Which is a superior foundation for morality: Christianity or Secular Humanism? [Spirituality & Religion]
While i think that Christianity has a number of good moral positions it also has some pretty wretched stuff which is (at least notionally) based on what a god wants. On the other hand, secular humanism holds as it's metric the idea of human flourishing and reduction of harm. It can encompass absolutely every moral virtue claimed by Christianity but is beholden to none of the harmful, punitive dictates that come from religious dogma.
Therefor i say that Secular humanism has the superior foundation for a system of morality.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
I think it helps to appreciate that Christianity is an awful big thing.
The Christianity I was brought up with has a strong resonance with Buddhism. The punitive ethical aspects are like in Buddhism, aimed at oneself. They are never pointed by the individual to others. The punishment aspects is also much like Buddhism. It happens at some time after death, and one is wholly uncertain of the outcome. In the case of Christianity because one does not and can not know the mind of God. But both similar in that it is difficult to know one's own heart and be confident of any reckoning. So what one does is live one's life engaging in the practice, the spiritual discipline. Which in both Christianity and Buddhism is largely love and compassion for others, service. In the case of Christianity love for God.
Traditionally Christians of that sort were not so different from secular humanists in how they engaged the world, as the metaphysical aspects of their faith are private and hidden. Faith points to oneself. Religious ethics point to oneself and as expressed socially are universal with any secular or religious tradition. Faith and religious ethics never points outside towards others, towards society. One's service to others directs itself outwards in a way much like secular humanism. Not in a parochial way.
It's a strange thing for me to see religious ethical judgement pointed to others. The number of people who have religiously damned people here is really stunning. People are damned for their belief about the age of a rock or their politics, much less how they treat others or relate to God. The public spectacle of faith-- which I would be the first to admit is protected by the first amendment-- is also strange to me. With this seems to come the demand and expectation that every aspect of one's faith be accepted and embraced in a public social setting.
Well that's absolutely true. There are as many flavours of Christianity as there are Christians, as the saying goes lol.
But i wonder if any version can wholly escape what i view as the most fundamental difference between theistic morality and secular humanism. At the end of the day the Christian believes that the greatest moral achievement is doing what is pleasing to god. Service to and glory of god are at the center of the moral landscape...not humans. Which seems like a bit of a downside since humans are the ones the morality affects lol
Where I used to live, there were these stray feral cats. They were starving, and so were their kittens. My late wife and I got the kittens that survived adopted, and we took in the two adult feral cats. We cared for them until we eventually had to put them down because they were ill and dying.
Was that a "good" act?
For some it is only a "good" act if one is an adherent of a particular religion.
I say it is a "good" act regardless.
There are ethics that are universal to the human experience.
@Pikachu Many many fundamentalists would, including self-appointed pastors on SW. Ethics are only possible with a relgious confession, and a specific one at that.
