What would be better than religion?

[YogSothoth]

I’m going to answer this from an atheist psychologist’s perspective, as the latter is my field of study

My hypothesis is simply that religion is natural to human development and built into human psychology. It is no more or less universal than love, violence, maternal instincts, or jealousy – it is just as basic as these, but any individual human may exhibit or even control in themselves any or all of these to greater or lesser extents.

The universal pervasiveness of religion, to me, is less a function of innate human psychology than a function stemming from other aspects of the human mind. What I mean is, I dont think there are general foundations already in place for all of humanity that makes us more susceptible to religion specifically, but rather general foundations exist for us to be predisposed to certain types of thinking, of which religion is only one. I say that because religion is very very specific. There are tenets and canon and dogma usually followed, and Jung’s generational memory notwithstanding, that type of thing is unsupported by science. You couldnt pass down through your genes a preference for paper vs. plastic, or red vs. blue, for example, and neither can your genes tell your descendants to join a church or not

Just as those traits, however, I think religion is almost as important as humanity’s inquisitive nature in molding human culture. I think it is important as a starting point and, as it develops, as a series of guidelines for civilized behavior.

Here is where I differ from the religious. I agree completely that religion can spark curiosity and promote altruism, but I disagree that it is an inherent function of religion. What I believe is that religion’s social networking byproduct is the foundation upon which such shared mythology proliferates. People see the overt religious doctrine, but miss the underlying groupthink bias that generates the feelings of comraderie

I reject any notion that religion itself serves a mitigating function for the wild instincts of greed, hate, anger, or other negative emotions commonly associated with us atheists. Proof of that is easy to see: One doesnt have to be religious to be good, and plenty of good people are not religious. Plus, religions differ wildly, and good and evil are found where even the most esoteric religions are dominant. No Jesus is required for good

It is unfortunately true that religion has some very bad sides. It also seems true that these bad traits spring from its good ones: for example, though a religion might preach repsonsibility for one’s community, thereby bringing one’s fellow religious under one umbrella, the Them outside the Us are almost inevitably a source of some level of disdain, whether at the level of ‘Poor misguided fools’ or ‘Kill the heathens!’ They seem as inextricably wound up in religion as they are in human nature.

Speaking from a psychology standpoint, such traits are easy to explain. They are general human conditions expressed through whatever lens we happen to have at the moment, whether religious, political, scientific, or otherwise. Religion is simply an easy target because it is so pervasive and has such a long history that it is difficult to imagine a large group of people existing for a significant amount of time that was never touched by religion

But that’s my point and my question: would we really be better off without religion? More importantly, what would replace it, both now and in the past? Would an explanation of the scientific method work for early Man? It might explain where his fire comes from, but it might not explain why he should not kill his neighbor and steal his wife. “Because it’s the wrong thing to do” and “Because you’ll regret it” don’t even work on modern enlightened adults most of the time. What can we use to replace religion – again, both today and in the past – that would work better for morality, for art, for culture, for civilization?

Yes, we would be better off with religion. I say that with all honesty but with caveats. First, if someone’s going to say to me “well religion does good things too”, save it. I know it does. And second, if that person’s going to complain about science as flawed, then save that too. I know it is. My beliefs take that into account

Why would we be better off? Because what I believe the foundation of religion to be, that of common human group bias and communal closeness, can exist and does exist without religion. You do not need preachers telling you to love in order to feel love, closeness, and tradition. If the good aspects of religion can exist without it, doesnt it logically follow that divorcing religion from those feelings and replacing it with something better can generate the same feelings?

I dont know if science could have made a better substitute for early man. Probably not, because at that point, we understood little and feared much. Just like you wouldnt teach advanced science to kindergarten children, early man would have probably been confused and frustrated had they tried to base their beliefs in science. It is a proven fact that in general, both people and animals experience frustration when they cannot understand something and when things are out of their control. The list of uncontrollable, unknowable things for early man dwarfs modern uncontrollable and unknowable things.

