CAN RELIGION AFFORD GOD?
Okay, now that we've tackled the question, "Can humans afford religion?" we are left with the question, "Can Religion afford God?" If you answered, "Huh?" you are not fully engaging yourself.
Those who brought you God, devised religion as a support system. John Glenn couldn't make it on his own. He needed his NASA support team. God too needed support. For instance, God doesn't handle money or torture infidels. Someone has to collect the tithes, and mete out the punishment.
And God can't go around handing out lollipops and kissing babies while campaigning. He needed to be above it all--literally. So, He needed Disciples. Disciples, being human, require discipline. Disciples, being disciplined, could then take the high road, leading by example. For this, they used M-O-R-A-L-S.
Morals go in and out of fashion, but according to Science Times contributor, Nicholas Wade, they all come down to this:
You are standing beside a railroad track and you see six people bound to the tracks, in the path of an oncoming train. On a parallel track is a single person bound to the track and you are holding the switch that will divert the train to the parallel track.
Whether you believe in God, or not, you switch the train and squash the person who God had intended to save when he put him out of harm's way on the parallel track in the first place. You have overruled God but, hey, you saved six others and He'll get over it.
Okay. Now you're on a bridge over the railroad track and the lucky six you saved before have found themselves bound again and in the path of the runaway locomotive. Standing next to you on the bridge is a fat man. For the sake of argument, you know that by throwing the fat man from the bridge in front of the speeding locomotive, his massive flab will stop the train and thus, save six sorry souls.
So now you're thinking, shit, this is different. Now I have to proactively sacrifice the fat guy to save the six. I'm killing him, not the locomotive. What do you do?
I say, toss the fat man. You'd do it anyway, even if there weren't six people on the tracks. Americans don't like trans-fatties. Isn't America's beauty, your duty?
But I would be immoral. And I don't want to be immoral. The point here is to be moral.
I know that in either scenario, I am sacrificing one to save six. Outwardly, it would seem they are equivalent. But in the latter case, I have to throw the fat dude in front of the train. Wasn't his life bad enough? Then again, he got that extra serving of dessert -- but enough about me.
How do we escape this conundrum? Intervention in God's will, practiced every day by doctors, lawyers, and Democrats, requires that we forsake God for the sake of morality. This morality is innate in humans. If religion wants to co-opt morality, it would need to lose the silly notion of God. Why? you say. Because God's will is so indifferent, it seems to mimic Mother Nature. And Mother Nature is a bitch.
That we humans have a hard time looking the other way when inequities arise may save us in the end. Whether we chuck the fat man or not, any humane decision we make trumps indifference.
We may truly be Lords of our universe, and it wouldn't be too soon to start acting that way.
Okay, now that we've tackled the question, "Can humans afford religion?" we are left with the question, "Can Religion afford God?" If you answered, "Huh?" you are not fully engaging yourself.
Those who brought you God, devised religion as a support system. John Glenn couldn't make it on his own. He needed his NASA support team. God too needed support. For instance, God doesn't handle money or torture infidels. Someone has to collect the tithes, and mete out the punishment.
And God can't go around handing out lollipops and kissing babies while campaigning. He needed to be above it all--literally. So, He needed Disciples. Disciples, being human, require discipline. Disciples, being disciplined, could then take the high road, leading by example. For this, they used M-O-R-A-L-S.
Morals go in and out of fashion, but according to Science Times contributor, Nicholas Wade, they all come down to this:
You are standing beside a railroad track and you see six people bound to the tracks, in the path of an oncoming train. On a parallel track is a single person bound to the track and you are holding the switch that will divert the train to the parallel track.
Whether you believe in God, or not, you switch the train and squash the person who God had intended to save when he put him out of harm's way on the parallel track in the first place. You have overruled God but, hey, you saved six others and He'll get over it.
Okay. Now you're on a bridge over the railroad track and the lucky six you saved before have found themselves bound again and in the path of the runaway locomotive. Standing next to you on the bridge is a fat man. For the sake of argument, you know that by throwing the fat man from the bridge in front of the speeding locomotive, his massive flab will stop the train and thus, save six sorry souls.
So now you're thinking, shit, this is different. Now I have to proactively sacrifice the fat guy to save the six. I'm killing him, not the locomotive. What do you do?
I say, toss the fat man. You'd do it anyway, even if there weren't six people on the tracks. Americans don't like trans-fatties. Isn't America's beauty, your duty?
But I would be immoral. And I don't want to be immoral. The point here is to be moral.
I know that in either scenario, I am sacrificing one to save six. Outwardly, it would seem they are equivalent. But in the latter case, I have to throw the fat dude in front of the train. Wasn't his life bad enough? Then again, he got that extra serving of dessert -- but enough about me.
How do we escape this conundrum? Intervention in God's will, practiced every day by doctors, lawyers, and Democrats, requires that we forsake God for the sake of morality. This morality is innate in humans. If religion wants to co-opt morality, it would need to lose the silly notion of God. Why? you say. Because God's will is so indifferent, it seems to mimic Mother Nature. And Mother Nature is a bitch.
That we humans have a hard time looking the other way when inequities arise may save us in the end. Whether we chuck the fat man or not, any humane decision we make trumps indifference.
We may truly be Lords of our universe, and it wouldn't be too soon to start acting that way.
posted by R. Reynolds at 9:02 AM
21 Comments:
Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber...
Glad to see that your insights into philosophical concepts are as shallow and narrow as your inisghts into... well... everything.
Mr. Anonymous. Maybe you could grace us with your "inisghts."
"Intervention in God's will . . .requires that we forsake God for the sake of morality. This morality is innate in humans."
This is a very Western view of God's place. The humans who are devout (forget radical) Muslims hold that the only morality is through God's will.
Since we're pondering metaphysics using the train as a metaphor, perhaps you could tackle the greatest mystery of all: one train leaves Grand Central at 1:00 PM traveling 50 miles per hour. A second train leaves Chappaqua at 1:15 traveling 40 miles an hour. When will they meet?
Which train is the fat guy on?
Bilbo, What is the destination of each train and is there a bar car? --USCE
Dear Anonymous the First; It appears as though you did not understand the column. Perhaps if you contact us off-line we could spell it out for you (we'll speak slowly). --USCE
Rather than grace you with my insights, let's play a little game: How many philosophical mistakes can you identify in today's rant?
To Bilbo: In order to calculate the precise moment of impact we have to know whether the switchman in the Bronx is a NYC Public School graduate.
Car "A" leaves Ascope and drives precisely 15.6 miles west, makes a 90 degree left turn and drives 4.6 miles to the Desert Rest Coffee Shop for his morning breakfast. Car "B" leaves Ascope and drives 19.3 miles east, then makes a 90 degree right turn and drives 6.9 miles to the Mountain Lodge for his morning breakfast. What country are they in and what are they having for breakfast?
Which train is bound for glory?
Why not explain it right here? Use little words. Maybe I'll get.
As with a botched joke, a botched philosophical argument needs no explanation. Botched is as botched does.
there are in Red America and they are having green eggs and ham, Uncle Sam they am.
To wworrier:
Not to worry. Ignorance is bliss.
Try again.
Any NYC Public School graduates out there?
"maybe you'll get" a botched sentence.
Like all Republicans, the ones screaming morality are the ones rolling hard boiled eggs at naked people.
Can we keep this on a higher plateau? Do we, or do we not toss the fat guy?
Thank you anonymous. We come to PNN not for truth, but for reality.
Yes, there's a certain amount of wiggle room in truth, but none in reality.
Shit, I come for the laughs.
"How many philosophical mistakes can you identify in today's rant?"
I'm still waiting for the author of this statement to identify any "mistakes."
Regarding tossing the fat guy, it would depend on who the six bound people were. Iraqis? Americans? Morality dictates we sacrifice for the good of the majority, assuming that majority is close in proximity. Far away peoples have historically always counted less than those "closer to home," ideologically, and physically.
Yes roadie 450. And this is our problem.
"Morality dictates we sacrifice for the good of the majority..."
Morality dictates nothing of the kind. And regarding proximity, most Americans harbor reprehensible thoughts toward fellow Americans living a few miles away, on the other side of the tracks. I've heard good, moral people pass comments about my own kids, not knowing that I'm their father.
Dad, is that you?
Post a Comment
<< Home