Does Atheism Fit the Definition of Religion?

[Amir]

Morality?

I would like to explore the following concepts.

1. What is morality?

2. Is morality a byproduct of religion/s? (I only know about 3 major religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam.) & Do all our moral values come from religion/s?

3. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Adam]

Chimps have morality. I've never seen evidence of them having religion. Morality is not a product of religion.

I do have morality. Whether it's like yours or not is another matter. I have no religion.

 

[Amir]

Chimps have morality.

really, what kind of morality are we talking about here?

 

[tabloid]

really, what kind of morality are we talking about here?

any set of animals have their own kind of morals or basic way of life.take a look at lions and how they hunt in packs,gorrilas or even ants live in some kind of organized way.it took time to develop their way of doing the doing thing.so nature has its own way;some basic rules.

 

[dekoi]

There is a large difference between moraliy and instinct.

Morality is founded on the natural law. Throughout life's existence, there has always been a set law in the order of the world; everything is meant for each other; everyone and everything strives to achieve goodness and avoid evil. Our morality is built on this notion of a natural law.

Our conscience is the use of our morality.

Animals have instinct and not morality; only human life can have a moral judgement because our soul allows us.

Thus, our morality can not strictly be a byproduct of religion(s). A stranded mother has a baby, the mother dies, the baby somehow survives. The baby grows up stranded on this island and adapts this unusual lifestyle. Even though the baby or now adult has no understanding or knowledge of religion, it/he/she somehow builds a certain conscience founded on a morality. This is because all human life searches for goodness, truth, unity, and justice (and thus, a higher power); because human life searches for goodness, it also searches for the natural law.

 

[wuliheron]

Words and concepts only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. In general, animals are not concidered moral because they are assumed to have no awareness of why they do what they do, anymore than an apple has any apparent awareness of why it falls to the ground.

Especially in the west, morality is generally thought of in absolute terms. The ten commandments are a good example. They do not provide any exceptions to the rules such as, "Tho shalt not kill (except in self-defense!)" Legal systems are another good example of what we normally call morality, and do not require any religious beliefs. What virtually every modern day morality shares in common is Aristotelian logic.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Morality is founded on the natural law. Throughout life's existence, there has always been a set law in the order of the world; everything is meant for each other; everyone and everything strives to achieve goodness and avoid evil. Our morality is built on this notion of a natural law.

I'm not so sure about that. It all depends on what constitutes "good" and "evil". I believe what separates us from animals in terms of morality is solely that we constantly pre-judge people by their actions. Therefore, any action performed that would bring about a negative judgment from others is considered immoral. This also asserts that morality is firmly lodged in the beliefs of others, and is not something that is inherent to our nature (though it is a result).

A simple thing as "not sharing" is a decent example. Though it is only slightly immoral in most of our eyes, it is frowned upon. If a wild canine had a kill and was eating, and another wanted some but the first wouldn't share, would the second then make it known that the first's actions were immoral? Would it judge the first? No. Humans seem to be the only animal that constantly judges others, usually negatively on actions that personally affect the judge.

Killing is the extreme example. In some cultures if you catch a thief stealing something of yours, you may execute him. The stealing is seen as immoral, but punishment is not. You could slay him and no one in the society would think "deep-down" that it was wrong. So its not something built into our nature, though the forcing of ideas upon others is.

 

[Tigron-X]

Chimps have morality. I've never seen evidence of them having religion. Morality is not a product of religion.

I do have morality. Whether it's like yours or not is another matter. I have no religion.

Everyone has a religion. It's just not the same religion.

I would like to explore the following concepts.

1. What is morality?

2. Is morality a byproduct of religion/s? (I only know about 3 major religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam.) & Do all our moral values come from religion/s?

3. Where do you draw the line?

(1) Morality defines actions of right and wrong in respect to living and/or living with others; or higher standards and lower standards in respect to living and/or living with others.

