Re: [ba-unrev-talk] An approach to a simpler truth.
Graham Stalker-Wilde wrote:
> Eric Armstrong wrote
> > I've long been intrigued by the notion of finding a rationalization
> > for doing good to others that *wasn't* based on religion.
> > A non-religious "do unto others" would make a big dent...
> I don't understand why you would need any rationalization for doing good.
Do I need? No. But I note that religion *does* have the capacity to
proseletyse effectively, and to gain converts to thier cause. If one
does not appeal to their conception of God in making such an appeal,
to what does one resort, to persuade others? (01)
Were reason to suffice, it would be grand. But the majority of appeals
are emotional. (02)
> "If eyes were made for seeing then beauty is its own excuse for being",
> virtue likewise. We're a sociable species. We just grew up in communities
> much smaller than the one we find ourselves in now. Hence the need for the
> Lao Tzu said the three virtues were humility, moderation and love.
> No god there. .... I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's comment on some firestone and brimstone street preacher: "If he knew what he
> was talking about he wouldn't use that tone of voice"
I like that. (03)
> Graham the "lame-brained, pea-headed, son of a skunk with no more sense than
> god gave a hammer"
> but remember -
> "When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a baby seal."
...That was good. (04)