Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Schools and Churches (really 'support' for areligious moral codes)
Message-ID: <5906@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 16:56:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5906
Posted: Mon Sep 16 16:56:21 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Sep-85 06:10:20 EDT
References: <623@hou2g.UUCP> <5884@cbscc.UUCP> <1154@mhuxt.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 112
Xref: watmath net.politics:11018 net.religion:7657

A response to Jeff Sonntag:

>> I have never seen any moral code that could be supported apart from
>> some transcendent framework (religion).
>
>      But 'support' for a moral code, Paul, do you mean a *reason* for
>following it?  (like:  God'll send you to hell if ya don't follow the rules!)
>Why do you suppose that fear of punishment and hope for future reward are
>the only adequate motivations humans could have for adhering to a moral 
>code?  Is your opinion of human beings that low?

No, I'm talking about reasons why we invoke a certain moral code and not
another.  Why is it considered a crime to murder and steal, for example?
I'm not talking about people's motives for obeying, those have nothing
to do with whether or not the morals themselves are good.  I'm talking
about the basis we have for saying that some practices are a crime and
enforce that belief through our laws.  

>> Sure, religion may not be
>> necessary to *learn* morals (as long as there are people willing to
>> do what others expect of them without question)
>
>      Here you've implied that no a-religious moral codes can supply 
>valid reasons for *why* they should be followed.  Care to demonstrate that,
>and how religious moral codes *do* supply valid reasons?

[That's what bothers me about you skeptics; you always expect that
others should have to disprove the things you contend as well as
prove the things they contend. :-)]

Yes, that's my implication.  But you've shifted the burden of proof
on that.  I think the burden of proof lies with those who contend that
there are sufficient, compeling reasons for morality apart from appeal
to a transcendent authority.

Religious codes do provide the transcendent authority.  That is my
only point here.  I would contend that you can't provide sufficient
reason to compel others to obey any moral code without doing the same
thing.

>> But why should one view be compulsory and tax supported and the conflicting
>> on not?  Many churches teach nothing with regard to origins.  Students
>> who don't go to church's that teach creationism or no church at all will
>> only learn one side of the issue. 
>
>       Most students will also not hear flat-earth theories seriously
>taught, nor will they hear about Veliskovsky's theories.  Since serious
>scientiest have overwhelmingly rejected these views, nobody minds that
>they're not taught.  (except perhaps the flat-earthers or the Veliskovskiites)
>Why should creationism be treated any differently?

There was a fair amount ideological witch hunting going on in "the
Veliskofsky Affair" (see the book by that title).  I would suggest that
kind of face saving and "mine is better" thinking has much more to do with
what scientific ideas are popular then we tend to think.  (Nicholas Wade
and William Broad have documented this in their recent book _Betrayers of
the Truth:  Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science".)  How much it has
played a part in these particular cases is a matter of debate (for which
this is not the place).  My only point here is that just because a particular
idea or ideas are accepted by the majority of scientists doesn't mean that
contrary ideas don't have merit or aren't true.  (I think we tend to
give ideas that bear the stamp of scientific approval too much uncritical
acceptance.)  Also, it does not follow that all idea's rejected by this
majority are equally lacking in merit.  You seem to imply that they are by
placing creationism in the same category with the flat earth theory.

>> OK, you have learned them.  But how do you support them.  How do you
>> compel another to treat others as he would be treated?  On what basis
>> must she accept that maxim?
>> 
>        First of all, I don't go around 'enforcing' the Golden Rule, compelling
>people to act according to my moral standards.  That is a peculiarly Christian
>pasttime.  If you were to rephrase the question: "What reasons would you give
>a child for treating others as she would be treated?", I would try reasoning
>with her, explaining how, in the long run, treating others nasty would make
>*her* unhappy, due to alienation, etc.  How would you do it, Paul?  Say with
>one of the commandments, since christians don't believe in the golden rule.
>Would you warn her about hell?  Promise her heaven?  Do you see this method
>as so much superior to reason that you call 'reason' no support at all for
>moral codes?

I wasn't the one to invoke the golden rule in the first place, Jeff.  The
ones who contend that there is sufficient basis for a moral code apart
from religion did.  Read the previous articles.  It was my contention that
the golden rule was not sufficient in itself.  They seem to think that
it was a good basis for laws against murder and laws that say everyone
must pull over when an ambulance comes down the road.  They seemed to
think that the conjecture that they could also be victims is reason enough
for them to be compelled to obey these laws.  I have said that they aren't.

I assume you are in favor of laws that compel people to obey some of your
moral standards, Jeff.  I assume you are against things like rape, murder
and theft and think it is good that others are compelled to obey this standard
by our laws.  I also assume that you believe that laws like this are not
a matter of individual preference and that, on the other hand, the rightness
of a law does not depend only on whether the majority of people think it's
right.  So, then, what is the justification for these laws apart from religion?

The thing I am contending against is the idea that a moral code of behaviour
can have it's implications for society disregarded solely on the contention
that that moral code is based on religious belief.  As I see it, the argument
behind that contention is that morality may be completely divorced from
any religious grounding.  I consider that religious grounding to be any
appeal to transcendent standards (i.e. those which are validated on
an authority above Mankind or, as Kant believed, reason alone.)  If laws
must ultimately be based on a transcendend standard to have validity, then
I suggest that arguments against "imposing morality" based on religion
are ill founded.

-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd