Is morality dependent on religion?

[Corlindale]

Who says religion was invented?

Well, that's the gist of it, isn't it? That is a matter of belief, and (I strongly suspect) the very reason this discussion isn't really going anywhere. If you believe in God, then humans certainly didn't create religion, and might not have created morals. But if you don't believe in God, people either developed morals or invented religion with associated morals, which is essentially the same as developing morals.

 

[shadow2k]

Mob, proving an ancient society was atheist is like trying to prove that God doesn't exist. How do you prove the absence of religion? You want me to point you to a dig where no religious artifacts were found? I can do that if you really want, but it's a fruitless effort. Just because they didn't build a church, or don't have little pagan artifacts doesn't mean they didn't believe in a God.

But you sure as heck can't prove that they didn't have morals before religion. You can say they didn't have the same moral code as you, and are therefore immoral according to your standards. But again, different moral codes are completely different from the absence of morals all together.

 

[betazed]

I remember from a saying from a Catholic poster in another forum I frequent at. "Your religion defines your values, and it is those values that you vote with." and I pretty much agree with that statement.

So you mean you vote according to your religion (instead of, say, after analyzing the issues and stances of the candidate in question unbiasedly according to the available information).

That's plenty sad.

let me put this down as another reason why everyone should not vote

 

[shadow2k]

I remember from a saying from a Catholic poster in another forum I frequent at. "Your religion defines your values, and it is those values that you vote with." and I pretty much agree with that statement.

YOUR religion defines YOUR values. Not mine. That doesn't mean that without religion we're incapable of defining our own values. Unless you are a very weak minded person who is not able to think for yourself.

 

[Kickbooti]

Wow, two days old and this many posts. I will have to try and read all that has preceeded. So, speaking in ignorance of what has passed...

Morality can be as varried as the people who claim it. The question is not whether morality MUST be tied to religion or not (cleary it needn't be) but rather what is the judge of our morality, if it is true and good or warped and base.

The conscience is our source of moral sentiment and you don't have to go through life for too long to understand that a conscience can be abused, warped, ignored and seared.

That being the case, our own individual consciences are inadequate to the task of being completley reliable moral guides.

That being the case, religion is humanity's interface with eternity and truth. The laws, codes and rituals of religion serve to form and reinforce the conscince along the lines of understanding contained within that religion.

The next question is whether the religion itself correctly embodies ultimate truth and goodness, which begs the question as to whether the religion is created or revelaed... But I suppose that is another topic.

 

[GenMarshall]

So you mean you vote according to your religion (instead of, say, after analyzing the issues and stances of the candidate in question unbiasedly according to the available information).

I only first vote on the basis if the canidate supports any of the five non-negotiable issues (Abortions, Same-Gender marrages, euthenasia, embryonic stem cell research, and human cloning). If the canidate inquestion does not support any of the five non-negotiable issues, then I vote not according to my religion.

If say Presidential Canidate Billy Bob (R) supports a ban on Abortion, Living Wages, and tax cuts and Presidential Canidate Mark Sanders (D) supports Same-Gender Marrages, Abortions, Living Wages, and tax raises. Based on my moral values and religious faith, I will vote for Billy Bob because primarly he does not support one of the five non-negotiable issues.

YOUR religion defines YOUR values. Not mine. That doesn't mean that without religion we're incapable of defining our own values. Unless you are a very weak minded person who is not able to think for yourself.

You still look to religion to define your own values. Buddhism has moral values, Confuciousism (though I stll believe that Confuciousism is more of a philosophy) has moral values, and so does Taoism. Realy its impossible to define our own values without influences of religion.

 

[Masquerouge]

You still look to religion to define your own values. Buddhism has moral values, Confuciousism (though I stll believe that Confuciousism is more of a philosophy) has moral values, and so does Taoism. Realy its impossible to define our own values without influences of religion.

Again, that's a logical fallacy. Just because all religion have morals does not mean morals come from religion. And just because my morals as an atheist are most of the time the same as morals found in religions does not imply a causality from religion to morals.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Some think that in order to have a moral code, one must have some sort of religious beliefs. But others think that no religion is necessary to be moral.

Religious belief has nothing to do with morality, or else everyone that had a religious belief would be moral, and we know well that that isn't the case. The idea that religion is necessary to lead a moral life only exists in dogmatic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which have specific and defined proscriptions of a moral code. Non-dogmatic religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism do not have a specific moral code, although they may have non-specific suggestions that revolve around some principle inherent to the religion. Adherents of those religions don't seem to consider themselves any less moral than anyone else.

