Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
Original Poster
#1 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 7:13 AM
Default Is religion the sole source of morality?
I wish to address something that I often hear when I talk to people about my atheistic perspective on life. They often claim that without God in their lives, there would be no reason to live a moral life. In fact, some say that crimes in general are suppressed by religion, and that if atheism was more common, so too would murder, rape, theft etc.

It is obvious that there exist atheists who are perfectly respectable human beings in terms of their moral behaviour, but this could be due to the cultural influence of their neighbours, who derive their morals from religion. It's not good to be the odd one out, so perhaps that is why atheists are moral.

I wish to ask if you think it is possible to have a largely secular society with a moral code not derived from religion. That is, could you remove God from everywhere in a society and still have it function?

Personally, I think it is certainly possible. In my mind, morality is not objectively from 'on high', but subjectively in our own minds. Regardless of the existence of a God, I couldn't bring myself to rape my cousin. It just makes me feel bad. Likewise for stealing and killing. Even tax fraud, a form of stealing, would feel wrong to me. A divine mandate against it isn't needed, just a few legal ones. Our brains, which in my opinion evolved to have morality, are inherently moral (unless something in the brain isn't working). Even the Christians, believing in evolution or not, should agree with my conclusion - all the children of Adam and Eve should know right from wrong, seeing as they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

What are your views?

[With the new rules behind me, I think I can discuss this topic without digressing into arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural creator(s).]
Advertisement
Lab Assistant
#2 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 3:39 PM
I have known plenty of atheists who were far more moral than self-proclaimed christians I've known. But the ones I've known were roomies or fellow marines who were also surrounded by others who were christian.

For example, I had roomie DB who was realy kind of a pissy little dude who also was known to take other people's things for himself from the fridge. He preached a lot as to how people should be according to his church. Roomie AJ, was an atheist and of higher moral charcter than DB

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self righteous sixteen year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time" - Neal Stephenson
Test Subject
#3 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 4:13 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
Personally, I think it is certainly possible. In my mind, morality is not objectively from 'on high', but subjectively in our own minds. Regardless of the existence of a God, I couldn't bring myself to rape my cousin. It just makes me feel bad. Likewise for stealing and killing. Even tax fraud, a form of stealing, would feel wrong to me. A divine mandate against it isn't needed, just a few legal ones. Our brains, which in my opinion evolved to have morality, are inherently moral (unless something in the brain isn't working). Even the Christians, believing in evolution or not, should agree with my conclusion - all the children of Adam and Eve should know right from wrong, seeing as they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.


First of all, I am an Atheist, my whole family is atheistic and so are most people I know.
I do not think there needs to be a God to secure morality.
Though it seems to me pretty obvious that our moral derives from theistic concepts such as Christianity, we can live a moral live without any need for a god.
I have been taught Humanist values, which are close to Christian values but not explained with god.
I think the movement of the Enlightment has made that possible. My school was called "Immanuel Kant Gymnasium", after the famous philosopher. He and other intelligent men (Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, ...) have long thought about moral and ethics and all those things. They were Christian but the values they found were universal.
I would never dare to kill somebody, not because God says so but because it's the law. And that law is very reasonable because it makes it possible to build a (mostly) functional society.
In my opinion, the whole concept of the 10 commandments was nothing else but a law to ensure a functional society. And that's what I hav been taught in religion and in ethics classes.
#4 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 4:13 PM
I would think unreasonable murder (you can define that as you'd like, but the definition changes from place to place) is illegal in all societies. You don't have to be religious to be moral and some morals are simply universal.
Scholar
#5 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 4:35 PM
No, I don't think religion is the sole source of morality at all. You don't have to be a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc... to have morals. You are right, there are those that are religious that don't seem to have morals (EX: priests that molest children, preachers that steal from their church), and there are those that are atheist that can be amongst the kindest people you can find. Religion doesn't MAKE you moral and not having religion doesn't make you immoral. It's just the person that you are inside that makes you who you are - not religion or the lack of.
Mad Poster
#6 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 4:35 PM
I don't think religion is the (only) source of morality, mainly because views on morality have changed a lot during past 100 years or so, while religion, or at least religious books have not changed. It was immoral a few decades ago for a woman to live with a man to whom she were not married to. Now, that has certainly changed a lot, and people are no longer questioning a woman's morality if she chooses to move in with her boyfriend or be a single mother. I think an entirely secular population with perfect morals according to current standard is entirely possible. Some people just like to do good things for the sake of goodness itself and not for the promise of some afterlife bliss.
#7 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 4:35 PM
I think it's more likely the other way around, that morality is the sole source of religion. The source of religion, mind you, and then all the other evils of man get involved (greed, lust, etc.) and spoils the religion, and makes it seem all the more immoral. To me anyway. A lot of the time organized religion seems to be about the least moral organization around. In fact some of the most religious people I've known have been the least moral and ethical. They don't have to be, from thier point of view, because they are taught that as long as they follow the rules of the religion, they are allowed a pass into heaven, or wherever.

