Secular Moralism

[Jesse2014]

Why do some people think secular moralism is supreme over a moral belief based on a religious book?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why do some people think secular moralism is supreme over a moral belief based on a religious book?

I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "secular moralism", but I assume that you mean any non-religious moral outlook.

I'm sure that the reasons differ from individual to individual, but in my case it's simply that I don't believe in deities or divine revelation. The only successful moral outlook is going to be based on our natural godless reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[commonsence]

Read the Bible word for word and you will see

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Why do some people think secular moralism is supreme over a moral belief based on a religious book?

Because theistic moral philosophies derived from purported 'revelations' are ontologically vacuous, epistemologically vacuous, internally incoherent, absurd and destructive of the concepts of personal responsibility and justice, and consequently, the entire concept of morality itself.

Far from being a foundation for morality, religious 'holy books' are not even good fiction.

 

[True Scotsman]

Why do some people think secular moralism is supreme over a moral belief based on a religious book?

What Mark said pretty much covers it. I would add that for my part, the morality offered in the Bible is wrong and it is a morality that is destroying the world.

It is wrong to dump all other moral systems together into "secular moralism". Just because someone doesn't believe in a religious moral system does not mean that he automatically adopts a rational system. Most non-religious people I have met hold the same basic principles as religion, namely altruistic, self sacrificial, deontological.

Only a system based on the sovereignty of the individual is a moral system in my opinion. All others are immoral.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Why do some people think secular moralism is supreme over a moral belief based on a religious book?

It is. The reason being is because it can evolve to actually make society better. The ancient texts don't change and the people who follow them don't want to change them.

But we've moved almost 100% from every moral of ancient texts. Think if the Mayans were still alive and some people still followed their laws. Sacrifices would be happening all over the place to appease the gods.

And of course we can take examples from the bible like.

"You shall not make idols."

And yet ...

Do you see how easy it is to break that? Secular morality is based on what's for the good of the people, which is what this nation was founded on, not for the appeasement of a god. This is why we made amazing strides in advancement, both socially and economically.

We recognize the silliness of the morals and laws of ancient religions and understood that an absolute moral structure is only a recipe for chaos. So we created our own ancient text that is able to be CHANGED in order to foster growth and benefit in our society based on the needs of the people, not a god.

Some changes were absolute failures

Some changes were revolutionary

But that's the beauty of it. We have the ability to see what will and what won't work and change it if necessary. Which is why vile passages like this

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV))

or

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

(1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NIV))

Will never become a law in this nation. Many other nations have followed our lead.

 

[WirSindBettler]

But we've moved almost 100% from every moral of ancient texts. Think if the Mayans were still alive and some people still followed their laws. Sacrifices would be happening all over the place to appease the gods.

Bu we haven't! Yes, while society is steadily moving away from Judeo-Christian values, you're still preaching secular values from the house that Papa Christendom built!

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV))

There's a difference between the Moral and Civil/Ceremonial Laws (the latter of which Christ fulfilled).

(1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NIV))

Refers only to women in ministerial positions.

There's a great article on the subject which I think all would benefit from reading:

Do Secular Family Values Even Exist?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Bu we haven't! Yes, while society is steadily moving away from Judeo-Christian values, you're still preaching secular values from the house that Papa Christendom built!

Wrong. Getting McDonalds now, but you're wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do some people think secular moralism is supreme over a moral belief based on a religious book?

I wouldn't say that it is "supreme" in that sense. Secular moralism is always going to be a work in progress.

Rather, people use secular moralism to determine which religious books they will follow, and which parts of those religions are moral or immoral. Just look at how many religious people in the West decry the evils done in the name of Islam. They are using secular moralism to determine if an act done in the name of religion is moral, and the people doing that are christians in many cases. IOW, people use their own sense of morality to determine if a deity and/or religion are moral.

 

[WirSindBettler]

Wrong. Getting McDonalds now, but you're wrong.

No, I'm not. To quote Hans Fiene, whose article I posted, and will link again below,

Imagine you have an obnoxiously wealthy cousin whose father gave him a Malibu mansion stuffed with cash for his eighteenth birthday. One day, you’re complaining to your cousin about being worn down by the overbearing boss at your nine-to-five job, and he tells you, “Look, I don’t know why you put up with all that. After all, you don’t need a job to have money. Just look at me!”

In arguing that atheists don’t need to believe in some sky ogre to be morally upstanding citizens, Zuckerman shows himself to be the ethical version of the trust-fund brat. “For secular people, morality is predicated on one simple principle: empathetic reciprocity, widely known as the Golden Rule,” he states, seemingly oblivious that the Golden Rule originated from the mouth of Jesus. “Treating other people as you would like to be treated. It is an ancient, universal ethical imperative. And it requires no supernatural beliefs.”

But Zuckerman is missing one important caveat in his assertion that atheists are just as capable of living morally, that caveat being “if they live in a house built by religious hands.” So no, an atheist doesn’t need to believe in God to recognize that it’s wrong to take the lives of people who are weaker or seemingly less significant than he is. In fact, the Bible itself actually makes this point in Romans 2.

