Daily GUIDE-ance:

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Two interesting points:


timpani76 said...

I disagree with the second guy. Almost everything he discussed as coming from "secular moral philosophy" is something Jesus Christ demonstrated through his ministry. Unless you consider Jesue Christ to be a secular moral authority, which I don't think anyone can argue, you will have to say that the things that are in the New Testament demonstrate that religious moral authority has lead us to greater good than secular moral authority. Jesus Christ demonstrated his love and care for women, his love for children, and his love for all people regardless of their ancestry or wealth.

Secular moral authority has led us to release child molesters because they might do better the second time, to legalize abortion, and to not put down the animals on death row because they sure are sorry.

Eyepoke said...

Thanks Timpani... the question of are we better ethically/morally now than in the past is a good one. Alot of church people will shout no, and alot of a-thiests will shout yes. Me, I think we are better in some ways, worse in others, as you say.

It's interesting that Dawkins, the athiest, suggests that a good moral code requires designing and designer(s). He and Ravi actually agree on this in these clips.

Me, I think I disagree. I think good and evil exist independant of God. I don't see one as proof of the other. But I am going to think more about it. Its an interesting concept.

timpani76 said...

I was also thinking about Jesus with animals, but I can't think of a specific scripture to back that one up. I'll have to think more about that one.

I also disagree on some points about good and evil existing beyond the pale of god's law. Obviously, good people can be good without help from a religion, but I believe that a strong inner moral code is led by the light of christ in their hearts and in their minds.

Eyepoke said...

Hm. I think good and bad can be defined very simply without bringing god into the equation: Good is what makes you happiest (in the long run) and bad is the opposite. This defination doesn't work though, if you dont first agree that one person cannot be made happy (long term) at the expense of another persons happiness (long term).

Im very tired and may not be coherent.

I do think that there are laws with power over God... sort of anyway. there are things god could do, but doing them would make him cease to be god. He could make a mountain so big that he couldn't move it, but he wouldn't be completely omnipotent afterwards. He could go back on his own word, if he wanted to, but he wouldn't be a god of truth anymore afterwards. All powerful, but with rules.


Eyepoke said...

I really like both of these guys, Ravi and Dawkins. The both challenge you to think and force you to reevaluate your assumptions.