When defining acceptable behavior, it's necessary to have immutable principles in place against which to measure the behavior. Without that anchor, or leash if you prefer, what is acceptable will vary from individual to individual. It's obvious that this would never work in large societies. It becomes "jungle law". It would become the ultimate libertarianism, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Secularism, and like minded philosophies, propose that religious principles have no place in our private, public and governmental lives yet most of the activities of humanity, often including theirs, seem to mimic religious concepts. If any human decides for himself that it is OK to kill his neighbor, try explaining to him why that it is wrong. If he steals from you or rapes your daughter, why is that wrong? What is the underlying authority which sustains the secularists point of view that these things are wrong, if indeed they agree they are wrong? Human authority can enforce only what can be proven, and for secularists who believe science is their "god", without scientific proof, there can be no legitimate basis for what now passes as "acceptable behavior". Laws based upon human preferences are naturally arbitrary and can fall anywhere on the curve of human behavior. One might suspect that rejecting religious teachings is a pathway to rejecting morality. Moral behavior is not based upon intellectual decisions but an adherence to a code which requires more than animal behavior.
Let's suppose that religion is a bunch of fairy tales. If you were to try to define the things necessary for a society to live together in peace, you would probably come up with most of the commandments. Even then, the parts of the commandments nearly everyone accepts could not be enforced without the authority of the others. Some would still reject those without religious content.
In the end, whether or not the religious views are accepted, they have served humanity well for thousands of years, except for the barbarians, in developing and sustaining human societies. If for this reason alone, the non and anti religious people should be grateful. Those nations which successfully suppressed religions are now just footnotes in history and religions now flourish within their borders.
What do you think, or do you?
Secularism, and like minded philosophies, propose that religious principles have no place in our private, public and governmental lives yet most of the activities of humanity, often including theirs, seem to mimic religious concepts. If any human decides for himself that it is OK to kill his neighbor, try explaining to him why that it is wrong. If he steals from you or rapes your daughter, why is that wrong? What is the underlying authority which sustains the secularists point of view that these things are wrong, if indeed they agree they are wrong? Human authority can enforce only what can be proven, and for secularists who believe science is their "god", without scientific proof, there can be no legitimate basis for what now passes as "acceptable behavior". Laws based upon human preferences are naturally arbitrary and can fall anywhere on the curve of human behavior. One might suspect that rejecting religious teachings is a pathway to rejecting morality. Moral behavior is not based upon intellectual decisions but an adherence to a code which requires more than animal behavior.
Let's suppose that religion is a bunch of fairy tales. If you were to try to define the things necessary for a society to live together in peace, you would probably come up with most of the commandments. Even then, the parts of the commandments nearly everyone accepts could not be enforced without the authority of the others. Some would still reject those without religious content.
In the end, whether or not the religious views are accepted, they have served humanity well for thousands of years, except for the barbarians, in developing and sustaining human societies. If for this reason alone, the non and anti religious people should be grateful. Those nations which successfully suppressed religions are now just footnotes in history and religions now flourish within their borders.
What do you think, or do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment