/ May 26, 2005 02:49 AM
In an entry entitled "My Values Count Too: A Challenge To Secularists
" over at Three Knockdown Rule
, Josh puts forth the question of why people don't just accept the "Religious Right" and their conclusions on issues at face value. Why don't people just accept their value calls and seem to target them specifically.
Why is it that in 20th and 21st century America, value judgments based on secular reasoning are considered valid, whereas value judgments based on Christian beliefs are not? Every decision we make is based on the internal moral code that we have chosen to adopt in guiding our lives. These morals color every circumstance, every viewpoint, every action we take. So what makes a secularist internal moral code more legitimate? If anything, an external set of guidelines (i.e. Judeo-Christian beliefs) by which one establishes their internal moral code ought to be seen as a positive. After all, it helps curb individual extremism, puts value on human life, and keeps one answerable to something other than himself.
There is some interesting commentary going on over there. Here is my conclusion on the subject as I commented over there.
To put it in a nutshell they have a different method of coming to a conclusion than you do, and no matter what, neither side is going to change their method whether it be faith based, religion based, morally based or scientific method based. When they come to a different conclusion then you do they will directly point to the method you used as flawed in their opinion (which in the religious rights case is the religion/faith based method).
The "Religious Right" takes it to heart that someone could possibly disagree with their method. Their beliefs are so ingrained in them that if you mention that their conclusion doesn't agree when put through the method you use, then you are directly attacking their total belief system. That isn't the case at all, but they refuse to accept that reasoning and just cry out that you're a secularist religion hating nut.
Let's go ask Galileo about disagreements in methods of coming to a conclusion. The faith based "world is flat" vs. the scientific method "world is round". Did Galileo hate religious people? I don't think so, he simply disagreed with their method that they used to come to their conclusion. Did he probably agree with other conclusions the religious people came to on other subjects? Most definitely he did.
We see the same thing today, this is nothing new.
This entry is in the following archive(s):
Next and Previous Entries:
Posted by Digger on May 26, 2005 02:49 AM (Permalink)
Same thing happens between Republicans and Democrats on a certain level.
But that's what makes politics entertaining (is that really a good thing?).
Posted by: Jeremy on May 26, 2005 06:30 AM
Ok..I'm going to have to go back and review all the arguments, but I have to ask..how does one come to a moral value through the "scientific" method??
Posted by: Darleen on May 26, 2005 07:07 AM
Moral is a method not a conclusion.
As with everything people are not single minded and don't make choices solely based off of one method. A decision can be made on a moral basis even if it's not in the Bible right?
It's the same with someone making a decision based off of scientific proof, even though they're not going around murdering people because "scientifically it gives my offspring an edge in the gene pool".
For someone who bases the majority of their decisions off of Biblical belief you just have to realize that everyone who disagrees with you will end up coming back to your majority method. It just seems like an attack on religion, but it's really a method disagreement. If you can't provide another way to explain your conclusions that they will accept then it will always appear flawed to them whether the method was scientific, faith based or morally decided.
Posted by: Digger on May 26, 2005 04:34 PM
May I respectfully disagree that "morality is a method."
Morality is but a set of rules, based on personally held values, by which we run our lives.
How one arrives at those values is less important that what those values are.
That's why I asked the question about how one can make a "scientific moral decision." Science, by and large, is amoral..it deals with observation of the real world with no value attached to that gathering of facts. How those facts are integrated to everyday life, what impact they will/will not have moves into the moral/ethical realm.
This is where I think you miss what happens when SOME (not all)"secularists" decry religious people opening their mouths in the public square. They believe they are "above" such "superstition"..that they are more "sophisticated" and they do sometimes try and use science as "superior" substitute of the how of their morality. How often have we heard the argument for/against a particular behavior framed not as "good/bad" but "healthy/unhealthy"? Thus we have almost a RELIGIOUS opposition to those who smoke tobacco because it is unhealthy.
Neither secularists or the faithbased are excused from examining and questioning their actual moral code and values. Too many refuse to engage in debate because, honestly, they haven't really examined the code, just accepted it.
Posted by: Darleen on May 26, 2005 05:18 PM
I disagree, morality is a method.
Method: A means or manner of procedure, especially a regular and systematic way of accomplishing something.
When you contemplate whether something is right or wrong you are following a procedure, whether you realize it or not. Just because it becomes easier the next time based off of previous results doesn't mean you aren't following a procedure.
Either way it's all semantics.
People can make moral decisions using their moral code or moral procedure.
See this is where I have a serious problem with religious people. They seem to constantly imply that those who aren't religious can't follow a moral path or make moral decisions using their own method. It has to be "morals God's way or the highway".
As for secularists who criticize for your free speech, well that's America. You can't ban someone criticizing you. Your smoking comparison is a kind of straw man because banning someone outright from doing something doesn't compare to free speech and criticism.
A fair comparison to the smoking issue would be having someone give you scowls or snide comments or fake coughs as they pass you while you are smoking. Which happens anyway.
You're saying secularists look down on religious people goes both ways because a lot of religious people look down on secularists and preach to them about how their immoral and wrong. It goes both ways.
Posted by: Digger on May 26, 2005 06:38 PM
Oh and it's not just the religious right by the way. The people who do things like that are pretty much equal opportunity...
Posted by: Digger on May 26, 2005 06:44 PM
Darleen: "Morality is but a set of rules, based on personally held values, by which we run our lives."
That definition is the meaning of "method".
Posted by: Ripley on January 25, 2006 06:59 PM