Mavrodes’ disagrees with Bertrand Russell’s secular views on religion, as he emphasizes his lack of religion and disagreance with the idea of God. Russell claims that morality does not need religion in order to work because they don’t go hand in hand. George Mavrodes rejects Russsell’s ideas and says his views cannot “answer the question ‘Why should I be moral?’ because the common goods are often just those that we sacrifice in carrying out our moral obligations” (Mavrodes, 194). Mavrodes’ doesn’t think secular ethics is a good comparison to whether or not religion and morality go together. He makes a point that secularists have no right to comment on the relationship because their input is biased and “deep” in their eyes is “matter and energy, or perhaps natural law, chance or chaos” (Mavrodes, 194). Secular ethics doesn’t go deep enough into the idea of religion and morality to truly understand it, according to Mavrodes. Mavrodes’ opinion, is just that an opinion, where it is not constitituted as right or wrong, but gives an alternate view into the relationship between religion and …show more content…
I do not think these two topics go hand in hand or are related in any way. Of the three ideas I have discussed, I can agree most with Immanuel Kant’s independence thesis and how religion and morality are independent from one another. I believe there is a God, but I am not extremely religious, yet I am still capable of making morally good decisions. I also liked Kant’s idea of immorality, how we are not perfect so immorality is expecting from everyone at some point. I think that for some people religion is a huge part of their actions, whether they be good or bad, but personally religion and morality do not