Is morality dependent on religion?

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Can we please discuss anything else than god in this forum

Moderator Action: Adding one more day to your ban for another instance of spam. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Can we please discuss anything else than god in this forum

Start a new thread for any topic you like. You have a worldwide audience that will read and consider whatever you have to say.

 

[Truronian]

Truronian
The very "interpretation" made by people definitely not learnt enough (I doubt either Stalin or Hitler ever read the whole Bible twice) is the proof that when your moral is independant of religion - it turns twisted in 99%.
I didn't say atheists are immoral - I said those were a good example of how a subjective moral can turn into massacres.

If morality is dependant on religion (as you said) then is it a logical continuation that atheists are immoral. You've just claimed that morals independant of religon are 99% of the times twisted. Does this make 99% of atheists immoral?

Did you read it _thoroughly_ about the slavery?

Yes

 

[civ2]

Truronian
The only "real" atheists could be Tarzan or Maugli - because they never met people.
And since every "atheist" is ever surrounded by to-a-certain-degree-religious people - he is not a real atheist concerning morals and the way of life.
Didn't you observe your parents and grandparents?
Your friends and enemies?
Your president and a stranger at the street?
ALL of this creates a person's view of life.
And most of the people are somewhat religious.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Truronian
The only "real" atheists could be Tarzan or Maugli - because they never met people.
And since every "atheist" is ever surrounded by to-a-certain-degree-religious people - he is not a real atheist concerning morals and the way of life.
Didn't you observe your parents and grandparents?
Your friends and enemies?
Your president and a stranger at the street?
ALL of this creates a person's view of life.
And most of the people are somewhat religious.

The OP question isn't "Is the morality of non-religious people influenced by religious people", it's "Is morality dependent on religion?"

I reject organized religion and do not depend upon it for my morality, as I prefer logic and the scientific method. I am still a moral person so the strict answer to the OP question is no.


EDIT - corrected typo.

 

[Archbob]

Fallen Angel Lord
Of course it is.
But the point is that when you base your morals on your OWN mind - you are not protected from obvious mistakes.
Would it be not so - there would be no crimes in the world whether everybody was religious or not.

So are you saying that moral based on a religion are flawless?

Can we discuss something other than god on this forum.

No, God created us to discuss him.

 

[Truronian]

Truronian
The only "real" atheists could be Tarzan or Maugli - because they never met people.
And since every "atheist" is ever surrounded by to-a-certain-degree-religious people - he is not a real atheist concerning morals and the way of life.
Didn't you observe your parents and grandparents?
Your friends and enemies?
Your president and a stranger at the street?
ALL of this creates a person's view of life.
And most of the people are somewhat religious.

Correlation, not causality. I would also like to point out that most people have in their lives drunk water. It is this drinking of water that leads to morality. Immoral people don't drink enough water. Given that you are the one proposing a link between morality and religion, its up to you to prove a link, which you have yet to do.

 

[civ2]

Sahkuhnder
Religion is the only source of "moral" at all.
Or you can name "the junge laws".
Then - why do "irreligious" people often are also helping the poor - no source exept religion states that you should help anybody at all.
Name me at least one source absolutely independant of religion that would provide an example of moral.

Fallen angel Lord
Not that.
I mean that every true moral is based on the fact that a human has a soul and is a creaton of God and is responsible for his deeds.
Other selfish "morals" can't be called really moral because a moral thing must be objective and not based on "ME and MY wishes".

Truronian
Read above.
Also drinking water doesn't supply you with a single example of morality.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Sahkuhnder
Religion is the only source of "moral" at all.

That may be true for you, but it isn't true for me. My morals are based on logic, not religion.

Then - why do "irreligious" people often are also helping the poor - no source exept religion states that you should help anybody at all.

I don't need a "source" to tell me what to think or do. I can figure it out for myself using logic.

Name me at least one source absolutely independant of religion that would provide an example of moral.

Logic.

Example: What is good for the society I live in is good also for me and for my children. This requires no belief in a higher power, participation in organized religion or any form of any religious beliefs of any kind.

 

[Truronian]

Name me at least one source absolutely independant of religion that would provide an example of moral.

Survival Instinct. For example, someone who wanders around killing people is a threat to your, and the rest of societies survival and as such must be eliminated. This means if you chose to go round killing people, you have everything to lose and nothing to gain. How does society combat this loss of DNA? Morals.

