"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[flippyshark]

Another quick thought - There is scarce little in the teachings of Jesus that isn't also found in earlier traditions. It isn't that Jesus was saying anything terribly innovative, but more that Christianity succeeded (in its pre-Constantine days) because it sought to bring its ethic to a broader community, essentially making the in-group more diverse and inclusive. There was a price for admission (exclusivity; you couldn't be Christian and still belong to your former religion) but Christianity succeeded in the ancient marketplace of religions (and boy was that a buyer's market!) in part by breaking down some social barriers, at least within its own house.

[wendybeth]

Raising the ancient equivalent of the Third Estate to a position of moral superiority was a good move, actually. It set the stage for many a revolution by the masses, especially when Christianity was adopted as the religion of the realm. It was a good time to be a cheesemaker. (Sorry, NA).

[Gn2Dlnd]

Yay, cheesemakers.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Of course, the classic "reciprocal ethic" (the Golden Rule) predates any Judeo-Christian tradition by centuries. You'll find it in ancient Mesopotamian religion, Hinduism, Taoism, and on and on. And even that core ethical notion is (and always has been) open to debate.

This supports my theory that all religions have it "a little right", and that the real "truth" is that there is a superior being who has tried many different ways to communicate with us.

[Strangler Lewis]

How does this support that theory?

[Morrigoon]

Consistency might point to a higher truth... higher than specific religions' dogma.

[Ghoulish Delight]

This and other recent discussions here have lead me to the book, The Secular Conscience. I've just started, but a good read so far. If anyone's wondering how a atheism and morality can coexist, take a gander.

Interestingly, it is so far making what I think, stripping away the bluster and red herrings, was Sir Dillon's point in the other thread. And, as presented by this author, I have a hard time finding fault with it. Namely, he argues that secular liberalism has taken the "belief is a private matter" concept too far, leaving them (us) impotent to engage in public critical discourse. If it's okay for everyone to believe whatever they want, then we can't criticize their statements of belief, right? Wrong, by Dacey's reasoning. His point is not, "it's private, so let's stay out of it," his point is, "Everyone's free to express it, so let's jump in and make ourselves heard." It's a strong point.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Consistency might point to a higher truth... higher than specific religions' dogma.

Most chairs look pretty much the same, not because some external supernatural force binds chairs together. It's because that's the reasonable way to solve the problem of sitting.

Animals share many of the same evolutionary traits because those traits are the ones that give the best chance for survival.

Stable, successful societies share much of the same structure and morality because it works. No magic or supernatural being necessary.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

Yay, cheesemakers.

And the purveyors of fine cheese products, as well.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Most chairs look pretty much the same, not because some external supernatural force binds chairs together. It's because that's the reasonable way to solve the problem of sitting.

Animals share many of the same evolutionary traits because those traits are the ones that give the best chance for survival.

Stable, successful societies share much of the same structure and morality because it works. No magic or supernatural being necessary.

Master Pangloss taught the metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology. He could prove to admiration that there is no effect without a cause; and, that in this best of all possible worlds, the Baron's castle was the most magnificent of all castles, and My Lady the best of all possible baronesses.

"It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best."