1 Is it wrong to refer to people who misrepresent Christianity as "Christians"?
It depends what we mean by “misrepresent”. The unique belief of Christianity is the Trinitarian God: Father; Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. If someone says they are Christian, then that's the belief they wish to be associated with (whether they believe it or not).
2 Did Christian reformers undo the evils of Christianty's misrepresentation?
No – reformers are people who change things for the better, generally putting an end to situations which are wrong. Whether those reformers claim to be Christian or not, is irrelevant. As for the second part of the question, it's not "Christianity's Misrepresentation" that's evil. Evil behaviour is hevil.
3 Surely humanist values have their roots in Judaeo-Christian religious belief?
No. Humanism is a way of thinking that is centred on human beings, their values, and welfare, without the need for religious belief. This concept existed long before Judaism and Christianity and is generally recognised as common sense. It's very difficult to find anyone who disagrees with the inherent good of humanist values, regardless of their religion (or lack of).
3.1 Can you describe how and why "being concerned with human welfare" translates into a specific set of moral imperatives valid in all circumstances?
It's impossible to say whether any view is valid in all circumstances. Being concerned with human welfare is akin to the Golden Rule. It does raise another question: Why limit ourselves to human welfare? A universal version would say being concerned with the welfare of all living things. Anyway, I can't think of a moral imperative which isn't based on a concern for human welfare.
4 If humanism has no need for religious belief, then what is the impetus for humanists to be morally good?
Humanists have the same reasons to be good as anyone else, with the exception of eternal rewards post-mortem. Not everyone needs religious belief to be a good person. The fact that people with no religious belief have an impetus to be good, demonstrates that human beings don't necessarily need God to be good (but arguably, some people do, as per the Father Christmas principle).
5 Is there a long term trend towards secular humanism?
Yes. If we compare the numbers of secular humanists today compared to 5000 years ago, the trend is clear. It appears to be part of humanity's societal evolution.
6 Have Christian values influenced society for the better?
It depends what we mean by “Christian values.” The belief in the trinitarian God doesn't appear to make any difference. But if we pick the best practice from all religions and ideologies (i.e. those with the greatest benefits) then we can apply the generic label of “humanist values” to them and avoid pointless arguments about which supernatural entity owns the copyright on a particular “value”.
6.1 Are you claiming that anyone's choices cannot be influenced by any persuasive means?
I think this is asking whether people can be influenced and persuaded to behave in certain ways, and the answer is of course yes. The complexities of human nature mean that different people are influenced in different ways and to different degrees. Hypnotism is a good example. Some people are more susceptible than others.
7 If the moral code of a particular religion anchors its basis in the imperatives of the spiritual realm, then surely subscribing to such a moral code makes a difference to one's actions?
Subscribing to something like that makes no difference to one's actions. (Having a religious doctrine enforced upon oneself can affect one's actions as per the Father Christmas principle). However, if the behaviour of people is influenced by others in a position of power who have persuaded the population that their authority comes from a “higher” supernatural authority, then that population is in a vulnerable and potentially dangerous situation (essentially, a dictatorship).
8 Did Jesus sum up the "core values" of Christianity as loving God wholeheartedly and loving others as oneself?
We will never know for certain what Jesus said, but in this example, we see a commandment to Love God, followed by the golden rule. The former is not a value, and the latter is not unique to Christianity, so that statement does not describe “core values” of Christianity.
8.1 Without Scripture, The Golden Rule is just an opinion
Not at all. The Golden Rule is a fundamental moral principle which appears throughout human history (and in the Bible of course). It is common sense, that is, it is sound and practical. It can be justified by logic and reason, and even a child can grasp it.
8.2 Do the teachings of Jesus have a Buddhist/Taoist origin?
We may never know the true origins of those messages. What we do know is that they are not unique to Christianity and were recorded centuries before the authors of the Bible attributed them to Jesus. To quote Buddha… “Hatred will not cease by hatred, but by love alone. This is the ancient law.” (also see #8 and #10).
Direct comparisons of teachings from Buddha vs teachings from Jesus can be found here but we will never know if this close correlation is the result of influence, plagiarism or coincidence. I'd suggest the latter, given the common sense nature of the messages.
