Religion and Morality

jan larsen

In the thread "I hate Politics and Religion" Stan Shannon claims that Religion will never "fizzle out" because once you have successfully dismantled one source of moral authority another rises immediately to take its place. Now, I am an Atheist and I don't actually think that I have a problem with Morality. Do we have to credit religions for Morality?, couldn't people agree on certain points of civilized behaviour without having to believe in Jahve, Krishna or Santa Claus?. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

Paul Watson

jan larsen wrote: couldn't people agree on certain points of civilized behaviour without having to believe in Jahve, Krishna or Santa Claus?. Simple points yes. The more complex, no. We need religion to explain and provide parts of our morality. I find that idea horrible, but it is true for many, many billions of people. jan larsen wrote: Stan Shannon claims that Religion will never "fizzle out" because once you have successfully dismantled one source of moral authority another rises immediately to take its place. Religion as a word may fizzle out but the basic conceptual need will remain and a new word used to describe the same solution. jan larsen wrote: Now, I am an Atheist and I don't actually think that I have a problem with Morality. You may not have a problem with your morality but others, bound maybe by their beliefs, could. I think there are plenty of moral points that I either have not come to a conclusion about or have misunderstood and therefore have come to the wrong conclusion. Have you covered everything?

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Ray Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson

Lost User

I am a very moral atheist like yourself, and I certainly don't think religion should take any credit for morality! I think the majority of people inherently *know* right from wrong, regardless of their religous beliefs. The problem with morals is that there is always an exception. For example - I think it is wrong to steal UNLESS you are starving to death. I think it is wrong to kill UNLESS it is in self-defence, etc. etc.

Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.

David Wulff

jan larsen wrote: Do we have to credit religions for Morality? What we credit to nature 'they' credit to their relgions. Essentially I think it is the same thing - to the individual anyway. Something struck me the other day that made me stop and think just how different I am, being a total athiest, to, say, a devout Budhist. Or rather how similar. The differences were only in where we sought to look for answers for what we do and think. I choose to look to what I can see around me, and they choose theirs for, presumably, similar reasons. It's all about interpretation. Religion is not a moral authority unless you believe in whatever stories the Chruch, or other institutions, are currently pushing to keep their profits up. What you or I consider to be the reasoning behind our own morals though is not necessarily the same as the next persons. So did I answer your question... no. You can't answer it for as long as their is free thought. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. All anyone can do is keep serving up evidence for their set of beliefs until people accept it. Remember, the world is flat, the Earth is the centre of the universe, white men are superior to black men, and we were all created out of clay by an impotent omnipotent deity living in the sky. All are as believable to me as one of the Prattchet books, but some people really believe there are civilisations living in their carpet, and millions of people have died believing all the others too. Did you catch my thread about Dr. Winston's programme about the causality of human morality in the Lounge a few days back? There is a lot of information there that can be digested by both sides to shed a little light on this issue. jan larsen wrote: I am an Atheist and I don't actually think that I have a problem with Morality On the of the great parts about all popular religions - and most likely the reason they are so popular - is that they provide answers to everything. In this case god, or whatever, has given you your morality without you knowing it. Generosity like that makes you feel all warm and wanted doesn't it.

David Wulff

Wjousts

I think modern society can easily provide a framework for morality that doesn't rely on some supernatural mumbo-jumbo. For example, I don't need a priest to tell me that killing someone is wrong. If I had any doubts about that (which I don't) the fact that society would lock me away for a very long time should clue me into the fact that it's not acceptible. I think that's much more real that somebody saying I'll go to hell when I die. In fact, once you remove god then people have to take more responsibility for themselves and the people around them and stop praying that the giant sky pixie is going to desend from on high and solve all their problems. If weren't so weak willed they could accept that this is their one and only life and make a effort no to f**k it up.

Paul Watson

Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I think the majority of people inherently *know* right from wrong, regardless of their religous beliefs. So how do we inherently know this? Does it come encoded in our genes? Does the stork tell us as it is flying us to our mums and dads? What about finer points of morality which comes up in some areas and not others? Or the finer points you either only learn by breaking it or learn by being told? What about very debatable moral points? How do we just know these? I personally do not think there are any ultimate truths pertaining to our actions, any ultimate morals pertaining to our actions. It is all made up by us, by millions of years of experience. What morals we do have are learnt. It is learnt from our parents, from our friends, our enemies, from our neighbourhood, from TV, books, poetry, speeches. They are learnt by us thinking about them, by extrapolating actions. Culture is a huge influence and our culture is densely permeated by religion. You can not grow up without learning about religion, either in a positive or negative light. And various religions certainly have many good morals, morals you as an atheist will have taken to heart whether you know it or not.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Ray Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson

Paul Watson

Wjousts wrote: If I had any doubts about that (which I don't) the fact that society would lock me away for a very long time should clue me into the fact that it's not acceptible What about homosexuality? Not many years ago you could be locked up for that. Hell, people were (and still are) stoned to death for it. By no means is the fact that a law exists in favour of some moral point mean that you should claim it as your own. Wjousts wrote: In fact, once you remove god then people have to take more responsibility for themselves and the people around them and stop praying that the giant sky pixie is going to desend from on high and solve all their problems I am no fan of organised religion, but I don't know of any religion where the sky pixie is said to be coming soon to solve all our problems. In fact it seems as though most organised religions say you have to be intensely moral to be accepted into the good side of the afterlife. (I don't agree with all of organised religions beliefs, morals etc., but they certainly do have a lot of good about them. It is only us corrupt humans who have so twisted religion to our wants that people like you and I react negatively towards religion.)

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Ray Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson

brianwelsch

I think religion is in place, partially for morality, but more importantly, it provides a place for people link themselves to the human story. It gives us a sense of history, a sense of belonging to something much greater than ourselves. It is a necessity for us to feel as though we are a part of humanity, as though we count in some way. the way some people do that is through religion. What could be more important than direct connection to a diety? I think religion will not "fizzle out" more for this aspect than that of moral authority. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson

Lost User

Does the stork tell us as it is flying us to our mums and dads? No need for sarcasm Paul. :eek:

Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.

Paul Watson

David Wulff wrote: What we credit to nature 'they' credit to their relgions We should not be crediting either. We should be crediting ourselves. I have met, as I am sure you have, prime examples of both sides of this coin. People who are blinded by their religious belief, and people who are fooled by their naturalist belief. As you say they are both just a source, and so prone to the same problems. I am at this stage in my life leaning towards neither. I am leaning towards myself, i.e. being my own source. My problem with blinded religious and naturalist* people is that they have not questioned what they are told. Whether you are told by Abraham, Buddha, Allah or science, you must question. Not to discredit a source, but to find your truth. If it corresponds then more power to you and the source. If it does not correspond then power to you and realise the source may be flawed. I have no problem with Christians who have reached their faith through questioning. I would far rather be that than a blinded atheist. Obviously I too can be a flawed source to myself. So a pinch of salt is highly recommended. * No not the naked people and not the tree huggers. I mean the atheists who have simply switched sources from one external, flawed entity to another. David Wulff wrote: by an impotent omnipotent deity living in the sky :laugh: That just brought up the funniest image of God saying "Sorry hun, I guess I just can't get it up tonight" to the universe. And so God and the Universe resorted to clay and a spare rib**. :-D ** After all there were no IVF clinics back then

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Ray Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson

Paul Watson

Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: No need for sarcasm Paul. My apologies. I was actually trying to goad you into replying with something you really believed in. (plus I had a funny image of The Stork flying along over a quaint village teaching little Jimmy all he needed to know in life) You seem the type that will give as good as he takes :)

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Ray Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson

Paul Watson

brianwelsch wrote: It is a necessity for us to feel as though we are a part of humanity, as though we count in some way Going along with your thoughts: You don't think this human story with God up there is just a way for us to justify life? That there is a rhyme and reason to it all? There is a definite need for that I think. I find it sad, not in a pitying way, that some of us need to be told the reason, that we cannot find it ourselves, or rather create it ourselves. brianwelsch wrote: it provides a place for people link themselves to the human story. It gives us a sense of history, a sense of belonging to something much greater than ourselves I like that. Sounds just the kind of thing us humans would do :)

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Ray Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson

Lost User

he he. I knew you'd feel bad and reply. You're a top geezer Mr Watson. :cool: :cool: :cool: If I ever get a chance to visit our office in SA, we'll go for a pint. OK, Right and wrong... mmmm ... call it a gut-feeling. I think there could be some mileage in genetics here - something worth investigating. Seeing my young nephew growing up (he's just turned 4) he seems to know that some things are bad and other things are good - he knows some of this because of his parenting, but other things seem to be instinctive y'know? What I cannot accept however, is that my moral outlook on life is purely down to religion. Sure, unconsciously, religion pervades many aspects of culture, but it doesn't have a monopoly on morality. Like you, I like to think that have honed my outlook on life based on my experience of the world around me, and key events in my life have no doubt helped point me in a particular direction. Another point I'd like to make is that a persons morals can change (based on experience) and with most big moral issues, nothing is ever black and white. I was recently reading a magazine article about how people often "swing to the right" as they get older. i.e. you are a left-wing liberal commie in your 20s, but a right-wing nazi bigot by the time you're 50! People seem to become less tolerant as they age which I find totally fascinating (and worrying!). If I ever start voting Conservative, then I'll David Wulff come round and shoot me with one of his high-powered air-pistols. :laugh:

Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.

brianwelsch

Paul Watson wrote: Going along with your thoughts: You don't think this human story with God up there is just a way for us to justify life? That there is a rhyme and reason to it all? There is a definite need for that I think. I consider myself Agnostic, but I lean towards the truth being that there is a much more powerful being than ourselves. I do have trouble imagining that a more powerful being would have any more interest in me than I do my cat. So God's involvement in my life is sporatic at best. The rhyme and reason of life is fairly minimal. Which is just fine by me. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson

Lost User

Aaahhh ... the double-edged sword of being a self-aware conscious being. People are scared of death - and believing in religion (and henceforth some form of afterlife) helps people get through the day. A Christian friend of mine (yes, it's true!) tells me unless he had his beliefs he wouldn't see any point in getting up in the morning. Fair comment. He isn't a bigot either, which is refreshing. I have my own wooly-hippy-new-age beliefs, but I have come to my own conclusions - which helps me get through the day too. I generally don't knock religion, because if someone really believes in something, and it helps them be a better person, then more power to them. Respect is due, etc. I have a problem if someone preaches to me or tries to tell me that I am in some way worse off than them for not believing (judgementalism?). Obviously, there is a LOT of ambiguity with most religions - and this often causes people to do things in the name of their relgion that I don't think the religion ever intended. If Jesus (and I am not doubting that a very special - and moral - person called Jesus once existed) were to be resurrected and see what had been done in the name of Christianity (killing and outright bigotry) I think he would be outraged. This could run and run.

Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.

Jon Sagara

jan larsen wrote: Do we have to credit religions for Morality?, Well, they do teach great morals... jan larsen wrote: couldn't people agree on certain points of civilized behaviour without having to believe in Jahve, Krishna or Santa Claus? No. Maybe a small minority of people, but not the general population. Jon Sagara The world is my burrito.

Stan Shannon

My point is that religion's primary purpose is to serve as a source of moral authority. If you remove formal religion, you have removed religion in name only. Any source of moral authority essentially serves as a religion. To me this has always been an interesting subject. Being by nature an athiest myself, I cannot imagine how one would derive a morally stable culture based upon individually derived codes of moral conduct. For example, try to persuade me, as an athiest, why it is "immoral" to believe that Jews should be gassed or that blacks should be slaves, or whatever other "evils" you might think of. What does morality even mean in such a culture? The word "moral" carries the weight it does precisely because of its traditional association with religion and the concept of absolute and unconditional morality. No, we must have sources of moral authority. If the church does not serve that purpose than the state will be more than happy to step in and fill the void. Without the Church, what is the point of having seperation of Church and state? The State necessarily must become the church at that point - i.e. the source of all moral authority. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Chris Losinger

Jon Sagara wrote: Well, they do teach great morals... so do people without religion. -c

“losinger is a colorizing text edit control” -- googlism

Smaller Animals Software

Paul Watson

Stan Shannon wrote: If the church does not serve that purpose than the state will be more than happy to step in and fill the void. Without the Church, what is the point of having seperation of Church and state? The State necessarily must become the church at that point - i.e. the source of all moral authority. Has any country tried this? That of removing the Church and becoming the moral authority? (I may be wrong but didn't they do this in the USSR?) What happened? Stan Shannon wrote: I cannot imagine how one would derive a morally stable culture based upon individually derived codes of moral conduct This conflict will always exist I reckon. Is there a morally stable culture anywhere on earth? Also, me being young and full of zeal, this can be very difficult to accept at times. Does it get any easier to accept the cultural moral decision over your own personal moral decision as you get older?

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Ray Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson

Stan Shannon

Paul Watson wrote: Also, me being young and full of zeal, this can be very difficult to accept at times. Does it get any easier to accept the cultural moral decision over your own personal moral decision as you get older? Its really been a question I have pondered through out my life. It has always made sense to me that if I volutarily choose to be a member of a civil social order, that at some level my own personal moral preferences must be subordinate to those of the culture itself. Would I tolerate an exterme violation of something I felt very strongly about? I would hope not. But, if I reserve that right for myself, how do I, for example, fault those who shoot abortion providers? Isn't that just an experession of their own moral limits? I do feel that having a healthy religious community provides for a healthy culture. Religious people may have a tendency to be hypocrits, but that may be because they are the only ones with a morality to be hypocritical of in the first place. It is easy to avoid hypocricy when you believe in nothing. That is why I try to hold myself to a Christian code of moral ethics - so that I have something to by hypocritical of. BTW, I have not found that anything gets easier with age. ;) "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle