Which came first, religion or morality?

[ironduck]

Fair point that. Do they still fit the definition of social animals? Makes for another question too, is it intelligence that enables animals to live in highly social groups, or is it a complex society that enables intelligence to develop & increase? Could it be that ants, bees, other hive-type societies just haven't happened to evolve the trick of increasing intelligence?

I think it's fair to say that these strict hierarchial societies are limited in their complexity relative to free societies (in comparison) like those of complex mammals. By maintaining a hard coded behaviour the animals limit their ability to grow and adapt - to invent. I wouldn't call them social in our understanding, but it is certainly a society of relatively complex interaction.

I'm not sure about the intelligence part, because fairly complex language can still be developed in these strict systems (bees are a good example), so I wouldn't rule out the ability of such a system to grow further in terms of intelligence, but I do think they're bound to lag way behind a system that frees the individual to improve the situation. An analogy similar to how a democracy tends to encourage free thought and growth more than a despotism, I suppose. Just on a whole different scale.

 

[sanabas]

I recognize that the question is very close to the old "which came first. The chicken or the egg" situation.

However, given that I dont know of a single society that does not have some form of religion as part of its base makeup, its hard for me to believe that morality came before religion. At least the type of morality that we view as morality.

What about non-human societies, especially other primates? Can they exhibit moral behaviour?

Just because religion has had a large impact on shaping today's societies, and the morality of many of today's people, doesn't mean that those societies couldn't have started off with morals but without religion. I can see how morality exists & develops without religion, I can't see how religion exists & develops without a moral code. If you can, please explain it in more detail.

How do you think religion originated? When do you think religion originated? Does it predate living in groups?

In ancient civilizations, it very well could be seen as moral to destroy your enemies and take their land from them to ensure the survival of your tribe. Not something we would say is moral today.

I don't think today's morals are all that different. I think the bigger difference is that today when we think of 'people', we think of all humans. 200 years ago, 'people' didn't cover all humans. i.e. Australian aborigines weren't considered equal to british 'people', and so it was moral to do what you wanted to them. That's the same moral code that says it's ok today to take the land that various animals are living on in order to build a new block of units, it just affects a different group of organisms that are viewed as 'not as important as us.' Same for ancient civilisations, ancient tribes. Morality says don't harm important people, those not as important (i.e. other tribes back then, other cultures 200 years ago, other species now) are fair game.

Thus, I would submit that our modern view of morality certainly came after religion/religious beliefs.

Obviously, as it is a modern view of morality. But did our current, modern view of morality suddenly appear fully formed, or has it developed over time?

 

[shadow2k]

Look at primates. Their social behavior is not chaotic. They know not to kill their siblings, and to obey their parents. And they don't need some belief in God to make it all happen. Obviously they have squabbles, and even murder each other on occasion...but that's the exception, not the norm. Same as with people.

Even the arguments about aboriginal people not having any morals are false. It's in their societal structure. Respecting the eldest tribe members, or whatever their morals may be. Their moral values might differ greatly from yours or mine, but that's a far cry from having no moral values at all.

Morality came first.

If you believe the story of the Garden of Eden, then man learned morals by eating from the Tree of Knowledge would have been the first time man became aware of morality I'd think. Not 4-5k years ago.

 

[ironduck]

If you believe the story of the Garden of Eden, then man learned morals by eating from the Tree of Knowledge would have been the first time man became aware of morality I'd think. Not 4-5k years ago.

Given that man ate from the tree of knowledge about 5000 years ago I don't understand what your objection is?

 

[sanabas]

I'm not sure about the intelligence part, because fairly complex language can still be developed in these strict systems (bees are a good example), so I wouldn't rule out the ability of such a system to grow further in terms of intelligence, but I do think they're bound to lag way behind a system that frees the individual to improve the situation. An analogy similar to how a democracy tends to encourage free thought and growth more than a despotism, I suppose. Just on a whole different scale.

Makes sense. I think physiological limitations probably have an effect too. It's hard to see individual insects growing in intelligence, simply because it's hard to see them developing enough computing power. The possibility of them developing more intelligence as a group is a very intriguing one though.

 

[ironduck]

Makes sense. I think physiological limitations probably have an effect too. It's hard to see individual insects growing in intelligence, simply because it's hard to see them developing enough computing power. The possibility of them developing more intelligence as a group is a very intriguing one though.

Yes, that's the funny thing about it.. it's like they're working as a genetic computer network where each member's intelligence is irrelevant, but the combined abilities of the society is increased through evolution.

Maybe life on other planets could be like that.. could be scary to try to communicate with

 

[El_Machinae]

Keep in mind that none of my neurons knows how to type, but as a collection, they clearly do!

I'll try to find an example of a bird learning criminal behaviour. It was pretty cool

 

[El_Machinae]

Some of the jays in the laboratory had criminal histories of snagging food that another bird had buried. The researchers let the criminal jays as well as ones with clean records hide treats. When the birds stashed their seeds in private, they didn't take opportunities to move their treasure to a new hiding place. However, if the researchers let another bird get near enough to watch the caching, the criminal jays took the next opportunity to recover the treat and hide it in a different place. The birds with no experience of thievery didn't recache.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040214/bob8.asp

 

[ironduck]

I'll try to find an example of a bird learning criminal behaviour. It was pretty cool

Ravens are master criminals!

 

[shadow2k]

Given that man ate from the tree of knowledge about 5000 years ago I don't understand what your objection is?

The time mentioned was based on another posters estimate of when organized religion came about. That's what the date was in reference to. And the two completely conflict.

If you want to debate the age of the earth, it should probably be in a different thread.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

All quotes c&p from the thread on trusting atheists.

That's easy, morality came first, then religion. The reason is that ancient religions had little if any comment about morality. The ancient Greek religion, for example, had no moral requirements. It saw obesiance to the gods as its own morality. In fact, the gods and even the heroes of Greek myth were considered the worst examples of morality even by the Greeks' own admission!

Ancient morality was considered a matter of pragmantism. The Romans, for example, during the period of the Republic, believed that virtue required that a man serve the interests of his family, to benefit future generations, and serve the state, to benefit everyone in it, including himself. This included acquiring wealth and property to bequeath to his sons as well as serving in battle and politics to increase the power and prestige of the state. Matters relating to unsanctioned harm of a citizen and capture of private property were regarding as being the regulation of a matters of the state, ie. law. It was not really a matter of morality, as there are plenty of instances of state sanctioned killing (gladiatorial combat). The ancients looked upon these as customs that were commonplace because of the need to regulate society.

When monotheist religions came on the rise, these ideas were subsumed to a religious notion of morality and internalized. In fact, religions like Christianity introduced no new morality whatsoever, but spun the ancients as being morally bankrupt.

 

[GenMarshall]

Religion came first, hands down. Then morality comes next.

 

[shadow2k]

Religion came first, hands down. Then morality comes next.

Any reasoning behind that at all that you'd care to share with us?

 

[ironduck]

The time mentioned was based on another posters estimate of when organized religion came about. That's what the date was in reference to. And the two completely conflict.

If you want to debate the age of the earth, it should probably be in a different thread.

I don't understand why you can't see the obvious. God made man about 5000 years ago, and that's when religion came around. Duh!

 

[ironduck]

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040214/bob8.asp

I just read that article - I had read about the points brought up before as well, and it's really fascinating how these birds operate. The more experience they have with cheating the more they suspect other birds of cheating, and the more complex methods they develop to counter-cheat the cheaters!

 

[El_Machinae]

As a duck, I thought you'd benefit from learning that you shouldnt' trust those geese.

 

[ironduck]

The geese? I've never met a goose I couldn't trust!

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Religion came first, hands down. Then morality comes next.

Sorry, had to.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Morality definately came first. Religion was in some cases made by the moral as a sort of justification of the morals (morals are their on justification IMHO). There is no doubt that religion has been used to fuel ilmoral acts such as crusades, witch burning, genocides and anything else. Therefore it makes sence that that religion is a tool and no tool exists before a purpose. Morality came first.

 

[ironduck]

Just to add a bit.. given that religion fulfills different purposes in different places I don't know how anyone can truly think that religion came first - unless they think that morality did not / does not exist in places where religion did not define morality.