Does ever increasing technology make a religious moral code obsolete?
No.
traditionalmass.org
Summa Theologica
Does ever increasing technology make a religious moral code obsolete?
Can you give an example of a technological advancement that obsoletes a religious moral code?
No, the fact that the Bible says slavery is ok makes their moral code obsolete. And don't forget all the sexist rules. The Bible has plenty of that too.
Thanks for today's technology, the Bible can be read on the internet...
The Bible is more up to date than tomorrow's newspaper.
Yeah, do not commit murder, do not steal, commit adultery... how outdated.
I don't really see how the two are connected. For example, how modern will technology have to be before you would consider murder or stealing okay?
This doesn't make sense. Let's take the 10 Commandments for instance.
1. You shall not worship any other god but YHWH.
2. You shall not make a graven image.
3. You shall not take the name of YHWH in vain.
4. You shall not break the Sabbath.
5. You shall not dishonor your parents.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not commit perjury.
10. You shall not covet.
Every single one of those still applies to people today.
That technology won't last long with the up coming wars prophesied in the Bible. Nuclear war will knock out power everywhere. Get out your lanterns and pot bellied stoves because that is all that will work.
God changes not. the moral code stays the same. Technology just creates more temptation to break the code.
morality doesn't change.
Yes it is becoming obsolete. Leviticus and all its rules did make sense for the ancients but not now. Now we know how to properly cook fish, make sure pigs are disease-free, have a huge population of believers so homosexuality isn't going to drag it down, etc. And that's just one book out of many.
Wow, guess you can't be bothered to read anything. What does Aristotle say about morality ? That it is based on the unchangeableness of human nature. Has nothing to do with technology.
It is as wrong to drop an A-Bomb on somebody's head as it is to kill them with a prehistoric club.
But the uninformed idiots like you are growing apace and demanding that their word stand because it is their word. You offer no arguments, no logic, no citations or references, no nothing. Just crap -- as usual.
No. It will do just the opposite. Human increasing technology will only prove that what we thought were obsolete religious moral codes were really advanced non-human scientific moral codes written for a dumb human race, which still are ahead of our time.
Yes, but not just that.
Sexual morality has been changed as a result of birth control methods, developed through technology. However, social change, not technology per se has also brought gay marriage. Genocide is regarded as barbaric and a crime, rather than a 'righteous' act on a 'sinning' town.
Social advance and technological advance are happening at the same time, and both have an effect on expectations of morality.
Ultimately morality and ethics is based on how individuals of our species interact with others and society in general. As society changes, these codes have to adapt accordingly. How would we even have property laws if we were still communal hunter-gatherers?
Adaptability is one of humankind's greatest strengths, and morality is very much included.
Technology doesn't make morals obsolete, though it does make them a lot more complicated. In Biblical times people didn't have to wonder if genetic modification was ethical or nuclear weapons development or organ transplantation. New technologies require new moral/ethical thinking.
But also traditional religious dogma has not aged well. If you see the Bible as being written by people of that time, based on what they believed and knew at that time, you have to realize that it was a long time ago and we think differently about a lot of things. If you believe, as some Christians do, that the Bible was inspired by God and every word is true, to be interpreted literally, you have trouble explaining a lot of stuff, including some serious contradictions in the Bible itself.
Doctrines and interpretation of scriptures has to change as our knowledge of the world and the universe around us changes. It's just as silly to be stuck with the idea that the universe was created in six days as it is to still believe the earth is at the center of the universe, or that the earth is flat (though the Bible says both!)
Morality has evolved and still is, the bible promotes slavery, we are finally getting rid of it and it's now accepted as morally wrong, the bible promotes sexism (men over women) we now accept sexism as something morally wrong, etc.
Imagine if we lived by the moral code of the bible, we would still be stoning disobeying teenagers, having wars left and right, men still practicing poligamy every rich man having 10 slaves to serve him.
Well stuff like this still happens in the middle east, thanks to the power religion has there.
Religion is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore, it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive. If it be without motion and nonprogressive, it is without the divine life; it is dead. The divine institutes are continuously active and evolutionary; therefore, the revelation of them must be progressive and continuous. All things are subject to reformation. This is a century of life and renewal. Sciences and arts, industry and invention have been reformed. Law and ethics have been reconstituted, reorganized. The world of thought has been regenerated. Sciences of former ages and philosophies of the past are useless today. Present exigencies demand new methods of solution; world problems are without precedent. Old ideas and modes of thought are fast becoming obsolete. Ancient laws and archaic ethical systems will not meet the requirements of modern conditions, for this is clearly the century of a new life, the century of the revelation of reality and, therefore, the greatest of all centuries. Consider how the scientific developments of fifty years have surpassed and eclipsed the knowledge and achievements of all the former ages combined. Would the announcements and theories of ancient astronomers explain our present knowledge of the suns and planetary systems? Would the mask of obscurity which beclouded medieval centuries meet the demand for clear-eyed vision and understanding which characterizes the world today? Will the despotism of former governments answer the call for freedom which has risen from the heart of humanity in this cycle of illumination? It is evident that no vital results are now forthcoming from the customs, institutions and standpoints of the past. In view of this, shall blind imitations of ancestral forms and theological interpretations continue to guide and control the religious life and spiritual development of humanity today? Shall man, gifted with the power of reason, unthinkingly 141 follow and adhere to dogma, creeds and hereditary beliefs which will not bear the analysis of reason in this century of effulgent reality? Unquestionably this will not satisfy men of science, for when they find premise or conclusion contrary to present standards of proof and without real foundation, they reject that which has been formerly accepted as standard and correct and move forward from new foundations. ....more at link:
It is not technology that challenges %26quot;Biblical%26quot;, or other religious, morality as much as our increased understanding of the world and humanity. Our culture(s) have evolved and we understand that men and women are humans and should be treated equally. We also understand that the concepts of %26quot;race%26quot; and nationality are superfluous at best and are no excuse for unequal treatment. We also realize that owning another human is wrong, even if it is %26quot;indentured servitude%26quot; and that forcing a woman to marry her rapist if she wasn't heard screaming is a travesty. Further, we know that all marriages do not work out, people make wrong decisions and often relationships are abusive, which means that divorces are not the same as adultery.
