From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Wed Nov 13 2002 - 02:57:11 EST
David wrote:
> This points out a place at which agnostics and atheists consistently
> fail to be logical. For example, Jim has been accusing Christianity
> of being untruthful, yet as an agnostic he has no grounds for
> requiring truthfulness of anyone. It would be inconsistent of
> Christianity to be untruthful, but again agnosticism cannot justify
> consistency as a principle. I know of no moral system not rooted in
> theism that does not boil down to "I can do what I want and you can
> do what I want".
>
On the first point, I never thought of that, but indeed, without
invoking an unprovable formalistic principle, there is no reason
to require anyone to be truthful If I can lie big time and make
huge profit out of it, the formalistic principle has no claim on my
life for obedience --- no matter how "good" it might be to follow
it. Or a milder form of the same things is if I weigh the odds of
lying and decide that the risks outweight the odds or penalities of
getting found out. Of course, I can worship my formalistic principles
and be obedient to them, but that is simply my choice, and in many
respects, it would be a pretty dumb thing to do if I turn down a good
profit (if there is no holy God to hold me accountable it).
On the second point, I think I know what you are saying here but
it needs a little unpacking. The general principle of a godless
ethics would run from a principle like "equal access". The
place where I think this is wrong is that it assumes human nature
is basically good. Much like Karl Marx seems to have essentially
assumed that human nature is good and so people will simply
see work and do it, he forgot that cultural underpinnings encourage
a work ethic and consideration of your fellow man. Democratic
societies
are very very fragile entities as any quick scan of the history books
would reveal. Historically, "_unequal_ access" has occurred more
frequently and lasted longer. It is much easier to kill off the
competition
than to have to compete with it. So the "boot stamping on a human
face" is more the vision we should see for the future in a society
where no one perceives that a holy God might hold them accountable
for their deeds. Of course, some survivalists could hang in the niches
where the boot doesn't come down so often, but I think that is a more
realistic picture than the idyllic picture of obeying this "equal access"
principle. We're TAUGHT to respect it.
The other position is like Dawkins' example of hawks and doves.
Eventually an equilibrium will be reached. In a godless picture,
that amounts to having a balance between "obedience" and
"opportunism" . Dawkins is honest here, he does basically say
that opportunism is the norm. That probably does essentially
say how the world acts, but it cannot establish whether it is
good or evil. So again, the "boot stamping on a human face"
is more what we _should_ expect, and who cares about some
stupid rules and principles if there is no holy God to call us to
account? I suspect it would be foolish to be obedient to them,
but then there is one born every minute.
I decide long ago this was not for me. I may be wrong, that I
admit up front, but God's wisdom is the world's foolishness.
by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 14 2002 - 01:21:26 EST