[LinearPhilosopher]

An argument i've been throwing around in my head for the last few days. I was wondering if you all would be interested in taking a crack at it.

Hypothesis: Religion and Morals are correlated, but do not have a causal relation. Rather, individuals use religion as a mean of reinforcing previously held beliefs. Religion is not a source of morals, but a mirror of morals.

Reasoning:If religion has a causal effect on morals, then all individuals of a given religion would have much in common in regards to morals. All christians would have similar morals, all muslims would have similar morals. There may be some outliers (charlie hebdo attacks by a few individuals), however the overwhelming majority will share common beliefs about morality.

However that is not the case in real life (existence of muslim who condone war crimes as well as muslim who condemn war crimes). Where we have a new caliphate and a sizeable population of this caliphate has radically different ideas about morality than other muslims. The existence of extremist parties in all major religions also point to this.

Issue: Smaller sects of religious organisation will have more homogenous moral beliefs. "fundamentalist muslim sects, latter day saints, west-boro baptists, christian scientists (the sub group of Christianity, not scientists who are christian), therevada buddhists,etc. Does this mean that when in a smaller community, a specific sub grouping religion does have an effect on values? Or is this merely a case of classifying interpretations of religion (and as such it would be true by definition that people with the same interpretation of religion would have similar morals).

conclusion:?????????????


edit:CAN SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE THIS FORUM MORE COPY PASTE FRIENDLY FROM BLACK TEXT???????? If i leave it in white those responding to me via quote will have a harder time reffering to my post. If i leave it black....

This post has been edited by D'rek: 23 March 2015 - 07:20 PM

[D'rek]

BalrogLord, on 23 March 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

edit:CAN SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE THIS FORUM MORE COPY PASTE FRIENDLY FROM BLACK TEXT???????? If i leave it in white those responding to me via quote will have a harder time reffering to my post. If i leave it black....

Turned it to default text for you.

You probably have the Rich-Text-Format Editor enabled in your forum settings page - it, in conjunction with your browser, tries to copy over whatever settings the text you are copying from has. In this case that meant Helvetica font and a colour effect.

You can try using the "remove formatting" button in the post editor to revert things to normal, or you can turn off the RTF editor altogether in your settings page which lets you see the code tags and copies things as raw text. Another alternative is to copy to Notepad, then copy from that to the forum post boxes.

[Aptorian]

BalrogLord, on 23 March 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

Hypothesis: Religion and Morals are correlated, but do not have a causal relation. Rather, individuals use religion as a mean of reinforcing previously held beliefs. Religion is not a source of morals, but a mirror of morals.

Congratulations you just stumbled into an ongoing debate that has been going on since at least before the time writing was invented.

Are we inherently good or is the good something that comes to us? Does it come from god or does it come from nature? Are men apart of nature or are we set apart from nature? If we are a part of nature, what sets us apart from animals? Is there any difference? Furhermore what is good? What is morally good? What has virtue? Who is the arbiter of such qualities? God or your fellow man? Does anyone have the right to decide such a thing?

If you've ever studied any humanities courses or some kind of social science you will find that the foundation of all the theoretical work, revolves around the spiritual and the philisophical. In debating god, in trying to quantify what is good, what is this god created universe, the church inadvertently created the foundation of the sciences that would overshadow it.

Personally I believe we are naturally good. You can see the basic expression of morals in simple animals. Much like us, much like our children, animals understand sharing, theft, jealousy, anger, kindness, love, loyalty. It's of course in a much rawer form for them. For most people their perception of right or worng, good or bad, comes down to culture. Your heritage and the place you are brought up in will affect who your become and how you act. However, even the most scared child soldier from Africa understands friendship, loyalty, sharing, etc.

This post has been edited by Apt: 23 March 2015 - 11:04 PM

[EmperorMagus]

I believe that what we believe is right or wrong is largely unrelated to how we act. It's the circumstances that determine our action in the majority of cases.
You have a good family, social support, and friends? It is a lot less likely that you murder someone.
You were raised in bad conditions, abusive households deprivation ? A lot more likely that you would do horrible things.
Furthermore, what situation we are in determines how we act a lot more than who we are. You are a good person who was sent to Abu Gharib? chances are you act like the rest of those animals.

I refer you to these two very unethical studies as the sources for my beliefs. I'm not saying, I'm definitely right, but this is what I have found evidence for.
Milgram's obedience study
Stanford Prison Experiment

obligatory TED talk

[LinearPhilosopher]

ok so here's where i made my original post
https://www.facebook...73&notif_t=like

Yall can check out the discussion going on there if you people are so inclined

Apt, on 23 March 2015 - 11:02 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 23 March 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

Hypothesis: Religion and Morals are correlated, but do not have a causal relation. Rather, individuals use religion as a mean of reinforcing previously held beliefs. Religion is not a source of morals, but a mirror of morals.

Congratulations you just stumbled into an ongoing debate that has been going on since at least before the time writing was invented.

Are we inherently good or is the good something that comes to us? Does it come from god or does it come from nature? Are men apart of nature or are we set apart from nature? If we are a part of nature, what sets us apart from animals? Is there any difference? Furhermore what is good? What is morally good? What has virtue? Who is the arbiter of such qualities? God or your fellow man? Does anyone have the right to decide such a thing?

If you've ever studied any humanities courses or some kind of social science you will find that the foundation of all the theoretical work, revolves around the spiritual and the philisophical. In debating god, in trying to quantify what is good, what is this god created universe, the church inadvertently created the foundation of the sciences that would overshadow it.

Personally I believe we are naturally good. You can see the basic expression of morals in simple animals. Much like us, much like our children, animals understand sharing, theft, jealousy, anger, kindness, love, loyalty. It's of course in a much rawer form for them. For most people their perception of right or worng, good or bad, comes down to culture. Your heritage and the place you are brought up in will affect who your become and how you act. However, even the most scared child soldier from Africa understands friendship, loyalty, sharing, etc.

I just want to say, i do appreciate your reply, you've some interesting things to say.

That being said, i think you missed the point im getting at, or i'm missing what you're saying. What i'm trying to get at is that im adopting a very reductive approach to see if religion has a causal effect on an individuals moral beliefs.

EmperorMagus, on 23 March 2015 - 11:50 PM, said:

I believe that what we believe is right or wrong is largely unrelated to how we act. It's the circumstances that determine our action in the majority of cases.
You have a good family, social support, and friends? It is a lot less likely that you murder someone.
You were raised in bad conditions, abusive households deprivation ? A lot more likely that you would do horrible things.
Furthermore, what situation we are in determines how we act a lot more than who we are. You are a good person who was sent to Abu Gharib? chances are you act like the rest of those animals.

I refer you to these two very unethical studies as the sources for my beliefs. I'm not saying, I'm definitely right, but this is what I have found evidence for.
Milgram's obedience study
Stanford Prison Experiment

obligatory TED talk

I will have to add, that a few years ago in england i believe they did a follow up on the stanford prison experiemnt. They resent the same questionaries as in the stanford experiment for participants. They then evaluated the respondents psychologically and found that those who opted in, had a lower amount of empathy or were crueler (my meory is foggy). I shall have to try and find this study.

That being said, you do bring up some good points that someone's behavior can be totally different than their beliefs under certain circumstances. Ill have to mull on this.

edit:found it
http://psp.sagepub.c...206292689.short
http://www.pitt.edu/...ch/Carnahan.pdf

People were tested for the following traits
Aggression —
2. Authoritarianism
3. Machiavellianism
4. Narcissism —
5. Social dominance
6. Dispositional empathy —
7. Altruism
sample size:

Spoiler

"participants
Three applicants were dropped for not recording that
they were male on the biographical data form.
Applicants were first screened using the biographical
data sheet and all (n = 48) who reported any family
history of psychological disorders or criminal convictions,
personal mental health problems or criminal
record, or who had engaged in any antisocial behavior
(theft, vandalism, shoplifting, or fighting) “more than
once” since age 13 were excluded.
After 2 weeks, 61 screened applications were received
for the psychological study but too few had been received
for the prison study. After another 2-week interval, we
chose to place the ad for the prison study in the newspapers
of the two universities from whom we had received
the greatest response, both of which had been used earlier
for the control study. However, records were kept to
ensure that no applications were received from the same
participant for both studies. After 2 more weeks, 30
screened applications for the prison simulation were in
hand. Of these, 18 were received from the original three
“prison life” universities and 12 from the universities
where both ads were run.1 The participants ranged in age
from 18 to 25 (M = 21). Our difficulty in getting volunteers
for the study of prison life in comparison to the control
study suggests that these three words were sufficient
to make many decide not to volunteer."

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 24 March 2015 - 01:32 AM

[EmperorMagus]

Fair enough. It does not guarantee that a representative sample wouldn't give the same results though does it.

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 24 March 2015 - 01:53 AM

[Andorion]

The most basic of morals - not killing, not stealing, sharing, helping others etc. are what hold society together. Human beings are social animals. Why are we social animals? Basic biology: Due to the relatively larger size of the human cranium, the baby is born at an earlier, realtively undeveloped state. Thus after birth it requires great care and nurturing. This is done best in a closely knit society. Hence it is genetically inherent for us to regard as natural and "good" those thoughts, qualities and actions which preserve and perpetuate society.

Where does religion come in here? For most of human history religion has played the role of soft (and not so soft) enforcer of laws. It added divine sanction to the decrees of the king, thus giving them extra legitimacy. Religion itself is a social construct. It responds to the needs of society as well.

Thus to answer the OP, morals spring from bio-social survival instincts. Religion became a way to articulate and validate this.

[LinearPhilosopher]

EmperorMagus, on 24 March 2015 - 01:53 AM, said:

Fair enough. It does not guarantee that a representative sample wouldn't give the same results though does it.

Well as it's mentioned, very few people even signed up for the study in the first place, which in of itself is highly suggestive. Also a sample of 60 isn't that bad, if student's distribution is applicable (it's been so long since i've taken stats i've forgotten what the t values means ughhhhhh)

[Gust Hubb]

Apt, on 23 March 2015 - 11:02 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 23 March 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

Hypothesis: Religion and Morals are correlated, but do not have a causal relation. Rather, individuals use religion as a mean of reinforcing previously held beliefs. Religion is not a source of morals, but a mirror of morals.

Congratulations you just stumbled into an ongoing debate that has been going on since at least before the time writing was invented.

Are we inherently good or is the good something that comes to us? Does it come from god or does it come from nature? Are men apart of nature or are we set apart from nature? If we are a part of nature, what sets us apart from animals? Is there any difference? Furhermore what is good? What is morally good? What has virtue? Who is the arbiter of such qualities? God or your fellow man? Does anyone have the right to decide such a thing?

If you've ever studied any humanities courses or some kind of social science you will find that the foundation of all the theoretical work, revolves around the spiritual and the philisophical. In debating god, in trying to quantify what is good, what is this god created universe, the church inadvertently created the foundation of the sciences that would overshadow it.

Personally I believe we are naturally good. You can see the basic expression of morals in simple animals. Much like us, much like our children, animals understand sharing, theft, jealousy, anger, kindness, love, loyalty. It's of course in a much rawer form for them. For most people their perception of right or worng, good or bad, comes down to culture. Your heritage and the place you are brought up in will affect who your become and how you act. However, even the most scared child soldier from Africa understands friendship, loyalty, sharing, etc.

I was thinking the opposite, like simple animals endorsing rape, infanticide, and cannibalism.

[Cause]

BalrogLord, on 23 March 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

An argument i've been throwing around in my head for the last few days. I was wondering if you all would be interested in taking a crack at it.

Hypothesis: Religion and Morals are correlated, but do not have a causal relation. Rather, individuals use religion as a mean of reinforcing previously held beliefs. Religion is not a source of morals, but a mirror of morals.

Reasoning:If religion has a causal effect on morals, then all individuals of a given religion would have much in common in regards to morals. All christians would have similar morals, all muslims would have similar morals. There may be some outliers (charlie hebdo attacks by a few individuals), however the overwhelming majority will share common beliefs about morality.

However that is not the case in real life (existence of muslim who condone war crimes as well as muslim who condemn war crimes). Where we have a new caliphate and a sizeable population of this caliphate has radically different ideas about morality than other muslims. The existence of extremist parties in all major religions also point to this.

