Is basing religion on morality a good idea? Is basing religion on morality a good idea? Many people agree although some atheists may disagree. One common complaint about secularism is that religion and belief in God are fundamentals for morality, Justice, and a democratic society. The basic premise here is that the only values which ultimately matter are those which are transcendent, and such values can only be perceived and understood through religious tradition and a connection with the divine.
It is strange that such a belief could be as common as it is, because religions and various types of theism have had literally thousands of years during which they could demonstrate that they could provide the basis for a Just, moral, and democratic society. For the most part, they haven done a very good Job; on the contrary, religion is too often associated with immorality, injustice, and political repression.
Although these failures do not prove that religion cannot help provide a basis for morality, Justice and democracy, they do prove that such values do not naturally and immediately flow from religion – an important point which should discourage people from actively believing in the necessary connection between those values and either religion generally or their religion in particular. Is Religion Necessary for Morality? Is morality dependent upon the existence of any gods? There is no clear reason why we should believe such a thing.
If we assume the existence of a god, even a god who has many of the traditional qualities of classical, philosophical theism, there are no particular moral values which we can derive from that premise. Can human morality exist without religion? There is no simple “yes” or “no” answer to this question. The Chambers Dictionary’s first definitions of morality are: “relating to character or conduct consider as good or evil; ethical; adhering to or directed towards what is right. This raises the question of what is good/evil or right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable and who decides what is good/evil, right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable for morality cannot be discussed without giving them consideration. The Individual There are those who argue that something is acceptable/unacceptable based on hat an individual believes; in other words, there is no objective criterion. What may be wrong/unacceptable for one person may be right/acceptable for another. The challenge to this view is that, on a practical level it can give license to do anything and would make laws unenforceable.
It would give Justification to those who rape, murder or abuse children; all things which the vast majority of people find reprehensible. Society Others are of the opinion that right/wrong is based upon what is good for the harmonious ordering of society. They see the need for some kind of objective moral ode. Thus laws against murder, stealing and rape may be based on principles found in religious texts, but their value lies in that they promote harmony, peace and stability; there is no need for a religious underpinning of these moral codes.
The challenge to this view is that certain societies have enacted laws, and behaved in a manner which many find morally unacceptable. One needs only to think of the perfectly legal actions taken by the Nazis against such groups as Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and the mentally challenged. One also has to ask some questions: (a) are hinges morally acceptable simply because they are legal and designed to promote a safe and stable society – as they were in all of the above cases? B) Are current laws restricting the freedom of women (and in some cases, regarding them as being subject to men) in certain Arab states considered to be moral; after all, they are designed to facilitate a harmonious society. God People of faith believe that basing morality on individual preference leads to self- centeredness and societal chaos.
Likewise, basing morality solely on the beliefs of a reticular society leads to equating morality with legality and thus potentially makes an act morally acceptable in one country and reprehensible in another. This would be seen as inconsistent and simply applying the principles of no. On a wider scale. For those who consider to be flawed, it is God who establishes the foundations of morality. For people of faith the external moral code is based on sacred texts such as the Bible or Curran; ideally, these moral codes are reflected in secular laws. Some religious groups (e. G. Catholics and Orthodox) supplement this external code with an internal moral one based on Natural Law; this moral guide is “written in the heart” of every human being and includes such things as the sanctity of life and the inclination towards fairness, goodness and cooperation.
For the person of faith, it is not enough to consider the wishes of the individual, important though he or she undoubtedly may be; nor is it sufficient to consider the goal of a harmonious and stable society. For believers the underlying basis for morality is that all human beings are made in the Divine image and likeness; thus all are intimately connected. This is why Christ was able to say ‘Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters you do to me. (Matthew 25:40) and John states “Let us love one another since love is from God, and everyone who love is a child of God and knows God. ” (l John:7) Thus, for the person of faith, although it is quite possible to be a morally good person without explicitly acknowledging God, that very God dwells in the heart of everyone by virtue of Natural Law. Further, morality is not simply about a harmonious, fair and stable society but involves the realization that every person is sacred and, in some eel way, related to everyone else through a common bond of creation.
The challenge to this view is that religious people have been all-too-weak and frequently failed to live up to the moral guidelines they believe are from God. Further, some have used Scripture – out of context – to Justify behavior which would be considered immoral. Finally, people of faith must also confront the reality that some passages in sacred texts portray a God who advocates the destruction of innocent people. The response that these passages were written by men of a particular era (and thus intentioned by the thinking and moral codes of that period) might well ring hollow in the minds of non-believers.
My Opinion My opinion is that basing morality on religion is a good idea due to religion has morals in itself and basing malarial on religion helps people to know right and wrong trot the guidance to their religious principles. For example, I am a Muslim and tort me it is forbidden to consume alcohol. This is a part of my absolute morals which I will follow for the rest of my life. Some people may argue that you do not need the Quern to guide Muslims. I agree with this due to the Quern is words from the almighty himself, and that the Quern is a guidebook for mankind.
I feel that when basing malarial with religion, it raises religious awareness of your decisions and how they will affect you in the afterlife. If we look at some quotations from the Quern, we can see where the almighty talks about alcohol and its affect and punishment: 1 . They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: “In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit. ” (AAA-Bazaar; 2:219) 2. And from the fruit of the date palm and the vine, ye get out wholesome drink and DOD: behold, in this also is a sign for those who are wise. (An-Anal; 16:67) 3. O ye who believe!
Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say…. (An-NASA; 4:43) 4. O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination, Of Satin’s handiwork: Eschew such (abomination) that ye may prosper. (AAA Made; 5:90) 5. Satin’s plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of God, and from prayer: Will ye to then refrain? (AAA-Made; 5:91) We can see from this that how the almighty talks about how alcohol affects us, and how we should not drink alcohol.
These parts of the Quern can show us how not Just god, but religion as well, helps us lead the right path and also know what’s right and wrong. Conclusion It is clear, from simple observation in daily life, that a person who is an atheist may live what most people would consider to be a moral life. For obvious reasons, it is unlikely that an atheist’s moral code would be based upon thinking only of himself/ resell The morality of an atheist may then come from what is commonly held by the people of a particularly country and thus legislated by the state.
However, what then happens if an atheist, who is also a pacifist, lives in a state which subsequently passes a law he/she considers to be unjust e. G. Military conscription in time of war? On what basis does the atheist reject that law if his/her morality is based upon what is believed by the people of the state? One is inevitably led to position or the Catholic/Orthodox concept of Natural Law; the moral atheist would find both unacceptable, but would then have to find a way to explain his/her objection without falling into the position of either camp.