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 »
@Pikachu I cannot say which is better equipped but the genuine Christian message may be the simpler.
The difficulty in anchoring basic human morality to any specific faith or non-deist belief is that it can lead to the twisted logic of:
"I believe in X. I believe X teaches me to be good therefore X is good. Therefore anything else and by extension its followers, are bad."
No. You are good because you do not want to hurt other people; and anyway there are many who might claim to follow X but whose personal morality and desire to hurt others is very "un-X" indeed.
Bit like the old, "Fish in the sea. Whales live in the sea. Therefore whales are fish."
[quote]"I believe in X. I believe X teaches me to be good therefore X is good. Therefore anything else and by extension its followers, are bad."[/quote]
Well that's definitely not what i'm trying to say here.
@ArishMell [quote]the genuine Christian message may be the simpler. [/quote] What is it though? Those who claim to follow (their version of) it seem quite willing to persecute and even kill those who disagree. Doesn't sound very moral to me.
@Pikachu I know. Your question merely asks a comparison between approaches to morality.
I am afraid though that the "I believe X therefore X is fact and I am right" is too often the stance of the hard-line religious (and some of the anti-religious).
Their view that they are virtuous because they follow their stated belief, traps them into implying anyone else is therefore amoral, even immoral.
You can base your own behaviour on a religion's teachings, but you do not need follow any religion to know the same differences between right and wrong. The only rules irrelevant to the non-believer are those promoting or defending any particular deity; but some believers regard breaking them, or even simple non-belief, as personal insults. After all, a deity is presumably more than capable of ignoring slights and looking after itself; rather better than mere humanity looks after itself.
[i]That is why I answer your heading question with "neither".[/i]
No religion or philosophy is necessarily superior to any other in providing a social foundation called "morality".
The social constraints of "morality" gained theological dimensions by absorption into formal religions created by ancient societies recognising the power in doing so.
That does not judge the value or otherwise of any particular constraints of which some are still viable in all societies and religious beliefs, and some are obsolete, absurd, even undesirable, in other societies centuries later. It simply states their history; but that history can allow their use for general and social good. Or indeed their own immoral abuse for deeply hypocritical, fallibly human, power.
I am afraid your question is too narrow. I suggest you would have been better to consider the same differences between religious and non-religious approaches, rather than those of one specific religion and one rather un-defined philosophy.
@ArishMell [quote]Your are right but that is not the Christian message.[/quote]
You make my point. That is not your interpretation of "the christian message", other have different interpretations of it - including "kill the unbeliever". In their eyes, your interpretation is wrong.
[quote]It is the actions of those using the religion in pursuit of their own power,[/quote] That seems to be the whole point of organized religion.
@Carazaa Oh, yes, I know that is his message and as a way of life it is fine. Sadly though, as you know there are plenty who profess to be Christians but preach only inter-faith or inter-sect divisions and intolerance - hardly Christian, hardly moral.
It's not confined to Christianity of course, but all the more hypocritical when the faith itself preaches love and tolerance.
I think the question flawed by implying a difference between the only two forms of belief competing to monopolise "morality", however defined.
They don't of course. I am not religious but I do know the difference between good and bad behaviour without having any faith's scriptures to hand. I do not mind people being religious at all, nor for having no such beliefs. I do though think it very wrong to assume behavioural superiority over anyone else merely for different theological beliefs - Christianity, Judaisn, Islam, A.N.Other or none.
My understanding reading the Bible is that "[b][c=BF0000]Love covers all sin[/c][/b]" God says. However, Jesus is very clear only born again Christians go to heaven. "[b][c=BF0000]You must be born again"[/c][/b] The Holy spirit must come into our hearts for us to be a new creature and then we belong to God forever.
For those who have not repented when Jesus comes will be judged for the sins they comitted, but not for the loving acts they did. Jesus also said these are those who love me, those who keep my commandments, Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and treat others as you want to be treated. Upon these two commandments hang all the laws" There is no higher virtue.
@Carazaa I accept that's what you believe but my central point is that "morality" - a code of social behaviour and the subject of the question - cannot be monopolised by any one religion or philosophy.
Attemps to do so are not only illogical, but divisive by creating airs of superiority.
That's why I say "neither" to the original question. Your religion may be meaningless to an atheist, of merely academic interest to an agnostic and "wrong" to an ardent follower of some other religion; but that alone does not make those individuals any more or less moral than you and me.