Issue: Smaller sects of religious organisation will have more homogenous moral beliefs. "fundamentalist muslim sects, latter day saints, west-boro baptists, christian scientists (the sub group of Christianity, not scientists who are christian), therevada buddhists,etc. Does this mean that when in a smaller community, a specific sub grouping religion does have an effect on values? Or is this merely a case of classifying interpretations of religion (and as such it would be true by definition that people with the same interpretation of religion would have similar morals).

conclusion:?????????????


edit:CAN SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE THIS FORUM MORE COPY PASTE FRIENDLY FROM BLACK TEXT???????? If i leave it in white those responding to me via quote will have a harder time reffering to my post. If i leave it black....

Id say the answer is fairly apparent. Religion is not the source of morals. The bible says slavery is okay but its widely held to be abhorrent today. Yet of course religion can be used to reinforce or alter our morals. The bibles stance on murder is good reinforcement not to be a murder and the whole hate gays things has really spread (In contrast to how we know many ancient cultures were). The problem is humans and society don't live in a vacuum with only religion. Which means my morals are partly from my Jewish upbringing (even though I am atheist) my parents own beliefs, my countries beliefs etc... Even the Malazan book of the fallen has probably influenced me on some level on how I regard morality and my stance today is not the same as it was ten years ago.

Morality changes evolves/devolves with time and even local. To use your example the reason Muslims in America might condemn a war crime that Muslims in Syria support is because its probably only a war crime in the eyes of one the groups.

[Aptorian]

Gust Hubb, on 24 March 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

Apt, on 23 March 2015 - 11:02 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 23 March 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

Hypothesis: Religion and Morals are correlated, but do not have a causal relation. Rather, individuals use religion as a mean of reinforcing previously held beliefs. Religion is not a source of morals, but a mirror of morals.

Congratulations you just stumbled into an ongoing debate that has been going on since at least before the time writing was invented.

Are we inherently good or is the good something that comes to us? Does it come from god or does it come from nature? Are men apart of nature or are we set apart from nature? If we are a part of nature, what sets us apart from animals? Is there any difference? Furhermore what is good? What is morally good? What has virtue? Who is the arbiter of such qualities? God or your fellow man? Does anyone have the right to decide such a thing?

If you've ever studied any humanities courses or some kind of social science you will find that the foundation of all the theoretical work, revolves around the spiritual and the philisophical. In debating god, in trying to quantify what is good, what is this god created universe, the church inadvertently created the foundation of the sciences that would overshadow it.

Personally I believe we are naturally good. You can see the basic expression of morals in simple animals. Much like us, much like our children, animals understand sharing, theft, jealousy, anger, kindness, love, loyalty. It's of course in a much rawer form for them. For most people their perception of right or worng, good or bad, comes down to culture. Your heritage and the place you are brought up in will affect who your become and how you act. However, even the most scared child soldier from Africa understands friendship, loyalty, sharing, etc.

I was thinking the opposite, like simple animals endorsing rape, infanticide, and cannibalism.

But is this a predominant trait in animals? I'm not a biologist so my knowledge of animal behavior is of course limited, but rape, infanticide and cannibalism are not any more common in the more advanced species of animals, than they are in us, as far as I understand. Things like lions killing cubs and eating them, dolphins raping... pretty much anything, are pop culture things that have become a part of the public understanding of the animal kingdom, but what if it is a selective sample meant to sell Animal Planet videos?

I've seen just as many videos showing male lions taking care of cubs and being very affectionate. I've seen articles about Dolphins saving humans from drowning and generally showing a very advanced sort of animal societal unity.

If anything, the examples you point out, are examples that demonstrate that "evil" is a natural thing as well. The capacity for cruelty, homocide, perversion, etc. are also prevalent in animals. Bad things do no not happen because of the devil or because of fate, they are simply the results of the cause and effect of a creature that acts of its own free will.

Now, then we could get into a discussion about the existence of free will (neuro science suggests it might not exist) but that is besides the point.

[Andorion]

Why are we projecting our morality on animals?

[Stormcat]

Well I was raised by my Pagan mother and Atheist Grandfather. I had no knowledge of the bible until I went into the Army and it was all I was allowed to read in basic.... By most standards I live a pretty moral life. I am married, don't cheat, took kids not my own in to care for, work in animal rescue and do charity work regularly. My only point is my morals did not come from religion. At. All.

