Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Owlswing on January 29, 2016, 07:03:41 PM
-
Religion or Politics!
-
Religion or Politics!
In this country, in terms of sheer numbers, politics, since there are far more people with political affiliations, political views and ideas and political engagement of some sort than comparable numbers for religion.
-
They're both the same because they involve people and their natures. They both attract the same type of control freaks etc. etc. who love power and wealth and are mean enough to do what ever is necessary to get it, all set in an emotional ethos of doing the right thing. Ultimately both religion and politics is used by these people to control the masses.
-
Religion. It's easier to convince someone that a political policy is wrong, or a politician, if not a party. Much harder when it comes to matters of faith.
-
Religion probably.
Because religious groups often imply ( if not directly state) that you shouldn't mix with or marry unbelievers.
Politics doesn't.
http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/6-14.htm
https://islamqa.info/en/59879
Just a couple of examples from the abrahamic religions.
-
Religion or Politics!
Probably religion, although politics is very close behind.
-
Religion. It's easier to convince someone that a political policy is wrong, or a politician, if not a party. Much harder when it comes to matters of faith.
Have to say that I would disagree. For instance, it's easier to change a Welsh Labour supporter to change their religious allegiance than the political allegiance.
-
Have to say that I would disagree. For instance, it's easier to change a Welsh Labour supporter to change their religious allegiance than the political allegiance.
Have you tried?
-
Have you tried?
To a certain extent, yes; but primarily I'm going by what they themselves say.
-
Have to say that I would disagree. For instance, it's easier to change a Welsh Labour supporter to change their religious allegiance than the political allegiance.
That's just swapping sides. What about convincing them that Jesus isn't the son of god?
-
You need faith for religion, not so much for politicians...
-
That's just swapping sides. What about convincing them that Jesus isn't the son of god?
Sorry, I include that as changing their religious allegiance.
-
Sorry, I include that as changing their religious allegiance.
Then you are wrong to do so.
-
Religion or Politics!
Politics of course since it's all about whose in charge.
-
Religion or Politics!
In this day and age, they are both becoming avenues of economics by other means, and therefore much of a muchness. They are tools of the haves to try to ensure that the have-nots stay where they belong.
O.
-
Politics of course since it's all about whose in charge.
So, in its own way, is religion - god or man!
-
Politics of course. Preachers deliver sermons to their congregations and those interested in hearing. If they say something outrageous they may divide only a small number. A politician, now there is a person who can actually divide a nation. I cannot think of one preacher that has divided my nation, I can think of several politicians that have.
-
So, in its own way, is religion - god or man!
Yes, that's great, a little gem in fact. Thanks for that Mr O.
-
Religion or Politics!
I'm not sure this is a reasonable question. Why? Because politics (in all its forms) is a necessary requirement within a society. We need mechanisms to make decisions about how our society runs and we will then, again necessarily, will have differences over what those decisions should be. So you cannot have a society without some form of politics.
Religion on the other hand isn't necessary within a society, although most societies currently have some elements of religiosity. It is perfectly reasonable to imagine a fully functioning society without religion, it isn't possible to imagine a fully functioning society without some kind of politics.
-
Dear Powwow,
I cannot think of one preacher that has divided my nation,
That is because here in the Motherland, we had already ironed out all the creases for your little fledgling nation, you and your backwater cousins across the border, and no thanks are necessary, our pleasure, I hope that one day Canada and America will be as wonderful as this little island. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Powwow,
That is because here in the Motherland, we had already ironed out all the creases for your little fledgling nation, you and your backwater cousins across the border, and no thanks are necessary, our pleasure, I hope that one day Canada and America will be as wonderful as this little island. ;)
Gonnagle.
Not so long as there are people like Trump and Palin whoi mix politics and religion in two unpleasant packages that bring both disciplines into serious disrepute..
-
As it is people, especially power minded people, who are divisive, I would say political people as they often use religion as well as politics to divide and rule.
-
Dear Powwow,
That is because here in the Motherland, we had already ironed out all the creases ...
If only, Gonners.
-
Religion on the other hand isn't necessary within a society,
Mildly Stalinist.
-
Mildly Stalinist.
No. Entirely factual.
-
No. Entirely factual.
No, religious people make up parts of society. The suggestion is that these people are not necessary for society, The suggestion is therefore that these people can be eliminated or at least excluded.......and that is mildly Stalinist.
-
No, religious people make up parts of society. The suggestion is that these people are not necessary for society, The suggestion is therefore that these people can be eliminated or at least excluded.......and that is mildly Stalinist.
Careful with all that straw, Vlad - since you seem to be reading 'not necessary' as meaning 'get rid of': bad show old chap.
-
No, religious people make up parts of society. The suggestion is that these people are not necessary for society, The suggestion is therefore that these people can be eliminated or at least excluded.......and that is mildly Stalinist.
I don't see how it's possible for you to be more wrong than you are here. People and their beliefs are separable - two wholly different entities. People have beliefs or they don't; some people have beliefs and then drop them. Therefore people and their beliefs are two entirely different, discrete and separable entities. A person with a religious belief remains a person when that belief disappears. A society is made up of people regardless of their beliefs or the lack thereof; it's not made up of "people with religious beliefs."
Stop trying to show off and trying to impress everybody with your big words such as 'Stalinist,' which you don't even understand and are therefore meaningless.
-
No. Entirely factual.
No, partly utopian or dystopian depending on your point of view......but wholly Stalinist.
-
Careful with all that straw, Vlad - since you seem to be reading 'not necessary' as meaning 'get rid of': bad show old chap.
No he said he found it easy to imagine a society in which there was no religion. Religion was eliminated even in his imagination.
At the very least....utopian thinking on his part. He has no idea what or whether such a society would work.
-
No he said he found it easy to imagine a society in which there was no religion.
I find that easy too.
At the very least....utopian thinking on his part. He has no idea what or whether such a society would work.
There is no such thing as a society entirely without any religion in its population at all, but there is very definitely such a thing as a society with incredibly low levels of religious affiliation. The least religious societies on the planet today are those of the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, the Czech republic and right here in the UK.
They seem to work very nicely indeed.
-
I find that easy too.
Apparently it comes easy to Stalinists.
-
Apparently it comes easy to Stalinists.
And the use of specific terms that they don't even understand comes easily [sic] to dickheads, I gather.
-
Apparently it comes easy to Stalinists.
You really need to drop the big words now. You're not in front of the Lower Sixth, but people who actually know what they mean.
-
You really need to drop the big words now. You're not in front of the Lower Sixth, but people who actually know what they mean.
Yes........Stalinist people.
-
Saying the same word over and over doesn't mean you suddenly know how to use it.
-
You really need to drop the big words now. You're not in front of the Lower Sixth, but people who actually know what they mean.
Rhi, you'd probably be surprised to realise just how much people in the Lower Sixth actually know. Sometimes, they seem to know more than us old fuddy-duddies - and have more flexibility in that knowledge.
-
IIt is perfectly reasonable to imagine a fully functioning society without religion, it isn't possible to imagine a fully functioning society without some kind of politics.
If the input into this forum is anything to go by, I'd have to ask 'how'? We either have people talking about the way they worship deities, or people talking about how they worship reason, logic and science. In both cases, many don't actually realise that that is what they are doing, but doing it they are.
-
If the input into this forum is anything to go by, I'd have to ask 'how'? We either have people talking about the way they worship deities
Seen lots of those.
Or people talking about how they worship reason, logic and science.
Haven't seen any of those. Examples?
In both cases, many don't actually realise that that is what they are doing, but doing it they are.
Ah. That's because they don't see it, but all-seeing, all-knowing Hope does.
Riiiiiiight.
-
Mildly Stalinist.
Not really - as I said earlier it is perfectly possible to conceive of a society without religion - by contrast it is pretty well impossible to conceive of a society without politics, taken in its broadest form.
