Ms. Siv

No civilized person uses Scripture as ultimate authority for moral reasoning. Instead, they pick and choose the nice bits of Scripture and blithely ignore the nasty bits !
We obviously seem to have some alternative source of moral standards that overrides Scripture when it suits us !
Great religious leaders like Jesus or Gandhi (please get the spelling right, I have noticed this uniformly across all forums!) or Gautama Buddha or Mother Teresa may inspire us, by their good example, to adopt their personal moral convictions. But again we pick and choose among religious leaders, avoiding the bad examples of Jim Jones or Charles Manson or the Hindu RSS religious bigots, and we choose good secular role models such as Jawaharlal Nehru or Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi. Traditions too, however anciently followed, may be good or bad, and again, we use our secular judgment of decency and natural justice to decide which ones to follow, and which to discard.
Its always a pick and choose when relegion is concerned, we always apply our own standards.

On a related note, Dawkins classifies religious people into 3 categories ... the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests".

Here are his definitions ...

" The "no-contests" are rightly reconciled to the fact that religion cannot compete with science on its own ground. They think there is no contest between science and religion, because they are simply about different things. the biblical account of the origin of the universe (the origin of life, the diversity of species, the origin of man) -- all those things are now known to be untrue.
The "no-contests" have no trouble with this: they regard it as naive in the extreme, almost bad taste to ask of a biblical story, is it true? True, they say, true? Of course it isn't true in any crude literal sense. Science and religion are not competing for the same territory. They are about different things. They are equally true, but in their different ways.

" The "know-nothings", or fundamentalists, are in one way more honest. They are true to history. They recognize that until recently one of religion's main functions was scientific: the explanation of existence, of the universe, of life. Historically, most religions have had or even been a cosmology and a biology. I suspect that today if you asked people to justify their belief in God, the dominant reason would be scientific. Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it. "

" My third group, the "know-alls" (I unkindly name them that because I find their position patronising), think religion is good for people, perhaps good for society. Perhaps good because it consoles them in death or bereavement, perhaps because it provides a moral code.
Whether or not the actual beliefs of the religion are true doesn't matter. Maybe there isn't a God; we educated people know there is precious little evidence for one, let alone for ideas such as the Virgin birth or the Resurrection. but the uneducated masses need a God to keep them out of mischief or to comfort them in bereavement. The little matter of God's probably non-existence can be brushed to one side in the interest of greater social good. I need say not more about the "know-alls" because they wouldn't claim to have anything to contribute to scientific truth. "

I think our friend luvluv here falls into the third category. No offense meant, but thats true.

- Sivakami.

Jamie_L

It's been my experience that people adjust their religion to fit their morality, not the other way around. Especially with regard to Christianity, the supposed "moral teachings" are ambiguous at best and confusing and self-contradicting at worse. In order to make sense of all that, people make judgements about which teachings take precident over others. The result is a morality created by the individual not the religion. Even if people don't explicitly make up their own mind, they tend to shop around for a denomination that fits their personal feelings. Since there are so many denominations and religions these days, it's not hard to find something close to your own personal morality.

Jamie

simian

And let us not forget that those opposing MLK also were "men of god".

IF Christianity offers such a clear moral code, why are there Christians on every conceivable side of an issue (historical and current)? Abortion, womens' sufferage (womens' rights in general), slavery, gay rights (including gay marriage), death with dignity?

Why do Christians hesitate speaking up when they know the truth about a subject and another Christian is spreading false information? Example: in my home state of Kansas, when the Board of Education gutted the science standards, NOT ONE denomination that is Christian spoke up. NOT ONE. The only religious leaders I saw speaking up in favor of the sciences was a Rabbi and a Unitarian minister (I don't generally consider Unitarians to be Christain, though I understand some are). I watched the fundies get away with accusations of it being a fight between "Christians" and the godless-atheist-scientist.

Mageth

It's been my experience that people adjust their religion to fit their morality, not the other way around.

I posted something along this line on another thread. Many if not all of the "moral" advances we've made over the past few centuries (abolition of slavery, equal rights, women's suffrage, etc.) are humanitarian advances, not religious advances. Indeed, religious scriptures often condone or do not condemn the injustices we've overcome or are overcoming (slavery, racism, subjugation of women, etc.) When the religious defend the moral advances, it is often based on the religion adjusting to the prevailing humanitarian moral standard of the society, not the other way around. A survival technique - a religion that does not adjust will be marginalized.

Religious passages used by the religious defending moral advances are often taken "out of context" if one views the scripture as a whole. Racism is one example - Jesus refers to other ethnic groups as "swine" and does not even condemn slavery, which was prevalent at the time, yet his teaching is used by MLK in the equal rights movement.

John Page

luvluv:

Whatever your conclusion I think this premise is wide open to attack, as the above posts demonsrate. What about Socrates? What about Marx?

Eudaimonist

Since I don't think that "taking care of people" is the essence of morality, I don't think that this should be the litmus test of moral accomplishment. Consider Socrates, who never ran a soup kitchen, but was a symbol of high moral achievement in the Hellenistic world.

luvluv

Dark Druid sez:

"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?"

Because to my knowledge no non-religious person ever has done such a thing on such a scale. That is the point of my thread. No non-religious person has ever committed that much of his life to helping other people treat each other better or to end an immoral institution. The evidence of history suggests that religous "great men" do this more often and more succesfully than men with no religion.

"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?"

I doubt it, since we both know that there main motivation was racism, and they only used their religion to try to find some way to justify it.

But again, THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT. I am not talking about the small things, good or evil, that religious people do. I am not talking about the small things, good or evil, that non-religious people do. I am saying that both religious and non-religious people can and have done big evil, but that only religious people have done big good in terms of improving human relations.

Sivikami sez:

"I think our friend luvluv here falls into the third category. No offense meant, but thats true."

Actually no, it's not true thanks. Say, isn't it religious folks who are supposed to judge people? I think all stories in the Bible are true, but not all of them are factual. The parables of Jesus, for instance, are certainly not factual. There was actually no prodigal son. But the message that the story brings of forgiveness and the love of God is true. So I am probably somewhere in between youor first definition and your third, but if you really wanted to know you could have asked me nicely instead of judging me right off the bat.

And again, the rest of your post is simply off the point. I am not asking about how religious people pick what to believe and discard other things. I am saying that non-religious people have yet to produce a Gandhi or an MLK or a Mother Theresa. There seems to be a need for a relgious framework to get people to rise to this level of commitment. Even if all religion were a willed self-delusion, it would seem that such a willed self-delusion were necessary for great moral acts.

Mageth sez:

"I posted something along this line on another thread. Many if not all of the "moral" advances we've made over the past few centuries (abolition of slavery, equal rights, women's suffrage, etc.) are humanitarian advances, not religious advances. Indeed, religious scriptures often condone or do not condemn the injustices we've overcome or are overcoming (slavery, racism, subjugation of women, etc.) When the religious defend the moral advances, it is often based on the religion adjusting to the prevailing humanitarian moral standard of the society, not the other way around. A survival technique - a religion that does not adjust will be marginalized. "

Excuse me, that is false. It was RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, not humanitarians, who lead the anti-slave movements and the movement to end segregation. It was begun and almost totally peopled by people of religious persuasion who were GOING AGAINST the prevailing humanitarian moral standard of society. Abolitionists in the 1800's were considered as dangerous as communists were in the 1950's. They risked their lives in the stance they made. It was not religion riding the coattails of atheist humanitarians, it was the other way around. Whether you call these advances humanitarian or religious is an exercise in semantics, the fact is the people who led these movements were religious people.

Eudiamonia sez:

"Since I don't think that "taking care of people" is the essence of morality, I don't think that this should be the litmus test of moral accomplishment."

What should be? What would you think is a greater moral accomplishment than what Martin Luther King helped achieve in the United States?

John sez:

"What about Socrates? What about Marx?"

