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

[inocente]

Interesting question. If you are a Baptist, do you think Christ did not come to offer those who would accept him an inside track? Didn’t he die for nothing if all people are on the same track?

Saying that we must belong to brand X religion or be eternally doomed is no longer thought of as a good marketing strategy. If I was born in India and raised as a Hindu, I don’t think I’d want to believe in a god who would abandon me unless I became a Baptist. Ditto for any other pairing.

But we’re talking here of morality, and no religion can provide anything like robust logic as to why its morality is true and others are not, whatever adherents may hope.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Saying that we must belong to brand X religion or be eternally doomed is no longer thought of as a good marketing strategy. If I was born in India and raised as a Hindu, I don’t think I’d want to believe in a god who would abandon me unless I became a Baptist. Ditto for any other pairing.

But we’re talking here of morality, and no religion can provide anything like robust logic as to why its morality is true and others are not, whatever adherents may hope.

Yes I agree with your assessment about religion and morals. The only two functional logics I’ve seen for morals were one each of secular and philosophical.

 

[tonyrey]

Many people may disagree but that proves precisely nothing! Jesus Himself said He had come to fulfil the Law and often used the words “But I say to you…”

I am presenting a fact you have not disproved.

1. Why on earth does that matter?

1. Was the truth of the principles the monopoly of the Revolutionaries?
2. Did they invent the principles?
3. If not where did they obtain them?
4. Aren’t the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity implicit in the message of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father?

They’re just three words amongst others. There was also Union, Strength, Virtue; Strength, Equality, Justice; Liberty, Security, Property; Liberty, Reason, Equality; etc. You’re picking on one slogan amongst many. Even then you’re ignoring the Liberty, Equality, Fraternity or Death version. It’s an advertising slogan, you could pick others and give them a Christian spin: Reach out and touch someone [AT&T], Be all you can be [US Army] or even Because I’m worth it [L’Oreal].

It’s not the words but the truths they represent. Who was the first to teach them if it wasn’t Jesus? Why are you a Christian if His teaching is not original?

1. What more do you want than that?

1. Are you saying that Jesus did not teach liberty, equality and fraternity?
2. How do the “modern concepts” differ From His?
3. Are you suggesting His concepts are outmoded?
4. What exactly do you believe?

You’re giving His words a modern interpretation.

How do liberty, equality and fraternity differ from the meaning of His words? Are His concepts outmoded?

For your thesis to work, you would need to prove that the slogan couldn’t be created without His teaching…

We aren’t concerned with the slogan but the origin and basis of the principles. You haven’t provided an alternative source.

We are not discussing the views of Christ’s audience but His views.

If Christ’s teaching is the basis of modern civilization, you must also show why it’s a secular and materialistic civilization.

Simple. People have taken what suits them.

1. I believe scripture is a living document which we should interpret for our own time, and we shouldn’t attempt to read into it things that aren’t there.

That’s why there are thousands of different Christian sects. You all have your own interpretation… and you all think you’re right!

1. What do you think saints like Thomas Aquinas were writing?

1. Do you think God will destroy all the works of Christian apologetics produced in the last two thousand years?
2. Why are you participating on this forum if all philosophy is foolishness?

1. Didn’t Aquinas call it straw?

That was due to His humility but many Christians recognise the wisdom and profundity of his philosophical insight.

1. Sola scriptura dude. It needs no defense.

Sola scriptura, pal, leads to total confusion. Jesus didn’t write a book. He founded a Church.

1. Never said all philosophy is foolishness, just agreeing with Paul that belief in Christ has nothing to do with philosophy.

Your notion of philosophy is inadequate. What is your belief in Christ based on? Emotion? A hunch?

You have missed the point I have made: that the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father is the only rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. The onus is on you to provide an alternative…

I’m sure the atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. who wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had reasons. For example, a Jew might say we’re all children of Adam and Eve

The Jews didn’t believe in the equality of men and women or of Jews and Gentiles.

a humanist might say it’s the only way towards a fair, peaceable and happy society
and a historian might say it’s the only kind of society that works long-term.

