• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Secularism, Theism and Morality

Aderleth

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,294
Reaction score
2,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The following is a quote from the Aug. 15 & 22 issue of the New Yorker, and specifically from an article by James Wood, which is a review/analysis of a book entitled The Joy of Secularism: 11 Essays for How We Live Now:


"Many people... believe that morality is a deliverance of God, and that without God there is no morality - that in a secular world 'everything is permitted.' You can hear this on Fox news; it is behind the drive to have the Ten Commandments displayed in courtrooms. But philosophers like Kitcher [one of the essayists in the book] remember what Socrates tells Euthryphro, who supposed that the good could be defined by what the gods had willed: if what the gods will is based on some other criterion of goodness, divine will isn't what makes something good; but if goodness is simply determined by divine will there's no way for us to assess that judgment. In other words if you believe that God ordains morality - constitutes it through his will - you still have to decide where God gets morality from. If you are inclined to reply, "Well, God is goodness; He invents it," you threaten to turn morality into God's plaything, and you deprive yourself of any capacity to judge that morality."

Thoughts? Comments?

(As a side note, I'd rather like to hear what religious people think about this issue, and was tempted to put this in the religion forum for that reason. This is why I don't like the fact that we've split religion and philosophy into two separate forums. This topic is about both, and there are many others like it.)
 
The following is a quote from the Aug. 15 & 22 issue of the New Yorker, and specifically from an article by James Wood, which is a review/analysis of a book entitled The Joy of Secularism: 11 Essays for How We Live Now:


"Many people... believe that morality is a deliverance of God, and that without God there is no morality - that in a secular world 'everything is permitted.' You can hear this on Fox news; it is behind the drive to have the Ten Commandments displayed in courtrooms. But philosophers like Kitcher [one of the essayists in the book] remember what Socrates tells Euthryphro, who supposed that the good could be defined by what the gods had willed: if what the gods will is based on some other criterion of goodness, divine will isn't what makes something good; but if goodness is simply determined by divine will there's no way for us to assess that judgment. In other words if you believe that God ordains morality - constitutes it through his will - you still have to decide where God gets morality from. If you are inclined to reply, "Well, God is goodness; He invents it," you threaten to turn morality into God's plaything, and you deprive yourself of any capacity to judge that morality."

Thoughts? Comments?

(As a side note, I'd rather like to hear what religious people think about this issue, and was tempted to put this in the religion forum for that reason. This is why I don't like the fact that we've split religion and philosophy into two separate forums. This topic is about both, and there are many others like it.)

As I personally believe that religion, god and the holy scriptures are nothing but human inventions, in a futile attempt to explain what at least back then was the unexplainable, it is my conclusion that "morality" came before religion.

"Morality" in some ways is simply a means of practicality.

Almost every culture in human existence has outlawed murder. But the outlawing of murder has little to do with "morality" and simply more to do with practicality.

If you're in a small village in Britannia, and you go and kill Bill, and Bill was the best hunter in the village, well you've just robbed the village of a major food source, giving the Chief the right to kill you back. Therefore murder and punishment for murder was simply more about practicality then anything else.

When we get to the more complex issues of "morality" such as homosexuality and even a more docile topic like pornography who gets to decide whats immoral and whats not?

The holy scriptures, god... public opinion? Did Jesus or any of the prophets in the bible ever outlaw and ban me from watching Anal Dairies 5? Or Asian Sluts 24: the Asians From Beijing...

There are people out there that believe that if you don't belong to a religion, specifically THEIR religion that you simply cannot have morals... specifically THEIR morals.

Do I agree with Polygamy? No.

Do I agree with promiscuity? No.

But who am I to say, that you can't do that?

Who am I to have a smug sense of moral superiority just because someone does something I don't agree with. Maybe I'm going off on a tangent here but all this "Family Values Council" crap and all the lies they've spread about various people including homosexuals... my question becomes... why? Whats the point? what threat do they pose to you? In the name of "morality" the demonization and lies about a people to further your own moral agenda is a direct affront to the very principles those same people want their kids to uphold and what they teach.

"Morality" is nothing more then an opinionated concept, that belongs to each individual as their own. It can be taught, learned and grown with a combination of experience and upbringing. Morality to some people is opposition to same sex marriage and even marriage between difference races...

