religion

Factual Questions
81

[quote]

I have found “act this way because that is the way you would want everybody else to act” to be utterly unconvincing. Of course I want everyone to be nice to me, but why should I care how they act to you? The bullies who beat me up in high school were not swayed by it, and neither am I. Do you own thing, as long as you can get away with it. Just because 3 billion people think stealing is wrong doesn’t make it so. What makes them any better than me?
Please tell me the “societal reasons behind the code” that you speak of. But don’t you dare say anything about how much better society runs when people don’t steal, because that’s the same guilt trip that you are accusing religion of.

[quote]

Well, you should care because of your own internal moral compass. Isn’t there something inside of you that knows that stealing is wrong, independent of the teachings of the church? If you think stealing is wrong simply because the mighty God tells you so, isn’t that just an example of might makes right? If hypothetically someone more powerful than God came around, with a different set of morals, would you switch?

I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but the “societal reasons” pretty much is what you described, about how society runs better. What’s wrong with that? And I don’t think I accused religion of a guilt trip, I think I accused it of being more of a fear trip. But you made a good point, that many people follow the teachings as guidance from a higher source, and not out of fear of hell. That is certainly better than fear. But still not as good as logic, in my humble opinion.

And even if both mechanisms used guilt, so what? I’m only trying to explain how I think that both a religious and non religious society can have the benefit of strong morals. If they both use similar mechanisms, that’s OK with me.

82

Revtim wrote:

Yes, I think I do agree with you. I think people’s morals are shaped more by their role models and the society around them than by anything they learn from books. Especially if you are phrasing the question in terms of can either be stronger than the other, sure, it is quite possible for non-religious society A to be equally or more moral than religious society B. On the other hand, if I saw a religious society acting amorally or immorally, I’d probably protest against labelling them as religious.

One question at a time.

  • I believe that a person’s “internal moral compass” is set at birth to neutral, and it moves one way or the other depending on that person’s experiences. It depends a lot more on the quality of one’s friends than on which religion he was born into. But for a borderline person, religion can be the rock which will make him better.

  • “Might makes right”? I tried to address this when I wrote <<< He can give us morals, and not because He is the Boss who threatens us with heaven and hell, but because He is the Creator who does know more than us, and because He created everything, he truly knows what is right, and what is wrong. >>>

  • “If hypothetically someone more powerful than God came around, with a different set of morals, would you switch?” As a monotheistic Jew, I believe the phrase “someone more powerful than God” to be meaningless. If there were indeed someone more powerful, then by definition, that is the God we were talking about to begin with.

  • I follow your distinction between a guilt trip and a fear trip, thank you. But when you say that neither is as good as logic, that’s where you lose me. I see no logic in the “this way society runs better” argument. Why is it my responsibility to make society run better. I’m gonna look out for myself and to hell with everyone else!

(BTW, I hope everyone realizes that I don’t really feel that way. I do feel responsible to society. Both because my religion teaches it, and because my environment teaches it. I was only saying what I might feel if I abandoned those teachings, and went with straight logic.)

83

Hey Keeves, I think we are finding a lot of common ground. What’s up with that? :wink:

I think when you say that in addition to your religion teaching responsibility to society that “your environment teaches it” as well, you are talking about some of the non-religious factors that can contribute to high morals.

I agree with what you said about the moral compass, starting at neutral. My hypothetical religionless society would have to be morally stronger than this one, to make up for the “rock” that is religion. I think the majority of responsibility would lie on the parents to set the compass in the right direction.

Our main disagreement seems to lie in the “this way society runs better” argument. I’ll try to explain my view on this.

I don’t think people consciously think “I shouldn’t steal that TV because it will contribute to the downfall of society.” I think that societies compete against each other in a “survival-of-the-fittest” manner, like animals in the wild competing for ecological niches. Societies with higher levels of cooperation will tend to compete better.

A Simplified Example: You have two countries at war, with virtually exactly the same resources.

The first country has high moral standards; a greater number of people that will not steal or kill because of their personal convictions. Let’s call this “Country 1”.

The other country is a cesspool of theft and murder, with no moral standards whatsoever. Let’s call this country “France”. Kidding! Call it “Country 2”.

Country 2 will have to devote more of it’s resources towards police and jails than Country 1 has to. Country 2 will have less resources to devote to the war, and will be more likely to lose. Therefore, Country 1 has out-competed Country 2, and Country 1’s society model has out-competed Country 2’s.

My point: If people don’t take it upon themselves to have a better society (whether it be about morals or anything else) their society will likely, in the long run, be replaced by one where the individuals do think about society before the immediate gain of immorality.

A society can compete better because it’s people are more moral due to religious influences.
Or, the people can be moral simply because their moral compass points in that direction, free of religious influence. These people’s society will also compete better than an immoral one.

84

Scary, isn’t it? :slight_smile:

(BTW, the UBB standard is to omit the hyphen to get the good smilies.)

I think your story about Country 1 and Country 2 might be summarized as “Honesty is the best policy.” In fact, I think that explains most or all of what you’ve been trying to say for the past few days. That is, when religion is out of the picture, one can still be a moral person, not for the altruistic reason of creating a better society, but for the selfish reason of personally benefitting from that better society.

If so, then your point is well taken, but please note the difference between long-term goals and short-term goals. Some people will work for a better society because it will benefit them in the long term. But a bird in that hand is worth two in the bush, and I think most people would choose a real and substantial personal benefit today, over a better society tomorrow, if they felt they could get away with it.

That brings us back to the fear factor. Hell is more severe, but jail is more imminent, so I’d say the fear factor is about balanced in the two systems.

And if we leave out the fear of punishment: A non-religious person will be good only if he has the inner strength to work for the long-term betterment of society. But the religious person will be good even for short-term goals, because each act is an independent “right thing to do”, simply because God wants it that way.

I love a good debate in which the participants refuse to back down from their principles, but will work sincerely to identify the exact points at which their principles diverge. Thanks.

85

Of course it contains quotes from the Bible. The original writers of the Book of Mormon had the Old Testament on brass plates up to 600 B.C.E., and they quoted from it because they felt that the message was important to preserve for future generations. The Book of Mormon is no more a forgery because it quotes from the KJV Bible than the KJV New Testament is for quoting the KJV Old Testament.
–Snarkberry

You know I like you Snark-- but
WHAT!? Brass plates? 600 BCE?

The point of the OP was that if the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been written before the KJV translation of the Bible existed, how could the Book of Mormon quote the KJV is precise language.

Which point is moot, because the Book of Mormon, if i understand the story, was originally in some obscure code, and was translated into English by Joseph Smith, so the English Book of Mormon is relatively recent.

Brass plates?

–Rowan

86

Revtim:

These are examples of communities that provide a shared goal. I suppose this is a “purpose” of a sort, but it’s not what I meant by that word. what I meant by that word was a sense of the purpose for which we were created. A secular individual might see a problem in society that no one has been able to solve, come up with the solution, and feel in his gut “I was put on Earth to solve this problem.” However, this sort of thing doesn’t seem to get translated to larger groups of people except through religion.

The closest anything has come to that, it seems to me, is Communism, but it didn’t have staying power…it might have provided a sense of purpose to a generation or two, but by the third generation, the feeling was gone, for the most part. Not only in Communist countries (which it could be argued were never truly communist to begin with), but even in small, communist societies such as Israeli kibbutzes.

Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

87

I must admit that I didn’t read all the posts here; I started too but they all started blurring together. I believe what I believe because it rings true in my soul. If what I believe makes me a better person and I can share that my beliefs with someone who is interested in why I am the way I am, cool. I’ve been reading a lot of CS Lewis lately (he’s been blowing my mind! What a great philosopher!) and it’s really helped for me to better understand why I believe what I believe.

I also think that it is human nature for that “clique” thing to arise, regardless if it’s high school or religion, hence denominations etc not to mention the intolerance of others who believe different than us. Our need to belong to something special makes us push others away or try to pull them in against their will. Sad, isn’t it?

Carpe Diem!

88

I wrote:

Rivkah Maccabi wrote:

Apparently so. Here’s a quote from a study guide to the B. of M.:

Rivkah:

Well, keep in mind that Joseph Smith’s Bible was the KJV. It makes sense to suppose that he translated the B. of M. in that language simply because he was used to scriptures being in that language. Every translation is influenced by the translator’s point of view and understanding.

Rivkah:

It was in “reformed Egyptian,” I believe. Yes, the English B. of M. came into existence in the early 1800’s when Joseph Smith translated it.

89

Keeves wrote:

A non-religious person can also consider each act as an independent “right thing to do”. Certainly religion can instill this into an individual, but so can parents, or even other external factors.
And thanks for the tip on the smiley, here’s a test: :slight_smile: :wink:

And cmkeller wrote:

It could also simply be that since the majority of people have a religion, then by probability the majority of “problem solvers” also have a religion. It’s not necessarily a cause and effect relationship.

It would be useful to somehow find out if the “problem solver” set has a higher rate of religion than the rest of the population. And also to see if the “problem causers” have a less rate of religion.

90

A quick correction on a couple of points.

1st, the Church never maintained that eating meat on Fridays was a sin. It was a rule of discipline only, a weekly reminder to Christians both that we are saved by Jesus’ sacrifice, and that we should have a little self-control. It was abolished precisely because it had acquired a silly reputation as a moral rule. (Of course, given that it was a rule of the Church, it was a sin to break the rule, but that’s not the same thing as being a sin in itself.)

2nd, the necessary link between religion and morality is not, “If we don’t have the Church to tell us how to be moral, we won’t be,” but rather, “What is the S.I. unit of Justice?” If right and wrong cannot be measured in any combination of meters, kilograms, seconds, degrees Kelvin, amperes and radians, then either there is no such thing as right and wrong at all, or there is a reality other than the realities of physical science.

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

91

Unless you can give good reasons to grant the a priori assumptions that: A) The Lord exists, B) he talks to people and C) he is infallible and always truthful, you have the weight of scholarship and redaction versus your own warm fuzzy feeling. Please.

92

Great discussion here. Thanks for the Mormon links, but they were clogged when I checked due to the new Mormon geneology database, I assume. I’ll keep checking.

Keeves & Revtim:

We must separate two questions under discussion here:

  • Why are we moral?

  • Why should we be moral?

The first is essentially a scientific question, to which we should apply our tools of wonder and inquiry. Those who have done this, psychologists, ethicists, sociologists, anthropologists, etc. are not generally of the opinion that it comes from a relationship with God or the supernatural. It would have been on the news. What they find is the usual combination of instincts and experience, nature and nurture.

It is a mantra of most religions that our instincts are basically selfish by default, and we need some absolute moral authority to guide us (either through threats, promises, or just through awe and respect, as Keeves suggests). But this simply isn’t true. Our instincts are very complex, and not fully understood, but it’s clear that they are not merely self-oriented and socially destructive as the vast majority of people believe.

We have a powerful instinctive desire for acceptance, for example. We want to fit in. From childhood we try to do what we need to do to get others to like us (the “Bill Clinton” effect?)

So we have instincts and experience as inputs, actual moral rules and behavior as outputs, and the black box known as the mind in-between. We should continue to apply our wonder and inquiry to the black box, but we know enough, I think, to tentatively conclude that religion’s argument (selfish instincts must be countered by a moral authority) is untenable (the fact that it’s also self-serving for religions may give us insight into why it’s asserted so absolutely, but that’s another topic).

Cultural relativism is on the ropes as theories go because it’s been shown that all peoples do have the same basic set of moral values, such as honesty, integrity, etc., regardless of religous belief. It’s also been shown that within any one society, strength of religious belief does not correlate with moral behavior. I will ask my aunt (who knows more about this stuff than I do) for citations if anyone doesn’t believe this.

The point is, if you assert selfish instinct as a default determinant of behavior, you must also accept the desire for acceptance as another one, and allow the possibility of other determinants as yet poorly understood.

The claim that absolute religious authority is necessary for moral behavior, or even improves moral behavior, is without evidence. Of course, any extreme ideology (religous or secular) can be used to override our values and make us monsters, but it’s clear that simply doubting the existence of God does not do this. At least I don’t think so.

In other words, you can say trees need a guide stick to grow straight up, and you can say they would grow all crooked and sideways without a guide stick, and it may even sound logical when every tree seems to have a guide stick, but that still doesn’t make it true.

93

Two points:

(1) I percieve the desire for acceptance as clearly self-oriented. No contradiction. Not sure what your point is.

(2) (a) I have never seen an infant who was not selfish. (b) I believe that inertia is not only a law in physics, but in sociology as well, and therefore an infant who is selfish (ie. everyone) will continue to be selfish upon growing up, unless acted upon by an outside force (such as a religious or legal system, as we’ve discussed above).

(3) I agree that, as you say, instincts are not well understood. I am very willing to consider other mechanisms. Did you have any specific ideas to suggest?

94

You still fail to see my point. The question I am raising is not: “Do we need the Church to guide us?” but: “Is Reality so constituted that propositions on the order of: 'Rape is wrong,” are meaningful?"

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

95

If the desire for acceptance is self-oriented (i.e. accepting your definition of self-oriented here), then, if it’s also true that helping others is necessary for acceptance (which is likely in any social system), then helping others must be self-oriented!

This is the difference between selfish and self-oriented. The latter term is difficult to define exactly, but it’s clear that even if my instincts alone were to cause me to risk death to save a drowning baby (or insert your own altruistic act), it could still be defined as self-oriented, because it satisfies my instinct. I think your argument (Keeves) requires that the instinct be selfish and uncaring about others. If everybody’s instincts (self-“oriented”, if you like) add up to normal human moral values, then there’s no need for a higher authority; that’s the point.

I think you are claiming that all human instincts are selfish, not just self-oriented. Any evidence?

No, different instincts kick in at various stages of development, so this argument is patently untrue.

Again infants may be selfish (actually I prefer your term “self-oriented” here) at first, but children at a young age display modeling behavior and a drive for approval and acceptance from parents and other role models. Their behavior is a result of interactions between these drives. This is true regardless of religious teaching (and starts before the concept of God would really make sense to a child anyway, I think).

Children who grow up without being “acted upon by an outside force (such as a religious or legal system…)” are feral. The outside force is 1. Everbody else and 2. Their values. Children raised in a box are amoral and have no ability to function. We develop as we do because of our interactions with others and a mixture of self-oriented (but not necessarily selfish) instincts. The fact that it makes a child feel good to be approved of (say, but helping with chores) doesn’t mean it must have been a selfish act.

So children pick up the values of their society because they need to to satisfy their instincts, for better or worse.

But why would a godless society have atruistic values for children to pick up? This is the real question.

I suspect it has to do with adults realizing that their best chance for getting their needs met is working together on common goals with values of caring and helping. Revkin has gone into this, I think. But even if a person doesn’t think about the values, they still pick them up from their society. In fact, they pick them up as children, then think about them (maybe) as adults.

If I rebel and steal, not only could I get arrested, but I will also feel bad because I violated my own value system.

To be proud of myself I must care about others. And it’s in my self-oriented interest to promote those values in others, including the young. In fact, the value system includes feeling proud about promoting the value system, at least it seems to.

My one shred of evidence: my experience is that 90% (a statistic I just made up right now) of the ethical teachings parents give their children are things that are selfish to the parent, and are taught because the parent wants the child to express that value right now. “Be good,” they teach. Only partly because it will help the child, but also because it helps the parents meet their own immediate needs.

96

John W. Kennedy writes:

It is not clear to me who is being referenced by the word “you”, so I’ll offer my feelings on this question:

I see two mutually exclusive possibilities: (A) Reality does have an objective Right and Wrong, although humans may or may not be able to know what it is and/or agree on what it is. (B) Reality does not have any objective standards for Right and Wrong, although individuals may have their own subjective standards, and societies may be able to establish such standards for their members.

My feeling is that Right and Wrong cannot be quantified like mathematics, and no amount of discussion can establish anything objective in ethics. We might come to a consensus of agreement on certain issues, but that would be a practical set of agreed-upon rules. It would not be part of the way Reality is constituted, to used John W. Kennedy’s words. An objective definition of right and wrong in Reality can only come from One Who is outside of us, and above us.

Therefore, to the question of <<< Is Reality so constituted that propositions on the order of: 'Rape is wrong," are meaningful? >>>, I will now answer:

I do believe that God did create Reality so that the proposition “Rape is wrong” is both meaningful and true. Without a belief in such a God, it does seem that most (all?) societies have agreed to consider rape as wrong. However, I can imagine certain individuals who would place a great deal of importance in survival of the human species, and if they were unable to find willing mates, they might consider it “right” to rape someone, if it were done in a sufficiently non-violent manner. Society would consider him wrong, but Reality would abstain from having an opinion.

97

Axel Wheeler writes:

I truly sorry to be such a cynic, but I just don’t see things as you do. Kids who are lucky enough to grow up in a decent environment will probably turn out as you say, but not everyone is lucky enough to be in such an environment.

There are lots of dog-eat-dog-type human societies out there where no one can be trusted, and everyone is out for themselves, and there is not a chance in hell that anyone will feel bad about stealing. Certainly not after they’ve stolen a few times. Even the first few thefts, some of them may feel bad, but others will just note that their priorities have changed, and ya gotta do what ya gotta do. (“Gangs” and “mobs” are just two if the words we often use to describe such societies.)

One might argue that in the very long run, those values which keep homo sapiens alive twenty thousand years from now can be declared the winner. Those are the values which have proven successful. Those values define Right and Wrong. But that would be a fruitless attempt. Which are the values that have kept us around for the past twenty thousand years, I wonder…

98

This makes me crazy! Why argue something that is so utterly personal? Something that no two people will agree on?

Go back and read the posts by Nickrz! He (she?) makes sense!

No wait - I’ll do it for you…

“Nobody has to tolerate my religion, because I keep my yap shut about it. You can believe
what you want to believe, it’s all the same to me - just don’t get in my face with it.
Tolerance made simple?”

How aptly put. Religion should remain each person’s individual choice. I was brought up strict Catholic. However, as I got older I began to see things wrong with the church. I still maintain some of the beliefs I was raised with, however, I no longer follow the teaching of that organization. My god is my god. Simple. You have your beliefs, I have mine. And, nothing you say can change mine. (And I wouldn’t even attempt to try to change yours).

I loved Nickrz’s addition to the thread:

“The Church of the Holy Frisbee. That’s where your soul goes up on the roof and you can’t get it down.”

Have some fun, people!!!

99

Axel Wheeler said:

Interestingly, Susan Blackmore discusses “the altruism trick” in regards to memes in her new book, The Meme Machine. Her thesis, for those unfamiliar with the term, is taken from Richard Dawkins’ coining of the term “meme” in his book, The Selfish Gene. Basically, the meme is thought to be a replicator – like the gene – but a replicator of ideas and concepts instead of DNA and the like. And like genes, memes are acted upon by the forces of natural selection. So those memes which are more likely to get copied survive.

This is where “the altruism trick” comes into play. If a meme includes behavior that is altruistic, it will be more likely to spread (according to her theory). This is why (again, according to her) religion has spread so well – because it often includes a great deal of altruism in it; the better to replicate. An interesting theory, at least.

“What can be more deluding, or even dangerous, than false comfort that blinds our vision and inspires passivity?”
– Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages

100

You don’t need to go that far for your hypothetical. Rape is frequently committed, suggested and condoned in the Bible. So to whatever extent rape is wrong, the god of the Bible does not consider it so in all circumstances.