LordSnooty

I don't know how you guage 'moral behaviour', but I'm willing to bet that a person who acts kindly because he wants others to be happy will be more 'moral' than a person who behaves himself because he's scared of going to hell. You may like to think that people 'love' this amazing Jesus character that doesn't exist and that they have never met, but I'm skeptical. Call me a cynic, but I think they're just scared.

Religion brings about moral complacency, and the 'moral guides' of religion are too narrow and open to misinterpretation.

No moral guide is a substitute for intelligence.

Paul

Starboy

Seb Maya,

Let us examine the possibility of seriously considering using religion as a “better” framework for morality. Your sentiment suffers from several major deficiencies:

1) I know of no “religious” society past or present that I would consider to be a good example of a moral society, either to its own members or to others. (Like communism, religion looks good on paper (i.e. the bible) but it doesn’t appear to work very well.)

2) We no longer live in the age of demons, spirits, ghosts, goblins, angels, gods and so forth. How can anyone be expected to take seriously any morality based on such precepts?

3) Religions are based on the existence of a higher authority. If such authorities really existed there would not be the hundreds to thousands of variations that exist in any one religion. If such a central authority did exist one would expect all religions to converge into a single religion. Because nature does exist quite often you see several different strains of scientific thought converging into a single strain. To any thinking person it should be obvious that a central religious authority does not exist or has no interest in the affairs of man.

4) All religions as practiced around the world that I am aware of have low to no standards for admission. The requirements to remain in good standing have little to nothing to do with “good” social behavior. It is hard to see how any beneficial effect of religion is anything other than purely coincidental.

5) I would argue that it is the presence of religion in the world that is creating the conditions that you speak of. Here we have a social institution based on precepts that no one could take seriously clogging up the works. It cannot help and it refuses to get out of the way.

I agree with you that people need guidance on how to live life well but we live in a very different world from anything in the past. Anything not based on good science cannot be taken seriously.

Starboy

Seb_Maya

Starboy

1)I would put Buddhism forward as a religion, system of metaphysics and science of the mind that has attempted to create a moral society. Many great thinkers and philosophers such as Schopenhauer came to similar conclusions. I like the ideas that Buddhism puts forward and in theory it should work, but sadly take the example of tibet violently invaded by its communist neighbour China.

2)Perhaps, but when demons, spirits, ghosts are found in religious texts for example, I usually take it on a purely metaphorical level.

3)I do not doubt that the "universal" notions of God and morality in differing religions has been taken and adapted perhaps to satiate the need to transcend the world. Or as a tool of power and authority.

4) What standards of admission would place on religion and the way of life it should teach us?
I'm not sure I understand. Should admission be based on the premise that we earn more than a certain amount? Shouldn't the ideals of religion be available to everyone? There are certainly many positives that can be taken from religion these include a network for social support, a structure for a system of morality and being part of group that contributes to community charities.
Are these things purely coincidental?

5) A lot of turmoil is caused by religions who wage war in the name of their God. I can understand why people may become passionate about spreading the message of God, love etc. However it should not in any way shape or form lead to violence and war. Remember that religion is not the sole cause of problems. It is also our greed for power, territory and material wealth. It is our intolerance of other creeds.

People do need guidance on how to live life well, but please be more specific when you say in the past. In science we accept a theory untill it is dispproved or replaced by a more apt one. This also happens in religion, but have the "universal" ideals of morality changed that much since the "past".I would disagree that anything not based on science cannot be taken seriously, I don't think that science will ever be able to explain everything.

dangin

No, I'm saying that morality is determined by the group. Consciously, subconsciously, or through training. What gets the group upset, motivated to make change, or outraged is usually something that needs to be addresed. Sexuality between consenting adults is not such a thing. I don't think individual consequences have much at all to do with morality. They have to do with personal responsibility.


No, legislation does not determine morality. Although if you simply follow the laws of one's land, one will never run afoul of the "authority" of that land. But that is slightly different than morality.

In America, for the most part, legislation is a good guide to what is and is not acceptable. And when you examine it broadly, you see that murder, assault, and home invasion are taken very seriously by this and most other cultures. Adultery, homosexuality, masturbation, not respecting one's parents, and even drug use is far less important.


And let's examine the morality of a few religious folks shall we.

San Franciso Chronicle, July 28th, 2002

-- John Rigas, the 78-year-old CEO of Adelphia Communications Corp., is a devout Christian who has censored programming he deemed unseemly on his cable networks.

Rigas, along with his two sons, stands accused of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, from the nation's sixth-largest cable company, costing investors more than $60 billion.

-- Bernie Ebbers, former CEO of WorldCom, is also a man of God, having attended Mississippi College, a Southern Baptist institution and writing in a 1996 alumni magazine article: "I came to have a fuller understanding of what my purpose was in life, what a personal relationship with Jesus Christ really meant and how I would try to live my life from that point."

Ebbers, of course, is expected to be indicted this week in relation to his company reporting nearly $4 billion of inflated earnings, leading to the largest bankruptcy in our nation's history. He's also under fire for receiving hundreds of millions in personal loans from the company.

-- Ken Lay, former Enron chairman and son of a Missouri minister, is famously rumoured to have attended church the day before he took the Fifth on Capitol Hill. He is being investigated for criminal wrongdoing related to Enron's spectacular collapse.

-- Andrew Fastow, Lay's CFO at Enron, is actively involved in a conservative Houston synagogue. He teaches Hebrew school. His family has set up a charitable foundation and he's helped raised millions for Houston's Holocaust Museum.
He also stands accused of setting up scores of offshore subsidiaries that masked Enron's massive debt load, leading to the bankruptcy of the nation's seventh-largest firm.

-- Charles Keating founded clean-living censorship groups such as Citizens for Decent Literature and Citizens for Decency Through Law. He made billions through his Lincoln S&L, before it all blew up in his face.

-- The Hunt brothers, the born-again billionaires from Texas, were convicted of conspiring to corner the silver market.


Sorry, I don't have the link, I tried to edit it to just the facts.

dangin

Epitome, what is it you are afraid of?

I'll admit that some people behave morally due to religious training. Just like some dogs learn to poop outside after getting their nose rubbed in it. Being good because of a healthy fear of god is not morality, it is obedience.

Training by parents is the most important moral instruction any of us receive. We respond in a Pavlovian sense to this training, plus we learn that our own life is easier if we follow the rules.

Now why can't you admit that society has existed, and moved forward for millenia without religion, or at least without any hint of the religions we all know and despise today?

Why can't you admit that animal societies have clearly observable orders, and "rules" they follow?

Why can't you make the simple jump to our own pre-verbal ancestors and the roots of our own "social contract" in our "natural" past?

The original post on this thread is saying that a "better" morality comes from religion. But if religion is not the root cause of that morality, then digging a little deeper demonstrates that religion is simply a commentator on morality, not the source from which it sprung. Can you at least admit that?

Epitome

dangin:No, I'm saying that morality is determined by the group. Consciously, subconsciously, or through training.

So you don't believe in objective morality, but that it should be decided upon democratically...

Sorry for entering a discussion with you on this... our world views are so different there's no way we'll see eye to eye on much of anything.


Dangin:Epitome, what is it you are afraid of?

Not afraid of anything... just concerned and calling on people who claim they believe in logic and reason to look at the facts as they are and not just as they want them to be.


I'll admit that some people behave morally due to religious training. Just like some dogs learn to poop outside after getting their nose rubbed in it. Being good because of a healthy fear of god is not morality, it is obedience.

Obedience is the first step towards morality.

Now why can't you admit that society has existed, and moved forward for millenia without religion, or at least without any hint of the religions we all know and despise today?

When have I denied it?

If right and wrong is objective it does not surprise me in the least that those without religion can discover the same morality.


Why can't you admit that animal societies have clearly observable orders, and "rules" they follow?

again, when have I denied it?

Why can't you make the simple jump to our own pre-verbal ancestors and the roots of our own "social contract" in our "natural" past?

