4 ms·
I very much agree and I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Interestingly enough, this line of thought is not new. People like Auguste Comte in the 1850s
by acabal 8y ago
I very much agree and I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
Interestingly enough, this line of thought is not new. People like Auguste Comte in the 1850s saw the industrial and technological revolution as an engine working to erode religion, and he wanted to work towards an alternative.
For many people, religion generally provides two things: 1) An overt faith-based explanation of why we're here, how the world came to be, and how important events are driven (God), and 2) a system of ethical and moral rules evolved over centuries to allow everyone to life their "best life".
As science and technology advanced, many people lost the need for #1, and started to abandon religion entirely. That kind of makes sense, because #1 is often the marquee headline of religion. But in abandoning religion, they also lost #2, the quieter, but perhaps even more important, aspect. There is nothing in today's modern society that can seriously fill that gap. (In the past, fraternal organizations played that role to some extent, but they are largely irrelevant today.)
Comte put together a "Religion of Humanity" in an attempt to provide people with point #2, couched in the familiar structure of religion and ceremony, but without the faith-based belief of point #1. It saw some medium-level success in its day but is now defunct. It was perhaps too early for its time.
However I think the idea is more important now than it ever was. People need an ethical, community-based, traditions-based societal structure they can attend regularly and fall back on, but without the requirement that one believe in faith-based myths and legends. We need a new "Religion of Humanity".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_Humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_Humanity
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/auguste-comte/a-general-view-of-positivism/j-h-bridges https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/auguste-comte/a-general-vi...
- justhelpingout 8y agoA system of ethics and moral rules that is evolved over time with no relation to how things are in themselves is simply so much legacy code, to be replaced by the stronger man at a time convenient to him. If, on the other hand, moral rules and ethics are due to the natures of things then there must be someone who intended things to exist in the manner they are intended to exist. That being must be a person because of the principle of sufficient cause (since we exist). Faith is the response to communication from this person. It does not require abandoning of reason, but simply picks up where reason cannot ascend to because of its lack of perspective.
- jf- 8y ago> If, on the other hand, moral rules and ethics are due to the natures of things then there must be someone who intended things to exist in the manner they are intended to exist. This is not at all clear to me. Can you clarify?
- justhelpingout 8y agoMorals and ethics are either relative or absolute. If they are relative then they are not based on "what a thing is" (it's essence, to use an Aristotelean term) but on "how useful it is to me" or some other relative criteria). If, on the other hand, "what you ought to do with this thing" is based on "what is this thing and what is it intended to be", then there must exist some `intender` who is the reason for this thing's form / end being what that form / end is.
- jf- 8y agoThanks for the explanation. Something that is absolute needs an absolute reference frame, in other words. Here you’re saying that the absolute reference frame is what God intends. I’m not sure that there is such an absolute reference frame for morality, but this is too long a conversation to get into here!