[My words here]:
>>Why do we need to base morality on terror ("be good or you'll go to hell!")?
>>I have an easier time trusting a person who does the right thing because it's
>>right, rather than someone who does it simply because he is afraid of being
>>punished
>>for not doing it.
>
>This amounts to a misunderstanding of Christian teaching.
I'm sorry; I did not mean to imply that this is all there is to Christian
teaching. I know that, in many denominations and many churches, love is a
much more powerful theme than wrath or vengeance. And that's a good thing.
But even this is subject to Jim Bell's standards: why should we love other
people "simply" because God does?
But I know don't need to convince you of the futility and hollowness of
Jim's argument.
I do apologize if I have attacked or mischaracterized Christianity. I
had no such intention. I guess I tend to get a little too worked up sometimes
when I am faced with the deadly combination of Arrogance and Ignorance.
>Secondly there's this:
>
>>My moral rejection of racism is based on my own empathy for the feelings of
>>others; my own recognition that other humans have feelings just like myself.
>>You may call that a "transendent system", but it is still completely
>>materialist
>>in origin.
>
>
>I certainly agree. I feel this same empathy. But what do you do with an
>individual who refuses to accept your views of morality? I think you're
>logically defenseless, because you seem to have no basis for your morality
>other than your own self-validated empathy.
Why does logic have to be the basis for everything? Sooner or later, as you
go back to the basis of an argument, you reach a point where there is a
foundation of simple assumption. This is true of *any* argument, no matter
how solid or true we know it to be. The central assumption in my argument is
that other human beings have feelings like myself, and that it is wrong to
hurt those feelings. Is this logical? No. But neither is the central assumption
of Christian morality. If Jim Bell were honest, he would apply the same scrutiny
to his beliefs that he has to mine, and he would be forced to either throw out
his beliefs, or recognize the validity of mine.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.