Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: Schools and Churches (really 'support' for areligious moral codes) Message-ID: <5906@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 16:56:21 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5906 Posted: Mon Sep 16 16:56:21 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 17-Sep-85 06:10:20 EDT References: <623@hou2g.UUCP> <5884@cbscc.UUCP> <1154@mhuxt.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 112 Xref: watmath net.politics:11018 net.religion:7657 A response to Jeff Sonntag: >> I have never seen any moral code that could be supported apart from >> some transcendent framework (religion). > > But 'support' for a moral code, Paul, do you mean a *reason* for >following it? (like: God'll send you to hell if ya don't follow the rules!) >Why do you suppose that fear of punishment and hope for future reward are >the only adequate motivations humans could have for adhering to a moral >code? Is your opinion of human beings that low? No, I'm talking about reasons why we invoke a certain moral code and not another. Why is it considered a crime to murder and steal, for example? I'm not talking about people's motives for obeying, those have nothing to do with whether or not the morals themselves are good. I'm talking about the basis we have for saying that some practices are a crime and enforce that belief through our laws. >> Sure, religion may not be >> necessary to *learn* morals (as long as there are people willing to >> do what others expect of them without question) > > Here you've implied that no a-religious moral codes can supply >valid reasons for *why* they should be followed. Care to demonstrate that, >and how religious moral codes *do* supply valid reasons? [That's what bothers me about you skeptics; you always expect that others should have to disprove the things you contend as well as prove the things they contend. :-)] Yes, that's my implication. But you've shifted the burden of proof on that. I think the burden of proof lies with those who contend that there are sufficient, compeling reasons for morality apart from appeal to a transcendent authority. Religious codes do provide the transcendent authority. That is my only point here. I would contend that you can't provide sufficient reason to compel others to obey any moral code without doing the same thing. >> But why should one view be compulsory and tax supported and the conflicting >> on not? Many churches teach nothing with regard to origins. Students >> who don't go to church's that teach creationism or no church at all will >> only learn one side of the issue. > > Most students will also not hear flat-earth theories seriously >taught, nor will they hear about Veliskovsky's theories. Since serious >scientiest have overwhelmingly rejected these views, nobody minds that >they're not taught. (except perhaps the flat-earthers or the Veliskovskiites) >Why should creationism be treated any differently? There was a fair amount ideological witch hunting going on in "the Veliskofsky Affair" (see the book by that title). I would suggest that kind of face saving and "mine is better" thinking has much more to do with what scientific ideas are popular then we tend to think. (Nicholas Wade and William Broad have documented this in their recent book _Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science".) How much it has played a part in these particular cases is a matter of debate (for which this is not the place). My only point here is that just because a particular idea or ideas are accepted by the majority of scientists doesn't mean that contrary ideas don't have merit or aren't true. (I think we tend to give ideas that bear the stamp of scientific approval too much uncritical acceptance.) Also, it does not follow that all idea's rejected by this majority are equally lacking in merit. You seem to imply that they are by placing creationism in the same category with the flat earth theory. >> OK, you have learned them. But how do you support them. How do you >> compel another to treat others as he would be treated? On what basis >> must she accept that maxim? >> > First of all, I don't go around 'enforcing' the Golden Rule, compelling >people to act according to my moral standards. That is a peculiarly Christian >pasttime. If you were to rephrase the question: "What reasons would you give >a child for treating others as she would be treated?", I would try reasoning >with her, explaining how, in the long run, treating others nasty would make >*her* unhappy, due to alienation, etc. How would you do it, Paul? Say with >one of the commandments, since christians don't believe in the golden rule. >Would you warn her about hell? Promise her heaven? Do you see this method >as so much superior to reason that you call 'reason' no support at all for >moral codes? I wasn't the one to invoke the golden rule in the first place, Jeff. The ones who contend that there is sufficient basis for a moral code apart from religion did. Read the previous articles. It was my contention that the golden rule was not sufficient in itself. They seem to think that it was a good basis for laws against murder and laws that say everyone must pull over when an ambulance comes down the road. They seemed to think that the conjecture that they could also be victims is reason enough for them to be compelled to obey these laws. I have said that they aren't. I assume you are in favor of laws that compel people to obey some of your moral standards, Jeff. I assume you are against things like rape, murder and theft and think it is good that others are compelled to obey this standard by our laws. I also assume that you believe that laws like this are not a matter of individual preference and that, on the other hand, the rightness of a law does not depend only on whether the majority of people think it's right. So, then, what is the justification for these laws apart from religion? The thing I am contending against is the idea that a moral code of behaviour can have it's implications for society disregarded solely on the contention that that moral code is based on religious belief. As I see it, the argument behind that contention is that morality may be completely divorced from any religious grounding. I consider that religious grounding to be any appeal to transcendent standards (i.e. those which are validated on an authority above Mankind or, as Kant believed, reason alone.) If laws must ultimately be based on a transcendend standard to have validity, then I suggest that arguments against "imposing morality" based on religion are ill founded. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com