Theistic and atheistic influences on society

[questor]

For those who denounce the idea of God, criticise the teachings of religion, and deny that their own morality comes from religious teachings, I have to wonder what type morality they really ascribe to? Why would one think their morality is superior to that which has been present in many societies for centuries? What does this person teach their children? Can they make a better world than religion taught properly? What is the ultimate penitence/punishment for this person?

[bonsaikc]

For those who denounce the idea of God, criticise the teachings of religion, and deny that their own morality comes from religious teachings, I have to wonder what type morality they really ascribe to? Why would one think their morality is superior to that which has been present in many societies for centuries? What does this person teach their children? Can they make a better world than religion taught properly? What is the ultimate penitence/punishment for this person?

 

I spent 15 years of my life in the ministry. From the age of 15 until I hit 30, I was a Baptist minister and pastor. After years of finding no answers to my real questions, and losing a family to divorce as a result of the struggle within (that's all the detail that I will provide), I left the church. I hung onto it for several years, thinking there was something there that might help me. I sought for a long time with a great deal of fervor.

 

I have come to an understanding of why I never got the answers I needed: I was asking the wrong questions. As an understanding of the true nature of the supernatural dawned on me, I realized that I am an atheist.

 

The fault is in your premise, not in the non-theist. Your assumption is that there are merely two alternatives, either religion or moral subjectivism. Both are to be rejected as flip sides of the same coin: the coin of human sacrifice. Religion demands that you subjugate your will, desires, and aspirations to the whim of a god. Your highest purpose is to serve god. In fact, the god of the Bible (and every other religion) deems human sacrifice as the highest good (Abraham and Isaac, anyone?) On the other face of that coin, subjectivism deems self-sacrifice (altruism) as the highest good, losing your self in serving others, (social subjectivism) or subjugating yourself to your emotions (moral relativism).

 

A third alternative is an objective morality, one based on facts, rather than fiat or feelings. For a very simple explanation of the basis for this morality, I highly recommend Craig Biddle's Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts That Support It. I regret that I cannot post links yet, but you know how to find it. Basing a morality on basic human needs, and requiring it to be based on facts rather than fancy, one can build a sincere, healthy, life-affirming morality that has the important things in common with much of religious morality (killing, stealing, etc.) minus the less valuable bits (guilt, sin, heaven, hell). I recommend the book, his explanations are so superior to what I could write it's silly.

 

My point is that religionists need to open their minds to another possibility: perhaps some of the good things in the Bible, for instance, are in there because they are good, rather than being good because they are in there.

[Moontanman]

I spent 15 years of my life in the ministry. From the age of 15 until I hit 30, I was a Baptist minister and pastor. After years of finding no answers to my real questions, and losing a family to divorce as a result of the struggle within (that's all the detail that I will provide), I left the church. I hung onto it for several years, thinking there was something there that might help me. I sought for a long time with a great deal of fervor.

 

I have come to an understanding of why I never got the answers I needed: I was asking the wrong questions. As an understanding of the true nature of the supernatural dawned on me, I realized that I am an atheist.

 

The fault is in your premise, not in the non-theist. Your assumption is that there are merely two alternatives, either religion or moral subjectivism. Both are to be rejected as flip sides of the same coin: the coin of human sacrifice. Religion demands that you subjugate your will, desires, and aspirations to the whim of a god. Your highest purpose is to serve god. In fact, the god of the Bible (and every other religion) deems human sacrifice as the highest good (Abraham and Isaac, anyone?) On the other face of that coin, subjectivism deems self-sacrifice (altruism) as the highest good, losing your self in serving others, (social subjectivism) or subjugating yourself to your emotions (moral relativism).

 

A third alternative is an objective morality, one based on facts, rather than fiat or feelings. For a very simple explanation of the basis for this morality, I highly recommend Craig Biddle's Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts That Support It. I regret that I cannot post links yet, but you know how to find it. Basing a morality on basic human needs, and requiring it to be based on facts rather than fancy, one can build a sincere, healthy, life-affirming morality that has the important things in common with much of religious morality (killing, stealing, etc.) minus the less valuable bits (guilt, sin, heaven, hell). I recommend the book, his explanations are so superior to what I could write it's silly.

 

My point is that religionists need to open their minds to another possibility: perhaps some of the good things in the Bible, for instance, are in there because they are good, rather than being good because they are in there.