I didn't make any comment on the desirableness of that situation, and certainly made no statement suggesting how this state of affairs should be achieved except under circumstances where the people within that society are perfectly comfortable with that situation, so clearly not Stalinist.
So I suggest you desist with your usual much raking and perhaps actually address the points raised.
-
No, religious people make up parts of society. The suggestion is that these people are not necessary for society, The suggestion is therefore that these people can be eliminated or at least excluded.......and that is mildly Stalinist.
They do in most current societies, but it is perfectly possible to conceive of a society where everyone isn't religious (and to put your fears at rest, where everyone is non religious is a completely consensual manner) and to conceive that a non religious society would function perfectly well.
There is no suggest in my post that religious people should be eliminated or excluded whatsoever - so stop the muck raking Vlad.
-
No, partly utopian or dystopian depending on your point of view......but wholly Stalinist.
Even if that society is entirely populated by people who are consensually non religious, and if no religious people are 'excluded' or 'eliminated' from that society, but as is currently very often the case die of natural causes and leave behind children who chose not to be religious.
-
Yes........Stalinist people.
So let's turn it on its head Vlad.
Can you conceive of a society in which every member of that society is religious and chose to be religious in a totally consensual manner, without any coercion of force.
Sure you can, and similarly you should therefore be able to conceive of a society in which every member of that society is non religious and chose to be non religious in a totally consensual manner, without any coercion of force.
In neither case would there be any 'Stalinist' tendencies in evidence.
-
So let's turn it on its head Vlad.
Can you conceive of a society in which every member of that society is religious and chose to be religious in a totally consensual manner, without any coercion of force.
Sure you can
No,I can't see that happening.
-
No,I can't see that happening.
I asked whether you could conceive of this possibility.
And of course if one person might chose to be religious, then so could two and so on. There is therefore a possibility (sure it might be very small likelihood but not zero) that all members of a society might chose to be religious. That is perfectly conceivable, and you know it. And therefore the corollary is also conceivable - that all members of a society might chose not to be religious.
-
Yes........Stalinist people.
The endless repetition of patheitic monosyllabic, non-sensical posts, the alsmost visible "how-clever-am-I" smirk as they are typed, and the hint of monumental arrogance, - Vlad, are you sure you are not a reincarnation of the Super-WUM Recondite Revenant?
-
No, religious people make up parts of society.
Religious people do not equate to religion - without the religion they would be... PEOPLE!!!
The suggestion is that these people are not necessary for society
Because the only thing religious people are, have, do or contribute is their religion. Liverpool supporters (both of them) only support Liverpool, they have no other impact on society, and in Liverpool FC disappeared they would have no independent existence...? Really?
The suggestion is therefore that these people can be eliminated or at least excluded.......and that is mildly Stalinist.
No, your over-reactive caricature... who would have thought?
O.
-
I'm not sure this is a reasonable question. Why? Because politics (in all its forms) is a necessary requirement within a society. We need mechanisms to make decisions about how our society runs and we will then, again necessarily, will have differences over what those decisions should be. So you cannot have a society without some form of politics.
Religion on the other hand isn't necessary within a society, although most societies currently have some elements of religiosity. It is perfectly reasonable to imagine a fully functioning society without religion, it isn't possible to imagine a fully functioning society without some kind of politics.
Based on recent conflicts, religion and politics are only as divisive as the people trying to impose their religious or political beliefs on others. Ideas are divisive but did the OP mean this is only of concern if it leads to violence? In which case I would say political causes have led to more violence.
Not sure that non- violent division is a problem, since it is impossible for everyone to agree on beliefs. For example Peter Tatchell has reversed his opinion in the case of the Irish bakers and is supporting the right of bakers or printers or sign writers not to be forced to promote an idea. Tatchell thinks there was never an intention that the law in Ireland against political discrimination should be used to compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed. The Appeal is going through the courts - very civilised i.e. no violence - but the different beliefs about whether or not to allow freedom of conscience, or political or religious beliefs is divisive.
-
Based on recent conflicts, religion and politics are only as divisive as the people trying to impose their religious or political beliefs on others. Ideas are divisive but did the OP mean this is only of concern if it leads to violence? In which case I would say political causes have led to more violence.
Not sure that non- violent division is a problem, since it is impossible for everyone to agree on beliefs. For example Peter Tatchell has reversed his opinion in the case of the Irish bakers and is supporting the right of bakers or printers or sign writers not to be forced to promote an idea. Tatchell thinks there was never an intention that the law in Ireland against political discrimination should be used to compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed. The Appeal is going through the courts - very civilised i.e. no violence - but the different beliefs about whether or not to allow freedom of conscience, or political or religious beliefs is divisive.
In a free democratic society then certainly non violent division over opinions, whether those be religious or political, isn't a bad thing. Indeed it is largely a positive thing as the debates about 'ideas' is what drives societies forward.
I guess the use of the term 'divisive' in the OP is somewhat pejorative, giving the impression of a damaging difference of opinion rather than a productive difference of opinion. But whether disagreement over ideas is divisive or not is rather a subjective view.
-
Religious people do not equate to religion - without the religion they would be... PEOPLE!!!
Because the only thing religious people are, have, do or contribute is their religion. Liverpool supporters (both of them) only support Liverpool, they have no other impact on society, and in Liverpool FC disappeared they would have no independent existence...? Really?
No, your over-reactive caricature... who would have thought?
O.
Not really religion is spoken of in epidemiological terms as if it is some kind of disease which it is hoped will be eradicated.
I'm afraid you guys display a sinister disconnect between what you say, how you say it and how righteous you believe yourself to be.
-
Not really religion is spoken of in epidemiological terms as if it is some kind of disease which it is hoped will be eradicated.
I'm afraid you guys display a sinister disconnect between what you say, how you say it and how righteous you believe yourself to be.
You really are like some kind of modern day and religious McCarthyite - constantly seeing 'dangers' where there are none. It must be exhausting having to check under every bed in your house each night just in case there is an atheist hiding there plotting to do you harm.
-
You really are like some kind of modern day and religious McCarthyite - constantly seeing 'dangers' where there are none. It must be exhausting having to check under every bed in your house each night just in case there is an atheist hiding there plotting to do you harm.
It is exhausting........
-
It is exhausting........
You could always try getting in touch with reality - would help a lot ;)
-
Based on recent conflicts, religion and politics are only as divisive as the people trying to impose their religious or political beliefs on others. Ideas are divisive but did the OP mean this is only of concern if it leads to violence? In which case I would say political causes have led to more violence.
Not sure that non- violent division is a problem, since it is impossible for everyone to agree on beliefs. For example Peter Tatchell has reversed his opinion in the case of the Irish bakers and is supporting the right of bakers or printers or sign writers not to be forced to promote an idea. Tatchell thinks there was never an intention that the law in Ireland against political discrimination should be used to compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed. The Appeal is going through the courts - very civilised i.e. no violence - but the different beliefs about whether or not to allow freedom of conscience, or political or religious beliefs is divisive.
The OP was in responce to a comment, made during a friendly discussion, that more friendships have been wrecked by politics than by religion, which, needless to say, started a right royal barney which resulted ina rather starnge division. Of the six persons present who are active in the Abrhamic religions three agreed that religion was more likely to wreck friendships and three were for politics.
I just thought it would be interesting to get the views of the R & E membership.
-
In a free democratic society then certainly non violent division over opinions, whether those be religious or political, isn't a bad thing. Indeed it is largely a positive thing as the debates about 'ideas' is what drives societies forward.
I guess the use of the term 'divisive' in the OP is somewhat pejorative, giving the impression of a damaging difference of opinion rather than a productive difference of opinion. But whether disagreement over ideas is divisive or not is rather a subjective view.
