There should be a "shared moral fabric" that underlies religions.
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
YES !!!! This is what I keep telling Prof !!!
We are governed by "Manu dharma " (with exceptions) ...
Growing up I always thought , pain is what makes us human not joy ...
To solve problems objectively needs more of compassion, the only catch is do we see its universality !!!
There is no rigid connection between religion and morality. If people proceed only from the fact of their belonging to a certain religion, then it will be very difficult or impossible to resolve moral contradictions. Fortunately, in everyday life, people often proceed from their instinct of self-preservation and common sense, and not from their religious affiliations, when they solve moral issues in practice.
It depends entirely on how flexible and open-minded these people from different religions are, I think. If a person from one religion tolerates, let's say, "honor killing," I do not see how someone from a different religion can ever agreee to that. What about genital mutilation? Or how about tolerating deceit in order to convert a non-believer? There are just too many examples of religious beliefs, or even just cultural norms, that are too thoroughly unacceptable in other cultures and religions, to be swept under the rug.
In fact, there is no reason to even stray into other religions, to see how disagreements between super-devout and more reasonably-minded people can reach an impasse. If God commanded Joshua to wipe out the Canaanites, in Deuteronomy, not to mention others, how can one convince a lunatic today to resist his murderous urges? I've never seen this explained.
Yes, I agree with my colleagues and cooperation a good way for the best results
Hello,
Dalia Lama 's statement about the major religions of the world is meritorious in that he believes all religions possess "the moral precepts for perfecting the functioning of the mind, body, and speech". What has led to moral disagreements among religions is the lack of dialogue and mutual understanding. Therefore, using Lama's statement as a starting point, I believe that all religions endorse and support elements of morality and moral disagreements are rooted in the selfish desires of those fanatics whose dark intentions are adorned with a religious coloring.
Best regards,
R. Biria
All religion advise to be honest, not to be cruel, not to be hypocrite, tolerant to the person's having other thoughts, to help poor neighbour, not to kill anybody, not to perform any crime, to obey rules of humanity etc.
So, if any person has sufficient education and maturity to understand his/her own religion, he/ she may understand and follow the essence of his/ her own religion.
If anybody act differently, he/ she has deficiency in understanding of the actual essence of his/her own religion.
I trust this.
Thanks.
deaer doctor
Yes, because all religions urge people to adhere to supreme principles and higher morals because I believe that all religions have one goal: to build the best of man and humanity. best wishes
There is indeed a shared 'moral fabric' as Dennis Mazur rightly points out, one existing without the unruly impress of religion (s), seen in early societies as well as present ones, within small isolated communities and large urban ones.
No, they cannot. It was practically impossible in the polytheistic religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, and was more or less impossible in the Middle Ages. A real progress was the end of human and animal sacrifice in Late Antiquity thanks to the development of new philosophical trends, but the moral codes of the three so-called monotheistic religions have remained in substantial disagreement from the Middle Ages until today, especially in relation to war, alimentary and sexual behavior. What about food taboos, circumcision, polygamy and so on? Is it possible to build a common human morality on the basis of such different religious traditions if the human person with his rights is not placed at the centre of the world?
Polytheistic religions got along fine without fighting or without much unresolved disagreement. Divinities were metaphors without ideological cores. In Egypt ethics, for example, was represented by Maat, both the behaviour and goddess. Mesopotamian kings easily converted their principal goddesses into Hathor.
It is the Abrahamic religions that take issue with other religions holding that their gods are universal and are intolerant of other ways of thinking. Monotheism rejects all rivals.
You can’t generalize about all people in one religion versus another. Remember ISIS and how they couldn’t even tolerate members of their own religion on moral grounds (their morals). There are branches in many of the major religions of the world where morals evolved overtime so that what was morally acceptable centuries ago is no longer true. It is my opinion that if you deal with educated people that are well versed in their own religion and those of others, we may then have basis for resolving moral disagreements. Amir
How many are well-versed in their own religions? I mix with all religions and am often appalled by the ignorance and different perceptions of morality, quite foreign to mine, I come across-backed up by religious text. Many who hold such views are 'educated', as many in ISIS were and are. I know Phd holders who base their thinking on the Penteteuch, which to me is deeply morally suspect.
