luvluv

Hi folks, I'm new here.

My argument is that while religion is unnecessary to solve your basic moral needs (i.e. the Golden Rule) it does increase the ceiling on morality in individuals that adhere to it and study it.

For example, is it at all likely that Martin Luther King could have done what he did in this country without his devotion to religion?

I would ask the same about folks like Ghandi, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Mother Theresa, and countless numbers of nuns and (non-proselytizing) missionaries feeding and taking care of people all over the world.

Isn't it true that the morality of many of the key people who made the world a better place impossible outside of religion? Or at least, doesn't religion have a better record of producing such people than irreligion?

As a corallary to this argument, is it really certain that all of the wars that have been "fought over religion" really fought over RELIGION? There are almost always existential causes to even religions battles, and religion is usually draped over as a veneer or an excuse for what are otherwise very obviously wars of greed. The Crusades, for example, were probably less inspired by religion as by the opportunity to acquire possesions and land. In my opinion, it is the practiced habit of ruling powers of nations to enoble their efforts of conquest by constructing them within the fabric of an established object or concept that their subjects are already devoted to. For example, it could very easily be argued that the Persian Gulf War was fought to protect oil supplies. However, the ruling powers dressed the war as a battle to preserve democracy, a principle that is valued by the public.

Is it not possible that most of the religious wars were nothing of the kind, but simply naked acts of conquest and aggression dressed up by elietes in religious drag to make them palatable to the non-elites who would have to fight them? And isn't it therefore likely that many of the wars religion "caused" would have been fought in any case, just under a different excuse?

So to bring this back to my original argument, since it does take religion to make truly great moral men (men who devote their lives to improving the morality of their fellows), since it does not take religion to start wars (Hitler, Stalin, Alexander the Great, etc) and since many wars supposedly fought over religion probably would have occured anyway....

...isn't religion a good thing?

luvluv

Also, I started a thread about the evolution of morality on the Creation/Evolution page that I would love for you guys to participate in. You seem to have some good answers.

tronvillain

So, attaching a supernatural system of punishment and reward to a list of rules makes people more likely to follow them? I prefer to make do with the truth myself.

99Percent

It is also very possible that these "great" people you mention were already good to begin with and projected their goodness through religion.

As to wars caused by economic reasons, I agree. But it is undeniable that religion was (and still is) used by the leaders of these wars to control the masses and instigate people to blindly follow them.

And no, religion is not a good thing, simply because it obliterates individual free thinking.

Late_Cretaceous

I really don't think religion and morality have much to do with each other. Sure, religion can be used as a vehicle to deliver moral lessons - but just as often it can be used as justification for some of the worst crimes against humanity.

three4jump

I would have to say that religion did help MLK do what he did. He preached publicly about the morality of civil rights and in private he cheated on his wife, among other things. One list of his failings can be found <a href="http://isco2.topcities.com/wwwboard/78.html" target="_blank">here</a>. (I haven't personally verified all of these accusations, but they are consistent with things I've read in the past.) His religious training probably taught him how to be a hypocrit. And because he is associated with religion, his public personna is continually scrubbed clean of these faults as he is held up as an icon.

Another example of how the secrecy, hypocrisy, and illogic of religion enables reprehensible moral actions while they are covered up with claims of moral virtue can be found in the recently publicized child molestings by Boston area Catholic priests.

<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/daily/05/abuse_settlement.htm" target="_blank">web page</a>

I wouldn't go so far as to say that religion directly causes moral failing in all cases, or that all religious believers are as morally bankrupt as the two examples given, but I would say that professions of religious belief are no gaurantee of moral behavior.

By the way, welcome to the II boards, luvluv. I hope my rather harsh response to your original post won't put you off too much. I hope you continue to post here.

luvluv

Firstly, to three4jump:

Despite his personal moral failings, I believe the heights of self-sacrifice that Mr. King exhibited in his personal life all emerge entirely from his religious training. To put it bluntly, King would have been a philanderer in his youth whether he was religious or not. Your mention of that is totally irrelevant to the discussion. With religion, MLK was a philanderer who revolutionized the way we interact with each other on a daily basis. Without religion, MLK would have just been a philanderer. Your mentioning that is not relevant to my argument.

But thanks for the welcome, I plan to hang around for a while.

tronvillian sez:

" So, attaching a supernatural system of punishment and reward to a list of rules makes people more likely to follow them? I prefer to make do with the truth myself."

That is not my argument at all. I am saying that religion gives a higher ceiling, if you will, to the moral man. No you don't need a religon to not murder, but it very often takes religion to devote your entire life to ending racism or injustice, often at peril to your own life. I am speaking directly to the tradition of enormous moral advances brought to human kind through the religious man, and pointing out that there is no similar string of moral advances proffered by the non-religious man. I am asking, essentially, if not for Martin Luther King's devotion to the teachings of Christ would I (an African-American) be typing on this board right now? Would the south still be segreagated? Even note that the most strident abolitionists were not scientists (many of whom at the time supported race theory) but Puritans and other religuous people.

99percent sez:

"It is also very possible that these "great" people you mention were already good to begin with and projected their goodness through religion."

But if so, where is the historical record of great moral advances proffered by the non-religious?

"As to wars caused by economic reasons, I agree. But it is undeniable that religion was (and still is) used by the leaders of these wars to control the masses and instigate people to blindly follow them."

So is patriotism, is that always bad? As I mentioned before, we are often promoted to go to war because of the catch-phrase of "democracy", when democracy is not at all the reason we are going to war. Does that make democracy bad? Because someone takes advantage of the esteem we hold it in to compel us to do war? The fault would seem to fall on the people who were manipulating the concept, not the concept itself.

"And no, religion is not a good thing, simply because it obliterates individual free thinking."

That's a dogmatic statement, and you science guys aren't supposed to make those Would you say that folks like Dr. King, Ghandi, and the abolitionists were not free thinkers? They totally went against the grain of their societies, again at peril of their lives. Lots of things obliterate individual free thinking: patriotism, peer-pressure. I'd say in general the human being is not a free-thinking animal, most people follow the trends of the group. But if you look at this quality in things like fashion or music tastes for instance, the herd-instinct is alive and well in non-religious people.

DarkDruid

It seems to me that you are applying a double standard here, esspeccially with your comments on the late Dr. King.

You insist that religion made him great, but had no effect on his weaknesses. This seems to be a slight contradiction to me. So if someone does something bad, religion has no part of it... but if they do something good, religion is the only reason they did it? Nice try.

luvluv

Not at all Dark Druid, I am saying they would have done the bad thing anyway.

By what logic would you assume that if Dr. King had not been religious he would have therefore not cheated on his wife?

You are acting like his cheating was a function of his religion, which it is obviously not since his religion forbids adultery.

However, his moral stances WERE a function of his religion, he clearly and meticulously stated that his morality came from that of Jesus, and he was given to quoting scriptures to support his moral positions.

Ever read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"?

DarkDruid

I did not say anything about his morality if he were not religious. I was saying that you are making a huge assumption by stating that he would have cheated even if he were not religious, but why would he not have fought for civil liberties in that situation, as well, with only differant justifications?

Also, I might add that there were also a great deal of people against his teachings, the vast majority of whom were intensely religious. Could we also assume that if *they* were without religion, they would not have fought so passionatly against Dr. King?