From: mss2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Unbe Awakens
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:27:10 GMT

In article <104509@bu.edu> mjmh@crsa.bu.edu (Michael J M Holmes) writes:

>"Is Bob a moral person?  I tend to think so.  He is honest,
>supportive, a good friend, and is studying rehabilitation counseling,
>part of which is an altruistic impulse he has.  Bob wants his
>life to mean something, he wants to make a difference (in this
>world, or in the universe, if you want to put it that way).
>Plus, he has a very clear sense of right & wrong that few 
>people would have a problem with."

>"But he is not religious, nor does he believe in a religion.
>I truly believe, even by your terms, that to call him immoral,
>or amoral, or even non-moral, just doesn't fit.  He can speak
>about his actions meaning something to the physcial universe,
>or to the 'universe' of people, but is still not religious."

>"Maybe this is not interpreting your terms exactly the way
>you intended, but it may be close.  I do tend to feel a tiny
>little bit upset when I hear people equate morality to
>religion; I know too many immoral religious people, and I also
>know some moral nonreligious people.

	Michael sighs.  "I guess I thought we'd already gone through
the difference between supposing an absolute religious base to
morality and equating religious belief and practice with morality.
Look at it this way: the Ptolmaic system of astronomy is an excellent,
well-developed system based on a false premise.  Despite the false
premise, if one uses it, one will get quite accurate results for
various celestial events.  Someone who knew the Ptolmaic system
backwards and forwards would be better at predicting the apparent
motions of astronomical objects in the sky than someone who knew the
basis of current astronomical theory but hadn't studied to any great
degree.  Not knowing what lies behind something, to a point, does not
prevent doing a pretty good job with rules of thumb or incorrect
theories.

	"The point of most religions that I know of isn't to make
people more moral.  It's to give an accounting of the universe and
suggest appropriate ways for dealing with it.  Morality is almost a
side effect.  The point of Buddhism is to escape the suffering
inherent in existence-- things like `right action' are _means_ to that
end.  Christianity is about developing a particular sort of
relationship to God-- it's simply that wilfully committing evil acts
is believed to increase the distance between the individual and God.
Ideally, a Norseman didn't choose to be honorable because it would get
him a place by Odin-- he was given a place with Odin _because_ he was
honorable.  The value of honor was presumed to be understood by any
one worth considering.

	"No one even halfway aware of the world could simply equate a
set of beliefs with morality.  Medieval Christendom, often held up as
an exemplar of intolerance, included three pagans and three Jews among
the Nine Worthies, and celebrated Saladin as a virtuous infidel.
Conversely, a cursory examination of medieval literature would show
that they hardly thought that professing Christianity equalled moral
uprightness-- Chaucer and Dante are full of sinful monks and evil
bishops.  Doubtless there are people who do at least equate
"nonbeliever" with "evil", but this is far closer to the common human
trait of demonizing the "other", however defined, than anything
peculiar to religion or even really directly part of it."

  It may be a slight
>difference in semantics, but I can imagine that atheists 
>cannot be too happy when people decide that they are not
>capable of being moral; or worse, that if they *are* moral,
>then they *must* be religious."

	"Then again, a religious person might not be too happy if
they're told they're incapable of seeing the world without viewing it
through a fiction, or worse, if they are realistic, then they must be
rejecting their religion.  If God is the source of morality, and human
morals are, in a sense, just reflected light, then will they or nill
they everyone must be encountering some sort of divine influence
(however attenuated or distorted).  But is this different in principle
from saying that if morals are merely the creations of human minds,
then people who say otherwise are merely subscribing to fantasy and
myth?  People disagree on this subject.  Someone (if not everyone) has
got to be wrong.  People can be polite about their disagreements, and
not read too much into them (i.e. not claim that atheists must ipso
facto be without ethics, and conversely not identify all theists with
the Inquisition), but they can't pretend the disagreements don't
exist.  Ultimately, both think their differences matter, after all.
It's a question of the fundamentals of the universe and humanity's
place within it-- how can they not matter?

	"But the way in which they matter isn't simply a question of
enforcing moral behavior.  People don't need a religion to tell them
that the unprovoked killing of a peer is wrong.  Most of them already
_know_ that.  _Why_ it's wrong, and how that fits in with the ultimate
goal of human life (if indeed such an explanation or goal exists) are
the province of religion and philosophy, and that's where the
disagreements are.  Not whether one can be a nice person without a
religion, but understanding how one's behavior relates to life's
purpose (if any) and shaping it accordingly.  That may _lead_ to
different morals (so that for example to a Buddhist, teaching Buddhism
to someone in pain, who wanted to know how to escape it, might seem a
moral obligation) but those morals aren't the goal itself.  Ptolmaic
astronomy and modern astronomy can both predict eclipses.  Which is
true has important implications, however, in determining not just how
to plan a moon shot, but whether it's a wise thing to do."

	Michael rappels his way down the tower of soapboxes, wondering
why it is that he gets so much more prolific during finals.  :-)

Michael
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 when I reflect that God is just."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
mschiffer@aal.itd.umich.edu	    Virginia (1784)