moral relativism

[Gary Childress]

The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, thus it is up to the individual to bestow meaning upon the world and thus create a meaningful life for that same said, individual. To attempt an escape from this reality is just an absence of courage called theology.

Very much in accordance with Sartrean authenticity. However I do believe there is a version of deity which is not regimented into religions.

It's a matter of history that religions have been the main bearers of the Axial Age moral message, but this is not a sufficient justification for religions as religions have been mightily divisive.

I'd like to think that somewhere behind all the different world religions, there is some common core of divinity that everyone could agree to. But it's difficult to believe so at times. Really, really, difficult, especially among the Abrahamic religions. The biggest turn-off for me is a religion that believes that people will go to hell or whatever just for not believing in or worshiping a particular deity (and even going so far as to prescribe a particular way or protocol for carrying out that worship itself). In the end, a "true" religion for me would be one that doesn't even care if a person worships but rather that a person more or less behaves him or herself around other people, while at the same time giving a reasonably wide latitude for behavior.

[popeye1945]

The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, thus it is up to the individual to bestow meaning upon the world and thus create a meaningful life for that same said, individual. To attempt an escape from this reality is just an absence of courage called theology.

Very much in accordance with Sartrean authenticity. However I do believe there is a version of deity which is not regimented into religions.

It's a matter of history that religions have been the main bearers of the Axial Age moral message, but this is not a sufficient justification for religions as religions have been mightily divisive.

I'd like to think that somewhere behind all the different world religions, there is some common core of divinity that everyone could agree to. But it's difficult to believe so at times. Really, really, difficult, especially among the Abrahamic religions. The biggest turn-off for me is a religion that believes that people will go to hell or whatever just for not believing in or worshiping a particular deity (and even going so far as to prescribe a particular way or protocol for carrying out that worship itself). In the end, a "true" religion for me would be one that doesn't even care if a person worships but rather that a person more or less behaves him or herself around other people, while at the same time giving a reasonably wide latitude for behavior.

Religion to be religion must mean to live within the sacred, this is within humanity's grasp as creators, in that life/biology is the source of all meaning. A morality based upon life's common biology turns the world environment into the sacred. In a sense, this is to realize that Eden is, and it is consciousness that has traditionally violated the sacred. The distinction of morality and religion is a non-starter and morality based upon the carbon-based biology of all life is morality, morality is sacred, and is true religion.

[Belinda]

Very much in accordance with Sartrean authenticity. However I do believe there is a version of deity which is not regimented into religions.

It's a matter of history that religions have been the main bearers of the Axial Age moral message, but this is not a sufficient justification for religions as religions have been mightily divisive.

I'd like to think that somewhere behind all the different world religions, there is some common core of divinity that everyone could agree to. But it's difficult to believe so at times. Really, really, difficult, especially among the Abrahamic religions. The biggest turn-off for me is a religion that believes that people will go to hell or whatever just for not believing in or worshiping a particular deity (and even going so far as to prescribe a particular way or protocol for carrying out that worship itself). In the end, a "true" religion for me would be one that doesn't even care if a person worships but rather that a person more or less behaves him or herself around other people, while at the same time giving a reasonably wide latitude for behavior.

Religion to be religion must mean to live within the sacred, this is within humanity's grasp as creators, in that life/biology is the source of all meaning. A morality based upon life's common biology turns the world environment into the sacred. In a sense, this is to realize that Eden is, and it is consciousness that has traditionally violated the sacred. The distinction of morality and religion is a non-starter and morality based upon the carbon-based biology of all life is morality, morality is sacred, and is true religion.

The main message I take away from your response, Popeye, is that care is the sacred centre point. You approach care via biology and the Earth. Others approach care via parenthood. Others, via works of art and literature. Others approach care by way of altruistic works. Whatever way we adopt the place we arrive at is the same , care.