Re the OP, please see #53
-
The OP was in responce to a comment, made during a friendly discussion, that more friendships have been wrecked by politics than by religion, which, needless to say, started a right royal barney which resulted ina rather starnge division. Of the six persons present who are active in the Abrhamic religions three agreed that religion was more likely to wreck friendships and three were for politics.
I just thought it would be interesting to get the views of the R & E membership.
It may well be true that more friendships have been wrecked by politics that religion, but that may be largely because more people are interested in and involved in politics than are in religion, and critically because politics affects people's lives in a manner that religion rarely does unless you chose it to.
There is also the issue that those who are actively involved in religion often set up structures which largely ensures they socialise with co-religionists. That of course includes religious traditions for bringing up children and schooling. There is much less of that nature with politics so people are more likely to be regularly rubbing shoulders with friends who they may subsequently discover have very different political views.
So it may not be the case that politics are more divisive than religion, but that there are far more opportunities for that division to show.
-
In a free democratic society then certainly non violent division over opinions, whether those be religious or political, isn't a bad thing. Indeed it is largely a positive thing as the debates about 'ideas' is what drives societies forward.
I guess the use of the term 'divisive' in the OP is somewhat pejorative, giving the impression of a damaging difference of opinion rather than a productive difference of opinion. But whether disagreement over ideas is divisive or not is rather a subjective view.
I think whether a difference of opinion is damaging is largely down to how sensitive the individuals are about a specific issue and the personalities of the people disagreeing - if someone is determined to be offended or responds with insults rather than disagreeing with the point made it could become a damaging difference of opinion.
If someone agrees to disagree, while acknowledging that someone else may hold a different view, based on their individual life experiences, personalty traits, perspectives, and they try to be objective rather than taking the issue personally it is less likely to be a damaging difference of opinion.
-
It may well be true that more friendships have been wrecked by politics that religion, but that may be largely because more people are interested in and involved in politics than are in religion, and critically because politics affects people's lives in a manner that religion rarely does unless you chose it to.
There is also the issue that those who are actively involved in religion often set up structures which largely ensures they socialise with co-religionists. That of course includes religious traditions for bringing up children and schooling. There is much less of that nature with politics so people are more likely to be regularly rubbing shoulders with friends who they may subsequently discover have very different political views.
So it may not be the case that politics are more divisive than religion, but that there are far more opportunities for that division to show.
My experience is that co-religionists have very different opinions and practices and traditions even within a single congregation or community so I think the opportunities for division to show are there just as much as for politics. I think politics is more divisive because it involves distribution of economic resources. I think people get more frustrated about sharing money and control of resources and lack of opportunity for their children in the immediate future than they do about their friends' beliefs about their destination in some after-life.
-
I think politics is more divisive because it involves distribution of economic resources. I think people get more frustrated about sharing money and control of resources and lack of opportunity for their children in the immediate future than they do about their friends' beliefs about their destination in some after-life.
Which comes back to my earlier points - firstly, and critically that politics affects everyone's lives in big or small ways (whether you chose to be 'political' or not), while religion has virtually no affect (at least in largely secular countries such as the UK) on people unless they chose to be religious.
Secondly, and back to my earliest point - that politics is necessary in a society - a society cannot function, make decisions about how to organise itself without politics, taken in its broadest way. By contrast a society could run perfectly well without religion.
-
A society could run without religion - whether it runs "perfectly well" is debatable - it's very subjective and depends on each person's definition of "well". Some people feel more emotionally and physically well and also feel their community functions and interacts better with religion in their lives, whereas some people find religion intrusive and alienating.
-
A society could run without religion - whether it runs "perfectly well" is debatable - it's very subjective and depends on each person's definition of "well". Some people feel more emotionally and physically well and also feel their community functions and interacts better with religion in their lives, whereas some people find religion intrusive and alienating.
Likewise you can argue whether society runs 'perfectly well' with religion.
I am not making an argument for an optimal or perfect society - what would be as many views on what that should look like as there are people - nor whether a society without religion would be desirable or not. No, I am arguing that a society where there wasn't any religion could be able to function perfectly OK - religion is an optional element rather than necessary requirement within a functioning society.
You could say the same about all sorts of other things - music, football, bicycles - all are optional rather than necessary for a society to function (and again you can argue till the comes come home about whether a society would be better or worse without football!!). Politics (taken in its broadest sense) isn't like that - it is essential to a functioning society as it provides the tools for collective decision making.
-
Since "well" is a highly subjective term it wouldn't really feature in any point I was making about religion or politics.
Yes, politics is divisive where humans are greedy and fearful, and adopt certain beliefs about what is a just and fair distribution of resources. If their belief system clashes with someone else's belief system this leads to arguments/ conflict / wars.
I would argue that religion is not in the same category as football and music, at least not yet. Many groups of people still formulate social policy and ethics for their family and communities and regulate a large proportion of their personal interactions based on their interpretation of rules within their religion. Far more than with football or music or other hobbies.
If humans have a need to belong to a family or community and the family or community involves itself in a particular interpretation or manifestation of a religion, I think people who do want to belong to a group will find it impossible to get acceptance without adopting in daily life some of the religious outlooks and practices of the people they want to belong to.
I don't think currently family interest in football or music impacts as much on daily life for most people as religion would, if their families are religious. Maybe in the future the need to belong or to look for something "greater" will find another outlet rather than theism, especially in the UK. Given the gradual decline in interest in organised religion in the UK, religion may become more of a personal hobby similar to playing a musical instrument, and people may search for or invest meaning in something else that many others would find inexplicable.
-
I would argue that religion is not in the same category as football and music, at least not yet. Many groups of people still formulate social policy and ethics for their family and communities and regulate a large proportion of their personal interactions based on their interpretation of rules within their religion. Far more than with football or music or other hobbies.
Well again this is subjective.
Of course there are plenty of families whose customs and lives are inherently linked to their religious belief. But actually there are plenty of others who lives completely revolve around other things which have just as much influence. I can think of people I know whose whole live is music - professional, personal, day and night - and it is just as influential in their lives as religion is in many of those who are religious.
And what about people who eat, sleep and breath football - the kind who go to every game, home and away (wherever that may be) whose entirely social circle is also their fellow football fans. Their level of dedication and commitment and the influence it has on their lives is surely every bit as strong as religion for most religious people.
I can also think of plenty of religious people for whom their religion is largely restricted to a weekly event (largely a traditional custom) and beyond that, I cannot see how their lives would be meaningfully different were they not to be religious. And there is a wide spectrum in between.
So I don't think you can really make a claim that one is necessarily more important in people's lives than the others - that is about personal perspective and you cannot understand the importance of something to someone else - and nor can I.
-
So I don't think you can really make a claim that one is necessarily more important in people's lives than the others - that is about personal perspective and you cannot understand the importance of something to someone else - and nor can I.
The bottom line is that it makes not the slightest difference. People live their lives according to the way they see it, and that's all there is to it.
So make the best of it while you are here! :)
-
Well again this is subjective.
Of course there are plenty of families whose customs and lives are inherently linked to their religious belief. But actually there are plenty of others who lives completely revolve around other things which have just as much influence. I can think of people I know whose whole live is music - professional, personal, day and night - and it is just as influential in their lives as religion is in many of those who are religious.
And what about people who eat, sleep and breath football - the kind who go to every game, home and away (wherever that may be) whose entirely social circle is also their fellow football fans. Their level of dedication and commitment and the influence it has on their lives is surely every bit as strong as religion for most religious people.
I can also think of plenty of religious people for whom their religion is largely restricted to a weekly event (largely a traditional custom) and beyond that, I cannot see how their lives would be meaningfully different were they not to be religious. And there is a wide spectrum in between.
