Religion, Spirituality, AND Morality?

Until the above, you hadn't made one.

I would, but I'd then ask if by "normative and universal", you're referring to a planet-wide set of norms. I'd still understand, but I wouldn't necessarily agree.

I know that many religions have their own set of rules that they attempt to force on society.

Putting all the words together, I can guess...

Do you mean utilitarian, Aristoltean and deontological decision-making?

Assuming, of course, that you are right and that I have misused the term "morality", and not having $30- to spend on a month's worth of the OED, I went to Merriam-Webster to see how wrong I was.

Very obviously, if I'm going to get to the bottom of this, I'll need a definition for "Moral" as well as "Morality".

It seems to me that Merriam-Webster equate "morals" with "ethics", unless I'm reading this wrong.

Assuming that I'm not misinterpreting the above definition (there were a second and third, but both of them were irrelevant to the discussion), one can safely substitue "ethics" for morality. And, as anyone who's had a single undergraduate semester on ethics knows, there are three major types of ethical decision-making: Utilitarian, Deontological, and Values-based (or Aristotlean).

Let's go back to the abortion question I posed a couple of posts above. And let's get a bit more specific: the Parental Notification law. One who uses utilitarian decision-making may be inclined to weigh the number of botched abortions undergone by minors too scared to tell their parents about their pregnancy against the parents' need to know what's going on with their child. A deontological decision-maker would look to the constitution, weigh the right to privacy of a minor, and make their decision thusly. A values-based decision-maker would look at a unique example, and based on his own sense of "the good", as developed through the course of his life, make a decision on whether the parental notification law is a good thing for the child in question.

Three types of decision-making, six possible arguments, each of them as worthy as the last. Each of them also has a place in this forum. Even the most deeply religious person is not precluded from using these decision-making techniques. A fundamentalist of whatever religion may use any of these styles (Greater good: the world will be saved from God's wrath; Rules-based: It's in the scripture that we should do things this way; Values-based: That's the way I've been taught my whole life).

So, the agnostic or atheistic poster can have plenty to add to a discussion that starts out religious (provided that discussion isn't arguing fine points of scripture or doctrine), and I, for one, would appreciate that POV on this forum. Hence the word "Morality" in the forum. I apparently misunderstood the term, but lucked into it's fitting my needs rather well.

 

That's what a morals forum is, not what a religion forum is. Do you not see the inherent contradiction of having posters who believe morals are based on an inerrant book discussing morals with those who don't?
EDIT: I see chad's point as the notion that grouping morality with religion is inherently wrong. Because there is morality that is "religious" and there is morality which is a concept in it of itself. By relegating morality to this forum you invite the never-ending God/no God debate. Why? Because for those who visit this forum to discuss religion, they'll all claim religion equals morals. For those who aren't religious, that's a fundamental problem, and its a problem that cannot be gotten around.
What you've done is created the equivalent of a "Germand Bundesliga and Bayern Munich" forum. Bayern fans will say "Bayern is the best", while the rest of the fans will say that's wrong. Morality can be religious and it can be non-religious. To group it with Religion and Spirituality is a) wrong from a logical standpoint, because morals can be discussed without religion, and this is a religious forum first b) wrong from a relative standpoint because it assumes the linking if religion and morality (and if you say "to promote discussion", think why fora on race horses don't encourage discussion of cars)
c) wrong from the standpoint of what it seeks to encourage discussion of. Its the equivalent of creating a "religions rivalries" forum, because my conception of where morality stems from will never find anything in common with someone who believes it comes from a divinely inspired book.

Now, granted, I could have chad's point wrong, and of course, I've used fewer big words than he did, but that's because this is a philosophical discussion, a field in which I'm expressly an intellectual dilletante.

 

Again, none taken. And while I'd love to see exactly how, why and where I was wrong, I'm not holding my breath, having seen your pre-edit reply .

Thank you for at least taking the time to present your argument on the issue. And no, I had no desire to debate a philosophy professor on ethics (in fact, I tried like hell to use an etymological approach, but came up empty). Enjoy your evening.

 

Not all religious people believe in the infallibility of scripture. For real. Most clergy I know don't believe in the infallibility of scripture. I didn't as a Christian, and I certainly don't now.

 

Really? Gosh, me and Segroves will have so much to talk about now.
Now that we have that giant strawman out of the way, please answer my actual point, which is that those who are Christian, and therefore believe that the Bible is divinely inspired (and I never claimed they necessarily believe in its inerrancy) take their concept of morality from God. Because if they don't, I wonder what the point of their Christianity is.

 

Since Caesar asked, and my edited post already touched on this, this is an argument that has no logical conclusion. Why not just stick all football debate into one board then?
Creating this forum is logically like creating a forum on contradictory concepts. Its not Business, Media and Communism, is it?

 

I don't think all Christian clergy would even agree on the Bible being divinely inspired. The teaching of Jesus and the prophets was inspired, the Bible communicates that inspiration. Seems generally in line with things like the documentary hypothesis on authorship of the Pentateuch and Kerygmatic interpretation of the Bible.

 

That's really much of a muchness, don't you think? Me being divinely inspired when I write something and me writing down something that was divinely inspired is........pretty much the same thing.

Doesn't really change my point.

 

This bit here (emphasis mine)

sure looks like you were talking about folks who believe in the infallibility of scripture. However, since I apparently misread your quote...

