Dear Jardine,

Good luck with trying to find any ethics in nature: so far, no trace or hint of goodness or evilness were ever discovered by natural science: neither such particle, nor such wave, nor such dimension or force, zilch. Nature doesn't care in the least about aggression and suffering as all planets continue in the same trajectory regardless.

We certainly need ethics, but why should we require them to be rational and/or natural? Shouldn't we just be satisfied when they do their job?

I can understand the fear that with the demise of theism we could be left without ethics, but I believe that the direction in which you are searching for alternatives will prove futile. My personal solution is to trust in God, stop trying to improve the world and instead try my best to improve my own ethics - yet if this particular solution doesn't suit you, that's OK, I can still see other possibilities which are non-theistic. Nevertheless, they do require one kind or another of metaphysics. Physics alone, I'm afraid, will not do the trick.

---

Such place where scarcity exists, is unworthy of the name "Garden of Eden". Those few remaining places on earth that to a degree resemble that concept, are indeed scarcely populated. Destroying a Garden of Eden by irresponsible procreation, is indeed a sin, indeed unethical - and so is the biblical injunction when taken literally, to "fill the earth" [Genesis 1:28].

diver dan

'You also imply by your ridicule of Christian ethics, a disdain of the patriarchal family, and as a consequence obviously, by implication, aspire to a world of woman domination, or a matriarchal family unit.'

Oh, OK. I get it. The only alternative to a world in which women are subservient to men is a world in which men are subservient to women.

There is no possible world in which a husband and wife, or man and woman, are equal partners in a caring, giving, supportive relationship. If you have any biblical quotes to share along those lines, I'd be happy to read them.

That's the whole problem with the bible. It's based almost entirely on the principle of domination and obedience of someone to someone else.

'As Christ is the head of the church, so the husband is the the head of the family. It's the Christian way./ If you don't consent to the principals of patriarchy, then you are simply less than a Christian, and your opinions on Christianity are irrelevant!'

Guilty as charged. Proud to be 'less than a Christian', but that does not make my opinions on Christianity irrelevant - quite the opposite. In addition, any husband of mine who expects me to 'consent to the principles of patriarchy' can go take a flying leap.

Yuyustu,

We don’t need there to be ethics in nature. There doesn’t need to be a “particle, nor such wave, nor such dimension or force, zilch”. Because ethics are a social construct, and even holy books, to varying degrees were early attempts that such developing constructs.

<<… but why should we require [ethics] to be rational and/or natural?>>

Because, by requiring that they be rational, we help to ensure that they do their job effectively. See it as a kind of shortcut, rather than taking blind stabs in the dark and wiping out God-knows-how-many-people out in the process.

<<Shouldn't we just be satisfied when they do their job?>>

If an ethic, or set of ethics, based on religious mythology works, then obviously the underlying principals were rational, and so the supernatural element was unnecessary and could have been by-passed.

<<I can understand the fear that with the demise of theism we could be left without ethics, but I believe that the direction in which you are searching for alternatives will prove futile. My personal solution is to trust in God, …>>

Then both your fear and trust are misplaced, because what gods believe are best for their people is, co-incidentally, what the people believe is best for the survival of that group, in the context of the times. The reason many of the ways of the old gods don’t work now, however, is because we are more of a global community now rather than a series of fragmented tribal communities. But as we modernise, so too do the gods (albeit with a lag).

What your personal god believes is ethical behaviour is, co-incidentally, what you think is ethical. There have been studies using brain scan imaging that can attest to this. So you can skip the middleman and simply do what you think is right, which has been strongly influenced by the modern societies that you insist you are not a part of.

Okay, I was just about to give up: Manichaeism rules, it's all either-or. We can learn nothing from history. Religious principles can't spawn non- or anti-religious hypotheses. If some of the ancient Greeks believed the world was round, and about forty thousand kilometres in circumference, and about 150 million km from the Sun, and if you believe that, then you're an ancient Greek. We can't escape our past. Okay, got it.

Then a glimmer of hope, from AJ:

"If an ethic, or set of ethics, based on religious mythology works, then obviously the underlying principals were rational, and so the supernatural element was unnecessary and could have been by-passed."

Or superseded. Or transcended, and given a life of its own.

Thank you, AJ, now we're getting somewhere :)

Joe

>> If an ethic, or set of ethics, based on religious mythology works, then … the supernatural element was unnecessary and could have been by-passed. <<

This reminds me of the old joke about the missionary and cannibals:The cannibals valued the missionary’s ability to forecast their weather, until they found out that this was due to his rheumatic leg. So they killed and ate him, except for that leg that they used as a barometer. In other words, they found out that the missionary (except for that leg) was “unnecessary and could have been by-passed."

The role of the missionary of whom only his rheumatic leg was found useful is often played by Christianity and religion in general.

Amusing joke, George. However, it is not analogous to my statement because the missionary was not unnecessary and could not be by-passed. The joke assumes that religion is a necessary component, yet I just explained why it isn’t. At least not anymore.