8.3 Are there other examples of ancient teachings which also appear in Christianity?
Yes. it's not just Buddhism where we find so called "Christian Teachings". For example:
- In The Doctrine of the Mean 13, written about 500 BCE, Confucius says, "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others."
- Isocrates (c. 375 BCE) said, "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others."
- The Hindu Mahabharata, written around 150 BCE, teaches, "This is the sum of all true righteousness: deal with others as thou wouldst thyself be dealt by."
- I treat those who are good with goodness. And I also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. I am honest with those who are honest. And I am also honest with those who are dishonest. Thus honesty is attained (Taoism. Tao Te Ching 49).
- Conquer anger by love. Conquer evil by good. Conquer the stingy by giving. Conquer the liar by truth (Buddhism. Dhammapada 223).
- A superior being does not render evil for evil; this is a maxim one should observe; the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or those of cruel deeds when they are actually committing them—for who is without fault? (Hinduism. Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda 115).
Much more detail can be found here
9 Is it bad or wrong to use Scripture to justify something that contradicts the idea of loving God wholeheartedly?
It is neither good or bad. It is just odd for three reasons: First, loving or not loving supernatural entities is not a matter of morality. Second, the concept of loving something that might not exist is weird and being commanded to love something, is not love. Third, people who use Scripture to justify their behaviour are already behaving in a certain way. If we need to judge whether that behaviour is right or wrong we need an independent, generic standard, and the best we have is humanism.
10 Is it bad or wrong to use Scripture to justify something that contradicts the idea of loving others as oneself [i.e. the golden rule]?
Any action which runs counter to the golden rule is likely to be bad or wrong (although not for certain – there is a flaw in the golden rule depending on how it is phrased). If we need to judge whether that behaviour is right or wrong we need an independent, generic standard, and the best we have is humanism.
11 Is it true to say that anyone can claim to believe in anything, whether they actually do or not?
Yes in principle. However, there are ways to test those claims: lie detector tests are not totally reliable, but recent advances in fMRI techniques enable what people are actually thinking to be revealed. The morality of such a technique is obviously questionable.
12 Is it true to say that anyone can claim to follow any cause, whether they actually do or not?
Yes in principle, but someone following a cause would be required to act in a certain way, so that's one way of testing their claim. Of course, someone could pretend to follow a cause (for example an undercover policeman or reporter who has infiltrated the members of a cause).
13 If someone claims to follow a cause but does not, is he or she misrepresenting that cause?
Not necessarily. For example, someone who says they follow (or lead) a cause to reduce illegal immigration while simultaneously employing staff who are known to be illegal immigrants, is not following the cause, but is also not misrepresenting the cause. This is easy to determine because the attributes of the cause in this example are clear.
14 Do causes have control over who claims to act on their behalf and who does not?
Causes have no control, by definition. People have control, causes don't.
15 Can a cause be responsible for those who falsely misrepresent it?
Causes can't be responsible for anything, by definition. People can have responsibility, not causes.
16 Can people who follow a cause expose those who act falsely in that cause's name?
Yes, in fact anyone can if the aims and principles of the cause are clearly defined. For example, someone who doesn't follow the cause for banning gun ownership can easily see that someone who belongs to that cause but owns a gun, is acting falsely.
17 Is it true to say that it's only religious believers who are likely to confront those in power who misrepresent their cause?
No. Firstly, a religious belief is not a cause. Rather, people who follow causes might use their religious belief to justify their cause. Secondly, one does not have to have a religious belief to fight for one's cause. One simply has to believe in the cause. Religious and non-religious often fight side by side to defend a cause, for example, equal rights for gay people.
18 Is it true to say that Christians (beginning with Jesus Himself) have been exposing misrepresentations of God's word and will, fighting for and bringing about reform, for 2000 years?
Not really, for three reasons. First of all, Jesus wasn't a Christian! Secondly, there is no way to have a discussion with God regarding His “word and will” so we have to rely on what people have written about what they imagine God's will to be, and such writings are ambiguous, vague and hence open to a wide variety of interpretations. Finally, people who fight for reform are people who change things for the better, generally putting an end to situations which are wrong. Whether those reformers believe in God or not, is irrelevant.