If they say that they are implicitly accepting Christ’s teaching and rationalising their motives for accepting it.

The onus is on others now? For a non-philosophical alternative? How about bong!.. bong! bong! bong! bong! Sponsors of tomorrow™

That sums up your position perfectly! Nonsensical… You have demonstrated very successfully what happens when you reject philosophy!

 

[tonyrey]

You have missed the point I have made: that the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father

The issue is not what you believe or don’t believe - or even whether Christianity is true - but whether the only rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity is the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father. The onus is on you to show that it is not a rational basis and to provide an alternative explanation.

 

[larkin31]

The issue is not what you believe or don’t believe - or even whether Christianity is true - but whether the only rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity is the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father. The onus is on you to show that it is not a rational basis and to provide an alternative explanation.

No: shared parentage is no logical precondition for social, gender, or political equality. And certainly not simply because you say so.

 

[tonyrey]

No: shared parentage is no logical precondition for social, gender, or political equality. And certainly not simply because you say so.

It is in the context of Christ’s teaching. God is no ordinary parent!

You still have not provided an alternative basis for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity…

 

[tonyrey]

But we’re talking here of morality, and no religion can provide anything like robust logic as to why its morality is true and others are not, whatever adherents may hope.

No secular philosophy can provide any rational basis for morality whatsoever. In an amoral universe moral values are merely human conventions…

All religions have the same fundamental moral values:

Aldous Huxley - The Perennial Philosophy

Why are you a Baptist if no religion can provide anything like robust logic as to why its morality is true?

 

[larkin31]

It is in the context of Christ’s teaching. God is no ordinary parent!

You still have not provided an alternative basis for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity…

I don’t need to. You haven’t established a “basis” that requires any “alternative.”

 

[inocente]

Sola scriptura, pal, leads to total confusion.

Your notion of philosophy is inadequate. What is your belief in Christ based on? Emotion? A hunch?

That sums up your position perfectly! Nonsensical… You have demonstrated very successfully what happens when you reject philosophy!

Why are you a Baptist if no religion can provide anything like robust logic as to why its morality is true?

Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan to the law expert as a reminder that morality doesn’t come from rules but from compassion. In the parable, the priest and Levite act immorally (c.f. Matt 25:45) despite presumably knowing all the law, while the reviled Samaritan does a good job. He does a good job because he lets himself feel irrational mercy and then he acts rationally on that emotion. Both emotive and rational thought are needed.

It’s hardly surprising that a God of love should remind us we need to be open to unreasoned love to be moral. What is surprising is people still want to turn the golden rule into a set of equations. Without love the law is unfulfilled, we’re just clanging cymbals (1 Cor 13), it’s just foolishness (1 Cor 1:18-31).

Philosophy fails in morality because there’s no logic in love. Rom 2:14-15 says the requirements/work of the law are written on their hearts, yet many people misread it as “the law itself is written on their hearts” as if it’s some formal system of ethics.

To a Baptist, seeing that fraternity of liberated smiling faces singing “bong!.. bong! bong! bong! bong!” in the Intel adverts is a reminder of this foolish wisdom that even advertising execs might find in their hearts.

Children know this and Jesus tells us to be childlike, but sophisticated philosopher types are prone to forget. Don’t know if Aquinas said his work was straw because his vision made him remember all this in glorious Technicolor, but anyway thanks for saying my position here is nonsensical, that’s praise indeed in sola scriptura land.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

No secular philosophy can provide any rational basis for morality whatsoever. In an amoral universe moral values are merely human conventions…

All religions have the same fundamental moral values:

Aldous Huxley - The Perennial Philosophy

Why are you a Baptist if no religion can provide anything like robust logic as to why its morality is true?

Dear Tonyrey, to lessen the confusion, would you mind applying quotation marks to the above and letting us know how it is that you are relating all this to The Perennial Philosophy?

Thanks

RF

 

[inocente]

Dear Tonyrey, to lessen the confusion, would you mind applying quotation marks to the above and letting us know how it is that you are relating all this to The Perennial Philosophy?