However, I do believe that it is no coincidence that as man learns, religion and traditions seem to take more of a back seat. Psychology explains that by noting that as more understanding is achieved, and more knowledge gains, superstitions fall or lessen. It is the same way with children and their beliefs in stuff like Santa or the Easter Bunny. If a child grows up believing in those things, smacking them out of their illusion may be damaging. But there arent many teenagers who are traumatized when they realized its dad dressing up as Santa, or mom slipping the quarter beneath their pillow. As children grow to adults, so can the analogy be made to early man and modern man.

But science has achieved a lot in the past few millenia, and I believe that had religion not been dominant in the world, we would have been ready for the transition hundreds of years ago. Widespread discovery and belief in atoms and the makeup of the cosmos would seem to shatter some large blockages of tangible things that the common Joe would question. Thus I think a more scientific based way of thinking can definitely replace religion

The first response from religionists is always: Science gets things wrong, how can people trust something thats constantly being revised? While its true that one comfort of religion is its immutability, the comfort of science is that its factual and provides evidence. Also, naysayers to science have history on their side. They can easily point to thousands of years of civilization who were religious and did great things and say that it is to religion’s credit that they prospered. To those people, the simply retort would be that things are the way they are because we’ve never had a period dominated strictly by science and without superstition. How can a fair assessment be made using history as the only judge? The fact is that right now, science is a demanding, exacting enterprise, and religion’s unchangeable tenets have shown it to be the superstition it had always been. Its more clear now and will be more clear in the future as religion loses its iron grip and science extends theirs.

Lets face it, there will always be good and bad examples of each, but to have a fair comparison, you must look at the basis of each belief. Even if science gets it wrong, it corrects itself. In fact, its very nature demands it to be so. If religion gets it wrong…well, I dont want to be snarky, but some of us believe it to have been wrong for thousands of years. When will it start correcting itself?

And one little anecdote: I was having dinner with two dear, dear friends who happen to be Catholic. We were discussing religion’s place in our lives, it being one subject we can be civil about at the table. I will remember my friend’s eyes and the tension in his voice when he explained to me: “I need God. I need religion. I need to believe there is some final judgment at the end. If I didn’t believe in Heaven and Hell, I’d do whatever I wanted – lie, cheat, steal, kill, all to get what I wanted in the world if I figured I could get away from it. I could get away from people, but I couldn’t get away from God. I don’t know what I’d do without my beliefs.” You might agree this is a very sad state of affairs, but what would you do for people at this stage of development if religious thought never entered their lives?

That IS sad, but there is certainly many others who would say the same for each religion, or science, or drugs, or math, or sex, or sugar, or beef. There will always be crazy people, but revolving beliefs around the lowest common denominator is a poor way of justifying existence. Had religion not been around, many people would be going crazy killing and raping and pillaging. But can we not agree that speculation is at the very least, equal to assuming that without religion, a great deal many people would be better off, healthier, more moral, less divisive, etc.? Why does religion get a monopoly on the good and the rest of us get scraps?

As a counter anecdote, I will tell you that when I was younger, I was more religious. But that had to do with the fact that I was less knowledgeable and feared god more than I loved him. Since being an atheist, I never have to credit someone else for doing good, and I take responsibility when I do ill. I believe firmly that no god watches and judges me in life or death, yet when presented the opportunity to do wrong, I pass. I am not perfect, but yes, it is perfectly fine to say that some of us, perhaps more than you realize, do good things and avoid bad things simply because we feel its the wrong thing to do. Having rejected god, morality, and all religion, my own personal morals are stronger than ever. I dont know where I got them, maybe its a leftover from when I was religious, maybe its my parents’ doing, but I am a better person now having sworn off religion than I ever were. Why cant there be an equal case made that religion is holding us back with traditional ideas of divisiveness?

[Sinaijon]

@Der_Trihs

< shrugs > History shows pretty clearly that it is, on average. That’s certainly a “rational” reason.

