Which of these goes on top?

Posted by: captainsparrow

Do we put morality above religion or religion above morality? Is God above goodness or is goodness above God?

Vote
52 Total Votes
1

Morality

43 votes
8 comments
2

Religion

5 votes
2 comments
3

Neither

The traditional view; God and goodness are equally absolute.
4 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Mharman says2017-01-17T13:48:49.8369950Z
Morality = Religion.
captainsparrow says2017-01-18T00:11:46.4050278Z
@Mharman Are you saying whatever is moral is what religion says is moral?
brinzahar says2017-02-10T20:03:06.5048975Z
Religion does not equal morality.
JesusIsWithUs says2017-02-28T16:48:33.1925816Z
As an atheist this is pretty straightforward for me. This means that the idea of goodness makes sense to a lot of people who don't need religion.
gamefreak23788 says2017-04-04T07:21:35.5799152Z
Morality most certainly does not equal religion.
WavingBows says2017-06-26T00:01:22.1219199Z
Morality is definitely above religion, and here's why. First of all, it's important to establish a difference between the two. I'm not a religious person, but my understanding is that a religion will include gods (or God), and the expected relationships between humans and said gods (or God). Maybe you don't eat certain kinds of meat, or you worship, or give charity. In my literal mind any form of the aforementioned is a religion. Morality is a sense of right and wrong; a moral person won't bludgeon you in the head if you cut him in line. Bear in mind I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive. Religion has moral teachings, but you can be moral with no belief. The kicker for me is that a religion relies on its followers to have faith in deities, whereas morality doesn't. I know I'm treading into very volatile territory here, but in my opinion there is no room for morality to be subjective. If something can increase the quality of or even save a life (or even better, multiple lives) is it objectively moral. Take abortion, for example. In the book Brain Bugs by Dean Buonomano, the author includes an anecdote about a nine-year-old Brazilian girl who is raped and impregnated with twins, whose abortion was a national scandal. Say what you will about pro-life, but the author makes clear that the 80-pound girl probably wouldn't survive pregnancy with twins. This leaves us with some hard options. I've left numbers next to each option with the net amount of people who benefit. 1) Girl definitely lives, twins definitely die. (-1) 2) Girl and twins die. (-3) 3) Girl and twins live, but twins don't have a capable mother. (-3) 4) Girl dies in childbirth, same as option 3. I know that not everybody will like this quantification, but I feel I make my point. It is objectively moral in this case to guarantee that the girl lives and she isn't beleaguered with infants at the age of nine, and to prevent the birth of two children who probably wouldn't have the maternal (or paternal, of course) support to be successful as adults. What I neglected to mention was that the Archbishop of Recife both attempted to prevent the abortion and, when unsuccessful, later excommunicated the girl's mother for allowing it (but not the man who raped the girl in the first place, mind.) The Archbishop is even quoted in the New York Times as saying: “It’s the law of God: Do not kill.” Yet while the abortion directly kills two, the net amount of people saved is counterbalanced by the nine-year-old's guaranteed survival and lack of parental duties before physical and emotional maturity. The twins in all probability could never lead a fulfilling life without proper parental support. I know this was a bit of a doozy, but do you see how blind faith in accepted teaching can be effectively overturned by an empirical view of right and wrong? Yes, I know -- it's insensitive. But herein lies the crux of the argument: a religion forces you to see certain issues differently than if you really observed them. In my mind this is no different than saying that the Sun is the center of the Solar System or that the Earth is older than 6,000 years; their emotional baggage is irrelevant to the facts. Therefore, morality must be seen as both separate from religion and above it.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.