Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: why don't atheists typically reject secular values derived from religion?

[inocente]

Please define secular values first. The way I understand it is that is an attitude or philosophy of life something like “doing your own thing.” - but i could be wrong.

Not really, secular just means not connected with religion.

 

[cho_pilo]

Not really, secular just means not connected with religion.

It doesn’t hold that only secular values are real and all religious values are nothing but more than superstition?

 

[inocente]

It doesn’t hold that only secular values are real and all religious values are nothing but more than superstition?

Nope, lots of religious folk have secular jobs, i.e. not connected with their religion. Most of us live in secular states (with civil laws as opposed to Canon or Sharia laws), we listen to secular as well as sacred music, etc.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

I wouldn’t say they’re rejected, they’re either temporarily forgotten in anger or rationalized away. When our family, clan or nation is violently threatened we think we have a greater good on our side that overrides do not kill. Both the threat and the greater good may be real or imaginary but we’re built to survive, and survivors write the history books.

Then we ought not to say offhand that “atheists typically reject” anything other that “God” as a concept. And then I have to wonder as to the actual efficacy of religion of any sort. Maturity is always in the direction away from ego, whether it be self, family, tribe, etc.

 

[inocente]

Then we ought not to say offhand that “atheists typically reject” anything other that “God” as a concept. And then I have to wonder as to the actual efficacy of religion of any sort. Maturity is always in the direction away from ego, whether it be self, family, tribe, etc.

If we take atheists as the control group, offhand I don’t know of any stats that say people of any given religion are inherently more or less prone to violence.

 

[larkin31]

It doesn’t hold that only secular values are real and all religious values are nothing but more than superstition?

Not at all. No one claims this about “values.”

 

[Ranklyfrank]

If we take atheists as the control group, offhand I don’t know of any stats that say people of any given religion are inherently more or less prone to violence.

Apparently not. What little research I’ve done shows that prison populations reflect the general religious demographic as adjusted for economic level. It is why I continue to question A) if there is a “true” religion, as one might assume it to be more efficacious, and B) if religion measured against secular values has any greater redeeming value, especially in the face of the amount of violence directly attributable to religious affiliation. It also drives me to look at cross cultural similarities s more descriptive of the field in which the roots of morality might be found. For my own purposes, I have found that.

 

[tonyrey]

An intellectual fiction that is the basis of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the values of modern civilisation! Moral progress is usually associated with rational insight rather than self-deception.

“Everyone, as a member of society, has **the right to **social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.”

People may say what they like but that doesn’t alter the fundamental truths of the article which are implied in the teaching of Jesus.

Christ alone and no other belief system played any part in the inspiration for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Where did I state that?

Didn’t the Soviet Union also claim it invented everything?

Where did I state “everything”? My words were “the basis of…”

 

[larkin31]

People may say what they like but that doesn’t alter the fundamental truths of the article which are implied in the teaching of Jesus.

Which fundamental truths are implied by the teachings of Jesus in that document?

 

[tonyrey]

Which fundamental truths are implied by the teachings of Jesus in that document?

The fact that we are all equal in the sight of God because we are all made in His image and created with the same rights to life, freedom and happiness.

 

[larkin31]

The fact that we are all equal in the sight of God because we are all made in His image and created with the same rights to life, freedom and happiness.

The part you quoted doesn’t say these things.

 

[tonyrey]

The part you quoted doesn’t say these things.

You asked:
“Which fundamental truths are **implied **by the teachings of Jesus in that document?”

 

[inocente]

People may say what they like but that doesn’t alter the fundamental truths of the article which are implied in the teaching of Jesus.

Christ alone and no other belief system played any part in the inspiration for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

In response to Ranklyfrank’s “But your “knowledge” of the Christ is an intellectual fiction as a result of faith, as Real as the Christ actually is” you wrote “An intellectual fiction that is the basis of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the values of modern civilisation!”.

To me this implied you were saying Christianity is the basis of the Declaration. But given the way it was constructed and its wide adoption, the Declaration contains principles which all beliefs hold in common:

The General Assembly, in turn, scrutinized the document, with the 58 Member States voting a total of 1,400 times on practically every word and every clause of the text. There were many debates. Some Islamic States objected to the articles on equal marriage rights and on the right to change religious belief, for example, while several Western countries criticized the inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights. On 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with 8 abstentions. - un.org/rights/HRToday/declar.htm

A number of treaties were born out of the Declaration, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This was signed into international law back in 1990 and ratified by 193 countries. Twenty years later only two nations have still failed to ratify it – Somalia and the USA, the largest Christian nation on the planet. Non-Christians might be excused for saying that in some ways Christians are not leading but lag behind the rest of the world.

childrightscampaign.org/crcindex.php
foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/

 

[larkin31]

You asked:
“Which fundamental truths are **implied **by the teachings of Jesus in that document?”

These “implications” are not there, either.

 

[Joan1969]

Can’t really comment, except for never understanding how the teaching is different, it just goes straight over my head.

The Church’s authority is different because Jesus gave it to her directly, with the purpose of granting to human beings a reliable authority they could look to on earth. The scripture passages are well known- Thou Art Peter, etc. as well as What You Bind on Earth. We could discuss this, but perhaps it is a topic for its own thread. At any rate, it can’t be denied that this is how the Church sees herself. I realize you may disagree, but there’s really nothing to misunderstand. I would submit that history bears out the Church’s claims.

Seems a little arbitrary to exclude gays from civil rights. They contribute to society, pay their taxes and obey the law like everyone else so why differentiate?

Nobody suggested excluding anybody from civil rights!

The main argument against union here was it would undermine marriage, as if denying union didn’t harm marriage by promoting promiscuity.

Same sex couples are totally free to make any commitment they choose, and to do so ceremonially. But their union is not marriage, and cannot be made so by legal fiat. Promiscuity is chosen, and same sex couples rarely make use of “gay marriage” where it is permitted.

But surely the lack of humility is in having pride that we somehow know God’s mind.

We do not know God’s mind; we allow Him to speak to us under His terms. Our knowledge of God is extremely limited here on earth.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus has the Levite and priest walk by while the lowly Samaritan shows mercy.

This is a good reminder that having good doctrine or a position of authority should never lead to moral arrogance. Our compassion and virtue must match our doctrinal gifts, or we are more sinful than if we had nothing to begin with. But this does not change the need we have for God’s Truth. The same Jesus who told this parable said, “I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life.” The Gospel must be taken as a totality.

Incidentally, by my estimate you just wrote off 26 million Catholics as irreligious.

Those who choose to defy the Church regarding a major moral are behaving in an irreligious manner. Being Catholic means something more than just ritual or showing up on a Sunday. It means a willingness to assent to the Creed of the Church, and to live ones life accordingly.

Keep in mind that in Church teaching, earthly marraige is a reflection of the ultimate Marriage, that between Christ and His Bride the Church. That give marriage a tremendous sancity, and to mess around with it by trying to apply it to pairs that clearly are not able to fulfill it in any natural way is a very grave matter. Catholics who fail to inform themselves about their Faith and go passively with secular thinking are not taking good care of their spiritual lives. That is not to be seen as a judgment on anybody in particular, but only on the general situation, which is totally permissible and necessary for a thinking Catholic.

Don’t most Christians apply the commandments selectively though. “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work”. How many of us really do no work at all on the Sabbath…

The Old Testement is read in the light of the New Testement. This is another way the Church is helpful- in interpreting Scripture so that the passages like that about the Sabbath can be correctly applied.

I don’t think we can be at all confident. … in the world, 8 million kids below the age of five die every year… In five hundred years time countless millions of people will find us reprehensible for what we tolerate and rationalize even with Jesus as our moral guide, so agreed, we need a whole lot of humility and then some.

We don’t really disagree here. But I would distinguish between struggling with a thorny economic problem like world hunger (which is replete with political causes) and something deliberate like abortion. Those political leaders who foster or ignore hunger and poverty are reprehensible, and the Church recognizes them as so right now, today. The Church also emphatically calls Christians to address these problems personally through acts of charity, and a great deal of good is done in the name of the Church. More could be done, if people were more generous.

 

[inocente]

We could discuss this, but perhaps it is a topic for its own thread.

Agreed.

Nobody suggested excluding anybody from civil rights!

You distinguished between gay and civil rights, but gay rights are part of civil rights whether or not we agree with their case.

Same sex couples are totally free to make any commitment they choose, and to do so ceremonially. But their union is not marriage, and cannot be made so by legal fiat. Promiscuity is chosen, and same sex couples rarely make use of “gay marriage” where it is permitted.

Agreed the sacrament of marriage is different to civil union, but it’s always necessary to wait a few generations for changes in civil rights to change attitudes.

We do not know God’s mind; we allow Him to speak to us under His terms. Our knowledge of God is extremely limited here on earth.

Which is one reason why I don’t believe in objectivity in morals.

Those who choose to defy the Church regarding a major moral are behaving in an irreligious manner. Being Catholic means something more than just ritual or showing up on a Sunday. It means a willingness to assent to the Creed of the Church, and to live ones life accordingly.

This doesn’t sound at all right to me. A Catholic who disagrees in conscience with an aspect of the RCC’s teaching must blindly follow the herd or be guilty of a thought crime? Baptists don’t sign up to any creed, but for example the Nicene Creed only says “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church”, not “After informing ourselves of teachings and policy we will give up our God given conscience”. Does the RCC really teach that or are you overstating your case?

The Old Testement is read in the light of the New Testement. This is another way the Church is helpful- in interpreting Scripture so that the passages like that about the Sabbath can be correctly applied.

We’re agreed then that most Christians don’t take the Ten Commandments as representing the mind of God.

 

[tonyrey]

These “implications” are not there, either.

Please explain why.

 

[tonyrey]

People may say what they like but that doesn’t alter the fundamental truths of the article which are implied in the teaching of Jesus.

Christ alone and no other belief system played any part in the inspiration for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Where did I state that?
In response to Ranklyfrank’s “But your “knowledge” of the Christ is an intellectual fiction as a result of faith, as Real as the Christ actually is” you wrote “An intellectual fiction that is the basis of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the values of modern civilisation!”.

To me this implied you were saying Christianity is the basis of the Declaration. But given the way it was constructed and its wide adoption, the Declaration contains principles which all beliefs hold in common:

The General Assembly, in turn, scrutinized the document, with the 58 Member States voting a total of 1,400 times on practically every word and every clause of the text. There were many debates. Some Islamic States objected to the articles on equal marriage rights and on the right to change religious belief, for example, while several Western countries criticized the inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights. On 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with 8 abstentions. - un.org/rights/HRToday/declar.htm

A number of treaties were born out of the Declaration, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This was signed into international law back in 1990 and ratified by 193 countries. Twenty years later only two nations have still failed to ratify it – Somalia and the USA, the largest Christian nation on the planet. Non-Christians might be excused for saying that in some ways Christians are not leading but lag behind the rest of the world.

The facts you have cited support my statement that the teaching of Jesus is the sole basis of the Declaration! Jesus was the first person in history to proclaim the basic equality of men,** women** and **children **- unlike the Abrahamic patriarchal religions in which men are regarded as superior. What Somalia, the USA, other states and individual Christians do or don’t do is totally irrelevant to His teaching.

 

[larkin31]

Please explain why.

I can’t prove a negative. The implications just aren’t there; neither are the literal statements.

 

[inocente]

The facts you have cited support my statement that the teaching of Jesus is the sole basis of the Declaration! Jesus was the first person in history to proclaim the basic equality of men,** women** and **children **- unlike the Abrahamic patriarchal religions in which men are regarded as superior. What Somalia, the USA, other states and individual Christians do or don’t do is totally irrelevant to His teaching.

How was His teaching so immediately relevant to the writers of the Declaration and yet apparently not nearly as relevant to successive governments of the largest Christian nation? Just about the entire world, every religion, ratifies the Convention on the Rights of the Child yet the largest Christian nation doesn’t.

Selectively picking a few Articles does not a Declaration make. Did the leaders of all the non-Christian nations suddenly convert to Christianity when they signed on the dotted line?

Can you cite any evidence that the teaching of Jesus is the sole basis of the Declaration?

And errrm … gender equality in the sense women can be priests?