six45ive Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 RB - You may be comfortable with your aetheism, values and place in society, but what of the next generation? As the influence of religion gets ever smaller, is there not a danger that we abandon our children to an amoral future with little attempt at moral guidance? What makes you think you need a religion/faith to give you moral guidance? That's a very crass assumption/assertion you're making there. Here's a video you may be interested in. http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/matt-dillahunty-the-superiority-of-secular-morality-4192742 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Hi RB - offers hand to shake, (hoping to avoid a Suarez/Evra type incident) What makes you think religious influence is necessary for moral guidance? I don't. I'm not sure what the alternatives are though, other than simply obeying the law. I'm absolutely sure you have, and will continue to influence and guide your son along an admirable path. What isn't clear though is what you are using as a basis for moral guidance. If I wished to copy your example, where would I begin? What's your version of the ten commandments for example? (That's an example, let's not get bogged down in what the actual ten commandments are, I'm just wondering whether you have any kind of checklist to refer to). No, he's generalising and insulting atheists, whether it's intentional or unintentional is tangential. I'm an atheist. I wasn't insulted. Why? Is atheism now a science? No. The comment was light hearted. In keeping with the TED talk which was all about finding common ground between fundamentalist rationalists (I'm yanking yer chain) and people of faith, rather than continuing to explore the obvious differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Help me out here... How can the lack of belief in something "evolve"? "three days ago I had no belief; yesterday I really had no belief; today I really have no belief". I was talking about evolving values rather than beliefs which are often confused. We live in a society where people have many different beliefs many of which are incompatible. However there is much more common ground when it comes to values and those values are not necessarily fixed. "Beliefs are the convictions that we generally hold to be true, usually without actual proof or evidence." Values are the things that are important to us and can include concepts like "love, respect, equality, honesty, education, effort, perseverance, loyalty" (lifted/adapted from http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-values-and-beliefs/) Whether or not you believe in an afterlife, you can still value life itself. Maybe it would help to view the video with that clear distinction. Nobody is asking atheists to compromise their non-belief in God, or the faithful to compromise their belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Here's a few more comments on the naive nonsense that de Botton spouts. [Links] Interesting articles ... from which I take ... “Normally a temple is to Jesus, Mary or Buddha, but you can build a temple to anything that’s positive and good,” he said. Yeah, why not? You can have a statue of liberty (and a statue of responsibility) or a statue, monument or temple to anything ... Another Anglican, the Rev George Pitcher, a priest at St Bride’s, Fleet Street, and a former adviser to the archbishop of Canterbury, “rejoiced” in the idea. “He is referring to a sense of human transcendence, that there is something more than our visceral existence,” Pitcher said. “Building a monument acknowledges that we are more than dust. Whether we come at that through secular means or a religious narrative, it is the same game." “This is a more constructive atheism than Dawkins, who is about the destruction of ideas rather than contributing new ones.” Do you not find anything good in celebrating the positive, the common values that we share, rather than simply seeking out the intelectual truth and putting it in a book and teaching it in a classroom? One would have to be a moron to think that an atheist temple could convert anyone to disbelief. I really don't think that's the point! What De Botton seems to be preaching is his own rather narrow definition of atheism, with its own unified philosophy, set of rules and even architectural brand identity. It feels rather like, er, a religion. Somebody stop him, lest he inspires anybody! BTW I really don't think he's setting himself up as head priest passing the rules down to brainwashed followers - he describes what he's doing as a "wiki project". Maybe this will inspire more "temples" and statues - I propose The statue of fairness! To answer De Botton’s original question, atheists do have their own versions of great churches and cathedrals. If the antithesis of religion is scientific rationalism, then surely its temples are the British Library, the Millau Viaduct and the Large Hadron Collider? Yes, but why can't we have more? What about a monument to celebrate science in Sheffield? If it’s about glorifying creation, then why not the Natural History Museum or the Eden Project? What about the Tate Modern? Or Wembley Stadium? Or the O2? Or the Westfield shopping centre? "There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" ... so why not more inspirational public architecture? Perhaps non-believers should decide for themselves what a temple of atheism should be. Sounds like a cue to begin thinking and doing something positive rather than knocking the efforts of others ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 So who did watch the vid then? <raises hand> Yes, entertaining. Not Wittgenstein, but not Chopra either. Anyone else? Not me. I'm not a fan of Alain de Botton and even 20 minutes would be too much. Calling something 2.0 is somewhat cringeworthy too. Or is that just me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Hi RB - offers hand to shake, (hoping to avoid a Suarez/Evra type incident) *shakes hand* Please know that my questioning is purely in spirit of discussion, I'm just trying to clarify what you mean with your posts (they're not that straight forward!) I don't. I'm not sure what the alternatives are though, other than simply obeying the law. I find it hard to believe that without religion you can't think of any other way to teach morality (other than "simply obeying the law") but I will humour you... I'm absolutely sure you have and will continue to influence and guide your son along an admirable path. What isn't clear though is what you are using as a basis for moral guidance. If I wished to copy your example, where would I begin? What's your version of the ten commandments for example? (That's an example, let's not get bogged down in what the actual ten commandments are, I'm just wondering whether you have any kind of checklist to refer to). I use my own morality as a basis for moral guidance of my son, it has served me well so far. If you're going to ask me how I was taught about morality I would tell you I was taught by my parents and teachers. And no, the 10 commandments never came into it. There is no "thou shalt share" or "thou shalt not bully" or "thou must take turns" or "thou shalt treat others with respect" in the ten commandments. I don't think the 10 commandments are a very good moral guide at all. Take Moses for example, broke one of the ten commandments before the dust from the carvings had even settled, and with gusto! So, Moses comes down the mountain, carrying the tablets with the ten commandments on. One of these commandments is "Thou shalt not kill".... Bear in mind this is supposedly God's word, his rules laid down to mankind, delivered by Moses. As he returned to his people he found them worshipping the golden calf. What did he do? He killed them, about 3,000 men, women and children. He then told his men they had brought a blessing upon themselves by carrying out the murders. Nowhere does it say "Thou shalt not kill, unless it is for vengeful punishment" it says simply "Thou shalt NOT kill" Good moral checklist? If I HAD to refer to literature for a moral guide, then you can't really beat Aesop's fables. I'm an atheist. I wasn't insulted. I'm an atheist, amongst other things, and I did feel insulted somewhat. He is suggesting that atheists are all antitheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The Big Questions on BBC 1 now. What can atheism learn from religions? Although, in light of the Bideford judgement, the question has been changed to has secularism gone too far? Yes, Alain is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The Big Questions on BBC 1 now. What can atheism learn from religions? Although the question has been changed to has secularism gone too far? Yes, Alain is there. Watching it now. It'll be interesting to see what he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Watching it now. It'll be interesting to see what he says. Just noticed Alain stare in bewilderment at the women arguing about women's "equality" in the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Just noticed Alain stare in bewilderment at the women arguing about women's "equality" in the Church. Yes, he's been very quiet so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.