[MD] The Moral Landscape

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Platt,


>> Steve:
>> I haven't been following moq,org for a while. Did I miss the part
>> where you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? It is my
>> understanding that you don't accept the truth of any of the world's
>> religions, yet you seem to be arguing here that religion is
>> nevertheless necessary. Necessary for _other_ people. You seem to
>> think that you are defending religious people, but on the contrary,
>> your view is entirely condescending towards them. You see them as
>> dangerous children who need religion to keep them under control so
>> they don't turn into Pol Pots. Though you don't believe in virgin
>> births, living gods, and the like, you think that it is good for other
>> people to believe such falsehoods. Maybe you are right (I don't think
>> so) but let's at least be clear about which one of us is treating
>> religious people as responsible selves who have worth as individuals
>> and would prefer not to be deceived about the world and which one of
>> us treats human beings as sheep who need comforting falsehoods. Unless
>> I missed something and you have recently found Jesus, then your
>> so-called respect for faith is no more than condescension.



>> Platt
> You appear to transferring a lot of your own feelings towards "religious
> people" to me. I don't think a lot of the moral teachings of various
> religions are "falsehoods," nor do I think persons of faith are necessarily
> "deceived."

Steve:
This is a typical Platteral shift. The question was not about whether
religions have any true moral beliefs. Of course they do, and since
religions contradict one another's moral teachings they also obviously
have a lot of false moral beliefs. If there are any people of faith
who are not deceived (if one religion actually is true), then there
are certainly millions who are deceived.

The question is what is the basis for moral truth? Is it (1) the
authority of prophets and clerics? Or is it (2) the fact that some
things are better than others and therefore the distinction between
good and bad is open to rational inquiry?


Platt:
>Rather I think anyone who thinks they know better than
> other people about spiritual matters is not only deceiving himself, but
> poses a danger to others. Certainly history shows that to be the case.

Steve:
You have just summarized many of my greatest concerns about pretty
much every religion. I suppose you subscribe to that one religion that
does not claim to have knowledge of spiritual matters that others
don't have? If like me, you recognize that history has shown that
people thinking that they know better than others about spiritual
matters has been disastrous and criticize this practice, you should
understand that this is decidedly _not_ a defense of religion. It is a
criticism of pretty much every organized religion.


Platt:
> What I know is that I know little. So I don't condemn an entire group
> who, by their acts of charity, may have something of value to teach me.

Steve:
Another Platteral shift. No one is condemning any groups en mass or
any acts of charity. Your defense of religion here is pure
condescension given that you don't believe in any religion.