 

Thank you very much bonsaikc, for your insightful intelligent take on this subject your post is among the most compelling I've read on this subject so far. I look forward to your continuing posts.

[questor]

When the average person does not believe in a higher being or a higher justice, what curbs his venal tendencies? If a person was born and lived with wolves, why would he not live by the law of the jungle? When a person is born of immoral people, does he not then embrace the same behavior he has observed? When a person tells me he has his own set of morals, I take a jaundiced look. When he tells me he has never used religion as his guide, I say what new morality has he invented? How are you going to improve on religious teachings? You may have had trouble believing the dogma and mythicality of whatever denomination you were, but you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in my opinion. I am not a believer in manmade

religions or theism, but I do believe the universe was created.

[Moontanman]

When the average person does not believe in a higher being or a higher justice, what curbs his venal tendencies? If a person was born and lived with wolves, why would he not live by the law of the jungle? When a person is born of immoral people, does he not then embrace the same behavior he has observed? When a person tells me he has his own set of morals, I take a jaundiced look. When he tells me he has never used religion as his guide, I say what new morality has he invented? How are you going to improve on religious teachings? You may have had trouble believing the dogma and mythicality of whatever denomination you were, but you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in my opinion. I am not a believer in manmade

religions or theism, but I do believe the universe was created.

 

I would say that i have a profound sense of morality in spite of religion instead because of it. How does your belief that morality is the result of religion square with your non belief in religions and how does you believing in a creator square with not believing in religion. You really do have me confused on this one. Oh yeah, have you ever considered that religion stole it's "morality" from humanity rather than gave it to humanity. Not only are the current religions much newer than the idea of morality the concept of morality goes far beyond our own civilization.

[REASON]

For those who denounce the idea of God, criticise the teachings of religion, and deny that their own morality comes from religious teachings, I have to wonder what type morality they really ascribe to? Why would one think their morality is superior to that which has been present in many societies for centuries? What does this person teach their children? Can they make a better world than religion taught properly? What is the ultimate penitence/punishment for this person?

 

If I were to walk up to you and punch you in the face for no reason, do you need a religious doctrine to confirm that what I did to you was an immoral act?

 

If I were to deface your property, would you need religion to know that it was wrong of me to do?

 

If I were to steal your goods, would it be necessary to look it up in a book to determine if what I did was wrong?

 

What if I had an affair with your wife, or molested your children, or killed your dog?

 

Morality does not emanate from religion, morality has emanated from a conscious desire to avoid behaviors that are recognized as in violation of others, not because there was a text that established it as so, but because it was clear that we didn't like those behaviors perpetrated on us. Such as; I felt it was wrong when he killed my cow, it is therefore wrong for me to kill his cow. I believe all genuine morality is based on the foundation of the Golden Rule; treat others as you would have them treat you. But this notion developed out of human interaction, and the conscious recognition that ones actions can have a positive or negative effect. The religious texts came much later, and used an all powerful god of some sort to give it authority.

 

I don't teach my children to be friendly and considerate of others because some religion said I should. I teach them that because I like it when people are friendly and considerate of me, and I know that it generates a positive reaction and provides fulfillment, pleasure, and makes life enjoyable not only for me, but those I am considerate of. I admonish them for treating others bad because I don't like when people treat me that way. It's really not all that complicated. I don't need religion to spell this out for me and neither does anyone else.

 

A societal code of ethics can be developed without the need of religious mysticism to give it credibility. We only need understand human nature, and human history.

[questor]

Moon,

How does your belief that morality is the result of religion square with your non belief in religions and how does you believing in a creator square with not believing in religion. You really do have me confused on this one.

Who dreamed up the concept of God, Allah, Buddha and the rest? Was it God? No, it was man. The ceremonies and dogma surrounding this concept are called religion. A creator may possess powers and qualities we cannot imagine, but probably few we attribute to God. Morality and religion grew up together as inseperable twins, but you cannot live in America without being exposed to religion and religious teachings.

 

Reason, do you deny you never had any religious teaching or contacts with religion as you were growing up? If you did have these contacts, do you deny they played no part in your development of morality?

[modest]

Morality and religion grew up together as inseperable twins

You are failing (perhaps purposefully at this point) to recognize the difference between these two:

1. Religion is a basis for morality
   
2. Without religion, there is no morality
   

When you ask a question like this:

When the average person does not believe in a higher being or a higher justice, what curbs his venal tendencies?

you imply that #1 and #2 above are equivalent. You then further the problem by bringing a "higher being" into the picture.