I'm not going to argue that religious people (for the most part) don't take their morality (in varying degrees) from their deity of choice through their interpretation of scripture they believe divinely inspired. However, it's that interpretation that is so important.

Find me a left-leaning Christian or Jew that takes the fact that the story of Sodom and Gommorah is in the Pentateuch to mean that "God Hates F@gs". Or even, more liberally interpreted, that if you are sexually deviant, God will turn your ass into a pillar of salt. You'll be looking a while. Now, while this would never have crossed the mind of someone who doesn't follow one of the Religions of the Book, those who do will (hopefully) have given the story some critical thought. That doesn't diminish their devotion to their religion -- it probably enhances it.

 

Sure it does. The conclusion is: shut up and start talking about religion, spirituality, and/or morality. Or not.

The topics are all ones which frequently have interconnected threads, and are all ones that the same group of people in Politics debate. Already two of the threads in the forum (the gay priest and the chair annointing) are about morality as it is practiced by certain religious people. Sounds like the topics mix together just fine. Communism does not have a similar relationship to soccer business and media.

 

That its inerrant does not mean that its literal. If you are unhappy about that, consider my wording revised to "divinely inspired message". There.
EDIT: Come to think of it, please find me Christians who believe certain parts of the Bible are wrong (ergo, errant) rather than less than literal. Good luck.

WTF? Just because a Jew doesn't believe the Pillar of Salt story means he doesn't believe morality comes from the Bible? There's some cognitive dissonance here.
Your consistent attempt to claim that I believe all religious people their holy books LITERALLY, something I've never said, is a strawman that has seen you ignore my entire argument. I know tilting with windmills is fun, but it sure looks weird.

 

Not the argument I was referring to and you know it.

But religion is already so intimately interconnected to politics shunting it here is some sort of statement that it isn't. By including morality here we're muddying the waters to such an extent as to make me wonder just what the point is. The History subforum made perfect sense. This seems like wishful thinking on behalf of the admins to steer debate to one area. Pat Robertson's comments on Sharon's death are inherently political and religious at the same time, as is so often the case. Throwing morality in here just makes this forum even more incomprehensible. I mean, if this was strictly a forum for discussions of religious dogma, OK. But morality is yet another monkey wrench in this morass of wheels.

Sure it does. "Fox Sports is oppressing the working man". Voila. Hell, that gets all 4 terms (soccer, communism, business and communism) into one thread!

 

From a review of Jack Spong's latest book The Sins of Scripture

A Christian Bishop, finding certain parts of the Bible wrong.

 

Nope. Still don't. Regardless of the genesis of those morals, approaching a topic from a moral standpoint can lead to engaging discussion

No they won't.

Why not? Those of vastly different political persuasions are frequently able to have civil debate on the Politics board. Why can't theists and non-theists (of whatever stripe) do the same thing?

Throwing Bayern Muenchen in there is inherently dramatizing the situation

See, we agree on something already.

1. Who said this was a religion forum first? 2. What about the ability to discuss morality without religion precludes simultaneous discussion of morality that may include religion or spirituality?

Why did every Western philosopher up until the Enlightenment (and perhaps beyond) include God or The Gods in his works? Because there is a link there. It's certainly not exclusive, but there is a link.

Again, why does the genesis of one's moral compass have to be a starting point for moral discussion? [/QUOTE]

 

So you're using tracts by a radical church member (and there is no doubt that he's radical) to prove a larger point? Good work.

 

Um.......OK dude. You really like this forum. You may have been the one who asked for it. More power to you. But if you genuinely do not see the problem with the above..........wow. Just WOW. Where one draws his morality has EVERYTHING to do with its implementation.

Knock yourself out.

Sorry, had to address this, because, frankly, its........well thick. Sorry. But its truly thick. All previous philosophers addressed God when discussing morality (and I'm not even sure that's correct) because they believed in God. Which is why they discussed God. You know, it was the being from whom moral thought stemmed. So for you to say "there's a connection" is......just thick. For those who believe in God, obviously they're going to find the connection. That does not mean morality as a concept has anything to do with God. It might if you believe in God, but if you don't, of course you'd find no link.
My mind still boggles at the above.

Come to think of it, chad, did Plato have that much to say about God and morality?

 

Hey, you asked... (and since I'm volunteering for the diocese where he used to be Bishop, his name came to mind first). But he must have some kind of following, else he wouldn't have his own PPV website (bishopspong.com) and such a large number of books in print.

I'd have mentioned my dad (a priest for many years under Spong's episcopate), but he's no longer with us. I'd have mentioned most of dad's friends in the diocese, but you'd not have heard of them. Radical, certainly. But that's the brand of Christianity I was raised with. So, perhaps you can understand that I see a broader sense of someone who's "Religious" than most.

 

This doesn't help your argument, as the number of people like that is too small to matter for the point of the debate. Whatever your religious proclivities, they have no bearing on my point.

 

So I'm thick. There's something I'm really not seeing. But certainly I'm not beyond help. Bear with me a moment and indulge me with the answer to one last question:

I'm at an environmentalist rally, 'cause I hold the Earth sacred. An atheist is at the same rally, 'cause he believes it is wrong to leave a legacy of destruction and pollution to subsequent generations. How do he and I not have a starting point to discuss the morality of the target of our pending civil disobedience?