On 24/12/2015, at 10:00 AM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 23, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>> Just a side note: my objection to ethical arguments does not apply to those whose ethical principles are grounded in religion. In that case the ethical arguments have a ground. But when atheists insist that politics must have an ethical grounding in mid-air (that is nowhere) they reduce politics to mere gut feeling. Ethics as their own ground is deeply seated bourgeois ideology.
>
> What ground? Ethical arguments "grounded" in mid-air can at least claim a real basis (air being real.) But ethical arguments "grounded in religion" can claim no such basis, "grounded" as they are in fantasy about nonexistent "supernatural" beings.
This is an interesting discussion, but before I can contribute my autistic brain needs clarity on the definition of religion. My understanding is that religion is simply the dogmatic transmission of a society's cultural tenets, from generation to generation. Whereas some in this debate seem to be operating on the basis that religion is primarily about supernatural beings (or Gods, to put it more simply). I thought there were religions that didn't even have Gods as such?
Until we clarify these basic premises, it will be hard to even understand each other's arguments.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas