion." > > > > A cautionary note lest our approval of Pirsig, Harris or any other > > "rationalist" becomes a cult. > > > Steve: > I haven't been following moq,org for a while. Did I miss the part > where you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? It is my > understanding that you don't accept the truth of any of the world's > religions, yet you seem to be arguing here that religion is > nevertheless necessary. Necessary for _other_ people. You seem to > think that you are defending religious people, but on the contrary, > your view is entirely condescending towards them. You see them as > dangerous children who need religion to keep them under control so > they don't turn into Pol Pots. Though you don't believe in virgin > births, living gods, and the like, you think that it is good for other > people to believe such falsehoods. Maybe you are right (I don't think > so) but let's at least be clear about which one of us is treating > religious people as responsible selves who have worth as individuals > and would prefer not to be deceived about the world and which one of > us treats human beings as sheep who need comforting falsehoods. Unless > I missed something and you have recently found Jesus, then your > so-called respect for faith is no more than condescension. > > Platt You appear to transferring a lot of your own feelings towards "religious people" to me. I don't think a lot of the moral teachings of various religions are "falsehoods," nor do I think persons of faith are necessarily "deceived." Rather I think anyone who thinks they know better than other people about spiritual matters is not only deceiving himself, but poses a danger to others. Certainly history shows that to be the case. What I know is that I know little. So I don't condemn an entire group who, by their acts of charity, may have something of value to teach me. Best, 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/md/archives.html
