Does Ethics Depend on Religion?Essay Preview: Does Ethics Depend on Religion?Report this essayBlackburn argues the death of God is not a threat to ethics, even though on the surface it appears to be that way. He considers the death of God to be far from a threat, instead acting as a catalyst for a new beginning in the field of ethics. Blackburn looks at the death of God as a good event for ethics, stating “Plato tells us that the ethical laws cannot be arbitrary whims of personalized Gods. Maybe instead we can make our own laws” (Blackburn 19). In this quote, he is suggesting we’d be better off making our own morals and ethics instead of following the teachings of a God. I agree with Blackburn in the respect that ethics does not depend on religion, but unlike Blackburn, I believe religion depends on ethics as well and is necessary to the functioning of our society.
{articleCited below}
This is a very important point to have in the history of the Church. We Catholics are at first inspired by Christianity, yet the “god” that is worshipped by the Jews is not only incompatible with our faith, but is a false and corrupt one. As such, even if Jesus Christ is real, we should have no idea what life is really like for Catholics, nor should we be afraid to accept what the Church taught us. In this view, Jesus Christ is, in effect, a revelation to us, not a divine Being (Blackburn 4:17–18:10).
{articleCited below}
The true meaning of the term “God” which is used in the Old Testament is that God is to be seen as the “creative” or “divine.”
He was also “the Word” of God (Hosea 22:14). And, of course, he was not a “creator of all things” or a “good” being (Balkin 15:2–9) . In short, as He has become God in an “intimate, cosmic, personal, and even physical reality” (Blackburn 2:8), He possesses, in a sense, ultimate sovereignty over all others (e.g., “you are without beginning”). . The Old Testament teaches that Christ, who was born of a virgin Mary, was divinely destined to become God (1 Corinthians 4:26,27). In other words He was given an ultimate spiritual reality (Paul 15:42), and also divinely ordained.
{articleCited below}
The book of Acts is an important example of this idea that “God is just” (1 Corinthians 4:12). It lays out the relationship with God as God to all. It shows in great detail that God, in a sense (or perhaps a sense) of it, is all. And God, then, is not just an eternal being, but a Creator. What Paul does in this study seems to come into direct conflict with the Book of Acts, because it claims a different meaning from the meaning of God’s being.
, (1 Corinthians 4:12) it is claimed that God is just because he “is all”… It also says that “all things are revealed and are right” (Romans 9:14). That’s the book of Acts, in which Christ will teach and bring salvation and all things are good (Philippians 4:18 and Acts 10:44). I would say that this is a great example of God’s being all-in. It reminds us that the Bible is a spiritual book that tells the same story. God is all things to everyone but the only one who can tell and help others to be saved by faith. (Romans 8:4 and Eph 1:10) This understanding of God’s being all-in is clear to me. The Book of Acts is meant to teach the gospel of God to people only, not to teach those who have been deceived to believe the gospel in order to be saved. Paul uses a literal example from the Old Testament where Paul calls upon the living God for salvation through Christ. Paul does this in order to show that Christ is the only living God, for we can
We are born into our ethics, just as we are born into a religion, be it Christianity or Atheistic. From an early age we are indoctrinated, and the beliefs become so much a part of our life that the idea of questioning or doubting them is unimaginable. At a young age we don’t have the ability to question an idea as complex as the validity of a religion. We are young and naįve, assuming everything we learn in Sunday school and hear from our parents to be the truth. I don’t think a five year old is going to refute his parents on the birth of Christ during the car ride home from church. In this aspect, our ethics may be dependent upon our religion and what we are taught, acting as a compass we clutch onto as a guide through the thick jungles of our early years. Until obtaining the ability to decipher complex concepts such as abortion, our ethical values depend upon the teachings of the faith our parents expose us to or teach us as kids. As we grow older, we begin to question what we have been taught and wonder if we accept it all as truth or not.
After maturing and attaining more knowledge, we begin to develop our own set of ethics. We may still attend church on a regular basis and be firm believers, but challenge or disagree with some of its values. This situation confronted me a few years ago. Being raised in a Methodist church, gay marriage was shammed and taught to be a sin. I always agreed with this principle, not having any experiences or reasons to refute it. Then one day a good friend of mine opened up about his sexuality, telling me he was gay. He told me being gay is something he wished he wasn’t and has tried to prevent from happening, willing to do anything he could to be straight. It was just a natural feeling to him for as long as he could remember. I believe my friend’s testimonial; I now don’t opine being gay is a choice. Like he told me, who would ever choose to live a life of chastisement? At the time this event came up I was at the point in life where people begin to make their own set of values and ethics, which sometimes lead them to rejection of their prior faith or maybe make them switch to another religion or belief. When making our own set of morals and ethics growing up, we can then decide what religion, if any, is right for us. This is why I believe religion is dependent upon ethics. It also explains why so many people are baptized in their forties and why many Christians become Atheists after twenty years of following Christ. This is why ethics can lead a person to a religion, and not the other way around as Blackburn suggests.
In the situation above, instead of going through an external god, I made the decision on my own. Blackburn agrees with me in this respect and would have done the same thing. “The detour through an external god, then, seems worse than irrelevant. It seems to distort the very idea of a standard of conduct” (17). This is a powerful statement. Instead of turning to The Bible to see what it has to say on the matter of homosexuality, I formed my own opinion and then referenced to The Bible to see what it has to say on the matter, hoping it would back me up and reaffirm the correctness in my decision. Obviously this reaffirmation didn’t happen, but nevertheless I didn’t change my mind just because a supreme God disagreed. Like Blackburn suggests, “Maybe instead we can make our own laws” (19), I made my own decision on this matter. This is how I believe people should always make their decisions when it comes to ethics: on their own accord and not someone else’s.
Blackburn points out a situation that brings an unsettling truth. “He [Jesus] refuses help to the non-Jewish woman from Canaan with the chilling racist remark, вЂ?It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and cast it to dogs’ (Matt. 15:26; Mark 7:27)” (12). A Christian could treat nonbelievers with contempt throughout their life, pointing to evidence in The Bible as a justification, but that doesn’t make them morally right. Just as Blackburn believes, “Unhappily myth and religion stand at the service of bad morals as well” (18). This is just one of many examples where Jesus has an opinion on a matter that today is considered ethically wrong, even by the most orthodox Christian’s standard. Other examples Blackburn points out include “[he] believes that birth control is a capital crime (Genesis 38:9-10), is keen on child abuse (Proverbs 22:15, 23:13-14, 29:15), and for good measure, approves of fool abuse (Proverbs 26:3)” (11). Clearly, no one in today’s society approves of someone who has these set of morals. Many Christians are quick to point to changing times and culture, but that relativistic look is not a good way to approach the study of ethics. Just because times have changed doesn’t make what happened thousands of years ago morally correct. Blackburn points out this relativistic view in his book, Being Good, as one of the seven threats to ethics.
These views Blackburn and I share about religion and ethics would hold up for not only Christianity, but also polytheistic religions. Think back to the days of the great Roman Empire. Imagine if Mars, the god of war, was proved to be nonexistent? Roman soldiers who regularly pray to this god for strength in battle would be devastated. They would lose much hope in battle and probably have chaos before war. Blackburn’s account of religion definitely applies in this example, and would apply to atheists and reincarnationists alike. However, I don’t think the accounts of religion Blackburn and I agree on would