(2) Morality is not a byproduct of religion since it is a combination of intelligence, knowledge, instinct and imagination that gives us awareness to make such judgments on living. Also, religion deals with one's beliefs about God, and furthering these beliefs will affect one's morality just as one's beliefs will affect one's actions. Morality is a product of acquired knowledge that helps us value behavior as a positive consequence or negative consequence by judging something/someone as having "good moral judgment" or "bad moral judgment". By doing so we're able to predict future behaviors and outcomes of having such beliefs in terms of living, so that we may have better awareness of our choices as living beings with various instinctive needs. Needs that can lead us to negative consequences if we do not control them or handle them by having the knowledge of other needs that will require fullfilment.

(3) "Drawing the line?" I guess what has you asking that questions is that you're referring to people saying, "If it wasn't for <insert religion>, people wouldn't have moral ground to stand on anymore." Am I correct? Anyhow... the belief in God helps our judgment by giving our conscious a point of perfect existence. It helps our imagination. So, I guess one would draw the line depending on one's desired living standards and ideas of a perfect existence with respect to consequences and how Life works.



Simply put, if all it took was religion to have good moral judgment, then we wouldn't have religious wars.

 

[dekoi]

I'm not so sure about that. It all depends on what constitutes "good" and "evil". I believe what separates us from animals in terms of morality is solely that we constantly pre-judge people by their actions. Therefore, any action performed that would bring about a negative judgment from others is considered immoral. This also asserts that morality is firmly lodged in the beliefs of others, and is not something that is inherent to our nature (though it is a result).

Are you implying prejudice is one of the -- if not the only -- factor which separates human morality with this so called "animal morality" ?
Prejudice is a byproduct of our secular humanist society. When humans allow their passion to get ahead of their virtue, they can become angry, fearful, frustrated, etc ahead of time ; thus, prejudice is this byproduct. Animals can in no way have morality. Morality is only allowable by a soul, which -- correct me if you think otherwise -- animals do not have.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Are you implying prejudice is one of the -- if not the only -- factor which separates human morality with this so called "animal morality" ?
Prejudice is a byproduct of our secular humanist society. When humans allow their passion to get ahead of their virtue, they can become angry, fearful, frustrated, etc ahead of time ; thus, prejudice is this byproduct. Animals can in no way have morality. Morality is only allowable by a soul, which -- correct me if you think otherwise -- animals do not have.

By pre-judging someone I don't mean in any way to imply a derogatory meaning. I pre-judge people everyday. I see someone at the labs that I work at and assume they're really smart. That is pre-judging someone. There is nothing wrong with it. And this has nothing to do with prejudice either.
About the animals and souls stuff, I'm trying to define morality without bringing beliefs into it, but being able to bring belief SYSTEMS into it. Like I could say that religion is what gives us these guiding rules about their "morality" but that what the SYSTEM teaches has nothing to do with some religion's view of a "soul".

As for the animal argument; I believe they are capable of immorality solely due to humans. Remember my definition of morality is based on conforming to a society's viewpoints. This seems to be your view in essence too, if you're religious then you're conforming to that church's viewpoints. Once again, don't take "conform" to be a deragatory term, its just a description.

One thing I would like to point out is an example of my late dog(as of two days ago). She learned that she must conform to our family, the society, to be accepted. If she were to perform an act that was against our rules or wants then she was frowned upon or scolded. The next time she did it, she would realize that she did something wrong, something "immoral", and you could tell she shrunk down with tail between her legs and eyes avoiding ours that she was ashamed of her actions; but solely due to OUR influence on her. She was NOT afraid of being hurt or anything (we would never hit her) but she knew that her actions had upset us. Deep down inside her instincs may have been telling her that going to the bathroom in the house was perfectly acceptable, but in our society in the house it was not.

The thing about animals living in a non-human contaminated environment is that their society is solely based upon their natural instincts. Therefore there is no need to conform to a groups wants and expectations that is different from the animal's own expectations.

