Is morality dependent on religion?

[Truronian]

I'd say both morals and religion are dependant on society, but neither morals nor religion are dependant on one another. The fact that religion contains so many moral guidelines with which humans sympathise is the primary reason its so popular. Of course, as those morals go out of fashion (eg homophobia) so does religion. The fact that MobBoss sees religion as the cause of morals is due to the inate fact that he believes the bible literally. Most others (here at least) do not, hence the difference of opinion.

I never seen a non-religious person in real life and I dont know any non-religious that I know best in real life.

Did I not read in the other thread that you used to be agnostic? Surely returning to the church was a moral action form you at a time when you were not a religious person.

 

[MobBoss]

What has that got to do with anything? I was not saying animals uphold our cultural taboo on antropophagy, I was pointing that the fact that altruistic behaviours exist in the animal kingdom invalidate your point that the "do unto others" isn't possible without religion.

It has to do with survival of the fittest, period. Chimps, dont necessarily "do unto others", unless of course you equate cannabalism in with the "eat you first, before you eat me first" morality of the situation.

Chimps do what they do for survival...not for altruistic reasons....not to "better" their culture. In their "tribes" the strong dominate the weak, and the instinct for survival overrides just about everything.

Assigning human attributes to animals has never been very smart in my opinion.

 

[MobBoss]

In some human cultures cannibalization is also allowed, so what is your point? Be reminded that in the thread 'morality' refers to any self-policing system of conduct, not your specific one.

Well, those cultures dont cannabalize their own do they? Rather, they prey upon other tribes. Chimps cannabalize their own.

 

[Perfection]

Well, those cultures dont cannabalize their own do they?

Actually, some do.

 

[sanabas]

I still think morality stems from religion.

So is my timeline above accurate? We had proto-humans acting on instinct alone, those instincts alone started religion, and having religion was the catalyst for them to be able to rise above their base instincts and become moral? Is that an accurate, if over-simplified, description of how you see morality arising?

I think the morality of the "do unto others" type of golden rule most certainly isnt possible without religion and even when athiests espouse such golden rules, its origination is ultimately from religion, not some instinctual or genetic map. In fact, I would readily say that such a behavior would be in direct conflict with some instinctual or ancestral survival behavior.

You see the golden rule as being in direct conflict with survival behaviour?? Last time I checked, you weren't a creationist loonie. Assuming the YECers haven't subverted you, you're still not. So please explain why we have social animals, and how social animals manage to prosper, if they don't have most (not all) members of the society following the golden rule? Working as a small family group, or a larger colony has plenty of benefits for animals that do it well. But it's hard to do well if other members of the family/colony/tribe don't get treated as almost as important as yourself. Most mammals that are social, whether it be dolphins, primates, or others, show plenty of behaviour that seems to follow the golden rule. You can either call that behaviour instinctual, and not an example of primitive morality, as you've done earlier in this thread, or you can say that the behaviour is in direct conflict with instinct, as you have in this last post. You can't have both though.

Again, if the golden rule stems from religion, and religion didn't happen until after we became a social animal, how did we prosper as a social animal in the first place, and how did we prosper to the extent that we managed to be organised enough to come up with religion?

I'd still like an example of an amoral religion too. If you can't supply one, then by your logic as presented on I think page 1, religion is not possible without first having morality.

 

[MobBoss]

Actually, some do.

Never, in all my years of reading National Geographic, have I ever heard of one.

 

[Masquerouge]

It has to do with survival of the fittest, period. Chimps, dont necessarily "do unto others", unless of course you equate cannabalism in with the "eat you first, before you eat me first" morality of the situation.

Chimps do what they do for survival...not for altruistic reasons....not to "better" their culture. In their "tribes" the strong dominate the weak, and the instinct for survival overrides just about everything.

Again, since you seem to avoid the issue, my point is to say that altruistic behavior is a valid survival strategy, that actually exist in the animal kingdom, and thus you are wrong when you say that altruistic behaviors can not exist outside religion.

 

[Masquerouge]

Never, in all my years of reading National Geographic, have I ever heard of one.

The Fore tribe.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/cannibalism6301.cfm

 

[MobBoss]

So is my timeline above accurate? We had proto-humans acting on instinct alone, those instincts alone started religion, and having religion was the catalyst for them to be able to rise above their base instincts and become moral? Is that an accurate, if over-simplified, description of how you see morality arising?

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

You see the golden rule as being in direct conflict with survival behaviour?? Last time I checked, you weren't a creationist loonie. Assuming the YECers haven't subverted you, you're still not.

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.

So please explain why we have social animals, and how social animals manage to prosper, if they don't have most (not all) members of the society following the golden rule? Working as a small family group, or a larger colony has plenty of benefits for animals that do it well. But it's hard to do well if other members of the family/colony/tribe don't get treated as almost as important as yourself.

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.

Most mammals that are social, whether it be dolphins, primates, or others, show plenty of behaviour that seems to follow the golden rule.

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

 

[shadow2k]

This statement lends me to believe that we are not talking about the same morals I think or obviously the same standards upon which morals are based.

If you think the imperative morality of survival of the fittest is indeed a moral value, ie. animal morals as opposed to pure instinct, then I suppose you would be correct.

If you are referring to the type of morality indicated by the "do unto others" statement, I would say I am correct.

I'm just not judging the ability of other people to have morals based on my own set of standards. That's called self-righteousness.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I think the morality of the "do unto others" type of golden rule most certainly isnt possible without religion and even when athiests espouse such golden rules, its origination is ultimately from religion, not some instinctual or genetic map. In fact, I would readily say that such a behavior would be in direct conflict with some instinctual or ancestral survival behavior.

The discovery of mirror neurons indicates that humans and some more species are actually hardwired to feel for others.

 

[MobBoss]

The discovery of mirror neurons indicates that humans and some more species are actually hardwired to feel for others.

So, are serial killers just "mirror neutron" deficient?

 

[Sidhe]

Just from a logical point of view you can say that since animals have been observed to follow moral behavioural codes then morals came before religion, disprove the behavioural science or you have no case to state religion as moral founder, that said though it's then easy to say that animals were given morals by God and you are back at a stalemate, that still doesn't change the fact that the morals came before any understanding of religion. It sounds oddly unChristian to claim that religion inveneted morals it is not consistant with what I know( I can't find anything from scriture which asserts this notion and I'm damned sure it's not part of their faith, so I'm assuming they are merely speaking from there own points of view) . It's hard to say for sure that morals predate religion in all societies, there must have been many early societies without religion, and to assume they could not have been moral somehow defies logic, before the church came along there was no guilit no compassion no will to do good of any kind we were as demons and we murdered raped and killed without conscience. Yeah alright so someone went hold on this aint right God told me and after he had convinced the rest they all became morally upstanding and stopped there killing and raping. Sheez how naive would you have to be to think that was logical.

By the way I find Civ Generals idea that non christians cannot have morals to be possibly one of the most bigotted remarks I've heard on this forum in the short time I've been here, how anyone could be so naive as to believe that without religion we are morally dead is beyond belief, in fact it's fantasy. Sorry but that is incredibly insulting to me to hear that I am a bad person because some guy who found religion later in his life thinks it is so, ask your priest if that's what he believes next time you meet him, I seriously doubt you got that view from the church. Ask yourself also were you incapable of doing moral deeds before you found your faith? Really?

I'd say that the pole prooves that even many religious people don't believe that religion came first, unless there are only 7 religous people who voted, which I doubt. Kind of confirms my notion that this is not a christian or religous belief but a pov.

 

[MobBoss]

there must have been many early societies without religion

Proof please.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

So, are serial killers just "mirror neutron" deficient?

I don't know, but are they all atheists ?
I really don't see your point.

 

[betazed]

Proof please.

What do you mean, "proof please"?

religion had to start somewhere. Right? At the starting point there were men, right? Humans are pack animals, so they had some basic society which comprised more than one man. So whatever society first thought of religion had ancestors - and their society - without religion.

How can you ask proof for such an obvious fact?

 

[Sidhe]

Proof please.

Why you refuse to prove the counter argument? Why should I? A few pages back you were claiming that religion came before morals with absolute conviction, you prove that without religion there are no morals and I'll find some proof for my assertion? So if you make a claim based purely on speculation it's OK, if I do it I need to prove it? I see where your logical arguments lie here. You layed the groundwork for speculation not me.

BTW that's a good point Betazed, but of course the first humans were Adam and Eve and everyone else came from them

 

[MobBoss]

What do you mean, "proof please"?

I mean if someone is going to say that there was an ancient society that was athiest in nature, then where is the archeological proof?

A link would be nice.

Why you refuse to prove the counter argument? Why should I? A few pages back you were claiming that religion came before morals with absolute conviction, you prove that without religion there are no morals and I'll find some proof for my assertion? So if you make a claim based purely on speculation it's OK, if I do it I need to prove it? I see where your logical arguments lie here. You layed the groundwork for speculation not me.

I did provide proof. My proof is the fact that there is no record anywhere of any ancient society not basing its society almost totally on religion. Bottom line, you have no basis to hang your point on, and no proof what-so-ever to back up your argument.

 

[spankey]

Is morality constant throughout time? Is it codified somewhere that most rational people can say "x is moral behavior, y is immoral?

 

[sanabas]

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.[/quote]

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.