Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

The End of Religious Morality

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:39:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If humanity ever does create a rationally justified universal conception of morality that doesn't depend on dogmatisms or superstition, will that put religion on the defensive? I think the answer is yes, because the sin que non of religion seems to be based off of its (rather silly) claims about ethics and values. Of course, moral relativism and moral nihilism would have to be largely abandoned/discredited before this happened. But supposing that humans created a rational scientific way of talking about morality, would that be the end of religion?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 11:37:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 11:25:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It's called Secular Humanism and yes, it is the end of religious morality.

Which isn't a specific ethics system at all. It includes many with different ethical bases of which humanism is the conclusion, much like libertarianism can be derived from multiple ethics systems.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 2:17:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:39:30 PM, Freeman wrote:
If humanity ever does create a rationally justified universal conception of morality that doesn't depend on dogmatisms or superstition, will that put religion on the defensive? I think the answer is yes, because the sin que non of religion seems to be based off of its (rather silly) claims about ethics and values. Of course, moral relativism and moral nihilism would have to be largely abandoned/discredited before this happened. But supposing that humans created a rational scientific way of talking about morality, would that be the end of religion?

I think you are already seeing this, or at least many religions are reflecting this. Catholicism, at least in my neck of the woods, is backing away from some of the silly dogma, and has steadily been evolving toward a more objective morality that's being espoused versus the idiotic man made rules that have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ. There is constant resistance within the church (lay and clergy), and it is an active discussion that takes place (truly) continually. This sort of shift has far more practical applications in life than some of the antiquated dictates that are being abandoned. It also encourages faith to God rather than allegiance to the church.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 2:23:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 11:41:21 PM, Puck wrote:
Though if your spiel is secular humanism, check out Desire Util, which is slowly making grounds amongst the internet.

Is there anything to Desire Utilitarianism? Its proponents seem pretty confident about it.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 2:32:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 2:23:16 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/2/2010 11:41:21 PM, Puck wrote:
Though if your spiel is secular humanism, check out Desire Util, which is slowly making grounds amongst the internet.

Is there anything to Desire Utilitarianism? Its proponents seem pretty confident about it.

That's generally what proponents are. :P It fails like most ethical theories in detailing the specific 'why should I bother?'.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 2:41:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 2:32:25 AM, Puck wrote:
At 6/3/2010 2:23:16 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/2/2010 11:41:21 PM, Puck wrote:
Though if your spiel is secular humanism, check out Desire Util, which is slowly making grounds amongst the internet.

Is there anything to Desire Utilitarianism? Its proponents seem pretty confident about it.

That's generally what proponents are. :P It fails like most ethical theories in detailing the specific 'why should I bother?'.

You mean, as opposed to religion which has a specific stick-carrot reward system that goes along with its morality?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 3:14:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Religion is not the same thing as morality.

Religion attempts to inform you of supernatural 'truth', morality is a psycho-social construct. Though the former may spawn the latter they are not the same thing.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:23:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:39:30 PM, Freeman wrote:
If humanity ever does create a rationally justified universal conception of morality that doesn't depend on dogmatisms or superstition, will that put religion on the defensive? I think the answer is yes, because the sin que non of religion seems to be based off of its (rather silly) claims about ethics and values. Of course, moral relativism and moral nihilism would have to be largely abandoned/discredited before this happened. But supposing that humans created a rational scientific way of talking about morality, would that be the end of religion?

A rational, scientific way of talking about morality? Orly?

And if you want a system that doesn't depend on dogmatism and superstition you might wanna drop that preference utilitarianism thing you got going on there. :)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:47:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:23:05 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:39:30 PM, Freeman wrote:
If humanity ever does create a rationally justified universal conception of morality that doesn't depend on dogmatisms or superstition, will that put religion on the defensive? I think the answer is yes, because the sin que non of religion seems to be based off of its (rather silly) claims about ethics and values. Of course, moral relativism and moral nihilism would have to be largely abandoned/discredited before this happened. But supposing that humans created a rational scientific way of talking about morality, would that be the end of religion?

A rational, scientific way of talking about morality? Orly?

And if you want a system that doesn't depend on dogmatism and superstition you might wanna drop that preference utilitarianism thing you got going on there. :)

What dogmatisms and/or superstitions are you suffering to?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:50:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 2:41:12 AM, Kinesis wrote:
You mean, as opposed to religion which has a specific stick-carrot reward system that goes along with its morality?

Opposed to? Not at all - it's not a dichotomy thing. Religious ethics tend to be fairly blunt about the why, they just require a prior belief hierarchy. Secular ethics tend to struggle with the 'this is why I should dedicate time to understanding for the purposes of enacting consistently'. There tends to be plenty of util rhetoric amongst it but that's generally circular in itself and doesn't address the issue. There's not much point in advocating a ethical system for others if you can't deal with the why.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 7:04:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:47:45 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/3/2010 6:23:05 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:39:30 PM, Freeman wrote:
If humanity ever does create a rationally justified universal conception of morality that doesn't depend on dogmatisms or superstition, will that put religion on the defensive? I think the answer is yes, because the sin que non of religion seems to be based off of its (rather silly) claims about ethics and values. Of course, moral relativism and moral nihilism would have to be largely abandoned/discredited before this happened. But supposing that humans created a rational scientific way of talking about morality, would that be the end of religion?

A rational, scientific way of talking about morality? Orly?

And if you want a system that doesn't depend on dogmatism and superstition you might wanna drop that preference utilitarianism thing you got going on there. :)

What dogmatisms and/or superstitions are you suffering to?

Oops

What dogmatisms and/or superstitions are you [referring] to?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2010 3:44:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:39:30 PM, Freeman wrote:
If humanity ever does create a rationally justified universal conception of morality that doesn't depend on dogmatisms or superstition, will that put religion on the defensive? I think the answer is yes, because the sin que non of religion seems to be based off of its (rather silly) claims about ethics and values. Of course, moral relativism and moral nihilism would have to be largely abandoned/discredited before this happened. But supposing that humans created a rational scientific way of talking about morality, would that be the end of religion?

Without moral relativism there is ONLY moral objectivity; God.
The Cross.. the Cross.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2010 11:40:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/4/2010 3:44:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Without moral relativism there is ONLY moral objectivity; God.

So if God appeared right now and commanded you to find the nearest 3 year old girl and rape her, this would be the moral thing to do?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 3:02:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/4/2010 11:40:24 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 6/4/2010 3:44:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Without moral relativism there is ONLY moral objectivity; God.

So if God appeared right now and commanded you to find the nearest 3 year old girl and rape her, this would be the moral thing to do?

But that is UTTERLY incompatible with God's Nature; He is goodness, He is Holy.

The question itself is a contradiction; like ' If black were white would you still call it black? '
The Cross.. the Cross.