6 feb. 2015

Daniel Dennett skriver brev till New York Times

En insändare från Daniel Dennett till New York Times som artikulerar skillnaden mellan sekulärhumanistisk och religiös etik på ett särdeles klart formulerat sätt. Vär att publicera i sin helhet.
We’re Fine Without God, Thanks
Re “Building Better Secularists” (column, Feb. 3):
David Brooks says secular individuals have to build their own moral philosophies, while religious people inherit creeds that have evolved over centuries. Autonomous secular people are called upon to settle on their own individual sacred convictions.
Secularists don’t have to “build” anything; we can choose moral philosophies from what’s already well tested. If religious people think that their “faith” excuses them from evaluating the duties and taboos handed down to them, they are morally obtuse.
Does Mr. Brooks think that religious people are not “called upon to settle on their own individual sacred convictions”? Children may be excused for taking it on authority, but not adults.
Mr. Brooks writes, “Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him.” We secularists have no need for love of any imaginary being, since there is a bounty of real things in the world to love, and to motivate us: peace, justice, freedom, learning, music, art, science, nature, love and health, for instance.
Our advice: Eliminate the middleman, and love the good stuff that we know is real.
Medford, Mass.
The writer, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is co-author of “Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind.”

1 kommentar:

Göran sa...

Bra att åtminstone en av fyra horsemen känner kärlek till freden.

Religion Blogg listad på Bloggtoppen.se