Morality, Science, and Religion

[StudentOfGod]

So as some of you know, I've been on a spiritual journey, trying to find the faith that works best for me.

Now this is the question that I've pondered from time to time. I've formulated my own answers, but I'm curious as to what everybody else thinks.

In the battle between atheism and theism, the morality argument is often used. Some people believe that religion is necessary to teach people right from wrong. Just take a look at the political campaigning of the religious Right in America for an example of that.

I'm reminded of Steven Weinberg's quote:

"Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. For good people to do bad things. That takes religion."

And of course, Freeman Dyson's corollary statement that for bad people to do good things, also takes religion."

These men were physicists, and I think they would both agree that science doesn't, and shouldn't, have a foothold in the argument on morality, but my question is: Should religion? While religion has the capacity to impart morality, is it absolutely necessary? Or is religion merely one particular pathway towards morality, much like different faiths can be a particular pathway towards God/Universe/Nature/Harmony or whatever it is your particular belief calls it?

Looking forward to hearing your replies.

 

[DeanM]

Religion is one path.

One of many.

 

[StudentOfGod]

I suspect that posting the question in this particular forum will garner much the same answer as yours.

I'd be curious to know what the less liberal Christians would have to say on the subject. Perhaps I should repost the question elsewhere and compare notes.

Thanks for the quick response.

Religion is one path.

One of many.

 

[TheManeki]

The powerful thing about atheists and agnostics is that they do good for the sake of doing good, not through fear of divine punishment or in anticipation of divine rewards. Many, but by no means all, religious folk could learn from this.

Similarly, many (but not all) religious folk focus so much on the next world that the present one is neglected. Atheists and agnostics believe this is their only shot, and strive to make the world around them a better place.

 

[Kris10leigh]

The powerful thing about atheists and agnostics is that they do good for the sake of doing good, not through fear of divine punishment or in anticipation of divine rewards. Many, but by no means all, religious folk could learn from this.

Ain't that the truth!

I'm a huge believer in morality standing on its own. Take the Muslim extremists, for example. They quite religious, but I wouldn't call them "good".

I am actually offended when people who don't know me well say, "She's a good Christian." Well, how do you know that, exactly? I could just as well be a good atheist. What about my being good tells people I'm a Christian?

I do lead a good and kind life, or strive to, but not because Jesus told me to. I do so because it's the right thing to do in a civilized society.

 

[Kris10leigh]

By the way, Student of God, I'm very much enjoying the discussions you're bringing up. Keep 'em coming!

 

[DavinMochrie]

It's a bad thing for our world if people take their morality from religion. What ends up happening is they also confuse their politics for their religion.

I believe God would act on people's heart to change their ways through the Holy Spirit. Not any obedience to a group of people and their dogma.

So Morality should be a spiritual experience.

 

[AzA]

So Morality should be a spiritual experience.

And by "spiritual experience" do you mean something akin to "transcendent" or "beyond ego/self"?

Because atheists and agnostics aren't necessarily blind to the transcendent. They know the good, beautiful, and true just as well as the religious.

 

[DavinMochrie]

And by "spiritual experience" do you mean something akin to "transcendent" or "beyond ego/self"?

Because atheists and agnostics aren't necessarily blind to the transcendent. They know the good, beautiful, and true just as well as the religious.

Yes, agreed. That's what I meant.

 

[Gukkor]

At its core, religion is morality, and vice versa. Other matters are just minor details by comparison. I personally believe that it is through one's actions and choices in life that one becomes aligned with God's will, not through one's beliefs about God's nature or even existence. This is why Christ said that whatever we do or don't do for each other, we do or don't do for Him.

 

[champuru]

So as some of you know, I've been on a spiritual journey, trying to find the faith that works best for me.

Now this is the question that I've pondered from time to time. I've formulated my own answers, but I'm curious as to what everybody else thinks.

In the battle between atheism and theism, the morality argument is often used. Some people believe that religion is necessary to teach people right from wrong. Just take a look at the political campaigning of the religious Right in America for an example of that.

I'm reminded of Steven Weinberg's quote:

"Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. For good people to do bad things. That takes religion."

And of course, Freeman Dyson's corollary statement that for bad people to do good things, also takes religion."

These men were physicists, and I think they would both agree that science doesn't, and shouldn't, have a foothold in the argument on morality, but my question is: Should religion? While religion has the capacity to impart morality, is it absolutely necessary? Or is religion merely one particular pathway towards morality, much like different faiths can be a particular pathway towards God/Universe/Nature/Harmony or whatever it is your particular belief calls it?

Looking forward to hearing your replies.

Morality can and does stand on its own. That being said, Christian people are more likely to feel obligated to not only be moral but to be charitable. Sure there are Christians who are immoral and greed... infact there are many. And sure there are non-religious people who are moral and charitable. The bottom line is that Christians usually have a tendency to be moral.

 

[Ave Maria]

I would like to recommend the United Church of Christ. It is a good denomination that is pretty liberal but orthodox meaning that they accept the Nicene and Apostles Creeds as a standard of orthodoxy. Well, I don't believe that is official but I am pretty sure that most members of a United Church of Christ congregation would say that they consider the Nicene and Apostles Creeds to be standards of orthodoxy. I know I do and I attend a United Church of Christ congregation.

That said, it's totally up to you which denomination or religion you choose. I am not attempting to proselytize you. I am just giving you one option among many.

Also, you might want to look in to the Unitarian Universalists. They are a pretty good group of people and they are even more liberal than many members of the United Church of Christ.

I hope that you find a church/religion that suits you well. All the best to you!

PaladinGirl

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

The bottom line is that Christians usually have a tendency to be moral.

A definition of goodness based on social conformity to conventional rules is not genuinely moral unless it is motivated by reason and conviction rather than fear or self-preservation. Obedience to gain reward or avoid wrath is prudence, not morality. Therefore, given the emphasis Christianity places on attaining heaven and preservation from hell, my question is whether the tendency of many to be moral might not simply be a tendency to be prudent.
.

 

[StudentOfGod]

Thanks! I'll do my best. And thanks for adding to the dialogue. I very much appreciate it.

Cheers!

By the way, Student of God, I'm very much enjoying the discussions you're bringing up. Keep 'em coming!

 

[champuru]

A definition of goodness based on social conformity to conventional rules is not genuinely moral unless it is motivated by reason and conviction rather than fear or self-preservation. Obedience to gain reward or avoid wrath is prudence, not morality. Therefore, given the emphasis Christianity places on attaining heaven and preservation from hell, my question is whether the tendency of many to be moral might not simply be a tendency to be prudent.
.

based on the fact that salvation is gained through accepting that jesus died for our sins and not good works, i think it is a tendency to be moral over prudent. but then again that would have to be determined on an individual basis.

 

[Cris413]

Hi everyone...

I've never posted in here before...but I have read your FSGs and I think it's OK for me to post...if you all don't mind......as I'm pretty much an uber conservative...

The OP also posted this question in the Conservative Forum...noting he posted it here as well...so I thought I'd take a look. I found many of the replies here quite interesting and I hope it's OK if I share my reply in the CC forum:

I think an important understading to consider is:

The Gospel is not a code of ethics or morals; not a creed to be accepted; not a system of religion to be adhered to; not good advice to follow...

It is a divine Person, Jesus Christ. He died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; He was buried and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures:

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

Consider the story of the Prodigal son (Luke 15) Did the father say "My son has become good"? No...He said:

Luk 15:21 And the son said to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
Luk 15:22 "But the father said to his servants, "Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet.
Luk 15:23 And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry;
Luk 15:24 for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' And they began to be merry.



Christ did not come to make bad men good; but to give dead men LIFE!



~ Supplemental notes by Chuck Missler: The Book of Romans 2007 Koinonia House Inc.


This is from a study my hubby and I are doing through the Book of Romans.

I'm not here to debate or anything...just wanted to share my thoughts with you......and I'm quite interested in your views on this subject.

Thanks everyone!

Blessings!

 

[StudentOfGod]

I assume you refer to prudence in the human sense, and not in the Christian sense of prudence, which is considered a great moral virtue.

Proverbs 2:11-15
“prudence will watch over you;
and understanding will guard you.
It will save you from the way of evil,
from those who speak perversely,
who forsake the paths of uprightness
to walk in the ways of darkness,
who rejoice in doing evil
and delight in the perverseness of evil;
those whose paths are crooked,
and who are devious in their ways.”​

​

As defined by traditional Christian theology, and according to St. Thomas prudence is, , "the right reason applied to action." Prudence is, therefore, descriptive of the ability of an individual to distinguish right from wrong. As opposed to the now more commonly employed usage of the word to denote cautiousness.

I agree with you that the motivation behind the action should be the deciding factor in its morality. Good should be done for the sake of good. Not for fear of punishment. I guess the question then becomes whether or not a religious individual is capable of making the distinction. Or if there even is a distinction within the religion. If a person did good their entire life out of a fear of a divine punishment, and not because they genuinely wanted to do good, would they still get to go to Heaven? (assuming that a heaven existed)

A definition of goodness based on social conformity to conventional rules is not genuinely moral unless it is motivated by reason and conviction rather than fear or self-preservation. Obedience to gain reward or avoid wrath is prudence, not morality. Therefore, given the emphasis Christianity places on attaining heaven and preservation from hell, my question is whether the tendency of many to be moral might not simply be a tendency to be prudent.
.

 

[TheManeki]

Did someone say "Prudence?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF-UlTE_mHs

 

[Minty]

Welcome to WWMC Cris413

The powerful thing about atheists and agnostics is that they do good for the sake of doing good, not through fear of divine punishment or in anticipation of divine rewards. Many, but by no means all, religious folk could learn from this.

Similarly, many (but not all) religious folk focus so much on the next world that the present one is neglected. Atheists and agnostics believe this is their only shot, and strive to make the world around them a better place.

Well said, TM, well said