ETA: Not to pick on a particular religion, but the Catholic church comes to mind. Sin all you want, doesn't matter, you go to confession, do your penance, and you are forgiven, over and over again. Every athiest I've ever known started out as a catholic, and they just couldn't accept the idea that it was ok to go around be a total sinner, and you'd be forgiven. The hipocrisy of the church is what pushed them away... My current S.O. would tell me how sick it made him to know of people who were downright evil, who would not give a hoot about what their actions did to others because they only cared that God would forgive them.
Mad Poster
#8 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 4:43 PM
As an atheist, I find it very offensive when religious people assume that I am immoral and unethical simply because I don't believe in a higher power. I've known plenty of atheists who are far more morally upstanding than some of the Christians I know. I think it's quite possible to have a strong set of moral and ethical values without religious influence. Although we wouuld have nowhere to derive our morals from for a short while, the reaction to what is done is more than enough to teach a person whether or not they should do it again. For example, do you think the public is going to be happy when you kill someone? No, they won't. You'll learn not to do it again. Although you may kill someone else despite the moral consequences, the public's unhappiness with you would teach you that killing people is wrong. Morals have more to do with cause and effect than religion, in my opinion. Just because you're religious doesn't make you an upstanding moral example, and just because you're irreligious doesn't mean that you're a barbarian, as is the common misconception.

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
Theorist
#9 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 5:11 PM
The problem atheists will have in this argument is such: Pretty much every law we have is based out of a previous belief held by a civilization that based it on some religious text. Lets use American laws as an example. Despite the law being the most innocuous law you can think of, it was created by people who have faith in some God, whether its Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, or whatever. Their minds were influenced by religion, someway, somehow. What is morality, after all? From a strict atheist standpoint, would morality be defined as following the law, and not harming other people? If so, you were taught that those notions were virtuous, most likely by other people who have been influenced by religion somehow. No matter where you go in America, the law has been created by people who have been influenced by religion somehow. I am not suggesting that atheists aren't moral or anything, but I think it would be impossible to state that no matter how you define morality, that religion had nothing to do with it. Your morality is taught to you, whether by parents, teachers, books, whatever other method, but those people have been influenced, the authors have been influenced, somehow by religion. It might not be a direct influence, but its there. Everybody's mindset has been affected by religion in some fashion, whether positive or negative...the problem I see in the question itself is to find a source of morality that is absolutely clean of any religious influence at all...otherwise its an impossible task. Even if its not readily identifiable as a clear, direct source, if you take it back far enough, religion is still the source.

