Can religion lead you to error?

The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.

Or donate directly via Paypal

This message board is The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum's SMF Archive Board. It is closed to new memberships and to posting, but there are over 250,000 messages here that you can still search and read -- many full of interesting and useful information. (This board was open from February 2007 through June 2011).

Our new vBulletin discussion board is located at http://www.ecauldron.com/forum/ -- if you would like to participate in discussions like those you see here, please visit our new vBulletin message board, register an account and join in our discussions. We hope you will find the information in this message archive useful and will consider joining us on our new board.

[Yez]

Religion is bad in the way that books and cars are bad.

Exactly.

[I don't know the quote thingy well enough to do the slick multiple-quote thing, so I'll just use italics:]
It doesn't make my parents weak, it just means they recognize a specific biological need and accommodate it in a relatively harmless way.

I doubt that it's biological and I doubt that it's a need, but I have no proof either way....

Some people are crazy. Crazy people with religion are crazy with religion.

Bwaaaaahahaha, amen :>

For more clever people, religion provides a right-shaped peg for an empty slot.

I don't think I have that particular slot {{{cough}}}.  I could be having a semantics crisis here, though, since I think of religion as an organized, formal-tending-toward-rigid group endeavor.  I think of spirituality as an individual examination of the nature of higher powers and one's behavior & role in this lifetime.  OTOH I don't think I have a slot for that either; I just made room for it in my life.  My ethical guidelines are probably an amalgam of the golden rule, experience and plain common sense. 

[SunflowerP]

It's not Crat's beliefs I was hoping to be discussed, but rather his proposal that religion offers ethical guidance that might otherwise be lacking. 

I think the proposal is based on a false premise, that ethics can only exist in context of religion.

Sunflower

[Yez]

I think the proposal is based on a false premise, that ethics can only exist in context of religion.

I've reread Crat's post, and I don't see where you're getting the "only".  Sandi paraphrased Crat's proposal: "...religion offers ethical guidance that might otherwise be lacking."  Might, I think, is the keyword here.

Crat said, "It can be very very hard to establish your own set of principles for correct behavior."  To me, "very very hard" doesn't mean "impossible".

Crat adds, "...people without the skill to develop a socially assimilable ethics of their own would tend to generate a practical hazard to themselves and others...."  I infer from this that he believes there are people with the skill to develop ethics of their own without the use of religion.

[SunflowerP]

I've reread Crat's post, and I don't see where you're getting the "only".  Sandi paraphrased Crat's proposal: "...religion offers ethical guidance that might otherwise be lacking."  Might, I think, is the keyword here.

Crat said, "It can be very very hard to establish your own set of principles for correct behavior."  To me, "very very hard" doesn't mean "impossible".

Crat adds, "...people without the skill to develop a socially assimilable ethics of their own would tend to generate a practical hazard to themselves and others...."  I infer from this that he believes there are people with the skill to develop ethics of their own without the use of religion.

I should have been more precise (comes of not looking back on the OP for specifics).  The false premise is that externally-derived ethics can only exist in the context of religion.  As the quotes you provide illustrate, Crat is positing that the only alternative to a religious source of ethics is for the individual to generate hir own.

My position is that ethics are not peculiarly religious at all, but cultural (of which religion is simply one aspect) - the ethical aspects of a culture are often supported, and may be enforced, by the religious aspects of that culture, but ethics/morals are a function of a culture's desire for self-preservation, rather than a function of its religion.  The appearance of ethics as a specifically religious matter is an offshoot of Western thought's intellectual separation of religion from other cultural matters.

Sunflower

[Yez]

The false premise is that externally-derived ethics can only exist in the context of religion.

Ah!  Okay, yes - I hadn't made that distinction.  (I'm such a Western thinker!)  My experiences, which contributed to my ethics, are certainly a matter of culture, as the "golden rule" arguably is (I think the GR is used in a secular manner as well as being a tenet of many religions).  Thanks for clearing that up for me :-)

[Starglade]

<snippage>

My position is that ethics are not peculiarly religious at all, but cultural (of which religion is simply one aspect) - the ethical aspects of a culture are often supported, and may be enforced, by the religious aspects of that culture, but ethics/morals are a function of a culture's desire for self-preservation, rather than a function of its religion.  The appearance of ethics as a specifically religious matter is an offshoot of Western thought's intellectual separation of religion from other cultural matters.

