Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Spirituality & Religion' started by chad, Jan 5, 2006.
No offense, but it is pretty sophomoric to put morality with the other two.
I think secular philosophical discussions should be included.
Atheists and agnostics may not see ethical issues as related to religion, while those of a religious bent often derive their sense of ethics from their religion.
If you have a different view, please feel free to elaborate.
Fixed your post to help you.
I'm of a religious bent, and I don't derive my sense of science from religion. I know lots of other religious people, and not a one of them derives their sense of science from religion, but that's besides the point.
This is more on point: You swapped "ethics" for "science". Why?
In an earlier discussion there was an article linked to where the author said something along the lines of "the last thing we want is to take away the external moral compass of billions of people who don't believe they have an internal one."
how 'bout moral/ethical phenomenology. we'll have a BS abbreviation of mep. that should get really obnoxious fast. or just morality. most of us are not smart enough to be philosophy profs. morality will do for a soccer board (Chad if I were in one of your classes or teaching a philosophy course I'd be arguing along your side).
Which poses an interesting question: do those who consider themselves religious (as opposed to "spiritual, but not religious", for whom the answer is much more clear) believe they draw their moral compass internally or externally? Perhaps other religious folks (of whatever persuasion) can comment.
Personally, the religion of my youth had much to do with forming that moral compass, but the compass itself was (and is) kept internal. My current religious leanings give but one moral maxim: "Harm none". That leaves plenty of room for one's own interpretation by one's own moral compass. Of course, your experience and results may vary.
Sophomoric? Not really. It's all in Kant's writings.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what he meant, though.
Quite clearly you are, since you are completely wrong.
I'll leave it at this: the forum title is stupid and uneducated. Keep it if you must, but I don't see any good reason for doing so.
This is correct.
Sorry. You are wrong.
Wrong about what?
Darn Socratic method.
If you know what he was talking about, please tell me.
No idea. You're right, I just think the point is lost here.
Why? The title of the forum simply lists the topics that can be discussed in that forum. For example, there is a "Business and Media" forum. That does not mean those topics cannot be discussed separately, only that those are the two possible focuses of the posts in that forum. For a forum that can cover all sorts of religious and moral topics, this title is perfectly suitable.
I don't want to speak for Chad, but I think his point is that the forum should've been named "religion and spirituality."
Anybody notice that CNN has added a "Faith & Values" correspondent lately?
Seems like they're E! lite alotta times now.
How exactly am I wrong? Am I wrong in saying that Kant addressed this issue of morality and its relevance to religion? No.
Am I wrong in saying that I don't completely understand Kant? How the hell would you know?
Ok, my post was a bit over the top, and certainly it wasn't my intention to start a debate on Kant, but I do think morality and religion are undisputably linked, and certainly morality belongs in this forum. Why not? It seems to be the one issue eliciting the most discussion so far.
Especially note how people like to open threads about religious figures who are being immoral.
And for all of the bluster on the subject, I have yet to hear a cogent argument as to why the forum title is inappropriate. "It's sophomoric", "you're wrong" and "yes" simply do not appear to be well thought out positions.
Once again, the thought process behind adding "morality" (and I wanted to add "ethics" as well), is that some issues (say, abortion) are often debated inside and outside the realm of religious doctrine or dogma. The atheist or agnostic may (and often does) have important contributions to these discussions. Similarly, there are many typically secular topics (say, corporate responsibility) that can be debated in a religious or spiritual context. It would be a shame to keep such discussions cloistered in a catch-all "politics" forum, when they really fall outside the realm of politics (except in the broadest sense of the term -- all interpersonal dealings, after all, are politics).
If you have a real argument as to why the forum title is inappropriate, I'd love to hear it.
fair enough. he talked about religion and morality. The key here is that for Kant THE FRAMEWORK OF MORALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.
I'm good at judgment.
"If I have a real argument"? Lol. That's funny.
If I told you that morality is a normative and universal concept, would you understand? Do you know the difference between that and the false moralities of religions and cultures in which the term, as in your forum title, is used with a shaded connotation? Do you know what rational basis for agreement on a rule of conduct is? Can you distinguish between pragmatic practical reasoning? Value based practical reasoning? And pure rational reasoning?
Morality is a subject that is held up to the standard of critical rational analysis. Religion is not. Nor is spirituality. You think morality fits with the others only because you do not know the difference between morailty proper and the cultural misuse and abuse of the term. Descriptive practices should not be mistaken for normative ones.