"Integrated Consciousness, reply"
To: Egoism and Ethics Debate
Subject: Re: Integrated Consciousness
From: Dennis Hudecki
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 01:35:17 -0700
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, David G. McDivitt wrote:
> "Being Good versus Being Christian", by David McDivitt
> Often times when a person speaks of being good, religion replies, "But
> being good will not get you into heaven".
We are left therefore to
> wonder how being good rates against religious or spiritual belief.
> Through which focus does society fair better? Surely there is something
> to be said for ethical conduct.
> The hope of going to heaven is at best a selfish desire.
Living a life
> of toil, woe, and obligation,
the thought of one day having relief or
> satisfaction may have great meaning. Why must this supposed reward be in
> the afterlife?
Why not enjoy the life we have now?
wrong. Religion wants you to enjoy your life now.
If a person has
> fondness for principles and values, surely living by those principles
> and values can provide happiness, now.
wrong if you think religion does not want you live by your principles and
If people are being who and what
> they want to be now, should they not be happy now?
wrong if you think that religion does not want you to be happy now
> Religion represents an authority game lasting for thousands of years.
wrong; you must be confusing religion with some bad church practices
> There are whatever standards, said to be dictated by God.
wrong; the standards are there for reason to grasp and things like the
commandments not to kill and steal are mere summaries of what the mind has
> individual men who disseminate those standards,
enjoying that position
> in society, and there are others who grudgingly or not abide by those
> standards. Strictly in the classic sense, doing good or abiding by
> standards is said to be hard, and human nature is said to be inherently
> evil or bad.
wrong, if you are thinking of X-ity or Judeism.
It is said man cannot be good, worthwhile, or wholesome
> except by going against his nature.
completely and utterly wrong; dead wrong. And you think you understand
> Assuming God does exist and dictates rules for people to live by,
> forces people to obey?
One may say "going to hell", but does the
> presence of hell necessarily prevent people from killing each other?
> Does it prevent discrimination in our society based on race or sex?
> Okay, the mere presence of hell does not prevent crime, so one may then
> say the fear of hell prevents crime, or the fear of judgement or
> punitive action prevents crime. But does it really?
You wrongly think--and this is anothe bigtime mistake, that religion, if
it were true, would stop evil or even slow it down 1%
> behavior, it is realized that as authoritarianism increases, so does
> rebellion against that authoritarianism.
How strange to have religion
> demand compliance with its own authority
, and people suffer that burden
> of servitude,
wrong; Jesus blamed the pharisees for trying to put the people into
servitude and said that they were not truly religious
then following death religion says it will provide peace
> and reward.
not to the phony religious-types that you are describing
Need it be said people are no longer any use to religion
> after they die?
what do you mean?
This abuse of naive human participation in religious
> endeavor is not the fault of religion. It is the fault of no one. It is
> however representative of inconsistencies in the consciousness of
> mankind, how difficult it remains for men to reconcile the real to
> perceived ideals, and how from an evolutionary perspective human thought
> has yet to be fully integrated. Integration stands in contrast to
> fragmented or dualistic consciousness.
> Another perspective is to realize people do what they want to do. Some
> think and act with a sense of purpose. Some think and act with regard to
> principles and values. Some think and act with no forethought at all. It
> is possible to enjoy being good without being religious.
true; you are wrong in thinking that religion does not see this
It is possible
> to recognize what principles do for self and society. It is possible to
> say, "These are my values", instead of, "I have God's values",
wrong in the sense you think the two are mutually exclusive
> obey God". An integrated consciousness is thus represented which does
> not flip flop back and forth between views of authority and obedience.
Yuk. We agree that authority and obedience are not the way to live a good
> Nor does one vacillate between the real and ideal, or the physical and
> the spiritual.
What do you mean?
Return to things I've written
egoism, religion, atheism, codependency, selfishness, collectivism, mailing, SOC-FIX, FreeWare, software, science, philosophy, cooking, recipe, ethics, morality, ethic, moral, debate