My dealings with religious people has informed me that religions are not necessarily morally or ethically based but subject to other, complex forces-while the secular (perceiving the world outside of religious text) seem actually more inclined towards ethics and understand it better.
Yes and I would reference A Testament Of Hope: The Essential Writings And Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. Edited by James M. Washington and the book "Where Do We Go From Here?" and this quote from Chapter 6 entitled " The World House" on page 617 " Some Years ago a famous novelist died. Among his papers was found a list of suggested plots for future stories, the most prominently underscored being this one:' A widely separated family inherits a house in which they have to live together'. This is the great new problem of (hu)mankind. We have inherited a large house, a great 'world house' in which we have to live together - black and white, Easterner and Westerner, Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Hindu - a family unduly separated in ideas, culture and interest, who, because we can never again live apart, must learn somehow to live with each other in peace".
Dear Kirk,
People practicing different religions have often succeeded in the past to resolved moral disagrement and they often failed also. So it does not depend on the religion but on the people. Religon is not captured by what is written down, morality is not captured by what is written down and if it was the case then they would be no hope are resolution but it is not the case. Religion is lived and this is living and what is living can see resolution in the direction of the common good. What is written down of religions is like totally different languages but what is lived has to be similar since it is about very similar humans. Although another language that we not speak might be totally incomprehensible but we know that linguist have been able to compare them and they are all similar , much more similar than our total lack of comprehension sudgest. It is the same with other religions but there are not very good religious linguist to make us realize this. But even the reality of language is not what is written down or spoken but is in the living speaking reality and so the linguist also have this problem of pointing what is language. Like morality, religion it can't be written down , what is written down are just pointers meaningfull only into a live reality and only those living it not being at the level of the stupidly interpretation can really talk to each other. Never try to send the dogmatic speak to each other, they are those who are opposed to such dialogue, they are for divergence and not convergence even within their own community.
Although this observation does not strictly fit this question's guidelines, let me neverthelss throw it in.
Having dealt with people of all religions over considerable lengths of time, I have noticed that good people (for the sake of this question described as compassionate, non-violent. and unselfish) belong to all religions, and bad people (violent, negative, intolerant) to all religions.
But-my second observation is that religion can make good people more benevolent, etc, and make bad people considerably worse. Issis was/is an example of that. Again, goodness and badness (neither suitable terms) appear to have little to do with religion but exist separately.
My third obervation, which fits in neatly with the question, is that religions should be on constant quard where text and institutions offer ways to encourage and exacerbate the latter, make changes where possible in both. Added to these of course is my much repeated observation that religions have little to do with morality, and if we can acknowledge that, then some progress can be made.
There must be a standard greater than outselves, if not then its a matter of opinion.
Hi Kirk
It is possible as long as their religious practices consider tolerance as a virtue and respect for cultural differences. Otherwise it will be uphill to agree a minimum of moral coexistence
Consider for a moment the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
All of them claim that there is one and only one God, I think.
From a logical point of view, this could only be consistent, if all three believe in the same God.
Otherwise, surely one or more of them are not right.
What can I missing in this logical argument?
The problem is that these three monotheistic religions DO NOT believe in the same God. To be more precise, and to avoid possible and easy misunderstandings, I think that these religions claim to worship the same "Abrahamic" God, but in reality each of them has developed its peculiar tradition and its own "theology" and morals. This makes any attempt at reciprocal communication or co-existence very difficult.
Pier Franco Beatrice I am totally incompetent and unqualified to comment on your answer. I will defer to the scholars on RG who are far more knowledge to provide feedback on your answer.
Believers never agree on a single concept of morality. For example, some believe that the hijab of women is of good morals and symbolizes chastity. Others consider that hijab does not express morality, but rather considers it as a kind of men's oppression of women. Another example is that biting is a sign of moral righteousness, while others see it as a kind of moral anesthesia, as Marx said, "religion is the opium of the people".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy