dagbay wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 8:37 amI know you belive that a Humanistic theology based on human rights can be sustainable. I disagree because both keywords in the statement above are subjective. They are relative to the prevailing culture. Human rights was once the rights of the elites who owned the land, at later period it was the slave owner's rights and still later the Comunists leadership or capitalists eliets. it is easy to believe at each epoch that those are the natural rights because we are all egoistic to believe that what we are accustomed to is the normal.Sertorio wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:42 amFor the reasons I gave above, I absolutely do not agree with you. I wish you would argue in a more concrete way...dagbay wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:41 amSertorio, we had this discussion once or twice in the past. Any man made theology was/is prone to subjective mutations more than religious theologies.Sertorio wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:34 amHuman rights seem to be that basis, and the foundation for our code of ethics. Of course, not disposing of a "hell", human rights must rely on people's willingness to respect them, not on fear of being forever punished in some unspeakable fiery environment. What is surprising is that, in spite of everything, human rights are so well accepted by so many people, and seem to be recognized as valid even by those who regularly offend them. And although the scope of human rights has been expanding as time goes by, their foundation seems more immutable than most religions I know. Just think of the death penalty. So well accepted formerly by the Christian faith, and now condemned by most Christian leaders. Or the evolution of Sabbath practices among Jews - with the exception of the ultra orthodox.dagbay wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:47 pmEllen, I do not disagree with your comments but would like to clarify why I am saddned by the failure of humanism to provide a basis for a just and plural society. In my view as a scientist it is hard to reconcile the religious account with what little we know of the world we live in. It would be nice if we could perfect ourselves to a level where a humanistic theology would bring peace and harmony along. But here the sadness comes in, we fail in this effort for there are fundamental limits to human ability and to human defined rules in that they are subjective on some level and are mutable. This is where religion has anew advantage since it is by definition mostly immutable. So I'm left to struggle between everyday and the Sabbath.
By accepting that man defines morality, you can be happy with unbelievable atrocities only later defined as such. OTOH, I do not claim that any religion is the ultimate model but the key edge that religions have is that their basic tenants are fixed to a large extent (there is still an issue of interpretation). Remember that all religions are after all man made but are defined in the absolute. Thou shall not kill, is not in the eye of the current generation or an enchient one. It applies to both young and old. A theology made based on current perception of human rights can be defined but it will be valid to this moment in history. One would hope that future redefinitions will be a refinement of current ideas but there is no guarantee of that and there are plenty of ideas once considered just, now deemed unacceptable as well as the opposite; once unthinkable ideas becoming normative even if they go against the common wisdom.
You brought up the Death penalty once common now abhorred by most but equally infanticide once considered unthinkable is accepted and performed widely today.
Then there is the issue of acceptance. Certainly the elite philosophers who come up with the theology will or pretend to follow it's tenants. However the general public who is not invested in the process does not have any reason to follow. Religions use fear of future punishment or promises of future rewards to coerce adherance. That is not satisfactory in the modern concept of reality but sill has some clout and will for centuries more for most people.
Remember, if you can define what's right and what's not why can't I from my egoistic POV?
". . . the Death penalty once common now abhorred by most but equally infanticide once considered unthinkable is accepted and performed widely today."
The trouble is - babies can't speak for themselves and therefore cannot resist the unspeakable slaughter.