At the end of the day I believe that if you believe that you have some kind of "Moral Superiority" you're simply delusional...

This has been a Jetboogieman incoherent rant. There's a message in there somewhere :2razz:
 
The following is a quote from the Aug. 15 & 22 issue of the New Yorker, and specifically from an article by James Wood, which is a review/analysis of a book entitled The Joy of Secularism: 11 Essays for How We Live Now:


"Many people... believe that morality is a deliverance of God, and that without God there is no morality - that in a secular world 'everything is permitted.' You can hear this on Fox news; it is behind the drive to have the Ten Commandments displayed in courtrooms. But philosophers like Kitcher [one of the essayists in the book] remember what Socrates tells Euthryphro, who supposed that the good could be defined by what the gods had willed: if what the gods will is based on some other criterion of goodness, divine will isn't what makes something good; but if goodness is simply determined by divine will there's no way for us to assess that judgment. In other words if you believe that God ordains morality - constitutes it through his will - you still have to decide where God gets morality from. If you are inclined to reply, "Well, God is goodness; He invents it," you threaten to turn morality into God's plaything, and you deprive yourself of any capacity to judge that morality."

Thoughts? Comments?

(As a side note, I'd rather like to hear what religious people think about this issue, and was tempted to put this in the religion forum for that reason. This is why I don't like the fact that we've split religion and philosophy into two separate forums. This topic is about both, and there are many others like it.)

Well, let's see. I'd classify myself as religious. I do believe that morality is something greater than just "what society decides it is" (as I've often heard). The notion of justice, is, itself a moral concept. If we didn't feel morally compelled to try to protect the vulnerable or to try to "right the wrongs" we would not pass and enforce laws aimed at protecting people and property from other people. As a believer of God, I do believe He is the source of morality. That's not to say that I haven't questioned things that I do not understand, but, in the end I always come back to it's not my place to substitute my morality for God's.

All that being said, I do not at all believe you have to be religious or even a believer in God to be a good and moral person. I know too many people that do not share my beliefs who are just as moral, just as charitable and just as honest as anybody who believes in God, (and quite honestly, frequently more so) to think one must have a belief in God to be moral person.

I don't know if this is the type of response you were hoping for. Let me know if I missed something specific.
 
The following is a quote from the Aug. 15 & 22 issue of the New Yorker, and specifically from an article by James Wood, which is a review/analysis of a book entitled The Joy of Secularism: 11 Essays for How We Live Now:


"Many people... believe that morality is a deliverance of God, and that without God there is no morality - that in a secular world 'everything is permitted.' You can hear this on Fox news; it is behind the drive to have the Ten Commandments displayed in courtrooms. But philosophers like Kitcher [one of the essayists in the book] remember what Socrates tells Euthryphro, who supposed that the good could be defined by what the gods had willed: if what the gods will is based on some other criterion of goodness, divine will isn't what makes something good; but if goodness is simply determined by divine will there's no way for us to assess that judgment. In other words if you believe that God ordains morality - constitutes it through his will - you still have to decide where God gets morality from. If you are inclined to reply, "Well, God is goodness; He invents it," you threaten to turn morality into God's plaything, and you deprive yourself of any capacity to judge that morality."

Thoughts? Comments?

(As a side note, I'd rather like to hear what religious people think about this issue, and was tempted to put this in the religion forum for that reason. This is why I don't like the fact that we've split religion and philosophy into two separate forums. This topic is about both, and there are many others like it.)


Philosophers like to invent problem for themselves. I don't see a problem with God being all that is good and thus morality is "God's plaything" and we can't judge God. Belief in God is base on faith, it's not that hard to extend that faith to include "God knows best, who am I to judge God?". In fact, I would say faith in God stems from the belief in (or a need for) a being out there who know what's best. To see a problem with being unable to judge God is to put yourself on a level with God - which usually means you don't believe in God (a being that created the universe, omniscience and omnipotent) to being with.
 
Which is a valid point if you're dealing with polytheistic deities. God, as put forward by monotheists, is the source of morality but because he is rational by nature, that morality can be determined through reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom