[Shinrei]

Terez, on 09 February 2010 - 07:22 PM, said:

Just saw this article today, and it seemed relevant. Interesting way of approaching the question:

http://www.physorg.c...s184857515.html

physorg said:

Morality research sheds light on the origins of religion

February 8, 2010

The details surrounding the emergence and evolution of religion have not been clearly established and remain a source of much debate among scholars. Now, an article published by Cell Press in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences on February 8 brings a new understanding to this long-standing discussion by exploring the fascinating link between morality and religion.

There is no doubt that spiritual experiences and religion, which are ubiquitous across cultures and time and associated exclusively with humans, are ultimately based in the brain. However, there are many unanswered questions about how and why these behaviors originated and how they may have been shaped during evolution.

"Some scholars claim that religion evolved as an adaptation to solve the problem of cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals, while others propose that religion emerged as a by-product of pre-existing cognitive capacities," explains study co-author Dr. Ilkka Pyysiainen from the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. Although there is some support for both, these alternative proposals have been difficult to investigate.

Dr. Pyysiainen and co-author Dr. Marc Hauser, from the Departments of Psychology and Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, used a fresh perspective based in experimental moral psychology to review these two competing theories. "We were interested in making use of this perspective because religion is linked to morality in different ways," says Dr. Hauser. "For some, there is no morality without religion, while others see religion as merely one way of expressing one's moral intuitions."

Citing several studies in moral psychology, the authors highlight the finding that despite differences in, or even an absence of, religious backgrounds, individuals show no difference in moral judgments for unfamiliar moral dilemmas. The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments.

"This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a separate by-product of pre-existing cognitive functions that evolved from non-religious functions," says Dr. Pyysiainen. "However, although it appears as if cooperation is made possible by mental mechanisms that are not specific to religion, religion can play a role in facilitating and stabilizing cooperation between groups."

Perhaps this may help to explain the complex association between morality and religion. "It seems that in many cultures religious concepts and beliefs have become the standard way of conceptualizing moral intuitions. Although, as we discuss in our paper, this link is not a necessary one, many people have become so accustomed to using it, that criticism targeted at religion is experienced as a fundamental threat to our moral existence," concludes Dr. Hauser.


More information: Pyysiainen, Hauser et al.: "The origins of religion Q1 : evolved adaptation or by-product?'", Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

Morality as seperate from religious affiliation. This is hardly big news if you ask me.

[Terez]

Shinrei, on 09 February 2010 - 11:39 PM, said:

Morality as separate from religious affiliation. This is hardly big news if you ask me.

1. It's really not necessary to quote the whole post, you know.
2. It might not be news, but it is relevant to the discussion. Morality is separate not only from religious affiliation, but from religion completely. People in this thread are claiming otherwise. I could have sworn you were paying enough attention to know that, but I guess not.

[Shinrei]

Sorry, I'm playing mafia these days so my quote-fu is overpowered.

Quote

Morality is separate not only from religious affiliation, but from religion completely. People in this thread are claiming otherwise.

Is it though? It seems that it would be quite easy for a Christian to use this as proof that morality comes from God, and that is why it appears to be inherent in people regardless of whether they are Christian or not.

All this study shows is that non religious and religious people regardless of which religion are moral, which while relevent to the discussion, is still open to interpretation.

Has anyone really claimed that only Christians are moral? If so, I did in fact miss it.

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 09 February 2010 - 11:58 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

Quote

Citing several studies in moral psychology, the authors highlight the finding that despite differences in, or even an absence of, religious backgrounds, individuals show no difference in moral judgments for unfamiliar moral dilemmas. The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments.

It can be read as there is a "natural law" that all humans are born with some latent ability to sense. From there, it's easily extrapolated that God is the source of this "natural law." If one is so inclined to do so.

Or, one could cite Aristotle's thought of man as a "political animal" where community has been genetically adapted through evolution, such that a group is better prepared at fending for itself in the wilds. Therefore, if community is necessary, common rules of behavior must then follow to not destroy the communal nature of people. Therefore, belief systems would be borne out of a desire for group harmony. If one is so inclined, which I think is supported by this next quote.

