Is there a moral vacuum in the world?

[osgart]

If so, what will fill that void, that religion used to occupy?

Certainly the word spiritual, has been demoted to the realm of useless jargon. But it offers a context in which to speak about values such as empathy, compassion, mercy, love, and virtues. Spiritual values!, you may call them something different because of the negative connotation with a fantasy magic world, but the word serves another purpose. The word spirit speaks to the heart of mankind.

The world has no language to speak about issues of the heart.

Should we look to science to inform us on moral issues?

Should these things be talked about, or left to just personal circles?

Many people have a need , and religion tries to fill it. How do we deal with strangers, and people we dont love? Do people have a moral responsibility to strangers? What should happen when someone is wronged or worse?

Should there be a public and/or professional forum to fill the moral vacuum in society?

 

[Altfish]

If so, what will fill that void, that religion used to occupy?

Certainly the word spiritual, has been demoted to the realm of useless jargon. But it offers a context in which to speak about values such as empathy, compassion, mercy, love, and virtues. Spiritual values!, you may call them something different because of the negative connotation with a fantasy magic world, but the word serves another purpose. The word spirit speaks to the heart of mankind.

The world has no language to speak about issues of the heart.

Should we look to science to inform us on moral issues?

Should these things be talked about, or left to just personal circles?

Many people have a need , and religion tries to fill it. How do we deal with strangers, and people we dont love? Do people have a moral responsibility to strangers? What should happen when someone is wronged or worse?

Should there be a public and/or professional forum to fill the moral vacuum in society?

Religion has rarely been moral. It is hung up on too many things, usually to do with sex, to be moral.
Science will not help on moral issues.
Most people have a 'moral compass' by which they know what is right and what is wrong. Empathy and reciprocity form good societies.
I don't need to be told what is moral, I know. Yes, there are some hard decisions but hopefully I make the right decision most times.

 

[oldbadger]

If so, what will fill that void, that religion used to occupy?.................
.......................................................
Should there be a public and/or professional forum to fill the moral vacuum in society?

There always was a moral vacuum......... I don't think that religion produced a moral society, anywhere at any time, apart from (possibly) a few very small and isolated groups.

Unless you know better?

 

[osgart]

There always was a moral vacuum......... I don't think that religion produced a moral society, anywhere at any time, apart from (possibly) a few very small and isolated groups.

Unless you know better?

I dont think it provided a moral society, but it certainly sought moral rightness and pursued morality directly with people.

 

[Skwim]

If so, what will fill that void, that religion used to occupy?

Certainly the word spiritual, has been demoted to the realm of useless jargon. But it offers a context in which to speak about values such as empathy, compassion, mercy, love, and virtues. Spiritual values!, you may call them something different because of the negative connotation with a fantasy magic world, but the word serves another purpose. The word spirit speaks to the heart of mankind.

The world has no language to speak about issues of the heart.

Should we look to science to inform us on moral issues?

Should these things be talked about, or left to just personal circles?

Many people have a need , and religion tries to fill it. How do we deal with strangers, and people we dont love? Do people have a moral responsibility to strangers? What should happen when someone is wronged or worse?

Should there be a public and/or professional forum to fill the moral vacuum in society?

I get the impression you believe morality can only be grounded in spiritual/religion precepts. That about right?

.

 

[osgart]

I get the impression you believe morality can only be grounded in spiritual/religion precepts. That about right?

.

No, its the language i am familiar with from growing up in religion. I have discarded the religion, but i find the language meaningful.

Morality to me is grounded in personal choice. Common morality is objective. There are objective truthes about it. But there is also personal morality where what is right for me, may be otherwise for someone else.

Objective truthes are in dealing with others.

Personal morality may be shared by a group, and not other groups. Or just one person.

All of morality is about harm is wrong, personal or common.

So i think morality just that way.

 

[oldbadger]

I dont think it provided a moral society, but it certainly sought moral rightness and pursued morality directly with people.

Well.......... it clearly didn't work.

 

[Sir Doom]

Philosophy has been concerned with these issues all along. Religion is a subset of philosophy. Neither is going anywhere. As people's ideas become more public, individuals feel more heard as diverse opinions become the rule instead of the exception. Religion becomes more personally ascribed as the impetus to conform to dogma in order to belong is consumed by free expression and the acceptance of it in order to belong.

Religion is just evolving.

