This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Does morality require religion?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
So, to link an article from our major newspaper from last week:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/you-cant-teach-ethics-without-referring-to-christianity-20100409-rxai.html
The article opinion piece is written by Jim Wallace, who appears to be a managing director of a group called the Australian Christian Lobby.
He is suggesting that Western society morals are derived from Christianity, and that it would be impossible to teach ethics and morality without providing the Christian basis underpinning the ethical concept.
To provide the context, New South Wales (a state in Australia) has mandatory Scripture classes in early high school, allowing religious youths to learn about their faith. For those who do not belong to one of the mainstream religions (or, in fact, a religion simply not offered at that school, due to a lack of teachers / volunteers or otherwise), they go to 'non-scripture', essentially, sitting around the library and reading / doing home work. The NSW Government is introducing an ethics class for those non-scripture students.
What are your thoughts?
Post by
ArgentSun
With risk to become redundant and/or sounding like a propagandist, here is a TED video about the topic:
Sam Harris - Science Can Answer Moral Questions
I am probably relying on TED is my main source of information a little too much, but this one is relevant, and probably good to watch. I don't agree completely with everything Harris says, but he does make a few good points.
My own stance on this? Christianity is definitely not the only answer to moral questions - claiming that it is, sets one on the path of immorality, I think, because once you stop recognizing others' opinions (and values), you are well on your path to immorality. I have never been much interested in what Christianity has to teach me (even though I officially belong to that religion). My own moral code comes from personal experience, books I have read, works of philosophers (and other smart people), and frequently asking myself "
How would make actions make the others feel?
" So, no, definitely not the only way to go.
Post by
Squishalot
Yes, but to play devil's advocate (ironically) - where did they get their underlying moral code from?
In any event, I believe that the author's argument is that the majority of today's ethical values about charity (specifically mentioned in the article, anyway) are derived from a Christian basis.
A great deal of morality can be chalked up to pre-Christian era philosophers, suggesting that they do not rely on Christianity (obviously). But consider, people like Plato (I think..) considered the fact that their actions may not be 'god-like', suggesting that their moral code was inherently based on the presumption that 'good' acts were ones that were done with their god's approval. The original 'What Would Zeus Do?', you could say.
The follow-up argument would be to say that you wouldn't really understand what the philosophers were thinking / trying to get at, in their works about morality, unless you also drill down and look from their religious perspective also.
Post by
mindthegap5
No, i'm not very religious, but i still know what is right and wrong.
Although the beliefs are based on religious beliefs, they ought to be because the religious people are the people that teach you what is right and what is wrong.
Post by
MyTie
With risk to become redundant and/or sounding like a propagandist, here is a TED video about the topic:
Sam Harris - Science Can Answer Moral Questions
I am probably relying on TED is my main source of information a little too much, but this one is relevant, and probably good to watch. I don't agree completely with everything Harris says, but he does make a few good points.
My own stance on this? Christianity is definitely not the only answer to moral questions - claiming that it is, sets one on the path of immorality, I think, because once you stop recognizing others' opinions (and values), you are well on your path to immorality. I have never been much interested in what Christianity has to teach me (even though I officially belong to that religion). My own moral code comes from personal experience, books I have read, works of philosophers (and other smart people), and frequently asking myself "
How would make actions make the others feel?
" So, no, definitely not the only way to go.
Ok.... where to begin. This video you have here, the guy does backflips to try to show that you can derive morals from science. He pins it all on the definition of the word 'values' which he defines as "Facts about the well being of conscious beings". But, yikes, that's not actually the definition of the word 'values'.
He is trying to show that morals and ethics are objective, and can be discovered by science. If he could do that, which he can't do without using false definitions and false arguements, he could show that morals and ethics are not subjective outside the sphere of religion.
There are some later points he brings up that I agree with. He makes the point that a better understanding of how humans rationalize morals will help us. That I agree with.
Later he gets a little hostile toward religion on a whole based on a few extreme examples. For example, he uses the example of "beating a child publically with a wooden board until the skin is broken and blisters are raised", and point out that "this is justified in religion based on Proverbs 13:20,23". (its actually 24 that relates loosely to this, but never justifies beating). Another example is he points out that it is acceptible to throw 'battery acid in the faces' of women who refuse to wear burkas in islamic cultures. This is a gross misrepresentation of the truth.