I should perhaps adjust my thesis to say that religion produces more great moral leaders and that the great moral leaders religion produces are more succesful. I won't debate over Socrates and Marx, but I will probably say that their philosophies would not have been enough to cure the ails that were cured by MLK and Gandhi. I am not totally at odds with Marxism, nor with the philosophy of Socrates, but I do say that more people today live better lives through the work of religious men than through the work of either of these two. Marx promoted a theory that would have helped a lot of people, had it been succesful. However, I am not aware that Marx tirelessly worked for the poor and downtrodden personally, though he certainly advocated them. Similarly for Socrates, it was noble of him to give his life for his principles. But he did not spend his lifetime uplifiting the downtrodden of his day. Though he did enrich our intellectual tradition, there was never a beggar on the street of Rome who was better off for Socrates efforts. The individual inter-actions of different people were probably much the same after Socrates died as they were before. The same cannot be said of Jesus, Gandhi, or MLK who transformed society.

Perhaps the relgious tradition is superior in this respect because it can inspire individual people. I for example, am very much inspired by the lives of Jesus (obviously) and Martin Luther King. Perhaps it is that religious goodness is more inspiring, more passionate, than simple "Golden Rule" ethics. Nothing arouses others to emotion more strongly than he who would give his life for others. Marx's IDEAS certainly inspired a lot of people, but not his life. Maybe we are more inspired by the deeds of men than by words.

As a side note I will address something which you all seem to want to discuss, and yet which is EMPHATICALLY NOT the topic of this thread, and that is whether or not religion is a good thing. Even if you say that religion is simply a prop for weak people, wouldn't it still be a good thing? (As a side note, this reminds me of a quote by C.S. Lewis which says the one virtue that atheism cannot teach is that of humility. I guarantee you, I have met religious people who have strength that none of us on this board can probably match) There will always be a lot of weak people, and frankly the notion that one day the entire human race will be completely populated by people who have overcome these weaknesses with through sheer intellect are as fantastic as the notion of the Virgin Birth. It is never going to happen. And since there will always be weak people, and since billions of these weak people will be able to lead more whole lives through practicing a relgion, why would you want to deprive them of that. There will always be people who cannot get on without believing in a God or an afterlife. Why would you want to deprive them of the one thing that helps them cope? And frankly if it works for them, what's it to you? I know you guys say that religion is bad because it compels people to war, but as I said there are a million things that compel people to war. The most common one in my mind is land ownership, should we abolish land ownership? There is no such thing as a purely good concept, every good thing has some bad trade offs. The science that has brought us this forum over which to communicate has also provided us with the bomb. I must say it would be juvenille of us as a society to say we must get rid of everything that could have a bad side (and if we did that science would be one of the first things to go). The fact is religion provides a lot of comfort to a lot of people, and even if you think these people are weak, that doesn't matter. There will always be weak people, and weak people are as likely to get their meaning through getting rich, or sleeping around, or any other one of a dozen different ways people cope when life gets too hectic.

Mageth

Excuse me, that is false. It was RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, not humanitarians, who lead the anti-slave movements and the movement to end segregation. It was begun and almost totally peopled by people of religious persuasion who were GOING AGAINST the prevailing humanitarian moral standard of society. Abolitionists in the 1800's were considered as dangerous as communists were in the 1950's. They risked their lives in the stance they made. It was not religion riding the coattails of atheist humanitarians, it was the other way around. Whether you call these advances humanitarian or religious is an exercise in semantics, the fact is the people who led these movements were religious people.

Sorry, I don't recall saying they weren't religious people, and definitely didn't refer to them as atheists.

Reread my post and perhaps you'll see my point is that the causes were humanitarian in nature, not religious. The bible says little if anything against slavery, for women's rights, against racism, or for equal rights. These concepts are not biblical in origin. Just because religious people were among their proponents doesn't make them religious concepts - they're humanitarian concepts.

Mageth

Here's a quote:

tronvillain

luvluv:
Actually, that appears to be precisely your argument, though you are loathe to admit it. If someone thinks there is an aferlife, then risking their life is no longer such an impressive feat.