The idea that religion is required for morality is rather ridiculous, because it suggests that before there was a religious dogma, people were thoroughly immoral. This means that the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, and essentially everyone on the planet, were a seething cauldron of vice until a given religion came along. This "given religion" is usually some revealed religion, such as Christianity. This notion is, essentially, religious pomposity, because it claims that until your religion came along, there was no morality.

 

[CaptainF]

How long will it take to realize that no, it doesn't?

 

[Masquerouge]

How long will it take to realize that no, it doesn't?

Well to be fair 9 out of 10 people think that no, morality is not dependent on religion. But the 10% sure are noisy

 

[VoodooAce]

Actually old bean, it was a novel way before it was a movie. You might check it out of the local library sometime - its a good read.

Who cares? Your point? Or did you have one?

Who says religion was invented?

Uh, me. Isn't that kind of the point of the discussion. I believe that, and I think you believe that not only did religion come before morals, you think it came congruent with the invention of man. Whatever. Its all opinion, I guess.

Anyway, anyone can survive without morals...all you have to do is watch an episode of "Survivor" to realize that. If animals can survive without morals, surely man can as well. However, in my humble opinion, what raises man above the animal state is not only his thumbs and intelligence, but also religion. It has gone hand in hand with man down through untold millenia, and has done more to organize man along civilized lines than anything else.

Yeah, Survivor is a great learning experience. Touche' Do you get all of your opinions from movies and TV? That explains a whole lot.

If you do, I'd suggest starting elsewhere and not with 'Survivor'.

Besides, Survivor doesn't meet the criteria of the discussion...at all. Not even close.

I think I laid out a good, reasonable example of how I think morals would have to have come first, you.....well, you watch TV.

Although I think your only capable of thinking in one direction, and this debate is pointless, you're welcome to turn off the boob tube and try again if you like.

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah, Survivor is a great learning experience. Touche' Do you get all of your opinions from movies and TV? That explains a whole lot.

If you do, I'd suggest starting elsewhere and not with 'Survivor'.

You mean like reading a book......like "Lord of the Flies" maybe? http://www.gerenser.com/lotf/

Oh the irony.

you.....well, you watch TV.

And read books....

 

[Souron]

To counter LotF, I suggest reading Jules Verne's Miserious island. That shows what Survival can really be like. Well it might not all be realistic, but Verne does a great job of explaining how everything is plausable, given the resources and human ingenuity.

(Granted it's technically science fiction, but only becouse some pirates die from some lightning weapon near the end of the book)

 

[VoodooAce]

You mean like reading a book......like "Lord of the Flies" maybe? http://www.gerenser.com/lotf/

Oh the irony.



And read books....

What in the world are you talking about? What irony? Why should I read Lord of the Flies? WTH does it have to do with the debate?

Look, either reply to my post or not....no need to reduce yourself to childish flaming. So I said 'movie' instead of 'book'. You had no legitimate reply so, instead, you attack me personally for something pretty trivial. Says a lot about you, MB.

Nice debating style

I'm sure I'm not the only one in these forums that isn't surprised.

On edit, I should give you props for at least kind of replying and at least trying your best to debate. Usually when you get pwned you shut up and go off to the next thread.

 

[VoodooAce]

Double post

 

[MobBoss]

To counter LotF, I suggest reading Jules Verne's Miserious island. That shows what Survival can really be like. Well it might not all be realistic, but Verne does a great job of explaining how everything is plausable, given the resources and human ingenuity.

I think you mean Mysterious Island.

 

[sanabas]

MobBoss, you appear to have ignored completely my reply to you in post #120. Possibly it got lost as it was on the bottom of a page. So I'll repeat it here. I would really like an answer to a couple of these questions please.

Close, simplified it would be instinct, religion, morals, law.

Close enough. So how does religion arise simply from instinctive behaviour? And might that same mechanism repeat, so that other animals operating only on instinct could discover religion?

Where does language fit in the timeline? Did language arise as something purely instinctive? Or did religion arise in the absence of language?

Nope, not a creationist loonie, but being a Pascals wager kind of guy, I like to keep my options open. I like to think my belief sufficient regardless of whether ID or evo is right or some odd combination of the two.

No problem. My statement was just to check that you wouldn't use the cop out of saying social behaviour didn't develop, that humans were plonked down 6000 years ago as we are now.

Its just survival instinct. A school of fish survives by staying together as opposed to being picked off singly. Ditto with other animals that work in groups for a common survival goal. Its what works for those animals, not driven by some need to care for one another.

There's a difference between a school of fish or a herd animal and social animals. Easy to show that travelling in a group makes you less likely to be picked off by a predator, but how does that explain more complex social behaviour? What about social behaviour in animals that have very few predators? Where's the benefit in it?