No it isn’t. You are arguing from the wrong view point. For us, it’s quite obvious that we are benefiting from certain behaviors from our predecessors. IE, we benefited because a whole bunch of soldiers took a bullet to the head in the Civil War. But from their perspective, what did they gain? Absolutely nothing.

So tell me… If you were trying to convince a bunch of people to take bullets in the head for your benefit a hundred years later, what rational reason would you give? Why the hell should they do it?

[DSeid]

@rivulus

[Discussing how secular rules seem to invariably follow from religious ones] Invariably? Where is your evidence for this?

From prehistoric times groups of humans have invoked religions to justify codes of behaviors. The most widely accepted secular axioms today come out of the Enlightenment, some filtered through America’s founding fathers and were clearly birthed within a religious milieu.

Even ITR’s claims fail here: Marxism did indeed originate out of religious axioms and the basics of Marxism were entirely compatible with basic religious axioms. IMHO it failed not because it was so radically different than the religious systems that it replaced but because it was so horribly naive about the dark side of human nature. But that is a different debate.

Secular and religious systems both have been abused and used to create systems of personal power, to divide against an “other” - and have both been used to create good in this world. Both continue exist only insofar as they meet the basics of human nature - in each direction.

[Lobohan]

@ITR_champion

Actually, I’m right.

“Quote smack” apparently means to mislead by presenting a carefully chopped up quote out of context.

Now let’s turn to somebody with actual intellectual honesty.

Speaking of intellectual honesty, you just attributed a staff report to Cecil. Hmm… sort of like attributing the gospels to Christ’s entourage.

And speaking of carefully chopped up quote:

When all is said and done, Krueger says that anecdotal evidence from those close to him near the end of his life suggests that he was a at least a deist, if not a theist. Krueger concludes: "So here’s what evidence we have. There is a certain worldview, Nazism. Its leader, Hitler, professes on many occasions to be religious, and he often states that he’s doing the will of god. The majority of his followers are openly religious. There is no evidence anywhere that this leader ever professed to anyone that he is an atheist. He and his followers actively campaign against atheism, even to the point of physical force, and this leader allies himself with religious organizations and churches. This is the evidence. So where does atheism fit in?" As Krueger notes, there seems to be no real evidence that Hitler was an atheist. On the other hand, since one could never be sure when he was speaking his real thoughts and when he was simply riling up the masses, it’s difficult to say for certain.

Emphasis mine.

Seriously, you’re just embarrassing yourself at this point. Stay down!

So now that we have that established, you’ll obviously refrain from further attempts to mislead people on this issue.

I don’t hold out hope, but a good person of the book would keep from bearing false witness.

You’re good at repeating this claim, but thus far you’ve failed to defend it.

Well lets see… there is no evidence to support the belief for a god and every culture on earth has made up contradictory stories about what he, they or she would be like and want… You kinda have to make that choice in ignorance don’t ya?

Here you’ve got one thing right: atheists like Lenin (and Stalin and Mao etc…) did indeed punish anyone who spoke out against them.

Christian church Approx 400 CE to 17th century CE.

Of course, in Christian countries nobody does so. We have free speech. So far from being an “analog” (I’ll grant it’s not a digital, yuk yuk), it’s the exact opposite situation.

Might this have to do with the Christian countries being rich and all first worldy?

Your apparent belief that total censorship and free speech are exactly the same would fit feel in Orwell’s world. Which, you’ll recall, was ruled by atheists.

Way to win a point with fiction. The Jedi Council says that Christ couldn’t super jump and was thus their inferior.

Cite?

The bible is a work of fiction by primitive people. There is nothing within it to suggest otherwise. In fact, the creation story presented there is so off target that it strains credulity that it was inspired by a supernatural creature that actually knew what happened during creation.

No.

Would you slice your son’s foreskin off because Abraham said to?

Apparently your atheist thinking has lead you to incorrect conclusions yet again.

And your massive ignorance and unwillingness to think has generated some truly worthless posts.