[popeye1945]

I'd like to think that somewhere behind all the different world religions, there is some common core of divinity that everyone could agree to. But it's difficult to believe so at times. Really, really, difficult, especially among the Abrahamic religions. The biggest turn-off for me is a religion that believes that people will go to hell or whatever just for not believing in or worshiping a particular deity (and even going so far as to prescribe a particular way or protocol for carrying out that worship itself). In the end, a "true" religion for me would be one that doesn't even care if a person worships but rather that a person more or less behaves him or herself around other people, while at the same time giving a reasonably wide latitude for behavior.

Religion to be religion must mean to live within the sacred, this is within humanity's grasp as creators, in that life/biology is the source of all meaning. A morality based upon life's common biology turns the world environment into the sacred. In a sense, this is to realize that Eden is, and it is consciousness that has traditionally violated the sacred. The distinction of morality and religion is a non-starter and morality based upon the carbon-based biology of all life is morality, morality is sacred, and is true religion.

The main message I take away from your response, Popeye, is that care is the sacred centre point. You approach care via biology and the Earth. Others approach care via parenthood. Others, via works of art and literature. Others approach care by way of altruistic works. Whatever way we adopt the place we arrive at is the same , care.

Care being a meaning, can come from only one place, the world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. Meaning life/biology is the source of all meaning. There can be no meaning in the physical world that is not bestowed upon it by life/biology/a conscious subject. Religions are man-made, as biological extensions of human nature. The sacred central point of care is life/a conscious subject. Parenthood, art, literature or altruistic works are all biological extensions of the nature of humanity. We as creators of meaning, can choose to create a sacred environment or parish.

[Belinda]

Religion to be religion must mean to live within the sacred, this is within humanity's grasp as creators, in that life/biology is the source of all meaning. A morality based upon life's common biology turns the world environment into the sacred. In a sense, this is to realize that Eden is, and it is consciousness that has traditionally violated the sacred. The distinction of morality and religion is a non-starter and morality based upon the carbon-based biology of all life is morality, morality is sacred, and is true religion.

The main message I take away from your response, Popeye, is that care is the sacred centre point. You approach care via biology and the Earth. Others approach care via parenthood. Others, via works of art and literature. Others approach care by way of altruistic works. Whatever way we adopt the place we arrive at is the same , care.

Care being a meaning, can come from only one place, the world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. Meaning life/biology is the source of all meaning. There can be no meaning in the physical world that is not bestowed upon it by life/biology/a conscious subject. Religions are man-made, as biological extensions of human nature. The sacred central point of care is life/a conscious subject. Parenthood, art, literature or altruistic works are all biological extensions of the nature of humanity. We as creators of meaning, can choose to create a sacred environment or parish.

Some biological individuals experience care for what is other than themselves and some don't. There are hundreds of ways to care. It's up to us to teachers and priests to help people to care any which way.

Care is the core of divinity.

[popeye1945]

The main message I take away from your response, Popeye, is that care is the sacred centre point. You approach care via biology and the Earth. Others approach care via parenthood. Others, via works of art and literature. Others approach care by way of altruistic works. Whatever way we adopt the place we arrive at is the same , care.

Care being a meaning, can come from only one place, the world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. Meaning life/biology is the source of all meaning. There can be no meaning in the physical world that is not bestowed upon it by life/biology/a conscious subject. Religions are man-made, as biological extensions of human nature. The sacred central point of care is life/a conscious subject. Parenthood, art, literature or altruistic works are all biological extensions of the nature of humanity. We as creators of meaning, can choose to create a sacred environment or parish.

Some biological individuals experience care for what is other than themselves and some don't. There are hundreds of ways to care. It's up to us to teachers and priests to help people to care any which way.

Care is the core of divinity.

Care, or the lack of compassion is what characterizes the psychopath. I did not stipulate that care was limited in any way, I did stipulate the there is only one source of care which is the conscious subject. If care is the core of divinity, then the conscious subject is the divine.

