[QUOTE=Glamour;51116916]No? I'd like some more elaboration on this[/QUOTE]
Western society is built upon Christian ethics and morals. Of course, liberalism (though this itself was also strongly influenced by [URL="http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/inventing-the-individual-by-larry-siedentop/"]Christianity[/URL]) and the Classics (though the influence of the [URL="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity"]Classics[/URL] is massively overstated and Christianity was infinitely more important in shaping our society). This is what allowed our societies to become tolerant, prosperous and simply better in every concievable way compared to non-Christian societies. Of course, there are many other aspects to this story, but denying the influence of Christianity is foolish.
Currently, we are free riding off of Christian morals and ethics. People like to pretend their ethics are secular, or based off of something else, but in reality most of use the Christian ethics we were brought up with. Of course, it is possible to come up with alternative secular moral systems, but they are both inferior systems and require far too much complicated Philosophy to be adopted by the masses. One example of the triumph of Christian ethics is in the abolition of slavery. If we look back, it was not liberals, or classicists, or anyone like that calling for abolition. It was people who we would call religious fanatics (particularly British Quakers and Methodists). This, of course, is just one of many potential examples.
We may see some short-term gains from our secularism - in particular, the decline of intolerance of sexual minorities, and perhaps some reduction in the blocking of scientific progress - though this is very much overblown once we move past Galileo. But ultimately, Christian ethics, which our society is built upon and in many ways are tremendously helpful in allowing liberalism (in the classical sense) to exist, do rely upon the continuation of religion in some form. Secularism will not bring us to the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoN1fhEMhvU"]sunlit uplands[/URL]. I certainly don't view it as a good thing, and when being more pessimistic I think it is a very bad thing in the long-run if we really do need real Christianity to maintain Christian ethics.
[QUOTE=Keelwar;51117018]at the risk of sounding edgy and stupid, i feel that as intelligence and education is cultivated, organized religion is found to be increasingly irrelevant as a source of ideals as people are becoming smart enough to develop their own worldviews and codes for themselves. in that light, it's wonderful news that Scotland is progressing with a more secular and educated society.[/QUOTE]
I think you're right, and we can already see it disappearing from most western countries. It's best to let this change run its course naturally. Forcing it would obviously be bad.
[QUOTE=da space core;51117009]My goodness
I was applauding the movement to secular ideals.
You can be religious and secular, IE not extreme.
I don't care if you are Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, or pastafarist. As long as you don't use it to promote extremist ideas, what does it matter?[/QUOTE]
That's not what secular means. Secularity just means removed from religion. In this case, it means that more people are either not practicing, not religious, or not organized. How extreme your values or political, moral, or personal ideals don't have anything to do with it.
[editline]oh hamburgers[/editline]
Don't get me wrong, it's a great thing in politics. Religious government has no place in a modern society. But in terms of peoples' personal lives, it isn't different from any other religious stance.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51117027]I think you're right, and we can already see it disappearing from most western countries. It's best to let this change run its course naturally. Forcing it would obviously be bad.[/QUOTE]
I think most intelligent people become atheists for at least some time in their lives simply because of the inherently non-provable nature of the question of the existence of God. However, once we move past that and ignore the question of 'is it true?' and examine religion from a more sociological lens, then I think more people will see the very many benefits of it.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117023]Western society is built upon Christian ethics and morals. Of course, liberalism (though this itself was also strongly influenced by [URL="http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/inventing-the-individual-by-larry-siedentop/"]Christianity[/URL]) and the Classics (though the influence of the [URL="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity"]Classics[/URL] is massively overstated and Christianity was infinitely more important in shaping our society). This is what allowed our societies to become tolerant, prosperous and simply better in every concievable way compared to non-Christian societies. Of course, there are many other aspects to this story, but denying the influence of Christianity is foolish.
Currently, we are free riding off of Christian morals and ethics. People like to pretend their ethics are secular, or based off of something else, but in reality most of use the Christian ethics we were brought up with. Of course, it is possible to come up with alternative secular moral systems, but they are both inferior systems and require far too much complicated Philosophy to be adopted by the masses. One example of the triumph of Christian ethics is in the abolition of slavery. If we look back, it was not liberals, or classicists, or anyone like that calling for abolition. It was people who we would call religious fanatics (particularly British Quakers and Methodists). This, of course, is just one of many potential examples.
