XPost: uk.philosophy.humanism, alt.philosophy.debate, aus.politics   
   XPost: alt.politics.british, us.politics, alt.politics.europe   
   XPost: alt.politics.europe.misc, uk.politics.misc   
   From: mlwi@swipnet.se   
      
   "The foundations of morality"   
      
   Must morality be rooted in the Bible, or more generally, in a worldview   
   of faith, or does morality depend on "common sense", as is the claim of   
   "Humanist associations" and atheists of different schools of thought.   
      
   It boils down to the conflict between the spiritual worldview and the   
   ideology of materialistic physicalism, embraced by the atheists. A   
   scientific worldview cannot take into account moral, spiritual, and   
   psychological factors, as reality is portrayed without relation to the   
   human soul. It implies that the scientific paradigm is not quite   
   adequate as a worldview on its own. For instance, medieval paintings   
   have a value perspective in which important persons look larger than   
   others. This is a moral perspective that is equally relevant as the   
   optical perspective, and it is not a sign that medieval man was   
   ignorant. Science and faith ought to be viewed as parallel worldviews   
   that aren't quite self-sustaining, in themselves, and therefore must be   
   brought to completion by their counterpart.   
      
   The medieval painter wasn't realistic in the optical sense, but neither   
   are today's scientistic materialists realistic in the moral sense.   
   That's why there is today no morality of the heart. People instead   
   follow ideological tenets which they have programmed into their heads.   
   This gives rise to an awkward and hypocritical ethics which is neither   
   rooted in the heart nor in the instincts. The consequences are very   
   destructive. For instance, empathy is today viewed as the function by   
   which you donate money to the poor people of the world, to subsidize the   
   growth of vegetative and meaningless human life. This is a robotic   
   definition of empathy. In truth, empathy is the feeling you have for   
   creatures in your vicinity, including your cat and your pot plants.   
      
   The distribution of material resources to people who don't deserve it is   
   by the atheists viewed as the epitome of goodness, which shows that   
   physicalism and atheism cannot function as a groundwork of morality. The   
   moral perspective comes skewed, perverted, and robotic. The   
   materialistic form of goodness has in the end evil consequences, because   
   it is not founded in the heart, nor in our natural instincts. It is   
   merely a product of the intellect. The foremost example is Marxism,   
   which was created during an epoch in the 19th century when suffering due   
   to poverty and inhumane working conditions was immense. The appalling   
   situation was documented by Friedrich Engels and Charles Dickens.   
      
   But Marxist goodness was merely a product of the intellect. The ideal of   
   goodness was "from each according to his ability, to each according to   
   his needs". Atheists, Socialists and Communists programmed this tenet   
   into their heads, aiming to do good, but the result was the opposite. It   
   gave rise to the greatest evil and suffering in world history. Many   
   people still believe in this tenet in some form. According to the   
   American Declaration of Freedom, every person should have equal   
   opportunities to build a good life of their own, but they do not have   
   the right to have all their needs satisfied, which is a Marxist   
   doctrine.   
      
   As soon as we program ideological tenets into our heads, and stop   
   listening to our heart, we draw the wrong conclusions. Suddenly we start   
   thinking that millions of Third World people have the right to immigrate   
   to our country, and with time take over our country, causing the demise   
   of our civilization. But if we listen to our heart, we realize that it's   
   not right to give away our country and undermine the civilization that   
   we have inherited from our ancestors.   
      
   The conclusion is that atheistic morals don't work, because it is based   
   on mere materialistic premises, just as Marxism.   
      
   The biblical creation story is another bone of contention. Richard   
   Dawkins and the British Humanist Association repudiate it as   
   unscientific. But it is relevant in the same sense as the value   
   perspective of the medieval painter. The biblical creation story relates   
   a truth that is complementary to scientific truth. The creation that   
   took place before man's emergence on the sixth day, is handled   
   concisely. It took only a couple of days. The underlying message is that   
   history only began at the origin of human consciousness, at the day when   
   we became modern human beings. If the whole timeline is laid down,   
   mankind only emerges in the last minutes, from a geological perspective.   
   Although it is historically true, it doesn't relate a truthful picture   
   of this remarkable event. In a sense, the emergence of human ego   
   consciousness is a world-creating event. Only at this moment there is   
   full awareness of creation. Only at this point, when Adam and Eve opened   
   their eyes, God begins to truly relate to his creation. So, from a   
   religious perspective, this is where history begins.   
      
   What took place before, such as the age of dinosaurs, etc., can't really   
   compare with the emergence of the human ego, which is the greatest   
   marvel in the history of the universe. The religious authors had a   
   different perspective than the mere scientific. What if the earth is the   
   only place in the universe where an ego-consciousness has developed? It   
   means that the earth remains at the center of the cosmos, not   
   geographically but morally. Viewed from this perspective, the biblical   
   creation story is highly relevant. From the standpoint of faith, history   
   before man can be summarized as five days of divine creation. The   
   authors of the Pentateuch conveyed the spiritual truth, since history   
   only begins at the moment when we become aware of God. So remarkably   
   important is this event. God sees himself through his relation to man,   
   and so mankind mirrors God. The notion that man was created in the image   
   of God relates an important truth. Had they written about the historical   
   and geological truth, things would get the wrong proportions.   
      
   Of course, what perspective you are brought up with is highly relevant   
   to the moral development of the individual and of society. In certain   
   quarters of life, the scientific paradigm is unable to give us the right   
   perspective, and things are given the wrong proportions. What is   
   insignificant from the perspective of the human soul is blown out of   
   proportion, whereas what really matters, namely the improvement of the   
   individual soul, is deemed insignificant by comparison with material   
   betterment and the maximization of the human population on earth.   
      
   That's why the scientific paradigm, despite being a success story, is   
   deficient. In the end, it must be complemented by a spiritual paradigm   
   that sees things differently. It should be possible for the two   
   paradigms to exists side by side, if they both give up their ambition of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)