h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Ashki1 .
Being moral for purely humanistic reasons is a valid approach.

How about though being moral as part of aspiring to be better than the example of humanism or humanity? Admitting, perhaps for one foolish moment, that we are not the peak of the Universe's evolutionary plan, that there might just be beings of greater moral and ethical 'purity' than us miserable warring primates?

A couple of hundred posts ago I suggested to the excellent Hoovooloo that antibiotics were a curse on the planet, despite their short term benefit to the miserable warring primates (Damn but I like that term - MWP's, pukka! Be prepared to see me use it often). We should not think ourselves so high and mighty as to believe that we set the moral and ethical agenda. Mother Earth has shook off bigger fleas than us and could do so now with just one decent volcanic eruption.

One thing most of the 'earth-based' spiritualities are investigating is just this point. Are our gods and spirits trying to guide us into being stewards of the planet rather than trying to master her. If so, what moral and ethical framework will be needed then? You can pretty much bet that the Judea-Christian code will be found wanting .....bwahahahahahaha!

Blessings,
Matholwch the prostrate /|\ (well it is Saturday night guys).

Hey guys and gals!

I've been off for a week, and you've posted over a hundred new things for me to read! Suffice to say I will read as much as I can and answer as intelligently as possible. I will also write something in my Journal about what is happening to me, so that you can all understand if I get a bit snappy or something...

Just for the record, how many of you are having serious accomodation problems at Uni?

- Jordan

Well, I've got a complete stranger living in my room!

I 'went down' ten years ago, mind you....

Hi Matholwch,
That we are not the peak of the Universe's evolutionary plan is exactly the point. If individuals, attempting greater moral good for the sake of humanity, succede in becoming better people, then humanity as a whole is advanced just a little bit. If people ascribe their reasons for morality to religion, then that leaves no room for improvement in humanity. If only religion is followed then of the improvement in the world does come (indirectly) from the peak of nature's evolutionary plan, namely God.
In order to advance or trancend human nature, do not use religion as a moral crutch — if one can, be good for good's own sake, humanity will be better off for it.
In addition, I think it is just fine if people use religion as an aid in Being Good, I just think its better if people are good for solely humanistic reasons.
And also, believing in a God or Gods of any type is completely up to the person as long as the person is not Being Good for the sake of pleasing their God.
All of this is for the sake of trancending MWPs and their imperfect framework of ethics.

sorry i left out a word— in line 3 it should be "If only religion is followed then ALL of the improvement....."

The problem is most Christian fundamentalists believe in the imminent demise of this world and the establishment of an incorruptible one in its place where people will live forever.

When you have the most powerful man in the world holding this belief, we should all feel nervous.

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Then again, what if good is a standard set by God/the gods? Religion becomes necessary.

I think when you refer to a 'crutch', you are talking about organised religion.

Finally, are you sure that humans are so far from God (i.e. from being gods themselves)? We are 'made in His image' - according to most christians, and I'm sure some other religions have similar beliefs. (What do you say to this, Alij? And Malthowch?)

Jordan - still looking at backlog and being messed about by the Uni and the banks...

^...And Maltholwch?)

Argh! Matholwch!!!

Why would we be made in the image of a God or Gods? To me, it makes more sense that they would appear to us in human or human-like forms, because that's how we automatically envisage a sentient being.

Matholwch,

"if one can, be good for good's own sake, humanity will be better off for it."

I agree wholeheartedly. Jesus said "By their fruits you will know them", and I think that applies to religions as well as to individuals.

Good and bad must be determined independently of God, otherwise to say "God is good" is meaningless. If God chooses the rules of what is good and what is bad then of course he will come out as "good", and the statement "God is good" has no more philosophical validity than the assertion that "Satan is good".

Having established independent definitions of what constitutes goodness and badness/evil, appropriate judgements can be made as to whether or not a particular deity / rule / belief etc is a good one or one to be rejected.

