- Culture & society (59)
- History (25)
- Notable Quotes (13)
- Personal story (11)
- Politics (23)
- Science and faith (77)
- Uncategorized (15)
- November 30, 2008: Of Baramins and Baloney 5
- November 23, 2008: Of Baramins and Baloney 4
- November 10, 2008: Of Baramins and Baloney 3
- November 2, 2008: Good conversation
- October 19, 2008: Baraminology and pseudoscience
- October 5, 2008: No Matter What
- September 16, 2008: As easy as 1-2-3
- September 7, 2008: Not what they had in mind
- August 31, 2008: The momentum against logic and facts
- August 24, 2008: Orgnizations v. Organisms
Blogroll
Chat
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
The “best” without God
“A man who has no assured and ever-present belief in the existence of a personal God, or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which seem to him the best ones.”
Autobiography of Charles Darwin. As compiled and edited by his granddaughter, Emma Nora (Darwin) Barlow, p.94.
If each individual would do what is best in their own eyes, guess who’s interest each person would consider best. Their own. Darwin’s astute observation can be further delineated by Emile Durkheim’s that society is the ultimate constraint to mankind’s behavior. With this, the best that a godless mankind can be hoped for is Machiavellian: Everyone will do what is in their own best interest, which may include convincing others that one is doing what is best for others. Note this is not necessarily the same as doing what is best for others as individuals or society at large. If lying and false impressions achieves that, so be it. The net? Society and mankind (and ultimately the individual) loses if their is no perception of supernatural accountability beyond himself. So the answer for the faithless person is to convince everyone else that he or she believes in god and that everyone else should believe in god, for their own sake. I’m afraid there is a lot of that going on out there.
But let me take a deeper track: What about the truth? Does it make sense for a biology to evolve without god in a way that requires a belief in god by its highest form in order to function at its best? The answer to me seems simple: No.
September 23, 2007 at 4:19 am
‘“A man who has no assured and ever-present belief in the existence of a personal God, or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which seem to him the best ones.”’
Christians know that while some of their impulses and instincts seem donwright immoral to them at first, God has actually said that they are moral.
And who are they to criticise God for saying that things are moral that they personally believe are immoral?