 

[civ2]

Logic doesn't provide morals.
Simple eample is a small child - he's usually way too selfish and must be taught to share and wait while others can have this thing.
But any child has logic and this very logic makes him selfish - "why should I share? It's MINE!"
If logic would prevent people from crimes - there would be no crimes.
Do you say that 99% of people are stupid and without logic???
Usually the worse criminals are also of the cleverest people - but they have no moral that would prevent them from misusing their gift.
It's simple - if you have nobody to fear (and you can always bribe a cop or a judge since they are also immoral) - then you have nothing to stop you from crimes.
The key point that makes religion a good source for moral is the concept of "everything you do is seen on High".
I'm not speaking about the "people of religion" who are still people and might err (even a lot).
I'm speaking about the religion itself - the idea of being observed by God constantly.
This gives you the REASON to act morally.
An example which isn't very on-topic but can shed some light on the idea:
Once a Rabbi was put in jale by anti-semits.
One of the interrogators threatened him with a gun.
"Be quiet or I'll use this "toy" on you!"
The Rabbi answered:
"This "toy" can threaten a man who has many gods and one world but not a Jew like me who has One God and two worlds."
So you can see that whenever a person "thinks for himself (selfishly)" he can "logically" assume that even killing is "moral" if HE is not the victim.
Logic isn't the source of moral - it's the source of destruction of moral.

 

[Meleager]

I've been pondering a few thoughts about morality. I haven't really thought these through; they just kind of struck me.

1. Are logical morals really moral? To me being moral out of fear is being unauthentic. Can the same reasoning be applied to logic. I.E. Is being moral because it is logical being unauthentic? It's like a hidden agenda. Aren’t true morals followed because they are right? If this is the definition of “true morals” do they exist at all?

2. Not all morals are logical as not all morals benefit the individual. We can all provide examples of various morals that, if anything, hinder us in our attempts to reach our goals. Whilst other people who have what we would consider lax morals often get ahead. For example, they are willing to step over people to climb the corporate ladder. Whilst morals may be logical when applied to a group, they usually require each individual to self-sacrifice for the sake of the others to make them work. Humans are generally not inclined to do this. In similar fashion, evolution cannot be the basis for these morals because they have to be advantageous to the individual, rather then the whole, for them to initially spread (or am I wrong about this?).

3. Where do morals about things such as sex outside of marriage, or homosexuality come from? Many religions have moral codes that would appear "bad advertising", whereas many early pagan religions embraced sex. I would imagine it would be much easier for a religion that says sex is ok to spread much faster then one which said it is not. Yet most current major religions have morals which are not "fun". Also, if they are invented, what is the point of religious leaders introducing these morals?

Just some thoughts.

 

[civ2]

Meleager
Are those questions or what???

 

[Meleager]

Rhetorical questions perhaps. I was thinking as I was typing.

 

[Archbob]

Sahkuhnder
Religion is the only source of "moral" at all.
Or you can name "the junge laws".
Then - why do "irreligious" people often are also helping the poor - no source exept religion states that you should help anybody at all.
Name me at least one source absolutely independant of religion that would provide an example of moral.

Fallen angel Lord
Not that.
I mean that every true moral is based on the fact that a human has a soul and is a creaton of God and is responsible for his deeds.
Other selfish "morals" can't be called really moral because a moral thing must be objective and not based on "ME and MY wishes".

Truronian
Read above.
Also drinking water doesn't supply you with a single example of morality.

Why do I help people? Because if I help them now, they will help me in the future. I don't need religion to tell me that.

Your entire assumption is based on this subjective soul and for it to work, one has to believe in God and creation, which is not a premise all people believe in.

Believe it or not morals such as not killing are basic survival instincts of a species. For instance lions will kill other things for food but will not kill other lions for food(they do tend to kill each other in territorial battles but thats just the human equivalent of wars).

The first laws of mankind were made so the community doesn't kill itself. Certain morals are needed for the survival of a species and other actions aren't done for fear of retaliation. Its not religion that inspires all morals. The basic survival instinct thats present in most more complex species and the fear of retaliation inspires us to act morally. You can't really claim a "moral" thing to be objective because your whole state is based on very subjective things that can't be seen or proven.

 

[sanabas]

I've been pondering a few thoughts about morality. I haven't really thought these through; they just kind of struck me.

1. Are logical morals really moral? To me being moral out of fear is being unauthentic. Can the same reasoning be applied to logic. I.E. Is being moral because it is logical being unauthentic? It's like a hidden agenda. Aren’t true morals followed because they are right? If this is the definition of “true morals” do they exist at all?

If true morals are followed because they're right, that would mean that there is an objective standard for morality. Do you think there's an objective set of morals we can compare the morals we use to?

2. Not all morals are logical as not all morals benefit the individual. We can all provide examples of various morals that, if anything, hinder us in our attempts to reach our goals. Whilst other people who have what we would consider lax morals often get ahead. For example, they are willing to step over people to climb the corporate ladder. Whilst morals may be logical when applied to a group, they usually require each individual to self-sacrifice for the sake of the others to make them work. Humans are generally not inclined to do this. In similar fashion, evolution cannot be the basis for these morals because they have to be advantageous to the individual, rather then the whole, for them to initially spread (or am I wrong about this?).

My bolding. Almost every human parent is definitely inclined to do this. They self-sacrifice for the sake of their children. And to your last question, yes, you do appear to be wrong about this. Look at other social animals, especially primates, they exhibit plenty of behaviour that is self-sacrificing, that is advantageous to the group rather than directly to the individual. Your first statement implies that logical moral behaviour is only that which is a direct benefit to the individual, that behaviour that benefits the group isn't logical. That;s only true if you have you start from a very narrow view, working on the premise of 'I will do what gives me, the individual, the biggest short term gain.' If you have two groups of social animals compedting forthe same resources, the first group working entirely on that premise, the second group exhibiting self-sacrifice, ability to think over a longer timespan (i.e. the concept of 'jam tomorrow'), which group do you think will prosper?

3. Where do morals about things such as sex outside of marriage, or homosexuality come from? Many religions have moral codes that would appear "bad advertising", whereas many early pagan religions embraced sex. I would imagine it would be much easier for a religion that says sex is ok to spread much faster then one which said it is not. Yet most current major religions have morals which are not "fun". Also, if they are invented, what is the point of religious leaders introducing these morals?

Power. A well-developed guilt complex about sex. Arbitrary taboos to distinguish 'us, god's chosen ones' from 'them, the heathens' which become entrenched. Lots of reasons.

 

[Archbob]

Even in lesser species such as ants and mites, the individual will fight to the death to protect the queen. There are many animals who will sacrifice themselves(even outside the primate order) who will sacrifce to protect the troop or the young. Its an instinct ingrained in many species, not exclusive to H. Sapiens.

 

[civ2]

You were all speaking about such obvious thing as not to kill.
What about not to steal???
Animals basically can't steal since they don't own.
Also marital morals can't be viewed in animal kingdom since the idea of family is unique to humans.
Some animals have pair-mates of life but that's not a family in a human form.
The idea of family isn't limited to who sleeps with whom.
It's a social structure unique for humans.

 

[Truronian]

Stealing is like killing. Society will unite against a kleptomaniac in the same way they'll unite against a murderer. Morals stop us coming out worse.

What do you mean by marital morals?

Some 'morals' undeniably spread from religion (no homosexual marriage being one example), but these are generally the disputed ones and not societies core founding morals.

 

[Archbob]

You were all speaking about such obvious thing as not to kill.
What about not to steal???
Animals basically can't steal since they don't own.
Also marital morals can't be viewed in animal kingdom since the idea of family is unique to humans.
Some animals have pair-mates of life but that's not a family in a human form.
The idea of family isn't limited to who sleeps with whom.
It's a social structure unique for humans.

Stop trying to put all these things as Unique to humans. There are many, many animals who adhere to a family unit. Many kinds of penguins marry together and are faithful for life(which is more than I can say for humans). They stay together and take care of the young until he/she is ready for survival on their own. How is that not a family? Family behavious can also easily be seen in Gibbons as well as other types of primates. Many primates have even displayed a certain respect for its older members. It is NOT unique to humans by any extent.

Stealing is also something that causes disorder within society and obviously a group of people is stronger with order than in disorder so such rules arise to form a social structure. It is very apparent in many animals, especially species who define a strict rank-order, such as gorillas, howlers, Jackdaws, and even certain kinds of trout.

You haven't researched your science very well before coming up with these assertions about the uniqueness of humans.