Originally Posted By: samwik
I don't think it is fair that he recapitulates his heirarchy and then adds on "faith and hope," quickly at the end of his list. That list had culminated with ethics. How did he add on...? (at ~26:20)
Am I wrong? Did he derive faith and hope somewhere, as he earlier derived ethics?

He refered to faith and hope on two previous occasions.
At 23:~
"In order for a brain to make sense it must first have a rationality function and the ability to take data, analyse it, and compare it with the evidence. But, there's never enough evidence...and in the end your rationality comes to an end, and always, in any real life situation - you've got a certain amount of evidence - you have to complete your basic choices on the basis of faith and hope - think about your choice of a life companion, or your job, or where your going to live."
At 24:5~,
"balance between rationality, and faith and hope".

His use of the words is not confined to the religious context.

Originally Posted By: samwik
I liked his 'persuasion vs. coercion' points; but is he equating persuasion with "faith and hope?"

I don't think so. I think he means that coercion is the less ethical. Like, "You look like a kind person. Would you mind helping me?", compared with, "Do as I say, or you're dead meat"

Originally Posted By: samwik
I liked his "realistic universal ethic," but to say it'll be discovered by any spiritually advanced people ... or kind anywhere...," and then equate "spiritually advanced" with "ethically advanced, intellegent being anywhere...." is an example of his general thrust in equating religion with compassion. (~37:00)

He says, "[True ethics] is recognised as the highest good by all the major world religions". However, I don't think he means that religion is a pre-requisite for spirituality. His 'spirituality' seems to be evidenced by ethics that, on our planet, happen to be found within religions. He doesn't say that they aren't also found elsewhere.

I agree with him.

Science doesn't actually contradict religion (per se) - but it does demonstrate that many religious beliefs are based on dogmatic and false assumptions about the physical universe. The spiritual aspects of religion - the vital and essential core of all the major religions - is untouchable by science; and it's profoundly ethical. I think he was saying that.

He's certainly right in saying that for us - for any civilization on any planet - to survive it's own technological development, such ethics and a corresponding spirituality must prevail.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler