Subject: Re: music as a process of religion
From: jason varsoke (jjv@caesun.msd.ray.com)
Date: Tue Jan 11 2000 - 17:22:21 EST
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 AntiUtopia@aol.com wrote:
> If compassion is so natural, why do we need to be taught it? Why is it that
> the ONLY emphasis upon compassion in moral teachings is found in a religious
> context? And in a very limited religious context, actually -- Judaism,
> Christianity, and Buddhism. Those are the big three that Forefront
> compassion.
And what about Utilitarianism? Confussianism? Plato? Aristotle? To
name a few.
Why does hate have to be taught as well? Why is it that hate also
springs from Religions? Find hate in philosophy.
Nature, Nurture: Please don't get into this.
> See, the human race has gotten on quite a long time, and survived, in a very
> non-compassionate way. Scientific materialism via Darwin teaches us that
> survival of the fittest (and the death of the weak) is necessary for the
> survival of our species, not compassion. Scientific materialism via Freud
> teaches us that the only real guiding instincts in human beings are sex and
> aggression. No compassion there.
This is a very limited understanding of Darwin. Society is necessary
for many species to survive, especially humans. Compassion is the
instinct to save a fellow from harm. Certainly children would not survive
if mother and fathers knew nothing of compassion.
> So tell me, please, where in scientific materialism that you learned about
> the importance of compassion? Truthfully, you have been instructed from
> religions indirectly, and refuse to admit it. Truthfully, your litany of "I
> believes" in your post makes your beliefs sound more like an unreasoning
> (rather, pre-reasoning) religious credo rather than purely rational,
> scientific materialism.
Just as no person is free from society, also no one cannot be impacted
by the beliefs that surround them. Sure, I (an athiest), grew up
believing that killing is bad. Is that found in the Bible, yep. Did I
get it from the bible, nope, not directly. Did my parents? Nope. Did
theirs? probably. Did my 1st grade teacher, yep. Many tidbits of
religion are ubiquitious. Does that mean that the reason I believe in
them has anything to do with Religion? Nope.
I think the difference between Robbie and Jim is more that Jim grounds
his belief that things are wrong because God said so. Robbie doesn't
believe God said so, but still thinks these things are wrong. To be
"Religious" you must ground your believe in some sort of dogma. If you
don't, you're non-religious.
>
> Time to face the facts about your beliefs, buddy :) You're religious. It's
> an atheist religion, but it's still a religion. And you have a great deal of
> faith (more than I, actually) in beliefs that fly in the face of facts as we
> perceive them on a daily basis.
As for faith. John Locke (i believe it was Locke or a contemporary)
proved that even the belief that the sun will come up tomorrow is Faith.
The belief in causation is Faith. We have no reason to believe that the
world will be the same tomorrow. It just always has in the past.
But really, is this a fruitful pursuit? Just what are you trying to
make an athiest admit? That religion is necessary?
-j
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:06 EST