Galileo

What does the topic mean?
I would like to define it so there is little ambiguity in later discussions (provided members will grace me with their contributions)

I would like to look at religion from a purely (if that's ever possible) philosophical perspecitive, that is, to examine its true (boy, i'm really treading on thin lines here) values as a set of moral codes or moral standards, its effectiveness as a function of this (i.e. giving people a moral standard to work towards or uphold) throughout history and also in today's society (are we bored yet?).

To open this discussion, i'll state my perspectives on this issue.

To some, religion as a set of moral codes is slightly irrevelant, as devoted religious people believe and don't intepret, if you're one of those, then i suggest that to avoid offence (at least from me), to avoid also this discussion (i think i have just narrowed my contributors to -infinity).

I would like to discuss this without dwelling too much on whether god/s exists (i do that in the "existence of god/s" forum, thus the name i suppose).

I believe as a motivation for the upholding of moral consciousness and the existence of a human conscience, religion is ineffective. It undertones the standards of morality which it proposes with a command to its audience that they have to be "uncritically accepting", because after all, they are the words of the "supreme" being.

In gaining its audience's utter devotion and belief, religion can be used as a vehicle for exploitation of human morality (positively and negatively).

You may say that many other "ist" (eg. communist) movements have also used in the same way, ie. for exploitation. But the point is, religion, throughout history has done so very explicitly, i.e. it does not attempt in any shape or form to hide its dictatorship. Also, the "ist" movements have all had one similarity in their exploitations, that they make their audience worship and idolise their philosophy in order to control (sounds familiar?) one's mind, like religion.

These are just some of my perspectives and in one introductory post, it's impossible to fully develop any. I hope that this will be a useful topic for discussion.

If at this moment you think that i've just made a mockery of myself and go back and re-read without side comments. I guarantee it will make much more sense.
finally excuse all spelling and gramatical errors.
however, do comment on any lapse of clarity in concept.

Cheers.


[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Galileo ]

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Galileo ]</p>

Ierrellus

Galileo:

Since religion entails personal belief, I don't see how it can be viewed from a philosophic perspective. Since all religions claim to be the one and only provider of truth, the notion of true religion becomes absurd. You could probably discuss whether or not a religion has maintained its original tenets over time, whether or not its adherents believe in or follow these tenets at any time or whether or not there is a psychological basis for anyone's need of religion.

All of that is too ephemeral for me. I will give you my personal opinion about religion--for what it's worth. (IMO, mind you) Organization destroys religion. Religion in the West, since the industrial revolution, is the worship of power, pride, pleasure and possession. The economy defines belief, not the "Church". No religion is good religion; and I will not worship a diety who is meaner than I am!

Anyway, good luck with your post. It should raise some dander.


Ierrellus

Galileo

All said in quote agreed and understood. Thank you for suggestion.
BUT,
very ineffective suggestions, you have told me everything I have said in my first post, but have not understood my contents.

All religions are based fundamentally upon a set of philosophy. So I would really like to know why not? Your reason that
is very unconvincing to me. Please elaborate (if you have time that is.)
you suggested to
That is irrelevant in this discussion, for i think you know they haven't, Christianity for one has evolved from flat earth to spherical earth, and also that science is sinful and evil to science is the process of discovery of all the things that God has created for us.
Also, Buddhism originated from India, but Indians are now Hindus and Tibetans have become, through time, believers in the branch of Buddhism called the Lama religion.

Bull's eye. Definitely a thing that'll pop up in further discussions if people would care to contribute.

But still not the central concern.
I think the reason we're on different tangents is because i have not thorougly explained what i mean by a philosophic perspective.

I really mean relgion's value in terms of moral philosophical standards.

We all have our definition of what is right and what is wrong. Religion to me, takes the decision making off the shoulders of ordinary humans and commands them of the rights and wrongs, the dos and don'ts.

I will try and explore more fully in my next post. Thank you for your just criticism, hope more will in next post.

By the way, nothing's too ephemeral for anyone (at least not in this forum), that's why we're here, right?

