# data[].attributes.headline
1. Why are clergy often considered moral experts? Should they be? Luca

# data[].attributes.subject
1. Why are clergy often considered moral experts? Should they be? Luca

# data[].attributes.body
Clergy are considered moral experts specifically because they study and prepare to teach the ethics of their religion for many years. Their job is often to teach morality but also to evaluate moral situations. Because they are so experienced in evaluating ethical and moral situations, one could say they are moral experts (even if you don’t agree with their moral code). Even in secular situations, clergy might often be prepared to give moral suggestions, albeit often in the context of their faith.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is the point of religion if not to guide people towards virtuous behavior? (Max)

# data[].attributes.subject
What is the point of religion if not to guide people towards virtuous behavior? (Max)

# data[].attributes.body
There are many purposes of religion. I would argue that a main one is to guide people towards virtuous behavior. But barring that, I would say that from the perspective of the religion (if that makes sense) is to earn money. From the perspective of those who engage in religion, a very important purpose is to be a part of a community. Finally, the point of religion may also be to provide answers to hard questions, as some people have a hard time with uncertainty.

# data[].attributes.body
20 words about religion

# data[].attributes.headline
Is God's omnipotence (in Judeo-Christian religions) an essential feature of God?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is God's omnipotence (in Judeo-Christian religions) an essential feature of God?

# data[].attributes.body
Euthrypho: Is God omnipotent, the definer of good and evil, or do good and evil exist outside of God?
If the latter, then is God no longer omnipotent?
Does this matter?

# data[].attributes.headline
Some religions have many Gods but no omnipotent god

# data[].attributes.subject
Some religions have many Gods but no omnipotent god

# data[].attributes.headline
 On particular moral issues, "Religious authorities disagree, resulting in different denominations taking different moral stances." How is a person supposed to know what God actually thinks (particularly in monotheistic religions)? (Sadie)

# data[].attributes.subject
 On particular moral issues, "Religious authorities disagree, resulting in different denominations taking different moral stances." How is a person supposed to know what God actually thinks (particularly in monotheistic religions)? (Sadie)

# data[].attributes.body
According to slides 14-16, the morally right thing to do is the thing that is backed by sound logic. This means that no matter if you are a believer or not, you will still be able to discern what is right and wrong, and even if denominations disagree, the  morally right thing to do is always the thing backed by sound logic and reason.

# data[].attributes.headline
On particular moral issues, "Religious authorities disagree, resulting in different denominations taking different moral stances." How is a person supposed to know what God actually thinks (particularly in monotheistic religions)? (Caroline)

# data[].attributes.subject
On particular moral issues, "Religious authorities disagree, resulting in different denominations taking different moral stances." How is a person supposed to know what God actually thinks (particularly in monotheistic religions)? (Caroline)

# data[].attributes.body
Using the information given on slides 14-16, my immediate thought was that people will never be able to completely understand and know what God actually thinks and asks of them (especially when referring to monotheistic individuals). Because different denominations find ways to back up their particular moral stances with scriptures and traditions, it is challenging for people to separate what their church claims and what God actually wants. I think the "truest" way for a person to discover what God thinks/wants is to individually examine their personal relationship with spirituality (and they should do so without outside influences). I sadly have no idea what this examination process should look like, but I think it would be related more to one’s personal relationship with spirituality — and I think the process would be different for everyone.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Rachels that without religion the world seems to be a cold, heartless place. We are on a tiny rock in the middle of an infinite universe and are rapidly making Earth unlivable, from this perspective it seems very lonely without a divine being looking out for us. In addition, death is very scary and it is reassuring that we will have somewhere to go after we die and we will not be forgotten forever. Finally, the world is a nonsensical place where bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people all the time. Religion helps to make sense of this nonsense by providing a divine being that causes everything to happen for a reason that only they can see.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do you agree with Rachels that without religion the world seems a cold, heartless place?  (Awo)

# data[].attributes.subject
Do you agree with Rachels that without religion the world seems a cold, heartless place?  (Awo)

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree with Rachels that without religion the world seems a cold, heartless place. I think it's f or a lot people difficult to navigate all of the issues in the world without having a higher power to believe in. There are a lot of things that people have to fear in this world, social issues and especially death. Death is a huge fear for a lot of human beings which is why there are so many religions that are structured around an afterlife. Billions of people in the world need religion to feel secure in their day-to-day lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fear-based religion. . . problematic? Dr. B's answer

# data[].attributes.body
How Many Religions Can You Name in Two Minutes?

# data[].attributes.headline
What is problematic about the theory of natural law? Is there anything about natural law that you think has merit? (Eloise)

# data[].attributes.subject
What is problematic about the theory of natural law? Is there anything about natural law that you think has merit? (Eloise)