I don't know how I am related to any member of S2C...however, if I traced my geneology back far enough, and traced each member's geneology back far enough, I would start running into people that I was related to after all...then if I kept digging, I would find that I was probably related to each and every member in the community, no matter how small the familial connection might be. Morality and religion are like that. If you dig deep down enough, it would be an impossible task to truly and completely separate the two, because of the role religion has played for the past 5000+ years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Mad Poster
#10 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 5:27 PM
Some of you are talking about the past 100 years or so and changes in that time period. But civilizations has existed for tens of thousands of years, just not well recorded. Civilization is very much older than most people recognize. And watch he history channel. "Ancient" civilizations, even Judaism which is the basis for our current Christian culture, were very brutal and not at all what we would call moral today. Human sacrifice was common. Raping of women and children, even daughters, in ceremonial settings was common. Cannibalism is still reportely practiced in some very secluded, small societies. Look at the brutality that is occurring today in countries with these terrible civil wars, including genocide, rape and murder of children, starvation, slavery, selling of children into prostitution. There is NO SUCH THING as human inbuilt morality!!! In our country, people we consider murderous monsters, serial killers and rapists, would be considered priests in these type of societies. I believe strongly that the ONLY civilizing process is a very strict religion controlling societies. Most of us in the US are raised the background of a Judaeo-Christian morality system. It has given modern societies the structure on which to build what we consider a "civilized" society. And the protection of a civilized society has given us the freedom, without fear, of practicing Atheism or whichever religion we prefer. If there comes a time when the majority of the "modern" societies reject any kind of religious structure, then it will be easy for mankind to again descend into cruelty and "inhumanity".
Field Researcher
#11 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 6:05 PM
I believe morality comes from what we are taught in our upbringing. Sadly, many of the kids I work with have been taught that it's right and just to steal sometimes, it's ok to lie to certain people, it's ok to hurt others in some situations and many other lax moral values. However many of these same parents also teach that believe in a Christian God is right (therefore moral) while no belief in a higher power or belief in a non-Christian God is wrong (therefore immoral). This leads to the type of perverse mentality that a belief in God trumps all other moral values, so "if I believe in God, I am a moral being, regardless of my actions." Or, to a lesser degree, "I believe in God, therefore any actions I commit are held in a different light, and moral transgretions are excusable if done in the name of religion."

So while I agree, as davious mentioned, that religion has influenced our current society's moral views in terms of 10 commandment type beliefs -- wrong to kill, etc, I also believe religion has had negative influence on our moral views. This is the "You are immoral if you don't believe in my God" view, which preaches intolerance and hate instead of acceptance and love. Or the fact that religious leaders are overwhelmingly male, which teaches (by example) that men are in a position above women. Further, our society is becoming more and more global, so people are open to new religious ideas in a way that was not possible 100 years ago, including atheism. In the next 100 years, I'm sure moral beliefs will continue to evolve, as they always do, on the basis of societal trends, which include but are not limited to religious beliefs.

Finally, I think it is safe to say that moral values are not universal, as evidenced by the concept of honor killing or female genital mutilation, both of which are done for religious (and other) reasons. Morality is a social manifestation, and a direct reflection of the society in which one lives.
Lab Assistant
#12 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 7:20 PM
Oh, I'm sinknig my teeth into this one! First of all, I really think this is kinda a "The egg and the chicken" question. Which came first, morals or religion? Religion teaches morals, but religion was created to gather groups of people who had the same morals. Religion dictates certain morals, but people had to agree on those morals as part of the religion.

I get somewhat annoyed when I hear people say that if there wasn't religion there wouldn't be morals. I find that insulting personally. I hate it when people tell me if I do this or that, I'll go to hell. I've never killed anyone, not because I'll go to hell, but because I think it is just wrong. I don't need a punishment to make me follow my rules. All I need to do is stick with what I believe is right. Most religions have some sort of punishment for not following the rules. I find that sad, because people shouldn't do things (or not do things) because they are scared they will be punished, but because they personally find it wrong. If the only way to live in a "civilized" society is to be led by religion, then humans are in worse shape than I thought. But I don't believe that, because Communist China was far from being an open slaughterhouse. Well, the leaders were a bunch of power crazy maniacs, but the people did not fall into savage behavior.

Even in the few societies that we deem "non religiouse", there are still morals. But morals are relative, so modern U.S. morals cannot be compared to, say, Ancient Mayan morals.

Quote: Originally posted by edejan
Most of us in the US are raised the background of a Judaeo-Christian morality system. It has given modern societies the structure on which to build what we consider a "civilized" society. And the protection of a civilized society has given us the freedom, without fear, of practicing Atheism or whichever religion we prefer. If there comes a time when the majority of the "modern" societies reject any kind of religious structure, then it will be easy for mankind to again descend into cruelty and "inhumanity".


