I am the Chair of the National Liberal Party USA residing in Cleveland, OH. I was raised as an agnostic atheist and sent to a UU Sunday school. I have two degrees in Sociology ( UNH and Brunel). Recently I had a revelation. I had been taught that the institution of Religion was: "Holding sacred moral behavior that leads to the advancement of the species Humankind."
I continually had to explain that optimum species behavior does not have a deity or dogma. I would say that what ever one holds sacred is their religion. So you could hold sacred a "65 Mustang and that would be your religion. Everyone holds something sacred (what you would die for). So, everyone is religious.
Here is the problem. It is embedded in every culture that Religion has dogma and or a deity. And that one can be non religious. I was shoveling poop against the tide. Dr. D. Ball, a professor at C.S.U., suggested changing the institution's name to Morality. This makes sense. Here is the new definition for the Institution: "Holding sacred the rights and behaviors that advance Humankind." I added "rights" because they are adynamic. A different category than behaviors.
Now I can say religion thwarts, hinders, stifles, obfuscates, ... the advancement of Humankind without a sub-script.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Well 1st of all, we have had this discussion or something like it many many times.
1) Morality does not come from religion.
2) Holding something sacred isn't a religion so I flat out disagree with you on that point.
3) Morality comes from society.
Thus morality is not objective and can never be. Morality is subjective and can only be subjective.
As a rule, I hate redefining terms. It undermines reality.
Now a little off topic, WELCOME! I too am a devout LIBERAL. Madisonian in type and temper. It is good to have an ally in the mix.
I've never known what my political identity is.
1. You are correct. I was still stuck in my old beliefs. Thanks for pointing that out.
2. With my new enlightenment holding sacred is a persons morality not religion.
3. The species dictates optimum morality (the "should"), present day societies are an amalgamation of good and bad morality. The should is discovered from how the species flourishes as defined by the rights of that species. The bubble bee has a right to the clover field. That is one of the ways the bee colony flourishes. There are absolute "shoulds". For Humankind every society has laws on killing humans therefore every society has a law killing is wrong. That is an absolute. Now don't get side tracked with exceptions because one can not behave morally in an immoral situation.
Therefore morality is an absolute and not objective. For if morality were truly subjective than the person with the biggest weapon dictates what is moral. And that leads to believing it is OK to discriminately kill blacks, to oven Jews, to stone adulters.
But isn't that kind of the point; that absolutes don't have exceptions?
Also want to add,
What about states in the US that execute people for their crimes? That does not sound like "every society." The state does not think it is wrong to execute people for their crimes if they do it.
(Sure plenty of people within the state do, but not enough of those people get together to stop it.)
I've always detested how religion tries to take ownership of morality.. but I always enjoyed Christopher hitchens challenge..
"I challenge you to find one good or noble thing which cannot be accomplished without religion."
my morality comes from within, but it is connected to my environment, my environment says that same sex marriage is okay, but for me same sex lifestyle is not what moves me.But I as a single male enjoy gentleman strip clubs. I like sex outside marriage.That is my morality.Things like rape or murder or physically harming others is not for me.That`s where I draw the line. I`m not better then anyone.
Your definitions depend on what is meant by "advancement of the species Humankind." Most religions see this existence as nothing more than an anteroom for the afterlife, so they couldn't care less about advancing humankind. In fact, suffering, misery, squalor, disease, pain, and death or all processes that are supposed to help prepare our souls for eternal life in god's Borg cube.
I would define the advancement of humankind as the elimination of poverty and war (and their close cousin religion), the growth of individual freedom, the conquest of disease and maybe death itself, and the constant discovery of new challenges and horizons for our curious minds.