Liquidrage

I believe as a motivation for the upholding of moral consciousness and the existence of a human conscience, religion is ineffective. It undertones the standards of morality which it proposes with a command to its audience that they have to be "uncritically accepting", because after all, they are the words of the "supreme" being

I don't think many would disagree.
From the human sacrifice of the Aztecs to OT animal sacrifice, religious morality has often accepted acts that today would be not be conisdered morale.
The problem as I see it religious doctrines are snapshots of current morality. The morality of religions are not typically fluid.
In a case where we are trying to improve morality, belief in religious morales can hold back progress.

The above is stated under the premise that morality has a clear and definable means of improvment based upon an ending in which all that fall under the system of morality freely abide by it.

DRFseven

I was surprised to see this topic because just yesterday, I almost posted a new topic entitled, "Religious beliefs as moral tenets", but I just didn't have time to develop it.

I have a hypothesis that by presentation to the child as a moral imperative, the whole idea of religous belief, itself, is internalized to feel as if it is an innate value, in the way that something such as "fairness" feels innate to one who has acquired, in early childhood, the moral belief that fairness is good. In this way, belief is seen as a choice instead of a conclusion based on information, in the same way that one makes a choice of whether or not to take turns fairly on the preschool swings. One does the right thing (take turns, believe in God) or the wrong thing (refuse to take turns, refuse to believe in God). Then, since belief in God is a given, any explanation is extraneous, anyway, so there is really no need for any rigorous evidence to explain why the idea of a god has any merit; that is reserved for skeptics who "miss the point" that one can "just know in one's heart". When evidence is sought, it is to prove the point that has already been realized; that God is real, so non-supporting evidence is discounted or rationalized.

Of course, this is a generalization; some believers come to that belief later in life, some people switch back and forth in beliefs, some believers genuinely seek information, moral reconstruction can be a life-long process, etc. However, the majority of people in the world hold similar religious (as well as moral) views to their parents (a fact not lost on us atheists, but downplayed by religious apologists).

Ierrellus

Galileo;

I'm sorry but I can no longer respond to this thread. Religion to me is like riding a motorcycle down the freeway and having to swallow a bug. I do not see it as contributing to morality in any sense. Can you envision lives destroyed by religion?

Good luck on your quest.

Ierrellus

Galileo

I can understand your refusal to discuss such a topic. Religion, since the beginning of human recogition (that is secular recognition of themselves and their world) has been a controversial topic.

Thank you for the rest for joying this topic. From your introductory posts, I think this will be a rewarding discussion, since we're all more or less on the same tangents.

I apologise for the brevity and rushness of this post.

But in a nutshell.
I completed agree. And i would also like to reassert that the lack of fluidity of religious morality is (again) due to the unquestioning manner in which the believers follow such a religion.

DRF Seven,
this is not a detailed response to your post, but from a glimpse, I think we can agree on that fact that beliefs in morality and the existence of a conscience is often subconscious instilled in people's (believers') minds from childhood, and an act or situation would immediately connect to belief and non-belief in God without a necessary logical connection.

Believers later in life, i find (a lot of them anyway) were without a set of moral standards to begin with, and instead of establishing ones themselves, take the "easy way out" and seek God or more correctly religion and a religious environment for what is religiously called "salvation".

I guess i'm kind of digressing onto why people seek religion as a moral comfort.
but i suppose it is almost inevitable to at least touch on that.

I hope you'll be able to expand on the ideas about the believers later in life.

It's of immense interest.

also liquidrage thank you for your responses.


Happy discussion.

DRFseven

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with this. What religious people do you know who actually lack morals (as opposed to simply holding different moral opinions)? I have never known any person who, upon losing his or her religion, also loses all his/her moral values; have you? I don't see them as taking the "easy way out" any more than learning, say, that it's good to help others is taking the easy way out. To a young child, none of the rules are logical; things are just objectively good or bad, according to those in charge. Later, as the individual begins to mature, those goods and bads actually form the basis of that individual's logic system; i.e., slavery is wrong, so it can't possibly work to help a society, or spanking is right, so it can't be harmful (I'm using common beliefs here). The rights and wrongs, since their inculcation can't be traced or remembered, are felt to reside as a sort of "innate knowledge" and the fact that the individual can look around and see so many examples of it seems, to the individual, to be proof of that innateness or of the objectivity of morality. Even the idea that morals are inviolate and absolute can be internalized depending upon the individual's exerience in moral acquisition and how that plays with his/her genetic personality proclivities. To some, however, it seems apparent that people are simply born with the capacity to take on the beliefs of their parents/caretakers and to a lesser extent, other societal forces, no matter WHAT those beliefs may be. These moral opinions are modified throughout the course of one's life, depending upon individual circumstances.