Quote

"This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a separate by-product of pre-existing cognitive functions that evolved from non-religious functions," says Dr. Pyysiainen. "However, although it appears as if cooperation is made possible by mental mechanisms that are not specific to religion, religion can play a role in facilitating and stabilizing cooperation between groups."

Quote

Has anyone really claimed that only Christians are moral? If so, I did in fact miss it.

There have been a couple of statements that would indicate absent God there is no "morality." There could be something different that is unnamed, but God is the purveyor of morality has been pretty much intimated.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 10 February 2010 - 12:13 AM

[Terez]

Shinrei, on 09 February 2010 - 11:56 PM, said:

Terez said:

Morality is separate not only from religious affiliation, but from religion completely. People in this thread are claiming otherwise.

Is it though? It seems that it would be quite easy for a Christian to use this as proof that morality comes from God, and that is why it appears to be inherent in people regardless of whether they are Christian or not.

They might use it as an argument that our inherent morality is from God, but they cannot use it as an argument that morality results from a belief in God, and that is the real question that is on the table. The argument is that society will degenerate without belief in God, because we require this ostensibly objective source of morality in order to maintain a moral society. The studies referenced here say otherwise. Note that I did not say that they implied that morality was separate from god(s), but from religion.

Shin said:

Has anyone really claimed that only Christians are moral? If so, I did in fact miss it.

Not directly, no. But the aforementioned argument seems to be a big reason why Powder and Doxa† think that belief in God (implicitly, their God) is important for everyone.

† That is easier to type than anakronisM, though I suppose I could call him Kron? It's not a bad name.

[Powder]

Terez, on 10 February 2010 - 12:54 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 09 February 2010 - 11:56 PM, said:

Terez said:

Morality is separate not only from religious affiliation, but from religion completely. People in this thread are claiming otherwise.

Is it though? It seems that it would be quite easy for a Christian to use this as proof that morality comes from God, and that is why it appears to be inherent in people regardless of whether they are Christian or not.

They might use it as an argument that our inherent morality is from God, but they cannot use it as an argument that morality results from a belief in God, and that is the real question that is on the table. The argument is that society will degenerate without belief in God, because we require this ostensibly objective source of morality in order to maintain a moral society. The studies referenced here say otherwise. Note that I did not say that they implied that morality was separate from god(s), but from religion.

Shin said:

Has anyone really claimed that only Christians are moral? If so, I did in fact miss it.

Not directly, no. But the aforementioned argument seems to be a big reason why Powder and Doxa† think that belief in God (implicitly, their God) is important for everyone.

† That is easier to type than anakronisM, though I suppose I could call him Kron? It's not a bad name.

Actually I prefer it the way it is implicitly stated in this article. The way I have been going about it is obviously sub-par. In practical every day life I think I view it similarly towards what you and HD are saying. That every being is a moral being (what you say), because that is how God made them (How I see it). Believing in him or not does not change how you are made, so people would always be moral. What I have been struggling with is if there is no God who made us ostensibly moral, why does morality exist? This article throws out some nice theories (which now that I look at it have been mentioned in-thread) as to why humans would be moral w/o God. It certainly is a better answer than 'we just are' but this particular text does not fully answer the question for me.

Its amazing how much we can miss the heart of the other sides thoughts when working with such a medium as this.

-Powder

[Terez]

Well, there's an end to that discussion, unless someone else wants to take up the torch. It was fun, Powder.

[Powder]

Terez, on 10 February 2010 - 05:00 PM, said:

Well, there's an end to that discussion, unless someone else wants to take up the torch. It was fun, Powder.

miss-communication starts the best ones. What did you think of some of the other stuff tho like the Pauline stuff?

[Terez]

Powder, on 10 February 2010 - 05:27 PM, said:

Terez, on 10 February 2010 - 05:00 PM, said:

Well, there's an end to that discussion, unless someone else wants to take up the torch. It was fun, Powder.

miss-communication starts the best ones. What did you think of some of the other stuff tho like the Pauline stuff?

I suppose I can dig back into that this coming weekend (was going to leave it alone, as I think there's little chance we'll see eye-to-eye on it, but perhaps I can be more concise than I have been). I have a chemistry presentation to do tomorrow, and the piano master class (which is actually Friday morning), and then a recital to play for Saturday morning as well. Then I might be able to breathe a bit...Mardi Gras! I wish my car worked...I'd head to NO to party with the Saints fans that still aren't done partying from this past weekend. How fortuitous that the Superbowl happens to be the week before Mardi Gras, the year the Saints finally go...and win it! But my car is near-dead so here I will stay.

[anakronisM]

Shinrei, on 09 February 2010 - 11:06 AM, said:

One question. Why are you convinced morality has to be objective? I mean, as a Christian you must believe in a universal truth, for Christians-God, but for those who don't believe in God, what's to say that morals can't simply be subjective based on society?

Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your post.

Maybe i wasn't articulate enough, i'm sorry if that's the case.

But think about it, if morals isn't objective then from a moral point of view i could come over to your place and split your head in two with an axe and torture your children. My opinion of what morals should be could say that this is good and the right thing to do. The subjective morals would be fatal for society and humankind, all would be permitted, nothing would be good or evil.

As for any objective moral based on society i think it's elusive. The morals could change from society to society, And there are examples of differences in different societies like Gothos says. One society could agree upon that torture of children would be permitted in a moral sense. Think about that for one second, does this stir up something? Do you react to this and instinctively think this would be wrong? Yes then you touch upon this objective moral that is given to us in one way or another.

Terez, on 09 February 2010 - 02:24 PM, said:

He's saying that morals are objective only for Christians. Or perhaps for all those who get their morals from religion, but I have a feeling he meant only Christians. Of course, we've been discussing that already - obviously Christian morality is just as subjective as anyone else's morality, or we wouldn't have thousands of different denominations with different ideas about morality.

All i'm saying is that there has to be an origin and a objective grounding for morality. It isn't essentially religion i'm talking about.
The morals aren't only objective for Christians, all humans can access these morals. All mankind can be good and evil, their thoughts can be reflecting the objective morality. Christians are humans and can't be fully objective in themselves. Many morals can be distorted and be subjectively overriden by humans. To preserve objective morals u need an objective ground for it. I would argue that one good ground for this would be God.

Sure there are different denominations that don't agree upon each other views. But this doesn't show that Christian morality is subjective, it shows that not everything in Christian thinking about morality is objectively settled. There could still be one of them that are an objectively right interpretation and view. But i would surely agree that Christians aren't perfect, i'm not perfect. I see many Christians who truly distort morals and misinterpret the objective morals.

There can be different interpretations of the bible etc. There are passages that are much more clear and almost all Christians agree upon them, other passages are open for interpretation and can be discussed. But the point is that there are things that Christians do agree upon, and morals that Christans agree upon. I would argue that somethings are clear as objectively good or bad, other things are open for discussion. Christians can't have total objectivity of the truth, not in all areas.

Terez, on 09 February 2010 - 07:22 PM, said:

Just saw this article today, and it seemed relevant. Interesting way of approaching the question:

http://www.physorg.c...s184857515.html

I noticed one interesting thing there:
"There is no doubt that spiritual experiences and religion, which are ubiquitous across cultures and time and associated exclusively with humans, are ultimately based in the brain."

Ultimately, the reality around us, objects, people, the world etc. Aren't provable, we can't prove that you aren't controlled by a scientist who's giving your brain the right impulses to believe so. We can't prove that you began to exist 5 minutes ago with a built in memory of a prior life and a feeling you've just ate. We are experiencing the world around us with our senses and have to rely on them. The same with Religious experiences.

Terez, on 09 February 2010 - 11:48 PM, said:

1. It's really not necessary to quote the whole post, you know.
2. It might not be news, but it is relevant to the discussion. Morality is separate not only from religious affiliation, but from religion completely. People in this thread are claiming otherwise. I could have sworn you were paying enough attention to know that, but I guess not.

