RE: Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?
January 28, 2021 at 12:17 pm
(January 28, 2021 at 11:55 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Sure, you're a product of your dna and nature - but so too is everyone who does anything that you take moral issue with. If you mean this in the sense that, descriptively, our dna and nature determine what we think is best -this position is called biological relativism. If, additionally, you believe that some things really are best, and best in a way not equivalent to whatever a persons dna and nature might compel them to believe (aka, assholes exist), then you reject biological relativism at a metaphysical level.
Descriptively, you believe it to be true of our species. Morally, you believe it to be true that nature really fucked up with our species. It's not clear what we do that other species do not, or what makes us a great example of a natural fuckup - but I'll grant that it's a very common perception which probably has a bit to do with our cultural heritage.
-nd I want to make a special note here, about sounding religious. When we try to come up with a simple description of the content of your stated position - we get something like "This is not the way that people -should be-, even if it is the way they are, and with respect to sounding religious....well....that's because the religious make an equivalent moral claim - it's the defining aspect of a religion. That there is a way that things should be - and that insomuch as things are that way, it is because they should be that way, and insomuch as things are not that way, we are committed to changing them.
There's nothing wrong with sounding religious or even being religious - but there very much is something wrong if a person proceeds on religious facts which are in error -and- that error is of moral import. The error of nature as arbitor of human morality is just such an error. We are not attempting (or, at least, we contend that we are not attempting), with respect to morality, to ape what we see in nature, as much of what we see in nature appalls us and would be appalling and has been appalling when we assert it's primacy in our moral reckoning or intuition.
As a moral agent, I cannot eat another agent alive, asshole first - as a biological agent...I very much can and will.
Moral import does not apply to the religious. What their gods wants, moral or not, they will give.
That is how we got homophobia and misogyny.
Have you ever tried to engage Christians in moral discussions? Nearly impossible that. They know they have no decent moral tenets to follow nor can they justify Yahweh's.
Errors from the religious, stems from their initial premise and lie that their god is real.
The delusion must end before the moral cowards will judge their vile gods justly.
Regards
DL