[Der_Trihs]

@Sinaijon

No it isn’t. You are arguing from the wrong view point. For us, it’s quite obvious that we are benefiting from certain behaviors from our predecessors. IE, we benefited because a whole bunch of soldiers took a bullet to the head in the Civil War. But from their perspective, what did they gain? Absolutely nothing.

They gained the Union not disintegrating, and the approval of their fellow Americans at the time.

Frankly, I think they gained more than we did; I think that the rest of America would be better off without the South.

[ITR_champion]

@Blalron

You frequently bring up Communism and Nazism when talking about secular idelogies. I think the unspken implication you’re trying to make here is that secularism will always result in horrible stuff happening.

That is not at all what I was trying to say. As I said:

“In some places, people acknowledged that they were restoring the Christian ideal. In others, they avoided direct mention of the fact.”

There are secular countries where “horrible stuff” is kept to a minimum. However, the people of those countries have reached a general consensus on what sort of stuff is horrible. It is now agreed by all but a lunatic fringe that people should not be killed or sterilized just because a scientist declares their genes to be unfit. It is now agreed that the government should not stage a glorious proletarian revolution, seize everyone’s property, and redistribute it to the workers. We rarely stop to take note about it, but both these ideas were well within the mainstream of western thought about 100 years ago.

So my position therefore is this. It is possible to have a secular system of morality for a society that provides stability. However, to do so, the moral rules have to be fairly similar to what they already were, before people began building brave new societies in the early 20th century.

[ITR_champion]

@Lobohan

Seriously, you’re just embarrassing yourself at this point. Stay down!

Eh, I’ll just post a link to the Straightdope column:

Was Hitler a Christian?

I’ll let the teeming millions read it for themselves and decide which one of us is embarrassing himself. And as for the rest, if you want to continue hurling juvenile insults be my guest, but don’t expect me to care.

[ITR_champion]

@Revenant_Threshold

Private property ownership is the Christian ideal?

There is actually nothing unusual about this claim at all. The defense of private property in Christian philosophy goes way back to the Middle Ages and many people have believed that there’s a direct connection between Christian belief and private property. In his book The Servile State, Hilaire Belloc shows that the dissolution of the monasteries in England also threw a large number of ordinary English farmers off their land, and the gradually growing power of the state relative to the church led to more and more people being deprived of property.

More relevant to this discussion, though, is that by the early 20th century, when socialist movements were in full swing in every European country, the two sides generally lined up with secularists favoring socialism and the more dogmatic Christians being against it. (Early in the 19th century socialist movements were largely Christian.) The Catholic Church and Church of England were against seizure of property. Prominent atheists like H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Bertrand Russell were for it. (To his credit, Russell did later speak out against the Soviet Union.)

Like I said, current legal codes don’t really seem to have kept up with the ten commandments. Moreover, i’d say the vast majority of our laws aren’t correct or incorrect as far as Christianity goes at all. Beyond that, I seem to recall you have an interest in Catholicism; do we, for example, allow a criminal to go entirely free, should he express remorse for his crime? We’re still quite a long way short from the Christian ideal, to general approval. I imagine, actually, that my own view for what society should be like is more fully matched by society (British, anyway), than it does with your own particular vision of the Christian ideal; the question is, are those points on which you and agree asserted to because they are Christian, or because we agree to them?

Let’s look at what the Catholic basis for law actually is. Here’s what Aquinas has to say on the subject:

"The Law is framed by the governors of the nations and as such must be framed for all men, for a law which men may choose to obey or not obey would be no law at all.

…

And as the law is framed for the mass of men who are not perfectly virtuous and cannot be, I therefore argue that the purpose of the law is not to eliminate all vice and ensure perfect virtue among all, but rather the purpose of the law is to eliminate those vices which cause widespread harm and disruption, such as murder, theft, and the like."

