Which is the more divisive? And why?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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. 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Gonnagle]

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.