Galileo

Disagreement is always a healthy stimulus for a good, hearty discussion.
I must say I had to digest this before I can write back. I think we have a little misunderstanding. I have never been brilliant at expression, and I think what I had said, was not and (still is not) what I wanted it to mean.

What I meant by "to begin with" is that beforethey had a definite chosen faith (i.e. religion), their moral standards of what is wrong or right is often more contradictory than anyone can possibly cope with, simply due to the fact that in childhood they did not have the kind of "innateness" to which you refer. That is of course not to say they are amoral, for I believe that no matter how much postmodernism likes to delete our reference frames and the structure of our social workings, an individual wondering in society sooner or later learns some regularity in its workings to form a set of "rules" whether positive or negative, consciously or subconsciously which dictates their actions. But in stating this, I have digressed from my understanding of the definition of moral.

My understanding of moral is that the word in it self is not neutral, unlike values say for example. Moral to me is the definition of uprightness, fairness and goodness. It is of course yet another abstract idea of which our society is based. Morality on the otherhand is neutral, and adjectives can be used to describe in whatever manner one wishes, it is more a word which captures one's existing mentality rather than any abstract definitons of goodness.

What do you understand from the word? I am really curious and I pose this question to all who may read this.

But if I follow my understanding of morals and morality, then I can comfortably get back on the track of our discussion.

I understand what you mean, and the few who actually follow the doctrines (the fundamental principals of human goodness which underlies most religions, initially anyway) are hardly taking the easy way out by facing their inner vices and trying to defy human nature.

What I meant by "easy way out" is that they simply adopt (or seemingly so) a set of already formed morality without thinking or questioning its real moral foundations. By "easy way out" I mean that instead of comprehending the world through self-thought and self-comprehension using the individual's mind, attempting to understand the inner workings and arriving at results themselves, they simply take the results from some other source (which in our discussion is religion) in order to have the unexplanable (is that a word?) explained.

Do you see where I am coming from?

I agree with what you're saying and I would just like to emphasise that children are extensively affected by their parents' beliefs and perspectives. In the context of our discussion, religion becomes very subjective in the household, the words of the "lord" become mere interpreted and often simplified ideas when they reach a person in their childhood through teaching by their parents' (and teaching does not have to be overt). However, the difference between these simplified morals which have a religious undertone and those that have not, is that the religious ones almost lend sublimity to the person who teaches and sanctions the teacher's (who may be a parent, neighbour or priest) own subjectivity.

I hope my post will be material for our next discussion.

DRFseven

I define morals as opinions we acquire by virtue of having been socialized to accept them in a certain way. That is, when human infants become attached to caretakers by having their needs met, their innate capacity to emulate behavior and take on attitudes of those caretakers kicks in. When the parents, themselves, have emotional moral opinions, they communicate these opinions to their children, who have, until the age of about seven, no understanding the reasoning processes we construct to judge behaviors as right or wrong. Right and wrong, to them, are right and wrong by fiat; Mom and Dad have decreed it, just as they decree so many other things in the child's life. However, moral opinions that are transferred to the child are accompanied by emotional attachments of good and bad, which is what differentiates them from other opinions (such as that interrupting adults is ok or not ok, etc.). Just about ANY opinion can be made into a moral opinion and "downloaded" to a child, from personal hygiene to what type clothing is proper to what videos are bad. Later, when children learn that there are reasons for why people think things are good or bad, they begin to do their own reasoning based on other life experiences and can come to reject their parents' moral opinions, though most people in the world stick fairly closely to their parents' moral opinions.

I agree that they SEEM to accept without thinking, but I believe that most people who hold religious morals are sincerely reporting what they think to be the case. And like everyone else, they can't simply discard something they perceive as true. Probably their ideas that morals are objectively true and handed down by God to obey (a part of most religious belief systems, but not all of them) SEEMS so true that they have no reason to question it. As to why it seems true to them (but not to us), I think we'll have a wait a good while before science provides us with an answer. Also, I must admit; that is one of the central questions of my life; what leads them to believe and what leads me not to? What is the difference in our psychology? I think it is a fascinating question.