Galileo

I am not entirely sure of the meaning of virtue in this context. Would you mind explaining a little further?

I completely agree with the fact that any opinion can be made into a moral opinion in a context of right wrong, good evil, and which highlights to me the need for one to differentiate (as much as possible) the underlying meanings of good and evil with its superficial counterparts.

In this context of a "moral opinion", religion has the least transparency in showing to its believers its subjectivity, i.e. the fact that it is not as sublime as people would believe, and it in itself is opinionated and subject to cultural influences and prejudices. The religious undertone outdates the ideas, as the words of god cannot be changed (or cannot be changed by just anyone) even though human cognitive realisation of society and nature has evolved. This also renders upon religion, an almost definitive conservatism. Religious leaders have tried to shake off this "conservative" hat under which religion works under by trying to adapt religion to a contemporary context, but I think instead of achieving the required outcome, religion is becoming more the thing which atheists often describe it as, and that is merely a sanctuary for the weak and the lost, and "true" believers are becoming few.


I have a fascination with this as well. It is of immense interest to attempt at analysing the psychology of those who believe and those who don't.

Maybe if we can get a believer in here, we may be able to get a personal viewpoint from the other side of the spectrum.

Shall continue this in next discussion.

Cheers.

hinduwoman

I think that social codes came first and then religion sanctified it.

Of course this judgement is based on Indian history, but it should apply to Western religions as well.

philechat

Galileo

I think psychologists seperate religious believers into three categories, extrinsic, quest-oriented, and intrinsic, each group with different goals in mind.

Extrinsic believers (unfortunately) were the majority, and the primary goal for them being religious was social and afterlife benefit. They were less open-minded than the other two groups and the non-religious group. They scored higher for prejudice against any out-group members in terms of race, religion, etc.

Quest-oriented believers were the most open-minded among the religious. Their primary goal was to seek truth through studying religious ideas. Religious philosophers and mystics came to mind here, and they were usually tolerant toward other belief systems.

And there were also the intrinsically religious, who tried to live a religious life in harmony with their God. Their open-mindedness was somewhere between the quest-oriented believers and extrinsic believers.

And as far as personality tests go, religious individuals (at least in the US) scored higher in tender-mindedness, authoritarianism, submissiveness, group superego, and agreeableness than the non-religious. They scored lower on openness, imagination, psychoticism (tough-mindedness and impulsivity), and radicalism than the non-religious.

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

DRFseven

I was using "by virtue of" in the non-moralistic way, meaning "by means of". I meant that I define morals as opinions resulting from our socialization.