So when I look at the current beliefs in political philosophy, it seems that most people from any religious viewpoint are in general agreement with what Aquinas says here. The purpose of government is to use its power to prevent violence and destruction and ensure stability and society. While there’s still disagreement about the details (do we need to ban cooking oils with trans fats or not) the grandiose schemes from the previous century, where governments set out to reshape the nature of society and humanity, have gone down the tubes, and we’re back in the general area of what Aquinas envisioned.

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@Der_Trihs

They gained the Union not disintegrating, and the approval of their fellow Americans at the time.

Frankly, I think they gained more than we did; I think that the rest of America would be better off without the South.

This does not follow. Even if we accept that America would be better off “without” the South, what did the soldiers gain personally from dieing?

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Der_Trihs]

@Vox_Imperatoris

This does not follow. Even if we accept that America would be better off “without” the South, what did the soldiers gain personally from dieing?

I expect that they had no intention of dying. As for what they had to gain; as I said, the approval of others. And not being shot for running away.

[DSeid]

@ITR_champion

It is possible to have a secular system of morality for a society that provides stability. However, to do so, the moral rules have to be fairly similar to what they already were.

I can sign on to that, but the results of slight differences can be dramatic. As an example, compare the societies under religious rule before Enlightenment and the societies that sprang up consequent to ideas of the Enlightenment.

To the point of this thread, many secular postulates (such as human rights) may have emerged from and been similar to many religious precepts, but they do not rely on “revealed truth” for their justification.

Religion is not at this particular point in history necessary to provide a justification for behavior that is widely agreed to be moral and ethical. Socialization is achieved with or without explicit religion. Most behave or do not behave without particular immediate consideration as to the effect on their immortal soul.

Even “prosocial” and altruistic behaviors, including going to war and risking death, are accomplished by those whose values are not religious in origin. In point of fact there are atheists in foxholes. Some people just do what is right because, well, because it is right. Not out a selfish calculation that it is their eternal best interest.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@ITR_champion

There is actually nothing unusual about this claim at all. The defense of private property in Christian philosophy goes way back to the Middle Ages and many people have believed that there’s a direct connection between Christian belief and private property. In his book The Servile State, Hilaire Belloc shows that the dissolution of the monasteries in England also threw a large number of ordinary English farmers off their land, and the gradually growing power of the state relative to the church led to more and more people being deprived of property.

That’s an odd claim to make. Private property ownership, as an ideal, was still kept - if it wasn’t, then the state could not own it. This wasn’t example of the state deciding to take over land and enforceably make it public, this was the King deciding that he wanted it to be his property. It’s the same reason theft isn’t an example of communism; by the very nature of the thing, there could be no theft in a truly communal society. For their to be theft, for their to be stealing the grounds of the Church by the state, the concept of private property very much needs to exist and be recognised.

More relevant to this discussion, though, is that by the early 20th century, when socialist movements were in full swing in every European country, the two sides generally lined up with secularists favoring socialism and the more dogmatic Christians being against it. (Early in the 19th century socialist movements were largely Christian.) The Catholic Church and Church of England were against seizure of property. Prominent atheists like H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Bertrand Russell were for it. (To his credit, Russell did later speak out against the Soviet Union.)

Again, seizure of property is not against the concept of private property ownership unless it’s being seized for the public trust (or, at least, in the name of the public). If I steal your hat, it is because I want to own it and I want you not to own it.

Out of interest, however; why is this point more relevant to this discussion?

Let’s look at what the Catholic basis for law actually is. Here’s what Aquinas has to say on the subject:

"The Law is framed by the governors of the nations and as such must be framed for all men, for a law which men may choose to obey or not obey would be no law at all.

…

And as the law is framed for the mass of men who are not perfectly virtuous and cannot be, I therefore argue that the purpose of the law is not to eliminate all vice and ensure perfect virtue among all, but rather the purpose of the law is to eliminate those vices which cause widespread harm and disruption, such as murder, theft, and the like."

So when I look at the current beliefs in political philosophy, it seems that most people from any religious viewpoint are in general agreement with what Aquinas says here.

