Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....?

On one level that is true, but on the other hand I see it as a record of God interacting within creation and most specifically through Jesus Christ. It does tell us that there is ultimate purpose, and that this world is not going to end some day with not so much as a memory left. Like C S Lewis says:

quote:

---

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.

---

Which is paraphrasing Pascal's Wager, yes?Islam, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance.
Hinduism, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance.
Judaism, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance.It doesn't help much as it applies to any religion which describes a 'consequence' to our lives.

I don't have any disagreement with that, but the statement by Lewis was to be taken in the context in which I used it.In the end it all boils down to Pilate's great question - What is Truth?

Hi again GDR, My take on this issue is that it just does not matter what source is used in the development of personal morals (and all morals are personal when you come down to it -- moral behavior is what you do when no-one is looking kind of thing). In this regard any system for "Ushering in a New Age of Reason" that prohibited the use of some source material is just as dogmatic hide-bound and close-minded as the fundamentalist that claims their source must be used.What matters is consilience with the moral beliefs of the people in the society where you live, so that there is general agreement on acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior.You don't need to be 100% in agreement, just in agreement on most issues and general agreement on the most important issues, and have the freedom and liberty to live by your personal beliefs where they differ.Likewise, different social groups do not need to be 100% in agreement with other social groups, they just need consilience within their social group and with any individuals\people\groups that cross-over\visit\immigrate\interact from other social groups.Morality is self-regulation, rather than group (external) regulation. My reference to "when in Rome do as the Romans" was not to say that morality and laws are the same, but that they both attempt to regulate behavior with the goal of reducing social conflicts and disruption of the social group/s. As an example, people go to Vegas to engage in behavior that is not acceptable in their home social group, and when they leave, they leave that behavior behind as well ("What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas").In a "Legendary New Age of Reason" one could even argue that laws would not be necessary, because personal moral beliefs would accomplish the same ends -- rational people would choose specific behaviors rather than have laws to regulate them and then have to enforce laws. The group regulation is accomplished by the consilience of moral beliefs of all the people making up the group.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : kind not kid, vegas

Just a small note on this point but I'm fine with the rest of this well written post. There has to be an overlap between societies as well. My society may hold to loving one's neighbour but if my neighbouring society feels that it ok to slaughter thy neighbour there just might be problems.

Hi GDR, thanks. I thought I covered that:

quote:

---

Message 184: Likewise, different social groups do not need to be 100% in agreement with other social groups, they just need consilience within their social group and with any individuals\people\groups that cross-over\visit\immigrate\interact from other social groups.

---

Peace.

You did. Sorry I missed it.Cheers Edited by GDR, : How does one have a typo in a message this short?