A concept I generally have devised over a great period of time spent on thinking. Is the idea of combining naturalism and humanistic qualities as well as avoiding any superstitious nonsense in the process.
Religious garble can generally get in the way when you treat things as "divine" and I use this word loosely. It is my personal belief that everything that exists within the universe is in fact alive, but not by the same definition we humans understand as what "living" is. I will explain that in further detail later.
Everything that exists in the Universe deserves some level of respect, now I am not saying start worrying about the health of a rock if you throw it. But just remember that that same rock has power of its own. That power should be respected, no matter how minute. Perhaps it has the power to form the way your life or the future can be perceived. While it is unlikely that a single stone will have any true significant impact on anything, it can play part of a roll in the way it effects something or someone else's life.
The roll in which something can play in life is not to a solo event object, but will be intricate of a great sum of many things which ultimately led to the outcome. So as you can see, whether you tried to avoid it or not, the stone played a roll in your life. Should that not by itself make that stone living?
A more simplistic idea is, if it moves, or can be moved, then it must ultimately be living. Since ( as far as I am concerned ) everything moves... that means the entire Universe is to some degree, living.
Ethical standards will of course be upheld in the means that we should not think just about ourselves when making decisions. We should think about the impact it will have on the environment and other living things. Also we need to consider other humans as well, not by making selfish morally objectable decisions. But making decisions in the best interest of all human beings.
For example, one should never base their moral opinion over another for the sake of traditional or culturally differing ideas. We also need to take into consideration how it will ultimately effect someone else, and someone else who is unable to fully contemplate our decisions. IE: a child, another species that does not understand our human nature.
These ethical standards cannot derive on personal belief and hearsay , but should always derive in the manner of trust worthy scientific study and how the ethical standards may effect individuals rather than groups. For another example, you cannot oppress a minority for the sake of a majority's religious moral standards.
~Celeste~
I think you were meaning to say "Role" the entire time. But it was funny reading it as "Roll". Made me hungry.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your statement that everything in the universe is "living", I found it to be rather silly. I totally understand what you're trying to say, and I too used to use the same word "living" when describing how I felt about all matter within the universe. Though the more I thought about it, the more I realized it sounded silly and "New Age" to say that.
Living actually has a very strict definition that I eventually came to respect. I suggest you should too. Though it may be just an issue with language and accuracy in vocabulary, I believe it expresses a much more mature way to get the same exact idea across to simply state that "Matter matters".
This might be more word trolling, but I have a certain "love" for literally everything there is. Even that little rock. Not because I'm particularly fond of every little thing that exists, but because I have a respect for it for simply existing.
I feel like we're thinking on the same page here, just using various inappropriate and goofy words to express it.
each and every form of religion or worship has some of the truth and none of them have all of the truth.
ReplyDeletetruth with a lower case 't' not an upper case 'T' as in the mystical unseen Truth that embodies the mysteries which must be taken on faith ....because they simply can not be shown to exist.
And all the so called miracles of the churches are nothing more than the wonders of nature that have been wonders for people and various faiths ever since we were 'advanced enough' to have an established religion.
If being conned into going to church by an organization of priests who live off a percentage of the income of the people who do the work so they can receive help with prayers can be considered and advancement of civilization.
If I were to be forced to choose one of the religions it would be Buddhism which follows the 'middle path' in order to avoid extremism