[MD] The Moral Landscape

[118]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

Mark:
Steve, I think you are confusing truth with belief.  I believe I like
pistachios, that does not make it true.  It is only true that I believe
that.  All religions are true in that sense.  The deception is realized when
one changes his/her mind, it does not exist before that.

>
> 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?
>

Mark:
Yes Steve, that is the question, but you are missing a few choices in the
multiple choice question.  If I had to choose from the above I would say
number 1.  The so called authority of prophets and the resulting clerics is
arrived at through rational inquiry, it is not just made up out of nothing.
 They are directly addressing the question of moral truth, so the underlying
premise to their answers provides more basis.  That some things are better
than others does not necessarily result in a description of moral truth.  We
create Truth through Quality (according to Phaedrus), I don't think we can
qualify Quality with Truth because it would make Truth the overriding basis
not Quality.  I believe this is what you are trying to do.



>
>
> 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.
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>