Is Religion Requisite for Ethics?

No. In fact some axioms and practices of the tri-partite abrahamic crock are antithetical to human duty. Witness the demonization of humanism. How can humanism be a bad thing? Witness Israel for that matter. How can pretending some human beings are not human be a good thing?

Not only does any school of thought which advocates the abdication of personal responsibility to some supernatural force inherently jeopardize ethical behavior, but the insistence that an unprovable is fact can lead to an infinite list of somewhat logically linked unprovables, each more dangerous to humane behavior than the last. If ethical behavior comes from god, as does one of the novels (Torah, Bible, Q'ran, you choose), then there must be some correlation. And those books condone some extremely inhumane behavior. In fact there are several instances where it is enjoined as the duty of all stooges of Abraham in each volume. But the worst behavior proceeds when narcissism is achieved, once a person is capable of believing they are endowed of greater personage than other persons. I can't single out the crock on this account. Narcissism may be a side effect of religious thought, or even a goal. Hinduism has resulted in great inhumanity, for example. Of course many of its conflicts are with Islam these days, which some consider the most bellicose part of the crock (I lived in NYC September 11, 2001 and knew Phil Rozensweig if you don't waste time on my personal blog but I don't see it that simply; however, I've actually read all three novels), but Hindus have even managed to pick fights with Buddhists. Puts their potential for narcissism right up there with the junta of Myanmar, no?

The narcissism of Hinduism may be instructive then. Not only does its literature have the same mixture of instructions for tolerance and genocide, but its internal structure, from Brahmin to Untouchable is transparent. In addition a discussion of misbehavior outside the crock will obviate my kicking it for a little while. Except obliquely whenever the problem with Hinduism is obviously a problem with organized religion itself. Which might just be always, let's see.

I am often guilty of attribution without citation. Sorry about that but it will continue. As long as I'm an unpaid desperado dilettante I give you sources of information but I will not spend much time quoting them. I read. A liability of that activity without notetaking is a high probability of misquoting. I only read Becker's Escape from Evil once, but it gave me some ideas. And posited a few acceptable answers. So if you haven't read it I'm advocating that you do. And if you have I think you'll understand what I'm attributing to him without my having to dredge up an accurate quote. Come on, if I was a scholar I should be getting grants. You may also note that Escape is the only Becker I've read. I know Denial of Death would give me more of the same logic with maybe a few more useful details, and he wrote even more, but there's just so much else to read. And do... and let's not forget the time wasted at this little endeavour. So I got what I got from Becker, if you read you're entitled to disagree. Apropos Hinduism it is this: denial of cessation of the ego requires very creative explanations sometimes, which can enable some very unjust behaviors and may untimately even lend themselves to violence.

They may also lend themselves to great works of beauty, and don't necessarily have to be antithetical to ethics. So don't think I'm telling you to stop practicing, as if any of us really could. Just be honestly comfortable enough with what you practice that you could preach it. If you just found yourself preaching genocide we have a problem.

It has to stop. There is no reason for one human being to kill another. None whatsoever. If you want to live by a book you must allow abrogation. And don't settle for abrogation by direction, or age, or translation. Use your ethics. Without exercise they atrophy. Put the books in order. Belay murderous fantasy with good advice. There's a lot of it there. But you have to choose it.

Becker's thesis offers one good explanation for what's really wrong with human thought, but I remember him as being rather gentle on religion. So I'll part ways early and see if I can't get offed Ghandi-style.

Hinduism is silly. It's literature is so enormous I can't say I'm certain it doesn't have a creep like Abraham or a murderer like David or a zombie like Jesus, but it does have it's own rogue's gallery of wierdos. Once we get into deism and prophets. But before that point it makes some very accurate observations and gives some great advice for living right. In fact I dig alot of what Sidhatta Gotama said, and it's most likely he was a Brahmin. Be honest, would people in a vedic culture have paid him any mind if he wasn't? Perhaps I belabor the obvious. But I don't hear people discussing the issue so... there it is (yawn?).

I've read a little Rigveda and quite a bit of Upanishads. And I have not scratched the surface. I don't think I'm going to make it to the Talmud this lifetime. But that's the point, don't you see? Hinduism is unique in its expression but not at all in its cause and effect.

I see a/(some) point(s) requiring dissection in the former paragraph(s). Silliness is inherent in playing 'let's pretend'. What is 'living right'? For that matter, what is wrong? I had this very argument with a couple of monks, trying to pick a fight perhaps, but they got me. Well I did make the point that good and evil are subjective, entirely a matter of definition, but they probably knew that and definitely got me back. With 'wholesome'. Surely subjective as well, surely redefinable. But not so much. Not so loaded with bizarre semi-factual and contra-factual mystic garbage. Frankly I am not such a wholesome person. But I think I may know what is, and I don't think it's a slippery concept. It is unwholesome to kill people.