I wonder how many Satanists or Muslims or Pagans feel that they are allowed to practice their religion in the U.S. without fear? Speaking for my friends that fall into those catagories, I can state they are very fearful.


Quote: Originally posted by davious
Everybody's mindset has been affected by religion in some fashion, whether positive or negative...the problem I see in the question itself is to find a source of morality that is absolutely clean of any religious influence at all...otherwise its an impossible task. Even if its not readily identifiable as a clear, direct source, if you take it back far enough, religion is still the source.


Davious, may I ask what you define religion as? I find the previouse quote questionable, but I think that may be because I'm defining the word differently.
Theorist
#13 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 7:49 PM
What I was referring to is not necessarily Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any specific religion...but more any generic religion where people gathered to worship some deity, whether its Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Baal, Gaea, etc...I believe that what we would call morals developed out of those believers in whatever faith's desire to do right by their deity. I think your statement

Religion teaches morals, but religion was created to gather groups of people who had the same morals. Religion dictates certain morals, but people had to agree on those morals as part of the religion.

is fundamentally flawed because it assumes everyone who followed a specific religion did so voluntarily. In many cases, religion was not voluntary, many people were forced to follow a certain religion...so it cannot be said that they had to agree to those morals before joining the religion...It didn't always gather people who shared the same beliefs, sometimes religion crammed those beliefs down people's throats under penalty of death. You had no choice but to convert...

what it all comes down to is this. Sometime, a long time ago, someone was told something by some religious person, who told them something was wrong or something was right, they passed that along to their friends, family, who passed it along somewhere else, who wrote it down, etc until we get to now. That does not mean that every law is a Christian law, or an Islamic law, or dictated by any Holy Book, merely that no matter what our faith is, or if we choose to not have faith in any particular deity, our choices, our sense of right and wrong ultimately can be attributed to a religious influence, even if that influence occurred 4,000 years ago, the ripples of that influence can still be felt.

You speak English, you type in English. Thats fine. But, what if I were to tell you that your English, which is a different language from French, which is different from German, which is different from Chinese isn't original? You would probably say "well duh", or something similar. We know that the English language has its roots in Latin, a now dead language, has been significantly influenced by German and other European languages, and contains many words that have their origins in other languages besides English...Well, if our languages can evolve over thousands of years, why can't our philosophy or sense of morality? Even though I don't speak a lick of Latin, I have been heavily influenced by the language, by virtue of having English as my language. Well, why should morality be any different? Even if you have never stepped foot inside a church, synogogue, mosque or other religious building, have never read any specificly religious texts, don't believe in any deity, can you honestly say that your life has not been influenced at all by religion? It is my belief that everyone's worldview, which shapes their core moral beliefs, has somehow been influenced by one religion or another. To what extent, I cannot say. Growing up in a Christian household, its a very direct influence for me, however even for someone who hasn't, they have been affected somehow. (again, not saying affected in either a positive or negative way, just that they have been affected)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Field Researcher
#14 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 7:54 PM
I didn't grow up in a religious environment. I wouldn't call myself an atheist, though. I do believe a higher power exists. But we never grew up on the morals presented to man by a religious source.
I believe good vs evil derives from a more "natural" cause.
It is human nature to thrive. And to keep human in existence, we must do good for all. Work together, help each other, keep from conflict, give as well as receive.
That being said, there is some "bad apples" who's desires center only on themselves. Religious upbringing or not, this is also an aspect of human nature.
If God was removed/never existed, I do think we would still thrive. We have this need to do what is good, because we depend on each other for our survival. There would still be law of man, because we desire structure and happiness.
If everyone ignored morality, there would be no structure, no happiness. And us human beings, being as emotional as we are, would not stay like this for long. We would eventually bring back law and morality, even without beliefs in God.
Scholar
#15 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 8:02 PM
There's also a "legalist" standpoint, I think--what we define as "moral" or "ethical" is, to some extent, influenced by modern law. Law is influenced not only by religion, but thousands of years of civic sciences. Various aspects that we associate with early law...such as "eye for an eye", etc., are not from the Old Testament, but from the legal code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, centuries before the composition of the Old Testament. And while it may have been religion in Hammurabi's time, that religion hardly applies to the society that adopted it. Aspects of Hammurabi's Code, as well as aspects of Biblical Law, have heavily influenced United States Law.

