Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion,net.philosophy Subject: Re: support for areligious moral codes Message-ID: <1738@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 10:39:18 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1738 Posted: Fri Sep 20 10:39:18 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 06:04:20 EDT References: <623@hou2g.UUCP> <5884@cbscc.UUCP> <1154@mhuxt.UUCP> <5906@cbscc.UUCP> <233@umich.UUCP> <5933@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 30 Xref: watmath net.politics:11103 net.religion:7719 net.philosophy:2662 Paul Dubuc's discourse on his opinion of the necessity for a religious basis for morality falls flat on its face for one very good reason. If Paul claims the basis for his morality stems from god, and that we must adhere to it because a deity says this is the law, he's effectively thrown out the whole code. Why? Well, ask Paul if he can prove the existence of god. (Let alone that this god is of the form that he assumes it to be---who knows, maybe the other other Paul (Zimmerman) has a more accurate depiction!) Look at the so-called "decay of moral values" in modern society. Could it possibly be that a major part of the reason for this "decay" (often just a shirking of unnecessary restrictive values that serve no purpose, but also manifested in disrespect for other human beings) is that people no longer believe the veracity of the claims behind its "meaning" and "purpose"? "Hey, there's no god to punish me for this. Look at all the punishing god does to all those other evil people---none. And what rewards do I get from believing---zilch. Hell, might as well rip off that old woman..." Thus, just the opposite of what Paul claims is what is really true. NO morality can sustain itself claiming that "it is the will of god" as long as thinking people come to the reasonable conclusion that there is no god. So what's the solution? Force everyone to believe? Go back in time to indoctrinating the "old values" to make sure everyone believes and doesn't question that belief? Or, maybe, just maybe, build a minimal morality that restricts only from interference/harm to other people's lives in order to fill the needs of all people, and explain the reasoning behind such a morality? -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com