Do you see what I'm trying to put forth? Immorality can be observed as nothing more than deviation from a society's imposed standards.

Now the question becomes "What makes humans so different?"

I believe the answer actually lies within our use of technology. By "technology" I don't mean computers, but anything from writing to cave drawings to bard's tales. By having this means of transfering information about our past society's style of existence, we become more knoweldgable as to how humans have acted in the past. I believe inherent to our nature, as well as all animals, is to increase their "comfort" and "stability" in life. As we can see from past experiences both human and animal, the ones who live the best lives are usually the "alpha males" and those who express a higher social status than others. Now thanks to this ability to remember how past societies have acted, those who wish to be viewed as "above" the norm of social status make attempts to surpass the regular/past customs. Pretty soon everyone is above the norm, thus the norm moves up as well. This creates a propagation of what's considered "acceptable" and "unacceptable", or "moral" and "immoral".
Now we can see that there ARE groups that take the other extreme, "evil" and make that their "moral" standard. The problem with these "cult-like" groups is that though they have a defined moral standard, their moral standard is detrimental to their society, and thus self-destructing. This is why most of what is viewed today as "moral" and "immoral" to the extreme are actions that are beneficial or detrimental to the advancement of the population of the society.

Ok, this post is getting too long. Hopefully people still read it. I feel like I should be printing this off for an ethics class or something...

 

[Amir]

Adam : Morality is relative, true, but there are universal rules, driven from even more fundamentally basic rules of balance down to atomic level. The reason I started this thread, was, 3 days ago I accidentally came across, a radio program, "the howard stern show” he had some porn star on and she was talking about doing an Anal gangbang with 100 guys this kinda got me questioning her morality, the thing that troubled me most about all this was, she happened to be married and had 2 small kids, 11 and 5 even Mr. Stern seemed shocked! he asked her if she was ever physically abused as a child, and don’t her husband take offense?... she said no and no! and I was like, man! may be religion is important in life, this women has crossed ever boundary one can imagine. Then I said to myself, but what about priests in catholic church, those priests weren’t any better? and so I asked myself where do you draw the line. on one hand you have a person so repugnant that she would let total strangers ravage her in the worst way, with her kids being the real victim, victim of extreme ridicule and embracement keep in mind her kid is 11 not far from the discovery stage. and on the other hand you have religious people doing even worse.

 

[Tigron-X]

Well Amir, you can look at this two ways depending on your beliefs.

(1) Religion is about your beliefs in God, and that's as much as it has to do with God.

(2) Morality is strung from having knowledge about Life; the more knowledge you have the better your moral judgment is because you know what needs Life imposes on your existence, and thus you have the judgment to make better choices in your life. You better your judgment even more if you do it in ways that makes life easier for you and for others.

 

[bd1976]

(2) Morality is strung from having knowledge about Life; the more knowledge you have the better your moral judgment is because you know what needs Life imposes on your existence, and thus you have the judgment to make better choices in your life. You better your judgment even more if you do it in ways that makes life easier for you and for others.

Mate.. take a moment to think. Without the concept of God there is no such thing as good and evil. For example this statement...

You better your judgment even more if you do it in ways that makes life easier for you and for others

If you believe that we evolved from apes and that there is no God then there is no reason for making life easier for others - we are animals. We are supposed to advance ourselves not others. Certainly there is no such thing as morality. Your statement is a misinformed opinion. You think its "better" to make things easier for yourself or others. But there is no justification for this statement other than your opinion.

 

[KaneOris]

First, what do you define morals as?

 

[Leon]

Adam : Morality is relative, true, but there are universal rules, driven from even more fundamentally basic rules of balance down to atomic level.

I think it would be good if you could clarify this further. I'm trying to be non-confrontational here.

You say that morality is relative, I presume you mean that it is based on values of societies which are imposed on the individuals within those societies.
Then you say that it is driven by rules of balance which are somehow either derived from or the result of fundamental atomic rules.

To me, saying that morality is relative suggests that there is no fixed principles from which the moralities of different cultures deviate. But with a sort of "Tao of physics" morality, you are suggesting that in fact there is a universal. In which case THAT is the source of moral truth, and all or all but one of the societies are wrong to an extent.
However from that I'm left wondering how exactly atomic laws which vaguely suggest harmony came to relate to or should have anything to do with how we act as human beings. We are far more complicated than just positives and negatives. And the questions still remains: why?

Morality is strung from having knowledge about Life; the more knowledge you have the better your moral judgment is because you know what needs Life imposes on your existence, and thus you have the judgment to make better choices in your life. You better your judgment even more if you do it in ways that makes life easier for you and for others.

(Emphasis mine)

The debate here I think is about what defines a better choice. If, as you suggest, a better choice is even better if it makes life easier for you and for others, the questions then become
- Where did this come from if anywhere? and
- Why bother anyway?

And in response to Amir, relating to priests in the Catholic Church - these are isolated cases. And the thing is, this woman didn't claim that anything she was doing was wrong. The Catholic faith however (although I am not a member) does claim both that everyone has done wrong, and that everyone will keep on doing wrong. It also suggests what is right and what is wrong an why. So they can condemn the action as being wrong, whilst the woman really doesn't care either way. The actions of a few priests shouldn't affect your view of their explanation of what right and wrong are/how they came to be that way.

 

[K.J.Healey]

If you believe that we evolved from apes and that there is no God then there is no reason for making life easier for others - we are animals. We are supposed to advance ourselves not others. Certainly there is no such thing as morality. Your statement is a misinformed opinion. You think its "better" to make things easier for yourself or others. But there is no justification for this statement other than your opinion.

Thats not true. Even apes work together as a group. Most of them share meals, help each other keep clean, help take care of each others' children.

Morality can, in one definition, be just that: actions that better the society. Thus, if your death would result in 10,000 others staying alive, would not killing yourself/accepting death be the moral thing to do?

 

[Amir]

Leon: Perhaps I didn’t word it correctly, what I meant to say by, “down to atomic level” was,... it appears that morality or principles are part of us by design. There is balance at every level, starting from a simple atomic level (or even subatomic & so on) ...the point being, that perhaps there is a reason why we developed principles, these principles or laws are govern by nature itself. Seeking balance is in our nature, be it a simple thing or a complex social moral behavior.

oh by the way I remember her name now, it was Victoria Givens, She is an adult movie star married with kids(2), got a husband who let's her take strange men up strange places LOL! do you see the imbalance? sorry this wasn’t meant to be funny.

 

[Leon]

Morality can, in one definition, be just that: actions that better the society.

Thanks Amir for your response.
Healey, I agree that in one definition morality can be actions that better the society. However I would question whether (to an atheist [as a philosophical position, not as a religious belief ]) this definition actually refers to anything - and by that I mean, is it just a concept that we have invented in our heads and attatched to a certain type of behavior, or is there some sort of real, universal motivation or driving force behind that morality?

Amir attributes it to the sense of balance inherent in the laws of nature. I guess I still struggle to see why we should obey these 'laws', when in many cases I see them as being unclear on the best course of action in a given scenario. And in any case I can't see any reason why one should be bothered following them if one could just not and potentially enjoy oneself more.

 

[Tigron-X]

Mate.. take a moment to think. Without the concept of God there is no such thing as good and evil. For example this statement...

I have a concept of God, and I see God as the Creator. I also don't see the world as black and white like you do. (good & evil). If I did, I'd understand a lot less.

If you believe that we evolved from apes and that there is no God then there is no reason for making life easier for others - we are animals. We are supposed to advance ourselves not others. Certainly there is no such thing as morality. Your statement is a misinformed opinion. You think its "better" to make things easier for yourself or others. But there is no justification for this statement other than your opinion.

(1) Evolution doesn't conflict with Creation.
(2) Life isn't as selfish as you think. The easiest way to advance is with others. Even wolves understand it. It's the reason we came to living in a social existence. It's beneficial to survival.