So, our legal system owes as much to ancient secular law as it does to biblical law. Add to the fact that near-Atheist societies of the 20th Century (or at least, populations considered "Atheistic" from the Judeo-Christian standpoint, such as in East Asia), are sustaining and obviously have their own moral structure (they have existed for centuries, and do not implode). It can be assumed that they rely more on an old legalist tradition, and that religious philosophy might be secondary in their consideration.

So, I would say that religion is not the sole source of morality in society. As an Atheist, I can confidently say that exposure modern religion does not influence my personal ethics. Now, whether or not a society with ethical norms can exist completely independent of any religious thought, I don't know--I would like to say 'yes', but there's no concrete example of a completely atheist society (just as there is no example of a completely theist society).

The devout like to assume that every form of morality can be traced to some religion or another--but Anthropology tells us when we go back tens of thousands of years, to pre-agriculture survival, ethics and morality probably have their "roots" in early clan life belonging to earlier ancestors of modern man--such ancestors which, while having an understanding of life and death, did not have even a rudimentary form of religion, in part due to a "lack of imagination"--they knew the consequences of "injustice" to eachother within their own clans, but they did not fear retaliation from divinity, just each other. Rules allowed for the function of packs of early ancestors, doing much to increase their chances of survival (not unlike a pack of wolves). In the earliest cases, religion wouldn't be a consideration--only the most basic in creative thought, to me anyway, means that there is not a religious notion in those ancestors.

Of course, you could argue that what those packs had wasn't "ethics" or "morality" anymore than it would be ethics or morality within a pack of wolves. I think it's somewhat more developed than that, so it's different from wolves, but I can't say with absolute certainty.

However, my knowledge of Anthropology is limited to the basics--someone more familiar with the subject should be able to clarify.

"We're on sob day two of Operation Weeping-Bald-Eagle-Liberty-Never-Forget-Freedom-Watch sniff no word yet sob on our missing patriot Glenn Beck sob as alleged-President Hussein Obama shows his explicit support sniff for his fellow communists by ruling out the nuclear option."
Lab Assistant
#16 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 8:09 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
What I was referring to is not necessarily Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any specific religion...but more any generic religion where people gathered to worship some deity, whether its Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Baal, Gaea, etc...I believe that what we would call morals developed out of those believers in whatever faith's desire to do right by their deity. I think your statement

Religion teaches morals, but religion was created to gather groups of people who had the same morals. Religion dictates certain morals, but people had to agree on those morals as part of the religion.

is fundamentally flawed because it assumes everyone who followed a specific religion did so voluntarily. In many cases, religion was not voluntary, many people were forced to follow a certain religion...so it cannot be said that they had to agree to those morals before joining the religion...It didn't always gather people who shared the same beliefs, sometimes religion crammed those beliefs down people's throats under penalty of death. You had no choice but to convert...


Perhaps I stated that badly. What I mean, is some "original" religion was a group of people getting together and agreeing on "this or that" set of rules. When I say this, I mean like twenty people "X" amount of years ago. Be they rules handed down from a wise man, or from a burning bush, or from a green alien. That "established" this random religion. Then, as it or its power grew, people were forced and such into it. But when that religion was born, the very day of it's birth, was someone/somebodies gathering together a group of ideas to teach. But a religion has to already be established for anyone to be forced into it. As far as "religion being created to gather groups of people with the same morals together", I still stand by that too. But in the sense that those morals may already be there, or maybe they are taught, or maybe they are forced. But part of the purpose of religion is to gather those who believe and teach those who don't.

Quote: Originally posted by davious
what it all comes down to is this. Sometime, a long time ago, someone was told something by some religious person, who told them something was wrong or something was right, they passed that along to their friends, family, who passed it along somewhere else, who wrote it down, etc until we get to now. That does not mean that every law is a Christian law, or an Islamic law, or dictated by any Holy Book, merely that no matter what our faith is, or if we choose to not have faith in any particular deity, our choices, our sense of right and wrong ultimately can be attributed to a religious influence, even if that influence occurred 4,000 years ago, the ripples of that influence can still be felt.


Well our modern U.S. Holidays are certainly a great example of that. Easter anyone? Hmm, now once again, what do rabbits and chocolate eggs have to do with Jesus? We all know that Easter is also the fertility festival/spring festival, thus the rabbits and eggs and grass baskets. But, again, I'm not sure it is possible for religion to come before morals. I don't mean that as a blanket statement, because I can think of some cases where that is true. But I can also think of some cases where the opposite is true.
#17 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 9:53 PM
I actually find that most people who are atheists are have more morals than any religious person I know and Christians are worsed in my opinions, always critising others for not being Christian. However I do find Buddha's to quite calm, collected and generally more moralistic than the other religious groups, on the other hand some believe that Buddha's are atheists anyway.

I just think that Religion rules our lives too much, it's the centre of everything it seems. Conflict, Happiness, Faith, Spirituality, War, Freedom, Life, Death. There is no escaping it, it's take over the planet and frankly it all needs to stop. It causes to much pain and conflict to be a good thing!
Test Subject
#18 Old 23rd Jul 2007 at 10:55 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Vengeance
I actually find that most people who are atheists are have more morals than any religious person I know and Christians are worsed in my opinions, always critising others for not being Christian. However I do find Buddha's to quite calm, collected and generally more moralistic than the other religious groups, on the other hand some believe that Buddha's are atheists anyway.

I just think that Religion rules our lives too much, it's the centre of everything it seems. Conflict, Happiness, Faith, Spirituality, War, Freedom, Life, Death. There is no escaping it, it's take over the planet and frankly it all needs to stop. It causes to much pain and conflict to be a good thing!

I agree. I find that being an atheist it's tough especially in the south.Everyone is always concerned that I don't have morals. I do...I use the general rule of empathy.I'm not against religion,I just don't get why some people use it to avoid tolerance of different lifestyles or different religions
#19 Old 24th Jul 2007 at 12:10 AM
I seriously don't believe that having or not having God or a belief in something of higher power makes one has less or more morals or ethics than some else. Every body should know the difference between right and wrong. Morals are something that are taught and found through life. I am Christian and I am no better or worse than an Atheist. I just have a belief *sort of* and that is it. Someone who believes than Atheists are lower than them because they are just that Atheist, Well that person needs seriously to re-think the whole view points on morals and ethics. Morals are not just for those who have a belief.
Scholar
Original Poster
#20 Old 24th Jul 2007 at 12:26 AM
Quote: Originally posted by edejan
"Ancient" civilizations, even Judaism which is the basis for our current Christian culture, were very brutal and not at all what we would call moral today.

True, because morality is cultural, and as culture changes, so too does morality. I'm sure some of the things we accept today would be considered immoral to the ancients, such as homosexuality or co-habitation.

Quote: Originally posted by edejan
Human sacrifice was common.

For religious reasons.
Quote: Originally posted by edejan
Raping of women and children, even daughters, in ceremonial settings was common. Cannibalism is still reportely practiced in some very secluded, small societies. Look at the brutality that is occurring today in countries with these terrible civil wars, including genocide, rape and murder of children, starvation, slavery, selling of children into prostitution.

Yes, I will agree that there are terrible things happening around the world. However, this does not lead to the conclusion that....
Quote: Originally posted by edejan
There is NO SUCH THING as human inbuilt morality!!!

You will find, in almost every person (bar sociopaths or psychopaths, where their brain is a little different) a reluctance to sell their OWN children into prostitution, unless they think it is the only way to provide for them. You will find a attitude against murder, unless it is a person of the 'enemy' side or that person did something against you (like tried to kidnap your children). Granted, we have progressed beyond that, but that doesn't mean that they are acting totally immorally. There are morals there - the core human morality exists there.

Secondly, those societies are indeed just as religious as ours is. Different religions, perhaps, but there I don't see a correlation between behaviour and religion.
Quote: Originally posted by edejan
I believe strongly that the ONLY civilizing process is a very strict religion controlling societies.