# data[].attributes.body
When I first learned about natural law, it was in the context of my Western Civ class. It seemed to be plausible then; however, after reading all of the counterexamples, I don't feel that it has any merit. Natural Law gives humans the agency to state what is and isn't natural, which easily can turn into homophobia or other forms of discrimination. Additionally, it allows humans to destroy whatever is seen as unnatural, which can excuse horrific acts like murder and genocide.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is problematic about the theory of natural law? Is there anything about natural law that you think has merit? (hana)

# data[].attributes.subject
What is problematic about the theory of natural law? Is there anything about natural law that you think has merit? (hana)

# data[].attributes.body
There are many problems with natural law and it is open to many obvious counterexamples. The theory seems to involve a confusion of is and ought. For example, just because sex can be used for reproduction it does not follow that sex ought or ought not to be engaged in only for that purpose. I believe some parts of natural law have merit because it also describes how things ought to be. I believe that nature including human have a system in which they rely on for order but I also believe that we can adapt and change while still following our natural order. Natural law disagrees with that as it states when things do not serve their natural purposes things have gone wrong.

# data[].attributes.headline
Natural law theory, according to the author of the slide deck, "conflicts with modern science, where ‘natural laws’ are deemed to work blindly and without purpose." Please weigh in: does modern science actually think that '‘natural laws’ work blindly and without purpose?" (Daniel)

# data[].attributes.subject
Natural law theory, according to the author of the slide deck, "conflicts with modern science, where ‘natural laws’ are deemed to work blindly and without purpose." Please weigh in: does modern science actually think that '‘natural laws’ work blindly and without purpose?" (Daniel)

# data[].attributes.body
Modern science does conflict with “natural laws” as the natural law theory has defined them, “deemed to work blindly and without purpose.” In fact, they are complete contradictions of each other: science repeatedly proves the incredible––often not immediately obvious––connection between almost every aspect of the “natural” world. Positioning human beings “atop all other life forms on the Earth” does not maintain “harmony” as the theory would suggest, but rather throws the natural state of the planet into disorder. One clear example of this is human consumption of wood: while people want wood and the land trees live on, cutting down forests like the Amazon actually throw off the Earth’s carbon cycle, effectively increasing global temperatures and creating a less habitable planet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Natural law theory, according to the author of the slide deck, "conflicts with modern science, where ‘natural laws’ are deemed to work blindly and without purpose." Please weigh in: does modern science actually think that '‘natural laws’ work blindly and without purpose?" - Cole

# data[].attributes.subject
Natural law theory, according to the author of the slide deck, "conflicts with modern science, where ‘natural laws’ are deemed to work blindly and without purpose." Please weigh in: does modern science actually think that '‘natural laws’ work blindly and without purpose?" - Cole

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, traditional modern science does think that natural laws work blindly and without purpose. This is because of the way that modernity has constructed our relationship to the earth and to our surroundings; the relationship was been one of conquest and destruction (ie deforestation, nukes, coal mining, etc). It's more convenient for the modern scientist to dismiss natural states and laws as purposeless because that allows us to justify our maintained dominion of the world rather than reckon with the potential unethicality caused by our actions harming a purposeful actor (nature).

# data[].attributes.headline
Natural law theorists argued that religious and nonreligious people alike can discern God's laws in nature because of their  (God-given) powers of reason. By inference, does that reduce God's power, since believers and nonbelievers alike can discern what is good and bad? Yes/no and why? (Ethan)

# data[].attributes.subject
Natural law theorists argued that religious and nonreligious people alike can discern God's laws in nature because of their  (God-given) powers of reason. By inference, does that reduce God's power, since believers and nonbelievers alike can discern what is good and bad? Yes/no and why? (Ethan)

# data[].attributes.body
I think that this point does reduce God's powers in the real world and challenges the benefit of being religious in the short term. If everybody is given the same power to discern God's laws, then it appears that somebody who believes in God and somebody who doesn't have the same access to truth and what is morally right, and there would seem to be no enlightenment gained by being religious. Granted, many religious arguments put an emphasis on the afterlife, which means that people may be able to discern God's law while they are alive, and once they are dead, they are judged for whether they believe and whether they have adhered to God's law.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is the point of religious institutions if not to guide people towards virtuous behavior? (Katie)

# data[].attributes.subject
What is the point of religious institutions if not to guide people towards virtuous behavior? (Katie)

# data[].attributes.body
On top of guiding people to virtuous behavior, I think a major point of religious institutions is to create community. I think a lot of people associate themselves with a religion because it is deeply rooted in their culture and traditions. Personally, I only really go to church because of the people I have met through it, not because I believe in all of the moral guidelines of Christianity. I also think that many people follow religions as a source of hope in their life, even if they don't entirely believe in the ethics of that religion.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is the point of religion if not to guide people towards virtuous behavior? (Katie)

# data[].attributes.subject
What is the point of religion if not to guide people towards virtuous behavior? (Katie)

# data[].attributes.body
On top of guiding people to virtuous behavior, I think a major point of religious institutions is to create community. I think a lot of people associate themselves with a religion because it is deeply rooted in their culture and traditions. Personally, I only really go to church because of the people I have met through it, not because I believe in all of the moral guidelines of Christianity. I also think that many people follow religions as a source of hope in their life, even if they don't entirely believe in the ethics of that religion.