We may see some short-term gains from our secularism - in particular, the decline of intolerance of sexual minorities, and perhaps some reduction in the blocking of scientific progress - though this is very much overblown once we move past Galileo. But ultimately, Christian ethics, which our society is built upon and in many ways are tremendously helpful in allowing liberalism (in the classical sense) to exist, do rely upon the continuation of religion in some form. Secularism will not bring us to the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoN1fhEMhvU"]sunlit uplands[/URL]. I certainly don't view it as a good thing, and when being more pessimistic I think it is a very bad thing in the long-run if we really do need real Christianity to maintain Christian ethics.[/QUOTE]
Im not sure where to start, particularly since im on a phone, but i don't think its fair to credit the idea "dont be a dick" to Christianity alone.
Edit: i will agree that historically there were nations and governments built off of religion, including Christianity.
[QUOTE] People like to pretend their ethics are secular, or based off of something else, but in reality most of use the Christian ethics we were brought up with. Of course, it is possible to come up with alternative secular moral systems, but they are both inferior systems and require far too much complicated Philosophy to be adopted by the masses. [/QUOTE]
What does this mean?
[QUOTE] One example of the triumph of Christian ethics is in the abolition of slavery[/QUOTE]
Christianity was also used to excuse slavery.
Religions in general are way too open to interpretation, thats the issue with your argument
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117023]Western society is built upon Christian ethics and morals. Of course, liberalism (though this itself was also strongly influenced by [URL="http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/inventing-the-individual-by-larry-siedentop/"]Christianity[/URL]) and the Classics (though the influence of the [URL="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity"]Classics[/URL] is massively overstated and Christianity was infinitely more important in shaping our society). This is what allowed our societies to become tolerant, prosperous and simply better in every concievable way compared to non-Christian societies. Of course, there are many other aspects to this story, but denying the influence of Christianity is foolish.
Currently, we are free riding off of Christian morals and ethics. People like to pretend their ethics are secular, or based off of something else, but in reality most of use the Christian ethics we were brought up with. Of course, it is possible to come up with alternative secular moral systems, but they are both inferior systems and require far too much complicated Philosophy to be adopted by the masses. One example of the triumph of Christian ethics is in the abolition of slavery. If we look back, it was not liberals, or classicists, or anyone like that calling for abolition. It was people who we would call religious fanatics (particularly British Quakers and Methodists). This, of course, is just one of many potential examples.
We may see some short-term gains from our secularism - in particular, the decline of intolerance of sexual minorities, and perhaps some reduction in the blocking of scientific progress - though this is very much overblown once we move past Galileo. But ultimately, Christian ethics, which our society is built upon and in many ways are tremendously helpful in allowing liberalism (in the classical sense) to exist, do rely upon the continuation of religion in some form. Secularism will not bring us to the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoN1fhEMhvU"]sunlit uplands[/URL]. I certainly don't view it as a good thing, and when being more pessimistic I think it is a very bad thing in the long-run if we really do need real Christianity to maintain Christian ethics.[/QUOTE]
your argument is cherry picking enormously (mentioning that the slave trade was abolished by Christians is to ignore the fact that the slave trade was established and maintained by Christians), and is extremely similar to the Nietzsche theory of morality with regard to the "common folk"
the issue is that I imagine you'll say that anyone who was a Christian who perpetuated these issues was "not a real Christian or not properly following Christian ethics"
almost every protection to the rights of man that have been put in place were not enforced by religion, but by man - every piece of literature furthering civil rights has been at a place where we have pushed further away from religious influence - the greatest surge forwards in individual rights has been the establishment of law and rights in government and judgement.