Now, do you care to explain why those societies with strict religion (Taliban, Iran, Saudi Arabia) are not as civil (by Western standards) as secular societies like Sweden, the UK etc.
Quote: Originally posted by edejan
If there comes a time when the majority of the "modern" societies reject any kind of religious structure, then it will be easy for mankind to again descend into cruelty and "inhumanity".

Good. So I wasn't making this stuff up in my original post. People, such as yourself, clearly believe this. May I ask how you draw this conclusion, given what I said above?
#21 Old 24th Jul 2007 at 1:35 AM
No. If anything, I consider morality to be a universal truth beyond even religion (albeit a somewhat flexible one). Weird, yes. But I believe that even God is bound by a code of ethics (many religions take the view that God is 'above and beyond', i disagree), although it may be a bit different from the ones we mortals do and/or should live by.
#22 Old 24th Jul 2007 at 1:52 AM
Years ago in college, I had a literature professor who taught about the underlying moral themes that were evident in classic literature. I can't remember much of the topic, but it was very interesting, it was something along the lines of :
There are certain behaviours that have been written about time and time again. Behaviours that put a tribe's survival at risk, and that would be written about in order to convey the basic message that said behaviours were wrong... things like murder, which will make it harder for a tribe to survive, and incest, which screws up the gene pool. The main point seemed to be that from the beginning of time, in a biological sense, there are certain things that should not be done if a species is to survive. These things of course correspond to what we now consider "morals". The lessons are found in ancient fables and myths, in religious texts, and very much in the works of Shakespeare.

And along the same line, I think Chris Rock had it right, in his bit about pork in the bible, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd5p...related&search= (adult language-please let me know if not allowed)
Religion is just trying to teach those who, for whatever reason, can't figure it out themselves.
Lab Assistant
#23 Old 24th Jul 2007 at 1:57 AM
Religion might not be the sole source, but morality as I know it definitely comes from the Word. For those who believe in the Bible, Cain and Abel were a perfect example. They were brothers and due to jealousy, one killed the other without a second thought. Man's initial instinct is self pleasure and survival and if there were not a moral code, man wouldn't think twice about killing, stealing, and doing whatever else he needs/desires to live comfortably.


This is not saying that non-religious people cannot be moral. It goes w/o saying that athiest doesn't equal killer, adulterer, thief, etc. But until man recieved his instruction from God - whether directly as a believer or one who's been influenced by a society that largely believes in a god- I don't think there would be too much moral difference between man and beast.
Scholar
#24 Old 24th Jul 2007 at 2:12 AM
Quote: Originally posted by chynableu
But until man recieved his instruction from God - whether directly as a believer or one who's been influenced by a society that largely believes in a god- I don't think there would be too much moral difference between man and beast.


Of course--the real question presented here is, "What was the word of God?". Certainly from a Judeo-Christian standpoint, societies with complex laws existed well before the "Word of God" was delivered.

Hinduism, for example, is the eldest of the major world religions today--and I don't think they have a word of God precisely, in any case. But we definitely know the Indus Valley Civilization not only had morality, but laws and a complex bureaucracy in addition to their own religions--and they certainly weren't the only ones.

It's less of a problem with the Indus Valley then it is with, say, Judaism--prior to Judaism's founding, there were plenty of organized moral beliefs. But, and here I might be mistaken, there wasn't a word of God (or at least, according to the early Jews).

Religious evolution may, in fact, be independent of the evolution of what we can consider ethical behavior at it's earliest point.

"We're on sob day two of Operation Weeping-Bald-Eagle-Liberty-Never-Forget-Freedom-Watch sniff no word yet sob on our missing patriot Glenn Beck sob as alleged-President Hussein Obama shows his explicit support sniff for his fellow communists by ruling out the nuclear option."
Mad Poster
#25 Old 24th Jul 2007 at 3:11 AM
OK, let's do this!

ayshala: religion was created to gather groups of people who had the same morals

No. "Religions" were created by men who were in a big, scary world where they were pretty much "prey." Men who sat under the stars at night and wondered where they fit in this great big world. Religions were created by men to try to control their environment, to control life and death, sickness, starvation and all the other scary things in a world without big cities or big weapons to protect frail humanity. If we sacrifice, pray, whatever, to the "power/powers" that control our lives, than we have some control over our lives.

ayshala: Most religions have some sort of punishment for not following the rules.