Why can't you admit that religion has provided a natural progression in our development and to due away with it before our culture and society is ready would have a profoundly devistating effect?

The original post on this thread is saying that a "better" morality comes from religion. But if religion is not the root cause of that morality, then digging a little deeper demonstrates that religion is simply a commentator on morality, not the source from which it sprung. Can you at least admit that?

What I am saying is that so far religion has provided the best framework in which people have been able to live together and remain moral.

I'm not saying it can't be done in a secular context, only that it has not been done.

By saying secular humanists have a better way you are only theorizing.

Can't you admit that?

Epitome

ImGod

I would say you have that backwards. My opinion is that religions were created from the combination of a society's moral values, their need to explain the unknown, and their need for a group definition.

Therefore, secular morality would have existed prior to religion. It is inappropriately assumed that morality is based on religion becauase it is so interwoven in the definition of the religion. That is one of the reasons why there are so many religious denominations. They must redefine their religion to fit their changing morality.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: ImGod ]</p>

brighid

Obedience certainly is not the FIRST step toward morality, although it may be an aspect of expressing morality and immorality. There are many instances I can think of where obeying certain societal or religious moral” norms is anything but moral. If I obey the “moral” rules of say the Taliban in Afghanistan would I be moral if I did as that God and His men commanded by killing the infidel (you the Christian included), publicly executed women for failing to be escorted by a male family member or spouse, or say if I obeyed the laws of the Nazi, or participated in the genocide alongside the Roman Catholic priests in Rawanda?

Morality is best served by the employment of critical thinking skills and with the use of empathy, such as borrowing from the ancient rule of treating others as one would want to be treated in a similar situation (one penned 5 centuries prior to Christ in China.) Morality is best served and adhered to by examining EVERYTHING in the best light of reason, even the things that come from the alleged mouth of Gods, as well as judging each situation individually.

Christian morality has evolved through rational thought and dialogue. We no longer keep slaves, women are no longer the property of their fathers and husbands, women are allowed to vote, in some Churches even preach, adulterers are no longer taken out into the public square and stoned, we wear blended fabrics, eat pork and shellfish, work on the Sabbath, etc.

We don’t see the same advances in theocratic regimes that shun reason as the enemy of faith and maintain a strict and “obedient” hold over their subjects. There is a reason why it was called the “Dark Ages” when Church and State were hardly separate entities and superstition and ignorance was the ruling mindset. The “Age of Enlightenment” followed and helped bring man out of the darkness with advancements in science, human rights and revolution against the powers that be. It was this period that allows us to be centuries ahead of our Islamic counterparts who still remain cloaked in the darkness of ignorance and technological infancy that cripples their ability to compete globally, care for their sick and why human rights are nothing more then a fantasy for the oppressed.

Brighid

Autonemesis

I really strongly object when people conflate "what I hold to be most important" with my supposed "religion." No, no, a thousand times no. Quit bastardizing the language, will you? Religion is a system of worship of some diety or supernatural force. A manner of thinking or a philosophy that excludes diety worship is not equivalent to, or an analog for, a religion. You confuse the English language when you do this. Stop it, please. Religion is diety worship. If you won't stop it, then I will stop using the word religion, and use "diety worship" instead out of self-defense. Try equating humanism or evolution with diety worship; it doesn't compute, and that's how it is with the word "religion."

Confusing the language is one of the worst attributes of religious ideas (though not quite as egregious as providing motivation for crashing airplanes into buildings).

Epitome

ImGod: Therefore, secular morality would have existed prior to religion.

That is not the issue. The issue is which presents the best framework for a moral society. Rather than simply disagreeing with my assertion (and factual proof) that religion has provided the best framework, perhaps you can refer to which secular culture was more successful morally and how.

ImGod:...It is inappropriately assumed that morality is based on religion becauase it is so interwoven in the definition of the religion.

When I said, "If right and wrong is objective it does not surprise me in the least that those without religion can discover the same morality." I was indicating that my belief is that religion is based (or attempts to be based) on objective morality (as created by God)… Not that morality is based on religion…

Epitome