Oh and my cats are assholes. They will catch a small creature and literally torture it to death for funzies.

[Andorion]

Stormcat, on 24 March 2015 - 05:34 PM, said:

Well I was raised by my Pagan mother and Atheist Grandfather. I had no knowledge of the bible until I went into the Army and it was all I was allowed to read in basic.... By most standards I live a pretty moral life. I am married, don't cheat, took kids not my own in to care for, work in animal rescue and do charity work regularly. My only point is my morals did not come from religion. At. All.

Oh and my cats are assholes. They will catch a small creature and literally torture it to death for funzies.

Exactly. Morality is something we learn in our upbringing. It s aprt of living in society. Saying it comes from religion, which in turn was framed by society ignores the role of family and friends, not to mention the evolutionary perspective .

Are cats even animals? My pet theory is they are aliens in disguise slowly sunjugating us for eventual takeover

[D'rek]

Andorion, on 24 March 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

Exactly. Morality is something we learn in our upbringing. It s aprt of living in society. Saying it comes from religion, which in turn was framed by society ignores the role of family and friends, not to mention the evolutionary perspective .

Except that many religious people believe that religion was not framed by society, but that society was framed by religion. ie if it weren't for certain god[s/eddess/eddeses] enlightening us we would not have the same morals, and might not even be such social creatures.

Whether that be through direct Word from on high establishing rules to live by that form the basis of our social morality (ie the Ten Commandments) or take the evolutionary perspective and the belief that humans evolved into social creatures at all over millions of years due to divine influence, either way there is a reverse scenario of society being the result of deities that are the object of a religion's worship.

Seems like a pretty chicken and egg situation to me.

[Andorion]

D, on 24 March 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

Andorion, on 24 March 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

Exactly. Morality is something we learn in our upbringing. It s aprt of living in society. Saying it comes from religion, which in turn was framed by society ignores the role of family and friends, not to mention the evolutionary perspective .

Except that many religious people believe that religion was not framed by society, but that society was framed by religion. ie if it weren't for certain god[s/eddess/eddeses] enlightening us we would not have the same morals, and might not even be such social creatures.

Whether that be through direct Word from on high establishing rules to live by that form the basis of our social morality (ie the Ten Commandments) or take the evolutionary perspective and the belief that humans evolved into social creatures at all over millions of years due to divine influence, either way there is a reverse scenario of society being the result of deities that are the object of a religion's worship.

Seems like a pretty chicken and egg situation to me.

Not really, because the religion argument is almost entirely based on a few scriptures which were written by men. By this argument, that morality comes from divinity, a vehement atheist would have no morals. I am one. I am pretty sure I have morals.

The problem with saying that "some people believe" is that its a dead end. You can't argue with belief or faith. Evidence is unimportant. If eligion saysgod created morals, to believers thats the truth. If religion says an anthropomorphic fish carved morals on the rib bones of a whale, then thats what they believe. Thats why for me thos eopinions are irrelelevant.

I respect the right of other people to have different opinions, beliefs etc. Doesn't mean I have to respect those opinions or beliefs.

[Gust Hubb]

Apt, on 24 March 2015 - 04:07 PM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 24 March 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

Apt, on 23 March 2015 - 11:02 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 23 March 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

Hypothesis: Religion and Morals are correlated, but do not have a causal relation. Rather, individuals use religion as a mean of reinforcing previously held beliefs. Religion is not a source of morals, but a mirror of morals.

Congratulations you just stumbled into an ongoing debate that has been going on since at least before the time writing was invented.

Are we inherently good or is the good something that comes to us? Does it come from god or does it come from nature? Are men apart of nature or are we set apart from nature? If we are a part of nature, what sets us apart from animals? Is there any difference? Furhermore what is good? What is morally good? What has virtue? Who is the arbiter of such qualities? God or your fellow man? Does anyone have the right to decide such a thing?

If you've ever studied any humanities courses or some kind of social science you will find that the foundation of all the theoretical work, revolves around the spiritual and the philisophical. In debating god, in trying to quantify what is good, what is this god created universe, the church inadvertently created the foundation of the sciences that would overshadow it.

