Comments on: Spiritual Pillar #3: Progressivism http://www.sacredriver.org/18/spiritual-pillar-3-progressivism Exploring a nontheistic spirituality grounded in naturalism and humanism Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:54:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Ash http://www.sacredriver.org/18/spiritual-pillar-3-progressivism#comment-93 Ash Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:11:55 +0000 http://www.sacredriver.org/?p=18#comment-93 I am actually looking forward to talking a lot about the ethics of Sacred River. I'm still working on the language for it, but plenty of hints can be found in the various posts. The clearest formulation is in the <a href="http://www.sacredriver.org/the-three-pillars" rel="nofollow">Three Pillars</a> page, but I will be unpacking it over time. Now then, to your other question. What I think Adams meant was that there is no such thing as divine or absolute purity, and that "goodness" is ultimately judged by how behavior manifests in society. In other words, there is no platonic ideal for Goodness that we as humans must try to aspire to. While the Virtues I describe might (or might not) be irreducible, that does not mean they are immaculate in the sense of being divinely perfect. Rather, they are principles of behavior based on reason and knowledge. I've admitted elsewhere that the ethical system Sacred River has adopted is not the only one available; other choices are certainly possible. Not only that, even the principles we have chosen are hardly immutable or perfectly understood. What it means to be courageous, integral, beneficent, and open will be somewhat different for each person and will change over time. Personally, I think that is a large part of a spiritual life; the challenge to define goodness for oneself and the struggle to attain it. I am actually looking forward to talking a lot about the ethics of Sacred River. I’m still working on the language for it, but plenty of hints can be found in the various posts. The clearest formulation is in the Three Pillars page, but I will be unpacking it over time.

Now then, to your other question. What I think Adams meant was that there is no such thing as divine or absolute purity, and that “goodness” is ultimately judged by how behavior manifests in society. In other words, there is no platonic ideal for Goodness that we as humans must try to aspire to. While the Virtues I describe might (or might not) be irreducible, that does not mean they are immaculate in the sense of being divinely perfect. Rather, they are principles of behavior based on reason and knowledge. I’ve admitted elsewhere that the ethical system Sacred River has adopted is not the only one available; other choices are certainly possible. Not only that, even the principles we have chosen are hardly immutable or perfectly understood. What it means to be courageous, integral, beneficent, and open will be somewhat different for each person and will change over time. Personally, I think that is a large part of a spiritual life; the challenge to define goodness for oneself and the struggle to attain it.

]]> By: Ropian http://www.sacredriver.org/18/spiritual-pillar-3-progressivism#comment-90 Ropian Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:22:59 +0000 http://www.sacredriver.org/?p=18#comment-90 Ash, can you expand a bit on the ethical philosophy that underlies your formulation of progressivism? (maybe you already did in a later post, I'm not there in the river yet) Your traits for the characterological health do very much look like irreducible virtues, while the UU quote asserts that that is an immaculate concept that should be denied. How is that resolved? Ash, can you expand a bit on the ethical philosophy that underlies your formulation of progressivism? (maybe you already did in a later post, I’m not there in the river yet) Your traits for the characterological health do very much look like irreducible virtues, while the UU quote asserts that that is an immaculate concept that should be denied. How is that resolved?

]]>