Re: Ch. 1 - The Primordial Faith
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:39 pm
What does h-g mean?
Quality books. Great conversations.
https://www.booktalk.org/
In the end, it is a matter of providing a framework within which groups, especially large groups of people can live, and providing them with a code of conduct. It is a matter of history and intellectual evolution which determines which of these framework-factors get the upper hand: consider the famous "who is going to crown the emperor? The Mediaeval Church, thus asserting power and their brand of moral behaviour? Or the secular nobles/emperor himself, demonstrating the secular section was to win the power struggle. Secular law systems were the determinate for moral behaviour (physical or monetary punishment) if the emperor won; Church law and restrictions (non-material punishment--excommunication, Hell, etc--and weirdly enough, also monetary) if religion won. As to Aten or Amun (I'm in the wrong chapter here, aren't I?), war made have indeed changed the thinking of Egyptians concerning their moral behaviour and acceptance of "alien" ideas and moral codes, and secular concerns went hand in hand with religioisity in going to war. This is a concept that always pays off and when 2 systems cooperate, it is highly interesting and horrifying seeing which moral codes surface or negate others....secular or religious.Saffron wrote:Where ever this book is going and what ever you believe about god and morality, the problem of the effect of anonymity on moral behavior remains.
At the risk of sounding chauvintistic, perhaps the U. S. Constitution provides the first example of a secular system fully replacing the religious. Our godless Constitution centers moral authority in the people and God is nowhere to be seen (to the continuing chagrin of many citizens today). I agree that a framework/code of conduct is essential, but it is easy to take for granted the institutional support that provides this and to think that morality, broadly speaking, will be naturally maintained. If the church or religion is out of the picture, we need to act toward our democratic institutions in a manner that almost might be called religious. Failure to do this might have consequences such as the recent scandals that brought on the financial crisis.oblivion wrote:In the end, it is a matter of providing a framework within which groups, especially large groups of people can live, and providing them with a code of conduct. It is a matter of history and intellectual evolution which determines which of these framework-factors get the upper hand: consider the famous "who is going to crown the emperor? The Mediaeval Church, thus asserting power and their brand of moral behaviour? Or the secular nobles/emperor himself, demonstrating the secular section was to win the power struggle. Secular law systems were the determinate for moral behaviour (physical or monetary punishment) if the emperor won; Church law and restrictions (non-material punishment--excommunication, Hell, etc--and weirdly enough, also monetary) if religion won. As to Aten or Amun (I'm in the wrong chapter here, aren't I?), war made have indeed changed the thinking of Egyptians concerning their moral behaviour and acceptance of "alien" ideas and moral codes, and secular concerns went hand in hand with religioisity in going to war. This is a concept that always pays off and when 2 systems cooperate, it is highly interesting and horrifying seeing which moral codes surface or negate others....secular or religious.Saffron wrote:Where ever this book is going and what ever you believe about god and morality, the problem of the effect of anonymity on moral behavior remains.
Perhaps we should evolve right back to this point...DWill wrote:It would be like the situation Wright talks about in Chap. 1, where the h-g folks don't know what you're talking about when you ask what their religion is. So if we have a just and moral society someday, anyone could say if they wanted that "God" was there, but it would make no difference.