Morals.

[Edge]

How can they be absolute and yet different for different religions and cultures? They have to either be absolute or relative. One or the other. My previous post, stated that I believe they are absolute, above the thinking of man, determined by a God which I believe created us and the laws we live by.

Let me restate, I believe they are absolute... the morality on other cultures and religions have wrong points... including christianity... it's relative over all the world... yet, there must be an absolute code for morals, and surely that does not come from christianity.

 

We gotta define morality first, though.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Edge:

Do you think that religion is a necessary factor in order to have morals?

 

Or to explain it better: do you think that morals came from religion?

Thanks for putting me into this thread. I agree with what Tormod said: there were people prior to there being a religion and therefore, assuming that morality was involved in their survival, they were moral or we wouldn't be here today.

But that implies that we could have systematic morality without a religion and as much as I'd like to believe that could be true , I don't think it is.

 

We abdicate morality to the church which, if you think about it is just fine with them - and I think that has had disastrous consequences because science/reason and the church/religion have been mutually exclusive. Morality has never had a scientific foundation and it needs one, oh how it needs one.

 

The problem is to define virtue and a moral code and keep sacrifice and pain and death out of the equation. We do not have an organized religion for that and we need one. We need to equate logic and reason with virtue. If we don't do that and soon, well, we might not get the chance.

 

We have to redefine morality and connect rationality to religion. We need to remove any mystical aspects that require we submit to a higher authority because that ALWAYS involves some person or group with a direct line the the almighty.

 

The only authority we should submit to is our conscience, at least spiritually that is. Laws limiting human action are by definition guidelines of morality, without them we can't survive and function together. But the laws of the land reflect the moral codes of the prevailing religious beliefs of that country. And so, the nuts and bolts differ depending on where you are. If we are all human and if our survival depends on morality, then the nuts and bolts should be the same everywhere.

 

The only way I can see of bringing peace to our world is to create a religion based upon rationality. Show people that we can be good and do good without resorting to sacrifices or deceptions of any kind. As long as truth can disrupt a religion it will be ignored. Truth should enhance religion, not be antithetical to it.

[Chaos13]

Anyone who agrees that morality comes from religion has very low morals

Throughout history religion has been directly tied to murder, torture, rape, and injustice for people. Puritans killed anyone they thought was not a believer. They would throw women in a lake and see if she would float or sink, if they floated they were witches, they tortured and killed any witches. They set women on fire and if she didn't die at first, then they said she was a witch. Japanese kamikazis killed themselves and as many Americans as they couldn because of religion. There are several more examples of this, but how can any morals of people in our society today come from religion. Is it okay to have children with your mother? According to the Bible, it is.

[Kriminal99]

Edge:

The only way I can see of bringing peace to our world is to create a religion based upon rationality. Show people that we can be good and do good without resorting to sacrifices or deceptions of any kind. As long as truth can disrupt a religion it will be ignored. Truth should enhance religion, not be antithetical to it.

 

:confused:

 

I agree 100%. I think that such a religion is easily possible, but I disagree that science alone will be able to handle this task any time in the near future. I think that to do this large jumps in reasoning are necessary to reach something such that someone needs a great deal of room to theorize without the constraints of proving every step along the way according to formal scientific standards - along with their economic requirements (But not without proving them according to perhaps as of yet unforseen logical standards similar to how things are proven with mathematics)

 

I think the real appeal to a religion based on rationality as far as world peace is concerned is the fact that it should have the ability to convince/convert people much more efficiently than any other religion.

 

And If you want to make a worldwide appealing religion based on rationality, what you need to do is start with information that no human being can dispute and build a religion which is coherent with this information. But nothing so complicated and learned as the scientific method will suffice as a starting point. The answer is basic perception. The religion needs to be deductively reasoned (no crazy generalizations) from what everyone can see to be true regardless of their level of education, age etc. Something they can see just by percieving the world around them and looking at how they think as they do it. This means starting with statements like "We can see that we can form ideas like unicorn by taking the horn of a goat and visually placing it on the head of a horse as suggested by its placement on the goat" and their meaning and slowly, mechanically reasoning to arguments regarding morality, human behavior etc.

