The Moral Wars

[Norbert L]

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.

I'm not too sure whom this who is today. When Islamic societies who are in a majority acknowledging sacred today aren't having any better time of it.

Look at pre WW2 when going to church and believing in the sacred were predominant, what were they accepting of? Numerous sacred majority societies adopted ideas that lead to killing hundreds of millions of people. Consider Russia and Germany, the first adopts Marxist ideas and the second bases it's policies on eugenics.

Communism is still alive and well today and where it isn't accepted, instead of the science of eugenics we have higher education promoting critical race theory. The more things change the more they remain the same.

I believe the same evils that afflict mankind happen regardless of whether it's sacred or secular based.

 

[Bradskii]

We're dealing with ancient concepts here dating back to the beginning.

Indeed we are. Well before Christianity. But you are free to believe it originated with God. Those that have a different deity (or those who have none at all) will have their own opinions as to how it originated. But at least we know when it was first documented.

Do you think that God was the inspiration for the Egyptian and Chinese versions?

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm not too sure whom this who is today. When Islamic societies who are in a majority acknowledging sacred today aren't having any better time of it.

"Who" was identified in the first sentence of the OP (see below). Overall Islam seems to exert more control over moral standards within societies with an Islamic majority.

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.

I believe the same evils that afflict mankind happen regardless of whether it's sacred or secular based.

I agree - Christianity has nothing to brag about.

My point was an illustration of how Christianity is increasingly irrelevant in defining moral standards for secular Western society as a whole..

OB

 

[hedrick]

My point was an illustration of how Christianity is increasingly irrelevant in defining moral standards for secular Western society as a whole..

OB

Despite what conservative Protestants claim, Jesus never claimed to define a new morality. When asked by someone he pointed to the 10 commandments. He had his own way of interpreting them. But establishing new moral standards wasn't his mission. His mission was to bring God's Kingdom to earth, which translates to establishing a community to carry out his mission. While he certainly expected his people to be moral, he was more interested in things like loving God and neighbor, and showing that in justice, forgiveness and reconciliation.

That's why there's a battle within Christianity. Jesus' actual mission is battling against people who want to use Jesus to hold the line for a traditional culture that in many ways is more like the Pharisees that were Jesus' opponents.

 

[Occams Barber]

Despite what conservative Protestants claim, Jesus never claimed to define a new morality. When asked by someone he pointed to the 10 commandments. He had his own way of interpreting them. But establishing new moral standards wasn't his mission. His mission was to bring God's Kingdom to earth, which translates to establishing a community to carry out his mission. While he certainly expected his people to be moral, he was more interested in things like loving God and neighbor, and showing that in justice, forgiveness and reconciliation.

That's why there's a battle within Christianity. Jesus' actual mission is battling against people who want to use Jesus to hold the line for a traditional culture that in many ways is more like the Pharisees that were Jesus' opponents.

I'm don't have the competence to make a judgement on what Jesus may or may not have claimed. In the context of this thread (and many others) I usually evaluate Christianity by what it does - not what it 'ought' to do. I find the 'ought' argument to be little more than a No True Scotsman argument applied on a massive scale.

If you look at the sacred/secular issues listed in the OP, almost all attract the same moral judgement from both sides of the Christian aisle. Some may be more typically Catholic issues while others are more associated with Protestants.

However you define the 'oughts' there is no doubt that Christianity (of all flavours) sees itself as a force for morality. This includes Church leadership up to and including the Pope.

OB

 

[hedrick]

I'm don't have the competence to make a judgement on what Jesus may or may not have claimed. In the context of this thread (and many others) I usually evaluate Christianity by what it does - not what it 'ought' to do. I find the 'ought' argument to be little more than a No True Scotsman argument applied on a massive scale.

If you look at the sacred/secular issues listed in the OP, almost all attract the same moral judgement from both sides of the Christian aisle. Some may be more typically Catholic issues while others are more associated with Protestants.

However you define the 'oughts' there is no doubt that Christianity (of all flavours) sees itself as a force for morality. This includes Church leadership up to and including the Pope.

OB

Yes. I agree. I’m not claiming they aren’t Christian, nor that they represent a substantial group of Christians. Moralism was strongly embedded in Christianity from quite early. However a significant fraction of American Christianity doesn’t align Christianity with traditional sexual and gender policies. So i think your beef is with conservative Christianity, not the whole thing.

