Is morality dependent on religion?

[Sidhe]

Why not? The one single common denominator of all civilizations all throughout history all over the world is religion is it not? The old adage of "do unto others as they would do unto you" is a religious saying, not an athiest one.

Animals, they seem to have moral codes, without religion, they have developmental practices that are consistant with small groups from which their behaviour is derived, but again your making an argument based on this exists and I can debate what happens when it doesn't again, no logic.

 

[Bill3000]

Proof? Name any known ancient civilization that does not have a type of religion.

Are you saying that morals only came to existence when civilization was created? That nomads and farming communities before the birth of civilization had no system of morals? Otherwise this question is fallacious.

Correlation does not imply causation, by the way.

 

[Sidhe]

Once more, I ask for any evidence, scientific or otherwise, of any society, ANY society, throughout all of history that hasnt had a form of religion, that was a "moral athiest" society.

If you cant do it then just say you cant do it and move on.

Don't need to but then you don't get it, you can't produce one society that has no religion being immoral, it's a classic non starter.

Essentially what your saying is since neither side can procuce evidence either way my opinion must be true, right?

 

[warpus]

Why not? The one single common denominator of all civilizations all throughout history all over the world is religion is it not? The old adage of "do unto others as they would do unto you" is a religious saying, not an athiest one.

That's like saying:

The single common denominator of all civilizations throughout history is religion - therefore you couldn't have food without religion.

 

[Masquerouge]

Why not? The one single common denominator of all civilizations all throughout history all over the world is religion is it not? The old adage of "do unto others as they would do unto you" is a religious saying, not an athiest one.

Because you imply a relation of causality that is not there. If there was no way that a moral system could be devised without a religious one, then your point would be valid. But the very fact that you can come up with a moral system that is not relied to religion shows that there is no causality between religion and morality.
Just because no civilization had that experience does not mean it could not have happened.

 

[MobBoss]

Animals, they seem to have moral codes, without religion, they have developmental practices that are consistant with small groups from which their behaviour is derived, but again your making an argument based on this exists and I can debate what happens when it doesn't again, no logic.

Animals have instincts, not morals. Perhaps you are confusing the two.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Some societies had religion to explain what the people didn't know. It seems to me that more often than not, a society's morals are put onto that society's religion, not the other way around. Religion does affect morals however.

 

[Sidhe]

Animals have instincts, not morals. Perhaps you are confusing the two.

Actually perhaps you are basing what you see as morals on purely human systems, an animal will chose not to act on a behaviour which is detremental to the group based on previous rebukes by the group, there is punishment for wrong doing amongst the high order mammals, this by any definition is what morality is, just not human morality. A society be it animal or human will act on the views of those it lives amongst.

 

[Bill3000]

Animals have instincts, not morals. Perhaps you are confusing the two.

Behaviors. You can't cut and dry call all of the behaviors of animals "instinct".

 

[MobBoss]

If there was no way that a moral system could be devised without a religious one, then your point would be valid.

But thats exactly my point. I dont think a moral system can be devised or has been devised without religion being a factor.

But the very fact that you can come up with a moral system that is not relied to religion shows that there is no causality between religion and morality.
Just because no civilization had that experience does not mean it could not have happened.

But there isnt any evidence that leads to that is there? Sure you can "imagine" such a system, but the reality of the historical proof says otherwise. We are not dealing with Star Trek here.

 

[warpus]

Here's a good case for non-theistic morality:


As the great nineteenth-century agnostic Robert Ingersoll often explained, one basis for nontheistic morality is simply the idea of self-defense. Because nontheists do not want to be murdered, robbed, raped, or otherwise injured, they support laws prohibiting those types of harmful acts.

By the same token, their desire to be treated fairly, honestly, and respectfully leads them to advocate laws and rules of conduct that promote fair, honest, and respectful treatment of people.

In this manner, the idea of self-defense produces a just system of laws and social standards.

linky


Feel free to explain how this specific example doesn't constitute morality, Mobboss

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The problem is that we only have societies with both morals and religion. How do we know that it is not morality that causes religion?

But then, since an awful lot of moral behavior works in one's self-interest, I can also see how such behavior can be selected.

 

[Kozmos]

Nay. Samurai had a moral code.

 

[puglover]

No. Morality is dependent upon God, not man's organized religion.

 

[MobBoss]

Here's a good case for non-theistic morality:


As the great nineteenth-century agnostic Robert Ingersoll often explained, one basis for nontheistic morality is simply the idea of self-defense. Because nontheists do not want to be murdered, robbed, raped, or otherwise injured, they support laws prohibiting those types of harmful acts.

By the same token, their desire to be treated fairly, honestly, and respectfully leads them to advocate laws and rules of conduct that promote fair, honest, and respectful treatment of people.

In this manner, the idea of self-defense produces a just system of laws and social standards.

linky


Feel free to explain how this specific example doesn't constitute morality, Mobboss

Was Ingersoll raised in a country without religious morality? Nope. Thus his views contained that same religious morality that he seeks to explain away. I dont think non-religious morality to be based upon the idea of self-defense, but rather upon self-preservation. Slight difference there.

 

[Sidhe]

OK still haven't really answered the question of whether you can say morality exists without religion without actually having such a group? Again pointless and without evidence?

No offence but how can anyone say that something exists without actual evidence, this is just going round in circles and not answering that point. If black does not exist because I've never seen it, I can therefore say that only colours and white exist? I'm not sure how you can put it any clearer than this without being patronising.

I'm not disputing that religion cannot exist without morality but then I'm not trying to say it can without religion? Do you see what I'm saying here? It's your opinion nothing more nothing less.

 

[warpus]

Was Ingersoll raised in a country without religious morality? Nope. Thus his views contained that same religious morality that he seeks to explain away. I dont think non-religious morality to be based upon the idea of self-defense, but rather upon self-preservation. Slight difference there.

You still haven't explained why it'd be impossible to have morality without religion.

All you're saying is that we haven't had a 100% non-religious society yet, therefore it must be impossible. People are naturally superstitious - that's why organized religion is so common. That doesn't mean that it'd be impossible to have a society without religion.

What do you propose would happen if we did have a society without religion then? Would mass-murder & chaos ensue?

The article I linked to outlines several bases for morality that are not dependent on religion - are you going to explain why the various scenarios don't constitute morality or not?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Actually perhaps you are basing what you see as morals on purely human systems, an animal will chose not to act on a behaviour which is detremental to the group based on previous rebukes by the group, there is punishment for wrong doing amongst the high order mammals, this by any definition is what morality is, just not human morality. A society be it animal or human will act on the views of those it lives amongst.

Good point.
But how can you be sure these animals don't have a religion ?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Once more, I ask for any evidence, scientific or otherwise, of any society, ANY society, throughout all of history that hasnt had a form of religion, that was a "moral athiest" society.

If you cant do it then just say you cant do it and move on.

Yeah.
And every society with a moral code had agriculture, weapons and some kind of currency...

 

[VoodooAce]

So, by MB's logic, if you took 2 or 20 or 200 infant humans, stuck them on an island with no religious influence, these people would not have any morals.

Uh, BS. And before you ask me to prove it, sigh, you prove otherwise, because your'e the one making the outrageous claims.