19 Do atheists have little fight when the going gets tough?
No. Atheists have as much fight as theists when the going gets tough!
19.1 Would you have been willing to serve as a stretcher bearer in Hitler's armed forces?
From the point of view of being a British person whose freedoms were threatened by Hitler, then I would not have been willing to serve in Hitler's armed forces in any role whatsoever, including stretcher bearer.
19.2 What about Christian pacifists who view any military service as a violation of their conscience?
Anyone who feels that way should obviously not take part in military service. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights implies that every person has a right to be a conscientious objector and refuse military service. Personally I think it should be written more explicitly. The point here is that no one is forced to join the military in a secular democracy. The list of Countries with mandatory military service includes very few secular democracies (Does it include any?!)
9 Is it bad or wrong to use Scripture to justify something that contradicts the idea of loving God wholeheartedly?
It is neither good or bad. It is just odd for three reasons: First, loving or not loving supernatural entities is not a matter of morality. Second, the concept of loving something that might not exist is weird and being commanded to love something, is not love. Third, people who use Scripture to justify their behaviour are already behaving in a certain way. If we need to judge whether that behaviour is right or wrong we need an independent, generic standard, and the best we have is humanism.
10 Is it bad or wrong to use Scripture to justify something that contradicts the idea of loving others as oneself [i.e. the golden rule]?
Any action which runs counter to the golden rule is likely to be bad or wrong (although not for certain – there is a flaw in the golden rule depending on how it is phrased). If we need to judge whether that behaviour is right or wrong we need an independent, generic standard, and the best we have is humanism.
11 Is it true to say that anyone can claim to believe in anything, whether they actually do or not?
Yes in principle. However, there are ways to test those claims: lie detector tests are not totally reliable, but recent advances in fMRI techniques enable what people are actually thinking to be revealed. The morality of such a technique is obviously questionable.
12 Is it true to say that anyone can claim to follow any cause, whether they actually do or not?
Yes in principle, but someone following a cause would be required to act in a certain way, so that's one way of testing their claim. Of course, someone could pretend to follow a cause (for example an undercover policeman or reporter who has infiltrated the members of a cause).
13 If someone claims to follow a cause but does not, is he or she misrepresenting that cause?
Not necessarily. For example, someone who says they follow (or lead) a cause to reduce illegal immigration while simultaneously employing staff who are known to be illegal immigrants, is not following the cause, but is also not misrepresenting the cause. This is easy to determine because the attributes of the cause in this example are clear.
14 Do causes have control over who claims to act on their behalf and who does not?
Causes have no control, by definition. People have control, causes don't.
15 Can a cause be responsible for those who falsely misrepresent it?
Causes can't be responsible for anything, by definition. People can have responsibility, not causes.
16 Can people who follow a cause expose those who act falsely in that cause's name?
Yes, in fact anyone can if the aims and principles of the cause are clearly defined. For example, someone who doesn't follow the cause for banning gun ownership can easily see that someone who belongs to that cause but owns a gun, is acting falsely.
17 Is it true to say that it's only religious believers who are likely to confront those in power who misrepresent their cause?
No. Firstly, a religious belief is not a cause. Rather, people who follow causes might use their religious belief to justify their cause. Secondly, one does not have to have a religious belief to fight for one's cause. One simply has to believe in the cause. Religious and non-religious often fight side by side to defend a cause, for example, equal rights for gay people.
18 Is it true to say that Christians (beginning with Jesus Himself) have been exposing misrepresentations of God's word and will, fighting for and bringing about reform, for 2000 years?
Not really, for three reasons. First of all, Jesus wasn't a Christian! Secondly, there is no way to have a discussion with God regarding His “word and will” so we have to rely on what people have written about what they imagine God's will to be, and such writings are ambiguous, vague and hence open to a wide variety of interpretations. Finally, people who fight for reform are people who change things for the better, generally putting an end to situations which are wrong. Whether those reformers believe in God or not, is irrelevant.
19 Do atheists have little fight when the going gets tough?
No. Atheists have as much fight as theists when the going gets tough!
