The relationship between religion and ethics is about the Religion is based in some measure on the idea that God (or some deity) reveals. This means that inquiry about the divine must be informed by ethical constraints in virtue of God's curative aims. Accordingly, proper faith is. the religion–morality relationship, do cultural . rituals and moralizing gods.
For example, within Buddhismthe intention of the individual and the circumstances play roles in determining whether an action is right or wrong.
Religion and Morality
For modern Westerners, who have been raised on ideals of universality and egalitarianism, this relativity of values and obligations is the aspect of Hinduism most difficult to understand. InPierre Bayle asserted that religion "is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality". For example, The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics says that, For many religious people, morality and religion are the same or inseparable; for them either morality is part of religion or their religion is their morality.
For others, especially for nonreligious people, morality and religion are distinct and separable; religion may be immoral or nonmoral, and morality may or should be nonreligious. Even for some religious people the two are different and separable; they may hold that religion should be moral and morality should be, but they agree that they may not be.
- Morality and religion
The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: For example, there is no absolute prohibition on killing in Hinduismwhich recognizes that it "may be inevitable and indeed necessary" in certain circumstances. In the latter case, a study by the Barna Group found that some denominations have a significantly higher divorce rate than those in non-religious demographic groups atheists and agnostics.
One obvious answer is to appeal to morality, dropping the idea that morality depends on scriptures.
Can it be done fully? Since sacred texts are morally problematic and at times opaque, it's tempting to read them so as to have God say whatever one wants God to say, which is not only blasphemous but all too often also has given religious sanction to sexism, racism, intolerance, and various types of abominable behavior.
So, bracketing religious considerations is a reasonable strategy for doing ethics; in other words, a theist who believes that we have a God-given ability to tell right from wrong can use that to discuss morality with members of other religions or atheists. So, as far as possible we should do ethics without appealing to religion or God. Even today many atheists and non-Christian theists are distrustful of Christianity because historically non-Christians have been persecuted and sacred texts do contain commands seemingly directed against them.
They may be read away, but, also, they may not. Now a Christian tells me that today Christians would not do that any longer; she may go as far as saying that they should never have done it. But how is that going to help? Her answer entails that my safety depends on how Christians decide to read their sacred text which, on a natural literal reading, tells them to kill me. Things are much worse if we are talking about Christians who adopt a strictly literal reading of the Bible even in the light of established science like evolution, or who are still so worried about witchcraft to inveigh against the Harry Potter stories.
I open a history book and find that in the past Christians used to burn people like me.
Put yourself in my shoes. Would you expect me to look at Christianity with kind eyes, or to be afraid of it and what it stands for?
So, I make a proposal: At this point the Christian looks at me horrified: And Moser fails to understand that theistic arguments can be stepping stones.
But, of course, the advocates of theistic arguments almost never aim to show any such thing. Rather, they seek to encourage further inquiry by showing that the kind of thing the God of their religion is -- a supernatural cause of the cosmos -- may well or probably exists.
And Christian apologists don't just stop with theistic arguments; they go on to argue that the being plausibly shown to exist has reached out to humans with a revelation and in the life of Jesus Christ.
It is through historical arguments that they move from "bare theism" to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So Moser criticizes arguments for not achieving a goal no one ever meant for them, and ignores the second half of the picture.
Morality and religion - Wikipedia
Chapters four and five contain much interesting and edifying material centered on various riffs on the central theme that we must seek God how he wants to be sought, a mode of inquiry flowing from the personal nature of his project. However, almost everything of interest is completely logically independent of anything he can claim any originality for and is, furthermore, perfectly amenable to evidentialists of all stripes, who Moser constantly excoriates.
For example, the upshot of the penultimate chapter is that "Our affective and volitional set strays from what would be God's moral character, and this would obstruct our receiving good things from God, such as evidence, wisdom, purpose, and meaning"and so he suggests that "inquirers make the effort to inquire responsibly about God.
This is wonderful advice. However, there is literally nothing in this that depends on any of the special developments of Moser.
Compare Swinburne who receives no mention in the book in in a section on inquiry into the claims of religion: In both these ways error may be culpable. Bodily desires may pull him back from pursuing what he sees as the long-term best goal.
He must choose whether or not to yield to these desires. Thus he may choose whether to pursue salvation or whether to pursue temporary self-centered joys. Specifically with respect to the effect of affect on evidence gathering, William Wainwright developed an evidentialist-friendly account of "passional reason" in  which harkens back to older work by George Mavrodes.
This makes it a bit galling that Wainwright does not receive any mention in the book. Indeed, it seems to us that it is Wainwright, and not Moser, who did the ground-breaking work; it just has never received the attention it deserved. The book begins thusly: Many religious people talk about their relationship with God [emphasis in original], but few people have explored the consequences of such talk for human inquiry about God.
This book explores those consequences by introducing and developing a topic almost universally neglected [emphasis added] by inquirers about God: It combines this topic with an equally neglected [i. The claim of originality does not hold water.
Does Ethics Require Religion? | Greater Good
Moser is in fact saying little more than Christian apologist William Lane Craig, who avows that The ultimate apologetic involves two relationships: These two relationships are distinguished by Jesus in His teaching on the duty of man. As an intentional causal agent. God would be self-authenticating in being self-manifesting and self-witnessing.
The Spirit of God bears witness to the reality of God's love for us.