Anyone noticed how the modern day has diffused religion from purpose and granted an overall theme of morals–ethics–to live by that determine the “good hearted person,” or a “good guy” but are not assigned to any religion? This situation is interesting because it proves a wholistic, general occupation for the belief in the actions of people and the mixing of ideas [as many of our fellow philosophers on here have–converged the ideas of one religion with others, forming doctrines that are little pieces of everything]. But what is to be said about the “Good guy,” and why do view this person as fundamentally good without dogmatic religion?
The question we are bereft with is whether religion suffices the modern man with morality.
Religion has existed for over 2000 years but has anyting changed ??? I am not questioning the validity of theism but trying vaguely to justify the induction of morality into mainstream thought that which was not a capricious act but a result of moral evolution.
On the other hand we are not in a position to discuss the validity of a proposed divorce of Morality from religion as morality has always been seen from a common perspective to stem from religion but this notion is also widely debated… are we in a dilemma here ??
not necessarily, the solution does not depend on the very fact but that which influence wherein the uncertainty is delatory with time.
Hi kernel. You said, †The question we are bereft with is whether religion suffices the modern man with morality.â€
Religion is not necessarily associated with “morality.†For example, in Reformation Christian faith, morality is presumed and deemed lost a-priori. It is only when man recognizes and acknowledges his immorality that he may be at the gate of true salvation (religiously speaking) and therefore the path to true “morality.†In this, “conscious†awareness arrives (how it arrives is debated but the truth of predestination is obvious only to the enlightened).
The so-called gospel of “works†wildly incorporates human morality. But human morality as defined by “works†is not the mode to morality/salvation (Rom. 7: 14-25). Note that works based morality is not bad in-itself but bad only in the power that many religionists ascribe to it: that is their false teaching that “works†(morality) in-itself has the power to save a person - which it cannot. (Eph. 2: 4-9, Rom. 7: 14-25, etc).
As you correctly noticed, nothing has changed since the beginning of time: man is still immoral, corrupted and broken despite the absolute moralists insistence that works (morality) alone will save the day. Last thought; when the individual man becomes fully and entirely conscious of his absolute state of depravity, then and only then can the real, substantive and meaningful “teleological morality†occur (Luke 18: 9-14). Otherwise, he is like the religionist and absolute moralist (Luke 18: 10-14) who the text clearly states was not heaven bound as much as the immoral one was heaven bound. passion