Transcript Most contemporary philosophers think that you not only CAN

RELIGION AND
VALUES
Most contemporary
philosophers think that you not
only CAN talk about values
independent of religion, but that
you SHOULD.
WHY?
COMPELLING REASONS…


Consider Kohlberg’s levels of moral
reasoning: If I do what’s “right” for
fear of going to hell or for the
privilege of getting into heaven, it’s
pretty difficult for a believer to act
ethically. Explain.
How can one be certain that reward
is not one’s motivation?
COMPELLING REASONS



Has religious belief produced more
good or more harm in human history?
While it may not be possible to
balance the impact of religion, its
impact has certainly not been wholly
positive.
Catch: If one is a believer, souls
saved count in favor of the good
benefits of religious belief.
COMPELLING REASONS


Is the argument -- “Religion is good
for people”-- supported by the
research?
Effect on marriage:


Divorce rates are higher among
Christians and Jews than among
agnostics and atheists (Barna Research
Group).
Domestic violence is greater among
“fundamentalists” (Jim Wallis).
COMPELLING REASONS


Is the argument -- “Religion is good
for people” -- supported by the
research?
Effect on physical well being:


Some studies link regular attendance at
religious services with better
immunological response and longer
survival with AIDS.
Perhaps religious communities offer clear
support and it’s that support rather
than religion that we need?
COMPELLING REASONS

Life is filled with horrors – an
argument against the existence of a
loving, omnipotent God



Natural evils: earthquakes, floods,
rampant disease, droughts
Unnatural evils: rape, plunder,
slaughter, torture, terror, war
If one were to pick a contemporary
human being at random, what is the
probability that his or her life would
be as good as yours?



WE picture a “normal” life as one of
development in childhood, joys in
marriage and child-rearing,
reflection in retirement and death in
our sleep at the published life
expectancy.
If we get anything else, we think our
rights have been violated.
Most lives do not fit that pretty
picture at all.
David Hume:
Is he willing to prevent evil but
not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent. Is he
both able and willing? Whence
then is evil? Nothing can
shake the solidity of this
reasoning, so short, so clear,
so decisive…
CAN RELIGION BE
COMPATIBLE WITH
DETERMINING WHAT
IS ETHICAL?
Taken from Patrick Grim’s
Question of Values, Lecture 6:
“Thoughts on Religion and
Values.” Chantilly, VA: The
Teaching Company, 2005.