Social Statism

[Loppan Torkel]

So conclusion, it is wrong to say that people have to be religious to be moral.

'More' or 'less' is of some importance here..

But right, that they need to uphold one of the key ingredients of religion.

So, do you believe religion can be disposed without much consequence?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Question. Do people feel atttacted to a religion because it mirrors their moral values, or do they get their moral values from religion?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Ideally the latter but in reality the former (until often it becomes an illogical mess of the 2) . But heh , I'm an atheist and my beliefs are an illogical mess so I'm not taking the high ground here

 

[Tee Kay]

Question. Do people feel atttacted to a religion because it mirrors their moral values, or do they get their moral values from religion?

Both?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I think it's both most of the time, but if the moral values changes over time and start differing from the religious texts, it will probably be tough to keep the same faith in them as before.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Because of course morality has to "transcend the logic of power". Who is even seriously arguing something different? Otherwise it is just self-righteousness in disguise.

Any particular view of morality will make transcendent claims, for sure. What I'm talking about, though, is the ongoing creation of morality where there is no transcendent authority available to justify those claims. In that case, what else can guide the long-term development of moral belief other than power and interest?

I don't get what this has to do with atheism and its relation to morality.

Because the above question is one that atheists have to address if we want to argue that religion should be removed from the picture, without leaving ourselves open to the dangers of relativism (where, ultimately, might always equals right).

What can we learn from religion with regards to how to develop and preserve morality?

That we need fictional tales proclaimed as the unquesitonabl truth to legitimaze morality? I hope not.
That people are only moral because they expect to be remunerated for it? By holy salvation, passing on to heaven or whatever. Again, I hope not. Or rather, I hope the satisfaction of being and acting moral suffices.
That we need to cherish this morality in ritualized collective meetings? Probably helps a lot in deed, enforcing the individual codex by collective reassurance. A new humanist, atheist religion perhaps which offers a frame for such? I think that might be necessary to preserve morality. But it would require a very smart concept I am not sure does exist. Because where would such an religion draw is legitimacy from? Why should people give a damn? My answer: What established religion offer, as well: Support, understanding and help in practical matters. I think if humanity managed to establish such an enlightened form of religion, it would really be something.

But I think the most basic demand of morality is not something we need to look at religion to spot. It is IMO spot-able enough - which is the faith in something that is bigger than oneself. An ideal, which is adhered without wanting an immediate return in this life. And interestingly, that does sound very religion-like. But it is an religion without all the "silly" baggage attached to it. The pure essence of what can make religion a force for good. Ideals taking priority over immediate tangible gains.
So conclusion, it is wrong to say that people have to be religious to be moral. But right, that they need to uphold one of the key ingredients of religion.

You misunderstand me if you think I'm saying that we need to preserve religion itself. My point is that, if we as a species are going to do without religion, we need to start thinking as you do here, looking at the vast array of examples that religion provides us to draw out those aspects that might be better preserved (or reinvented) than discarded.

Also, on a side note, in developing a better understanding of the value of certain religious ideas and practices, we atheists can often find common cause with those believers for whom the transcendent moral aspect gives religion its essential value, and who regard blind adherence to dogma with a disdain similar to our own.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

'More' or 'less' is of some importance here.

Not for my general statement.

So, do you believe religion can be disposed without much consequence?

No. Has morality to decline? Again, no. When we look at so complicated procedures within society where a multitude of factors come into play which all influence each other, sweeping statements like that usually are nonsense.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Both?

Indeed.

What would mr. Adams make of that?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Not for my general statement.

Perhaps not, but who is even seriously arguing something different? Did John Adams go that far?

No. Has morality to decline? Again, no. When we look at so complicated procedures within society where a multitude of factors come into play which all influence each other, sweeping statements like that usually are nonsense.

Why? I'm not trying to frame you or anything. Of course there is much to consider, but it's just a simple question whether you believe that if religion was taken out of society, in some future - would the moral be upheld or even be bettered through other organizations, institutions or through human nature alone?

 

[BvBPL]

If a country begins abandoning God and loses its self-restraint collectively in its population as a result, is social statism where the State has to take over and start legislating and enforcing more and more social mores via law a necessary step to avoid anarchy and the collapse of society?

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

In short, was Adams right?