No, i’m afraid I disagree, and moreover I feel you’re missing out the factor of purpose. Certainly I would agree that a lot of people, religious and irreligious alike, are against those vices which cause widespread harm and disruption. But there are also laws designed to protect us from ourselves; against drug usage, or prostitution, for example. Your Fifth Amendment, that helps in defining the rights you have to keep your private property, also provides protection against incriminating oneself. And I disagree with what you ascribe to the motives of “most people from any religious viewpoint” to be with regards to the law; the problem is that most religious people tend to think their religion is a good thing. So there are two scenarios; either their religion, being itself a good thing, is included in that idea, and widespread harm and disruption therefore includes that which is against or not of that religion, in which case any law that does not fully comport with the teachings of that religion would be against that person’s political views. Or their religion is exempt from that decision, not considered when taking into account “widespread harm and disruption”, and no religious person may use their beliefs when judging the law, which (at least to me) doesn’t seem all that likely nor honestly a good thing to ask of someone.

Out of interest, may I know where you’re quoting Aquinas from?

The purpose of government is to use its power to prevent violence and destruction and ensure stability and society. While there’s still disagreement about the details (do we need to ban cooking oils with trans fats or not) the grandiose schemes from the previous century, where governments set out to reshape the nature of society and humanity, have gone down the tubes, and we’re back in the general area of what Aquinas envisioned.

If you want to claim general area, then be my guest, i’d agree with that. But we’re pretty far from it, and what Aquinas envisioned there doesn’t appear to be the Christian ideal.

I noticed you didn’t care to answer my question on the ten commandments. Are they not as close the ideal as is Aquinas?

[cosmosdan]

@YogSosoth

I’m going to answer this from an atheist psychologist’s perspective, as the latter is my field of study
The universal pervasiveness of religion, to me, is less a function of innate human psychology than a function stemming from other aspects of the human mind. What I mean is, I dont think there are general foundations already in place for all of humanity that makes us more susceptible to religion specifically, but rather general foundations exist for us to be predisposed to certain types of thinking, of which religion is only one.
I say that because religion is very very specific. There are tenets and canon and dogma usually followed, and Jung’s generational memory notwithstanding, that type of thing is unsupported by science. You couldnt pass down through your genes a preference for paper vs. plastic, or red vs. blue, for example, and neither can your genes tell your descendants to join a church or not

I really appreciated your post.

Even though we may not pass on belief genetically certainly the influence of family and friends can be very strong in either a positive or negative way.

Here is where I differ from the religious. I agree completely that religion can spark curiosity and promote altruism, but I disagree that it is an inherent function of religion. What I believe is that religion’s social networking byproduct is the foundation upon which such shared mythology proliferates. People see the overt religious doctrine, but miss the underlying groupthink bias that generates the feelings of comraderie

I agree. Looking back at my own journey through Christianity it’s clear that I accepted things with a lot less questioning because I liked the people in my group and liked the feeling of belonging to a group that talked a lot about a higher purpose. I see that same influence in others. If a certain group holds a place of high importance in your world and your own self image then questioning the groups beliefs is threatening.

Yes, we would be better off with religion. I say that with all honesty but with caveats. First, if someone’s going to say to me “well religion does good things too”, save it. I know it does. And second, if that person’s going to complain about science as flawed, then save that too. I know it is. My beliefs take that into account

Why would we be better off? Because what I believe the foundation of religion to be, that of common human group bias and communal closeness, can exist and does exist without religion. You do not need preachers telling you to love in order to feel love, closeness, and tradition. If the good aspects of religion can exist without it, doesnt it logically follow that divorcing religion from those feelings and replacing it with something better can generate the same feelings?

Even though I agree people can and do operate just fine without religion I’m not sure we can say, logically, that means everyone would be better off without it. Whats works for you and others may not be what would work for someone else.

However, I do believe that it is no coincidence that as man learns, religion and traditions seem to take more of a back seat. Psychology explains that by noting that as more understanding is achieved, and more knowledge gains, superstitions fall or lessen. It is the same way with children and their beliefs in stuff like Santa or the Easter Bunny. If a child grows up believing in those things, smacking them out of their illusion may be damaging. But there arent many teenagers who are traumatized when they realized its dad dressing up as Santa, or mom slipping the quarter beneath their pillow. As children grow to adults, so can the analogy be made to early man and modern man.

Perhaps as man grows his sense of what purpose religion serves will change. Letting go of traditions and dogma that tend to be divisive may not mean letting go of God belief altogether, but a relaxing of rigid dogma.

But science has achieved a lot in the past few millenia, and I believe that had religion not been dominant in the world, we would have been ready for the transition hundreds of years ago. Widespread discovery and belief in atoms and the makeup of the cosmos would seem to shatter some large blockages of tangible things that the common Joe would question. Thus I think a more scientific based way of thinking can definitely replace religion

I don’t see how. I think science can and should challenge some of the factually incorrect traditions and mythology of various religions but parts of religion speak to the emotions and our consciousness in a way science can’t.

The first response from religionists is always: Science gets things wrong, how can people trust something thats constantly being revised? While its true that one comfort of religion is its immutability, the comfort of science is that its factual and provides evidence.

Religion has constantly changed as well even though many believers may not realize it. It’s supposed to be that way. If we want ourselves to grow personally and as a people we must be willing to embrace new information, new experiences , and allow those things to change us.

Lets face it, there will always be good and bad examples of each, but to have a fair comparison, you must look at the basis of each belief. Even if science gets it wrong, it corrects itself. In fact, its very nature demands it to be so. If religion gets it wrong…well, I dont want to be snarky, but some of us believe it to have been wrong for thousands of years. When will it start correcting itself?

If you’re under the impression that it isn’t already doing that you’re mistaken.

As a counter anecdote, I will tell you that when I was younger, I was more religious. But that had to do with the fact that I was less knowledgeable and feared god more than I loved him. Since being an atheist, I never have to credit someone else for doing good, and I take responsibility when I do ill. I believe firmly that no god watches and judges me in life or death, yet when presented the opportunity to do wrong, I pass. I am not perfect, but yes, it is perfectly fine to say that some of us, perhaps more than you realize, do good things and avoid bad things simply because we feel its the wrong thing to do. Having rejected god, morality, and all religion, my own personal morals are stronger than ever. I dont know where I got them, maybe its a leftover from when I was religious, maybe its my parents’ doing, but I am a better person now having sworn off religion than I ever were. Why cant there be an equal case made that religion is holding us back with traditional ideas of divisiveness?

The fact is that what works for one person may not be what works for another. If your path to being a better person means leaving religion behind that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing or the better choice for anyone else. It’s also a matter of personal timing. I passed through Christianity to a place I feel is much better for me but I still feel like I’m on a spiritual path. That’s what works for me. If someone else feels more comfortable still involved then good for them. I wouldn’t propose that my chosen path is a better one for them.

[truthpizza]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Supposing I accept for the moment that “most morality is promoted by peer values”. It still raises an obvious question, where did those peer values come from originally and how did they progress over time?

I was addressing the question of whether religion was necessary to propagate morality, and I don’t think it is. As to the question of whether religion is necessary to originate moral principles, it certainly doesn’t seems so. I doubt that God is the originator of principles like sacredness of cows or not eating shellfish or wearing burkhas. People made these up. Anybody can invent a principle that somehow serves his or her preferences, and if other people also like the principles, they’ll get propagated. No doubt high priests and kings (or others with power or charisma) have an advantage in pushing principles, and they may be fairly necessary for pushing absurdities like the need for strange rituals. However generally beneficial principles like working for the common good are likely to be encouraged by most of the population. Mothers are probably underappreciated as key players in promoting moral values.

[tomndebb]

ITR champion and Lobohan, keep your discussion focused on the points to debate and knock it off with the personal needling.