ethics has never been in a better place, where rights are guaranteed [I]not by divine text or by religious doctrine[/I] but by the irrefutable nature of man being respected - that is a far greater ethical groundrock than any christian ethical system - conditioned innate respect of humans [I]based on that fact alone.[/I]
we can talk about how great Christian ethics are until the cows come home, but forgive me if I raise an eyebrow considering the secularisation of the world happens to have followed enormous social progress, while Christianity has declined
this is nothing to say that christian ethics have not been useful in the past, but their usefulness has been served and they can now be retired
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117023]One example of the triumph of Christian ethics is in the abolition of slavery.[/QUOTE]
You're deluded. The decision to abolish slavery by Lincoln was made solely for the benefit of the country, not because of any religious calling. He wrote in a letter to Horace Greeley that he would have just as quickly allowed it to continue if he thought it would benefit the Union. Lincoln was a president devoted to his country, not his religion.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117023]Western society is built upon Christian ethics and morals. Of course, liberalism (though this itself was also strongly influenced by [URL="http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/inventing-the-individual-by-larry-siedentop/"]Christianity[/URL]) and the Classics (though the influence of the [URL="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity"]Classics[/URL] is massively overstated and Christianity was infinitely more important in shaping our society). This is what allowed our societies to become tolerant, prosperous and simply better in every concievable way compared to non-Christian societies. Of course, there are many other aspects to this story, but denying the influence of Christianity is foolish.
Currently, we are free riding off of Christian morals and ethics. People like to pretend their ethics are secular, or based off of something else, but in reality most of use the Christian ethics we were brought up with. Of course, it is possible to come up with alternative secular moral systems, but they are both inferior systems and require far too much complicated Philosophy to be adopted by the masses. One example of the triumph of Christian ethics is in the abolition of slavery. If we look back, it was not liberals, or classicists, or anyone like that calling for abolition. It was people who we would call religious fanatics (particularly British Quakers and Methodists). This, of course, is just one of many potential examples.
We may see some short-term gains from our secularism - in particular, the decline of intolerance of sexual minorities, and perhaps some reduction in the blocking of scientific progress - though this is very much overblown once we move past Galileo. But ultimately, Christian ethics, which our society is built upon and in many ways are tremendously helpful in allowing liberalism (in the classical sense) to exist, do rely upon the continuation of religion in some form. Secularism will not bring us to the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoN1fhEMhvU"]sunlit uplands[/URL]. I certainly don't view it as a good thing, and when being more pessimistic I think it is a very bad thing in the long-run if we really do need real Christianity to maintain Christian ethics.[/QUOTE]
Not really, much of modern Christian Ethics is based on Greek philosophy, it's not like without it you'll suddenly have mass murder in the streets.
Christian Ethics are dying because while some of them are good, much of it is totally arbitrary or even actively harmful. We can maintain the morals that are good without keeping Christianity around.
Trying to use the abolitionist movement is also pretty dishonest since Christian morals were also used to justify slavery, many citing the curse of Ham as a reason for why black people were supposed to be slaves along with the many other sections of the bible which actively condoned slavery.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51116966]Basically yes. The latter is a growing trend at least in the US and it's very, very scary.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't call that scary. Losing tradition is a natural progression in society. Sure it's probably good to preserve it in a history book or something but there's no reason to adhere to tradition, really
[QUOTE=Bobie;51116989]every religion ever: you [B]must[/B] at all costs live your life in this [I]specific[/I] way!
paramud: religion doesn't actually have any bearing on ideals[/QUOTE]
you should study more religions
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51117120]Not really, much of modern Christian Ethics is based on Greek philosophy, it's not like without it you'll suddenly have mass murder in the streets.
Christian Ethics are dying because while some of them are good, much of it is totally arbitrary or even actively harmful. We can maintain the morals that are good without keeping Christianity around.
Trying to use the abolitionist movement is also pretty dishonest since Christian morals were also used to justify slavery, many citing the curse of Ham as a reason for why black people were supposed to be slaves along with the many other sections of the bible which actively condoned slavery.[/QUOTE]
Basically this. While Christianity may have been instrumental in the founding and early years of our nations, religion serves no purpose now. The country does not suddenly become morally bankrupt as more people switch to a nonreligious worldview, because the principles that govern a country's society remain largely unchanged, becoming part of a national or global identity rather than attributed to faith.