Morality constantly changes with culture and society, while it is only occasionally challenged by technology. But irregardless, %26quot;God's%26quot; word has been outdated for so long that people not only have forgotten what it really says but they rationalize it to support whatever their current morality is.
Someone once said, %26quot;The book of Proverbs is as up-to-date as today's paper.%26quot;
The Bible is surprisingly universal in its principles. Think about it. High-tech thievery is still stealing. High-tech coveting is still coveting. High-tech abortion is still taking a life that the Bible, 3,500 years ago, said was equal in value to that of an adult. Modern drug use really has a very ancient history--when the Bible condemned %26quot;sorcerers%26quot; (King James version) or %26quot;those practicing spiritism%26quot; (New World translation) in Revelation 21:8, it used the Greek word, %26quot;pharmakía%26quot;, from which our word for %26quot;drug store%26quot; obviously comes, since spiritists used drug-induced trances.
And when the Bible says (Rev. 21:3,4) that the reward for observing its moral code will be, %26quot;Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore%26quot;, high-tech people need that, too, don't you think?
Best regards,
Mike
What does technology have to do with religious belief or practice ?
Maybe. But, many secular ethicists don't actually think that morals should change with time, in my ethics course in college, the book argues against a moral system based on the opinions of the people by bringing up a real life instance of where a black woman had got into a car accident with a white man on a bridge.
Out of rage, the white man started to beat the black woman. Others watching the incident cheered him on. No one came to her defense and out of desperation to avoid continual beatings from the white man, the woman jumpped off the bridge to her death. It is because of these incidents that secular ethcists try to avoid defining morality on popular opinion.
However, applying a moral system which gets its legitimacy from religious authority alone, isn't feasible either since it allows people outside of the ruling population's faith to be oppressed. But, %26quot;If there is no God, then how are we to deal with evil on the scale of the Holocaust? %26quot; is a question presented by atheist Michael Shermer in his book %26quot;The Science of Good Evil%26quot;.
Secular ethicists attempt to do this by establishing a moral system which is defined though logical reasoning. However, this isn't to say that secularism is anti-God since many advocates of secular ethics, including the Founding Fathers of the USA, are those of faith. Rather, secular ethicists such as John Rawls argues that we are able to establish a moral and justice system which complies with mulitiple religious beliefs.
For instance, take the popular Christian %26quot;Golden Rule%26quot;. Most religions have a similar notion and is generally agreed upon as an acceptable rule of behavior. Yet, to establish this principle outside of the world of religious dogma, secular ethicist Immanuel Kant uses logic to explain how this common principle is to be applied with his Formulation Rule:
1) %26quot;Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law. %26quot;
2) %26quot;Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never as a means to an end only. %26quot;
Add a third axiom and you get his Three Categorical Imperatives:
3) %26quot;Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.%26quot;
Using the Categorical Impreatives one can provide the rational justification for ending slavery. According to the second axiom, ownership of a slave is immoral because the slave isn't being treated as an %26quot;ends%26quot; as he should be. Other acts of %26quot;evil%26quot; are logically explained by Kant as well, such as stealing, lying, etc.
Yet, there is a problem with this way of thinking, which is that moral systems structured like this tend to remain absolute to the point of being problematic.
This is where secular ethicist Michael Shermer comes in. While still opposing the %26quot;noble savage%26quot; theory, in his book %26quot;The Science of Good and Evil%26quot;, acknowledges that %26quot;no single ethical system can be all encompassing or thoroughly consistent.%26quot;
To solve this dillemma, Shermer argues that a %26quot;foundation of moral principles can be built upon empirical evidence and logical reasoning.%26quot; Thus, allowing for us to establish a moral system which is not only a logical moral system, but is also changeable through scientific discovery.
Whether or not Michael Shermer is right with his %26quot;scientific theory of morality%26quot; is debateable. But, it is believed among secular ethicists that religious dogma doesn't have to dictate the moral beliefs of a law abiding people. Although, many of those who might be characterized as being %26quot;religiously devout%26quot; tend to oppose this kind of thinking, the secular ethicist's goal isn't to ban religion from all sectors of life.
One can still worship whoever he chooses, but shouldn't force others into their beliefs. This way, different peoples (the Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, the Atheist, etc.) can work together, in spite of their different beliefs, to achieve a common end.