Sunflower

This is what HHDL is talking about, I think, in his book Ethics for the New Millennium. His point is, religiously derived ethics seem to have been divisive, historically speaking, because of the "I/mine" involved. "My religion says this, you aren't of my religion, therefore you are [fill in the blank--evil, foolish, stupid, damned, whatever]."  The system he proposes and discusses takes religion, anyone's religion, out of the picture entirely and focuses on the common human ethical system instead: "Everyone wants to be happy, and to not suffer." From that springboard one can create a system that doesn't require "We/our" and "they/their" at all. There is no "we," there is no "they," there are humans--the same, everywhere, with the same basic desires and needs.

I have to admire a spiritual leader who has the courage to say "Religion, I think, is something we could perhaps do without." Spirituality/ethical beliefs and practices, no--religion/dogma, yes.

[Sandi]

As the quotes [Yez] provide[ed] illustrate, Crat is positing that the only alternative to a religious source of ethics is for the individual to generate hir own.

I think this is a key point. If, as Crat suggests, there are "people without the skill to develop a socially assimilable ethics of their own", would they have the skills to assimilate and embrace any other external system of ethics?

If the answer is 'no', would it not be fair to say they are then forced to accept these ethics on faith?

Now, I'm no expert on Western thought, but I find it unlikely that an ethics based on rationality and reason is presented with a preface of "I've spent years working out this philosophy, and you should accept it blindly because I'm so smart."?

And thus, would not an ethical system embedded in a religion (which is primarily a support structure for faith), better serve, as you put it, the function of a culture's desire for self-preservation?

[HeartShadow - Cutethulhu]

And thus, would not an ethical system embedded in a religion (which is primarily a support structure for faith), better serve, as you put it, the function of a culture's desire for self-preservation?

You could argue that our laws are a non-religious ethical system.

Don't murder people, don't steal from people, etc.

[BGMarc]

Now, I'm no expert on Western thought, but I find it unlikely that an ethics based on rationality and reason is presented with a preface of "I've spent years working out this philosophy, and you should accept it blindly because I'm so smart."?

Stoicism can come close at times. It certainly includes an ethical component that is independent of religion. Technically it views all (or at least most) of us as having an imperfect rationality that may not be able to determine why a thing is ethical at any given point in time; however, if we follow the Stoic way (which is to say follow the dictates of our fundamental nature), we are assured of being ethical in the overwhelming majority of situations. It could be said that we have faith in the rationalism that we apply to the Sage and may deploy faith as our reason for following the Sage's path.

[BGMarc]

You could argue that our laws are a non-religious ethical system.

Don't murder people, don't steal from people, etc.

My knee-jerk reaction to this is that it lacks a component of explanation. Law tells us what we must/must not do without giving us a reason why. To me this means that it doesn't qualify as ethics. Is this component of explanatory meaning something that others here feel is necessary for a system to be an ethical system?

[HeartShadow - Cutethulhu]

My knee-jerk reaction to this is that it lacks a component of explanation. Law tells us what we must/must not do without giving us a reason why. To me this means that it doesn't qualify as ethics. Is this component of explanatory meaning something that others here feel is necessary for a system to be an ethical system?

well, the reason why is "because otherwise you get fined/ go to jail".

Which really isn't different from "because otherwise you go to hell" - it's not a system of POSITIVE ethics (you should do this because it's the right thing to do) - but it is a system of ethics.  I think.

[RandallS]

well, the reason why is "because otherwise you get fined/ go to jail".

Which really isn't different from "because otherwise you go to hell" -

Not any different at all, IMHO. Except that laws are much easier to change than directives a deity handed down centuries ago.

[BGMarc]

well, the reason why is "because otherwise you get fined/ go to jail".

Why do you go to jail though?

Which really isn't different from "because otherwise you go to hell"

One significant difference here seems to be the source of authority. Religiously-derived ethics posit that something is ethical because an absolute authority has ordained it so. Laws don't appear to make a claim regarding the ethicality of an action (i.e. its 'rightness' or 'wrongness'), but rather to make an announcement regarding what is allowed and what is not allowed. The former posits a reason for why something should be allowed or not, while the latter merely defines the consequences of doing that which is not allowed.

it's not a system of POSITIVE ethics (you should do this because it's the right thing to do) - but it is a system of ethics.  I think.

