Subject: Re: music as a process of religion
From: Robbie (shok@netcom.com)
Date: Tue Jan 11 2000 - 02:18:34 EST
<< I would say that our "natural propensities" are not toward amorality
at all. I think that's a rare thing. I think we're inherently and
specifically morally oriented, just as I think we are inherently
religiously oriented. But I think that since we are "rational" and
"self-determined" to varying degrees, we can overcome our natural
propensities (to at least a degree) for anything. >>
Then, surprisingly enough, we hardly differ at all. My only
disagreement with the above paragraph is in your saying that we are
"inherently religiously oriented." It's very clear that we have an
inherent desire to understand ourselves and our Universe, and we often
try to do so through religion. But saying that we are inherently
religiously oriented, I think, may be taking an extra step that we have
no reason to take. Religion, it seems to me, is only a means to that
end, and for a long time, it was the only available means; it isn't
anymore. And increasingly, people are living without religion as
religion is becoming less and less necessary to satisfying the inherent
desire to understand ourselves and our Universe.
Now, clearly, if you believe you have had some personal spritual
awakening, religion will have very little do with understanding yourself
or the Universe and it will take on an entirely different, entirely
personal, and an entirely incommunicable meaning. But I don't believe
that very many people have had such experiences. I spent many years in
protestant Christian churches (I'm the son of a minister, thank you very
much) and although I've encountered tons of people who talk about that
sort of thing, there was almost always some twinges of doubt and I'm not
sure I've ever encountered such an experience (of my own or of the
people around me) that I can honestly say was better than highly
ambiguous in nature. And even if they did have said experiences,
talking about it (as they always seem to do) would be useless as the
purpose of their faith would be, as I said, incommunicable. And as it
would be entirely personal, they would have little need to, anyway.
<< See, if you contend that "there is no reason to assume this," I need
to know why. Is it because
1. You claim there's no objective grounds of right or wrong, or
2. (if we assume there are objective grounds of right and wrong), you do
not believe there is evidence to believe that we humans have a strong
proclivity to evil >>
Neither, really. I contend that there is no reason to assume that
society would crumble into an amoral mess without religion because,
frankly and firstly, I've been provided with no evidence to suggest that
it would.
And because I believe morality and religion are entirely independent of
each other. I believe that religion is, as I stated earlier, a human
contrivance developed specifically to provide answers for such pervasive
questions as "Who Am I?" and "Why Am I?" in times when no answers could
be found by any other means. And because I believe that morality
essentialy stems from compassion and sympathy (ie, regard for the common
good) which are quite definately feelings natural to humans beings (and
to varying degrees, all social animals) as a result of their necessity
in our evolution.
All of these factors contribute to my belief that religion could be
taken out of the picture and no effect on general morality would result.
robbie
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-sanity is relative+-+-+-+-+-+-+| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - * 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