six45ive Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 It would be fantastic if we could engage the whole world to come up with their own checklist. Inevitably though there will be opinion leaders and followers, and "the elders" of society have a duty to the next generation to give guidance. It depends what you mean by guidance. If you take that to mean that 'the elders' are there to offer support and advice when needed then I pretty much agree. Here's an example of what happens when we abandon our responsibilities and give freedoms to those who aren't ready for it: "Academic who left children to party alone - was arrested on suspicion of possessing drugs and child abandonment and later released on police bail." Ecstasy death girl, 15, 'idolised drug-taking musicians and was hooked on the internet' Which proves my case in point. This girl hadn't built her own moral compass to the point where she's so confident in herself that she doesn't feel the need to 'idolise' anybody or give in to peer pressure. She hadn't developed her own way of working it out which requires a different approach to education from a very young age. Was a commandment broken? I'm not sure, but I doubt it. The point is that there needs to be limits on the freedoms we afford to those who are not in a position to assess the risks for themselves. We need to uphold laws, values, and morals for a better society. Let's see how many of those we can all agree upon. We already have laws in place which do this. And of course, living in a free society rather than a theocracy means that you're free to break these laws but you have to be prepared to take the consequences if you get caught and convicted. It's a very good checklist (set of commandments). And yes, number 8 is an excellent commandment, and yes, his criticism of the original 10 commandments will not be easy viewing for those Christians who do want to use the bible as their sole (only) guide (but I'm not sure there are many of those left). He did find common ground with the 9th commandment - that's maybe the start of a dialogue? I'd like you to comment on each of the original 10 commandments (and don't forget there were originally 613) as to why/whether you think they should be followed and for what reason. So.....start the dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Let's begin with forgiveness, support, love, a sense of belonging, community, identity. We're back at square one, these things all already exist outside of religion. If these are your examples I would say forget about "learning from religion" and let's focus more on encouraging people to adopt these existing ethics, attitudes and ideals. These values are put into practice. There are many functions that the church does, that the secular world is not currently equipped to deal with. For example: "After the dreadful Soham murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002, church services were packed as locals attempted to come to terms with such inexplicable horror. Continuity, tradition and a sense of orientation, however vague, towards matters of ultimate significance are clearly not "irrelevant" to many people in Britain today." (from the Observer article) This doesn't explain how the Church helped these people, or even if it did at all. It just says that these people went to the Church services. I would have thought they attended out of respect and to grieve for poor Holly and Jessica and show support for their families. I don't think the "moral climate" helps the situation. It tips the balance away from a sense of duty to others and towards selfishness. The City worships one god: money, the only sin ever committed is getting caught ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_trader One of the reasons I don't like organised religion is that it is BIG business with BIG money. While the smaller local Churches sometimes struggle, the chiefs at the top seem to be as interested in wealth and money as any bankers. I don't think they are the best people to learn from about money attitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 I keep coming back to it but you still don't seem to be getting it. What makes you think that these things are specifically to do with religion and how do you judge these very subjective attitudes/feelings? I would suggest that there is much more of the above in a non religious society than in a religious one. They're not specifically to do with religion. However, it's the fact that churches are more established in this field than other organisations that makes them worth engaging with. Alain de Botton was not proposing that we go to church because we can't be bothered to work things out for ourselves, but because they already have the influence, and if atheists want to influence the people with influence, they'll need to engage with them. Historically ... OK that one word lost me ... as a man of science though, surely you're more interested in the future? ... using our knowledge to make the world a better place rather than reliving old differences. When secular organisations do manage to get a foothold in the charitable/community sphere it provides a better service in a purely non judgemental way to a much wider range of people who don't have to buy into the ideology to receive the service. I'm really not arguing the case for buying into an ideology or belief system. However, churches do have a purpose that people value (as in the "Soham" example from the Observer article). "Continuity, tradition and a sense of orientation, however vague, towards matters of ultimate significance are clearly not "irrelevant" to many people in Britain today." Sometimes it's better to evolve from what we have, rather than to destroy and rebuild from scratch. When it comes to dealing with births, marriages, deaths, national tragedies, state occasions there's no one single secular organisation waiting in the wings, that has the presence that matches that of the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 BTW, I do need to move on from this guys. I've taken too much time out already flogging what seems to be a dead cause. I'm back at work tomorrow and would hope to have had final exchanges over with by then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 When it comes to dealing with births, marriages, deaths, national tragedies, state occasions there's no one single secular organisation waiting in the wings, that has the presence