If positivism is not a necessary element of ethics, then what are the necessary elements? For, example, if I tell you to do xyz, is that an ethical directive, or is it just a statement of what I require of you?

[RandallS]

One significant difference here seems to be the source of authority. Religiously-derived ethics posit that something is ethical because an absolute authority has ordained it so.

One problem with Divine Command ethics is that the absolute authority/deity could define good however it wants. If the absolute authority/God says go kill the people different from you, then killing the people different than you is ethical. Divine Command ethics seems to assume that the deity commanding is basically good as we humans define good as most people would not be willing to consider such a "go kill those different than you" command ethical no matter who the absolute authority is.

[BGMarc]

One problem with Divine Command ethics is that the absolute authority/deity could define good however it wants. If the absolute authority/God says go kill the people different from you, then killing the people different than you is ethical.

Absolutely, I make no claim on the quality of such ethics (not that Divine Command is the only teleology able to provide ethics (Stoicism, for example, attempts a rationalist ethics)). That said, it does differ from law in that it makes a claim as to right vs wrong in relation to given acts/thoughts. The law seems to me to make no such claim. Law says only that xyz shall attract consequence abc because the state has so decreed (not because xyz is intrinsically right or wrong.

Divine Command ethics seems to assume that the deity commanding is basically good as we humans define good

This is only true if we believe that the will of a deity must conform to our individual preferences. In your example, either killing the 'other' is good because the divine command is definitively absolute (and the congregation just has to get over the fact that the universe doesn't run the way they think it should) or there is some set of rules that the individual is aware of and that deity is required to conform with. If that is the case, then what is the well of absolute knowledge to which the individual who disagrees with the Divine Command has access, but to which the divinity itself does not? The only other alternative that I can see is that the individual members of the religion each decide for themselves whether or not their deity knows what it's talking about.

most people would not be willing to consider such a "go kill those different than you" command ethical no matter who the absolute authority is.

The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to belie this point of view. Particularly when one considers the extensive media coverage of the fundamentalist religions underpinning many/most of the individuals in the major forces.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- About The Cauldron ----------------------------- => Rules and Regulations => Cauldron Announcements ===> Volunteers Needed: Site Assistants and Projects => Introductions => Board Questions, Suggestions, and Feedback => Chat and CauldronMUX Support => Test Board ----------------------------- Religion and Philosophy ----------------------------- => Paganism For Beginners => Books and Other Resources => Pagan Religions => Pagan Spirituality => Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology => Worship and Ritual => Holidays and Festivals => History and Religion => Faith in Everyday Life => Philosophy and Metaphysics => Non-Pagan Religions and Interfaith Discussions => Miscellaneous Religious Discussions ----------------------------- Magic and the Occult ----------------------------- => Magic and the Occult for Beginners => Witchcraft, Hoodoo, and Folk Magic => The Western Magical Tradition => Chaos Magic => Lodges and Other Magic Organizations => Miscellaneous Magical Discussions ----------------------------- Special Interest Groups & Special Discussions ----------------------------- => Special Topic Discussions => Chavi Memorial Chronic Illness SIG => General SIGS ===> College Pagans SIG ===> Cooking SIG ===> Divination SIG ===> Home and Garden SIG ===> Pagan Parents SIG ===> Teen Pagans SIG => Religious SIGS ===> Asatru and Heathenry SIG ===> Cauldron Cill ===> FlameKeeping SIG ===> Hazel and Oak: A Celtic Polytheism SIG ===> Neo-Druidry SIG ===> Reformed Kemeticism SIG ===> Ta Hiera Hellenic Polytheism SIG => Book/Media Discussion Boards ===> Academic Book Discussions ===> Pagan Religion Book Discussions ===> Magick Book Discussions ===> Fiction Book Discussions ===> DVD/Video Discussions ----------------------------- Life, the Universe, and Everything Else ----------------------------- => Pagan Announcements => Prayer and Energy Requests => News and Politics ===> Religious News ===> Non-Religious News ===> Political Discussions => Social Discussion Boards ===> Art, Poetry and Writing ===> Books ===> Computers and the Internet ===> Crafts and Hobbies ===> Family Life ===> Gaming ===> Health and Medicine ===> Humor and Quizzes ===> Music, Television, and Film ===> Pets ===> Science and Technology ===> Sports and Recreation