Does faith = religion?

No. Sounds like it was a poor attempt at rhetoric.

SCoates - my reaction is negative too. I believe in a fuzzy order to the universe. It's a type of faith, but it doesn't feel remotely relgious to me. I believe that given time, we'll understand more and more about the details. What then? Are the explained uncertanties less relgious once they are certain?

I would say, no. If, just for example, Christians are correct about the second coming. Once Jesus appeared again, and if it was obviously Jesus beyond anyone's doubt, thus removing any need for faith in him, would the second coming not be religious?

The removal of faith would not be the removal of religion in that case.

I have always thought that Religion was the human structure around faith. Religion includes some sort of Dogma. Faith is a conclusion based on an inconclusive set of data.

TF

And, what about morality?

Thinkfactory has a post about the morailty of suicide. Can this question be considered outside of a religious context? I have to consider it outside a religious context, but I also know I have my own set of morals.

Just to add in another set of definitions---
Like thinkfactory, I've always seen religion as ritual,... man-made accutriments of faith. You can do things religiously, which have nothing o do with church, or faith.

Faith is the belief in things not seen.

Morality is the personal code of acceptable and unacceptable behavior that one lives by, or tries to impose on someone else. Everyone has morals, but one's morals can be deplorable.

You can go to church and not have faith, and you can have faith and not go to church...

Good definitions, Lash. There is a distinction between moral, immoral (bad morals) and amoral (no morals).

I think most people associate 'morality' with good morals. Of course, a psycho-killer could think that he's on a moral mission which causes him to do immoral acts.

<Teeny note....I think a person 'with no morals' just has deficient, or poor morals. In the 'absence of any morals', what you have are bad morals.
Don't think you can not have morals. The definition for morals..is related to conduct or character concerning from the point of view of right and wrong.

Although people equate "moral" with good morals, this is a common error.>

Interesting questions about morality and suicide.

So, define the three for me.

moral--related to conduct or character from the point of view of right and wrong.

immoral--violating moral law; contrary to conscious or public morality.

amoral---See immoral. Or, Not subject to or concerned with moral or ethical distinctions.

<I understand the definition you gave...with no morals...but that is never "good". Unless you have an example of something or someone amoral, which means anything other than immoral....<you may>

Oops, did I say no morals could be a good thing? <going back to reread my post>

No, you didn't say that. But, when you said the three of them have a distinction, that suggested to me there were three seperate definitions.

I think there are just two.

If there are three, amoral has to mean something other than immoral, which I don't think it does. Was wondering if you could supply an instance when it is anything other than bad.

I looked up the later two:

immoral
Contrary to established moral principles.

amoral
1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

<sloppy pre-post editing>

To me amoral is an act that has no moral relevance, or a bearing on right or wrong. Amoral is at zero on the axis where moral is + and immoral is -.

Examples:

TRIVIALITY: some acts are trivial and have no moral component, like breathing while on a promenade, or fluffing up my pillow: they seem neither a moral nor an immoral thing to do.

NON-HUMAN: Acts that do not fall within human's realm can be amoral. A hungry cheetah killing a gazelle. a hurricane leveling a home are examples. They are neither moral nor immoral, though both may evoke sadness or a sense of unfairness.

Within the human (or human percipitated) acts of importance, to me the difference between immoral and amoral is the actor's knowledge of the consequences, and a choice that leads to subsequent (at times undeserved) suffering/injustice/unfairness/exploitation, etc.
An example is bumping into someone inadvertently while on a promenade, vs. shoulder-checking an unsuspecting someone while on a promenade.

Amoral actions sometimes lead to immoral consequences. free-market system of economics is not immoral, nor a moral thing, but its consequences are sometimes not so neutral, and sometimes downright immoral(this example is NOT meant to derail this into politics).

this is only my take though....

I dunno if I think the three are linearly progressive.


I think it's too late for me to be trying to think this hard. I was trying to come up with examples of my own.... tomorrow.

I don't find the line system to be much helpful in determining where amorality stands.

Whereas immorality is the opposite of morality, if amorality means a disregard for right and wrong, then it could mean that even amorality could potentially arise to be something immoral.

Or moral. Sounds like it could be described as a secondary characteristic of morality.

Re: Does faith = religion?


There's something commonly called "religious feeling" which he might have centered his studies upon. It would make sense to say religious feeling and love are nearly identical when religious is understood as "extremely scrupulous and conscientious." This defintion also goes a long way in describing a scientist's feelings about something he's devoted years of his life to.

To use the term "religious" as a secular adjective is perfectly fine. But to turn and claim secular activities are thereby "religious" as the term relates to religion is just silly, and that's the vibe I'm getting here.

A----HA!

I had a thought.

Immoral denotes having placed yourself on the wrong side of morals...like you've already done a thing.

Amoral denotes perception of one's character....but before the deed. "He's an amoral man.".... Means he doesn't give a rip about morals...and is likely to do something immoral, but has not as of yet.