The pantheist ethic is hardly likely to dissuade those who believe we exist by chance from putting their own interests first when they think they can do so with impunity. Empathy is a luxury for those who don’t have to struggle to survive in a harsh world. Your argument is more applicable to a relatively comfortable society but you agree that even there many individuals who would ignore your appeal. The prospect of heaven or hell is a far stronger incentive to consider the welfare of others!
So what you’re saying is that it still comes down to self-interest. You actually think that “you’ll get to heaven if you do the right thing” is a better incentive for moral action than “the world that you know exists, because you live in it, and your own life in this world, will be better if you do the right thing.” You’re entitled to think that, of course, but don’t pretend that your way is immune from appeal to self-interest. As for empathy being a luxury, I think you’ll find that people who have banded together to survive harsh circumstances are more tightly bonded than anyone else, simply from having to depend upon each other to get through.
The fact that we have developed and survived does not imply that it was inevitable. The narrowness of our escapes from extinction on several occasions demonstrates that it was in the face of overwhelming odds - and reveals the immense improbability of the Chance hypothesis.
You mean that ‘chance’ hypothesis to which I don’t subscribe? The survival of humans as a species, despite the fact that we once got to the point of being critically endangered, was not simply a matter of chance - it came down to the fact that our ancestors were able to adapt to conditions (thanks to our evolved brains), band together and pull through. Sure it didn’t have to happen - we could easily have become extinct - but thanks to the
combination of chance and cause and effect, we made it, and now we’ve tipped the balance in the other direction, thanks to the same combination of circumstances.
Yes - if it is at the expense of others. There is no rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in a Godless universe.
So…the people who persecuted heretics, believing they lived in a Godly universe, were acting out of rational self-interest, right? Where were their principles of liberty, equality and fraternity? Sacrificed on the altar of appeasement of a jealous God whom they believed would reward them for burning their fellows who had different religious beliefs.
Your view of Christianity is negative and unbalanced! You are ignoring the prospects of eternal happiness.
I’m fully aware that Christianity
claims to offer eternal life, but it can’t do anything to demonstrate the veracity of such claims - it can only make them. And Christians throughout history have cared so much about the eternal fate of ‘heretics’ that they did them the kindness of burning them at the stake. My own brother, who is still devoutly Catholic, has taken it on as a personal quest to bring me back to the fold - is it for me to tell him that I believe his efforts are in vain? I’d like to, because I think he is just inflicting suffering and angst upon himself by investing belief in the idea that I’ll be damned for all time. Quite frankly, I think we have enough to be going on with in this life without concerning ourselves about an eternal fate that, to all appearances, doesn’t exist. The cake is a lie!
There is nothing intrinsically wrong about warning people about the dangers of egoism and the rewards of unselfishness. In fact it is wrong and unrealistic not to do so. It does not diminish personal integrity but bases it on wisdom and throws it into sharp contrast with the dangers and folly of moral corruption and the man=ape theory.
What moral corruption? All you are doing is moving the objective for self-interest. Again, you’re entitled to warn me or any other unbeliever, or any other believer, for that matter, that selfish actions here and now will harm our prospects in the afterlife. But you’re not, by so doing, encouraging people to be genuinely selfless.
Where do you derive your power to choose to have integrity? Or is it an attribute conferred on you by your genes? If so morality is reduced to inexorable necessity! In fact determinism is a logical corollary of pantheism…
Determinism is a logical corollary of belief in a God who planned all this from the beginning of time. There is no inexorable necessity in a universe in which chance and inherent imperfection play a crucial role. And yes, as it happens, my power to choose to have integrity does come from my genes, from my physical, biochemical make-up, and from my interaction with my environment.
There is no war in heaven, only love… and that is a far more reasonable explanation of love and morality than the spark-in-the-dark notion.
Except it’s riddled with holes big enough to drive a CAT 797 through. Let me get this straight - there’s no war in heaven
now, right? What happened when Satan and all his evil angels were cast out? Was that an act of war or an act of love? Where was God when he declared territorial war on the enemies of the Israelites? And from where does God take sides in warfare, as countless rulers, generals and soldiers throughout history have believed he did? And let’s just suppose that someone you loved in life goes to hell while you go to heaven. What happens to your love for that person when you’re there? And so far you’ve done nothing to explain your version of morality other than to claim that self-interest extends to the afterlife.