I agree this is the case, morality is independent from religion. It's Universal for all humans. Humans can be good, often times more good than Christians.

[HoosierDaddy]

Quote

I noticed one interesting thing there:
"There is no doubt that spiritual experiences and religion, which are ubiquitous across cultures and time and associated exclusively with humans, are ultimately based in the brain."

Ultimately, the reality around us, objects, people, the world etc. Aren't provable, we can't prove that you aren't controlled by a scientist who's giving your brain the right impulses to believe so. We can't prove that you began to exist 5 minutes ago with a built in memory of a prior life and a feeling you've just ate. We are experiencing the world around us with our senses and have to rely on them. The same with Religious experiences.

Sorry, I took the blue pill. I'm not in the Matrix.

[anakronisM]

H.D., on 10 February 2010 - 12:09 AM, said:

Or, one could cite Aristotle's thought of man as a "political animal" where community has been genetically adapted through evolution, such that a group is better prepared at fending for itself in the wilds. Therefore, if community is necessary, common rules of behavior must then follow to not destroy the communal nature of people. Therefore, belief systems would be borne out of a desire for group harmony. If one is so inclined, which I think is supported by this next quote.

This could explain the origin of morals in another time, I'm not sure how this would work when we today doesn't need to fend for survival in the wilds. We can live outside community and still live. Therefore you have nothing to base this necessity for community. This stands upon the theory that the evolution of societies has taken place. I can't buy this theory. I personally believe this is one of the most awful parts of the evolution theory. That Communities evolves to some sort of super communities, this makes other communities or societies that hasn't "evolved" of lesser value. In cultural-anthropology it's for the most part rejected that societies and cultures are less or more evolved. Cultural-relativism is a keyword for any serious study of Anthropology.

[stone monkey]

I would argue that communities only evolve into "super" communities, if the environment they're in warrants it. A community in a relatively unchanging environment, an isolated tribe in the Amazon say, only needs to adapt to that. Communities that interact with other communities (or those in rapidly changing environments) need to evolve differently in order to survive.

[HoosierDaddy]

[quote name='anakronisM' date='10 February 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1265832341' post='728379']
[quote name='H.D.' date='10 February 2010 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1265760545' post='728049']
Or, one could cite Aristotle's thought of man as a "political animal" where community has been genetically adapted through evolution, such that a group is better prepared at fending for itself in the wilds. Therefore, if community is necessary, common rules of behavior must then follow to not destroy the communal nature of people. Therefore, belief systems would be borne out of a desire for group harmony. If one is so inclined, which I think is supported by this next quote.
[/quote][quote]

This could explain the origin of morals in another time, I'm not sure how this would work when we today doesn't need to fend for survival in the wilds.[/quote]

Why don't we have to do this today? Did we ever have to? Did cell-phones and supermarkets spring up overnight? Have they always been here and people have simply overlooked them?

[quote]We can live outside community and still live. [/quote]

When? For how long and how successful as compared to a community? Why do I have the feeling you are willingly missing the point?

[quote]Therefore you have nothing to base this necessity for community.[/quote]

Don't I? Show me where I'm wrong. You haven't.

[quote]This stands upon the theory that the evolution of societies has taken place. I can't buy this theory.[/quote]

Societies haven't evolved. Are you kidding me? There have been no technological advancements. Ever. They have never had an affect on the way peoples within a community act independently or with each other. Fantastic.

[quote]I personally believe this is one of the most awful parts of the evolution theory. [/quote]

It's not the Theory of Evolution. It is advancement. Progress.

[quote]That Communities evolves to some sort of super communities, this makes other communities or societies that hasn't "evolved" of lesser value. In cultural-anthropology it's for the most part rejected that societies and cultures are less or more evolved. Cultural-relativism is a keyword for any serious study of Anthropology.
[/quote]

Where did I say anything about super communities? I simply gave a reason for why shared beliefs could be something other than God inspired natural law.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 10 February 2010 - 08:47 PM

[anakronisM]

stone monkey, on 10 February 2010 - 08:14 PM, said:

I would argue that communities only evolve into "super" communities, if the environment they're in warrants it. A community in a relatively unchanging environment, an isolated tribe in the Amazon say, only needs to adapt to that. Communities that interact with other communities (or those in rapidly changing environments) need to evolve differently in order to survive.

Your argument is a sound one, and it's in line with a cultural-relativistic view. Still the evolution of society is primarily built upon technological advances.

Think of many societies that are preserved in probably the state that all humankind once lived for about 100-40 thousand years ago. These hunters and collectors have a great moral system, systems for hunting and collecting food, medicinemen with herbalism for the healing of wounds. They are "developed", they aren't less developed than us. What is the difference? They lack technology, well that's a different story, but i think there's a great confusion between the development of technology and societies.

[Terez]

anakronisM, on 10 February 2010 - 07:47 PM, said:

But think about it, if morals isn't objective then from a moral point of view i could come over to your place and split your head in two with an axe and torture your children. My opinion of what morals should be could say that this is good and the right thing to do. The subjective morals would be fatal for society and humankind, all would be permitted, nothing would be good or evil.

Proof by assertion? I think the reason there is a disconnect here is that you have not yet provided any evidence for why subjective morality would lead to this sort of behavior being permitted, and in fact, you have not provided evidence that God or religion can be an objective basis for morality (and therefore have not provided evidence that there is any such thing as objective morality, or ever has been). Not only have you not provided evidence, but you have not even provided any real argument to that effect...only opinion.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

anakronisM, on 10 February 2010 - 09:03 PM, said:

stone monkey, on 10 February 2010 - 08:14 PM, said:

I would argue that communities only evolve into "super" communities, if the environment they're in warrants it. A community in a relatively unchanging environment, an isolated tribe in the Amazon say, only needs to adapt to that. Communities that interact with other communities (or those in rapidly changing environments) need to evolve differently in order to survive.

Your argument is a sound one, and it's in line with a cultural-relativistic view. Still the evolution of society is primarily built upon technological advances.

Think of many societies that are preserved in probably the state that all humankind once lived for about 100-40 thousand years ago. These hunters and collectors have a great moral system, systems for hunting and collecting food, medicinemen with herbalism for the healing of wounds. They are "developed", they aren't less developed than us. What is the difference? They lack technology, well that's a different story, but i think there's a great confusion between the development of technology and societies.

The Theory of Darwin holds that species change on the macro-scale over great amounts of time. There's not much of a stretch to think about societies in the same fashion.

[digression]
The cultural-relativism that is so consistently hated on by professors and hippies the world over comes from a very good reason - there are multiple value systems for society. Fairness in law / custom, ability to do good, etc. But regardless these stone-bronze-age cultures in the amazon, etc. ARE less developed. They have less sophisticated associations of people, on different scales, with lower survival rate, smaller knowledge base, and great amounts of naivety. Mostly, they have stagnated for centuries.
[/digression]

Terez, on 10 February 2010 - 11:37 PM, said:

anakronisM, on 10 February 2010 - 07:47 PM, said:

But think about it, if morals isn't objective then from a moral point of view i could come over to your place and split your head in two with an axe and torture your children. My opinion of what morals should be could say that this is good and the right thing to do. The subjective morals would be fatal for society and humankind, all would be permitted, nothing would be good or evil.

Proof by assertion? I think the reason there is a disconnect here is that you have not yet provided any evidence for why subjective morality would lead to this sort of behavior being permitted, and in fact, you have not provided evidence that God or religion can be an objective basis for morality (and therefore have not provided evidence that there is any such thing as objective morality, or ever has been). Not only have you not provided evidence, but you have not even provided any real argument to that effect...only opinion.

The problem of subjective morality is not that there ceases to be right and wrong. There will always be 'more right' and 'more wrong' in any cognitive system. The thing that makes society function is the fact that the whackjobs (people who, per your stellar example 'split your head in two with an axe and torture your children' by their moral conviction) are largely balanced out by many people who've got subjective morals that appear more sane. When those people murder indiscriminantly - the rest of society protect themselves in the fashion as they view morally right.