"You think its "better" to make things easier for yourself or others. But there is no justification for this statement other than your opinion."

Another word for it is called giving. Understand the principal of giving and why it exist and you'll come to an understanding of what I'm saying.

 

[Tigron-X]

The debate here I think is about what defines a better choice. If, as you suggest, a better choice is even better if it makes life easier for you and for others, the questions then become
- Where did this come from if anywhere? and
- Why bother anyway?

- "Where did this come from if anywhere?"

Well, a better choice can come from hindsight or imagination. Your choices in life are limited by your knowledge. What you know influences your belief structure, and you see what you believe. In other words, Perspective is Reality, or better said, Individual Reality. It's a concept of awareness, and understanding that we are not aware of everything to always have the best choice available, but we can always find a better choice. Now I'm not saying walking that path is easier. I'm saying the end result is that life becomes easier with knowledge. We live in a world governed by natural law, and the better we understand the laws, we are more able to influence its force.
Where does natural law come from? Well that depends on your beliefs.

-"Why bother anyway?"

Natural means of survival and living/experiencing life to the fullest most possible way. No one is responsible for our existence, except ourselves. We can't change natural law. We can only abide by it through understanding or abide by it through misunderstanding. Either way it controls us and affects us because it's what gives us our consequences and choices. All we can do is find all the choices that gives us a reward, and be consistent with receiving such reward.


I hope I answered your questions...?

 

[saviourmachine]

Morality
Difficult to define; I'll only expose some thoughts. It seems to me to be narrowly related with 'will', 'responsability', 'reasoning', 'advantage', 'subjectivity', 'laws' and 'common practise'.

1. What is morality?
2. Is morality a byproduct of religion/s? (I only know about 3 major religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam.) & Do all our moral values come from religion/s?
3. Where do you draw the line?

1) My morality is mainly based on my pro-choice viewpoint. This can be extended to even letting people choose to violate my own freedom at times. 2) My moral values aren't based on how people say how I should live, but on how I think I should live. What I am is a product - not merely a product, I'm very proud on what I am - of biological evolution in which egoism and altruism can both give advantages (to the individual or the specie). 3) There is no line.

Chimps have morality. I've never seen evidence of them having religion. Morality is not a product of religion.
I do have morality. Whether it's like yours or not is another matter. I have no religion.

Everyone has a religion. It's just not the same religion.

Ha ha! In that case I've probably the same religion as these chimps! What kind of religion do chimp have, Tigron? And ants?

he had some porn star on and she was talking about doing an Anal gangbang with 100 guys this kinda got me questioning her morality

Why?

Where did this come from if anywhere?

Are you asking for authority? Where something does come from doesn't have anything to do with its validity.

 

[Locrian]

If you believe that we evolved from apes and that there is no God then there is no reason for making life easier for others - we are animals. We are supposed to advance ourselves not others. Certainly there is no such thing as morality.

This is entirely incorrect. It has been shown that social animals do, in fact, make life easier for each other, and have good reason to do so. Any examination of primate society will show numerous instances of socially productive behavior. There are innumerable examples of elephants looking after each other and working together as a society. Packs of lions have been documented as providing for sick members of the pack who are unable to care for themselves.

I do not believe in a God, and yet I can think of hundreds of reasons to make life easier for others. The statement "If you believe that we evolved from apes and that there is no God then there is no reason for making life easier for others" shows a complete disrespect and disregard for large numbers of atheists who wouldn't agree, as well as any number of animals who act in blatant defiance of this uninformed statement.

The very first subject dealt with in moral philosophy is that of morality without religion. Socrates had the puzzle solved with his question to Euthyphro thousands of years ago, and Christian scholars have always used it as a primary pivot when dealing with the subject. I can't think of a statement less true that could be said about the subject of morality than to say that there can be none without God.

 

[bd1976]

This is entirely incorrect. It has been shown that social animals do, in fact, make life easier for each other, and have good reason to do so. Any examination of primate society will show numerous instances of socially productive behavior. There are innumerable examples of elephants looking after each other and working together as a society. Packs of lions have been documented as providing for sick members of the pack who are unable to care for themselves.

Alright, I agree. My post was provocative and smplistic however I often find such a stance helps promote these discussions. What I meant to illustrate was that if we really are just advanced animals then there is no basis for the concepts of right and wrong - absolute morality as it's called does not exist. Our sense of right and wrong is probally just a genetic artefact to incourage the formation of societies amoung humans. Which is a more effective way of existing than working alone. If you don't believe in the concept of a god morality becomes a tool for encouraging humans to work together rather than a collection of absolutes to live by.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bd1976
"You think its "better" to make things easier for yourself or others. But there is no justification for this statement other than your opinion."

Another word for it is called giving. Understand the principal of giving and why it exist and you'll come to an understanding of what I'm saying.

Ok. well you already said you believe in god so my argument doesn't apply to you. You think its wrong to kill (read: murder) because god says so. However imagine that you didn't believe in god. You would still think that it is wrong to kill however there are others who believe that it is right to kill in order to advance themselves. Without the concept of God to define moral guidelines there is no way to say whose viewpoint is correct. If we are no different than animals then the only reason that killing is deemed wrong is not because it is "wrong!" but merely that it is undesirable to society.

Anyway hope that all makes (some) sense. bd

 

[hypnagogue]

However imagine that you didn't believe in god. You would still think that it is wrong to kill however there are others who believe that it is right to kill in order to advance themselves. Without the concept of God to define moral guidelines there is no way to say whose viewpoint is correct. If we are no different than animals then the only reason that killing is deemed wrong is not because it is "wrong!" but merely that it is undesirable to society.

I agree with what you say here; the question is, it that necessarily so bad? If moral codes such as "thou shalt not kill" are valuable to a society, then a society will enforce them. Without a God, there would be no absolute sense in which an act of murder is right or wrong in a philosophical sense, but in a practical sense there would still be a society enforcing laws to restrict and/or punish it.

More relevantly, people will have an innate sense of right and wrong right from the get-go, due to those genetics you mention. Such an innate sense serves as the skeletal basis of all moral philosophy, and includes at least the beginnings of general and well-accepted sentiments such as "it is bad to kill." So while you will still have your bad apples (as we do in abundance even today, when something like 95% of America believes in God), what you will not have is a sudden flood of soulless, unsympathetic monsters-- human beings are not blank slates.

And if you are concerned about environmental influences, there is always good old secular moral philosophy. It's not clear that the absolute anchor of a Godhead really makes much of a difference in practice in people's attitudes towards morality. (Who knows, such absolute, inflexible certitude in one's convictions may do more harm than good!) After all, Confucius's Golden Rule seems to have made a big splash in Eastern philosophy, and Jesus's "love thy neighbor as thyself" could certainly resonate with one's moral sensibilities even without a God to act as a tuning fork.

 

[saviourmachine]

More relevantly, people will have an innate sense of right and wrong right from the get-go, due to those genetics you mention. Such an innate sense serves as the skeletal basis of all moral philosophy, and includes at least the beginnings of general and well-accepted sentiments such as "it is bad to kill." So while you will still have your bad apples (as we do in abundance even today, when something like 95% of America believes in God), what you will not have is a sudden flood of soulless, unsympathetic monsters-- human beings are not blank slates.

Innate sense of right and wrong
I'm inclined to disagree about this. Can you specify what you mean by an innate sense of right and wrong? I think this knowledge someone obtains by living life. I do think that there is some circuit involved that has to do with empathy, but I don't think that there is something that 'decides' what is good or wrong. Our social construct and ability to feel empathy prevents mankind to end in a flood of unsympathetic monsters. We are - indeed - not blank slates, but neither filled with that amount of a priori knowledge as you seem to say.

