Religion without Ethics

[RWStanding]

Religion without Ethics
Religion without ethics, is religion without human and other life. An absurdity, since life is defined by ethics.
Few if any religions support mere tolerance, as modern secular ethics has virtually become, with all its dangers.
If a religion defines a virtue then it implies anything contrary is a vice.
Such that marriage may be monogamous, anything else a vice.
This must be a universal truth, in its opinion, and it therefore only tolerates other religious views because it cannot do otherwise.
If cultural diversity is cited as allowing differences in morality, then in fact the universal value extends to all of that variety. In which case, no religion can declare anything within that universal value, a vice, merely a fashion. Virtually where we are today. There may of course be a wider range of virtue than in a particular religion, or philosophy, but in that case the universal ethic will encompass it, and define the Altruist Society.
Culture is the range of human social activity within the universal ethic, and autonomous nations must exist in order to preserve inherited culture. And to preserve the diversity within nature. A globalised society is destructive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Religion with Morality and Ethics is like in the past where Science was with Philosophy.
Then when the time was ripe, Science became independent from Philosophy.

At present I agree it is more optimal and effective for Morality & Ethics be a part of religions due to the existing circumstances and constraints.
But because theistic religions are grounded on immutable doctrines, that mean there is no room for improvements for Morality & Ethics within theistic religions to adapt to the inevitable changing conditions with time.

• For example, slavery is not condemned categorically in the holy texts of the Abrahamic religions. Because the holy texts, doctrines and commands from God are supposed to be immutable and eternal, there is no room for any revision to the elements of slavery in them.

Since change is constant and inevitable, morality and ethics has to change with inevitable changes within reality.

In the future and ASAP, morality and ethics must be independent of theistic religions and other religions.
However, the separation is only possible when morality & ethics progress and can stand on its own two feet like how Science did it in the 19th century.

They began to separate in the 19th century, when the term science was coined, and over the course of the 19th century, it replaced “natural philosopher.” The two had begun to branch out earlier than that with the development of the hypothetico-deductive model, which locks science into a particular epistemology, beginning with Galileo and really becoming formalized by Descartes in 1637.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/1 ... study.html#:

I believe it would be a good idea to study and analyze how Science achieved its independence from Philosophy.
In this case we need to understand the mechanisms involved and transpose that to morality and ethics.

One thing I am sure is, there need to be a change in the neural wirings of the average person.

I am optimistic humanity will be able to rewire the average human brain in the near future to facilitate moral progress and enable morality and ethics to be independent from religions. Along the way, all religions will be weaned off and replaced with fool proof self-development programs to deal with the inherent existential dissonance.

[Terrapin Station]

The mistake you're making is this:

"We should be tolerant of others' views, beliefs, practices, etc."
"We should allow anyone to marry whoever they like, whatever gender, however many people, etc."
And the like ARE ethical/moral views. Those aren't an absence of ethical/moral views.

Ethical/moral views are dispositions about interpersonal behavior that one considers to be more significant than etiquette--whatever the dispositions in question. Having dispositions about interpersonal behavior is a way that any normally-functioning brain works. So we can't wind up with "religion without ethics" or any ideology (that includes interpersonal reaction) without ethics in the first place. Rather, this is just about you not liking particular ethical views. It's not that they're not ethical views.

[Immanuel Can]

"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." -- G.K. Chesterton

[Nick_A]

V A

I am optimistic humanity will be able to rewire the average human brain in the near future to facilitate moral progress and enable morality and ethics to be independent from religions. Along the way, all religions will be weaned off and replaced with fool proof self-development programs to deal with the inherent existential dissonance.

Big Brother smiles upon you. He knows he is the proper authority to handle this rewiring and is pleased that you are dedicated to supporting his noble efforts. You will be receiving an autographed picture of your dear big brother to be gazed upon in times of doubt. Put it in the proper place where it belongs and admire it with awe and wonder.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=493447 time=1612041870 user_id=9431]
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." -- G.K. Chesterton
[/quote]

Truth only loses in compromise.

[Skepdick]

Truth only loses in compromise.

That's why Trump never compromised.

[Impenitent]

crowd control under the most pious names

-Imp