Discussion of the View that Morality and Religion are Linked Essay

As we look back on history we can see that human beings have made great strides as well as suffered many setbacks in our development of fundamental doctrines and/or beliefs by which we live and view the world. These foundational beliefs have provided the framework for which all civilizations preserve, cooperate, and govern their way of life. Certainly throughout history, the spread of Christian theology and doctrine has been influential in establishing and developing a deeply rooted theistic and biblical worldview foundation; thus being the center of much debate. In light of the various views within Christian theology, we will focus specifically on doctrine that is foundational to the Christian

Every worldview, including Christian Theism, must grapple with the fundamental question of what is real. For Christian Theists, the answer lies in the identification of God. In The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, James W. Sire explains that the nature of ultimate reality in Christian Theism is "the infinite, personal God revealed in Holy Scriptures. This God is triune, transcendent and immanent, omniscient, sovereign, and good" (28). Sire 's definition is an effective one because it identifies the unique characteristics which combine to form the Christian God. While other religious perspectives

The theist, therefore, appears to be faced with a choice between a view which implies a kind of moral chaos and a life of moral immaturity, and one which belittles an Almighty God. One attempt to resolve this dilemma turns on the distinction

The belief that morality requires God remains a widely held moral maxim. In particular, it serves as the basic assumption of the Christian fundamentalist's social theory. Fundamentalists claim that all of society's troubles - everything from AIDS to out-of-wedlock pregnancies - are the result of a breakdown in morality and that this breakdown is due to a decline in the belief of God. This paper will look at different examples of how a god could be a bad thing and show that humans can create rules and morals all on their own. It will also touch upon the fact that doing good for the wrong reasons can also be a bad thing for the person.

Our worldview allows us to see into the world at such an angle that it coincides with our beliefs, therefore affecting how we think and live. Whether one falls under an atheistic, pantheistic, or theistic worldview, they are guided in their life choices depending on the beliefs of their worldview. Throughout this paper, I will summarize the elements of a Christian Worldview such as God, Humanity, Jesus, and Restoration; I will then analyze questions one might have about the Christian Worldview, and finally I will reflect on my worldview.

The Divine Command Theory is the assertion in ethics that an action is morally right if, and only if, it conforms to God’s will. This premise ties together morality and religion in a manner that seems expected, since it provides a solution to arguments about moral relativism and the objectivity of ethics. On the other hand, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates questions whether something is right because God commands it, or whether God commands it because it is right. The ethical implications of the Euthyphro problem suggest that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as straightforward as suggested by the Divine Command Theory.

The first two theses of the Euthyphro dilemma are, “Things are good because God loves them” and “God loves things because they are good.” I think these are two completely different things. Someone, who is religious, might think that things are good because God loves them and because God loves something or someone, it is good. Basically, things are the way they are because God loves them. The other theses makes more sense to me. It makes sense that God loves a thing or someone because it is good or they are good/do good things. It means that the thing or person is already good and because so, they are being loved by God. I myself am not a religious person, but the second thesis of the two makes more sense. It reminds me of karma in a way.

In this paper, I will discuss about the Divine Command Theory and Euthyphro Problem and show how the Euthyphro Problem makes the Divine Command Theory morality arbitrary. Also, I will discuss why one does not have to reject the belief in God due to the Divine Command Theory cannot give a satisfactory answer to the Euthyphro Problem. First, I will define what the Divine Command Theory is and discuss its attractive features that answer the problem about the objectivity of ethnics. Second, I will define the Euthyphro Problem. Also, I will discuss how the Euthyphro Problem makes the Divine Command Theory morality arbitrary and show how it makes the doctrine of God’s goodness meaningless. Finally, I will discuss why one does not have to reject the belief in God just because one rejects the Divine Command Theory.

Other areas of psychology suggest that humans believe God(s) exist(s) because they are simply used to having an entity watch over them, and because personalities desire the security and growth found from a supervisory relationship. Often in religion there are rules that shall not be disobeyed, or punishment that one would wish to avoid. In the Bible, one should act righteously by the commandments, lest they risk their eternal damnation in the pits of hell. In Greek mythology, cruel and unethical behavior may lead to the fields of punishment. And Hinduism’s cycle of rebirth and karma dictates that if one acts unrighteously within this life, they shall surely be reborn as a being whose very existence is viewed as unpleasant, such as a barnacle. Varying takes on punishment aside, it is clear that religion and mythology have their own views on morality and the relative consequence of one’s actions. But the fact remains that such stories exist to remind society as a whole that it should not behave in an immoral fashion. This being the case, it could be said that the deciding forces, Karma, God, and gods exist to supervise people, much as a parent or teacher would. Such myths and religious ideals exist to prevent conflict, and regardless of religious conflict in the world today, ideas such as the Ten Commandments remind humanity as a whole that the true aim of religion was truly to discourage conflict and encourage harmony. “Have respect for life. The commandment ‘You shall not kill’ means an obligation for a culture of non-violence.” (Kässmann, M.

Religion and morality, and the divine command theory claim that morality relies on religion, except that claim is problematic.

In this way , in actual life, there are often conflicts and struggles between goodness and evil in human nature. So Christianity stresses that human beings should believe in God, and depend on God's power to ensure tending towards goodness, and entering the paradise after their death.

Kierkegaard gives great insight into the story of Abraham and the absolute absurdness of the impossible relationship with God. “For in the temporal world God and I cannot talk together, we have no language in common” (Kierkegaard 30) and therefore the relationship with the eternal being is completely based on faith of the mortal. The recorded paradox that the eternal God would willingly become human to suffer, die and rise from the dead is illogical and absurd according to Kierkegaard stated in Dr. Ambrosio lecture. Furthermore the growing science of analytical thought and empirical method continue to drive a wedge between the divine being and the mortal being. The Greco-Roman worldview of senses and the scientific community of observation guides and directs the saint toward a more neutral and impersonal relationship, a complacent saint.

However, Plato’s dilemma is more applicable for the Christian, since we believe that God must be the ultimate source of the good, so a standard that is higher than God is problematic; and we are forced to deal with the apparent arbitrariness of a God who makes things good by commanding them. What if God commanded that we torture babies? That would imply that torturing babies was good, which is strongly counter-intuitive.3 A possible answer to this objection is that what is good is grounded in God’s character, and his commands flow from his character. While this is true, it does not really solve the dilemma – it only pushes the criticism back another step. What if God liked torturing babies? That would still imply that torturing babies was good, and it would still be strongly counter-intuitive.

In speaking of the biblical teachings of theodicy, we need to ask ourselves a series of vital questions in what scripture has to say on the topic: God and His connection to creation; the nature of humanity; God’s connection to sin; Man’s connection to sin; and the final outcome and defeat of sin. These considerations we need to ask are key to defining God’s power, goodness and the presence of sin.

One could also use the conflict theory to look at Religion as well. The conflict theory is