 

Such a belief set, once properly communicated and pursued to every useful application, would be undefeatable by any primitive religion.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

chaos13:

Throughout history religion has been directly tied to murder, torture, rape, and injustice for people.

Yes, but not all rapes and tortures and injustice were a direct result of religion, or at least that would be pretty hard to prove. However, all of those bad things are tied to immorality. So it's probably more accurate to say that religion has advocated immoral acts in the name of morality, which if part of that religion had been a doctrine of rationality, that should not have happened and could not have happened.

By saying that we cannot advocate a rational religion, we simply abdicate the entire subject of morality to existing churches and I don't think there's a single one that could cast the first stone.

By saying that we cannot have a rational religion, we say that all of the concepts of Passion, Ecstasy, Joy - the things worth living for become the domain of the church. And that's really not very smart because those things and feelings exist and rightfully belong to us. But not in the eyes of the church. Those things, say the church, can only be achieved through debasing ourselves or through death when we finally escape our mortal suffering existence and go to heaven (assuming we've been 'good'). And of course, the coin for that is pain and 'sacrifice'.

We need a religion that doesn't do that. We need to reclaim passion and joy. We need a new church. We need a rational religion that connects a reason for living with science and logic and meaning.

And what should we worship? The thing inside ourselves that makes us human: our rationality. That puts 'God' within us and makes it human.

Systemic suffering and incredible acts of human cruelty will continue until we say, 'no more'. The only way to do that is through a complete overhaul of what we today call 'religion'.

[Kriminal99]

delete

[cwes99_03]

Edge:

Thanks for putting me into this thread. I agree with what Tormod said: there were people prior to there being a religion and therefore, assuming that morality was involved in their survival, they were moral or we wouldn't be here today.

Can someone show me positive proof that there were men on earth before any religious ideals formed?

 

Morality has never had a scientific foundation and it needs one, oh how it needs one.

Please, suggest how morality can have a scientific foundation, I'm having trouble understanding this probably eye-opening point.

 

The problem is to define virtue and a moral code and keep sacrifice and pain and death out of the equation. We do not have an organized religion for that and we need one. We need to equate logic and reason with virtue. If we don't do that and soon, well, we might not get the chance.

I'll make an assumption that you've looked at so many different religions that you've grown tired of trying and instead assume all religions to abandon logic and reason to ummmm tradition and something.

 

We need to remove any mystical aspects that require we submit to a higher authority because that ALWAYS involves some person or group with a direct line the the almighty.

I'm guessing you're talking Christianity, and doesn't the Bible offer prayer as a direct line to the almighty?

 

The only authority we should submit to is our conscience, at least spiritually that is. Laws limiting human action are by definition guidelines of morality, without them we can't survive and function together. But the laws of the land reflect the moral codes of the prevailing religious beliefs of that country.

Pardon me, may I interject something. What shapes our conscience? Modern laws, say in the US, do not reflect the morals of the Bible. They may originate with certain religious ideals, but largely they are human philosophy on what is best for humans. These laws allow for all kinds of immorality that is harmful to humans (like promiscuity, and the spread of STDs.)

 

The only way I can see of bringing peace to our world is to create a religion based upon rationality. Show people that we can be good and do good without resorting to sacrifices or deceptions of any kind. As long as truth can disrupt a religion it will be ignored. Truth should enhance religion, not be antithetical to it.

Create a religion? Sounds like create a philosophy. One can worship men, or their ideas, but does that make it a religion? Isn't self-sacrifice a virtue. Isn't it the definition of altruism?

 

I find a lot of people in this thread equating religion with the deplorable examples of Christendom. These people are citing the actions of religious groups that turned away from worshipping the God of the Bible, and turned toward celebrating pagan rituals and ideals, like nationalism and racial superiority. No the people of Isreal weren't God's chosen people because of their genes (not directly anyway.) It was because they descended from ones who "walked with the true God". In other words, because their forefathers lived their lives according to the morals that God set before them. They prospered when they lived according to these morals, and fell apart when they did not.

