[FoRK] "Peace and Love"
Dr. Ernie Prabhakar
<drernie at radicalcentrism.org> on
Mon Dec 17 17:06:51 PST 2007
On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Aaron Burt wrote:
>>>> Tut, tut, Aaron. Don't you realize that *every* evil act
>>>> committed by
>>>> a religious person *must* be because of their religion, whereas any
>>>> good act done by a religious person is to due to social and
>>> That doesn't help things. Nor does sanctimony.
>> I 100% agree with you; sorry if you missed the irony.
> I did catch the sarcasm, though. Thanks for demonstrating that such
> idea is considered so obviously ludicrous it'd *have* to be sarcasm.
What, haven't you read any of Jeff's posts lately?
(I kid, I kid; well, mostly :-)
> Meanwhile, the converse idea--that religion is what makes people act
> good, while cultural and social factors ("bad influences" like TV,
> and the corrupting influence of Darwinism and rampant Secular
> are what make people do evil--is taken as obvious, Gospel truth by
> religious people worldwide.
Which I agree is really sad, especially for Christians, since after
all Jesus was (according to our Scriptures) killed by religious folk,
> Problem is, the second idea is at least as ludicrous as the first.
> religions provide a jumble of moral ideas and lessons varied and vague
> enough to justify nearly any good *or* evil act. Meantime, I'd argue
> that most modern social and cultural factors are amoral.
> So does either make much difference in people's actual moral choices?
Now, *that's* a loaded question!
Is our behavior simply a reflection of genetics and external culture,
so nothing really matters? Or, on what basis can/should we attempt to
mold culture and/or behavior to improve morality? Or are even those
attempts tainted by our *own* cultural biases?
-- Ernie P.
More information about the FoRK