[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Steve Peterson]

>
Hi Platt,


>> Platt:
>>> If rights don't come from God, where do you suggest they come from?
>
>> Steve:
>> This question presupposes that rights come from somewhere. This  
>> question
>> also seems to imply that if I can't say where rights come from  
>> then they
>> must come from God. If a person makes a claim that rights comes  
>> from God, he
>> should be able to back up this claim.
>

Platt:
> Rights don't emerge from thin air, do they? So the question remains.

Steve:
Can you give me a definition of "rights"? If so I might be able to  
better understand why you think they come from God.

> Steve:
>> As for my answer, I agree with Pirsig who argues that rights are  
>> part of a
>> social-intellectual moral code which describes how societies have  
>> come to
>> agree that the intellectual level should be free from social  
>> control. These
>> "rights" have evolved and continue to evolve as societies come to  
>> better
>> understand how they can facilitate evolution towards DQ.
>

Platt:
> What evidence do you have to support Pirsig's theory? If "societies  
> agree"
> and "come to agree" about what rights need to "evolve," then rights  
> emerge
> from the whim of masses, like a "right to health care." The Founding
> Fathers anticipated such infections, establishing a firewall whereby
> certain rights are inalienable being "endowed by the Creator." and  
> thus
> immune from manipulation by approval-seeking politicians.


Steve:
The above suggests that rights come from the Founding Fathers and in  
how they defined rights of citizens. I think rights of citizens may  
be equivalent to responsibilities of government. If you know what the  
purpose of government is then you can say what the rights of citizens  
are.

According to Northrop's book, the founding father's were influenced  
by Locke who argued that the only reason for people to give up some  
of their liberty and subject themselves to government is that they  
can't protect their private property (pursuit of happiness) for  
themselves.


>
>> Platt:
>>> .Religiously active people report greater happiness. A 16 nation
>>> collaberative study of 166,000 people in 14 nations found  
>>> happiness and
>>> life satisfaction rise with the strength of religious affiliation  
>>> and
>>> frequency of attendance at worship services.
>>>
>>> This last finding should be of particular interest to those who find
>>> happiness a measure of morality.
>
>> Steve:
>> It is interesting. (Of course it doesn't constitute any evidence  
>> that there
>> is a God. DMBs quote about the diamond buried in the backyard  
>> applies.)
>> There are definitely some really good things about religion, but  
>> there are
>> undoubtedly some really bad things about religion too. The issue  
>> that we
>> will have to deal with as we turn away from superstition is how  
>> can we keep
>> the good things about religion as we discard religious dogma.
>

Platt:
> About good and the bad, the same can be said of rationalism, the very
> rational Communist Manifesto being a case in point.

Steve:
Would you actually argue that the problem with Stalin is that he was  
trying to be too reasonable?

Sam Harris:
"The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they  
are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much  
like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally  
give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults  
of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing  
fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject  
religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and  
nationalistic dogma run amok."

Platt:
> The evidence seems to
> show, however, that superstition and religious dogma can lead to  
> happiness
> which, by Harris' criteria, is moral. Or did I miss something?

Steve:
One issue is that we are considering a correlation between happiness  
and religion which doesn't necessarily imply cause and effect.

The other point is that it is not only happiness but suffering that  
Harris says we need to consider in judging morality. Certainly  
religion continues to be a great source of suffering.

But I think there is something missing in Harris' analysis of  
morality in that unlike Pirsig, he did not articulate a morality that  
puts intellectual quality above social quality which makes him  
vulnerable to the argument you make about religion making people  
happy. In the MOQ the truth about whether or not their are gods is  
more morally important than how we feel about the answers.

Regards,
Steve