Personally I believe we are naturally good. You can see the basic expression of morals in simple animals. Much like us, much like our children, animals understand sharing, theft, jealousy, anger, kindness, love, loyalty. It's of course in a much rawer form for them. For most people their perception of right or worng, good or bad, comes down to culture. Your heritage and the place you are brought up in will affect who your become and how you act. However, even the most scared child soldier from Africa understands friendship, loyalty, sharing, etc.

I was thinking the opposite, like simple animals endorsing rape, infanticide, and cannibalism.

But is this a predominant trait in animals? I'm not a biologist so my knowledge of animal behavior is of course limited, but rape, infanticide and cannibalism are not any more common in the more advanced species of animals, than they are in us, as far as I understand. Things like lions killing cubs and eating them, dolphins raping... pretty much anything, are pop culture things that have become a part of the public understanding of the animal kingdom, but what if it is a selective sample meant to sell Animal Planet videos?

I've seen just as many videos showing male lions taking care of cubs and being very affectionate. I've seen articles about Dolphins saving humans from drowning and generally showing a very advanced sort of animal societal unity.

If anything, the examples you point out, are examples that demonstrate that "evil" is a natural thing as well. The capacity for cruelty, homocide, perversion, etc. are also prevalent in animals. Bad things do no not happen because of the devil or because of fate, they are simply the results of the cause and effect of a creature that acts of its own free will.

Now, then we could get into a discussion about the existence of free will (neuro science suggests it might not exist) but that is besides the point.

So belief that people are naturally good and evil is irrelevant. And I was going to point out cats next before Stormcat mentioned it.

I guess, if you want to blend the zombie thread with this one, my perspective is people are more individualist in this day and age, liable to protect their own narrow interests over the good of the rest. For the most part, community dynamics have been slowly dying as travel and internetz become dominant in our lives. The comparison I'm making is small towns of bygone years to modern suburbia, where people regularly move in and out of houses and barely know their neighbors.

The protection of self interest (even a small group interest) and the capability to do massive damage to their surroundings are what make people inherently "evil" in my belief system. We have the potential to do good, but in the end we fall into the paradigm so eloquently put but Agent Smith in the Matrix: we are viruses. Biologically, we take over an ecosystem, reproduce, exhaust the resources, and then explode outward to repopulate other ecosystems. This is where humans are unique. I've heard we are the only animal to completely and utterly eradicate other surrounding species (what we call pests), unable to integrate into the larger ecosystem (I also cite how we deal with mountain lions as evidence).

[D'rek]

Andorion, on 25 March 2015 - 01:32 AM, said:

Not really, because the religion argument is almost entirely based on a few scriptures which were written by men. By this argument, that morality comes from divinity, a vehement atheist would have no morals. I am one. I am pretty sure I have morals.

Well, everyone has their own individual beliefs which may or may not line up exactly with what the person right next to them on the pews/in the mosque/whatever believes so maybe someone out there really does believe that vehement atheists have no morals.

But, I figure most people who believe morality comes from religion believe something along the lines of:

--written scripture is just man's imperfect interpretation of past events and the almighty Truth, but the real power of the deity has shaped society much more subtly, regardless of what the exact wording of some book is.

or

--the power of the deity flows through everyone whether they believe or not. Those who have no morals and commit heinous crimes have rejected the deity all the way to their souls.

or something else like that which viably explains

Andorion, on 25 March 2015 - 01:32 AM, said:

The problem with saying that "some people believe" is that its a dead end. You can't argue with belief or faith. Evidence is unimportant. If eligion saysgod created morals, to believers thats the truth. If religion says an anthropomorphic fish carved morals on the rib bones of a whale, then thats what they believe. Thats why for me thos eopinions are irrelelevant.

I respect the right of other people to have different opinions, beliefs etc. Doesn't mean I have to respect those opinions or beliefs.

Okay... then why enter into a debate pertaining to religion being correlated with something secular in the first place if you are going to find all opinions supporting one side to be irrelevant by default?

[Andorion]

D, on 25 March 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

Andorion, on 25 March 2015 - 01:32 AM, said:

Not really, because the religion argument is almost entirely based on a few scriptures which were written by men. By this argument, that morality comes from divinity, a vehement atheist would have no morals. I am one. I am pretty sure I have morals.