Native American 10 Commandments

The Earth is our Mother, care for her

Honor all your relations

Open your heart and soul to the Great Spirit

All life is sacred; treat all things with respect

Take from the Earth what is needed and nothing more

Do what needs to be done for the good of all

Give constant thanks to the Great Spirit for each new day

Speak the truth; but only of the good in others

Follow the rhythms of nature; rise and retire with the sun

Enjoy life's journey, but leave no tracks

See http://www.nativeamericans.com/

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Hi Ashki1 .
I see you have trotted out one of the oldest, and poorest, debate points in the atheist's bag - the 'religion as a moral crutch' argument.

How about looking at spirituality as a moral and ethical challenge? Consider, as I do, that us MWP's ain't the top of the tree. That there are those who developed before us - call them spirits, gods, sidhe, whatever. And these 'others' want to give us a hand up, if only for the sake of the poor planet, by setting us these moral challenges.

Just because many people have found comfort in their spirituality does not make it a 'crutch'. I'd really like to see what the rationalists and atheists have put in spirituality's place to provide a spur for the development of ethical and morals sense in the population. Playstation 2 perchance ?

Blessings,
Matholwch the MWP /|\.

Hi Bod .
I agree up to a point. The problem with the Abrahamic religions of course is that not only has their God divinely inspired a handbook to being 'good', but as an omniescent, omnipresent and omnipotent deity who created everything, he must have invented 'good' and 'evil' in the first place.

A bit like a kid in the schoolground who, because he is big enough to impose the rules of the games his schoolchums play, he always wins. So much for 'free will' .

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.

Hi Jordan !
I think that the image of a god or goddess is defined by what that viewer can conceive of. Our brains are primarily set up to process visual imagery and we rely heavily on that in 'visualisation'.

There is no universally accepted mythology in modern British Druidry that I know of that has a sole, or group, creator. As such we cannot therefore be made in 'his image'. As I have said previously many of my companions in druidry are very accepting of science and are quite happy to believe in the Big Bang (if that is still in fashion) and evolution.

However, to get back to your real point, are we far from being god? Essentially we are god, if you define 'god' as being a representative term for the divine spirit that is present in all things. Many of us, outside the Abrahamic religions, believe that we are separated from the divine source and may journey through many incarnations, learning and living, until we once more join to it. This journey of the soul enhances the divine as we bring to it all the joy and experience of many lives. It is an endless cycle.....(and here the documentary drifts away to a view of a setting sun above a golden sea, while a subtitle announces that to know more please send £50 in unmarked, non-sequential notes to 'I want to be a God in three days', c/o Divine Inspirations, 3 Railway Sidings, East Cheam ).

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.

Hi Matholwch

I think Ashki1 was just developing her perfectly valid point that if you base your morality on a religion, and that religion turns out to be a load of hokum, then what happens to the morality? If the "religion as a moral crutch" is such a poor argument (and one that I personally don't necessarily agree with) then I'm sure you could render it meaningless with a few short lines of wisdom.

"I'd really like to see what the rationalists and atheists have put in spirituality's place to provide a spur for the development of ethical and morals sense in the population."
Respect (or maybe when they get that online gaming adapter for the PS2... ). For other human beings and society as a whole. Why should you need "spirituality" to trick your own senses into guiding yourself up a moral ladder which exists only in the mind of yourself? So, the point Ashki was making was that are people who respect other people for their own sake, not from some make-believe spirituality, "more moral"? I'm not so sure myself and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss.



Ste

This is a very valid point: what happens when the crutch starts to develop woodworm, as in the case of Darwin, or paeleontology, or cosmology, or whatever? One can go on leaning on it in the hope that it doesn't give out. Or one can find some other way of standing up, preferably without external aids. One might even find out that it wasn't needed in the first place.

One thing to be said in defence of the old time Abrahamic religions is that they held the promise of eternal punishment as well as eternal bliss. Be a bad person in this life, and you were sure to cop it in the next one. They also imposed moral strictures: thou shalt not kill, drink alcohol, covet thy neighbour's ass, commit adultery (presumably after the previous sin) etc... In contrast, the New Age religions seem to promise spiritual fulfilment with no personal hardship/denial/stricture whatever. I get loads of emails every month promising me something for nothing. These get binned immediately.