 

Would you not allow for the possibility that morality is a human concept first and a religious concept second? I realize you won't answer this question directly, but it's important that you know everyone here realizes you have arbitrarily ruled out this possibility and given no reason for doing so. It's a weird thing to rule out.

 

People can have empathy and compassion even if they don't fear hell - because empathy and compassion are first and foremost human characteristics. To arbitrarily rule out the possibility that these characteristics (as well as other aspects of morality) are independent of religion makes no sense.

 

but you cannot live in America without being exposed to religion and religious teachings.

 

This doesn't make your point. It's like saying everyone in America's morality is fundamentally derived from the moon because we've all seen or been exposed to the moon. Nobody is fooled by that kind of argument.

 

If you want to make the point that without religion there is no morality then you need to do more than point out that everyone is familiar with religion. That simply doesn't support the theme of what you're saying.

 

Reason, do you deny you never had any religious teaching or contacts with religion as you were growing up?

 

Do you not see the problem here? You're implying that being exposed to religion or having "contact" with religion makes it the source of morality. And you just keep saying this and asking it again and again. It goes back to post #3 in this thread where you said there was no altruism among atheists. The responses you've received from Craig, Moontanman, Reason, and most recently from bonsaikc and everybody else don't seem to advance the subject with you at all.

 

You just completely discount that morality can be structured on anything other than religion and at the same time completely discount all the different ways people are showing you otherwise.

 

~modest

[questor]

Modest, I hope this qualifies as a direct answer to this question:

Would you not allow for the possibility that morality is a human concept first and a religious concept second? I realize you won't answer this question directly, but it's important that you know everyone here realizes you have arbitrarily ruled out this possibility and given no reason for doing so. It's a weird thing to rule out.

YES, it is possible morality came first, but IMO, morality was not codified and written until religion was also present.

I don't think Neanderthal man was reluctant to bash in skulls, and some tribes even now may be cannibalistic. I believe the concept of morality came about with the adoption of religion by certain people. It is certainly obvious that all religions do not have the westerners idea of morality, but one of the basic teachings of most civilized organized religions is moral laws. I don't know where else you think it comes from.

This quote: {quote]People can have empathy and compassion even if they don't fear hell - because empathy and compassion are first and foremost human characteristics.

What proof do you have that compassion

and empathy are human characteristics? How do you explain the Nazis, the Jihadists, Stalinists, Ghengis Kahn, the Red Brigade? The billions that have died from conquests?

I did not say this:

If you want to make the point that without religion there is no morality then you need to do more than point out that everyone is familiar with religion.

. I said that morality comes mainly from religious teachings. Do you know what a non-sequitur is? I have no problem answering a clearly written question. Since I seem to be the odd man out here, I get A LOT OF QUESTIONS, many of which are redundant. I wish people could stick with what I say, rather than make up what they think I say.

A few questions for you:

Would you say you were born an atheist, taught to be an atheist, or just became one on your own? Were most of your peers atheists? Were any of your peers at any age religious? Were any of your relatives religious?

[Essay]

Sorry to barge in here, but....

 

Questor, good to see you're still around here. I sure grieve the past couple weeks that I've missed on here.

 

About morality (sorry I haven't read the whole thread) I'd like to say:

 

Morality is an emergent phenom. (like thought, etc.) and seems to be characteristic of only mammals (and maybe some reptilian/avian); and especially developed in the higher primates. But it is not exclusive to humans and so can't be a product of religions....

 

Look up (google) "mirror neurons" and I think you'll see....

 

Looking forward to more discussions after the election!!!

Whichever side wins, they'll need the help, wisdom, and skills of the other side.

 

~ :hihi:

 

p.s. Unless Obama starts generating some new buzz, I think McCain will win; but I sent Obama a suggestion about some phrases to use, so we'll see. I just got a reply back today; so not much time left!

[REASON]

Reason, do you deny you never had any religious teaching or contacts with religion as you were growing up? If you did have these contacts, do you deny they played no part in your development of morality?

 

My father is a retired Methodist Minister. My parents met at Seminary. I was baptized in the United Methodist church and attended regularly as a child until my parents divorced when I was almost nine, and then pretty much stopped going. During my high school years, I moved to Colorado to live with my father and again attended church regularly.

