The Moral Wars

[Occams Barber]

Sacred vs Secular – The Moral Wars

If we go back as little as 100 years, Christianity and secular Western opinion would have, more or less, publicly agreed on a set of moral values or rules.

In my lifetime I’ve seen a gradual separation of sacred and secular opinion on a number of major issues usually - but not always - related to sexual behaviour. This moral rupture appears to be ongoing. In trying to list the various areas of sacred/secular conflict I ended up dividing the list into three groups:

Major Conflicts
Areas where Christian doctrine and the opinions of Christians more or less agree and are in opposition to a secular majority. These are the ongoing hard-fought battles where the split is basically along sacred/secular lines.

Lesser Conflicts
Areas where Christian opinion and doctrine is mixed. While many Christians accept the secular view there is still a significant and vocal Christian opposition based on doctrinal arguments. Outside of the US many of these would qualify as ‘Lost Causes’.

Lost Causes?
The true is/oughts. Concepts which may have Christian doctrinal disagreement but have essentially lost the battle. Quietly accepted by most Westernised Christians.

The list:

Major Conflicts
· Abortion
· Assisted dying
· Same sex marriage
· Gender transition – particularly in younger people

Lesser Conflicts
· Evolution
· Age of the Earth/Universe
· Biblical literalism e.g.

o Genesis
o Noah’s flood
o The Tower of Babel​

· Acceptance of non-stereotypical gender behaviour

Lost Causes?
· Sexual activity outside of marriage
· Acceptance of homosexuality
· Female equality
· Contraception

• Marriage like relationships" (aka 'shacking up')
• Children out of wedlock" (single or partnered)
• Divorce

Is this list a reasonably summary of sacred/secular battle lines? What have I missed?

I see the secular view as winning on all fronts. Am I wrong?

This thread is not about who ‘ought’ to win but who, in real terms, is winning the battle for public acceptance.

OB
Edit: Red text = later additions

 

[bèlla]

I’ll take Lost Causes for $100 OB.

Sexual activity outside of marriage - That’s a goner
Acceptance of homosexuality - Greater tolerance
Female equality - There’s no turning back
Contraception - Will always remain

~bella

 

[Speedwell]

Here's one: gun control.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

 

[zippy2006]

This is an interesting post which I think it largely correct. I think the split which you call secular-religious could also be called progressive-conservative, or perhaps consensual-natural. That is, the "secular" sphere has embraced consent as the ultimate moral criterion, and perhaps even the sole moral criterion, whereas religions tend to be much more cognizant of nature. For the secular world man and his will is the measure of all things, whereas for the religious God and his creation bring with them limits that cannot be trespassed in good conscience. This sort of analysis would apply to everything you list except Evolution (which is a bit of an odd duck in your list).

Gender transition – particularly in younger people

Transgenderism might be the weakest candidate for a purely secular agenda (due to the fact that seculars are very divided on the issue), but it illustrates my point above well. In the case of transgenderism you literally have human will and consent attempting to overcome nature by brute force: to make men women and women men.

So perhaps the "secular" in your post simply represents the stripping away of morality, or the minimizing of morality to the principle of consent, whereas the religious view has a much richer and older understanding of morality.

 

[Rachel20]

I see the secular view as winning on all fronts. Am I wrong?

I think you're quite right, and I think it's to be expected based on my reading of scripture.

 

[Occams Barber]

I’ll take Lost Causes for $100 OB.

Sexual activity outside of marriage - That’s a goner
Acceptance of homosexuality - Greater tolerance
Female equality - There’s no turning back
Contraception - Will always remain

~bella

You win - I'm not going to bet against you.

The two 'Lost Causes' I should probably have included are "marriage like relationships" (aka 'shacking up') and "having a child out of wedlock" (single or partnered)

OB

 

[bèlla]

You win - I'm not going to bet against you.

The two 'Lost Causes' I should probably have included are "marriage like relationships" (aka 'shacking up') and "having a child out of wedlock" (single or partnered)

OB

Add them and edit the OP. You may find others to add later.

 

[Occams Barber]

Here's one: gun control.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

I see gun control as borderline for this list for three reasons:

1.Its strictly a US issue. This list is about Western societies in general
2 Gun control is as much about nationalism as it is about Christianity - again it's US specific. Gun control is not relevant to (for instance) Australian Christians who would have a totally different viewto many US Christians.
3. Gun control isn't a doctrinal issue.

OB

 

[zippy2006]

So perhaps the "secular" in your post simply represents the stripping away of morality, or the minimizing of morality to the principle of consent, whereas the religious view has a much richer and older understanding of morality.

In addition, I think you actually see a secular acknowledgment of nature in the ethics of care (i.e. self-care, care for the environment, care for the dispossessed, etc.). That sphere of morality does go beyond consent and mere self-will, and seems to be largely in accord with the religious traditions.

So there isn't an inherent cleavage between secular and religious. Indeed the cleavage seems to have more to do with the split occasioned by modern philosophy and the modern spirit of dominating nature than with a simple question of religiosity.