[questor]

why do you blame religion for what bad people do in the name of religion? this makes no sense. you who are well versed in religion please post the passages where a religion requires or demands you rape, torture, kill, or otherwise harm your fellow man. this argument against religion is proposed by those who want to justify their anti-religious bias, and has no basis in truth.

[Chaos13]

According to their god these people, who are committing what we see as horrible crimes to humanity, are doing what is right. In most cases they truly believe they are good people doing what is right. I forgot what the subject was, but morals that the American society today think is right can be just the opposite for societies around the world, so I don't think that morality comes from religion.

[CraigD]

Please, suggest how morality can have a scientific foundation, I'm having trouble understanding this probably eye-opening point.

One of many possible approach would be:

1. Formally define morality as “a heuristic for producing well being”
   
2. Formally define “well being”, and a formal system to represent it (this is a hard step!)
   
3. Hypothesize theorems in that formal system
   
4. Test them
   
5. Phrase successful theorems in natural language, organize, publish and distribute them.
   
6. Repeat steps 3-6, and occasionally 2

Many scientific disciplines can be included in this approach - Neurophysiology and dynamic systems theories are particularly promising.

 

Historically, many cultures over several millennia have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to create moralities via schemes similar to this. Plato’s 4th century BC “Republic”, 19th century Marxist theory, and the 21st century brights movement, are all examples of such attempts.

The only way I can see of bringing peace to our world is to create a religion based upon rationality. Show people that we can be good and do good without resorting to sacrifices or deceptions of any kind. As long as truth can disrupt a religion it will be ignored. Truth should enhance religion, not be antithetical to it.

Although I share Idsofwaresteve’s enthusiasm for such a religion, I must point out that a scientifically derived morality, such as the example I give above, is not guaranteed to generate a religion based upon rationality! It is entirely possible that such an approach would conclude, based upon sound, scientific evidence, that an optimal morality should include certain irrational or supernatural elements.

 

Paridoxically, a scientific approach strongly rooted in Memetics, which borrows strongly from Evolutionary Biology, might conclude that, based on the success of religions based on the supernatural compared to those based on rational approaches (Plato, Dialectic Materialism, brights, etc.), supernaturallistic moralities are superior to naturalistic ones. Plato’s “Republic” argues for exactly this, when it argues that highly educated “philosopher-kings” would be wise to encourage “good myths” – that is, religion – among the less intellectually capable masses. While my 20th century American sensibilities find Plato’s elitism distasteful, it’s unwise to discount its significance and impact on ancient and moderns society.

 

Idsoftwaresteve’s vision, while compelling to me and many like-minded people, may be possible only in a society in which nearly every person is what Plato would call a philosopher-king!

[Southtown]

According to their god these people, who are committing what we see as horrible crimes to humanity, are doing what is right. In most cases they truly believe they are good people doing what is right. I forgot what the subject was, but morals that the American society today think is right can be just the opposite for societies around the world, so I don't think that morality comes from religion.

Which religion are you referring to? And how do the actions of a religion's members necessarily determine its substance? A doctrine is a lifeless creed. Professed followers need not be observed in order to assess their religion. Indeed it would be second hand observation, and therefore less reliable. People are imperfect, after all, and cannot be taken at their word most times. As you stated before, they can be either deceptive or ignorant.

 

I submit the following as rational morality, from Paul, apostle of Jesus.

“

For ye, brethren, were called for freedom; only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love be servants one to another.

 

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

 

But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.”

—

Galatians 5:13-15 asv

[Southtown]

... yet, there must be an absolute code for morals, and surely that does not come from christianity.

 

We gotta define morality first, though.

Why exactly is that?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

CraigD, thank you for the very thoughtful response to my ramblings.

Can you help me connect your points to the stuff below here? I've attempted to but probably need some help.

The fundamental problem to solve is to set up a religion which has a process of change management built into its design. Any good system has that. Every bad system doesn't. (This would be your point 6, correct?)

We don't start out by knowing everything, we start out with what we know or hope we know and continue on from there. With good people one finds better ways through the woods and paths are found and used. (that you responded at all fits here).

What would some of the characteristics of a rational religion be, assuming of course that we could create one?

A rational religion would...

1. apply to human beings. That means we need to know what it is to be human. And here we need the intervention of science. What makes a life form human, as opposed to say a turtle or flea? Many will say that some humans have characteristics of turtles and fleas. But what are the distinguishing characteristics of human beings?

2. enhance a humans ability to survive. This presupposes that survival is a universal goal. That presupposes life as a fundamental value, the enhancement of which is the fundamental purpose of a rational religion. (your point # 1, right?)

3. provide a methodology for successful living. 'Successful' would need to be clarified. To attain the feeling of passion and joy and happiness during one's lifetime might be a good starting point. This is where we reclaim purpose. (I think this also falls in line with #1)

3. define valid things to worship, that is, to hold up as ideal. A valid ideal should be attainable and should be self sustaining and should be something that we strive for. Let me give an example. I once had the good fortune to be present when a bonafide genius took apart a machine that he'd never seen before, corrected a problem with it, and put it back together. He did it without once pausing, but never rushing. Just calmly took it apart, gently, almost lovingly placed piece after piece down in an orderly fashion and then identified the part that needed to be adjusted, did that, put it back together and used it. Physically, he was the ugliest person I'd ever seen. But after he did that I never saw him as ugly again. The only other time I've seen anything that approached that was when my children were totally focused on whatever it was they were doing. Each case involved a profound connection between the person and the object of their attention. Each case involved observation, in my mind the single fundamental skill we have for comprehending our world. Here is the connection between method (science) and religion. My gut feeling is that we need to worship that connection and the things that embody it.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Qwes99_03:

Can someone show me positive proof that there were men on earth before any religious ideals formed?

Does that question mean that you agree that morality has some connection to survival? If you are questioning the timeline, then I think you are accepting the proposition, right?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Edge:

... yet, there must be an absolute code for morals, and surely that does not come from christianity.

 

We gotta define morality first, though.

An absolute code for morals? In the sense of it being self evident, I don't know if I agree with that but I'm willing to be convinced. Morality is conceptual and therefore built upon something and abstracted from a wider set of things that are...good? And I think that where it has been poorly done is where the abstractions have not been accurate or the set being used for the abstractions is invalid.

 

I completely agree with defining morality first. As a start let me propose the following: Since it is an abstract concept, it should apply to the abstract of 'human', i.e. all people and the defining characteristic/s of all people - and here we need to make sure the set is properly identified. In the sense I am referring to, human means a human that can survive on its own given the fundamental environment it evolved within or was designed for and also would include primary training (not a child). Since it is used to judge human action against a standard, it is a characteristic of human action. Thoughts are acts too so it doesn't just involve physical movement. Morality should correspond with the part of our nature that makes us unique because as far as we know morality doesn't apply to any other known living thing.

My gut feeling is that without morality the human race will become extinct, so, that would make it (assuming I am correct) necessary for survival and therefore a fundamental need.

[questor]

why is it so difficult to determine what constitutes morality ? you know it when you see it don't you? the easiest definition of moral behavior is the Golden Rule. this explains it all does it not ? if all people observed this rule, there would be no reason to form religions or do anything other than to observe the rule. this would lead to fairness, honesty, integrity, helpfulness,

faithfulness, respect and all other issues that create harmony among men.

morality does not differ among men, the application of it differs among men. human nature is pretty much the same the world over, and the Rule codifies the ideal.

[Southtown]

The fundamental problem to solve is to set up a religion which has a process of change management built into its design. Any good system has that. Every bad system doesn't.

Don't mean to skip your point, steve. But a perfect system should not change. And even if an imperfect system were made perfect through process, it wouldn't stay that way... because it can change.