Evolving morality within a particular person
You don't have of the beginning the slightest idea of killing. You just want your milk, and a few other things. It are experiences* that learn you; that you can interact with someone, that you can hurt someone, that persons can have things wrong (even your dad ), that appearances aren't the things itself, that you can soften the way you express things, that you can lie about things, that you can take things without asking. How do you know that stealing is wrong, if you don't have an idea about possession?

Comparison with beauty
You don't 'know' what is beauty beforehand. You 'learn' it by observing things. There is no circuit that decides what is 'beauty' or 'ugliness'. You just like your milk, and a few other things. You start to like the one that gives you the milk, the (body)warmth of your folks, their way of talking, the characteristics of their faces, you start to like the specie mankind. This kind of 'discrimination' between beautiful/ugliness is even more evolved as our discrimination between good/evil. In respect to evolution processes it's maybe just as important to have sex with the most fertile person, as not deserting when your hunting fellows are in danger. Strange that appreciating 'good' seems to be preferred above appreciating 'beauty'. Even hypocretical IMHO.

Structured presentations
Do we structure beautiness on certain scales as we do with morality? Why do we formulate laws to discern good from bad, and not to discern beauty from ugliness? IMHO this has to do with our stance toward pro-choice. At the end most important to us is that we can live our lifes on the way we want, with the religion we think that's true, with the woman/man we like, and so on.

*Experience shapes someones morality. This doesn't mean that someone can not know if something is 'good' or 'wrong' until he/she performs the very act. Mankind is able to extrapolate, e.g. if hurting someone against his/her will feels wrong and if someone is able to feel empathy, kiling someone would certainly be considered as evil.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think the real source of these categories is not so much solo observing of the world as particioation in community. First, by interacting with parents as a baby and toddler, and then by interacting with peers as a child. It isn't just a passive learning process either but a dynamic "try it and see" operation.

Morality does vary between highly different cultures, anyone can see that. The problem is to respond to it. Is that all there is? Or is there a deeper morality that everybody expresses but differently? Is morality as complex in us as Chomsky's deep structure for language? Since both evolved together in oour tribal ancestor's social interactions, can they really be separated?

 

[Leon]

Morality
1) My morality...

...Are you asking for authority? Where something does come from doesn't have anything to do with its validity.

To me, that 'a morality' can be someone's and theirs alone to me suggests it is something purely subjective, a psychological construction. Is "your" morality just what you want or think you should do?

In my opinion a morality is something which you believe in and you also believe that others should be the same way - this is not to say that you force your beliefs upon others, but that you believe that you are right unless given reason to think otherwise; and what you think is also based on reasons.

In which case I would argue that where something comes from has everything to do with its validity - if my "morality" is just a vague series of principles by which live my own life, yet do not wish that others would act in a similar way, then it is not valid for anyone but myself.
But there is something universal in the morality you described before: the idea of freedom for everyone. I would personally question where this idea came from, and why everyone else should respect it. But if it's just from you, or perhaps from some instinctual tendency, I really couldn't care less.

I hope I haven't been too aggressive, I have no intention to offend anyone.

 

[Leon]

Morality does vary between highly different cultures, anyone can see that. The problem is to respond to it. Is that all there is? Or is there a deeper morality that everybody expresses but differently? Is morality as complex in us as Chomsky's deep structure for language? Since both evolved together in oour tribal ancestor's social interactions, can they really be separated?

The difference is that we need language to communicate. Without language, communitation becomes extremely difficult. However, I can't see how it would be difficult at all to live a life without morality - just do whatever you want.
In other words, even if there is a deeper pattern to moralities across the world that evolved over time, I really couldn't give a schmizzle. Why bother? Why constrain myself to acting in a certain way?

 

[Locrian]

However, I can't see how it would be difficult at all to live a life without morality - just do whatever you want.

I dissagree; I think it's easy to live a very slightly moral life, but nearly impossible to live one completely devoid of morals. Doing whatever you want quickly produces severe consequences, and I think someone would learn quickly that they need at least the faintest moral structure to be happy.

