Yup, got lots of things I really want to post on, but the ADHD keeps getting in the way. . .So here I am posting about yet something else that has nothing to do with human rights, at least not much, while ignoring both topical and non-topical posts that I have promised. I will get them up, err, soonish. . .If it helps any, not only am I ADHD, I am also mildly bipolar. Frustrating sometimes, but it can also be a lot of fun.
Over at Jason Rosenhouse's EvolutionBlog, is an interesting post, discussing the issue of atheist writers who dare critique religion, without offering something to fill the void left behind, if someone actually leaves their faith. For more fun with ADHD, I have yet to click over to the article by Matt Nisbett of Framing Science, that Jason's piece is a response to. I keep meaning to do so, but between the spotty connection and general distractions, I haven't, sorry Matt. I would like to be clear that I really appreciate a lot of what Matt has to say, in spite of often disagreeing with him.
The issue that I have here is rather multi-faceted, but boils down to this; It is quite possible to have a moral framework, without religious faith. Probably the most moral, ethical person I know, is my atheist father. He is not only honest and forthright, a man of indelible integrity, he is also a man of deep compassion, who selflessly gives of himself simply because it's the right thing to do. The basis of his moral framework is not religious in nature, rather it is rooted in his perception of secular humanism.
Rather than write a whole new post, I am, in my infinite laziness and in the interest of watching season one of Numbers, procured today from our local library, I will simply link to the pertinent portion of the comment thread. Hopefully, I will soon write a post addressing the sentiments that I express in this thread. My comments are about two after those of Derek James, whom I reccomend checking out, along with Russell Blackford.