‘Utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to moral decision-making.’ How far do you agree? Despite there being some areas of compatibility; overall I think that utilitarianism is not compatible with a religious approach to moral decision-making. Utilitarianism as a whole is not compatible because, utilitarianism is not particularly close to religion. Utilitarian theories do not make reference to religious rules and principles, and are more driven by pragmatism by focusing on the outcome rather than the morality of the action itself. In this sense it is a consequentialist theory.
Secularisation means a society becoming less religious. However it is hard to define secularisation as it is hard to define religion. Wilson defines it as “the process whereby religious thinking, practice and institutions lose social significance”. One argument for secularisation is a that there has been a decline in religious thinking and beliefs. Weber argued that with the advent of industrialisation , people are now looking at science for answers rather than religion and the supernatural.
Was there really a threat to the Elizabethan regime from the Puritans? In 1559, Elizabeth created a religious settlement, which was mainly Protestant, but included many Catholic teachings. In theory, the settlement would end religious controversy and unite the people of the country. However, in practice, this didn't happen, as there was opposition to the settlement, from both Catholics and Puritans. Puritans were extreme Protestants who believed that Elizabeth's religious settlement was not enough – they believed that the Anglican church was still too much like the Roman Catholic Church.
Secondly Dawkins' view of the world is limited a priori. He cannot fathom that anything non-physical or inexplicable by the scientific narrative could ever exist. This scientific prejudice leads him (and Pinker with him) to dismiss ‘soul one' out of hand as it does not fit with his hard materialism. Whilst there may be some credence to his belief that ‘soul one' is incorrect he has not provided adequate grounds
Calvin chose to support the peasants and won following over the Dutch Netherlands and made a small gain in Germany. They in turn promoted the development of capitalism in Europe. In social order, Luther and Calvin had very different beliefs. Luther believed in salvation, that only God could grant the gift of salvation, while Calvin believed in predestination, the belief of God or fate decides what will happen to a person, and there was nothing that could change your destiny. Luther also opposed the sale of indulgences, reformed the local church, abolished monasteries, and ended the requirement of celibacy for clergy.
According to him, these presumptions are determinant for the views of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism- and places other religions as being ultimately of less value. Exclusivism holds that other religion is insufficient, anti-Christian, contrary to the truth and denies salvation to non-Christians. Hence, only those who explicitly accept Christ and the Christian message can be
Therefore she believes people are now believing without belonging, people still hold religious beliefs but don’t go to church. Thus, the decline of traditional religion is matched by the growth of a new type of religion. Furthermore Davie rejects secularisation theory’s assumption that modernisation affects society in the same way. Instead there are multiple modernities. However there are some critics of her theory of believing without belonging.
Secondly, a postmodern world has no objective truth or knowledge because it argues that the world is so unstable because every individual attaches different meanings to different things and so society fails to exist and so progress cannot be made. Because many religions claim objective truth a postmodernist would argue that it is wrong as there is no objective truth. Therefore they would suggest that
“Self-examination, then, was an essential component of higher education,” (Sharma, 2001). Over time, however, the secularization of schools and changes to the mainstream paradigm of life has largely silenced and even shunned spiritual learning in the American educational system. Daryl Gilley (2005) indicated, “with the exception of adult religious education, spirituality has been given little attention in mainstream academic adult education.” It is obvious that colleges and universities have tried to take the stance of neutrality when it comes to religion, but the unfortunate reality is that over time, higher education has become spiritually silent. Does this spiritual silence come as a detriment to today’s students, faculty, and to the