Secular Ethics Doesnt Rely On Religious Principles
There is now a reasonably 532 substantial body of evidence suggesting that, even from the rigorous scientific perspective, elfishness and concern for others ot only in our own interests but in a sense, innate to our biological are. Such evidence, when combined reflection on our personal eriences and coupled with simple mon sense, can offer a strong case he benefits of cultivating basic an values that does not rely on gious principles or faith at all. This then is the basis of what i call ular ethics". To some,the very word gests a firm rejection of, or even ility towards, religion. It may seem em that, in usingthis word, iam ocating the exclusion of religion ethical systems, or even from all s of public life. This is not at allwhat i ein mind. Instead, my understanding of the word "secular" comes from the way it is commonly used in India. Modern India has a secular constitution and prides itself on being a secular country. In Indian usage, "secular”, far from implying antagonism towards religion or towards people of faith, actually implies a profound respect for and tolerance towards all religions. It also implies an inclusive and impartial attitude which includes nonbelievers. This understanding of the term "secular"-to implymutual tolerance and respect for all faiths as well as for those of no faith-comes from India's particular historical and cultural background. In the same ways, i suspect, the western understanding of the term comes from European history. Perhaps as science began to advance rapidly in Europe, there was a move towards greater ratio nality... and a rejection of what came to be seen as the superstitions of the past. For many radical thinkers, the adoption of rationality has entailed a rejection of religious faith. The French Revolution, which expressed so many of the new ideas of the European Enlightenment, is a good example of this, with its strong. anti-religious element. Of course there was also an important social dimension to this rejection. Religion came to be regarded as conservative. tied to tradition, and closely associated with old regimes and all their failings. The legacy of this history, it seems, is that for more than 200 years, many of the most influential thinkers and reformers in the West have viewed religion, not as an avenue to human liberation, but as an obstacle to progress. Hence, secularism and religion are often seen as two opposing and mutually Incompatihlepositioe2 When negative attitudestowards religion, in the West or elsewhere, are motivated by a concern forjustice, they must be respected. In fact, one could arguethat those who point out the hypocrisy of religious people who violate the ethical principles they proclaim, and whostand up against injustices perpetrated by religious figures and institutions, are actually strengthening and benefiting thetraditions themselves. However, when assessing such criticisms, it is important to distinguishbetween criticisms directed at religionitself and those directed at the institutionsof religion, which are two quite separatethings. Because close to the heart of allgreatfaith traditions is the aim of promoting humanity's most positive qualities and nurturing such values as kindness, compassion, forgiveness, patience, and personal integrity.
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed in the Article above are Dalai Lama kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it.
Courtesy : Dalai Lama Speaking Tree,Times of India
Secular Ethics Doesnt Rely On Religious Principles
There is now a reasonably 532 substantial body of evidence suggesting that, even from the rigorous scientific perspective, elfishness and concern for others ot only in our own interests but in a sense, innate to our biological are. Such evidence, when combined reflection on our personal eriences and coupled with simple mon sense, can offer a strong case he benefits of cultivating basic an values that does not rely on gious principles or faith at all. This then is the basis of what i call ular ethics". To some,the very word gests a firm rejection of, or even ility towards, religion. It may seem em that, in usingthis word, iam ocating the exclusion of religion ethical systems, or even from all s of public life. This is not at allwhat i ein mind. Instead, my understanding of the word "secular" comes from the way it is commonly used in India. Modern India has a secular constitution and prides itself on being a secular country. In Indian usage, "secular”, far from implying antagonism towards religion or towards people of faith, actually implies a profound respect for and tolerance towards all religions. It also implies an inclusive and impartial attitude which includes nonbelievers. This understanding of the term "secular"-to implymutual tolerance and respect for all faiths as well as for those of no faith-comes from India's particular historical and cultural background. In the same ways, i suspect, the western understanding of the term comes from European history. Perhaps as science began to advance rapidly in Europe, there was a move towards greater ratio nality... and a rejection of what came to be seen as the superstitions of the past. For many radical thinkers, the adoption of rationality has entailed a rejection of religious faith. The French Revolution, which expressed so many of the new ideas of the European Enlightenment, is a good example of this, with its strong. anti-religious element. Of course there was also an important social dimension to this rejection. Religion came to be regarded as conservative. tied to tradition, and closely associated with old regimes and all their failings. The legacy of this history, it seems, is that for more than 200 years, many of the most influential thinkers and reformers in the West have viewed religion, not as an avenue to human liberation, but as an obstacle to progress. Hence, secularism and religion are often seen as two opposing and mutually Incompatihlepositioe2 When negative attitudestowards religion, in the West or elsewhere, are motivated by a concern forjustice, they must be respected. In fact, one could arguethat those who point out the hypocrisy of religious people who violate the ethical principles they proclaim, and whostand up against injustices perpetrated by religious figures and institutions, are actually strengthening and benefiting thetraditions themselves. However, when assessing such criticisms, it is important to distinguishbetween criticisms directed at religionitself and those directed at the institutionsof religion, which are two quite separatethings. Because close to the heart of allgreatfaith traditions is the aim of promoting humanity's most positive qualities and nurturing such values as kindness, compassion, forgiveness, patience, and personal integrity.
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed in the Article above are Dalai Lama kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it.
Courtesy : Dalai Lama Speaking Tree,Times of India