 

[Paidiske]

If you look at the sacred/secular issues listed in the OP, almost all attract the same moral judgement from both sides of the Christian aisle. Some may be more typically Catholic issues while others are more associated with Protestants.

These days the big dividing line in Christianity is not Catholic/Protestant but liberal/conservative. And I agree with hedrick that the two sides do not align themselves similarly towards the issues you've raised in your OP. In fact, in some ways, their different alignments on those issues almost define the two sides.

 

[Bradskii]

These days the big dividing line in Christianity is not Catholic/Protestant but liberal/conservative.

So very true. And each of those can be further sub-divided. Almost down to the individual level in some cases. So when someone says that society should return to a Christian morality, the obvious reply is: 'Which Christian morality are you thinking of?'

And the equally obvious, but generally unstated, response to that would be: 'Mine'.

And hey, I drove through Albury yesterday. If it had been a Sunday I would have checked to see what church you belong to.

 

[Bradskii]

Posted in error...

 

[Paidiske]

And hey, I drove through Albury yesterday. If it had been a Sunday I would have checked to see what church you belong to.

If you come through again, drop me a PM. Would be happy to have a coffee in person.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

I agree with what you've laid out in your OP in saying that the Secular form of morality is, and has been, winning for quite some time ... and I've always generally expected this to be the case, especially "these days."

 

[Occams Barber]

I agree with what you've laid out in your OP in saying that the Secular form of morality is, and has been, winning for quite some time ... and I've always generally expected this to be the case, especially "these days."

Hi Phil

Why are you not surprised?

Is it some 'end times' thing?

OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi Phil

Why are you not surprised?

Is it some 'end times' thing?

OB

Yeah. It's something along those lines. Having this kind of expectation beforehand, and knowing that there's little I can do about it all, makes it a little easier to digest.

 

[Occams Barber]

Yeah. It's something along those lines. Having this kind of expectation beforehand, and knowing that there's little I can do about it all, makes it a little easier to digest.

If you look across the entire range of morality there is more agreement between sacred and secular than there is disagreement.

Disagreement seems to be mainly confined to issues connected with sex and gender. With a couple of exceptions disagreement is also confined to rules which can't be easily justified without reference to the Bible.

OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you look across the entire range of morality there is more agreement between sacred and secular than there is disagreement.

Disagreement seems to be mainly confined to issues connected with sex and gender. With a couple of exceptions disagreement is also confined to rules which can't be easily justified without reference to the Bible.

OB

Sure. I've never disagreed with the notion of there being a basic subset of moral consensus among human beings, OB; and I've also always generally understood the Bible (Paul, especially) to imply that everyone outside the pail of sociopathy has a moral conscience of some sort.

It's just that, if the bible is true, I think we'd expect to see some kind of ongoing, historical contention to exist between Christians and folks in the rest of the World regarding selected nuances of morality and ethics.

 

[Occams Barber]

Sure. I've never disagreed with the notion of there being a basic subset of moral consensus among human beings, OB; and I've also always generally understood the Bible (Paul, especially) to imply that everyone outside the pail of sociopathy has a moral conscience of some sort.

It's just that, if the bible is true, I think we'd expect to see some kind of ongoing, historical contention to exist between Christians and folks in the rest of the World regarding selected nuances of morality and ethics.

There's also a series of subsets within Christianity' You can divide the Christian viewpoint into two major categories:

1. Christian doctrine - the authoritative version of what is morally correct. Generally slow to shift. Shift is usually based on reinterpretation
2. Christian behaviour/opinion - changes more easily and can conflict with doctrine

In the OP I talked about "Lost Causes". These are typically cases where Christian opinion/behaviour has shifted but doctrine is still, weakly, applied. The classic case is contraception and Catholicism.

Doctrine is complicated by differing interpretations by Church authorities, usually based on denominational beliefs.

Christian opinion tends to split along conservative/progressive lines. There 's also the issue of whether a Christian tacitly accepts a conflicting secular morality in the wider world vs accepting it within the Christian community - acceptance of homosexuality is an example.

Add in the fact that Christian opinion is also a subset of secular opinion and the whole thing is a bit of a mess.

OB

 

[PloverWing]

There 's also the issue of whether a Christian tacitly accepts a conflicting secular morality in the wider world vs accepting it within the Christian community - acceptance of homosexuality is an example.

This phrasing is bugging me, and it's reminding me of a bit from the OP:

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?

It sounds like you may be saying that, on the issues you've listed, the secular world has one view, and Christians have another, and over time Christians are giving up their religiously-based beliefs and becoming more secular on these issues. If that's what you're saying, I see it differently.

Many of us who hold liberal/progressive views on the issues you've listed do so as an active expression of our Christian faith. On science, we believe that God made the world, and we honor our Creator best when we study the world as God actually made it, rather than as we think God ought to have made it; the scientific study of the universe as it actually exists is an act of worship for us. On moral questions related to gender and sexuality, we believe that all people are beloved by God, that God hears the cries of the oppressed, and that it is shameful when God's people take the role of oppressors. We believe this because of the words of Jesus and of the Old Testament prophets.

So, I don't see "the secular view as winning on all fronts". While I agree that there are strong differences of opinion on these issues, I don't see it as secular vs Christian in this way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's also a series of subsets within Christianity' You can divide the Christian viewpoint into two major categories:

1. Christian doctrine - the authoritative version of what is morally correct. Generally slow to shift. Shift is usually based on reinterpretation
2. Christian behaviour/opinion - changes more easily and can conflict with doctrine

In the OP I talked about "Lost Causes". These are typically cases where Christian opinion/behaviour has shifted but doctrine is still, weakly, applied. The classic case is contraception and Catholicism.

Doctrine is complicated by differing interpretations by Church authorities, usually based on denominational beliefs.

Christian opinion tends to split along conservative/progressive lines. There 's also the issue of whether a Christian tacitly accepts a conflicting secular morality in the wider world vs accepting it within the Christian community - acceptance of homosexuality is an example.

Add in the fact that Christian opinion is also a subset of secular opinion and the whole thing is a bit of a mess.

OB

Oh, it's always been a little bit of a mess, going all the way back to the 1st century, OB. There have always been squabbles over "what EXACTLY is the right way to assess and act upon such and such social problem and doctrine X." And this is probably why Paul wrote the portion of the letter to the Romans that we call Chapter 14.

There's going to be differences of opinion on certain moral topics, and some of this simply comes because people are people living in a world where moral principles are not spelled out by nature on the face of rocks and the Bible itself isn't comprehensive in expounding upon every moral dilemma it attempts to treat upon (or for which the writers were aware could take place at the time).

So, I don't find it surprising that here, 20 centuries later, we're still dealing with varying moral opinions among people.

 

[stevenfrancis]

I suspect that morals are fixed and objective. Various cultures manipulate the civil, secular laws, which are in their power, so that matters of personal immorality favorable to the political ends of a given government or culture are enacted, thus giving the populace/governed the illusion of the power to change what is objectively right and wrong, with hopes of dulling the human conscience in a macro way. The only thing that seems unclear to me is why personal immorality is favorable to the governing/ruling class. Perhaps trying to win favor with the populace, and reinforce their preference of government over God thus securing more loyalty, and thereby increasing their power over the governed. And if over time they can dull the human conscience, then persons feel better about their immorality. This is saddest part of the whole matter. The loss of the personal sense of sin, and individual shame may end up having an effect on perseverance, and temperance. Destroy the ideals of personal virtue, and ultimately may effect salvation. The intrinsic safety tools which give a person the strength and virtue to avoid the concupiscent pull toward immorality are damaged or broken.

 

[Occams Barber]

I suspect that morals are fixed and objective.

I've spent decades looking for universal moral rules and I've yet to find one. Even 'thou shalt not murder' is not a fixed rule when you consider the range of killing various cultures tolerate. As far as I can see the only thing universal about morality is that all cultures have a concept of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. These rules have varied enormously over time, place and circumstances.

Various cultures manipulate the civil, secular laws, which are in their power, so that matters of personal immorality favorable to the political ends of a given government or culture are enacted, thus giving the populace/governed the illusion of the power to change what is objectively right and wrong, with hopes of dulling the human conscience in a macro way.

This is new one - secular morality as a conspiracy theory! If you look at the OP list you'll find that the shifts are largely due to shifts in public opinion over time. These shifts come about through a range of factors.

OB