19.1 Would you have been willing to serve as a stretcher bearer in Hitler's armed forces?
From the point of view of being a British person whose freedoms were threatened by Hitler, then I would not have been willing to serve in Hitler's armed forces in any role whatsoever, including stretcher bearer.
19.2 What about Christian pacifists who view any military service as a violation of their conscience?
Anyone who feels that way should obviously not take part in military service. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights implies that every person has a right to be a conscientious objector and refuse military service. Personally I think it should be written more explicitly. The point here is that no one is forced to join the military in a secular democracy. The list of Countries with mandatory military service includes very few secular democracies (Does it include any?!)
20 Have atheists had little (if any) success in bringing about reforms?
No. There's a long list of atheists who have changed society, but we should also be aware that during the times of greatest reform in Europe, Christian indoctrination was such that there were hardly any atheists, and even if one was an atheist it was anathema to be open about it. It was not possible for atheists to hold positions of authority or education required to bring about change. Also, it's not possible to know if someone really believes the religion they claim to belong to (see #11)
21 Are non-believers who adopt Christian values, and act on them, paying Christianity the ultimate compliment?
No, because so-called Christian values are not unique to Christianity (see #6)
22 Do people in Western societies benefit greatly from the values of their Judaeo-Christian heritage?
No, because so-called Judeo-Christian values are not unique to Judaism or Christianity (see #6). The greatest benefits come from what are best described as humanist values. It also depends what we mean by benefits. This is often confused with wealth and possessions, and the heritage of Judeo-Christian societies consists of a catalogue of conquest, genocide and oppression which enables most of the population of the Western world to be materially very comfortable. But is the Western lifestyle more beneficial than say, the lifestyle of a Buddhist monk in Tibet?
23 Were modern western democracies founded by Christians and sustained by them?
Some were, some were not. They were founded mainly by the actions of suffering populations who overthrew the authorities that had oppressed and controlled them and had imposed a particular ideology (religious or not). Such revolutions were often bloody and brutal. If it was mandatory for that population to be Christian, then we can in a sense refer to that population as Christian (but see #6). But once the population had overthrown their Christian rulers, and had freedom of belief, not all would choose to be Christian, and many would choose to create new denominations of Christianity that suited their particular values. (And similarly, if the population had overthrown non-Christian rulers).
23.1 Can you name the countries which were profoundly Christian or otherwise religious when they became democracies?
24 Did authoritarian institutions gave way to democratic ones thanks to Christian reforms?
Not really (see #23)
25 Did Christian societies export democracy to other countries?
No. It would be nice if democracy could be “exported” but it is a fact of life that democracy has to develop from within the population – and never sticks if it comes from external sources.
26 Did survivors of atheist societies turn to Christianity on a massive scale?
Not necessarily (see #23). Also, it's not clear what the phrase “atheist society” actually means.
26.1 Can you name any countries which were primarily atheist at the time that they became democracies?
27 Is a common moral code of a particular religion which has its basis anchored in the imperatives of the spiritual realm is essential in bringing about societal reform?
No. The key driver of societal reform is the will of the people who desire to be treated humanely. In a democratic society this can be done peacefully, but in a dictatorship it is usually far from a peaceful process.
28 Is the trend towards democracy "inevitable"?
It seems to be according to the long term trend of the historical evidence, but it's a slow process, and comes in stops and starts. And of course, democracy is not something that's “off” one day and “on” the next! Democracies mature, some democracies are more advanced than others, some democracies are seriously flawed. Secularism seems to emerge once a democracy is fairly mature.
29 Are the real benefits of religion limited to being "Churchy" or "clubby" ?
Absolutely not! It is undeniable that religions can and do meet many of the important social & community needs that most people have, but there are many more examples of human needs that religion can satisfy. For example: coping with pain & disappointment, wisdom, education, perspective, art and the needs of what we often refer to as the "soul". More detail here
30 Does morality develop through learning concepts that promote religious values?
That depends what we mean by "religious values". If the religion is teaching concepts that promote humanist values, then that can only be a good thing. But of course, those values don't have to be taught by religion.
31 Should an atheist believe that his personal values ought to be adopted by everyone?
I would hope not - that seems rather arrogant and more like the opinion of an evangelical! In my opinion the world would be a better place if everyone, be they theist or atheist, adopted humanist values to be their personal values. Of course, that's just my opinion! What's important is that given a free choice, that's exactly what the vast majority of people choose to do.
