It's fine if you disagree with me, but since it seems you and I are likely going to continue to disagree about the structures of social reality (probably even about reality itself as a whole ...), then I'm of the mind that it's not much use discussing things with you. So, I'll just get back to my Social Science and Religion inquiries while you get back to your living out your Quasi-Nietzschean worldview, or whatever it is that seems to suffice for you as a mode of moral recourse, Ana.
And with that, have a great Labor Day weekend!
Ok, I think I understand your position a little better now. There’s some merit to your point that religion can shape the way a society values altruism and other lofty moral goals more effectively than atheism could. I wouldn’t go so far as to say an atheistic moral framework is limited in how far it can support lofty morals, though. If you can think of a moral act you consider to be laudable to the highest order, yet which would never occur to an atheist, I’d love to hear it. William Lane Craig has offered the act of tithing as an example, but I find that disingenuous since it’s no different from donating regularly to any other cause one believes in, which an atheist could easily justify. Craig might as well have said “accepting Jesus as your lord and savior.”
It's hard to put a metric onto that. If you go by pure donations to charity, religious people tend to donate more, but altruism doesn't stop there. It's about how you behave to people around you, what choices you make when buying groceries (fair trade, locally sourced)...
That rationale is already vastly weaker than the Christian rationale, the obvious reference being Christ's sacrificial death. It's almost exactly opposite, as it contrasts the sickly lamb with the spotless lamb. Bring in the "broadness" aspect noted above and the sociological implications multiply.
), because I think this is an interesting issue. I'd start by saying that atheists can still have lofty morals, even if an atheistic framework cannot support them. I'm actually more surprised when they don't, due to my own secular progressive background.
That last parenthetical remark sure makes it difficult to understand the rest of your post.
How 'bout that 'cliff-hanger' at the end of Season 1? I loved it! That was great.
Really? I don't know if you're joking, or if I left out a negative somewhere, or if I'm wrapped up in too many circles to make sense. Be more specific.
Obviously utilitarian and virtue ethics tend not to be categorical.
It's definitely one of those.
Here's how I read you:
- Atheists can have lofty morals
- Lofty morals are related to humanism, which requires Platonism if it is going to be absolute
- The only place you are going to find that kind of humanism is with the Gospel
...or were you saying that atheists can have sub-Platonic and sub-Progressive 'lofty' morals?
Smith thinks that generic, existentially appropriated forms of Consequentialism fail to fully buttress and justify anything like, say, a program of Universal Human Rights or other 'lofty' value sets.
So, if you're generally saying "no," that atheists don't usually have really good reasons for supporting or holding to lofty morals, then you're basically agreeing with Christian Smith in the OP video.
That was so long ago, I've forgotten it. You need to catch up!
And I have already told Zippy to watch it. We need to spread this show like a virus.
Chidi's reaction there was priceless!
... what we need to do is have everyone watch the 'Trolly' episode!
That was actually the one my brother showed me a bit of to try to get me into it.
It didn't work, because while Michael's "solution" is hilarious in context, it doesn't make any sense if you don't know who and what he is. Maybe if I'd stayed around to watch things get even wilder...
......................................
Your brother had very good intentions, obviously. But yes, without all of the many episodes of relational contexts that lead up to that moment, the hilarious ** ahem ** impact in that scene can be lost.
Well, alright then. On my part, I chose the video not only because I like Christian Smith, but also because it was good to hear some of Shermer's admission to his moral quandary.
I'll just say that you've unfortunately missed out on the point of "relevancy" that Michael was introducing to Chidi's moral enterprise within that episode. But I won't say more so as not to spoil the whole thing ...Oh, we didn't even get to the impact, haha. Just the figure drawings.
And maybe because I think utilitarianism is somewhat weak, despite the Peter Singer types who wander and list about "out there" in the world (and very often within our own government(s))?
