What do you think were the three most powerful concepts presented by the materialists (Hitchens, Clark, and Harris), and why?
The first concept that Hitchens, Clark, and Harris present is that the harm religion does outweighs the good it produces. The three perceive most of the religious concepts as polarizing with no compassion for humans. They argue that most religious doctrines are inconsistent and support evil actions such as promoting corporal punishment on students. They claim that religion serves the self-satisfied and promote social repression. In their view, religion presents a false picture to the innocent.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second concept is that science and moral discourse go hand in hand. The three argue that moral judgments depend on science since people use scientific information to determine ethical and moral responsibility. For instance, Harris mentions that humans have no ethical obligation to rocks because science tells them that rocks do not suffer. Mogilski (2016) seems to agree with the three by mentioning that morality is a product of biological and neurocognitive processes. Scientific evidence determines the moral machinery of humans.
The third concept is the issue of moral relativism. The three seem to suggest that human beings are motivated to declare some outcomes as good and others bad or right and wrong. They use cultural, social, and individual boundaries to make judgments (Quintelier & Fessler, 2012) . The three agree with this aspect by suggesting that moral views vary, and these variations cannot be ignored. They seem to imply that the judgment of right or wrong is mind-independent.
What do you think were the three most powerful concepts presented by the theists (Keller and Lewis), and why?
The first concept presented by these two is that worldviews shape people’s perception of truth by determining moral laws through dialogue and agreement. They highlight that moral law develops like instincts, leaving humans with the option of obeying or disobeying. People tend to obey and conform to their moral laws to realize self-actualization (Flores, 2008) . They also mention that although these laws are prescriptive, they are passed onto future generations. Nature forms the basis of people’s moral choices and gives them the ability to acquire sound reason.
The second concept is the importance of knowledge in Christ and the relationship between knowing God's works and understanding the world. Knowledge is significant because it provides access to reality and prevents destructive encounters (Porter, 2010) . They argue that humans need to understand God’s reality, character, and activities. They can learn about God by focusing on morality and living a life derived from God’s kingdom.
The third concept is that faith exists within a community. People’s faith is rooted in their relationships, just like the Trinity is an association. These relationships, including the Trinity, fuel and sustain one’s faith. Individuals have the freedom to make choices regarding whom they want to relate with based on their beliefs. Moreover, they become good people when they relate with the right people.
What’s your ideal foundation or source for moral-decision-making?
Moral disputes are inescapable, creating the need for moral decision-making. Moral decision-making deals with moral uncertainties and introduces an extent of rationality into people’s moral deliberations. My ideal foundation for moral decision-making is the principle of doing good and preventing harm to others. As a morally conscious individual, I formulate the intention to make a rational decision. However, this intention should have a positive effect on others. Moral decision-making involves identifying the issue, making a moral judgment, and considering the moral concerns of others (Craft, 2013) . I focus on the benefits, the risks, and those impacted by my decisions.
How does that work out practically?
Practically, this works out by first understanding the issue at hand and checking the related facts. Second, I identify relevant internal and external factors to analyze the issue well. Third, I develop a list of alternatives. I then test the alternatives to select one with less harm and less publicity. This option should be one that I can defend easily. It should also meet existing ethical standards and be acceptable to those around me. I then select an option that meets this criterion and minimize the likelihood of making such decisions in future.
At this point in the course, how would you answer Willard’s three worldview questions? (What is the nature of reality? What sort of person is really well-off? What sort of person is considered “truly moral?”)
What Is The Nature Of Reality? Nature of reality is knowing God’s characters, His activities, and the natural world. Jesus affirms that God and the Spirit is one thing. In this case, God serves as the beginning and the end. Most people live isolated lives and in anxiety because they do not understand reality. The failure to know God makes individuals focus on their views, actions, and decisions while forgetting to acknowledge and relate with their natural world.
What Sort Of Person Is Really Well-Off? A well-off person is one who derives his life from God’s kingdom. A well-to-do individual is one who is alive in this kingdom because God gives life. Although one may have material possessions, failure to connect with Jesus makes that individual poor. Deriving life from God’s kingdom guarantees everything, implying that it makes one wealthy.
What sort of person is considered “truly moral?” A truly moral person is one who is a student of Jesus and follows his teachings, such as lessons on loving one another. Communities determine one’s moral standards. In this case, individuals who follow Jesus’ teachings have morally acceptable behaviors because they follow the cultural standards set by Jesus and reflect His ways. Unlike other cultural guidelines, these standards are non-negotiable. Individuals are expected to enforce them the way they are and understand the benefits of sacrifice. Moreover, other cultural constructions change from time to time, making them unreliable.
References
Craft, J. (2013). A Review of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature:. Journal of Business Ethics , 221-259.
Flores, D. (2008). Natural Moral Law and the Canon Law. Theology Week 2008 - A Symposium on Natural Moral Law , (pp. 295-342).
Mogiski, J. (2016). Science and Morality. In T. Shackelford, & V. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer International Publishing.
Porter, S. (2010). The Willardian Corpus. Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care, 3 (2), 239-266.
Quintelier, K., & Fessler, D. (2012). Varying versions of moral relativism: The philosophy and psychology of normative relativism. Biology and Philosophy, 27 , 95-113.
TED (2010). Science can Answer Moral Questions [Recorded by S. Harris]. Long Beach, California.