Really, traditionally, most SOCIETIES, whether religious or secular, have some sort of punishment for not following the rules, whether it be legal (punishment, imprisonment) or behavioral (shunning, gossip, ostracism, bullying). This is just the nature of social groups.

ayshala: I wonder how many Satanists or Muslims or Pagans feel that they are allowed to practice their religion in the U.S. without fear? Speaking for my friends that fall into those catagories, I can state they are very fearful.

In most societies, as in the US, the prevailing religion or else the religion of those in power dictates what is acceptable and what is abhorrent. The US happens to currently be a majority Judaeo-Christian culture. We as Americans want to believe we are tolerant of other "types" of religions and many of us are, but, in general, the majority religion is the one that most acceptable to the "culture" especially in times of social upheaval and/or tension such as we are in now with the "terror alert."

Doddibot: You will find, in almost every person (bar sociopaths or psychopaths, where their brain is a little different) a reluctance to sell their OWN children into prostitution, unless they think it is the only way to provide for them. You will find a attitude against murder, unless it is a person of the 'enemy' side or that person did something against you (like tried to kidnap your children). Granted, we have progressed beyond that, but that doesn't mean that they are acting totally immorally. There are morals there - the core human morality exists there.

Hmmm...where to start??? "a reluctance to sell their OWN children into prostitution, unless they think it is the only way to provide for them." In our own country in the not so distant past (say 100 to 200 years ago) I have heard it was morally and legally acceptable for Mormons (and no I am not casting aspersions at this particular religion, this is just an example that seems readily available) to marry off their daughters into polygamous households as soon as they hit puberty, 12 or 13 years old. OK this is not "selling your children into prostitution" but it isn't that far off. You are allowing your very young child to enter into a state of enforced sexualization because the religion and society you lived in says this was not only OK but a good thing to do. I think we consider this immoral today but it was not so in that society at that time.
And that's in our own recent past.

"You will find a attitude against murder, unless it is a person of the 'enemy' side."

True but what is the "enemy" side? In other cultures, in the past and even now, the "enemy" side could be anyone not in your immediate family group. It could thus be "acceptable" to murder someone in the next town or across the street. In the countries now which are experiencing the terrible genocides, it seems to be OK to murder anyone of another village, man, woman and child. I find no inbuilt "morality" as we define it in this attitude.

edejan: "I believe strongly that the ONLY civilizing process is a very strict religion controlling societies." Perhaps I misstated - I believe a very strong morality based on religious teachings - because that's where I believe morality comes from - is the ONLY civilizing process. I don't mean that every person MUST follow that religion or any religion, only that this is necessary for a society to be civilized according to what we (or I) consider civilized today. Specifically, that everyone has the opportunity to live a peaceful life, a healthy life, to earn a decent living, to be free from the fear of bodily harm or impingement on our personal lives by any unwelcome authority, to feel somewhat confident that we and our children will have a tomorrow.

Doddibot: Now, do you care to explain why those societies with strict religion (Taliban, Iran, Saudi Arabia) are not as civil (by Western standards) as secular societies like Sweden, the UK etc.

Currently "secular" societies, such as Sweden, the UK and the US, I suppose, are societies which have been formed by a religious history. And as for the societies with strict religions which you noted, I have not indicated that all religions lead to civilization as we define it. The Mayans were probably a relgious society but they glorified human sacrifice.

Doddibot: "Good. So I wasn't making this stuff up in my original post. People, such as yourself, clearly believe this. May I ask how you draw this conclusion, given what I said above?"

Is this the statement you're referring to? "I wish to ask if you think it is possible to have a largely secular society with a moral code not derived from religion. That is, could you remove God from everywhere in a society and still have it function?"

Then, I think my answer is no.

And why did I say this: "If there comes a time when the majority of the "modern" societies reject any kind of religious structure, then it will be easy for mankind to again descend into cruelty and "inhumanity".

I think as I've said that there is no "basic" human morality without some socioreligious structure to foster it. Sure some individuals may be nicer than others but that doesn't mean the human race would live peacefully without this structure.
 
Page 1 of 4
Back to top