And as is stated to me so often in other arguments: Causation does not indicate correlation.

My apologies, I didn't realise we'd switched back to actual logical arguments. And causation usually does result in correlation, BTW. It's correlation that doesn't imply causation.

Just because they exhibit the behavior does not mean that it is a result of the animals actually caring for one another as humans can.

Very true, and I didn't say it did. But you have made two contradictory statements. First, that animals that appear to be following the golden rule are doing it out of instinct, not altruism. Second, that the golden rule is in direct conflict with instinctual behaviour. Which one is it?

Still waiting to hear how humans managed to prosper as a social animal when everyone was acting purely in self-interest, with no thought for anybody else in the social group.

And still waiting for an example of an amoral religion too.

 

[Truronian]

If morality is dependant, why are some of the most religious people also some of the most amoral?

 

[MobBoss]

What in the world are you talking about? What irony? Why should I read Lord of the Flies? WTH does it have to do with the debate?

Sigh. Young people today. Earlier, you talk about placing children all alone on an island as an experiment in morality. I mention that the Lord of the Flies was written discussing almost exactly that point. You say I am referring to a movie...I educate you by saying it was a book before it was a movie. I then make a joke about survivor. You obviously dont get the joke and say I refer to tv shows somehow as fact. I then remind you that I read books - like the Lord of the Flies as well. That, is irony.

Look, either reply to my post or not....no need to reduce yourself to childish flaming.

Please. You flame me because of my survivor joke and then complain of "childish flaming"? Need I say it? hyp-O-crit.

So I said 'movie' instead of 'book'. You had no legitimate reply so, instead, you attack me personally for something pretty trivial. Says a lot about you, MB.

Uh? How did I attack you personally? Did I say you had bad breath? A mole? That you were somehow mentally deficit? Not at all. Please explain to me exactly how I "personally attacked" you in my previous reply. The correct answer is I didnt.

Nice debating style

Hmmm. Was that a "personal attack" and should I be offended?

On edit, I should give you props for at least kind of replying and at least trying your best to debate. Usually when you get pwned you shut up and go off to the next thread.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that was a personal attack. As I have been warned repeatedly not to get into such flame fests with the likes of people like you, I wont take your bait. Nice try.

 

[MobBoss]

Close enough. So how does religion arise simply from instinctive behaviour? And might that same mechanism repeat, so that other animals operating only on instinct could discover religion?

I dont think it does. Unless of course you envision some far distant future in which apes and/or dolphins worship us as the "ancient ones".

Where does language fit in the timeline? Did language arise as something purely instinctive? Or did religion arise in the absence of language?

Excellent question! And one I dont have a ready answer for to be honest.

No problem. My statement was just to check that you wouldn't use the cop out of saying social behaviour didn't develop, that humans were plonked down 6000 years ago as we are now.

Since I wasnt around 6000 years ago I have no idea whether the idea is valid or not. After I saw Star Trek and saw how the transporter worked, I realized that anything was truly possible.

There's a difference between a school of fish or a herd animal

Not so much there. Both use the raw numbers of the group as a survival technique.

and social animals. Easy to show that travelling in a group makes you less likely to be picked off by a predator, but how does that explain more complex social behaviour? What about social behaviour in animals that have very few predators? Where's the benefit in it?

While by no means an expert, my opinion is that such social behavior is there to establish hierarchy and dominance.

My apologies, I didn't realise we'd switched back to actual logical arguments. And causation usually does result in correlation, BTW. It's correlation that doesn't imply causation.

Thx for the correction. I am always getting stuff like that backwards. So strike that and reverse it.

Very true, and I didn't say it did. But you have made two contradictory statements. First, that animals that appear to be following the golden rule are doing it out of instinct, not altruism. Second, that the golden rule is in direct conflict with instinctual behaviour. Which one is it?

To clarify I would say the "golden rule" to be in direct conflict with instinctual survivor behavior, i.e. survival of the fittest.

Still waiting to hear how humans managed to prosper as a social animal when everyone was acting purely in self-interest, with no thought for anybody else in the social group.

I never alleged that humans didnt have feelings or emotion. And perhaps it was religion that ushered man out of his own self-interest and made him wonder about the social group and "what it all meant"?

Bottom line Sanabas, I dont have all the answers, I am just having an honest discussion and seeing where it goes. I have what I believe to be the case, and present what evidence I see as indicative. Do I think I am entirely correct? Honestly no...at least not anymore than anyone else here. At the root of this discussion, we are all simply guessing at things which happened so many millienia ago as to be forever shrouded in mystery. Most likely we will never know the answer.

And still waiting for an example of an amoral religion too.

Please define amoral for me and I will see what I can do. What does "amoral" mean to you?