vision2020
RE: Compassion
Ted,
Thank you for the thoughtful response. You are right, there is a lot I
don't agree with you about in that response. However, upon reflection, I
can see I was entirely too flippant and cavalier in my objection to your
response to Mr. Harrell. For that I will gladly apologize and ask you to
forgive me if it gave offense. I did disagree with your response, to Mr.
Harrell, and would gladly engage you further in your reasonings, but I would
go about it with a lot more qualification.. Also, I think you cannot *but*
have the dignity of having opinions on ethical matters. I was trying to get
to the root of that, but maybe we'll pursue that another time.
We talk about important things, here, and most people truly believe they are
right. Or at least they truly believe they are right when they think that
you can't be sure you are right....Or truly believe that it doesn't matter
what if they aren't right. And if they don't believe those things they
believe something else--and think they're right, in some sense, about that
belief. It happens all the time here on V2020. On some level, I doubt
*anyone* could dodge a charge of arrogance regarding the their belief in the
correctness of their views. I will strive to, at least, be appropriately
gracious in presenting my views. This doesn't mean I don't think there is a
place for sarcasm, etc. I just don't think it was warranted in my letter.
Cheers.
David Douglas
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Moffett [mailto:ted_moffett@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 9:34 PM
To: ddouglas@pacsim.com
Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: RE: Compassion
David:
I am glad you do not agree with the rude and insulting attitude expressed by
John Harrell towards women.
The ethical issues you raise are important and complicated. We could
discuss them for years and not completely resolve the factual and logical
difficulties involved which are of the highest order. If you are really
interested in studying a non-religiously based ethical system, read
Principia Ethica by G. E Moore.
I suspect you will try to argue that only your theistic ethical system can
be correct, while my agnostic or atheist system has no compass by which to
judge ethical direction. Why don't we just agree to disagree? But allow me
the dignity as a human being of having my opinion on ethical matters. I do
not completely deny you the validity of many of your ethical beliefs, I am
sure. So why must you insist, as it seems you are, that I have no basis for
making any ethical judgments? Here I sense the arrogance of the
fundamentalist who must be right and all other views that challenge must be
wrong! Excuse me if I misjudge you.
As far as my statement about accepting the validity of and sacredness of the
many valuable cultural and religious traditions of the human race, this is
just what I mean, though not in the extreme way that you might be
interpreting this statement. To answer two questions at once, for example,
I accept that Doug Wilson can be right about many ethical issues based on
his faith. I admire many of the ethical teachings of Christ, so I accept
the validity of and sacredness of this tradition, but I do not swallow it
whole without a critical and skeptical analysis of what faults there may be
in Christianity. I could go on and on listing numerous spiritual traditions
and what validity they have, but why labor the point?
Perhaps I can suggest, if I may, a way out of the apparent intractable
quandary of the insane religious wars that plague the human race.
When defining what is meant by "sacred" we will wade into very deep waters
very quickly that often do not lend themselves to precise logical
clarification. Some spiritual traditions, Buddhism among them, make it very
clear that the true experience of the sacred is beyond definitions and
words. If you are talking about the sacred this event is NOT SACRED. As
far as my appreciation of the sacredness of the spiritual traditions of
Christianity, I am certain that I understand, again perhaps at a level of
experience that transcends logical or verbal definition, the exalted
spiritual states of Hildegard Von Bingen that she expressed in her music. I
know that because of my connection to music that I can assure you plumbs the
deepest wells of the human soul. Please excuse my vanity and pretension
here, but I feel strongly that I know of one way to unify spiritual
experiences across culture and religion.
I think we are structured as human beings to feel religious experience, the
experience of the "sacred," perhaps we are even hard wired in our brain
networks for a religious faculty of mind. Thus music in all cultures is
used to evoke the sacred based on this commonality of structure of the human
mind. There are other ways, I am certain, in which religious experience is
linked across religions. Why not embrace the commonality of the experience
of the sacred across cultures? Is this not a wise and humane project?
Would not this endeavor do much to stop hatred and war based on religion?
Humanity is not so at odds with itself as is commonly thought!
Well, I suspect my ideas will not resonate with joy in your mind.
Sorry....
Of course I do not believe in many of the religious beliefs that Hildegard
held dear, nor do I buy into much of the mystical trappings of Buddhism, but
should that preclude an appreciation of the mystical sacred dimensions of
the music of both Christianity and Buddhism? And based on this commonality
can I not truly state, as I did, that I accept the validity of the spiritual
traditions of religions across the human race, to shorten my statement? Of
course, of course, I should have qualified my statement to indicate I do not
mean ALL religious traditions to the letter, especially any religious
traditions that inflict pain and harm, such as forcing women under threat of
force to keep their lovely breasts all tied up and hidden from public view,
which are actions that any humane ethical system would seek to avoid. But
this is obvious!
Read Principia Ethica! You will not agree with it, but just maybe you can
open your mind to another viewpoint!
Ted
>From: "David Douglas" <ddouglas@pacsim.com>
>To: "'Ted Moffett'" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: Compassion
>Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:17:17 -0700
>
>
>Ted Moffet says:
>
>"You do a disservice to your ideology and/or theology by coming to the
>defense of misogynist mud slinging."
>Ted,
>
>I *just* about gave a little preamble in my letter distancing myself from
>Mr. Harrell. However, I really didn't think it was necessary because that
>wasn't the point of my post. For the record, I neither justify nor defend
>what Mr. Harrell wrote.
>
>I see no active defense for Mr. Harrell in my post. My "defense" of him,
>such as it was, came from my disagreement about *your* reasoning. Based on
>your reasoning, I saw no basis for *you* to make any kind of value judgment
>at all. That you can indicates (to me) that your reasoning was
>inconsistent; whether you agree with my reasoning or not, it does not
>constitute a defense of Mr. Harrell. Lucy made a pretty good case, I
>thought.
>
>Perhaps I was in error in picking that particular example, especially
>since,
>based on your response, I didn't communicate my point well. Mind if I try
>again, sans Mr. Harrell? By way of a less volatile(?) example, you seem to
>be disagreeing with Doug Wilson in a different thread: let me rephrase and
>ask again a couple of my questions.
>
>
>Mr. Moffet writes:
>" ...mindset, that accepts the validity of and sacredness of the many
>valuable cultural and religious traditions of the human race. "
>
>And I ask:
> What, (and/or how) specifically, does one believe that is consistent with,
>and accepts as valid, the many religious traditions of the human race?
>and
> "Some say there is no God, while others say God is everything (or rather
>everything is God). If everyone can be correct, why not Doug Wilson? "
>
>
>
>David Douglas
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Back to TOC