British Prime Minister David Cameron has claimed that secularists "fail to grasp the role that faith has is shaping the moral code" Is it not a fact that the pursuit of truth through science can be just as powerful a force for shaping an ethical and moral code?
Barry,
Theistic does not always mean moral and Atheistic does not always mean immoral.
There are moral and immoral people among both Secularists and people who profess to follow a faith. The PM and yourself are looking at the wrong place, and accusing the wrong people; He assuming that Secularists"fail to grasp..." and and you stating that "the pursuit of truth through science... ".
The answers lie in the "Evolution of Human Consciousness". The more evolved a person's consciousness is, the more moral and universal he/she is. Lower states are selfish and 'me-first' oriented. Higher states are "universally altruistic and tolerant".
That being said, currently we do not have a consensus on the working definition of Consciousness in "modern science', let alone a system of measuring Consciousness in Human beings to understand Human behavior. It is the 'Final Frontier' for "modern science".
To sum up, both faith and science can provide a path to morality.
Hope this helps.
Raveendra, Thanks for your answer, fascinating as ever. I cannot speak for our PM but I am not looking at any particular place here.
Barry,
In more simpler words, what I meant was that you quoting the PM, and he referring to secularists..
Regards
Cameron may not be wrong, in that some people that he would refer to as secularists (which is not to assume those people would self-identify as such) may indeed underestimate the role religion plays in informing both individuals' and cultures' senses of morality. He seems to imply some questionable assertions though, such as the one to which you seem to have responded: that science or other secular approaches to ethical issues cannot influence "moral code" as strongly.
To some extent this implied assertion is unfalsifiable. Many secular theoretical advances are fairly new, such as empirical research in moral psychology. These young sciences haven't been around long enough for history to test their influence on a broad scale, nor to have produced strong and well-established interventions for individuals, though they may in time.
In other ways, the implied assertion is simply false. Much of popular moral code is built on perfectly secular philosophical bases that innumerable authors have codified throughout the millenia since the dawn of history itself. For instance, the influence of Greek ethical philosophers has coexisted with Judeo-Christian influences more or less throughout history. Causal claims regarding the current moral code face something of a chicken-or-egg dilemma, so even the explicit assertion is debatable.
Is there any reason to think that faith shapes moral codes, rather than the reverse?Faiths are beliefs not justified by any rational argument based on demonstrable evidence, so they are presumably ideas made up to suit what people want to believe. So I guess that faiths have always just been formalisations of pre-existing moral values. They may of course become anachronistic and so may influence moral values in a sort of 'culture drag' sense but its seems unlikely that a faith is ever the cause of a moral value. It is interesting that Mr Cameron went to an educational establishment that is supposed to be good at critical thinking and seems to have escaped this exercise, although I find this no particular surprise, particularly in relation to the dark blue place.
On the other hand science might perhaps be an important informer and creator of moral values. What very few people seem to have cottoned on to is that the theory of Wallace and Darwin suggests something morally very disturbing that maybe we should come to terms with. Absolutely everything that we value as human beings has been paid for, and ultimately will have to be continued to be paid for in the most terrible currency possible - the death of our daughters. Shakespeare's concept of tragedy wasn't the half of it. Rigoletto is nearer the mark. Our world is imploding in the most catastrophic way and maybe it is about time we stopped to think what 'doing good' really means. Clearly Cameron simply doesn't get it, but sadly I am not sure that Milliband does either even if he shows a little more compassion.
Dear All,
An example of an effective science put into practice on oneself to achieve morality.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24272978
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7777912.stm
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22618186
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-15779911
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8472762.stm
A proven and realistic method that has achieved moral transformations around the world.
Regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics