Subject: Re: music as a process of religion
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Date: Mon Jan 10 2000 - 17:54:25 EST
In a message dated 1/10/00 5:29:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, shok@netcom.com
writes:
<< Alright. You're coming in louder and clearer now. So:
You contend that one (or a society) cannot survive/thrive without the
influence of religion? Without a religious influence, one is (or
society is) destined to be amoral? Humanity is innately evil?>>
You'd have to look pretty hard through my posts to come up with any of the
above assertions. What I think you're doing is reading me in the light of
some preconceptions you have (which are accurate in varying degrees depending
on which branch of Christianity you're talking about) about Christian
theology.
I wouldn't say that humanity could not survive without religion. I would
agree that a great deal of evil has been committed in the name of religion,
but if you look at what people have done in the name of Marxism over the last
hundred years (Stalin and Lenin had their 10 to 50 million dead Russians, Pol
Pot, terrible persecutions in China) I have little reason to believe an
inherently atheist society (these are our only examples) would be any better.
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.
Regarding humanity being "innately evil"...
that's a bit of a stretch even for a good old Calvinist. I Am Aware of
Reformation rehetoric regarding human depravity, but it needs to be
understood against the background of their arguments with Renaissance
humanists (whom they felt were arguing too strongly for an independent human
capacity to do good, or be moral, etc.). I don't think you and I can discuss
this point unless, of course, we have some agreement regarding:
1. The existence of good and evil.
2. What good and evil is.
My position is that good and evil exists, that we can define it at least from
situation to situation (with varying degrees of assurance that we are making
a close to right judgment :) ), and that we, as human beings, have a strong
proclivity in both directions, and that selfishness (evil) wins out more
often than not (but usually in very small, stupid, insignificant ways).
<<Whereas I contend that there is no reason to assume this, nor is there
any reason to assume that we would be worse off without any notion of
god.
Are we on the same page? >>
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?
If you're going to argue the first, that's one argument. If you're going to
argue the second, that's another, and one you're probably better off not
starting because you're bound to lose. I'm not saying there's no hope for
humanity, no expectation for anything better, but that our track record is
not that good. This has been argued from both sides of the fence -- from
Voltaire to theists. You're not on very good ground here.
Jim
-
* 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