If there is one thing good that religion does regardless if it's right or wrong, it puts boundaries on human behavior that generally reinforce kindness, gentleness, compassion, love, care, etc.[1]
There is no compassionate atheism. It's a non sequitur, as is “fair atheism” or “kind atheism” or any other type that requires us to assign an ethical value to actions and consequences.
I'll challenge again any atheists reading this: Outline any internally consistent, extensible, systematic ethics that does not distill down to practical benefits imposed by chance or majority will.
(Should chance be the guiding principle behind an ethical system, there is no reason for anyone to acknowledge its authority; should majority will be the guiding principle, we can easily find historical examples where majority will was cruel and pitiless to vast numbers of human beings. Any preference or imposition of one form of human behavior over another requires a system of ethics; otherwise we are "denying that there is significance or purpose in the cosmos apart from what we can drum up ourselves."[2])
In other words, if there's no other reason to do things your way than because you say so, then there is no reason to do things your way (and just as much to do them mine).[3]
[1]
That is not to say religion does everything right. Two different propositions.
I started this before I wrote the entry on the Sikh temple shooting, but it echoes the same sentiments. I'm sure you can see a pattern here. The impetus however, wasn't the James Holmes theater shooting in Colorado, but instead a talk by Fr. John Riccardo (Plymouth, MI), in which he detailed the the steps in a late term abortion. It was so troubling, I couldn't listen to it. I know what the process is, I just cannot fathom how any society can do this to the unborn, let alone a child who would in most cases be viable outside the womb.
[2]
Davis Young, Good News for Science:Why Scientific Minds Need God. (Oxford, Mississippi: Malius Press, 2012) 53.
[3]
That includes everything from why I shouldn't run over little old ladies crossing the street to why I should listen to you and consider your opinion on this topic (which, BTW, I do, frequently; I am the most skeptically-informed Christian I know, and I always enjoy the conversations, on all topics, until they descend into sarcasm, at which point I am no longer being informed, but chided).
Started: 2012-07-30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up9MsZYc5To
ReplyDeleteI will watch this.
ReplyDeleteYou must be someone that knows me well.
--c0
Where's the timid Darrin Stephens? Colonel Potter? The sensitive Spencer Tracy struggling with his sense of mercy while playing the cat tormenting a mouse?
ReplyDeleteActually, this was an interesting recreation, though a little stilted and stagey and probably not a very accurate presentation of personalities.
Then again, "Inherit the Wind" probably wasn't accurate in that regard either.
Good quote: "If religion is suppressed, suffering inevitably results."
Religion is a good substance out of which to fashion rules. If we didn't have religion, we would have to invent it, or something very much like it.
Indeed, any skeptic or agnostic or atheist who rejects God and still says there is a place for rules, has done just that.
--c0
Hello- I attempted to post using my google identity. But it didn't wok out for some reason, so I posted anonymously. Actually, my name is Herbert VanderLugt and we're "friends" on Facebook. I followed your link here and something you mentioned in your blog post led me to link that YouTube. I do agree with your take on that little theatrical recereation. But it's fun to watch nonetheless. Thanks for linking your interesting blog to Facebook. I have enjoyed reading a bit of your stuff!
ReplyDeleteHerbert Vanderlugt