 

I do not deny that my experience with my parents and with the Methodist Church had an influence on my life. But I will tell you that my parents were very liberal in their approach to life and their world view, and scripture lessons were not a part of my education. I did not develop a sense of morality directly from the Bible. But I am not going to sit here and claim that the Bible or any other religious texts do not contain valuable moral lessons that can have an influence on people. They do. But I probably learned more of my sense of morality from cartoons and TV shows and from the my life experiences interacting with others than I did from my experiences in the church.

 

It is very conceivable to me that people could learn and pass on priciples of morality with no religious involment whatsoever. But no, I don't deny that religion is, and has been throughout history, closely associated with moral concepts throughout the world. But, ironically, much of the most horrible, immoral attrocities ever perpetrated on human kind has been done in the name of religion.

 

There is no guarantee that a religious society will be a more moral society. There are studies that have been referenced in this thread that demonstrate as much.

 

Religion is a source of morality, but it is not the source of morality.

[Essay]

Religion is a source of morality, but it is not the source of morality.

...again, sorry to barge in, but....

 

Would it be more helpful to say that... religion is a way of organizing, structuring, and delineating morality; but not the source of morality?

 

...except that a certain morality can emerge out of the basic moral structure of a religion....

 

Personally, I think morals as well as religions evolve from our mammalian, intellectual, and social natures....

 

~ :hihi:

[modest]

Modest, I hope this qualifies as a direct answer to this question: YES, it is possible morality came first, but IMO, morality was not codified and written until religion was also present.

You misunderstood my question. I'm wasn't asking you to accept that morality predates religion.

 

I'm asking if you will accept the possibility that morality is a product of our humanity. Morality is informed by our society, our upbringing, our wants and desires, our understanding of the world around us, our physiology, our language, our shared history and many other things (including religion) that have shaped us into what we are - both as individuals and as a society.

 

In your view of things, morality comes from religion and religion comes from humanity. This is overly simplistic to the point of being completely wrong.

 

I don't think Neanderthal man was reluctant to bash in skulls,

 

This is a very good point. Your simplistic view tells you that before religion Neanderthals would find nothing wrong with bashing in the skulls of their fellow tribe mates. That they would have no compassion toward their friends. That they wouldn’t share the food of a successful hunt. Of course, this isn’t the case. It was beneficial to evolve a sense of togetherness and fondness that made tribes successful. They had to work together to successfully hunt animals many times their size and speed. Tribes that traded with one another needed a sense of fairness when interacting to avoid hostilities and increase beneficial trade.

 

These things that have evolved over time into our ‘morality’ didn’t show up one day when Moses came down from the mountain. They weren’t absent until religion created them. They are part of what it is to be human.

 

I believe the concept of morality came about with the adoption of religion by certain people.

 

The Christian religion has had the same book (the same moral guide) for more than 1500 years and yet our sense of what is right and what is wrong has changed. This is obviously because other things such as our society, our knowledge of the world, our upbringing (the things I listed before) have changed. Our ability (and tendency) to see things as right and wrong is fundamental to being human. It is there in every healthy person. The things that we believe are right and wrong come from a whole host of factors (of which religion is only one possible factor).

 

It is certainly obvious that all religions do not have the westerners idea of morality

 

This, again, makes my point. Here in America, we have Japanese-American Shintoists, Chinese-American Buddhists, as well as Atheists, and those of the Middle-Eastern, Abrahamic religions like Christianity and Islam. Relatively and historically speaking, we share a remarkably similar sense of morality in this country. This is because religion doesn’t define morality. An Atheist can share the same fundamental moral beliefs as a Buddhist.

 

, but one of the basic teachings of most civilized organized religions is moral laws. I don't know where else you think it comes from.

 

Some religions have some moral laws and others have different moral laws. This doesn’t mean religion invented morality. You say "where else you think it comes from?"... well, what is it? Whatever it is, either it comes from God or it comes from humanity. I think you need to honestly answer this question.

 

This quote:

People can have empathy and compassion even if they don't fear hell - because empathy and compassion are first and foremost human characteristics.

What proof do you have that compassion

and empathy are human characteristics?

 

They are more than just human characteristics. I’ve seen Apes show empathy and compassion (or something very close to it). I saw an orangutan get beat up by a couple hostile outsiders. When the outsiders left the orangutan’s buddies huddled around the hurt fella comforting him - petting him - bringing him fruit - trying to make him feel better - showing something very similar to empathy and compassion. To think that these basic human emotions were invented by religion is disgusting. It is willful self-deception.

 

Christians want you to think there was a tree that gave us humans the knowledge of right and wrong. Before our ancestors ate from it they had no sense of morality at all. It is easy to see past this questor. Our sense of good and bad and right and wrong have slowly developed both physiologically and sociologically. It is so much greater than what some "profits" wrote down in a book.

 

The sayings of Confucius aren't true because he wrote them down and shared them. They were true before he wrote them down. They were human ideas that were learned over a million years of trial and error. They were lived and felt by people before Confucius or Lao tzu or Plato put ink to parchment.

 

God didn't write the 10 commandments - people did. God didn't give morality to people through religion. People gave morality to religion. People have been learning morality the hard way for a very long time. It wasn't some gift that showed up out of the blue called "religion". It wasn't an apple tree and it wasn't a list of commandments in Leviticus. Morality is an aspect of what it is to be human.

 

You asked how someone could possibly curb their venal tendencies if they don't believe in a higher power - it's because they're human!

 

~modest

[REASON]

...again, sorry to barge in, but....

 

Personally, I have never felt that your contributions and replies were anything resembling "barging in."

 

Please, "barge in" at will.

 

 

Would it be more helpful to say that... religion is a way of organizing, structuring, and delineating morality; but not the source of morality?

 

...except that a certain morality can emerge out of the basic moral structure of a religion....

 

Personally, I think morals as well as religions evolve from our mammalian, intellectual, and social natures....

 

~ :)

 

I believe it is most certainly helpful. These are all very concise points you make.

 

I would clarify, though, that your second point is a key aspect of understanding that not all religious morality is seen as generally accepted by society as a whole, and religious morality is not consistent among religions.

 

I have tended to reject concepts of morality that attempt to simply control behaviors where there is no offense perpetrated on someone, such as premarital sex among consentual partners for instance.

 

So while religion can provide a framework for moral guidance for some people, it should not be generally considered that all religious morality concepts are applicable to everyone, or infallible.

[REASON]

.....I'm asking if you will accept the possibility that morality is a product of our humanity. Morality is informed by our society, our upbringing, our wants and desires, our understanding of the world around us, our physiology, our language, our shared history and many other things (including religion) that have shaped us into what we are - both as individuals and as a society.

 

These things that have evolved over time into our ‘morality’ didn’t show up one day when Moses came down from the mountain. They weren’t absent until religion created them. They are part of what it is to be human.

 

Our ability (and tendency) to see things as right and wrong is fundamental to being human. It is there in every healthy person. The things that we believe are right and wrong come from a whole host of factors (of which religion is only one possible factor).

 

.....To think that these basic human emotions were invented by religion is disgusting. It is willful self-deception.

 

.....Our sense of good and bad and right and wrong have slowly developed both physiologically and sociologically. It is so much greater than what some "profits" wrote down in a book.

 

The sayings of Confucius aren't true because he wrote them down and shared them. They were true before he wrote them down. They were human ideas that were learned over a million years of trial and error. They were lived and felt by people before Confucius or Lao tzu or Plato put ink to parchment.

 

God didn't write the 10 commandments - people did. God didn't give morality to people through religion. People gave morality to religion. People have been learning morality the hard way for a very long time. It wasn't some gift that showed up out of the blue called "religion". It wasn't an apple tree and it wasn't a list of commandments in Leviticus. Morality is an aspect of what it is to be human.

 

You asked how someone could possibly curb their venal tendencies if they don't believe in a higher power - it's because they're human!

 

~modest

 

Excellent, modest! Very, very profound statements. Your clarity and understanding of this topic is remarkable.

 

As soon as I am able, I will be sending some rep your way for that post. I will not forget. :)

[InfiniteNow]

It's unfortunate that the response to the excellent set of posts above will very unlikely be as logical, well-supported, rigorously thought out, nor as well writ.

 

 

Faith is problematic precisely because it encourages and rewards a blindness and willful ignorance towards arguments like the one Modest has made above.

[questor]

If morals were naturally occurring, then everyone would have them. All you have to do is look at the world today and see this is not true. If cartoons are the genesis of morality, I guess morality did not exist until Walt Disney invented them. Why fight this obvious fact so hard? Most of the positive morality in our society comes from religion. It is true that some religions practice human sacrifice, maybe cannibalism, female circumcision or other atrocities, but I'm talking about civilized countries religion.