FM

PS: something I forgot to pick up on beforehand: my contention that scientifically advanced societies being generally more democratic was rubbished by Matholwch. I quote the following:

"So long as authority inspires awe, confusion and absurdity enhance conservative tendencies in society. Firstly, because clear and logical thinking leads to a cumulation of knowledge (of which the progress of the natural sciences provides the best example) and the advance of knowledge sooner or later undermines the traditional order. Confused thinking, on the other hand, leads nowhere in particular and can be indulged indefinitely without producing any impact upon the world."

Stanislav Andreski, Social Sciences as Sorcery (1972, p. 90)

Nuff said.

Hi Ste .

So you think to hoist me on me own petard what? I thinkest not!
For you fail to answer my underlying question.....

'Respect' is a good start, got no problem with that. If that is the 'what', 'how' would our rationalist chummies instill this in the population at large? What could you use, instead of a religion to convince the MWP's that to be good is in their own interests?

Spirituality needn't be a trick, it can, as I have said, be a challenge, a goal, an aiming point, a reason.

The problem with the 'religion as moral crutch' argument is that it assumes that everyone who has an interest in their spirituality is so downtrodden and miserable that they need a crutch. That they only turn to 'god' when life sucks, and without it they would collapse into a tear-sodden heap. Any atheist or rationalist who believes that obviously hasn't done the on-the-ground research that they believe underpins their scientific take on truth.

If they had they would find that they average (if there can ever be such a thing) lay member of a religion is no more in need of a crutch than anyone else.

For instance, if you believe World Health Organisation figures then people who have a declared spirituality often have faster recovery rates from disease, ill health and mental illness than their non-spiritual comrades. The WHO put this down to the spiritual people having a more positive mental attitude (rather than divine intervention). Hardly sounds like people who need a crutch now does it?

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.

Matholwch

Educate, get 'em while they're young. Teach morality and ethics in schools, independant of religion, on the basis of respect and a realisation that for societies to exist and function people cannot go around disregarding other people. I don't think people realise how they fit in society and what responsibilities they have to others.

"Spirituality needn't be a trick, it can, as I have said, be a challenge, a goal, an aiming point, a reason."
Fair enough, but it has to be said that I do not need that goal, and that you do. Why is that do you think? (by the way, I am unsure)

I am not happy with the 'religion as moral crutch' argument either. It makes perfect sense in your mind, in theory, but more often than not flies in the face of observed reality, the religios people I know are certainly not "downtrodden and miserable". That's why I'm in this discussion; faith. Why do people have it? What is it's purpose? I have none and I don't get it why people do. It fascinates me, so I go out in search of any random theological discussion (that I can understand) for answers, hopefully with an open mind.



Ste

Hi Felonious .

Please refer to my above deconstruction of the religion as moral crutch argument (I don't want to bore the lurkers twice in one evening).

Another thing the Abrahamic religions happliy introduced was the concept of 'killing is an ok thing as long as your priest/feudal lord/prime minister says it is justified for the greater good'. Nice one.

Whereas the woolly-thinking 'new age' religions generally think that it is immoral and unethical to take life at all. Hmmm... wonder which side has the moral high ground there?

I think that if you look more deeply into the alternative religions the sheer amount of work you need to put into your spiritual development would make a 12th Century Cistercian monk blench. I've been at it the best part of thirty years and still consider myself an apprentice, a child amongst giants.

You are absolutely right to bin anything that promises something for nothing. Similar are those flyers that promise you paradise for simply signing away your soul, easily done and we're back to Pascal's Wager again .

Another problem with your proposal that scientifically advanced societies being generally more democratic is that there aren't any democracies in the world today with which to prove your point. There are a few functioning "dictatorships by majority", and a some "delegate your authority to a plutocrat's representative", but no democracies.

Shame really as the real experiment in social disorder will only occur when a true democracy finally emerges. Imagine every governmental decision decided by an electronic and instant poll of the population - Anarchy!

Blessings,
Matholwch the demagogue /|\