From: mjmh@crsa.bu.edu (Michael J M Holmes)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Unbe Awakens
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:27:13 GMT
Organization: Boston University Center for Remote Sensing

/* nods his head a few times, having listened to John's further
explanation.

"I think I have a better idea of what you were saying.  It seems
to me that you are re-defining religion to mean something much
broader than I think most people accept the word religion to mean.
But you have pretty much *said* that you are redefining the word
for the purpose of the discussion, so I don't have any problem with
that!"

"I guess part of the reason I needed to jump in is that the word
religion is one of those loaded words that has a lot of connotations
to people above and beyond its established definition."

You mention:

Hmmm.  If he thinks that his actions mean something to the universe, if he
thinks that somehow, his actions would still mean something to the universe
even if the next day the earth crashed into the sun and destroyed all evidence
of humanity, if he believed that even THEN his actions still meant something to
the universe, I would call that a religious belief.  (Even though it doesn't
follow any established religion. . . ) 

(I realize I am taking this a little out of context)

"I wonder about this *basis* of anyone's morality, since even among people
who have the same religious belief from birth to grave, there must be
some growth, or examination, or shift, or discovery of a new aspect of
their religion, or their moral code.  I really am not an absolutist, and I
think that even in the most conservative life there is no constant when
it comes to belief, or turning belief into action."

"What if the basis for someones morality was simply the idea that since
you exist, why not make the world a better place for your having existed?
No trying to please a deity, or gain an afterlife, or following right action,
or obeying a text, but simply because you want to be that type of person?
(This is a slightly simplified example.)"

"What if someone feels that their actions mean something important, 
solely because they mean something to *themselves*?  Not
science, or logic, or religion, just their personal 
philosophy of life?

"Imagine an atheist on his deathbed, certain that there is nothing ahead of
him (masculine pronoun chosen for simplicity).  He has lived his life
morally, based on the above criteria, and previous examples - 
and as he examines his life, he can be satisfied that he loved, 
he was loved,  he made a positive difference in the world.  
And all of this matters because it mattered *to him*.  He has no 
regrets, no misgivings, and he *likes* the way he lived his life.  
I think he was moral, and hesitate to call him religious, 
even under your very broad definition.

You also mention:

    Nothing I've meant (as opposed to 'said') attacks anyone's morality, it
only points out that the basis for that morality might well vanish or change,
or whatever. . . if the BASIS for that morality is some great constant
somethingorother, well, that basis seems to be outside of science and logic,
and thus, 'religious', kindasorta.


"I hope I'm not being to argumentative, here!  I know you aren't attacking
my or anyone's morality - this topic interests me and is very relevant to
my life and the lives of many people I know."

"I think that most peoples morality develops and changes - the basis for
their morality may be one aspect of their religion, then a few years later
it may be an individual who inspires them to be moral, then they may
have a period where they remain moral but don't attribute it to anything - 
then they may eventually return to their original religion, yet base their
morality on another aspect.  Was there a *constant* basis for morality,
that this person kept missing, or had and then lost?  I don't think so.
I feel that if we want to, we constantly grow and develop and deepen
our understanding of morality."

"I still feel leery whenever people equate religion and morality.  Morality
always deals with actions of some sort, (so I feel there is always some
pragmatic content to morality) and by linking it with religion it
becomes too easy to use these definitions to condemn some peoples actions
as immoral whenever they differ from your individual religion or belief.  
(I don't mean you personally, John, I mean in general!)"

"And the idea that there *must* be some universal constant for morality - 
that's a philosophical argument from many of my philosophy classes that
never quite convinced me that it made sense.  When you declare that there
is a universal system of morals that all actions are to be measured against,
you then open the door for arrogance, bigotry, oppression... since people will
declare that *their* philosophy or religion is based on *the* only morality,
so yours *must* be wrong, and it can be proven, since there is only *one*
moral code in this universe."

/* sighs.  "But this is just about the point in the argument where everything
can get fuzzy.  Beyond belief, or faith, how can anyone really *know*
the nature of the Universe, or of The Deity, or of what happens *after*
death.  I think you *can't* know - you can firmly *believe*, but that
isn't the same as knowledge.  So I acknowledge that I could be completely
wrong, that there is a universally constant morality - but logical proofs,
philosophical arguments, religious discussions - none of these can
*prove* it, one way or another."

"I'd just like to plead for understanding - aside from the religious or
philosphical considerations, when people put these beliefs into
*action*, when moral considerations get turned into pragmatic
events and decisions, this is the crucial point that I worry about.
People who wear their moralness on their sleeve, or people who
look down on nontheists as unable to be moral (or, perhaps worse,
acting moral but for the *wrong* reasons)."

"When we get to the point where people turn this from discussion
into right/wrong games, then nobody is helped."

/* notices that he is towering above everyone, as a result of the
soapboxes growing under him.

"Fudgesicles!  I did *not* mean to get this preachy!  Especially since
John isn't at all the type of person I worry about.  Sorry to use
your statements as a jumping-off point for all of this, John!"

With that, the purple guy asks for some help to get off of these
darned soapboxes...




-- 
========================================================================
Mike Holmes       mjmh@crsa.bu.edu           "Happiness Will Prevail!"
Boston University Department of Geography (a truly GREAT place to work!)
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.callahans