Can I be a Christian and a humanist?

[SusanDoris]

On radio we hear enough Christians asserting firmly that our morality is based on Christian principles. When challenged - not nearly often enough in my opinion - they seem surprised.

[Nearly Sane]

We should certainly hear from the theists, but that isn't the impression I get.

I think the typical view is that god makes the rules, it is a matter of our free will whether we choose to follow god's rules, but we will be accountable to god for our choices.

Surely we have heard from theists continually here and elsewhere on this? And it's not just a theist question, bluehillside's idea seems to be that belief in moral agency is about setting the rules. Now to an extent we do set up some moral standards for internal matters but I would have thought most of us regard moral agency also in relation to external rules e.g. do not murder people and if you do you are the moral agent held responsible and sent to the big house, even if you say that you thought it was perfectly OK because the person had been being annoying.

[Nearly Sane]

On radio we hear enough Christians asserting firmly that our morality is based on Christian principles. When challenged - not nearly often enough in my opinion - they seem surprised.

I think the question there is whether the principles are in some way only derivable from Christianity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You seem to be defining 'moral responsibility' as being about making the rules.

No, about following them. See below.

What I would suggest is that the Prof and I are taking the more traditional view that the person is responsible, and should be held responsible, for their own actions.

But there’s a circularity in that. If you’re convinced that a morally unimpeachable god exists and has put his rules in a book then, no matter what your opinions may be, if you contravene them then necessarily you must be behaving immorally (or at best amorally). 

How then if such a person thinks himself to be morally good could he act other than as the book tells him to?   

Most theists might agree that god makes the rules, buy that they have a specific choice as to following them.

Not if they want to be morally good they don’t. Indeed, often they will go further when they do contravene them and absolve themselves of responsibility for that too because “the devil” made them do it or some such.

The idea of sin points out that they accept failure is an option here, and the moral agency and responsibility lies there.

Yes, but it is failure. If you want to be morally good though, then you have no choice but to follow the rules. Essentially, the deal is that God makes them morally good and Satan makes them morally bad. Where then is the space for persona responsibility in that?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the question there is whether the principles are in some way only derivable from Christianity.

I think the answer to that one is kinda obvious - given that all sorts of societies have come up with very similar basic moral philosophies regardless of whether they had an underlying Christian tradition.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No, about following them. See below.

But there’s a circularity in that. If you’re convinced that a morally unimpeachable god exists and has put his rules in a book then, no matter what your opinions may be, if you contravene them then necessarily you must be behaving immorally. 

How then if such a person thinks himself to be morally good could he act other than as the book tells him to?   

Not if they want to be morally good they don’t. Indeed, often they will go further when they do contravene them and absolve themselves of responsibility for that too because “the devil” made them do it or some such.

Yes, but it is failure. If you want to be morally good though, then you have no choice but to follow the rules. Essentially, the deal is that God makes them morally good and Satan makes them morally bad. Where then is the space for persona responsibility in that?

This doesn't seem to address the question of moral agency being the choice of action and not the idea that you set up the rules. I don't have to be a theist to accept a set of rules not set up by me that I am immoral if I don't follow. There are people out there who will argue that following the law of the country at the time is the moral thing to do. Even though they might break them, they would think any punishment is morally correct because theyare the moral agent.

The space for personal responsibility is in the choice of action.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the answer to that one is kinda obvious - given that all sorts of societies have come up with very similar basic moral philosophies regardless of whether they had an underlying Christian tradition.

Indeed, but if it isn't asked then it isn't surprising for people to think that we have a largely Christian based morality. We are back to your point that most of these judgements are close to universal but in a society which has been nominally Christian for as long as we were then the progress on issues were such as slavery or education were obviously noticeably lead by and opposed by) Christians.

As we recognise, correlation does not mean causation but it's an easy and frequent mistake, particularly in relation to complex flows of history.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This doesn't seem to address the question of moral agency being the choice of action and not the idea that you set up the rules.

It does because the only “choice” available is between a pre-determined morally good and morally bad.

I don't have to be a theist to accept a set of rules not set up by me that I am immoral if I don't follow. There are people out there who will argue that following the law of the country at the time is the moral thing to do. Even though they might break them, they would think any punishment is morally correct because theyare the moral agent.

Yes, but you might think yourself to be morally correct nonetheless. That’s the difference – very few people in my experience set out to behave morally badly, so often when someone breaks the law deliberately it’s because he hold himself to what he thinks to be a higher moral standard.

By contrast, if you believe that the absolute moral exemplar is written down for you then you cannot break those rules and at the same time think yourself to be behaving morally well. After all, who are you to know better than “God”?

What choice then do you have if you want to be morally good except to follow the rules? 

The space for personal responsibility is in the choice of action.

Not if you want to be morally good it isn’t.

[ProfessorDavey]

It does because the only “choice” available is between a pre-determined morally good and morally bad.

But that fits fine with the standard definition of moral agency that I posted earlier, namely:

Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

It doesn't require that the moral agent is the arbiter of right and wrong, merely that they make judgements based on some notion of right and wrong. That notion can be entirely external (god decides what is right and wrong) or entirely internal (morality is entirely relative and personal) or some combination of both.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It does because the only “choice” available is between a pre-determined morally good and morally bad.

Yes, but you might think yourself to be morally correct nonetheless. That’s the difference – very few people in my experience set out to behave morally badly, so often when someone breaks the law it’s because he hold himself to what he thinks to be a higher moral standard.

By contrast, if you believe that the absolute moral exemplar is written down for you then you cannot break those rules and at the same time think yourself to be behaving morally well. After all, who are you to know bettier than “God”?

What choice then do you have if you want to be morally good except to follow the rules? 

Not if you want to be morally good it isn’t.

If you have a set of morals that you judge your actions by then an action will between something that those rules determine bad or good, and people act in ways they consider bad no matter what the rule is. Further if you think that people just in general act in a way that they think is morally good then attributing that set of rules to a good doesn't change the moral responsibility. It's just their choice to accept those rules.


The thread started by SteveH on the idea that what he thinks are the rules are very liberal, others of a theistic bent can and do disagree. So thinking the rules are from a god, even the very same one, doesn't seen to restrict a choice in what that person thinks of as right. So even in your rather idiosyncratic dea of moral agency that the action is relatively unimportant, people are still choosing what they think is right morally.

[Enki]

In the humanist group to which I belong there is a unitarian who sees no real conflict between his humanist values and his liberal religious values. He is quite at ease in both camps. It seems to work for him.

[bluehillside Retd.]

PD,

But that fits fine with the standard definition of moral agency that I posted earlier, namely:

Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

It doesn't require that the moral agent is the arbiter of right and wrong, merely that they make judgements based on some notion of right and wrong. That notion can be entirely external (god decides what is right and wrong) or entirely internal (morality is entirely relative and personal) or some combination of both.

But an individual who thinks the inerrantly correct moral rules are in a book cannot “make moral judgments” at all. The judgments have been made for him already. All he can do is to decide whether to be morally good (ie, follow the rules) or morally bad (ie, don’t follow the rules) – a much more restrictive, and binary paradigm.

How then can he be held accountable for his actions when he would say that he had no choice when, say, he set fire to an abortion clinic in order to be morally good?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

If you have a set of morals that you judge your actions by then an action will between something that those rules determine bad or good, and people act in ways they consider bad no matter what the rule is.

Yes, and when you think, “God decided on the rules and I have no defence if I break them because those rules were written down for me” your only choice is between good (follow the rules) and bad (don’t follow the rules).

What you cannot do though is break the rules and still think yourself to be morally good – which I think is a qualitatively different from your earlier example of breaking the law vs disobeying an inerrant rule book, and between humanism and theism. 

Further if you think that people just in general act in a way that they think is morally good then attributing that set of rules to a good doesn't change the moral responsibility. It's just their choice to accept those rules.

How is it “their choice to accept those rules” when the only way to be good is to follow them (because a morally inerrant god wrote or “inspired” them)? “They” might well think that a different moral action is a good one, but they cannot exercise that choice and still think themselves to be morally good when a supervening rule book applies.