32 Why should any individual subscribe to humanist values in a universe devoid of meaning and values?
It's hard for me to answer because I can't imagine what it's like to feel that the "universe is devoid of ultimate meaning and values" because I don't see how those attributes can be applied to a universe, any more than they can be applied to an electron. The attributes of "meaning and values" only make sense when applied to life. I can only speak personally, but my life is full of meaning and I obviously share the same values as the majority of human beings, and the best generic name for these values is Humanist values - which are mainly common sense to the vast majority of people regardless of religious belief or not.
33 What is your opinion on abortion?
Big question! Several points:
33.a In my opinion, abortion is clinical decision, made by a doctor in the best interests of the patient (the pregnant woman) and the patient's family. I don't think one can generalise or impose a blanket ban on abortion. Every case has to be judged on its own merits. I'm sure there are specific examples of abortions that feel very wrong, but they should not decide the overall principle.
33.b The key issue is timing. When does a fetus become a person. Currently the limit is 24 weeks, but can be later if the mother's life is at serious risk.
33.c From a religious angle, perhaps the best person to explain the morality of abortion to Christians, is a Christian abortion doctor.
33.d Also from a practical and a religious angle, this summary from Mara Clarke, founder of the Abortion Support Network:
"Laws against abortion always hurt poor women. Those women who have money can travel and have an abortion. Poorer people just Google what chemicals to take to self-abort, or they throw themselves downstairs as if this is the 1850s. The UN is on the side of abortion and so is human decency. Religious arguments against abortion are an opinion, not law, I’m a person of faith and my God isn’t going to punish a woman for making the right decision for her and her family. Either you need to start campaigning against non-procreative sex or you need to accept that some people will always need terminations. No method of birth control is 100%, some people are the victims of sexual assault and sexual violence, some have foetal abnormalities. The faith of some can’t dictate the morality of all."
No. There's a long list of atheists who have changed society, but we should also be aware that during the times of greatest reform in Europe, Christian indoctrination was such that there were hardly any atheists, and even if one was an atheist it was anathema to be open about it. It was not possible for atheists to hold positions of authority or education required to bring about change. Also, it's not possible to know if someone really believes the religion they claim to belong to (see #11)
21 Are non-believers who adopt Christian values, and act on them, paying Christianity the ultimate compliment?
No, because so-called Christian values are not unique to Christianity (see #6)
22 Do people in Western societies benefit greatly from the values of their Judaeo-Christian heritage?
No, because so-called Judeo-Christian values are not unique to Judaism or Christianity (see #6). The greatest benefits come from what are best described as humanist values. It also depends what we mean by benefits. This is often confused with wealth and possessions, and the heritage of Judeo-Christian societies consists of a catalogue of conquest, genocide and oppression which enables most of the population of the Western world to be materially very comfortable. But is the Western lifestyle more beneficial than say, the lifestyle of a Buddhist monk in Tibet?
23 Were modern western democracies founded by Christians and sustained by them?
Some were, some were not. They were founded mainly by the actions of suffering populations who overthrew the authorities that had oppressed and controlled them and had imposed a particular ideology (religious or not). Such revolutions were often bloody and brutal. If it was mandatory for that population to be Christian, then we can in a sense refer to that population as Christian (but see #6). But once the population had overthrown their Christian rulers, and had freedom of belief, not all would choose to be Christian, and many would choose to create new denominations of Christianity that suited their particular values. (And similarly, if the population had overthrown non-Christian rulers).
23.1 Can you name the countries which were profoundly Christian or otherwise religious when they became democracies?
That applies to every country, because
every country has been mainly religious since the beginning of recorded
history.
23.2 "Religious"--yes. Having a recognizable
moral imperative associated with their "religiosity"--not
necessarily. You have failed to address Q23.1
Obviously I have not failed to answer the question because the question asked for countries that were Christian or otherwise religious. 24 Did authoritarian institutions gave way to democratic ones thanks to Christian reforms?
