(1) To what extent is a secular philosophy of explicitly stated loving kindness less likely to lend itself to atrocities than religious doctrines in which the virtue of loving kindness is mixed in with a variety of other ideas that are hard-to-understand and unloving and unkind? In other words, if the core value of loving kindness is clear and simple, we then know what to strive for, and can focus on the challenging task of figuring out how best to put loving kindness into practice.
(2) The description ‘hard to understand’ applies to the question of , for example, why an all-loving god would require his son to be tortured and murdered so that he could forgive humankind for our innate sinfulness, a propensity within humans which that god created in the first place. The response from Christians has often been that the “ways of God are not understandable by man.”
(3) But if we are to follow what is impossible for us to understand, would that not seem to extol obedience itself as a virtue ?
(4) If thru obedience we let go of our responsibility to understand right and wrong, what state of morality do we then find ourselves in?
(5) In that light, to what extent does it seem to you that authoritarianism is a component of religion, especially within its fundamentalist strains?
(6) How compatible are authoritarianism and loving kindness? My guess is that when there is less personal freedom, one’s capacity to act morally is constrained. One could also argue that authoritarian political and economic elite demonstrate organized unkindness.
( 7) You said Christ’s message of love is his primary command. But what are your thoughts regarding the people who may have taught the importance of love, including love for one’s enemies, centuries before Christ?y sense of being appreciated by others generally is commensurate with my degree of integrity, which is a constant work-in-progress.
Humans have an innate concern for each other, with or without theology. But I find my empathy and compassion toward others is intensified by having a value system thru which to rationally and intuitively recognize my connection to human and nonhuman others, in terms of meeting my physical needs (water, food, shelter, medicine, and so on) and my mental needs (companionship and community and purpose). It’s what ecologists refer to as the web of life.
To be clear, I suggest the science of ecology as a framework for morality in place of theology. I don’t advocate atheistic nihilism. Some religious folk seem to assume that a belief in nothing is the only option other than what they believe (as Christians, Muslims, and so on.)
As for what “fuels my love” if it’s not a belief in God, I’ll say to you that I now love more genuinely and consistently as an atheist than I did as a Christian and as I did later on as a universalist theist.
I suggest that nonreligious morality focuses clearly on the task of loving each other, instead of combining that with all sorts of theological dogma (ie humans having original sin and needing God’s son to die on a cross to atone for it.)
As for the irrationality of the Judeo Christian Bible, how does what it says about the age of the Earth jibe with Geologic science ? Is it reasonable to believe a virgin gave birth after a god impregnated her or that Jesus turned water into wine and walked on water?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Religious folk offer emphatic testimonials about their faith. They don’t offer evidence, but instead present circular arguments : the Bible is inerrant because it’s the word of God and God is infallible and so on and so on.
But humans are fallible. If we are fallible, then maybe those of us who believe in gods are incorrect. Religious folk often ask, “who then created the universe, if there is no God?” Why not be honest and say we don’t know who, if anyone or any type of being, created the universe? It might be useful for you to consider who or what created God. If you can believe that God always existed, why can’t you believe that the universe always existed without anyone or anything creating it ?
On top of all this, it’s not just the case that Christians are inconsistent with their claimed belief in scripture such as (1) being against gay marriage, but (2) not being against militaristic wars (turn the other cheek? love your enemy? love your neighbor as yourself ? ) and (3 ) not being against the ongoing concentration of wealth and impoverishment of large segments of societies (easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than for a rich person to go to heaven ? give everything you have away to the poor ? )
It’s also the case that people shouldn’t follow one of the key ideas of Christ : the Golden Rule. There are situations in life where we would be more ethical to NOT treat someone as we would want to be treated. Consider self-defense, where someone kills a home intruder. As Rousseau suggested, it’s better to “do what is good for you with as little harm as possible to others” than it is to “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.”
Further still, not only do most Christians not follow the idea of turning the other cheek (they usually creatively find a figurative interpretation while some of them become literal about the Bible when it comes to other issues, such as gay marriage.) But turning the other cheek is a rule we shouldn’t always follow, regardless of whether Christ or someone else said it. We can’t always be nonviolent, because sometimes to refrain from violence is, in effect, to allow others to commit acts of violence.
So, I’ve multiple layers for my reasons for being someone who is not only non-Christian but also not an adherent to any other form of theology, including, by the way, attempts to turn ecology into some type of theology by worshiping ‘Gaia.’ I don’t believe Earth is angry or upset at humans or that Earth is otherwise a sentient being.
Theists have the bumper sticker “worship the creator, not the creation” while others have the bumper sticker that reads “Nature is God.” I relate to the latter claim, but I’m not sure it’s accurate or honest of me to say that nature is ‘God’ or a ‘god.’ I’m inclined to refrain from using the concept of ‘God’ to describe anything.
Leave a Reply