"I agree with Danny A of Texas in his comment at the bottom of the article."
So, lack of faith somehow reaffirms one's faith?
"But if there is no God and no absolute morality, how do we know what is just and unjust?"
Well, even with a God there seems to be no moral abolsutism. If religious ppl have shown us nothing else, they have shown us that moral absolutism is a fantasy.
E.g. pro/anti homophobia, contraception, capital punishment, corporal punishment, abortion, tolerance of other faiths...
Even within one faith or sect you get the whole gamut of moral views.
I prefer an idea like ijtihad, basically an open critical debate between /humans/ on rights or wrongs. It's not perfect, but it doesn't pretend to be - which is a plus in my eyes!
Lack of faith (where we once had more faith)shows that as humans we have the potential to doubt just as much as to believe, but that doubt in no way confirms the non-existence of God. It simply confirms that we have faith in waxing and waning degrees.
"E.g. pro/anti homophobia, contraception, capital punishment, corporal punishment, abortion, tolerance of other faiths..."
That's because you're seeing it from the point of view of mere mortals who in our current state cannot interpret things without others disagreeing. That doesn't disprove the existence of God an any way.
So long as there is debate (itjihad?) on what is right and wrong, Human Rights advocates in the west have no moral basis on which to criticise those who they see as infringing the (Western) principals of morality. Unless they are willing to accept that their particular 'dogma' is absolute.
"that doubt in no way confirms the non-existence of God"
agreed, same on the other hand with belief.
"That's because you're seeing it from the point of view of mere mortals who in our current state cannot interpret things without others disagreeing. That doesn't disprove the existence of God an any way."
true, but on the other hand, my point is ppl who believe in god, and believe they are following god's absolute moralities are imo, no closer to any fundamental truths about morality than non-believers.
actually, i reckon there may well be absolute rights and wrongs in theory (as u do).
but in practice we gotta think hard and critically about our beliefs and argue hard for what we believe to be right, we shouldn't preach them necessarily as self evident dogma (as many religions seem to do...).
The number of times GOD's name is used to justify acts of evil is reason enough to deny his/her existance. I always find it somewhat amazing that some assume you need some "higher" power to determine what is right and what is wrong.
Actually, on a tangent, I'm reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History Of Time" at the mo.
Am sure it's outdated by now, but it is quite an easy read, although it does have some nicely mind bending stuff about creation. Truly fascinating stuff!!
laugh..its beautiful, not really simple science based on probablities...Then big invisable man is no more justifable than the fairies at the bottom of the garden (expect the invisable dude is a lot nastier..old testiment anyone)
8 comments:
I agree with Danny A of Texas in his comment at the bottom of the article.
Perhaps she was feeling a loss of God's presence because of the injustice she was seeing all around her.
But if there is no God and no absolute morality, how do we know what is just and unjust?
"I agree with Danny A of Texas in his comment at the bottom of the article."
So, lack of faith somehow reaffirms one's faith?
"But if there is no God and no absolute morality, how do we know what is just and unjust?"
Well, even with a God there seems to be no moral abolsutism. If religious ppl have shown us nothing else, they have shown us that moral absolutism is a fantasy.
E.g. pro/anti homophobia, contraception, capital punishment, corporal punishment, abortion, tolerance of other faiths...
Even within one faith or sect you get the whole gamut of moral views.
I prefer an idea like ijtihad, basically an open critical debate between /humans/ on rights or wrongs. It's not perfect, but it doesn't pretend to be - which is a plus in my eyes!
Lack of faith (where we once had more faith)shows that as humans we have the potential to doubt just as much as to believe, but that doubt in no way confirms the non-existence of God. It simply confirms that we have faith in waxing and waning degrees.
"E.g. pro/anti homophobia, contraception, capital punishment, corporal punishment, abortion, tolerance of other faiths..."
That's because you're seeing it from the point of view of mere mortals who in our current state cannot interpret things without others disagreeing. That doesn't disprove the existence of God an any way.
So long as there is debate (itjihad?) on what is right and wrong, Human Rights advocates in the west have no moral basis on which to criticise those who they see as infringing the (Western) principals of morality. Unless they are willing to accept that their particular 'dogma' is absolute.
"that doubt in no way confirms the non-existence of God"
agreed, same on the other hand with belief.
"That's because you're seeing it from the point of view of mere mortals who in our current state cannot interpret things without others disagreeing. That doesn't disprove the existence of God an any way."
true, but on the other hand, my point is ppl who believe in god, and believe they are following god's absolute moralities are imo, no closer to any fundamental truths about morality than non-believers.
actually, i reckon there may well be absolute rights and wrongs in theory (as u do).
but in practice we gotta think hard and critically about our beliefs and argue hard for what we believe to be right, we shouldn't preach them necessarily as self evident dogma (as many religions seem to do...).
The number of times GOD's name is used to justify acts of evil is reason enough to deny his/her existance. I always find it somewhat amazing that some assume you need some "higher" power to determine what is right and what is wrong.
Who made God?
"The number of times GOD's name is used to justify acts of evil is reason enough to deny his/her existance."
But all that does is prove that you 'deny' (subjective), but doesn't 'prove' or 'disprove'(objective) God's existence.
"Who made God?" Why does God require a creator? If s/he required a creator we'd all be trying to deny God's creator's existence. :)
Who made the atoms that went 'Big Bang!!? Who made the vacuum that the atoms were floating around in? Same argument isn't it?
How to go round in circles 101.
Cheers.
Actually, on a tangent, I'm reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History Of Time" at the mo.
Am sure it's outdated by now, but it is quite an easy read, although it does have some nicely mind bending stuff about creation. Truly fascinating stuff!!
laugh..its beautiful, not really simple science based on probablities...Then big invisable man is no more justifable than the fairies at the bottom of the garden (expect the invisable dude is a lot nastier..old testiment anyone)
Post a Comment