Not really (see #23)
25 Did Christian societies export democracy to other countries?
No. It would be nice if democracy could be “exported” but it is a fact of life that democracy has to develop from within the population – and never sticks if it comes from external sources.
26 Did survivors of atheist societies turn to Christianity on a massive scale?
Not necessarily (see #23). Also, it's not clear what the phrase “atheist society” actually means.
26.1 Can you name any countries which were primarily atheist at the time that they became democracies?
I can't name a country that has
ever been "primarily atheist", period!
26.2 Can you name a militant atheist government that did not devolve into a repressive dictatorship?
No. Similarly I can't name a militant theist government that did not devolve into a dictatorship. Militant governments begin as dictatorships. They don't devolve into dictatorships. Religion, or lack of, makes no difference.
26.2 Can you name a militant atheist government that did not devolve into a repressive dictatorship?
No. Similarly I can't name a militant theist government that did not devolve into a dictatorship. Militant governments begin as dictatorships. They don't devolve into dictatorships. Religion, or lack of, makes no difference.
27 Is a common moral code of a particular religion which has its basis anchored in the imperatives of the spiritual realm is essential in bringing about societal reform?
No. The key driver of societal reform is the will of the people who desire to be treated humanely. In a democratic society this can be done peacefully, but in a dictatorship it is usually far from a peaceful process.
28 Is the trend towards democracy "inevitable"?
It seems to be according to the long term trend of the historical evidence, but it's a slow process, and comes in stops and starts. And of course, democracy is not something that's “off” one day and “on” the next! Democracies mature, some democracies are more advanced than others, some democracies are seriously flawed. Secularism seems to emerge once a democracy is fairly mature.
29 Are the real benefits of religion limited to being "Churchy" or "clubby" ?
Absolutely not! It is undeniable that religions can and do meet many of the important social & community needs that most people have, but there are many more examples of human needs that religion can satisfy. For example: coping with pain & disappointment, wisdom, education, perspective, art and the needs of what we often refer to as the "soul". More detail here
30 Does morality develop through learning concepts that promote religious values?
That depends what we mean by "religious values". If the religion is teaching concepts that promote humanist values, then that can only be a good thing. But of course, those values don't have to be taught by religion.
31 Should an atheist believe that his personal values ought to be adopted by everyone?
I would hope not - that seems rather arrogant and more like the opinion of an evangelical! In my opinion the world would be a better place if everyone, be they theist or atheist, adopted humanist values to be their personal values. Of course, that's just my opinion! What's important is that given a free choice, that's exactly what the vast majority of people choose to do.
32 Why should any individual subscribe to humanist values in a universe devoid of meaning and values?
It's hard for me to answer because I can't imagine what it's like to feel that the "universe is devoid of ultimate meaning and values" because I don't see how those attributes can be applied to a universe, any more than they can be applied to an electron. The attributes of "meaning and values" only make sense when applied to life. I can only speak personally, but my life is full of meaning and I obviously share the same values as the majority of human beings, and the best generic name for these values is Humanist values - which are mainly common sense to the vast majority of people regardless of religious belief or not.
33 What is your opinion on abortion?
Big question! Several points:
33.a In my opinion, abortion is clinical decision, made by a doctor in the best interests of the patient (the pregnant woman) and the patient's family. I don't think one can generalise or impose a blanket ban on abortion. Every case has to be judged on its own merits. I'm sure there are specific examples of abortions that feel very wrong, but they should not decide the overall principle.
33.b The key issue is timing. When does a fetus become a person. Currently the limit is 24 weeks, but can be later if the mother's life is at serious risk.
33.c From a religious angle, perhaps the best person to explain the morality of abortion to Christians, is a Christian abortion doctor.
33.d Also from a practical and a religious angle, this summary from Mara Clarke, founder of the Abortion Support Network:
"Laws against abortion always hurt poor women. Those women who have money can travel and have an abortion. Poorer people just Google what chemicals to take to self-abort, or they throw themselves downstairs as if this is the 1850s. The UN is on the side of abortion and so is human decency. Religious arguments against abortion are an opinion, not law, I’m a person of faith and my God isn’t going to punish a woman for making the right decision for her and her family. Either you need to start campaigning against non-procreative sex or you need to accept that some people will always need terminations. No method of birth control is 100%, some people are the victims of sexual assault and sexual violence, some have foetal abnormalities. The faith of some can’t dictate the morality of all."
