Runner

>>> I am yet to meet one of these mystical men who exude love and display no corruption in their natures <<<

I doubt any decent man would want to associate with someone as judgemental and malevolent as you portray yourself on these pages.

phanto, "Christian values generally include a 'fear of the Lord' which is very often the motivation behind much of the behaviour of Christians."
I am not a church goer but all of the Christians of my acquaintance are moderates who are not governed by fear. Hard to find a fundamentalist in recent times.

phanto, "Real men are men who behave well because it is the just and peaceful and loving thing to do. It is inherent in human nature."
No, I believe it has a lot to do with environment, upbringing and education among other things. I don't believe men are born inherently bad though, excepting some psychiatric conditions.

phanto, "When a man acts well and he is not a Christian he has integrity. When a man acts well and he is a Christian his motivation must always be suspect."
Only Christians or does this apply to all religions?

What about any other source of learning about ethics or principles, might anyone who learned anything about ethics be equally suspect? Much of my value system and world view came from my parents, early teacher/coach and other adult models, a lot from literature and humanities education. I also participate in Internet discussions on ethics and might take counsel from those contacts. Then there is my love of poetry, could it have made my ethics suspect? I don't think so.

Would my motivation for (say) doing volunteer work be 'suspect' because I haven't relied entirely if at all on the good that you say is inherent in human nature in developing my ethics?

Frankly I don't think that the source of one's ethics really matters if the outcome is good and we deal with others with sensitivity, tolerance, compassion, integrity and courage.

Cornflower,

I believe it *is* important where our ethics come from

If we can re-derive them they can be relevant to the day, the place. If we can derive them, then even if nearly extinct our species might re-develop something we can recognise.

I am confident of this.

The (possibly mythological) character of Moses is reputed to have had access to the university of a pre-existing ordered society with laws etc. It is no accident that Moses's laws look like other working models of the time. He wanted to copy successful nations.

If some believe their "morals" are derived from a single mythical platform, then they are a threat as soon as pastor reinterprets the platform for them. They are a threat as soon as their mythical platform is threatened and "the ends justify the means".

The rationality and derivability of ethics is critical.

Rusty

Cornflower - Why do ethics have to have a source other than human nature? Why do they have to be learned? Perhaps we are already born with them but 'environment, upbringing and education' combine to stifle, suppress and distort them. We all have a thing called a conscience but very few people respond to it without filtering it according to what they have 'learnt'. Why have a conscience at all if it is not to be used and trusted? Nature has certainly made a big mistake there if it has no use.

Our human nature very much includes our own body and its physical responses. Guilt, fear, anger, joy, sadness and delight all tell us what we need to know about right and wrong. Not trusting those fundamental aspects of nature and being guided by outside influences is what causes most of the problems that human beings have in dealing with each other and the rest of nature. When someone 'learns' that greed is wrong it is not something they didn't inherently know but rather something they have suppressed for the sake of some more urgent need like survival as a child.

Two people might appear to be doing the same good but for entirely different motives. The one with suspect motivation is much more likely to do it in a way that rides roughshod over other important values like respect for free speech, justice and peace. Both people may come to the same end in their task but the damage done along the way by someone doing it grudgingly or out of fear will be much worse.

Rusty

'If some believe their "morals" are derived from a single mythical platform, then they are a threat as soon as pastor reinterprets the platform for them.'

Watch out for Pastor Dawkins. His moral relevancy is likely to change every second day depending on how blind he is to his own self righteousness. It was not to long ago that the vast majority of people knew it was wrong to kill the unborn. A little self righteousness, pride and selfishness soon put paid to that.

I'm not worried about Dawkins, he encourages me to disagree with him. Robustly.

He encourages you to do so too. Try not to waste his time on the usual rubbish you trot out here though, it's all been found wanting and clear refutations can be found readily....once you leave those parts of the web not pre-approved by would-be religious commissars.

However, too many "christian" pastors don't want *anybody* to disagree, except maybe in closed council where it won't reach the congregation. They want weak and unfounded arguments to be "enough to convince" them atheists and get pouty when them atheists don't agree.
Some even think quote-mining should be convincing and get pouty when their references are checked and found wanting. That's fundy scholarship and reasoning summed up.

I'm sure those whose income depends on the expansion of the "church" are very sensitive to any alternative to their supposed indispensibility.

The head pastor of the catholic church has in the past not merely condoned but ordered atrocities, re-interpreting "scripture" to suit political ends.
Fundies in america have been jailed for murder because re-interpretation of "scripture" has let them believe that the ends justify the means.

As I said, and as runner just doesn't get, when pastor starts re-interpreting scripture, so-called morals might be a threat, whether christian, islamic, jewish. The difference is that if ethics are re-derivable then at least the fault lies with us, and we can work to fix it.

Rusty