that matches that of the church. Fair enough about births, marriages, deaths, but in what way is the Church unmatched when it comes to national tragedies and state occasions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 BTW, I do need to move on from this guys. I've taken too much time out already flogging what seems to be a dead cause. I'm back at work tomorrow and would hope to have had final exchanges over with by then! Hah ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 If these are your examples I would say forget about "learning from religion" and let's focus more on encouraging people to adopt these existing ethics, attitudes and ideals. I'm not sure of the methods and the context? Schools need to play their role, sure and politicians? Peer to peer? Facebook? A 17 year old influencing a 16 year old? This doesn't explain how the Church helped these people, or even if it did at all. It just says that these people went to the Church services. I would have thought they attended out of respect and to grieve for poor Holly and Jessica and show support for their families. The church had the sufficent respect and presence to fuflil a role. Was there any realistic alternative? One of the reasons I don't like organised religion is that it is BIG business with BIG money. While the smaller local Churches sometimes struggle, the chiefs at the top seem to be as interested in wealth and money as any bankers. I don't think they are the best people to learn from about money attitudes. A quick Google for church salaries picked this up from 2000: Curates: £14,680-£15,820 Parish clergy: £16,420 Cathedral-based canons: £20,200 Junior bishops: £24,790 Diocesan bishops: £30,120 Archbishop of Canterbury: £55,660 The Archbishop earns 4 times the salary of a curate, but the average wage of a bank boss is more than 40 times that of the country’s average of £26,000 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033744/Bosses-banks-saved-taxpayer-earn-crisis.html Sep 2011) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 They're not specifically to do with religion. However, it's the fact that churches are more established in this field than other organisations that makes them worth engaging with. Alain de Botton was not proposing that we go to church because we can't be bothered to work things out for ourselves, but because they already have the influence, and if atheists want to influence the people with influence, they'll need to engage with them. Which we do. Did you not see the Big Questions on Sunday that I linked to? However, after engagement there has to be strategies/stuctures put in place which give clear, unambiguous objectives about where society needs to go. That's clearly in a more secular direction with religion taking a less public and more personal role in people's lives. Then the more secular organisations have a more level playing field, which means more public funding, to show what they can do. OK that one word lost me ... as a man of science though, surely you're more interested in the future? ... using our knowledge to make the world a better place rather than reliving old differences. Yes, but there's a term used in science called, 'standing on the shoulders of giants'. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/268025.html I'm really not arguing the case for buying into an ideology or belief system. However, churches do have a purpose that people value (as in the "Soham" example from the Observer article). "Continuity, tradition and a sense of orientation, however vague, towards matters of ultimate significance are clearly not "irrelevant" to many people in Britain today." See RB's response. Sometimes it's better to evolve from what we have, rather than to destroy and rebuild from scratch. What does that mean? Who's trying to destroy and build from scratch? That sounds like a huge strawman of the secular position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man When it comes to dealing with births, marriages, deaths, national tragedies, state occasions there's no one single secular organisation waiting in the wings, that has the presence that matches that of the church. Why do you think that having one large organisation is necessary for dealing with national disasters, tragedies etc? Grown up people find their own ways of dealing with these issues. Having the state do it for them is a nannying attitude and reinforces a child like mentality at times of distress. As for more personal things like births, marriages and deaths there are already a large number of secular organisations out there providing these services so people are free to choose a religious or non religious service as they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 A quick Google for church salaries picked this up from 2000: Curates: £14,680-£15,820 Parish clergy: £16,420 Cathedral-based canons: £20,200 Junior bishops: £24,790 Diocesan bishops: £30,120 Archbishop of Canterbury: £55,660 The Archbishop earns 4 times the salary of a curate, but the average wage of a bank boss is more than 40 times that of the country’s average of £26,000 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033744/Bosses-banks-saved-taxpayer-earn-crisis.html Sep 2011) So what? If people shopped around a little more to borrow money at a cheaper rate or stopped borrowing altogether and led a much simpler life then bank bosses wouldn't be able to earn as much. It's called supply and demand. If there is a big demand for something and you're involved in that area of the economy then you're going to earn a lot more than if you're involved in a part of the economy where there is much less demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Fair enough about births, marriages, deaths, but in what way is the Church unmatched when it comes to national tragedies and state occasions? What am I googling, sorry thinking? http://listverse.com/2009/05/17/10-british-disasters-from-recent-times/ Munich Aberfan Zeebrugge Piper Alpha Lockerbie Hillsborough Marchioness Dunblane Paddington 7/7 Remembering Hillsborough: At 3.08pm, all the civic, cathedral and church bells will ring 96 times. People still turn to the church at times of tragedy. Services of remembrance are vital public services. There's not a secular organisation that is capable of fulfilling these functions - is there? Prince William and Kate Middleton down the registry office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.