Adam
Yes, most of humanity does it. But does that negate the fact that it is the argument used by theists in this instance?
Specifically, the fact that most of humanity does it negates its effectiveness as a summary of theistic thought. Obviously, such a sentiment is not universal among theists or among people.
It's true, though. Black people are wasting air. So are white people. And yellow, and red, and so on.
This is one reason why I like science as a guiding principle. Not as a set of laws that tell us how to behave. But as the principle of "Figure things out based on demonstratable facts and logical deduction". The "My way is better than yours" only works if one can demonstrate its superiority.
Well and fine. But does this negate the influence of objectivity over conduct? One of my constant political punchlines speaks to this "demonstrable fact": you cannot mark the profits of a school in a ledger. Objectively, an investment which does not bring a profit is a bad investment. It's why a billion dollars for sports arenas are considered "good investments" while school districts can't afford qualified teachers.
I agree that science is the better guide, but where you would reject respecting science as a set of behavioral prescriptions, so do I reject "I'm right, you're wrong" as a theistic method. Neither one of us can change the fact that others behave that way. It's like picking on theists because they're human beings. So what?
Can this superiority be demonstrated by facts or logical deduction?
At that level, such superiority can be demonstrated only on acceptance or demonstration of a purpose or meaning to life. Otherwise, it's all relative. I agree that the reduction of the self is a good thing, but in the evolutionary sense, that is, according to the benefit of the species, I cannot objectively conclude that such conduct is beneficial. Or, as I'm prone to say ...
Just why is murder wrong?
Christianity:
- "God's vengeance is big and bad, there's a hell you'll go to if you misbehave, now fall in line or cop some pain".
- Crusade time...
- "If I'm good now, I'll get a nifty afterlife. Yay, rewards or being decent."
Buddhism:
- "Why ask for a reward for being good? Are you that greedy? Look at why you want a reward for being good. Perhaps you can be good without expecting a reward for it."
- No hell, no "behave or you burn" to keep people in line.
I know you're not a fan of the West/East division, but that is
so Western. I'm actually thinking along a sidebar here. Something strikes me odd about my friends who are students of Buddhism, and you've coincidentally nailed it.
Think about it: Christianity presents a practical challenge within its confines, essentially Pascal's Wager.
The Buddhist idea you've pointed to presents a spiritual appeal within its confines, an allusion to the unrecognized--unactualized--idyll.
Strangely, that's exactly the communication problem my Buddhist friends are suffering--consistent reliance on an idyll which exists in diverse forms among humans. But the average American doesn't relate so well to such appeals. Idylls are merely idylls to Americans: pretty to look at and useful when self-righteous, but otherwise not to be trifled with.
Which is what is so sad about Capitalism, the new Great Religion. Americans tend to think of currency as the only capital, though I might make an obscure Steven Brust reference here to the various currencies of the Dragon and Jhereg.
Capitalism is merely a name given to an identification of a natural process restricted into a formal structure. But it works once you break that, and make people understand that monetary currency is not the only viable exchange in such a structure.
Take something vague like "security". I don't mean just national or financial security, but also that security of the psyche, the comfort of the conscience.
Thus:
- "Being good provides its own benefit by removing a negative influence from your environment and also by insinuating a positive pattern in that same environment." (Capitalist translation: Pay for schools, and the neighbor kids run less chance of stealing your TV and raping your cat.)
- "Heaven and Hell are made and achieved, not assigned; they are potential temporal states, not promised afterlives." (Capitalist translation: We make the world as good or bad as we can by our actions, and hold the potential of paradise within our capacities.")
It doesn't threaten punishment, it doesn't seek reward. It doesn't castigate or discourage. Rather it proposes a rational, verifiable condition.
Or, the Mother Love Bone version of the same:
Been talkin' to my alter, says, "Life is what you make it, and if you make it death, well, rest your soul."
Of course, they are only human in both cases, and a while back a Buddhist monk in Thailand raped an Aussie tourist
None of it seems to work. I don't know if you heard or not, but it turns out that Catholic priests in the US have been raping little boys by the truckload. (I can't bear to put the winkey-smiley there, for obvious reasons.)
Really ... when the priests don't care about Hell ... or is this one of those "God forgives" kind of things?
:m:,
Tiassa
