Every time I turn around, I hear some fervent ranting by someone that without religion there would be no proper code of morality ...no way for man to know for certain what is good or bad, right or wrong way for him to live his life.
Mindless hogwash. Religion is a bunch of people sitting around talking about ghost riders in the sky. Sorry, but the human species has only 5 senses to gain knowledge, and even if there is a god up there, there would be no way for man to know him, to know what he wants, to know what code of morality he wants us to live by. No way. Revelations and epiphanies and the like have all been artificially created by man to cover that obvious objection to their "knowing" anything...anything...about a spiritual world and divine power.
Which means that if you base your morality on religion, you base it on nothing... illusion, fantasy...nothing but your arbitrary unproven subjective feelings. That is why equally religious people around the world can have significantly different views about what their religion-based morality entails...even to the point that some kill infidels (that is, those who don't have the same arbitrary feelings about god that they do) and claim divine inspiration for so doing.
I would hope that somewhere in the dark recesses of their minds, where there is no one to hear their secret, unspoken thoughts, many religious people know it is all made up, man made. Which may help explain why despite the fact most claim to be religious, the world is in a moral mess.
Is there an objective standard to set a code of morality for man? Yes. The logical one. Man's nature. We know the proper way to care for a plant, the proper amount of sunlight and water to give it, is determined by the plant itself--the nature of the plant itself. Each species of plant has its ow nature. The proper amount of water and/or sunlight for one species will kill a member of another.
We know that each species of animal life has its own nature that determines how it should be treated. The bluebird needs to fly, the salmon needs to swim, the tiger needs to roam.
What we don't seem to know, in general, is that the human species has its own nature that determines what it needs ti survive. Man has the unique capacity to choose the course of his life. Restrain that choice, by government edict or otherwise, and you force him to live contrary to his nature, and he begins to die. Which is why freedom is the proper environment for man to live in. What man's nature requires him to have to survive-- including food and shelter--are not automatically delivered to him each day. He must go out and get them...that is, he must be productive. Which is why productivity is a major moral virtue. And so on.
Who he is...a member of a particular species...is the sole determinant of a proper pro-life code of conduct for man. Not religion, not the majority of the population, not the Founding Fathers, not wise men like Aristotle, Plato and Locke, not custom nor culture nor tradition, not whimsy. But man's nature...his provable, identifiable, immutable, knowable nature.
in the name of their god (as has been done throughout history).
No comments:
Post a Comment