Which is the more divisive? And why?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.