Cynapse: Religion is not Congruent to Morality
Posted on 01 June 2008 by Jack
The following is an expansion of a response written to a reader at Jack’s Newswatch. The reader made the following assertion:
The unravelling [sic] of of functional families and responsible civic can be tracked back to British society’s abandonment of Christianity. Could it be any more obvious that people who believe in nothing and are motivated by no higher purpose will degenerate into self indulgence and materialism - after all what else is there? may as well just satisfy myself, have a good time and be done with any sort of self discipline.
Variations of this argument are often made by the devout and the traditional - without persistent fear of a higher power and adherence to some sort of religion (typically the religion of the person making the argument), chaos would consume the world. This argument is false on two levels -
Popularity: 19% [?]
June 1st, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Actually, the argument is perfectly valid. But one step removed. The true teachings are the basis for morality….new age agnostics have abandoned those teachings and consequently a large part of the morality. They will deny it, of course, but it is a fact.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Tried to avoid answering this but curiosity is a weakness …
What in Yaweh’s name are you talking about?
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 am
Religion is not congruent to Morallity. Except that all morallity is derived from religion. Choose your religion and you will choose your morallity. Change the religion and you will change the morallity. Christianity has a morallity, Islam has a morallity, secular humanism has a morallity, atheism has a morallity. Sorry but it is literally impossible to separate the two.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:58 am
There are many paths to enlightenment and none is more valid than another. I feel sorrow for those who follow such paths blindly since learning to choose wisely is more important than the path.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:35 am
“There are many paths to enlightenment”
Words spoken most often by those who have no interest in trying any one of them.
How about the “enlightenment” of the witch doctors of Afirca. How about the “enlightenment” of the mullahs of Iran? How about the “enlightenment” of the leaders of Burma? How about the “enlightenment” of Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin?
I think that if you follow the teachings of a murdering, theiving peodophile you might come to a different “enlightenment” than if you followed the teaching of a pacifist carpenter.
The former who said lie, cheat, steal if you have to. The latter said turn the other cheek, let your yes be yes and your no be no. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Enlightenment is not the goal. Seeking the right enlightenment is the goal.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
If there is no God then all is permitted. Without God there is no morality.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I was raised in an old fashioned Protestant church, top-filled with self-righteous hypocrites who hated freely and justified their intolerance in the name of Jesus. Are they the right kind of “enlightened” for your standards, Joe? If so, you’re welcome to them and I wish you good luck in following your path!
My path to enlightenment isn’t quite so polluted. While I still consider myself to be a Christian, it is despite the church of my upbringing, not because of it. I have no doubt God exists but the churches made in His name were created by man, not God.
I must admit I’m curious (I guess Cynapse isn’t the only one!) why you chose to the fascists and fanatics as “bad” examples of enlightenment? Isn’t it possible that such people are not enlightened; rather they exercised hatred and intolerance?