Why the Idea of Morality Without Religion is Valid

“The possession of knowledge does not kill the sense of wonder and mystery. There is always more mystery.”
― Anaïs Nin
Post Reply
User avatar
Anomaly654
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:49 pm
Location: midwest US

Why the Idea of Morality Without Religion is Valid

Post by Anomaly654 » Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:58 pm

Based on the value mechanism methodology posted in this section, it seems to me that if the methodology holds up, the theist generally and the Christian specifically should abandon the larger part of his religious exclusivism as misdirected and acknowledge that the atheist is as entitled to hold actual [compared to superficial] moral values as the Christian or anyone else. The reason for this post is my having run into on "theology" boards over the years the recurring notion that without the aid of being 'born again', the rightly-held morals of the anti-religious is done accidentally and superficially. There are a variety of proof texts used in support of this thesis which is unnecessary to get into here because their interpretation is based on what I consider to be a largely corrupt interpretive system--historical-grammatical method; literalism. Won't get into the theology here, but one interpretive convention that follows from the speculative metaphysic of value mechanics identifies the process of sanctification (the destruction of falsity in information and its restoration to a true state) as identical to the process traditional Christian doctrine calls "hell" or hellfire. These [sanctification and hellfire] are one and the same thing theologically, and applicable to all humans, albeit applied to varying degrees in various individuals in time.

If the hypothesis holds, the t-t relation of human intellect-to-absolute-truth necessary to effect true moral belief exists in all agents regardless of religious affiliation. This sounds pluralistic, and I do in fact accept a version of pluralism in my worldview that I find fits comfortably [without contradiction] with my Christian theology. I don't dismiss that some degree of exclusivism is proper to the Christian paradigm, only make the point that one need not embrace Christianity or any religion--or can even be anti-religion, as many of my more spirited atheist brethren are wont to do--to be a moral person holding genuine moral values, generally speaking.

Thus, all humans are, to varying degrees, Suitably Oriented Agents, a fact that concedes degrees of morality to people based on the natural value mechanism posted earlier, regardless of religious belief. The exclusivism Christianity rightly lays claim to is suitable orientation to external or absolute truth in sufficient measure to effect a saving faith in time, which exclusivity is justifiably formed by a combination of salvific Christian doctrines.

Post Reply