Are these two values or one? If Equality means equality of all humans than it leads naturally to tolerance of others. However, if equality means equality of citizens, it does not necessarily lead to tolerance of non-citizens. Also, Equality has meant from time to time equality among qualified people: Whites, Men, Landowners, etc.
It seems the church's role might be different in each.
I would suggest that equality may be found more easily in the church that tolerance.
I do think we need to nominate a non-church thinker as the starting point of tolerance. Or perhaps there was an event or change in society that we should investigate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think Baruch Spinoza may be the best non-religious source for ethical thinking. As you pointed out, it may be hard to find a self-identifying atheist from much earlier than the 17th century, just for political reasons. As it happens, Sipnoza's Ethics discuss a God constantly, but it is a tool for discussion more than any kind of God recognizable by any theist.
Matt: I think Baruch Spinoza may be the best non-religious source for ethical thinking. As you pointed out, it may be hard to find a self-identifying atheist from much earlier than the 17th century, just for political reasons. As it happens, Sipnoza's Ethics discuss a God constantly, but it is a tool for discussion more than any kind of God recognizable by any theist.
Matt: Spinoza argues that "God" is the achievement of perfect reason for a regular human being. As you come closer to pure reason, you come closer to love and sacrifice for others -- you are come away from being a slave to your emotions (your base pursuit of selfish desires). You are then more driven by benifecence than by selfishness.
As I mentioned above, Spinoza uses "God" as a philosophical stand-in, he categorically rejects any notion of a personal God.
Jim: Awesome. I believe Spinoza is on my shelf of "Great Books." http://www.greatbooks.org/
Post a Comment