Hi again GDR,
Straggler writes:
Then in this hypothetical 'Age of Reason' we wouldn't treat the bible (or indeed any other similarly interpretable holy book) as anything other than an expression of both the good and the bad of already existing human morality would we?
On one level that is true, but on the other hand I see it as a record of God interacting within creation and most specifically through Jesus Christ. It does tell us that there is ultimate purpose, and that this world is not going to end some day with not so much as a memory left.
My take on this issue is that it just does not matter what source is used in the development of personal morals (and all morals are personal when you come down to it -- moral behavior is what you do when no-one is looking kind of thing). In this regard any system for "Ushering in a New Age of Reason" that
prohibited the use of some source material is just as dogmatic hide-bound and close-minded as the fundamentalist that claims their source
must be used.
What matters is consilience with the moral beliefs of the people in the society where you live, so that there is general agreement on acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior.
You don't need to be 100% in agreement, just in agreement on most issues and general agreement on the most important issues, and have the freedom and liberty to live by your personal beliefs where they differ.
Likewise, different social groups do not need to be 100% in agreement with other social groups, they just need consilience
within their social group and with any individuals\people\groups that cross-over\visit\immigrate\interact from other social groups.
Morality is self-regulation, rather than group (external) regulation. My reference to "when in Rome do as the Romans" was not to say that morality and laws are the same, but that they both attempt to regulate behavior with the goal of reducing social conflicts and disruption of the social group/s. As an example, people go to Vegas to engage in behavior that is not acceptable in their home social group, and when they leave, they leave that behavior behind as well ("What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas").
In a "Legendary New Age of Reason" one could even argue that laws would not be necessary, because personal moral beliefs would accomplish the same ends -- rational people would choose specific behaviors rather than have laws to regulate them and then have to enforce laws. The group regulation is accomplished by the consilience of moral beliefs of all the people making up the group.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : kind not kid, vegas