Relationship between religion and morality Modern monotheistic religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity (and to a certain extent others, such as Sikhism). Most religious people think that their morality comes from their religion. And deeply religious people often wonder how atheists can have any morality. The term “religious pluralism” is almost always used for a theory that affirms a positive value for many or most religions.
But we can also speak of “negative religious pluralism”, in which most or all religions have little or no positive value and are equal in this respect. This would be the opinion of many naturalists, who maintain that all religions are the product of the human imagination and do not have most or all of the values that are affirmed for them. Byrne 2004; Feuerbach 196 All major religions, then, are really oriented toward, and involve the experience of some reality considered “ultimate” (Creativity, God, or Cosmos). Each major religion is also allowed to actually offer the cure it claims to offer (for example, salvation and heaven, Nirvana, Moksha) and has the right to act according to its own moral and epistemic values.
In addition, it respects all these differences and does not try to eliminate them, thus making genuine dialogue possible between members of religions. Finally, Cobb and Griffin emphasize that this approach does not support any unreasonable form of relativism and, as such, allows one to remain distinctly Christian or Buddhist, etc. They hope that each religion can, while remaining different, begin to build “global theologies”, influenced by the truths and values of other religions. In all these ways, they argue that their ultimist pluralism is superior to other pluralisms.
The emergence of ethics as an independent field of research, the effort to distinguish morality from religion, and the compensatory effort to reaffirm a place for religion in human life arise from a very particular cultural and social context. In the case of the above magic, there is a moral behavior defended by the Bible that is rejected by most people. Religion cannot be reduced to morality, as some 19th century thinkers argued, because religions address a variety of human interests and concerns. The intersections of morality and religion involve the relationship between religious opinions and morals.
This vision is representative of the tendency of other major religions in the world to fulfill the promise of universality implicit in the moral point of view. Most of those who believe that such proselytism is not justified challenge the moral character of exclusivists who try to convince those who disagree to accept their perspective as the only truth. Basically, people take or abandon religious morality according to some internal moral compass they already have. While Christians are justly proud of the moral wisdom that this simple decision-making procedure represents, the Golden Rule is by no means limited to Christianity.
However, he thought it was arbitrary and indefensible to maintain that only his own experiences or the experiences of the members of his group are true, while those of people of other religions are not. The delineation and justification of moral rules have been the main focuses of most moral theories. Therefore, his work highlighted the difficulty of maintaining moral commitment and opened up, as never before, the possibility for rational people to abandon morality. Therefore, the separation of ethical theory from theology and philosophy from religion, which ethical theorists carried out during the modern period, has been somewhat reconsidered.
While the Golden Rule is an impressive and intuitive guide to making responsible moral decisions, its approach is too limited. In addition, it requires the will to reason about moral choices in an impartial manner, as if the agent were only an interest among all those affected by an election. Undoubtedly, each of these important moments of religious change involves more than just moral reform (nor are the allegations of the reformist tradition always correct). .