Lastly, he points out that there exist 'experts' in the field of morals. The example he gives is the Dali Lama. He says that there are experts in the realm of physics, and that people who are not experts in the realm of physics should be ignored when questions of complex physics arise. The next point he makes is that people who are not experts in the realm of morals should be ignored in that realm when questions arise. The problem with this thinking is, a physicist can prove to you that he is an expert in the realm of physics because he can show facts and proofs about what he knows in the realm of physics, and this can be checked against known facts. Since there are no known facts in the realm of morals, the knowledge cannot be checked, and the experts cannot be determined. You are left with a subjective basis for determining an objective expert. It doesn't work like that.
Your source is wildly biased, Argentsun. Son, I am disappoint
Most of the rest seems to ramble and meander. I never saw conclusive reasoning as to the objectivity of morals outside of religion and the human opinion.
For what it is worth though, this is closer to the heart of the topic than the OP, imo.
If anyone can point out objective morals, outside the realm of religion, please do so! I'd love to hear the theories.
Post by
321308
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ArgentSun
The video was not my source, it was something relevant I found a couple of weeks ago :) My opinion is my own, not affected by that video - at least not to the point where I can recognize the influence.
Post by
MyTie
The video was not my source, it was something relevant I found a couple of weeks ago :) My opinion is my own, not affected by that video - at least not to the point where I can recognize the influence.
You stated that Christianity is not the only answer to moral questions. I would agree with this to the extent that Christ's teachings don't cover every moral question possible. In the scheme of things, it isn't very comprehensive. He didn't preach on abortion, for instance.
Were you saying this, or were you saying that Christ's teachings are to be differed with in some circumstances of moral questions. If so, which teachings?
Post by
ArgentSun
I was referring more to the fact that the moral answers Christianity provides are not the only solutions to moral problems. Morality is not binary, it's not black and white - sometimes there is no "moral" answer, there are two that are "less moral" and "more moral", but neither one of those gets to the ends of the continuum. On top of that, Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is not the only source of information that can supply people with the correct moral answer. Other religions, reasonable thought, profit analysis, or even self-reflection can lead one to the right moral answers of a specific problem.
I think we can all agree that there isn't a single fount of knowledge that can tell us how and what to do in every possible situation. Christianity, like all the other places we take our information from, is limited, and it should be regarded as limited, I think. Know what it says, keep it in mind, but when it comes a time when you need to make a decision, don't follow its answers blindly; consider other solutions as well...
And I think I am getting really tired and going off tangents. I'll come back and re-think my response.
Post by
MyTie
I was referring more to the fact that the moral answers Christianity provides are not the only solutions to moral problems. Morality is not binary, it's not black and white - sometimes there is no "moral" answer, there are two that are "less moral" and "more moral", but neither one of those gets to the ends of the continuum. On top of that, Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is not the only source of information that can supply people with the correct moral answer. Other religions, reasonable thought, profit analysis, or even self-reflection can lead one to the right moral answers of a specific problem.
I think we can all agree that there isn't a single fount of knowledge that can tell us how and what to do in every possible situation. Christianity, like all the other places we take our information from, is limited, and it should be regarded as limited, I think. Know what it says, keep it in mind, but when it comes a time when you need to make a decision, don't follow its answers blindly; consider other solutions as well...
And I think I am getting really tired and going off tangents. I'll come back and re-think my response.
Good response. I think that Christianity offers more of an attitude than a rule book for situations. Take, for example, the sermon on the mount... Matt 5. It gives this list of 'attitudes' a person should have: meek, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, poor in spirit, mournful, hunger and thirst for righteousness, etc. It then goes on to explain that people would see 'good works' from the kind of people who attain these attitudes (verse 16). This is more how I see the teachings of Christ. An allignment of the mind, not a 'do this dont do this', in most of the teachings.
Some of these teachings I can see as absolutely 'right', without taking into account any gray area. For example, when Jesus taught to 'Love your neighbor', I can't think of a situation when that should not be stived for, no matter how extreme the example. If an abortion doctor was my neighbor (and he is according to Jesus' definition of neighbor Luke 10:29-37) I am to love him. This is easier said than done, but I can think of a number of moral positives that would come from that mentality, although Jesus never said what I must do if there is an abortion doctor living next to me specifically, the attitude I must have toward humanity is taught and retaught.
In this way, the teachings of Christ make themselves very versatile. Although I may not be instructed what to do in every situation, I am instructed to approach every situation with a humble, meek, not self seeking, loving, patient, enduring, attitude.
Post by
Squishalot
If anyone can point out objective morals, outside the realm of religion, please do so! I'd love to hear the theories.
The theory of utilitarianism isn't founded in any religious roots, as far as I'm aware.
My criticism of the idea that all morality is rooted in Christianity is simply because many of our morals existed prior to the days of Christianity in the first place. Certainly, in ancient Roman times, I don't believe there wasn't a concern for one's neighbour, for example.
Post by
Orranis
Yes, but to play devil's advocate (ironically) - where did they get their underlying moral code from?
In any event, I believe that the author's argument is that the majority of today's ethical values about charity (specifically mentioned in the article, anyway) are derived from a Christian basis.
Umm... No? They are
far
older than that. Feeding your baby is 'charity.' Morals are an evolutionary set of guidelines to keep us in an orderly society, above all other species.
Post by
Orranis
I was referring more to the fact that the moral answers Christianity provides are not the only solutions to moral problems. Morality is not binary, it's not black and white - sometimes there is no "moral" answer, there are two that are "less moral" and "more moral", but neither one of those gets to the ends of the continuum. On top of that, Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is not the only source of information that can supply people with the correct moral answer. Other religions, reasonable thought, profit analysis, or even self-reflection can lead one to the right moral answers of a specific problem.
I think we can all agree that there isn't a single fount of knowledge that can tell us how and what to do in every possible situation. Christianity, like all the other places we take our information from, is limited, and it should be regarded as limited, I think. Know what it says, keep it in mind, but when it comes a time when you need to make a decision, don't follow its answers blindly; consider other solutions as well...
And I think I am getting really tired and going off tangents. I'll come back and re-think my response.
Good response. I think that Christianity offers more of an attitude than a rule book for situations. Take, for example, the sermon on the mount... Matt 5. It gives this list of 'attitudes' a person should have: meek, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, poor in spirit, mournful, hunger and thirst for righteousness, etc. It then goes on to explain that people would see 'good works' from the kind of people who attain these attitudes (verse 16). This is more how I see the teachings of Christ. An allignment of the mind, not a 'do this dont do this', in most of the teachings.
Some of these teachings I can see as absolutely 'right', without taking into account any gray area. For example, when Jesus taught to 'Love your neighbor', I can't think of a situation when that should not be stived for, no matter how extreme the example. If an abortion doctor was my neighbor (and he is according to Jesus' definition of neighbor Luke 10:29-37) I am to love him. This is easier said than done, but I can think of a number of moral positives that would come from that mentality, although Jesus never said what I must do if there is an abortion doctor living next to me specifically, the attitude I must have toward humanity is taught and retaught.
In this way, the teachings of Christ make themselves very versatile. Although I may not be instructed what to do in every situation, I am instructed to approach every situation with a humble, meek, not self seeking, loving, patient, enduring, attitude.
If we're talking about Abrahamic religions, that 'golden rule' originated from Leviticus, not Jesus. I do not argue that Religion has no place in morals, only that it is horribly arrogant to think that whichever one is yours is the absolute answer no matter what, and the only thing keeping society together. (Not to mention, remember that anti-abortion protestor who killed a doctor for giving abortions? Irony...)
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
If anything, religion destroys morality. When you tell someone "Don't do X or you will be punished", you turned something that was an ethical dilemma - "Should I do X, even though it may have negative consequences for someone else?" into a purely rational one. Even animals know not to do something if it will hurt themselves, although they have may a diminished capacity. If you have someone who has lived their life purely following religious guidelines, if there is something immoral that isn't specifically outlined, then those purely religious will take advantage of it - see Catholic priests, crusaders, etc.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
106545
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Arent Ethics and Morality two separate topics?
I always thought of Ethics as 2 crappy choices and Morality as "the best choice" regardless of options.
Organ transplant: Comittees have to decide who gets an organ and will, many times, be condemning the other to death. Ethics dictates who gets the organ, morality says save them all.
Criminal cases: Lawyers will cut deals with people who are indeed guilty of crimes to get information so that they can convict people that have done more heinous crimes. Ethics dictate how good of a deal the lesser offender gets, morality says they should all serve the punishment appropriate for the crime.
...?
Post by
MyTie
If we're talking about Abrahamic religions, that 'golden rule' originated from Leviticus, not Jesus. I do not argue that Religion has no place in morals, only that it is horribly arrogant to think that whichever one is yours is the absolute answer no matter what, and the only thing keeping society together. (Not to mention, remember that anti-abortion protestor who killed a doctor for giving abortions? Irony...)
Actually read my post. And I typed it with that doctor in mind, btw. I never typed that Christianity is the 'absolute answer no matter what', but I said it would always bring forward positives in a situation to follow the teachings of Christ. These teaching teach a mindset, and a very good one.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.