In other words, “moral responsibility” here seems to me to be a rigged game. 

The thread started by SteveH on the idea that what he thinks are the rules are very liberal, others of a theistic bent can and do disagree. So thinking the rules are from a god, even the very same one, doesn't seen to restrict a choice in what that person thinks of as right.

Yes it does – unless that is the theist thinks himself to be a better moral judge than his god.

So even in your rather idiosyncratic dea of moral agency that the action is relatively unimportant, people are still choosing what they think is right morally.

No they’re not. They already “know” what’s morally right because it’s written down for them.   

[ProfessorDavey]

But an individual who thinks the inerrantly correct moral rules are in a book cannot “make moral judgments” at all. The judgments have been made for him already. All he can do is to decide whether to be morally good (ie, follow the rules) or morally bad (ie, don’t follow the rules) – a much more restrictive, and binary paradigm.

Correct, but that person is still a moral agent.

How then can he be held accountable for his actions when he would say that he had no choice when, say, he set fire to an abortion clinic in order to be morally good?   

But broader society would say that his actions were morally (and legally) wrong and he would be held accountable for his actions via the courts. He might think that he would be looked at favourably by god in due course, but that is a different matter. And of course he had a choice - he could have decided not to set fire to the clinic.

[Dicky Underpants]

PD,

But an individual who thinks the inerrantly correct moral rules are in a book cannot “make moral judgments” at all. The judgments have been made for him already. All he can do is to decide whether to be morally good (ie, follow the rules) or morally bad (ie, don’t follow the rules) – a much more restrictive, and binary paradigm.

In the Judaeo/Christian tradition, I don't think it's quite so cut and dried as that. The Jewish law of doing no work on the Sabbath apparently has certain qualifications (according to Reform Jews, anyway). That is to say, if the situation is considered to be so serious that lives are in danger if no action is taken, then this in itself would be considered to be morally wrong. Christ himself is shown breaking this law, in a relatively trivial instance, and the way he justifies it with an example from the OT is hardly logically compelling - but at least it shows that the 'law' may be broken in certain instances.
However, it is still up the individual to make a moral decision on what he considers a matter of life and death (which of course may turn out not to be the case).

[Robbie]

SteveH i wonder if the Quakers would suit you?
You certainly can be a liberal Christian and a Quaker, there's no conflict. In fact you can be a non-Christian and a Quaker, the SofF has changed since the days of George Fox.

I admire them.

https://www.quaker.org.uk/

[SteveH]

SteveH i wonder if the Quakers would suit you?
You certainly can be a liberal Christian and a Quaker, there's no conflict. In fact you can be a non-Christian and a Quaker, the SofF has changed since the days of George Fox.

I admire them.

https://www.quaker.org.uk/

I was a Quaker attender for some yeasrs in the early 70s, and sometimes wish I'd stuck with them.

[Robbie]

Nothing to stop you attending again,you don't have to sign up to anything.

[SteveH]

Nothing to stop you attending again,you don't have to sign up to anything.

Bit late now - I'm 66, and have been an anglican for 40 years.

[Walter]

I'm a practising anglican Christian, although a very liberal one, but ethically I side most of the time with humanists, and have considered joining the British Humanist Association (I think they're called "Humanists UK" now). I may yet do so. I have just joined a Facebook group called 'Humanists for a better world". Are Christianity and humanism inevitably opposed, or not?

Just stop being a Christian then you wont have a dilemma, simple!

[Robbie]

Bit late now - I'm 66, and have been an anglican for 40 years.

You were talking of becoming a Humanist Steve.
The Friends are a 'broad church' encompassing much of what you admire in humanism.You could still take the Eucharist if that is what you'd miss about Anglicanism (something I like &would miss).

[Sassy]

Can humanism when matched to Christ and his actions really compete?
I do not believe they can be compared.  Christ could actively change things.  Humanism is really about behaviour to each other.

Not sure that you can ask the question can you be an humanist and a Christian. You could ask which makes you the better person?