Out of boredom, i was thinking about some moral dillemas, based on certain time periods in history.

Suppose you live in the High Middle Ages, which was obsessed by religious purity. And it was easy to get killed for not being of the right religion. Suppose you would be an atheist back then. Would you hide your atheism and pose as a christian, or would you stand up for your disbelieve and fase being tortured to death?

I'd be a public religionist and a private atheist. I don't think I'd have the courage to risk a painful death.

What would be the point of dying for this non-belief? No moral dilemma involved.

Gee, horribly tortured followed by a good burning or sit through boring Church once a week.................... give me a minute, this is actually hard to decide on.

I'd most likely pretend to be religious.

Probably much easier to swallow all the bullshit back then too, less knowledge about the world being abound. I'd lie about it though, the better to save a burning and who is the victim of the lie? Someone else's pretend friend? No brainer.

I guess i would conform as well.

Judging by our answers, it seems that our hypothetical medieval society would be unlikely to make it out of the dark ages. I know very little about what historical events allowed for the beginings of secularisation. I'm assuming that it had a lot to do with brave individuals standing up to the church and refusing to put up with their bullshit, though.

Daan wrote:Out of boredom, i was thinking about some moral dillemas, based on certain time periods in history.

Suppose you live in the High Middle Ages, which was obsessed by religious purity. And it was easy to get killed for not being of the right religion. Suppose you would be an atheist back then. Would you hide your atheism and pose as a christian, or would you stand up for your disbelieve and fase being tortured to death?

Given you got killed for believing in God (for example the Cathars at Béziers) and probably would get killed for not believing in God then there isn't really a moral dilemma because this is really a political question of accepting the Pope's rulings on matters relating to God or not accepting them.

If you don't accept them and you are a political threat then you will be killed and if you do accept them and are not a political threat then you won't die.

This is not morality.

Macros1980 wrote:Judging by our answers, it seems that our hypothetical medieval society would be unlikely to make it out of the dark ages. I know very little about what historical events allowed for the beginings of secularisation. I'm assuming that it had a lot to do with brave individuals standing up to the church and refusing to put up with their bullshit, though.

The wars between catholics and protestants did the trick, but some historians say that secularism was still very fragile until the late 17th century. It still is fragile now i suppose.

byofrcs wrote:

Daan wrote:Out of boredom, i was thinking about some moral dillemas, based on certain time periods in history.

Suppose you live in the High Middle Ages, which was obsessed by religious purity. And it was easy to get killed for not being of the right religion. Suppose you would be an atheist back then. Would you hide your atheism and pose as a christian, or would you stand up for your disbelieve and fase being tortured to death?

Given you got killed for believing in God (for example the Cathars at Béziers) and probably would get killed for not believing in God then there isn't really a moral dilemma because this is really a political question of accepting the Pope's rulings on matters relating to God or not accepting them.

If you don't accept them and you are a political threat then you will be killed and if you do accept them and are not a political threat then you won't die.

This is not morality.

Well, i was planning to do a moral dillema with the Nazis, it is similar a bit, but it involves genocide.

I don't see how it would be helpful to get myself killed for being an atheist. Atheists don't do martyrdom.

I think I would try to organize a 'secret' gathering of freethinkers. We would organize and strike against the organization of the Church, like killing the pope and such cool stuff...

Diederick wrote:I don't see how it would be helpful to get myself killed for being an atheist. Atheists don't do martyrdom.

I think I would try to organize a 'secret' gathering of freethinkers. We would organize and strike against the organization of the Church, like killing the pope and such cool stuff...

I think given the circumstances, being the pope would be an excellent job for an atheist.

virphen wrote:

Diederick wrote:I don't see how it would be helpful to get myself killed for being an atheist. Atheists don't do martyrdom.

I think I would try to organize a 'secret' gathering of freethinkers. We would organize and strike against the organization of the Church, like killing the pope and such cool stuff...

I think given the circumstances, being the pope would be an excellent job for an atheist.

Touché.

virphen wrote:I think given the circumstances, being the pope would be an excellent job for an atheist.

This guy surely is interesting in this context.

Berthold wrote:

virphen wrote:I think given the circumstances, being the pope would be an excellent job for an atheist.

This guy surely is interesting in this context.

Yup, him and some of the other popes of the period just before the Reformation where exactly who I had in mind, so bonus points for you .

I think I would have ended up being burned as a heretic because of seeing the bible contradictions and unable to keep my mouth shut.