[Belinda]

Care being a meaning, can come from only one place, the world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. Meaning life/biology is the source of all meaning. There can be no meaning in the physical world that is not bestowed upon it by life/biology/a conscious subject. Religions are man-made, as biological extensions of human nature. The sacred central point of care is life/a conscious subject. Parenthood, art, literature or altruistic works are all biological extensions of the nature of humanity. We as creators of meaning, can choose to create a sacred environment or parish.

Some biological individuals experience care for what is other than themselves and some don't. There are hundreds of ways to care. It's up to us to teachers and priests to help people to care any which way.

Care is the core of divinity.

Care, or the lack of compassion is what characterizes the psychopath. I did not stipulate that care was limited in any way, I did stipulate the there is only one source of care which is the conscious subject. If care is the core of divinity, then the conscious subject is the divine.

I think the divine is a property of the conscious subject and only the conscious subject. I don't know much about psychopathy. I did know a person who suffered from what used to be called manic depression. When he was badly depressed he felt sad he could not care as a feeling. He called his apathy a sort of ennui. He believed happiness existed but he could not attain it, and was shut out from it. He did however have strong moral principles. Is complete lack of moral principles definitive of psychopathy? I don't know.
There is a need for WD40 of the psyche.

[popeye1945]

Some biological individuals experience care for what is other than themselves and some don't. There are hundreds of ways to care. It's up to us to teachers and priests to help people to care any which way.

Care is the core of divinity.

Care, or the lack of compassion is what characterizes the psychopath. I did not stipulate that care was limited in any way, I did stipulate the there is only one source of care which is the conscious subject. If care is the core of divinity, then the conscious subject is the divine.

I think the divine is a property of the conscious subject and only the conscious subject. I don't know much about psychopathy. I did know a person who suffered from what used to be called manic depression. When he was badly depressed he felt sad he could not care as a feeling. He called his apathy a sort of ennui. He believed happiness existed but he could not attain it, and was shut out from it. He did however have strong moral principles. Is complete lack of moral principles definitive of psychopathy? I don't know.
There is a need for WD40 of the psyche.

Belinda,

Excellent point, but I think in order to have an understanding of the human condition, we need first to establish what is the normal human condition, aberrations of the normal are many.

[popeye1945]

The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, thus it is up to the individual to bestow meaning upon the world and thus create a meaningful life for that same said, individual. To attempt an escape from this reality is just an absence of courage called theology.

I agree. I just take it further.

To reject religion and theology as the font for moral objectivism and to substitute instead a secular philosophical or political rendition is to lack the courage to face an essentially meaningless and purposeless world in which, in the end, each of us tumbles over fractured and fragmented into the abyss that is oblivion.

Fortunately, however, I have no way in which to demonstrate that this is in fact true.

But, here and now, it sure seems to be.

There is no need for religion and theology for meaning to happen. All that it takes for meaning to happen is caring about what happens.

Morality is a subsection of meaning. Varieties of morality are subsections of morality. Most people here believe the individual is the basic unit of moral concern.

Experience/meaning is a biological reaction to the energies of our world, meaning is a biological readout of the effects/reactions to those same said energies. The apparent reality is as it seems because biology is of the nature that it is, alter the biology and you get a different apparent reality.

[Agent Smith]

Grounding problem?

[popeye1945]

Grounding problem?

Expand/explain!

[Agent Smith]

Grounding problem?

Expand/explain!

We would need to investigate the essence/radix of morality, ouim

[popeye1945]

Grounding problem?

Expand/explain!

We would need to investigate the essence/radix of morality, ouim

What would that have to do with how we experience apparent reality?

[Agent Smith]

Expand/explain!

We would need to investigate the essence/radix of morality, ouim

What would that have to do with how we experience apparent reality?

I dunno! I thought that was exactly what we're trying to find out in the first place.

[popeye1945]

We would need to investigate the essence/radix of morality, ouim

What would that have to do with how we experience apparent reality?

I dunno! I thought that was exactly what we're trying to find out in the first place.

My understanding of morality is this, the seed of compassion is identifying one's self with the self in another creature, only then does compassion arise, and compassion is the foundation of morality.