So I don't think you can really make a claim that one is necessarily more important in people's lives than the others - that is about personal perspective and you cannot understand the importance of something to someone else - and nor can I.
Religion can also determine who you should marry. Football and politics doesn't
-
Well again this is subjective.
Of course there are plenty of families whose customs and lives are inherently linked to their religious belief. But actually there are plenty of others who lives completely revolve around other things which have just as much influence. I can think of people I know whose whole live is music - professional, personal, day and night - and it is just as influential in their lives as religion is in many of those who are religious.
And what about people who eat, sleep and breath football - the kind who go to every game, home and away (wherever that may be) whose entirely social circle is also their fellow football fans. Their level of dedication and commitment and the influence it has on their lives is surely every bit as strong as religion for most religious people.
I can also think of plenty of religious people for whom their religion is largely restricted to a weekly event (largely a traditional custom) and beyond that, I cannot see how their lives would be meaningfully different were they not to be religious. And there is a wide spectrum in between.
So I don't think you can really make a claim that one is necessarily more important in people's lives than the others - that is about personal perspective and you cannot understand the importance of something to someone else - and nor can I.
No, I understand the importance of football etc to some people, I just don't think there are too many opportunities where people can look to the teachings of football or music to influence or inform their ethical behaviour or decisions - in that sense I don't think football or music are used in the same way or operate in the same sphere as religion, politics or other philosophies. Football or music are not belief systems like politics or religion.
As a non-football supporting atheist my perception was that religion had more of an impact on my daily life simply because religion or religious traditions or belief systems in general had more scope to influence a wider range of other people's behavioural choices and activities than the teachings of football or the watching of football matches.
-
No, I understand the importance of football etc to some people, I just don't think there are too many opportunities where people can look to the teachings of football or music to influence or inform their ethical behaviour or decisions - in that sense I don't think football or music are used in the same way or operate in the same sphere as religion, politics or other philosophies. Football or music are not belief systems like politics or religion.
As a non-football supporting atheist my perception was that religion had more of an impact on my daily life simply because religion or religious traditions or belief systems in general had more scope to influence a wider range of other people's behavioural choices and activities than the teachings of football or the watching of football matches.
But then you are placing a greater importance of informing ethical behaviour than other types of behaviour. And you are perhaps placing far too much importance on religion in relation to ethical behaviour. Certainly today, for many religious people, the adherence is one based on tradition and culture rather than ethics.
We see this all the time with religious people taking ethical positions which are directly counter to the 'teaching' of their religion - so in what away is a catholic who uses contraception, does not think homosexuality to be wrong, approves of equal marriage, considers abortion to be reasonable in some circumstance, thinks that condoms are critical to combating HIV transmission, thinks divorce to be acceptable etc etc (which would make them a pretty standard catholic in the UK) having religion inform their ethical behaviour - it isn't. Sure there might be the 'mother and apple pie' be nice to people part, but that is no more inherently christian then virtually every other moral code, religious or secular.
-
I don't think there is one "teachings" of any religion. I think there are, like in law and in ethics, rules and also amendments and exceptions to rules based on circumstances and new information and understanding.
I think Catholics may disagree with the teachings of a religious institution, if they feel the leaders of that institution place a greater importance on tradition than they themselves do. Those people may feel that religious interpretation should take into account new information and knowledge and understanding, but they still feel they are being influenced by their interpretation of their religion in a lot of the decisions that they make. I am not talking about the influence of formal institutions but of the influence of belief systems.
-
Well, Gabriella, you reminded me of the famous statement by Camus: “Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football (soccer).” I think he was a goal-keeper, so had lots of time and stand around pondering on stuff.
-
I don't think there is one "teachings" of any religion. I think there are, like in law and in ethics, rules and also amendments and exceptions to rules based on circumstances and new information and understanding.
I think Catholics may disagree with the teachings of a religious institution, if they feel the leaders of that institution place a greater importance on tradition than they themselves do. Those people may feel that religious interpretation should take into account new information and knowledge and understanding, but they still feel they are being influenced by their interpretation of their religion in a lot of the decisions that they make. I am not talking about the influence of formal institutions but of the influence of belief systems.
I think in many, if not most, cases these people are using other drivers to inform their ethical decision making, that aren't religious.
And I used the examples I did for good reason - we aren't talking here about levels of interpretation - priorities. Nope we are talking about completely convergent views - the catholic who with a clear conscience used contraception, thinking it to be the right thing to do, yet their religion teaches it is wrong. The catholic who is delighted when a gay friend announces they are getting married, thinking their marriage to be wholly good and ethical, yet their religion teaches it is wrong.
These people are taking their moral cues from some place else than their religion.
-
Well, Gabriella, you reminded me of the famous statement by Camus: “Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football (soccer).” I think he was a goal-keeper, so had lots of time and stand around pondering on stuff.
Depends what team you play for.
I play five as side, and my defence is so poor I am the busiest player!
-
I think in many, if not most, cases these people are using other drivers to inform their ethical decision making, that aren't religious.
And I used the examples I did for good reason - we aren't talking here about levels of interpretation - priorities. Nope we are talking about completely convergent views - the catholic who with a clear conscience used contraception, thinking it to be the right thing to do, yet their religion teaches it is wrong. The catholic who is delighted when a gay friend announces they are getting married, thinking their marriage to be wholly good and ethical, yet their religion teaches it is wrong.
These people are taking their moral cues from some place else than their religion.
They don't seem to think they are. They disagree with the teachings of an institution, not with the teachings of their religion as they perceive it.
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/ourwork/default.asp
At CFC, we strive to be an expression of Catholicism as it is lived by ordinary people. We are part of the great majority of the faithful in the Catholic church who disagrees with the dictates of the Vatican on matters related to sex, marriage, family life and motherhood. We are part of the great majority who believes that Catholic teachings on conscience mean that every individual must follow his or her own conscience ― and respect others' right to do the same. At Catholics for Choice, we believe that this is the world where the meaning of choice can truly be realized.
-
Well, Gabriella, you reminded me of the famous statement by Camus: “Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football (soccer).” I think he was a goal-keeper, so had lots of time and stand around pondering on stuff.
Hi Wiggs - morality huh? These days aren't footballers at the top of the game known for being highly over-paid and/ or cheating - dives, fake appeals to the ref.....
-
Hi Wiggs - morality huh? These days aren't footballers at the top of the game known for being highly over-paid and/ or cheating - dives, fake appeals to the ref.....
Sure, but there is a strong sense of right and wrong in football. I don't really know if Camus was referring to this, but the crowd will howl its disapproval if a player dives or cheats in some way. I don't know if he ever really developed his ideas on this, but he was probably also indicating his existentialist views, that we find the moral through living, not just thinking.
-
They don't seem to think they are. They disagree with the teachings of an institution, not with the teachings of their religion as they perceive it.
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/ourwork/default.asp
At CFC, we strive to be an expression of Catholicism as it is lived by ordinary people. We are part of the great majority of the faithful in the Catholic church who disagrees with the dictates of the Vatican on matters related to sex, marriage, family life and motherhood. We are part of the great majority who believes that Catholic teachings on conscience mean that every individual must follow his or her own conscience ― and respect others' right to do the same. At Catholics for Choice, we believe that this is the world where the meaning of choice can truly be realized.
Firstly I imagine it is rare for catholics to be so formal in their ethical views - most will simply not agree with their religion on certain matters.
But secondly the for reasons for that disagreement are likely to be person to them but unlikely to be seen as a manifestation of their religion (which would be rather odd anyhow as their views are directly at odds with what their religion teaches).
The point being that the underpinning drive for those ethical positions are complex and just as personal and non-religiously cultural as they are religious.
-
Firstly I imagine it is rare for catholics to be so formal in their ethical views - most will simply not agree with their religion on certain matters.
But secondly the for reasons for that disagreement are likely to be person to them but unlikely to be seen as a manifestation of their religion (which would be rather odd anyhow as their views are directly at odds with what their religion teaches).
The point being that the underpinning drive for those ethical positions are complex and just as personal and non-religiously cultural as they are religious.
Not sure you need to imagine - you can listen or read for yourself what they and people like them say. As I keep pointing out - they agree with the teachings of their religion about following your individual conscience to make choices for your own unique circumstances, they just don't agree with the Vatican's teachings. The Catholics who disagree with the Vatican's teachings do so because they think the Vatican is going against the teachings of Catholicism by trying to impose their particular conservative interpretation of religious teachings on others - they think this attempt to impose is a form of extremism but they think the Vatican has a right to express their opinion but no right to exert undue influence on public policy. They have a whole video on their website about how their religion impacts on their beliefs about human rights if you want to watch it.
-
Not sure you need to imagine - you can listen or read for yourself what they and people like them say. As I keep pointing out - they agree with the teachings of their religion about following your individual conscience to make choices for your own unique circumstances, they just don't agree with the Vatican's teachings. The Catholics who disagree with the Vatican's teachings do so because they think the Vatican is going against the teachings of Catholicism by trying to impose their particular conservative interpretation of religious teachings on others - they think this attempt to impose is a form of extremism but they think the Vatican has a right to express their opinion but no right to exert undue influence on public policy. They have a whole video on their website about how their religion impacts on their beliefs about human rights if you want to watch it.
To reiterate - I think very few catholics who disagree with the church would iterate their views in that manner and certainly a tiny proportion would do so in such a formal manner - interesting that you had to find a US group not even a UK one.
I simply don't believe that the majority of catholics who use contraception think the reason why they consider it to be correct is 'religiously-inspired' and that their interpretation of religious teaching is correct and the vatican's in error. No their justification is entirely non religious and they, perhaps either accept that the church teaches otherwise but disagree, or think that contraception isn't something which comes within the remit of religion as an ethical issue. In other words what an individual choses to do is none of the business of the church but a highly personal decision.
-
I didn't have to find a US website - I just Googled "Catholics for" and it came up with this organisation Catholics for Choice - I didn't even say what the Catholics were for, I just assumed there would be organisations with different interpretations of their religion who self-identified as Catholics and stated that their position was part of their Catholic faith. It's a fairly standard position to take within any religion - which widely-read theists are no doubt aware of.
Your beliefs about theists do not seem to tie in with the reality of what theists are saying about themselves. It's up to you if you want to stick to your beliefs. That puts you in the same position as a theist refusing to believe that a person's interpretation of their religion is the reason why someone commits a terrorist act, even when the terrorist themselves states that they are doing it because they believe it is their religious duty.
-
I didn't have to find a US website - I just Googled "Catholics for" and it came up with this organisation Catholics for Choice - I didn't even say what the Catholics were for, I just assumed there would be organisations with different interpretations of their religion who self-identified as Catholics and stated that their position was part of their Catholic faith. It's a fairly standard position to take within any religion - which widely-read theists are no doubt aware of.
Your beliefs about theists do not seem to tie in with the reality of what theists are saying about themselves. It's up to you if you want to stick to your beliefs. That puts you in the same position as a theist refusing to believe that a person's interpretation of their religion is the reason why someone commits a terrorist act, even when the terrorist themselves states that they are doing it because they believe it is their religious duty.
Just because you are able to find one organisation that doesn't mean that is a reflection of the motivation of all catholics who disagree with the teaching of the church on certain ethical issues.
I know plenty of practicing catholics who disagree with the church on some of those key ethical issues - contraception, equal marriage, abortion etc etc - indeed one of them is my wife. None of those people I know rationalise those ethical views in terms of an alternative view on religion - nope they have come to those views through non religious means and cultural/societal experience. Indeed I think it would be much more difficult for those people to justify their views were they to see them as alternatively religious. To do so would directly challenge their faith. Rather the approach is more about compartmentalisation - some ethical issues are religiously inspired others non religiously or secular in nature. The approach is not to consider their 'religious' view to be more appropriate than that of the church, but to think that ethical decision making on contraception (as an example) really has nothing to do with religion at all.
-
There is also the issue that those who are actively involved in religion often set up structures which largely ensures they socialise with co-religionists. That of course includes religious traditions for bringing up children and schooling. There is much less of that nature with politics so people are more likely to be regularly rubbing shoulders with friends who they may subsequently discover have very different political views.
You could make this assertion about just about anyone, and very often its totally untue. For instance, when I was working at a school in Newport, I used to play football and cricket with the staff, not to mention socialise with them whilst on breaks. I also played football and cricket for two different teams in the local leagues - few of whom were Christians. On the other hand, I socialised with Christians for probably 2 hours on a Sunday and then again on a weekday for Fellowship Group. The first set of socialisation involved between 30 or 40 people a week; the latter, about the same.
I accept that traditionally a few Christian groups have been very exclusive (the Brethren spring to mind), but many haven't. I'd even go as far as to say that some political groups could be described as 'exclusive': there are some Labour supporters in the South Wales Valleys who wouldn't dream of socialising with non-Labour people - and that still occurs today.
-
Just because you are able to find one organisation that doesn't mean that is a reflection of the motivation of all catholics who disagree with the teaching of the church on certain ethical issues.
I know plenty of practicing catholics who disagree with the church on some of those key ethical issues - contraception, equal marriage, abortion etc etc - indeed one of them is my wife. None of those people I know rationalise those ethical views in terms of an alternative view on religion - nope they have come to those views through non religious means and cultural/societal experience. Indeed I think it would be much more difficult for those people to justify their views were they to see them as alternatively religious. To do so would directly challenge their faith. Rather the approach is more about compartmentalisation - some ethical issues are religiously inspired others non religiously or secular in nature. The approach is not to consider their 'religious' view to be more appropriate than that of the church, but to think that ethical decision making on contraception (as an example) really has nothing to do with religion at all.
I didn't make a generalisation about all Catholics, nor am I guessing at statistics since no evidence about numbers has been presented either way. You seem to restrict your definition of the Catholic religion to statements and teachings issued by the Vatican, and I pointed out that people who call themselves Catholics believe that personal choice on certain issues is part of their faith and the Vatican is wrong to try to impose its view on these matters.
So it appears that some religious Catholics feel they can get their understanding of their faith from sources other than the Vatican, which makes sense since religious faith or any belief system (including political beliefs) does not operate in a vacuum but is shaped and interpreted by the knowledge, culture and personalities of its different adherents and also in turn influences and shapes their culture.
Since you can't separate out the complexities of thought in a theist's brain in order to demonstrate the proportions of reasoning and emotion for an ethical decision that can be attributed to religious beliefs vs non-religious beliefs, we'll just have to each stick to our own views and beliefs on whether religious faith has more influence on more ethical decisions than football or music.
-
I didn't make a generalisation about all Catholics, nor am I guessing at statistics since no evidence about numbers has been presented either way. You seem to restrict your definition of the Catholic religion to statements and teachings issued by the Vatican, and I pointed out that people who call themselves Catholics believe that personal choice on certain issues is part of their faith and the Vatican is wrong to try to impose its view on these matters.
So it appears that some religious Catholics feel they can get their understanding of their faith from sources other than the Vatican, which makes sense since religious faith or any belief system (including political beliefs) does not operate in a vacuum but is shaped and interpreted by the knowledge, culture and personalities of its different adherents and also in turn influences and shapes their culture.
Since you can't separate out the complexities of thought in a theist's brain in order to demonstrate the proportions of reasoning and emotion for an ethical decision that can be attributed to religious beliefs vs non-religious beliefs, we'll just have to each stick to our own views and beliefs on whether religious faith has more influence on more ethical decisions than football or music.
No you are still missing the point and it is exactly about separating out complexities.
The theist that takes an ethical position radically different to the religion they belong is likely to be using non religious ethical thinking to justify their position, not somehow creating an alternative religious position. So, sure catholics who with a clear conscience use contraception aren't thinking that they have a dogmatic theological argument in favour of contraception to counter the orthodox teaching - nope they are deciding that the use of contraception is an area where non religious ethical thinking is preferable to religious ethical teaching.
-
The theist that takes an ethical position radically different to the religion they belong is likely to be using non religious ethical thinking to justify their position, not somehow creating an alternative religious position.
Not necessarily, PD. Let's go back into history for an example. The issue of slavery (and more recently apartheid), for instance: there were those who used the Bible to argue for slavery, and there were those who used the Bible to argue against it. I have to admit that I'm not really sure what those who argued for it found to support it in the New Testament. However, coming to the 20th century, the Dutch Reformed Church seemed to have found other references.
Then, look at the South American Roman Catholic priests and scholars who created Liberation Theology from the same passages that the European church distilled very different theology.
However, I would also agree that there are many Christians who find non-religious ethical thinking matching their religious ethical thinking on a number of issues.
-
Not necessarily, PD. Let's go back into history for an example. The issue of slavery (and more recently apartheid), for instance: there were those who used the Bible to argue for slavery, and there were those who used the Bible to argue against it. I have to admit that I'm not really sure what those who argued for it found to support it in the New Testament.
Well, Ephesians 6:5 ff. seems fairly explicit. But then Paul thought the world was about to end, so he didn't see much point in upsetting the status quo, since the 'righteous' would soon be spirited away to never-never land. The fact that the world did not end led many Christians to think that this text was binding for all time until the Second Coming.
It's rather sad that many 'End-timers' today don't see much point in trying to do anything to right the world's wrongs, because they too, despite 2000 years of false alarms, are convinced that the time is short at last, and the chosen will be whisked away.
-
Not necessarily, PD.
Which is why I said:
'The theist that takes an ethical position radically different to the religion they belong is likely to be using non religious ethical thinking to justify their position, not somehow creating an alternative religious position.'
Note the word likely implying usually, but not always, in other words not necessarily. And yes I agree with your example on slavery where there were biblical arguments on both sides. But that isn't the case with, for example, supporting condom use to prevent HIV transmission - I know plenty of catholics who support this, against the theological teaching of their church - I've never know any of those people justify that view from a biblical or theological position - rather ethical justification is on the basis of pragmatic humanism, and (frankly, although I'm not sure many would directly claim this) ethical consequentialism/utilitarianism - a non religious ethical approach.
-
Then, look at the South American Roman Catholic priests and scholars who created Liberation Theology from the same passages that the European church distilled very different theology.
I wasn't really talking about priests and scholars, who are much more likely to resort to fundamental theory, whether theological or not - but rank and file ordinary christians, who are actually rather unlikely to resort to any defined ethical theory at all (theological or otherwise) to justify their ethical position, but work on gut feeling (albeit that gut feeling may actually nod to all sorts of established ethical theories int eh prevailing society. And in the case where they are going against theological teaching then that gut feeling is aligning with non religious ethical approaches.
However, I would also agree that there are many Christians who find non-religious ethical thinking matching their religious ethical thinking on a number of issues.
I think we are actually largely in agreement.
-
I wasn't really talking about priests and scholars, who are much more likely to resort to fundamental theory, whether theological or not - but rank and file ordinary christians, who are actually rather unlikely to resort to any defined ethical theory at all (theological or otherwise) to justify their ethical position, but work on gut feeling (albeit that gut feeling may actually nod to all sorts of established ethical theories int eh prevailing society. And in the case where they are going against theological teaching then that gut feeling is aligning with non religious ethical approaches.
I think we are actually largely in agreement.
Whereas I'd disagree that the majority of (Western) believers are "rather unlikely to resort to any defined ethical theory at all (theological or otherwise) to justify their ethical position". Some may, and my position may reflect the type of Christian amongst whom I move.
-
Whereas I'd disagree that the majority of (Western) believers are "rather unlikely to resort to any defined ethical theory at all (theological or otherwise) to justify their ethical position". Some may, and my position may reflect the type of Christian amongst whom I move.
I stand by that statement. I think very few people are well versed enough in ethical theory (religious or secular) to assign their own position very clearly to that determined by a particular ethical theory. And even with christians, I suspect plenty aren't that well versed with the bible, let alone the detailed theological interpretation that leads to ethical positions.
Interesting, while teaching about the ethics surrounding stem cells just last week, I provided the 'official' catholic position on why they believe all stages from development from fertilisation are considered morally equivalent. I doubt there would be many catholics who would have any idea of those detailed arguments, whether or not they agreed that morally significant life begins at fertilisation.
-
I stand by that statement. I think very few people are well versed enough in ethical theory (religious or secular) to assign their own position very clearly to that determined by a particular ethical theory. And even with christians, I suspect plenty aren't that well versed with the bible, let alone the detailed theological interpretation that leads to ethical positions.
I think that there is 'detailed' and 'detailed', PD. One can have an understanding of any subject that covers the breadth of issues that are involved in that subject, without knowing every 'jot and tittle' of those issues; or one can have an understanding that covers only one or two of those issues, but at the 'jot and tittle' level.
-
I think that there is 'detailed' and 'detailed', PD. One can have an understanding of any subject that covers the breadth of issues that are involved in that subject, without knowing every 'jot and tittle' of those issues; or one can have an understanding that covers only one or two of those issues, but at the 'jot and tittle' level.
But I'm actually not talking about massive detail, but key justification.
So most ethical codes don't permit killing people (except in very rare circumstances) - the difference during early life being when a developing embryo is considered to be a person. The RCC considers that to occur at conception, other ethical codes consider it to be later. How many catholics will actually know the reason why the RCC considers this to happen at conception, contrary to other ethical codes.
Sure many christians will say that homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the bible, but how many actually know the verses and where they are. And how many are able to tell you why the opposition to homosexuality remains while other things that are clearly also banned in verses in the same sections as the bible aren't now considered a problem at all.
etc, etc.
These aren't really huge details but basic information required to justify a view.
-
But I'm actually not talking about massive detail, but key justification.
So most ethical codes don't permit killing people (except in very rare circumstances) - the difference during early life being when a developing embryo is considered to be a person. The RCC considers that to occur at conception, other ethical codes consider it to be later. How many catholics will actually know the reason why the RCC considers this to happen at conception, contrary to other ethical codes.
Here in the West, probably quite a proportion. It gets rammed down their throats if they attend RC schools.
Sure many christians will say that homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the bible, but how many actually know the verses and where they are. And how many are able to tell you why the opposition to homosexuality remains while other things that are clearly also banned in verses in the same sections as the bible aren't now considered a problem at all.
Again, quite a sizeable proportion because they have a fairly good idea of which of the bans that used to exist but now don't are related to the context in which they were laid down - such as not eating shellfish in the desert, or pork because of insufficient means of proper cooking; casting wrongdoers out (or executing them) because of the nomadic nature of the tribes at the time.
These contrast with other bans that are related to relationships and lifestyle.
-
Here in the West, probably quite a proportion. It gets rammed down their throats if they attend RC schools.
No - what gets rammed dow throats is that abortion and destruction of early stage embryos is wrong as this is the teaching of the church, not why it is wrong beyond not killing people. The key point is whether or not that early embryo is a person or not - the RCC will simply say it is, very, very rarely will they explain why they think that, when plenty of others disagree. I doubt the argument why a fertilised egg (a zygote) is a person is taught to many kids in RCC schools - certainly I have no evidence that it is as I have used there argument as part of teaching on the ethics of stem cell research and I've yet to have a student (and I have plenty who are RCC) who implies this is anything other than completely new to them
Again, quite a sizeable proportion because they have a fairly good idea of which of the bans that used to exist but now don't are related to the context in which they were laid down - such as not eating shellfish in the desert, or pork because of insufficient means of proper cooking; casting wrongdoers out (or executing them) because of the nomadic nature of the tribes at the time.
These contrast with other bans that are related to relationships and lifestyle.
Sorry I think you are flat out wrong. I doubt there are many who would even be able to identify Leviticus as the key source for the christian views on homosexuality, nor that the same book also bans mixed fibres, shellfish etc. And fewer still why the first of these remains 'sinful' yet the other two are seen to be perfectly OK today.
-
No - what gets rammed dow throats is that abortion and destruction of early stage embryos is wrong as this is the teaching of the church, not why it is wrong beyond not killing people. The key point is whether or not that early embryo is a person or not - the RCC will simply say it is, very, very rarely will they explain why they think that, when plenty of others disagree. I doubt the argument why a fertilised egg (a zygote) is a person is taught to many kids in RCC schools - certainly I have no evidence that it is as I have used there argument as part of teaching on the ethics of stem cell research and I've yet to have a student (and I have plenty who are RCC) who implies this is anything other than completely new to them
I have had to go on th experience I've had of talking with people who attended RCC schools - so perhaps there are RCC schools and RCC schools.
Sorry I think you are flat out wrong. I doubt there are many who would even be able to identify Leviticus as the key source for the christian views on homosexuality, nor that the same book also bans mixed fibres, shellfish etc. And fewer still why the first of these remains 'sinful' yet the other two are seen to be perfectly OK today.
I can't think of a single Christian I've discussed this issue with - whether supportive of gay relationships or not - who WOULD NOT jump straight to Leviticus, but I also know plenty of Christians who would say that - whilst that is the underlying passage for Judeo-Christian thought on the issue - there are New Testament passages that reinforce both the mixed gender nature of marriage and the wrongness of homosexual relationships.
As for why homosexual relations remain 'sinful' whilst the others don't, again there are plenty of Gospel passages that explain the difference. For instance, for the Jew, everything is about what one does; it's all about keeping the Law, fulilling the commandments; making the correct sacrifice. Jesus makes it clear that, under his New Covenant, evereything is about relationship, grace and mercy.
He goes out of his way, throughout the Gospels, to challenge the 'rules and regs' way of thinking of the Jewish religious leaders (and consequently, most of the Jews). Oddly enough, he doesn't amend the old covenant's attitude to homosexual relations. Education is often as much about reinforcement of acceptable behaviours/ways of thinking, as it is about the stamping down on the unacceptable.
-
I can't think of a single Christian I've discussed this issue with - whether supportive of gay relationships or not - who WOULD NOT jump straight to Leviticus, but I also know plenty of Christians who would say that - whilst that is the underlying passage for Judeo-Christian thought on the issue - there are New Testament passages that reinforce both the mixed gender nature of marriage and the wrongness of homosexual relationships.
Sure there will be some christians who 'jump straight to Leviticus', but there will be others who struggle to know where the tiny section lies in the bible. I'd image there are plenty too who wouldn't even know that Leviticus is one of the books in the bible.
As for why homosexual relations remain 'sinful' whilst the others don't, again there are plenty of Gospel passages that explain the difference. For instance, for the Jew, everything is about what one does; it's all about keeping the Law, fulilling the commandments; making the correct sacrifice. Jesus makes it clear that, under his New Covenant, evereything is about relationship, grace and mercy.
Sure that explains why all the old laws get dumped, but that's not what I was asking - the question is why some of the laws in Leviticus have got dumped and others not.
He goes out of his way, throughout the Gospels, to challenge the 'rules and regs' way of thinking of the Jewish religious leaders (and consequently, most of the Jews). Oddly enough, he doesn't amend the old covenant's attitude to homosexual relations. Education is often as much about reinforcement of acceptable behaviours/ways of thinking, as it is about the stamping down on the unacceptable.
Again the question, given that as far as I know there is not a single direct reference to homosexuality in the gospels why is it only some of the old 'rules and regs' that have been dumped and not all of them.
So back to the original point - if you struggle to be able to justify this - i.e. why is homosexuality a sin, yet not wearing mixed fibres etc (as do all christians who try) and yet you are an avid poster on christian-related matters, do you think the average rank and file christian would have clue where and how the distinction between 'rules and regs' on mixed fibres, shellfish etc being dumped and the 'rules and regs' on homosexuality not being dumped is justified theologically - and that's even assuming they knew where (Leviticus) those 'rules and regs' originally appear.
-
No you are still missing the point and it is exactly about separating out complexities.
The theist that takes an ethical position radically different to the religion they belong is likely to be using non religious ethical thinking to justify their position, not somehow creating an alternative religious position. So, sure catholics who with a clear conscience use contraception aren't thinking that they have a dogmatic theological argument in favour of contraception to counter the orthodox teaching - nope they are deciding that the use of contraception is an area where non religious ethical thinking is preferable to religious ethical teaching.
No, you are still missing the point - your assertion of what is likely or unlikely in the way a theist approaches ethical decision is nothing more than your interpretation of the supposed views of your wife or people you have encountered, none of whom have actually explained their thought process on this board.
I get that you might well be sincere in your beliefs or desperate to cling onto them, but you haven't as yet been able to present any evidence from theists that support your beliefs about how they think, including how you propose to demonstrate the separation of complexities that you imagine exists in the theist's thought process when they disagree with the teachings of a particular leader of a religious institution.
-
No, you are still missing the point - your assertion of what is likely or unlikely in the way a theist approaches ethical decision is nothing more than your interpretation of the supposed views of your wife or people you have encountered, none of whom have actually explained their thought process on this board.
I get that you might well be sincere in your beliefs or desperate to cling onto them, but you haven't as yet been able to present any evidence from theists that support your beliefs about how they think, including how you propose to demonstrate the separation of complexities that you imagine exists in the theist's thought process when they disagree with the teachings of a particular leader of a religious institution.
I disagree - my experience of people I know who are religious, disagree with their own religious organisation's teaching on certain ethical matters and do not justify their ethical position on the basis of an 'alternative' theological argument, rather on the basis of non theological thinking is evidence.
Remember I didn't say that all theists who disagree with their religious teaching justify their decisions in that way, but that many, if not most, do. I stand by that view and let's face it you haven't provided any evidence to counter my assertion, have you. That you have found one US organisation and there appears to be one theist poster (Hope) here claiming otherwise doesn't in any way refute the suggestion that many, if not most, theists who disagree with their religious organisations on ethical matters justify their view on the basis of non theological, rather than alternative theological arguments.
-
Yes, I get that your experiences are true for you. I also have no intention of looking for more examples in order to refute your beliefs or assertions about most many/ most theists - as I said earlier I doubt there are stats to present or a way to demonstrate the thought process so that leaves varied and equally valid experiences, but by all means you are free to demonstrate a preference to yours.
-
Yes, I get that your experiences are true for you.
No they aren't just 'true for me' - if you chatted to the people I'm talking about you would get the same response too, so they would be true for you too.
Here is an example - a good friend of mine, who is a very active catholic, spent ages diligently filling in the questionnaire that the RCC circulated a year or so ago (brave man as many of the questions were rather impenetrable). He posted his entire response on Facebook (brave again) and he was strongly critical of catholic teaching in a number of areas. And in many cases his view was very clearly driven by non theological drivers. So a good example was his response to the question:
'How can an increase in births be promoted?'
His response was that there are already too many people and increasing birthrate would be deeply irresponsible. The driver for this view is his commitment to environmentalism and the green agenda - his ethical views come from an entirely non religious perspective, not theological.
I also have no intention of looking for more examples in order to refute your beliefs or assertions about most many/ most theists - as I said earlier I doubt there are stats to present or a way to demonstrate the thought process so that leaves varied and equally valid experiences, but by all means you are free to demonstrate a preference to yours.
Which effectively accepts that there will be plenty of people whose ethical disagreement with the teaching of their religion will be driven by non religious arguments. The only thing perhaps we are arguing over then is whether that number of people is sufficient to be 'many, if not most' - I don't think that is a particularly controversial view - is it really.
-
Yes, that's exactly what we've been arguing about since reply #66 - that you think that religion-based reasoning has very little or no influence on most Catholics' ethical reasoning where it contradicts the Vatican, based on your understanding of how your wife and Catholic friends reached most of their ethical positions, and I disagree based on the statements of various groups, articles, papers on the Internet by Catholics, who cite religious reasoning e.g. that the religious duty of stewardship over the earth means environmental issues such as population growth takes precedence over the Vatican's fear that okaying contraception would result in the moral degeneration of Catholics world-wide and an unsustainable aging population through perverting natural law. I can post lots of different links to different Catholic groups and articles if you want - they are easily found on the Internet - but I don't think you would bother reading them so it would probably be a waste of my time.
No, they might not be true for me even if I chatted to your friends - as a theist I might ask them them the type of questions that might reveal a religious element to their reasoning. I think reasoning is a complex process and for a theist would involve both religious and non-religious elements. So far nothing you have posted induces me to subscribe to your belief that religious elements were not involved but like I said given the lack of demonstrable evidence to post on here we'll agree to disagree.
-
Dear Gabriella and ProfDavey,
Sorry to butt in, and I am thoroughly enjoying your discussion, but I have been trying to use my own thought processes regarding how I come to conclusions over subject such as environmentalism.
My Christianity ( it is never far from my thoughts ) I think, always sends me to the root cause, on trying to choose which party I would vote for, it is always a "what would Jesus do" question.
I don't physical think "what would Jesus do" but words like greed, poverty, injustice all spring to mind and they are all there because of my faith.
If you are serious about your faith then I think it underlines all of your thought processes, ingrained even indoctrinated.
Take the Green party, I am lukewarm regarding their policies, I am all for saving the whale and the rain forests, but on thinking about those subjects I always ask, what is the root cause, greed, greed is a sin.
When I think about ethical issues it always comes down to the "what would Jesus do" question.
Anyway, just my tuppence worth, I enjoyed your little debate, it got my old grey cells turning.
Gonnagle.
-
Hi Gonners
Thanks for posting your experience of how your faith is part of your reasoning process.
There are many different theological arguments out there that also incorporate non-theological thinking, so I think different people will have different levels of interest in investigating the theological and non-theological arguments for and against different ethical positions. It also depends upon how much time they have available. But I think if presented with a mix of theological and non-theological arguments that they find persuasive, many theists will change their ethical position.
-
Yes, that's exactly what we've been arguing about since reply #66 - that you think that religion-based reasoning has very little or no influence on most Catholics' ethical reasoning where it contradicts the Vatican, based on your understanding of how your wife and Catholic friends reached most of their ethical positions, and I disagree based on the statements of various groups, articles, papers on the Internet by Catholics, who cite religious reasoning e.g. that the religious duty of stewardship over the earth means environmental issues such as population growth takes precedence over the Vatican's fear that okaying contraception would result in the moral degeneration of Catholics world-wide and an unsustainable aging population through perverting natural law. I can post lots of different links to different Catholic groups and articles if you want - they are easily found on the Internet - but I don't think you would bother reading them so it would probably be a waste of my time.
I never said no catholics use religious reasoning when their ethical view does not accord with the vatican - but that, in my opinion (and experience) many, if not most use non religious argument.
I think there is also some 'faulty thinking' in your use of examples - whether organised groups such as the one form the USA you provided, or 'catholic' commentators or article writers as being reflective of the whole catholic community. If a writer is writing about, lets say the environment, makes it clear they are a catholic and are writing from that perspective then sure you will expect some argument over theological dogma. But there are millions of catholics - no doubt you will read opinion pieces on the environment from plenty of catholics without you ever know that they are catholics. How many politicians are catholic - you probably have no idea of the religion of many of them. Therefore they will be unlikely to write an opinion piece from their perspective as a catholic, nope they will write it from their perspective as an environmentalist, or maybe a politician.
So it isn't the views of those who clearly badge themselves as providing an opinion from a catholic perspective that you should be taking note of with reference to my view, but those countless others regularly giving their opinions with no suggestion of the theological driver for that opinion who actually are (although you don't know it) catholics.
-
I never said no catholics use religious reasoning when their ethical view does not accord with the vatican - but that, in my opinion (and experience) many, if not most use non religious argument.
I think there is also some 'faulty thinking' in your use of examples - whether organised groups such as the one form the USA you provided, or 'catholic' commentators or article writers as being reflective of the whole catholic community. If a writer is writing about, lets say the environment, makes it clear they are a catholic and are writing from that perspective then sure you will expect some argument over theological dogma. But there are millions of catholics - no doubt you will read opinion pieces on the environment from plenty of catholics without you ever know that they are catholics. How many politicians are catholic - you probably have no idea of the religion of many of them. Therefore they will be unlikely to write an opinion piece from their perspective as a catholic, nope they will write it from their perspective as an environmentalist, or maybe a politician.
So it isn't the views of those who clearly badge themselves as providing an opinion from a catholic perspective that you should be taking note of with reference to my view, but those countless others regularly giving their opinions with no suggestion of the theological driver for that opinion who actually are (although you don't know it) catholics.
Whereas I see you as having 'faulty thinking'. I don't see how you conclude that a person who does not openly state theological reasons for their ethical position had no religious (as well as non-religious) reasons for reaching that position. I know when I talk to people I adapt my conversation according to my audience, so I won't bring Islam into the conversation if I am talking to non-Muslims even if my interpretation of Islam formed part of my reasoning in arriving at an ethical position.
-
Whereas I see you as having 'faulty thinking'. I don't see how you conclude that a person who does not openly state theological reasons for their ethical position had no religious (as well as non-religious) reasons for reaching that position. I know when I talk to people I adapt my conversation according to my audience, so I won't bring Islam into the conversation if I am talking to non-Muslims even if my interpretation of Islam formed part of my reasoning in arriving at an ethical position.
I'm not talking about people who 'adapt' their conversation according to their audience, but people who adapt their conversation according to the topic, in this case the ethical issue. In other words people who are happy to be very clear that they are christian and their views on some topics are linked to christian theology, yet on other ethical topics the notion of christian theology is totally absent from their justification with reliance on other ethical approaches - so extolling the virtues of the humanist golden rule, or a nod to good old consequentialism, perhaps alluding to the kantian categorical imperative.
Sure I understand that some christians don't like to talk about their religion with others, particularly non christians, but plenty do. So why would they make it clear that some of their ethical reasoning is linked to christianity, but others not, unless that actually represented their reasoning.
Sure I understand there are some people who are completely 'pure' in their ethical positions, using theology or an individual secular ethical theories to govern their views. But there are also plenty of others for whom their ethical thinking is driven by a kind of pick and mix of ethical approaches that are prevalent in our society, including religious and non religious approaches.
From my own experience (and that includes over a decade of teaching ethics) that many (if not most) people use a hybrid of approaches to inform their ethical positions. And that mixed approach is ultimately driven by the complex range of ethical positioning that is deeply embedded in our societies and families with our own upbringing, familial/societal influence plus experiences in life being instrumental in the ethical positions people adopt and the underpinning ethical theories that drive those positions. Now, of course, most people aren't overtly aware that their thinking is kantian, or consequentialist, or humanist, or even overtly religious - but those elements are just under the surface of ethical reasoning - why because they are so deeply embedded in the fabric or our society.