But history is littered with societies that haven’t drawn this same conclusion, so why isn’t the average atheist arguing that we should chuck our sickly infants off a cliff, Spartan-style? Because his conscience has been formed by Western laws and societal expectations that have been born of a Christian worldview on the sanctity and equality of life. Does an atheist need to believe in Christ to insist that slavery is indefensible? No, but considering how prevalent slavery still is in the world, why do American unbelievers oppose it? Because, just like American believers, their views on slavery have been formed by the Christian conscience that drove the abolition movement and still dominates our culture today.

While faith in Christ can be abandoned in an instant, it takes generations for the influence of a Christian worldview to leave the cultural bloodstream, and we’re nowhere near that point in the western world. So when Zuckerman submits the low crime rates of Sweden and Denmark, two secular nations that were both highly religious until about seven minutes ago, as evidence of atheism’s ability to construct a prosperous society, this isn’t the argument of a man who genuinely doesn’t know why Scandinavia lacks crime (hint: it lacks poverty). Rather, this is the argument of a trust-fund kid who is too insecure to admit that his epically moral life is primarily due to living in the mansion that Daddy Christendom built.(Do Secular Family Values Even Exist?)

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I'm not. To quote Hans Fiene, whose article I posted, and will link again below,

"The average atheist’s conscience has been formed by Western laws and societal expectations that have been born of a Christian worldview on the sanctity and equality of life."--Hans Fiene

That is completely untrue. Western laws were a reaction to governments that suppressed the population based on religious edicts. Freedom FROM religion was a reaction to such things as the Inquisition and the persecution of one religion at the hands of another. You have to look no further than christian theocracies for the worst examples of injustice and lack of sanctity for life.

 

[WirSindBettler]

"The average atheist’s conscience has been formed by Western laws and societal expectations that have been born of a Christian worldview on the sanctity and equality of life."--Hans Fiene

That is completely untrue. Western laws were a reaction to governments that suppressed the population based on religious edicts.

And your examples are?

Freedom FROM religion was a reaction to such things as the Inquisition and the persecution of one religion at the hands of another.

And what revolutionary laws we still abide to were formed after the inquisition?

You have to look no further than christian theocracies for the worst examples of injustice and lack of sanctity for life.

Yep. Because the Pope is a war criminal, and Vatican City contains the worst examples of injustice and lack of sanctity for life.

 

[Loudmouth]

And your examples are?

Ever heard of the Inquisition?

And what revolutionary laws we still abide to were formed after the inquisition?

The revolutionary laws that went against the divine right given to the King by God?

Or the revolutionary laws that said you can believe what you wish instead fighting wars in the name of a religion as was done in Europe?

 

[WirSindBettler]

Ever heard of the Inquisition?

And that's an example of the fact that "Western laws were a reaction to governments that suppressed the population based on religious edicts"?

The revolutionary laws that went against the divine right given to the King by God?

Or the revolutionary laws that said you can believe what you wish instead fighting wars in the name of a religion as was done in Europe?

So the Magna Carta silenced religion in England? And the Crusades were mandatory?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Bu we haven't! Yes, while society is steadily moving away from Judeo-Christian values, you're still preaching secular values from the house that Papa Christendom built!

I am well aware that Christianity has claimed authorship of morality. It has never been anything but vacuous naked assertion, one that that Christianity can't even justify internally.

 

[WirSindBettler]

I am well aware that Christianity has claimed authorship of morality. It has never been anything but vacuous naked assertion, one that that Christianity can't even justify internally.

We as Christians don't claim authorship of morality, we point to God on that one.

 

[Loudmouth]

And that's an example of the fact that "Western laws were a reaction to governments that suppressed the population based on religious edicts"?

The separation of church and state in the US Constitution was a direct result of the religious wars and oppression in Europe.

So the Magna Carta silenced religion in England? And the Crusades were mandatory?

Another example of "Christian worldview on the sanctity and equality of life":

"Then the Spanish Inquisition targeted primarily forced converts from Judaism who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it. Jewish conversos still resided in Spain and often hiddenly (cryptically) practiced Judaism and were suspected by the "Old Christians" of being Crypto-Jews. The Spanish Inquisition generated much wealth and income for the church and individual inquisitors by confiscating the property of the persecutees or selling them into slavery."
Forced conversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bhsmte]

Why do some people think secular moralism is supreme over a moral belief based on a religious book?

It depends.

If a person uses the religious book to justify judging and condemning others, it is bad. Some though, use the book in positive ways.

Bottom line, Christians can be moral and immoral and non believers can be moral and immoral.

Many factors involved in determining who is which.

 

[WirSindBettler]

The separation of church and state in the US Constitution was a direct result of the religious wars and oppression in Europe.

Sort of, but not completely. Though oppression played a large part, the religious wars aspect did not.

Another example of "Christian worldview on the sanctity and equality of life":

"Then the Spanish Inquisition targeted primarily forced converts from Judaism who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it. Jewish conversos still resided in Spain and often hiddenly (cryptically) practiced Judaism and were suspected by the "Old Christians" of being Crypto-Jews. The Spanish Inquisition generated much wealth and income for the church and individual inquisitors by confiscating the property of the persecutees or selling them into slavery."
Forced conversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because all Christians are 15th Century Spanish Catholics. Is that the only example you have?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sort of, but not completely. Though oppression played a large part, the religious wars aspect did not.



Because all Christians are 15th Century Spanish Catholics. Is that the only example you have?

I am showing you the historical baggage that Americans inherited from christian theocracies. It is the exact opposite of the picture that Fiene painted.