I took it to mean all major religions share foundations of truth, but to me such foundations can’t be derived rationally by philosophers, there must be a transcendent emotive (name removed by moderator)ut.

Of course, tonyrey has been arguing something rather different - that Christian morality is the basis of modern civilization. Perhaps the reconciliation is that all religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Of course, tonyrey has been arguing something rather different - that Christian morality is the basis of modern civilization. Perhaps the reconciliation is that all religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others.

Why do I hear the sounds of farm animals???

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t need to. You haven’t established a “basis” that requires any “alternative.”

In other words you cannot…

 

[tonyrey]

No secular philosophy can provide any rational basis for morality whatsoever. In an amoral universe moral values are merely human conventions…

The colon is sufficient - if you care to look at a summary of the book…

 

[tonyrey]

I took it to mean all major religions share foundations of truth, but to me such foundations can’t be derived rationally by philosophers, there must be a transcendent emotive (name removed by moderator)ut.

Of course, tonyrey has been arguing something rather different - that Christian morality is the basis of modern civilization. Perhaps the reconciliation is that all religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others.

You are **misrepresenting **my statements. I suggest you reread them…

 

[tonyrey]

Why do I hear the sounds of farm animals???

Because some one has been making silly noises unrelated to the facts…

 

[larkin31]

In other words you cannot…

No, false.

Once again you show that your method of conclusion is prejudiced. First, you take silence as assent (which is a fallacy). Then you take a decision not to contradict an unsupported claim as acquiescence to the claim. And again, fallacious. You should really read my responses as ennui.

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan to the law expert as a reminder that morality doesn’t come from rules but from compassion. In the parable, the priest and Levite act immorally (c.f. Matt 25:45) despite presumably knowing all the law, while the reviled Samaritan does a good job. He does a good job because he lets himself feel irrational mercy and then he acts rationally on that emotion. Both emotive and rational thought are needed.

It’s hardly surprising that a God of love should remind us we need to be open to unreasoned love to be moral. What is surprising is people still want to turn the golden rule into a set of equations. Without love the law is unfulfilled, we’re just clanging cymbals (1 Cor 13), it’s just foolishness (1 Cor 1:18-31).

“unreasoned love” is alien to Christ’s teaching. He is constantly giving reasons why we should believe His message. “Greater love hath no man than this…”

Philosophy fails in morality because there’s no logic in love. Rom 2:14-15 says the requirements/work of the law are written on their hearts, yet many people misread it as “the law itself is written on their hearts” as if it’s some formal system of ethics.

Jesus Himself has explained the logic of love - that it entails total identification with others: He prays “that they may be one as we are one…”

To a Baptist, seeing that fraternity of liberated smiling faces singing “bong!.. bong! bong! bong! bong!” in the Intel adverts is a reminder of this foolish wisdom that even advertising execs might find in their hearts.

Children know this and Jesus tells us to be childlike, but sophisticated philosopher types are prone to forget.

Childlike does not mean childish. It means the innocence to which we should all aspire.
Your scorn for “philosopher types” raises another question mark as to your presence on this forum.

Don’t know if Aquinas said his work was straw because his vision made him remember all this in glorious Technicolor, but anyway thanks for saying my position here is nonsensical, that’s praise indeed in sola scriptura land.

What else is one to make of “bong!.. bong! bong! bong! bong!” ?

You haven’t explained why any particular interpretation of the Bible should be regarded as the true one.

 

[tonyrey]

No, false.

Once again you show that your method of conclusion is prejudiced. First, you take silence as assent (which is a fallacy). Then you take a decision not to contradict an unsupported claim as acquiescence to the claim. And again, fallacious. You should really read my responses as ennui.

Ennui is a defect which results from a lack of enthusiasm (in+theos)…

Farewell

 

[commoncents]

Any takers?

I honestly think that a lot of these secular values that were derived from religion could just as easily be said to be derived from philosophy. Jesus wasn’t the first person to advocate the golden rule.