Posted at 11.15.2018
I think that religion is not essential for morality. Although spiritual groups sooner or later, could urge people to do moral things for the world, not all than it are considered good. Let's take these things reviewed in this question (http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=0kuzYwzGoXw) for example, "May be the Catholic Chapel a force for good on the globe" were Christopher Hitchens along with Stephen Fry debated with Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdencombe MP. One good matter found there is when Christopher and Stephen tackled one of Christianty's dubious doings such as pushing to ban contraceptives in Africa were HIV or Supports are starting to reduce the society. I think that it is wrong for these organizations to thrust something that you genuinely believe in that is not discussed thoroughly. There are many religions on the entire world, and just because we heard them declaring "it is written in the context" it ought to be automatically implemented.
Another good subject I wish to bring, is where Ravi Zacharias debating with Matt Dillahunty relating to morality, idea and disbelief and evils that happened throughout background:
Ravi Z. : If people don't believe in God, the historical email address details are horrific, just how do we package with the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who saw religion as the condition and worked to eliminate it? Countless large numbers lost their lives under these godless regimes, regimes more affected by Nietzsche's idea of the ubermensch (superman) than these were by transcendent morality.
Matt D. (in response) : Once again, we have an implied argument that has nothing in connection with the actual presence of god but rather on the purported benefits of believing that a god exists; if people stop thinking in gods, bad things may happen, so don't stop thinking. The assertion that atheism leads to horrifying atrocities is merely not true. From the vile, slanderous fee, rooted in ignorance and deception that's not the slightest bit softened by Zacharias' stylish, questioning form.
In the case of the instances given, atheism is neither necessary nor sufficient to be discovered as the reason for the actions used. In truth, the atrocities were the consequence of opinion systems which, while steady with atheism, are not induced by atheism. You simply cannot bring a causal string from "I really do not believe that a god is accessible" to "I'll destroy spiritual organizations and religious people" lacking any additional perception - which is that belief that would be the cause of the atrocities.
To claim otherwise is to claim that atheism necessarily leads to horrifying works (which is exactly what he's wanting to do) and there are millions of secular people who testify to the fake nature of that assertion each day.
Stalin, Mao and Pol Container took actions predicated on beliefs that are akin to religions. They were powerful zealots of socio-political ideologies and a opinion that the opposition must be taken out. To declare that those beliefs were caused by atheism is really as much a non sequitur as boasting that they were caused by a stomach ache.
Hitler, on the other hands, gave conflicting reviews about his values. He publicly and privately recognized as a Catholic, yet there is also testimony that he was anti-religious or anti-Christian at times. If he previously done great work, I suspect that the Christians would declare that he was against organized faith, but a dedicated, personal believer. Because of the atrocities he committed, they take a different tact, labeling him an atheist.
We are able to forget about know Hitler's true beliefs about the lifestyle of gods than we can know the mind of other. Everything we can know, though, is that even if he was an atheist, that wasn't the cause of the activities he needed. As Zacharias points out, it was the ideology of the bermensch (among other beliefs) that inspired those activities.
While that ideology is consistent with atheism (everything aside from a notion in a god is steady with atheism) it is not brought on by atheism nor is it necessarily connected with atheism. It is not, though, regular with modern secular humanism. (http://atheistexperience. blogspot. com/2010/05/response-to-ravi-zacharias-six. html)
1. Matching to Arthur, how are morality and faith different?
Secular ethics is a branch of moral idea in which ethics is based solely on individual faculties such as reasoning, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance (which is the foundation of spiritual ethics). Secular ethics can be seen as a wide variety of moral and moral systems drawing closely on humanism, secularism and freethinking. (http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Secular_ethics)
Because there exists different ethics. Different ethics from different religious beliefs (based on context, and what they consider or educated to them that is right or incorrect), and secular morality or secular ethics in which the use of reasoning and reason can be used to answer the right or incorrect doings. Morality is there even without religion, and spiritual ethics is merely another branch of moral school of thought.
2. Why isn't religion necessary for moral motivation?
3. Why isn't religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?
4. What is the divine demand theory? How come Arthur reject this theory?
5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?
Dewey says that morality is interpersonal. What does indeed this mean, matching to Arthur?
1. Has Arthur refuted the divine order theory? If not, how can it be defended?
2. If morality is cultural, as Dewey says, then how can we've any responsibilities to nonhuman
animals? (Arthur mentions this issue and some possible solutions to it in footnote 6. )
3. Exactly what does Dewey imply by moral education? Does indeed a school ethics class count up as moral