GOD-centric vs. GOOD-centric
Have I found GOOD-centric to be a satisfying replacement for GOD-centric? No. Like Huston Smith, I feel Condemned to Meaning:
The chief difficulty that besets this interpretation of meaning is: If the mind thus imposes meaning upon life, does this not imply that in itself life has no meaning?…If man likes to create and finds meaning in creating, it is equally true that he wants the meanings around which he builds his life to be more substantial, more securely rooted in things than is possible if he is their sole originator…Why man wants more than self-made meanings seems clear. By himself he seems so obviously incidental in the cosmos that meanings which root in nothing more substantial than himself seem paltry. Small wonder, therefore, that he wants his meanings – not least the meaning of his life – to mesh with meanings that are more amply represented in ‘the scheme of things entire.’
GOD-centric was essentially about our converging with God though our living in and out God's love, goodness, and fairness. When I was GOD-centric, my living in and out love, goodness, and fairness resonated with a supreme eternal external referent. Now that I am GOOD-centric, my living in and out love, goodness, and fairness resonates with myself and those other selves who share my values which is nice; however, I preferred converging with a supreme eternal external referent to converging with a hodgepodge of like-minded people who might change their minds at any moment.
Furthermore, I find it more difficult to effectively invite those selfish souls who think love, goodness, and fairness are for saps to join me at a GOOD-centric table. Those selfish souls challenge: "If we only get this one life which has no inherent meaning, why not grab all you want by any means at your disposal despite the consequence to others?" When I believed that love, goodness, and fairness resonated with a supreme eternal external referent, then the case I could make for centering life on them was much more compelling than my current GOOD-centric plea: "Gee, it's a nice thing to do and benefits the whole which, in turn, benefits you." To a greedy Gus, that response is mumbo jumbo, you sap.
Carl Sagan suggested a science-based religion as an alternative:
A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. (Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space)
While the magnificence of the universe is certainly awe-inspiring, it is amoral. If the supreme eternal external referent were Nature rather than a loving, good, and fair God, then our convergence would reflect nature's amorality. I prefer love, goodness, and fairness.
So, a GOD-centric orientation is more compelling but untrue and a GOOD-centric orientation is more honest but not persuasive to those not predisposed to love, goodness, and fairness. Might there be yet another alternative?