[ /Modding ]

[Zoe]

Lobohan: To sum up, I accept the basic sense of morality instilled by nature in the same way I accept that grabbing a rock out of the fire is bad. Nature has in both instances provided feedback to shape preferable behavior.

Is grabbing a rock out of the fire immoral? Why does nature instill its moral lessons only in human beings? Or do you think that the behavior of other animals can be labelled moral and immoral?

[Lobohan]

@Zoe

Is grabbing a rock out of the fire immoral? Why does nature instill its moral lessons only in human beings? Or do you think that the behavior of other animals can be labelled moral and immoral?

Morality is what nature has provided us to live in large groups. People are mostly at peace with their own tribe. So are chimps. If a bison went nuts and killed the rest of the herd while they slept it would be bad for him.

Elephants help the sick to get to water. Is that close enough?

Morality IMHO is the “play nice” circuitry that allows a bunch of crafty apes to work together and build superhighways.

Stupider animals still play nice in their natural groups, why would we be different?

[DSeid]

Zoe and Lobohan - many other creatures follow various behavioral guidelines that allow for social function. There is even some evidence that some have a sense of “fairness”. But one is hard-pressed to call those “morals” for precisely the reason that morality is not just “what nature has provided us to live in large groups.”

Morality may be best analogized to language. Clearly we are hard-wired to learn a language as we grow and a language that follows some particular sorts of rules and structures. But within that hard-wired framework exist much culture-dependent variability - from tonal languages, to Bantu clicks, to the Semitic languages, to English, and so on.

Similarly moral systems have some basic structure many of which are no doubt part of what is wired into us as a predisposition to learn and believe given the most basic exposures, but the specifics of those structures nevertheless can have a good deal variation. Religious often did encourage human sacrifice before Judaism came up with the novel idea that such was not actually what God wanted after all. Now that concept which was so widely the norm is so anathema that we read the Bible story in which we are taught that God does not want that after all with confusion as to how Abraham would have even considered sacrificing is son.

Having rules that are so culture-dependent is morality, even though the basic structures of moral codes may be evolutionary adaptations.

[cosmosdan]

@truthpizza

Originally Posted by ITR champion

I was addressing the question of whether religion was necessary to propagate morality, and I don’t think it is. As to the question of whether religion is necessary to originate moral principles, it certainly doesn’t seems so. I doubt that God is the originator of principles like sacredness of cows or not eating shellfish or wearing burkhas. People made these up. Anybody can invent a principle that somehow serves his or her preferences, and if other people also like the principles, they’ll get propagated. No doubt high priests and kings (or others with power or charisma) have an advantage in pushing principles, and they may be fairly necessary for pushing absurdities like the need for strange rituals. However generally beneficial principles like working for the common good are likely to be encouraged by most of the population. Mothers are probably underappreciated as key players in promoting moral values.

The thing I’ve been wondering about is what would replace the group function of religion. There is something very powerful about coming together as a group with a sense of purpose. Granted the purpose isn’t always a positive one but I think think the group purpose has a lot to do with Christian charities. Most of the churches I’ve ever attended has some charitable branch doing some work as part of their ministry. Even if we were to replace religion with something without superstitious dogma I think the group purpose portion of religion needs to continue.

[truthpizza]

@cosmosdan

The thing I’ve been wondering about is what would replace the group function of religion. There is something very powerful about coming together as a group with a sense of purpose. Granted the purpose isn’t always a positive one but I think think the group purpose has a lot to do with Christian charities. Most of the churches I’ve ever attended has some charitable branch doing some work as part of their ministry. Even if we were to replace religion with something without superstitious dogma I think the group purpose portion of religion needs to continue.

People can find a lot of meaning in various individual causes and charities but I agree there’s certainly a place for organizations that promote positive social behavior in general. People may or may not want to call these religions, but as long as they don’t assume some unproven supernatural power is on their side, they could be very valuable. Unitarians come to mind as a group like this. Groups that claim supernatural approval may be more highly motivated, but they’re also far more likely to go off in harmful directions, so I’d be happier without them.