34 Were the Roman Empire and China from the time of Confucius irreligious?
Far from it! The Romans were religious junkies. Confucianism and Taoism (and subsequently Buddhism) were just three of many religions in Chinese history.
35 Can you name any current countries which may now for the most part be "irreligious" which do not depend on the values of their religious moral heritage to sustain--for the moment--the democratic institutions inherited from such heritage?
Far from it! The Romans were religious junkies. Confucianism and Taoism (and subsequently Buddhism) were just three of many religions in Chinese history.
35 Can you name any current countries which may now for the most part be "irreligious" which do not depend on the values of their religious moral heritage to sustain--for the moment--the democratic institutions inherited from such heritage?
I'm guessing this is a reference to
humanist values, rather than the values of conquest, slavery, ethnic cleansing
and oppression that dominated when religion was in power. History shows that
humanist values take precedence when the power lies with secular democracy
instead of religion. When religion has its power taken away, it becomes user friendly. But we must never forget how it was when it held power.
36 If a society defines right from wrong by consensus, whose consensus?
The consensus comes from general agreement of the population (that's the definition of consensus). The famous Harvard "Trolley Problem" provides an interesting insight into how human beings make moral decisions, and it seems to be independent of religious belief... https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html
36.1 Is there bias in democracies and their institutions?
Of course! There is bias in every human endeavour because human beings cannot help being biased sometimes. The advantage of secular democracy is that bias is visible and can be openly challenged.
37 You say the basis of your moral decisions is is logic, reason and evidence but that's not a substantive answer. It's a non-answer.
My answer is substantive by definition: It has a firm basis in reality. Rather than just dismissing what I say out of hand, try testing it with examples.
38 On what basis would it be incumbent on anyone to subscribe to a particular moral perspective with a greater basis than one's personal opinion?
The question doesn’t reflect how the brain works. Let’s look at an example. Assume a person has the opinion that abortion is right. Then imagine that person is exposed to a wide range of information on abortion from a range of sources, including religion. That person’s brain might form a new opinion that abortion is wrong. Or it may not. So in a nutshell, a person will adopt a moral perspective that makes sense to them, based on how their brains have processed all of the information.
39 What true guidance or grounding can be found in moral relativism itself, which might define "A" as "good" and "B" as "bad" today, and reverse the values tomorrow?
Difficult to answer without a specific example (I'm not aware of something going from good to bad and then back to good again) and it also depends how one defines moral relativism, but I would say none, other than the experience and lessons learned from such examples.
36 If a society defines right from wrong by consensus, whose consensus?
The consensus comes from general agreement of the population (that's the definition of consensus). The famous Harvard "Trolley Problem" provides an interesting insight into how human beings make moral decisions, and it seems to be independent of religious belief... https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html
36.1 Is there bias in democracies and their institutions?
Of course! There is bias in every human endeavour because human beings cannot help being biased sometimes. The advantage of secular democracy is that bias is visible and can be openly challenged.
37 You say the basis of your moral decisions is is logic, reason and evidence but that's not a substantive answer. It's a non-answer.
My answer is substantive by definition: It has a firm basis in reality. Rather than just dismissing what I say out of hand, try testing it with examples.
38 On what basis would it be incumbent on anyone to subscribe to a particular moral perspective with a greater basis than one's personal opinion?
The question doesn’t reflect how the brain works. Let’s look at an example. Assume a person has the opinion that abortion is right. Then imagine that person is exposed to a wide range of information on abortion from a range of sources, including religion. That person’s brain might form a new opinion that abortion is wrong. Or it may not. So in a nutshell, a person will adopt a moral perspective that makes sense to them, based on how their brains have processed all of the information.
39 What true guidance or grounding can be found in moral relativism itself, which might define "A" as "good" and "B" as "bad" today, and reverse the values tomorrow?
Difficult to answer without a specific example (I'm not aware of something going from good to bad and then back to good again) and it also depends how one defines moral relativism, but I would say none, other than the experience and lessons learned from such examples.
No comments:
Post a Comment