[QUOTE=Keelwar;51117018]at the risk of sounding edgy and stupid, i feel that as intelligence and education is cultivated, organized religion is found to be increasingly irrelevant as a source of ideals as people are becoming smart enough to develop their own worldviews and codes for themselves. in that light, it's wonderful news that Scotland is progressing with a more secular and educated society.[/QUOTE]
nah it's just we're all too drunk and/or depressed to care
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51117149]you should study more religions[/QUOTE]
In particular, compare Abrahamic religions with religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and 'religions' (though they are barely religions by our standards) like Shinto and Confucianism/neo-Confucianism (which despite being a philosophical system basically become a 'religious' one like Shinto)
[QUOTE=archangel125;51117151]Basically this. While Christianity may have been instrumental in the founding and early years of our nations, religion serves no purpose now. The country does not suddenly become morally bankrupt as more people switch to a nonreligious worldview, because the principles that govern a country's society remain largely unchanged, becoming part of a national or global identity rather than attributed to faith.[/QUOTE]
it's literally the argument presented in Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche
which is kinda funny seeing as Nietzsche's view on Christian ethics was [url=http://oldweb.sbc.edu/sites/default/files/Honors/Moosa_0.pdf]not the greatest tripadvisor review[/url]
[QUOTE=da space core;51117009]My goodness
I was applauding the movement to secular ideals.
You can be religious and secular, IE not extreme.
I don't care if you are Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, or pastafarist. As long as you don't use it to promote extremist ideas, what does it matter?
[editline]27th September 2016[/editline]
Mind explaining why?[/QUOTE]
Huh?
You posted [QUOTE]A move to more secular ideals is always a good sign [/QUOTE] in a thread about a country losing it's religion then claim [QUOTE]You can be religious and secular [/QUOTE]as your defence when called out.
Do you understand what secular means?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117162]In particular, compare Abrahamic religions with religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and 'religions' (though they are barely religions by our standards) like Shinto and Confucianism/neo-Confucianism (which despite being a philosophical system basically become a 'religious' one like Shinto)[/QUOTE]
I'd say Hinduism certainly fits the bill of a religion because it's definitely theistic.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51117175]I'd say Hinduism certainly fits the bill of a religion because it's definitely theistic.[/QUOTE]
I was talking about the latter two (Shinto and Confucianism) when I say they barely qualify as religions.
[editline]27th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51117167]it's literally the argument presented in Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche
which is kinda funny seeing as Nietzsche's view on Christian ethics was [url=http://oldweb.sbc.edu/sites/default/files/Honors/Moosa_0.pdf]not the greatest tripadvisor review[/url][/QUOTE]
Well, I'm honoured to have made a similar argument (though pushing a completely different form of ethics in my case) as a renowned (but also reviled?) philosopher by accident I guess?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117187]Well, I'm honoured to have made a similar argument (though pushing a completely different form of ethics in my case) as a renowned (but also reviled?) philosopher by accident I guess?[/QUOTE]
No, it's entirely coherent. You've bought into Christian ethics, which has a certain viewpoint on humans, such that you believe when it is lost, people fall into nihilism
the irony is that you and nietzsche aren't arguing a completely different form of ethics, but very much the same thing, except that nietzsche's take on it was that christian ethics were self-deprecating and parasitic as a result of the values you've come to hold in esteem
same ethical coin, different takes
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117187]I was talking about the latter two (Shinto and Confucianism) when I say they barely qualify as religions.
[editline]27th September 2016[/editline]
Well, I'm honoured to have made a similar argument (though pushing a completely different form of ethics in my case) as a renowned (but also reviled?) philosopher by accident I guess?[/QUOTE]
I don't know for sure because I haven't read that book, but I *think* Cloak might've been referring to my argument.
Oh, never mind. I stand corrected.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51117229]I don't know for sure because I haven't read that book, but I *think* Cloak might've been referring to my argument.