# data[].attributes.headline
 In your opinion, is it at all problematic that "religion" in J&R Rachels' addressing it in this chapter is Christian and conservative and ignores all other forms of religion world wide?  Why or why not? (Olivia)

# data[].attributes.subject
 In your opinion, is it at all problematic that "religion" in J&R Rachels' addressing it in this chapter is Christian and conservative and ignores all other forms of religion world wide?  Why or why not? (Olivia)

# data[].attributes.body
Yes. This study of ethics and religion should look at what religion means to everyone, not just a select part of the population. By only looking at Christianity, and a certain group of Christians at that, Rachels has generalized all individuals with religious beliefs in discussing what religion has to do with ethics. People interact with religion in many different ways and there are many religions that value certain things and derive values from various sources. In using Christians as the baseline, Rachels has ignored anyone with a religion that is not based on a singular, all powerful deity with a strict set of rules. Each of his conclusions are based on these assumptions and are therefore not inclusive and don't hold true for the general population.

# data[].attributes.headline
In your opinion, is it at all problematic that "religion" in J&R Rachels' addressing it in this chapter is Christian and conservative and ignores all other forms of religion world wide?  Why or why not? Natalie

# data[].attributes.subject
In your opinion, is it at all problematic that "religion" in J&R Rachels' addressing it in this chapter is Christian and conservative and ignores all other forms of religion world wide?  Why or why not? Natalie

# data[].attributes.body
I believe it is problematic to generalize 'religion' as Christianity in this argument since there are so many religions of such different substance. However, I don't think that the specifications of different religions are important to the point that is trying to be made for most of his argument.   I believe that Rachels' use of Christianity is an example of religion that is most prevalent in most of our lives.Most people are familiar with the Bible, so when he quotes and pulls direct examples from the text it is easy for us to understand what he is getting at. Most religions have a higher power that is their focal point, in his argument he uses 'God' as that higher being. I believe he could have just said 'higher being' to include other religions, but that can get confusing if you switch in and out of an example. Rachels explains how people use different bible quotes to back up their personal morals, independently of what the majority of Christians believe. This idea can be applied to any religion and therefore I think is a good example. Unfortunately, Christianity has shaped a lot of our culture and happens to be the religion we as a school have learned the most about. In this way it makes sense to use it as an example, however having no other examples seems ignorant and narrow minded. I think I am more comfortable with allowing Christianity to be the example since when I think of religion and ethics, I think of religions that contradict my personal beliefs and many religions that share those views are based off similar texts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Bradley's follow up comment--thanks, Natalie: you made me see this chapter differently!

# data[].attributes.headline
What implicit biases were revealed in this slide show? Is this problematic when considering whether morality depends on          religion? (Isabel)

# data[].attributes.subject
What implicit biases were revealed in this slide show? Is this problematic when considering whether morality depends on          religion? (Isabel)

# data[].attributes.body
This slideshow only depicted a very specific type of religion and religious views–Christian and conservative–and at many points seemed to be mocking or making fun of these beliefs. This slideshow shows a bias against these specific values by belittling and dismissing them, and doesn’t consider any other form of religion in its general discussions about religion and morals. By making sweeping generalizations about religion while only providing examples of conservative Christians, this slideshow ignores the wide variety of religious and moral beliefs that exist. This is problematic because this slideshow discusses these beliefs as if all religions are the same, and uses this to argue against religion providing moral guidance.

# data[].attributes.headline
What implicit biases were revealed in this slide show? Is this problematic when considering whether morality depends on religion? (Kaya)

# data[].attributes.subject
What implicit biases were revealed in this slide show? Is this problematic when considering whether morality depends on religion? (Kaya)

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, I think there was a bias against basing morality or any decisions off of religion because the only examples of religions beliefs that were given were only Christian and conservative and were not well represented as a structure to look to for guidance. In addition, the main example that was projected on the slideshow of a debated moral issue that uses religion as a supporting argument was homophobia which is widely viewed as not moral in the present day. This being one of the only examples of a point supported by religion creates an image that all religious beliefs that might be used to determine morals are not valid and not worth considering.

# data[].attributes.headline
I think ethics is connected to deep inquiry, and religious practice can help people develop that. . . 

# data[].attributes.subject
I think ethics is connected to deep inquiry, and religious practice can help people develop that. . . 