 

[Occams Barber]

This sort of analysis would apply to everything you list except Evolution (which is a bit of an odd duck in your list).

You're right about Evolution. While it's a conflict between some interpretations of Christian doctrine vs secular fact/opinion it isn't a moral issue. The same could be said for a lot of Bible literalism. I cheated a bit by slipping them in to the conversation.

So perhaps the "secular" in your post simply represents the stripping away of morality, or the minimizing of morality to the principle of consent, whereas the religious view has a much richer and older understanding of morality.

We'll never agree. I see much of this as a maturation of morality. While there are a couple of items in there which could be argued on the grounds of harmfulness, in general these items are only immoral based on Divine Command Theory. They are wrong because they are defined as wrong by the Bible/God. They are not intrinsically harmful. This is why they are losing the battle.

 

[Strathos]

Here's one: gun control.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

That's a tenet of the religion of Americanism, not Christianity.

 

[zippy2006]

You're right about Evolution. While it's a conflict between some interpretations of Christian doctrine vs secular fact/opinion it isn't a moral issue. The same could be said for a lot of Bible literalism. I cheated a bit by slipping them in to the conversation.

Haha, true.

We'll never agree. I see much of this as a maturation of morality. While there are a couple of items in there which could be argued on the grounds of harmfulness, in general these items are only immoral based on Divine Command Theory. They are wrong because they are defined as wrong by the Bible/God. They are not intrinsically harmful. This is why they are losing the battle.

In general I wouldn't recommend the tactic of, "You're just saying that for no reason at all!" That is basically what the atheist's appeal to Divine Command Theory comes down to, and it really isn't in accord with history. Natural law ethics is an enormous part of religious morality, and it is one that predates 1517.

I like Joseph Ratzinger on this topic, and last night I read his essay, "Bishops, Theologians, and Morality," which is about conscience and the modern conception of morality and is very much on topic. His assessment is cultural, historical, and philosophical, and not merely religious.

But my view of things is not uncommon in the secular world either. The famous Harvard scholar, Michael Sandel, has argued in great detail that the truncation of morality along the lines of the modern principle of consent is a tragic error. Yet Sandel is only unique insofar as he favors the older, richer, common-good based morality. Virtually all scholars of morality that I know of admit that modern morality has become strongly focused around the principle of consent. While many of them--like yourself--think this is a better model, a "maturation," none of them would contest my basic point here. Another left-leaning secular who has written a great deal on the differences between these two moral worldviews is Jonathan Haidt, although he does so with an eye to U.S. politics. ...and no, there exists no scholarly opinion that the religious-conservative moral outlook is an outcome of a random "Divine Command Theory."

P.S. Sandel's Harvard course is freely available online, and highlights some of the basic differences between these two moral outlooks: Michael Sandel: Justice.

 

[SilverBear]

Sacred vs Secular – The Moral Wars

If we go back as little as 100 years, Christianity and secular Western opinion would have, more or less, publicly agreed on a set of moral values or rules.

In my lifetime I’ve seen a gradual separation of sacred and secular opinion on a number of major issues usually - but not always - related to sexual behaviour. This moral rupture appears to be ongoing. In trying to list the various areas of sacred/secular conflict I ended up dividing the list into three groups:

Major Conflicts
Areas where Christian doctrine and the opinions of Christians more or less agree and are in opposition to a secular majority. These are the ongoing hard-fought battles where the split is basically along sacred/secular lines.

Lesser Conflicts
Areas where Christian opinion and doctrine is mixed. While many Christians accept the secular view there is still a significant and vocal Christian opposition based on doctrinal arguments. Outside of the US many of these would qualify as ‘Lost Causes’.

Lost Causes?
The true is/oughts. Concepts which may have Christian doctrinal disagreement but have essentially lost the battle. Quietly accepted by most Westernised Christians.

The list:

Major Conflicts
· Abortion
· Assisted dying
· Same sex marriage
· Gender transition – particularly in younger people

Lesser Conflicts
· Evolution
· Age of the Earth/Universe
· Biblical literalism e.g.

o Genesis
o Noah’s flood
o The Tower of Babel​

· Acceptance of non-stereotypical gender behaviour

Lost Causes?
· Sexual activity outside of marriage
· Acceptance of homosexuality
· Female equality
· Contraception

• Marriage like relationships" (aka 'shacking up')
• Children out of wedlock" (single or partnered)

Is this list a reasonably summary of sacred/secular battle lines? What have I missed?

I see the secular view as winning on all fronts. Am I wrong?

This thread is not about who ‘ought’ to win but who, in real terms, is winning the battle for public acceptance.

OB
Edit: Red text = later additions

you started with the faulty assumption that the sacred position is the moral one

 

[Occams Barber]

you started with the faulty assumption that the sacred position is the moral one

I did? My personal view is entirely secular.

I was trying very hard to be even handed and not define a default option. If anything I thought my 'secular' viewpoint was bleeding through.