[anakronisM]

Terez, on 10 February 2010 - 11:37 PM, said:

Proof by assertion? I think the reason there is a disconnect here is that you have not yet provided any evidence for why subjective morality would lead to this sort of behavior being permitted, and in fact, you have not provided evidence that God or religion can be an objective basis for morality (and therefore have not provided evidence that there is any such thing as objective morality, or ever has been). Not only have you not provided evidence, but you have not even provided any real argument to that effect...only opinion.

Why wouldn't it lead to that this would be permitted? Can you say that my opinion or subjective moral isn't right? If you are then you are calling upon an objective truth, that is independent of any opinion of yours or mine. Only this would say that my actions or opinions would not be permitted. Any opinion of yours can't interfere with my opinion if all there exist are subjective morals. There's a vast incoherence in a logical sense in stating this: That things aren't permitted in an objective sense even though all morals are subjective. In this statement you are really saying that there is objective morals.

Which is my point. There are objective morals we all can access for the most part.

As for God being an objective basis for morality. The concept of God's nature is this:
1. He is Eternal
2. As an eternal being he has "developed" or perfected morals. For example goodness, through eternal possession of the attribute goodness. He is goodness in a perfected sense.

Therefore God is an objective basis for morality.

This is all philosophical statements that are rational and open for discussion. I would like for you rethink your own arguments here, i don't think they are holding water.

And i would be happy to be refuted and proven otherwise if there's an compelling argument doing so. (or get help from you people to get me on the right path in argumentation again)

I have to catch my train home now so i'll have to respond to AS's post later.

[Use Of Weapons]

If God as an eternal being has developed perfect goodness (and from the definition of 'eternal', we must conclude that this state was attained _before_ creation), how then can it be justified that he would create a hell, and consign the vast majority of humanity, whom he professes to love, to it for eternity? As John Stuart Mill says,

Quote

Such is the facility with which mankind believe at one and the same time things inconsistent with one another, and so few are those who draw from what they receive as truths, any consequences but those recommended to them by their feelings, that multitudes have held undoubted belief in an omnipotent Author of Hell, and have nevertheless identified that being with the best conception they were able to form of perfect goodness. Their worship was not paid to the demon such a being as they imagined would really be, but to their own ideal of excellence. The evil is, that such a belief keeps the ideal wretchedly low; and opposes the most obstinate resistance to all thought which has a tendency to raise it higher. Believers shrink from every train of ideas that would lead the mind to a clear conception and an elevated standard of excellence, because they feel that such a standard would conflict with many of the dispensations of nature, and with much of what they are accustomed to consider as the Christian creed. And thus morality continues a matter of of blind tradition, with no consistent principle, nor even any consistent feeling, to guide it.

-- John Stuart Mill, from 'Moral Influences in Early Youth'

[anakronisM]

jitsukerr, on 12 February 2010 - 02:39 PM, said:

If God as an eternal being has developed perfect goodness (and from the definition of 'eternal', we must conclude that this state was attained _before_ creation), how then can it be justified that he would create a hell, and consign the vast majority of humanity, whom he professes to love, to it for eternity? As John Stuart Mill says,

Hi Jitsukerr, you've raised a good question. There are a few things i would like to comment on before we discuss this further.

First of all i'm curious about what you mean by hell. What is your interpretation of it, and yes there are several interpretations of hell in the bible which there's difficulty coming to an absolute answer to as what hell really is.

Secondly, how can God love humanity? The loving relationship is only allowed when the humans are free to choose God for themselves. There's also the accountability of choice in play here. The free will to choose God or not must be taken into consideration.

Thirdly, does God send the "vast majority of humanity" into hell? What do you base this on? Do you know this for a fact? I for one can't say how many or who will be sent to hell. There's no absolute telling from the bible, we have guidelines but not the whole picture. Only God could know this.

And most importantly, you must show that's there some explicit incoherence between God's goodness and the reality of a hell.

I'm interested in your response and i will elaborate upon this. If i don't answer as quickly as you'd like it's because i'm in the middle of my extensive studies

This post has been edited by anakronisM: 14 February 2010 - 12:08 PM