Well, everyone has their own individual beliefs which may or may not line up exactly with what the person right next to them on the pews/in the mosque/whatever believes so maybe someone out there really does believe that vehement atheists have no morals.

But, I figure most people who believe morality comes from religion believe something along the lines of:

--written scripture is just man's imperfect interpretation of past events and the almighty Truth, but the real power of the deity has shaped society much more subtly, regardless of what the exact wording of some book is.

or

--the power of the deity flows through everyone whether they believe or not. Those who have no morals and commit heinous crimes have rejected the deity all the way to their souls.

or something else like that which viably explains

Andorion, on 25 March 2015 - 01:32 AM, said:

The problem with saying that "some people believe" is that its a dead end. You can't argue with belief or faith. Evidence is unimportant. If eligion saysgod created morals, to believers thats the truth. If religion says an anthropomorphic fish carved morals on the rib bones of a whale, then thats what they believe. Thats why for me thos eopinions are irrelelevant.

I respect the right of other people to have different opinions, beliefs etc. Doesn't mean I have to respect those opinions or beliefs.

Okay... then why enter into a debate pertaining to religion being correlated with something secular in the first place if you are going to find all opinions supporting one side to be irrelevant by default?

The point about people in the same church or religious group having different interpretations of faith is actually a very good one. Sadly most religious organizations would rather that they follow a single uniform view. In fact a lot of the religious wars of Europe contained this element of differing interpretation causing division.

As for the second part, I should probably have phrased that better. My problem is that most arguments for religion basically boil down to an assertion of what is written in an ancient book as the ultimate truth. Where a biologist or a sociologist or an anthropologist would talk about herd interactions, evolving social formations, tribal and non-tribal societies etc. the other side of the debate would simply re-state scripture. This just seems a bit....I don't know... lazy to me.

Morals evolve. Case in point a lot of biblical morals are no longer considered particularly moral now. This is the result of social evolution. But is seems to me that a religion-only viewpoint would have trouble negotiating this. If morality is divinely ordained, how can some rules be obsolete and new rules be framed?

Of course I would be quite eager to hear an intelligent religious reply to these questions. Somebody that takes into account the counter-points and tries to explain his point of view in a reasonable manner than just repeating the same hackneyed lines.

[Studlock]

If you want to get a bit Foucaultian 'truth' and 'knowledge' are simply the product of what those who have power in society deem useful. Included with in that would of course be moral truths and moral knowledge and if the a society is a theocracy one could argue that that's society morals are indeed deprived from religion. This, of course, makes certain assumptions about humanity, like that the human condition is historically relative and is in direct contrasts to Andorion biological deprived idea that morality is from humanity bio-cultural existence that assumes that there is a objective human condition (which I assume for Andorion would be being a evolutionary product of biology). I'm a bit somewhere in the middle. I study anthropology (though only as a minor so I'm by no means an expert) and at the end of the day we can't really know the context of the archaeological dig sites so this assumption that human morality is deprived simply from our own existence as biological beings it very hard to prove. We don't how early humans organized themselves. We know how modern hunter-gathers organize themselves but they have undoubtedly been pushed to the most extreme environments which might have forced them to organize different, it also doesn't explain why such morals aren't universal--murder, violence, greediness and so on--are very much culturally and context sensitive (just look at the USA). A hunter-gather people in the Fertile Crescent might have been just as oppressive and violent as any stratified society is today.

That being said I think don't morality is deprived from religion either or at least not religion as we know it. It might be deprived from ritual which humans have pretty much always had. But the most honest answer from me is it comes from cultural, which isn't something that exist outside of biology of course (we need to eat, shit, and fuck after all--and even those are occasionally circumvented by cultural beliefs), but I definitely think it our intellectual engine and for me that whats morality is: an intellectual pursuit and discussion about how to best run our societies (or all societies). All moral truths are relative (and you might argue so are 'objective' truths but that's a different thread and a different topic) to the cultural in which they are made. If a culture is a highly religious one then it is deprived from religion if it's not then, well it's not.

That's how I like to about it at least. Not all thing's human do is because survival, if find that argument dips to closely to biological determinism but as an agnostic individual I think I'm a moral person so I really don't think it's deprived from religion.