There is no direct correlation between statism and religion. One extreme on one axis does not necessarily lead to any extreme on another axis. There are statist countries with strong civil religions, such as Iran or many other theocratic governments through the ages, and there are non-relgious (or anti-religious) statist governments as well, such as the PRC. There are also non-religious, non-statist governments such as the Dutch and religious, non-statist governments such as the Pennslyvania colony. There is no direct link between the religious views of the state, or even the religious views of the people, and the country's stance on statism.

I don't think the Adam's quote you cite addresses the notion of statism whatsoever. Consequently, I'm unsure where you're coming from.

 

[Traitorfish]

Alternatively, we can reject the idea that 'might makes right', and aim to preserve a view of morality that transcends the logic of power. In doing so, I believe that religion is the very first place we should look, since it offers so many examples of how a transcendent morality can be developed and preserved in the face of powerful, self-interested opposition. Likewise, by examining where religion has been corrupted and diverted from its transcendent aims, we might be able to guard against those same dangers ourselves.

Shouldn't our starting place for ethics be, well, ethics? Certainly, religious thinkers will play a part in that, but that's not really same thing as "religion"- whether in the sense of theology of ritual practices. I don't think it's self-evident that, say, Kant or Butler should take automatic priority over Aristotle or Mill.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Going on from Winston's post, we need to get the same mechanics that exist in religious thinking to be active in a similar construct within social thinking.

If one can be inspired to be morally just in the name of some God, it must be possible to raise awareness for that same feeling of justness in the name of the desire for well-being for our fellow humans.

This would be a superiour sense of justness since it always works towards the improvement of the society we live in, where-ass this isn't always the case with religious doctrine, in which sometimes the means become the ends when one is championing their specific brand of religious thinking versus other brands and the big picture is getting counselling because it doesn't get the attention it feels it deserves.

Unfortunately this has the same weakness as the sort of society the pure Libertarians advocate.

The weakness being our own selfish, ego-centrical selves. Once we learn how to stop being complete and utter bastards, this might actually work.

About the same chance of success as building a base on the moon in the next 8 years.

 

[stormerne]

Question. Do people feel atttacted to a religion because it mirrors their moral values, or do they get their moral values from religion?

There's no universally applicable answer to that. It depends on the person and it depends on the religion. It depends what a person wants from a religion.

Some people are undoubtedly attracted to a religion because it reflects their moral values. But this is an effect you can observe in many things - politics, sports, music fandom - because you get reassurance that you're right if you find a bunch of people who believe as you do.

Others may, for example, seek inspiration, or peace, or an end to their suffering and may arrive at a religion because of that. Their morality may (or may not) be influenced by their new found religion.

 

[innonimatu]

Question. Do people feel atttacted to a religion because it mirrors their moral values, or do they get their moral values from religion?

Shouldn't that depend mostly on whether they converted to the religion, or were "raided into" the religion?

I really don't see someone adult going "I feel like I should be... christian today. I'll check the bible to see how I should behave". It's more either "this looks like what I already like, I'll join the group", or "you'll go hear the catechism today, Jimmy". And mind the priest, don't let him get alone with you!"...

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Morality is older than religion. Our human and even pre-human ancestors couldn't have survived without it. Even other primates exhibit a basic understanding of fairness within their communities. Perhaps if Adams had been born some decades later and lived to see Darwin's work, he might have a different tune.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Shouldn't our starting place for ethics be, well, ethics? Certainly, religious thinkers will play a part in that, but that's not really same thing as "religion"- whether in the sense of theology of ritual practices. I don't think it's self-evident that, say, Kant or Butler should take automatic priority over Aristotle or Mill.

Ethical philosophy certainly has a role to play in the examination of existing moral beliefs and the inspiration of new ones, but it is subject to some pretty major limitations.

For one thing, the adoption of first principles on which to base ethical inquiry is notoriously tricky, and we have no guarantee that any such principles we might adopt could not be contradicted by other, equally plausible, principles yet to be imagined. Even when we settle on a set of principles, the process of working them out into a vision of practical morality is fraught with further difficulty, given the mess of bias and instability that is moral language.

More important to the present point, however, is the fact that we humans almost never act as if our morality is derived from philosophical principles, and are much more willing to judge philosophical arguments about morality by their 'fit' with our existing moral beliefs than vice versa. Leaving aside the question of whether (or, more precisely, when) this is the wrong way to look at things, it's clear that philosophy today is nowhere near capable of developing and sustaining a general sense of morality under its own power, and not at all clear that it will ever be able to do so.

It's more either "this looks like what I already like, I'll join the group", or "you'll go hear the catechism today, Jimmy"

These are undoubtedly two of the main reasons, but there are many others. For example, as I alluded to earlier, some people come to religion because they recognise the need for greater moral structure in their own lives, and the local temple is the only place offering it to them.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

If a country begins abandoning God and loses its self-restraint collectively in its population as a result, is social statism where the State has to take over and start legislating and enforcing more and more social mores via law a necessary step to avoid anarchy and the collapse of society?

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

In short, was Adams right?

No, and I suspect you are misquoting Adams anyway, because he also states in the Treaty of Tripoli that the US is not a Christian nation. So much for religious people.

In any case, the argument is flawed on numerous grounds. For one, since when have states had self-restraint? They go to wars and oppress their people without a moment's hesitation, even all the while claiming divine sanction. For another, states enforce various social mores at their own discretion, and only to their own benefit. It was beneficial, for example, for thousands of years, for the state to enforce the superiority of kings and aristocracy, so that the people would continue to comply with their demands and work for them. That does, indeed, avoid anarchy but not for the lofty reasons of betterment of the people as a whole. I'd also challenge you to offer an example of social statism ever happening, because it sounds rather made-up.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Any particular view of morality will make transcendent claims, for sure. What I'm talking about, though, is the ongoing creation of morality where there is no transcendent authority available to justify those claims. In that case, what else can guide the long-term development of moral belief other than power and interest?
Because the above question is one that atheists have to address if we want to argue that religion should be removed from the picture, without leaving ourselves open to the dangers of relativism (where, ultimately, might always equals right).

Actually, we already have such a transcendent authority independent of religion. It is called human rights But I concede, that this sketchy first secular try leaves a lot to be desired.
But anyway, it seems by "transcendent authority" you mean some universal source of morality. Am I getting this right? So you think a "free market competition" of moral concepts is bound to fail and we need this central common source?

You misunderstand me if you think I'm saying that we need to preserve religion itself.

I don't. And I think I see now where exactly you are coming from (as explained above).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Perhaps not, but who is even seriously arguing something different? Did John Adams go that far?

Don't really know about Adams, but at least in the US it seems to be a view held. In Europe, at least openly, not at all. That's true.

Why? I'm not trying to frame you or anything. Of course there is much to consider, but it's just a simple question whether you believe that if religion was taken out of society, in some future - would the moral be upheld or even be bettered through other organizations, institutions or through human nature alone?

I am certain that without religion morality won't just vanish. After all, we already have plenty of social structures where religion is a marginal note of culture to prove so.
Still, I can not possibly answer the second part of your question. It depends on the society. I can say that the ideal way a society IMO should and in principle also can look like does not involve religion, at least not one with supernatural aspects and that is in principle what I aim for, but how things actually would unfold with regard to morality? That surely is no subject to a simple rule enabling me to predict it for every society.

edit: sorry for the double post - it's a bad habit

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Instead, we find today that organisations such as political parties, corporations, unions and charities play a far greater part in the creative process than do individuals, performing many of the same functions as religion when it comes to engendering attitudes by both influence and example. Preeminent amongst these organisations, by virtue of its power over so many aspects of life, is the modern state. Under authoritarian and undemocratic systems, the myths and fictions that support regimes in power often take on the force of religious dogma. Under more liberal and democratic systems, the process of creation is more reflexive and consensual, but the development of common myths and fictions through the state's performance of its duties is still incredibly potent.

With all respect, Winston, that is no different than what was done in times of old. The role of the official state religion was to justify the authority of the ruler and ruling class. And the usual gimmick was to claim divine establishment of authority on earth in the form of the king. Morality was of secondary importance and only relevant when applied to maintain the state's control of both the wills and hearts of the people. Controlling the minds of the people by internalizing a notion of morality was useful in a society that didn't have widespread media and surveillance technology, ensuring that the people behaved in a predictable manner, especially one that benefited the state. All that has changed today is that this form of indirect mind control has shifted from the church to other sources. (But even there, televangelism still allows some hold to be maintained.)

All that morality has ever been is an internalizing scheme to maintain an orderly and cohesive society, and quite often used and abused by the state for its own selfish purposes, benefiting itself at the expense of the people as a whole. Where necessary morality ends and state-enforced morality begins is not always easy to distinguish.