Story Comments
Posted by: Dionys 10 months, 3 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
60%
Dionys10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The trouble is that only religious speakers are invited. Rabbis, priests, imams, chaplains, and monks are there, but never humanists, agnostics, or atheists."
Reply
Maybe because there's no solid model or common frame of ethics or morality among atheists.
If atheists want in on religious commentary, then they have to once and for all admit that they're a religion based on the pure faith that they alone know the ultimate truth of the universe and that everyone else is wrong, has been wrong for millennia and will continue to be wrong.-
100%
Tangent00110 months, 3 weeks ago
-
60%
Dionys10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So what's the framework for an atheist's moral and ethical system?
Reply
It can't be science, because most social systems favor the greedy person/animal who seizes and controls resources and ultimately punish those who cooperate selflessly.
I'm just curious..-
100%
Tangent00110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So what's the framework for an atheist's moral and ethical system?"
Reply
It depends on the person. I am a Rationalist with a smattering of Taoism, others might be Secular Humanists, or Existentialists.
"It can't be science, because most social systems favor the greedy person/animal who seizes and controls resources and ultimately punish those who cooperate selflessly."
Actually, those are mostly only in human social constructs. There are plenty of fine examples of cooperation, generosity, even altruism among social non-human species.-
33%
Dionys10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There are plenty of fine examples of cooperation, generosity, even altruism among social non-human species."
Reply
True enough. But I did think we were talking human morality and ethics with regards to the radio program.
"I am a Rationalist with a smattering of Taoism, others might be Secular Humanists, or Existentialists"
But many Taoists are theists. And what is "the way" if it is not simply another name for a deity? ;)-
100%
Tangent00110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are two forms of Taoism, as there is with most religions. The philosophical form of Taoism looks to examples in nature to guide human behavior by analogy. For example, rocks are hard and unyielding, yet the constant flow of supple water will eventually erode the rock away, so hardness is not always best confronted by hardness. In Lao Tsu's estimation, 'The Way' is simply extant by example, to be discovered through active contemplation, not some higher power, consciousness, or force that requires worship, lays down edicts, promises rewards, or threatens punishment.
Reply
Yes, there is a 'magical' form of Taoism that seeks immortality through a kind of alchemy and reveres certain personifications of natural forces, but that is not the form to which I'm referring.
The same dichotomy exists in Buddhism. Mahayana (Zen) is much more a contemplative philosophy than a religion, while Hinayana focuses more on the 'worship' of the Buddha himself. Sufi Islam is far more internal and meditative than Shia or Sunni. Christianity has a vast range of sects, from the contemplative deism, to the actively 'magical' Santeria.-
100%
Dionys10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
100%
ForrestPhelps10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"To the ignorant man, a tree is a tree, and a river is a river.
Reply
To the learned man, a tree is not a tree and a river is not a river.
To the wise man, a tree is a tree, and a river is a river - but they are not the same tree or the same river that the ignorant man sees."
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys, I believe a better question would be, "What's the framework for a moral and ethical system that is not based on the existence of God?" In other words, not all athiests agree on one framework (just as not all religions, and not all adherents to any single religion agree on one either), there are some very good secular ethical frameworks out there.
Reply
For instance, in his influential 1971 book, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls posited a system in which people first imagine they could each awaken the next day to find themselves in any possible position in society--anywhere from the lowest to the highest. Then and only then they make societal rules. I'm obviously oversimplifying and paraphrasing here, out of necessity, but it's hard to find fault with the fairness of a system like that.
Though Rawls' system comes close to Kant's Categorical Imperative and the "golden rule" found in almost every religion, it assumes no higher power.-
100%
Dionys10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"posited a system in which people first imagine they could each awaken the next day to find themselves in any possible position in society--anywhere from the lowest to the highest"
Reply
"it assumes no higher power."
Sure it does.
It assumes that a higher power made it posible for people to awaken into their ideal position in society.
But I hear what you're saying. Unforuntately it would only work in an ideal system because there would always be one or two (or three hundred or four thousand...) people who would want to be "the highest" in the form of a dictator.-
100%
Tangent00110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It assumes that a higher power made it posible for people to awaken into their ideal position in society."
Reply
Just because something exists doesn't mean it was willed/planned into existence.
A agree that many people have the tendency to be at the highest echelon, but I also think that is largely learned behavior, at least as far as it is entwined with an overriding sense of self-worth. Me? If I could raise my kids and be reasonably artistic, I'd be perfectly content. -
100%
Beau789010 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to disagree that Rawls' system necessarily assumes a higher power...it's simply a thought experiment. To say that there must be a cause of the possibility that people could become something other than what they are overnight, simply because it's unrealistic is to make the same argument that a God or gods exist because we were granted life (for lack of a better way to put it) in the first place.
Reply
Mind you, I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God--I consider myself more agnostic than atheist, and more of a pragmatist than anything else. I've always thought belief in a deity works for some and not others, and see no reason to try to dissuade the faithful from their beliefs.
But of course the system proposed by Rawls is idealistic--but so is any system relying on a theistic basis for morality. Religious bases work only when everyone believes in the same interpretation of the directives of the underlying entity. Aren't we talking about what possible frameworks for ethics there can be without relying on the existence of a deity?
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
100%
ForrestPhelps10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To Dionys:
Reply
If I may paraphrase your last paragraph:
"If [insert your religion here] want in on [this] commentary, then they have to once and for all admit that they're a religion based on the pure faith that they alone know the ultimate truth of the universe and that everyone else is wrong, has been wrong for millennia and will continue to be wrong."
So, if we use your own standards, the end result will be that no one talks, since once any religion falls back on the "you must believe" logic, that ends the discussion.-
67%
Dionys10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No. I'm just saying that if Atheists want in on a program that is specifically for moral and ethical reflections from (as tradition for this program has it) a religious tradition or religious speaker then they have to admit that they're a religion.
Reply
Otherwise they should push for their own 2 minutes of atheist morality/ethics reflection.
Which would be great. Any program that gets people to stop and reflect instead of giving knee-jerk reactions, whether from a theist or atheist stance, is great.-
100%
Tangent00110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think what the author is saying is the segment is called "Thought for the Day", not "Religious Thought for the Day". By excluding secular philosophy, there is a tacit assumption that the only 'worthy' thoughts regarding morality and ethics come from religion.
Reply-
100%
Dionys10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well I often see web sites, tv programs or magazines/books that offer a Recipie of the Day, all of which come from one particular branch of cullinary / cultural tastes. I don't see the Hungarian dessert makers throwing fits over the exact number of French desserts being published under the "Dessert recipie of the day."
Reply
:)
-
-
100%
ForrestPhelps10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From what I understand of the situation, something like TFTD has been part of the BBC since the late 1930's.
Reply
Hmmmm . . . wonder if the original speakers were all CofE, or at least Christian?
At what point did a Rabbi get invited? A Buddhist, a Muslim, etc.
So you see, I'd bet the TFTD has opened its perspective.
Wouldn't it be nice to open it a bit more and allow anyone to comment? Do religious-minded individuals really believe an agnostic/atheist has nothing to contribute to a discussion of morality?
Two solutions as I see it. Rename it Religious Thought for the Day (and allow a like amount of time for the non-religious).
Or just be inclusive.
You know, like what that Jesus guy spoke of.
Anyhow, thanks for the thoughtful response. -
-
-
100%
lvrofwolves10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No religion owns morals or ethics. Any person on Earth regardless of faith/belief, can be moral and ethical.
Reply
I'm sure everyone knows amoral and unethical religious people as well as non religious people, and vis versa.
If Atheism was a religion, should they or could they get tax exempts ? for what? a little get together for worship of, preaching about, etc...what exactly??? their non belief in any God(s)?
I don't believe Atheism is a religion and I know 100% there are plenty of very moral and ethical Atheists, some acting much much more 'Christ like' then some Christians do.
-
-
-
loading ...
Ciera-Marie
Progressive
FrauBlucher
juvel
memestryker
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.