In the dispute of the parentage of a baby between two mothers in Solomon’s court, the real mother denied her right of claim to stop the sword dividing the baby into two equal shares as settlement. Two half baby do not make one.
There are some important questions that we struggle with because it has implication to our outlook, conduct and wellbeing. I think the four are about origin, ethics, meaning and destiny and these questions need answers that unites them as a whole without compromising the integrity of each. Although each of them is already a tough challenge, we have to raise the stake otherwise we won’t be satisfied (‘two half of the baby does not make a whole’).
Charles Darwin at the end of his life saw the implication of the theory he proposed. He knew that once we go for an impersonal origin, we also change our outlook on ethics. This linking was also prophesized by Friedrich Nietzsche stating the 20th century would be the bloodiest once he buried God. In the book Freedom Paradox, Clive Hamilton links ethics and meaning, and found that if meaning was about enjoyment without the boundary of ethics, it is disastrous. (“Sex out-side the bound of committed relationship is not just tagged as a moral mischief but harmful’). He did not write from a religious platform as found in the later chapters of the book.
The suggestion of answers to each of the question has implications to the other answers. It is a high standard we must set, because only then we can have satisfaction.
“Sex out-side the bound of committed relationship is not just tagged as a moral mischief but harmful"
ReplyDeleteThe science of evolution has an explanation for this as well. Marital fidelity provides a stable familial environment in which to raise our offspring.
"This linking was also prophesized by Friedrich Nietzsche stating the 20th century would be the bloodiest once he buried God.:
The 20th century saw two very bloody world wars not because of the "death" of God, but more likely due to comparatively advanced weaponry and warfare tactics (not to mention an exponential growth of human population in the late 19th century).
"Charles Darwin at the end of his life saw the implication of the theory he proposed. He knew that once we go for an impersonal origin, we also change our outlook on ethics."
The standard of our ethics leave a lot to be desired, but we have made some improvements since the time of Darwin. The civil rights movement occurred independently from, and in some instance, despite of, religion and its conservative values; over the decades we have made some progress on animal welfare; some philanthropist are irreligious and not by the slightest driven by the notion of heaven and hell.
Social Darwinism is a perverted notion not endorsed even by the staunchest atheists (one of whom is Dawkins, who is such a strong proponent of Darwinism within the scientific context).
If you are thinking that being a Christian makes one more ethical, I would argue that it is not necessarily so.