In a sense the Christian view is the default since it's the one which has existed up to now. Most of the moral change I've seen has been a push back against a prevailing Christian standard.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Haha, true.



In general I wouldn't recommend the tactic of, "You're just saying that for no reason at all!" That is basically what the atheist's appeal to Divine Command Theory comes down to, and it really isn't in accord with history. Natural law ethics is an enormous part of religious morality, and it is one that predates 1517.

I like Joseph Ratzinger on this topic, and last night I read his essay, "Bishops, Theologians, and Morality," which is about conscience and the modern conception of morality and is very much on topic. His assessment is cultural, historical, and philosophical, and not merely religious.

But my view of things is not uncommon in the secular world either. The famous Harvard scholar, Michael Sandel, has argued in great detail that the truncation of morality along the lines of the modern principle of consent is a tragic error. Yet Sandel is only unique insofar as he favors the older, richer, common-good based morality. Virtually all scholars of morality that I know of admit that modern morality has become strongly focused around the principle of consent. While many of them--like yourself--think this is a better model, a "maturation," none of them would contest my basic point here. Another left-leaning secular who has written a great deal on the differences between these two moral worldviews is Jonathan Haidt, although he does so with an eye to U.S. politics. ...and no, there exists no scholarly opinion that the religious-conservative moral outlook is an outcome of a random "Divine Command Theory."

P.S. Sandel's Harvard course is freely available online, and highlights some of the basic differences between these two moral outlooks: Michael Sandel: Justice.

I would describe myself as a moral relativist. What is right and proper depends on time and place and has been based on concepts like common good or, equally, on a superstitious belief or a misunderstanding of the way things work. While there has always been morality, what is considered right or wrong has historically covered a huge range of, often conflicting, possibilities. By maturation I mean the gradual elimination of superstitious belief as a determinant of rightness or wrongness. It also includes subjective decisions about what makes the world a better place.

OB

 

[Paidiske]

Personally, I think the defining major conflict - which, while not always explicit, often underlies many other conflicts - is actually the idea that religious communities (by which I mean churches, synagogues, mosques, temples etc and the people who cluster around them; not just monasteries which is often the more limited sense of the term) have a valid place in society and a right to set their own boundaries, define their own identity and decide their own practice.

Gradually we are seeing that idea - once taken for granted - being increasingly challenged and encroached upon by the state. And although I might find particular encroachments necessary or good or positive individually, I find the trend that the state feels it can encroach in that way concerning.

We might possibly call this conflict: the right to ecclesial self-determination. (With the caveat that that's a very Christianity-centric term).

 

[Occams Barber]

I think you're quite right, and I think it's to be expected based on my reading of scripture.

Thanks Rachel

Can I guess that you see these moral shifts as signs of an impending end time or approaching Judgement?

OB

 

[PloverWing]

I would move abortion, same sex marriage, and gender transition to the category of "areas where Christian opinion and doctrine is mixed". By your labels, that makes them "Lesser Conflicts", even though the conflicts over them are quite heated. But the conflict is occurring within Christianity; it's not a unified Christianity vs the secular world.

 

[zippy2006]

Personally, I think the defining major conflict - which, while not always explicit, often underlies many other conflicts - is actually the idea that religious communities (by which I mean churches, synagogues, mosques, temples etc and the people who cluster around them; not just monasteries which is often the more limited sense of the term) have a valid place in society and a right to set their own boundaries, define their own identity and decide their own practice.

Gradually we are seeing that idea - once taken for granted - being increasingly challenged and encroached upon by the state. And although I might find particular encroachments necessary or good or positive individually, I find the trend that the state feels it can encroach in that way concerning.

We might possibly call this conflict: the right to ecclesial self-determination. (With the caveat that that's a very Christianity-centric term).

I suppose there are two issues: societal morality and religious freedom, or: debates over public policy and debates over the internal rights of religious organizations. Abortion would clearly fall into the first category, as many religious oppose abortion on a societal level and not only for their own adherents. In the United States the transgender issue might fall into the second category insofar as there is pressure from transgender groups to prevent parents from raising their children according to non-transgender beliefs.

I do agree that secular morality proselytizes and coerces in a way that our age has never before seen.

 

[Paidiske]

I suppose there are two issues: societal morality and religious freedom. Abortion would clearly fall into the first category, as many religious oppose abortion on a societal level and not only for their own adherents. In the United States the transgender issue might fall into the second category insofar as there is pressure from transgender groups to prevent parents from raising their children according to non-transgender beliefs.

I do agree that secular morality proselytizes and coerces in a way that our age has never before seen.

You're right that not everything that's a major issue is a major issue because of what I posted about. But I think even many of those major issues which are not inherently related derive a good bit of their emotional investment and energy from the conflict that I pointed out.

When people feel that society is going to hell in a handbasket, and they feel as if the community in which they wish to seek refuge from that is under threat, it creates a fair degree of anxiety, with all that flows from that.