 

[Ingledsva]

If so, what will fill that void, that religion used to occupy?

Certainly the word spiritual, has been demoted to the realm of useless jargon. But it offers a context in which to speak about values such as empathy, compassion, mercy, love, and virtues. Spiritual values!, you may call them something different because of the negative connotation with a fantasy magic world, but the word serves another purpose. The word spirit speaks to the heart of mankind.

The world has no language to speak about issues of the heart.

Should we look to science to inform us on moral issues?

Should these things be talked about, or left to just personal circles?

Many people have a need , and religion tries to fill it. How do we deal with strangers, and people we dont love? Do people have a moral responsibility to strangers? What should happen when someone is wronged or worse?

Should there be a public and/or professional forum to fill the moral vacuum in society?

According to my dictionary spiritual and spirituality don't have to be connected to religion

5. Of, pertaining to, or having highly developed or refined qualities of mind or sensibility.

6. Linked by or sharing a deep intellectual or emotional affinity.

Thus we can call ourselves spiritual, and discuss empathy, compassion, mercy, love, and virtues, - without any religious connotations behind the label, or discussion.

Most people have basic morals.

3. Being or acting in accordance with STANDARDS and PRECEPTS of goodness or with ESTABLISHED codes of behavior, ...

We definitely need to have those discussions - outside religion.

Things certainly seem to be going to Hell in a hand-basket, as my great Grandmother used to say.

Good thing I'm in Alaska. I can easily escape across the Canadian border when the Handmaid's Tale starts to materialize. LOL!

*

 

[osgart]

Philosophy has been concerned with these issues all along. Religion is a subset of philosophy. Neither is going anywhere. As people's ideas become more public, individuals feel more heard as diverse opinions become the rule instead of the exception. Religion becomes more personally ascribed as the impetus to conform to dogma in order to belong is consumed by free expression and the acceptance of it in order to belong.

Religion is just evolving.

What is religion evolving into do you think?

Perhaps a more science oriented, and personal approach of some kind?

 

[Sir Doom]

More personal, certainly.

What is religion evolving into do you think?

Perhaps a more science oriented, and personal approach of some kind?

I would say more personal, but I cringe to call it more scientific.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If so, what will fill that void, that religion used to occupy?

Certainly the word spiritual, has been demoted to the realm of useless jargon. But it offers a context in which to speak about values such as empathy, compassion, mercy, love, and virtues. Spiritual values!, you may call them something different because of the negative connotation with a fantasy magic world, but the word serves another purpose. The word spirit speaks to the heart of mankind.

The world has no language to speak about issues of the heart.

Should we look to science to inform us on moral issues?

Should these things be talked about, or left to just personal circles?

Many people have a need , and religion tries to fill it. How do we deal with strangers, and people we dont love? Do people have a moral responsibility to strangers? What should happen when someone is wronged or worse?

Should there be a public and/or professional forum to fill the moral vacuum in society?

You might want to ask all those who have no religion since, according to some research, they are no less moral than those with a religion. For myself (as one), it just makes more sense to treat others fairly and with respect than to do otherwise. And I suspect this occurred long before religions became the norm anyway. The main problem has been the vast growth in population such that we only know our immediate neighbours, friends, acquaintances, etc., but I think most of us now instinctively treat most others with such respect - unless by their actions they provoke us to do otherwise.

 

[ChristineM]

If so, what will fill that void, that religion used to occupy?

Certainly the word spiritual, has been demoted to the realm of useless jargon. But it offers a context in which to speak about values such as empathy, compassion, mercy, love, and virtues. Spiritual values!, you may call them something different because of the negative connotation with a fantasy magic world, but the word serves another purpose. The word spirit speaks to the heart of mankind.

The world has no language to speak about issues of the heart.

Should we look to science to inform us on moral issues?

Should these things be talked about, or left to just personal circles?

Many people have a need , and religion tries to fill it. How do we deal with strangers, and people we dont love? Do people have a moral responsibility to strangers? What should happen when someone is wronged or worse?

Should there be a public and/or professional forum to fill the moral vacuum in society?

Unless a person has a mental disorder such as sociopathy everyone holds to the morality of their upbringing, no religion required.

The religious grasp on morality is a legacy that was designed to segregate non believers while making the religious feel superior. And often is dubious at best.

So no, there is no moral vacuum. Just more people who are becoming wise to the religious hijacking and manipulation the concept of morality