Oh, never mind. I stand corrected.[/QUOTE]
you're saying a similar thing, but nietzsche came to the same conclusion that you did (sort of, he believed/hoped that ethics would transform into a positive force based around the overman. science kinda features in it as well as a replacement for religion but his views are a bit mixed there)
the grandest irony of it all is that the sort of people that Nietzsche was MOST concerned about going completely nihilistic when christian ethics faded, was, well, flashmarsh
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51117241]you're saying a similar thing, but nietzsche came to the same conclusion that you did (sort of, he believed/hoped that ethics would transform into a positive force based around the overman. science kinda features in it as well as a replacement for religion but his views are a bit mixed there)
the grandest irony of it all is that the sort of people that Nietzsche was MOST concerned about going completely nihilistic when christian ethics faded, was, well, flashmarsh[/QUOTE]
Why would I go completely nihilistic? I'm not a Christian. I'm just a conservative who came to recognise the benefits of religion.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117281]Why would I go completely nihilistic? I'm not a Christian. I'm just a conservative who came to recognise the benefits of religion.[/QUOTE]
because your value system is pegged in christian ethics
if you were saying that christian ethics existed as an incredibly powerful force for pressing a value system upon people, then that'd be fine
but you've expressed that you think that a) western society is grounded and "riding on christian morals" b) that christian value systems are strictly superior to others because it allowed western society to progress further than others (becoming the best) and c) secular moral systems are inferior
so what are you telling me, you think that christian values are the best value system on the planet but you don't follow them?
I do follow them. I just don't really believe in the existence of God. So I guess I am most at risk of going nihilistic? Well, maybe. I don't think I personally would, I just think that people in general might.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117315]I do follow them. I just don't really believe in the existence of God.[/QUOTE]
right, and you yourself said that the christian value system is pegged in "the continuation of religion"
if your christian value system does not rely upon christianity, nor belief in the existence of god, in what sense is it a christian value system
and if this is the case for you, then why is it the case that others who hold the christian value system require the christian god to validate them?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117315]I do follow them. I just don't really believe in the existence of God. So I guess I am most at risk of going nihilistic? Well, maybe. I don't think I personally would, I just think that people in general might.[/QUOTE]
If you have Christian ethics while not being Christian, they're not Christian ethics. They're just ethics.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51117322]right, and you yourself said that the christian value system is pegged in "the continuation of religion"
if your christian value system does not rely upon christianity, nor belief in the existence of god, in what sense is it a christian value system[/QUOTE]
It does rely upon Christianity. It doesn't rely upon everyone believing in the existence of God, but it helps with the first part. I guess I take the same viewpoint as the surprisingly numerous atheist ministers and bishops in the CofE.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117315]I do follow them. I just don't really believe in the existence of God. So I guess I am most at risk of going nihilistic? Well, maybe. I don't think I personally would, I just think that people in general might.[/QUOTE]
If you yourself can follow "Christian ethics" without yourself being a christian then how can you say that the downward trend of the christian religon will stop people from following christian ethics?
You're contradicting your own argument with your beliefs.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117340]It does rely upon Christianity. It doesn't rely upon everyone believing in the existence of God, but it helps with the first part. I guess I take the same viewpoint as the surprisingly numerous atheist ministers and bishops in the CofE.[/QUOTE]
So your ethical system relies upon christianity, but does not rely upon everyone believing in god
can you see where this is utterly absurd
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51117350]So your ethical system relies upon christianity, but does not rely upon everyone believing in god
can you see where this is utterly absurd[/QUOTE]
No. Religion has never relied upon everyone believing in the literal existence of God. Walk into any Church and you will find a sizable percentage do not literally think God exists if you make them answer honestly. The same applies to the Clergy as well. However, it does rely upon a reasonable amount of people actually believing in God.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51117342]If you yourself can follow "Christian ethics" without yourself being a christian then how can you say that the downward trend of the christian religon will stop people from following christian ethics?
You're contradicting your own argument with your beliefs.[/QUOTE]
Views of individuals are not the same as view as people in general. I think that plenty of people will continue following Christian ethics for a long time despite not being personally religious. However, I think the likelihood is that over a longer timeframe we will see a decline in this and more potential for nihilism.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117391]No. Religion has never relied upon everyone believing in the literal existence of God. Walk into any Church and you will find a sizable percentage do not literally think God exists if you make them answer honestly. The same applies to the Clergy as well. However, it does rely upon a reasonable amount of people actually believing in God.[/QUOTE]
so you hold that people can be a christian, while violating the central tenant of Christianity?
you hold that people can be a christian, when the definition of a christian is someone who believes in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, the son of god?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