 

[saviourmachine]

Harmony

Is "your" morality just what you want or think you should do?

Both. I am living in harmony with myself.

Subjectivity

In my opinion a morality is something which you believe in and you also believe that others should be the same way - this is not to say that you force your beliefs upon others, but that you believe that you are right unless given reason to think otherwise; and what you think is also based on reasons.

I can almost totally agree, it's subjective. And - indeed - I'm inclined to think that others should think likewise about it. But I think that

• my morality is not only based on reasons (it's just the way we - human - are; that we e.g. can be hurt, can choose [ can of worms])
• a morality purely 'based on reasoning' is not possible, you also need axioms

Origin

In which case I would argue that where something comes from has everything to do with its validity - if my "morality" is just a vague series of principles by which live my own life, yet do not wish that others would act in a similar way, then it is not valid for anyone but myself.

I would wish that, but my moral(?) pro-choice rule overrides it. A vague serie of principles obtained due to dynamical processes that gave rise to live, to consciousness, to us. To deny what you are and how you feel about things, is to deny everything that formed you. If the validity of morality has to do with it's origin, I've nature itself on my side! But IMHO usefulness and happiness (albeit vague terms) are just as important, and they haven't anything to do with origin.

Not universal

But there is something universal in the morality you described before: the idea of freedom for everyone. I would personally question where this idea came from, and why everyone else should respect it. But if it's just from you, or perhaps from some instinctual tendency, I really couldn't care less.

It's not universal in that sense, it was my opinion that freedom is valuable. But for example a gouvernment putting a group of persons in quarantine (violating their freedom) can perform a desirable act with that.
You don't have to take my opinions about morality as moral just. You have to take your own! If you're raised in a friendly environment and able to feel empathy I think you can handle it.

 

[Mahler765]

Morality and Religion

In my high school philosophy class, we had to write a paper based on the question "What would be the basis of morality without reference to a divine ethic?"
Basically, what i did in the paper was take human beings as we know them today because otherwise I'd have to make an unlimited amount of assumptions. I put the human being as we know them today, named Jerry, and put him in the world by himself. I always start off by defining the terms in the question. A morality is a system of beliefs as to what is right or wrong as they pertain to a single person or to a group. A divine ethic is anything that is believed to be higher or more powerful than humans. Without the influence of religion, Jerry would form a morality based on the corrospondence, coherent, and pragmatic theories of truth. Since the typical human being today as the capabilities of reason and logic, and empirical sense, then we must assume that Jerry would also have these characteristics. Thus, Jerry would began to form a morality based on the fact that some things feel good and some things feel bad. Hobbes defined these as appetite and aversion. Jerry would not step in an ant bed after the first time because he would know that it would feel bad, or he would have an aversion to it. So the senses would tell Jerry what was good or bad which he could then build into a morality based on the corrospondence, coherent, and pragmatic theories of truth. This same rules would apply to a society. This would explain the Social Contract theory of government which states that a group of people agreed that it would to the advantage of the group to decide on a leader or organization of leadership.
In philosophical discussions, theology can not be used a stable foundation for philosophical argument. Personally, I'm a born again Christain. However that was irrevelant to the question so it was not mentioned and did not have an influence in my philosophical argument. And one of you mentioned that a person could not have a morality based on pure reason - Why not? Stepping in an ant bed is not a good thing because it does not produce a pleasurable experience. That is a simple form of a rule for living one's life which is a moral. What could be more reasonable than that?

 

[Amir]

Interesting hypothesis Mahler765, so if Jerry finds rapping sheep pleasurable and torturing animal fun, should he continue to do that? (since he is alone on the planet, and unfortunately just hit puberty) principally incapable of feeling their pain? Or do you think religion is also part of “learned knowledge” represented as “nature interrupted(as what GOD would have wanted)” by wise men hoping to do good, to help establish guidelines for sake of humanity, sowing a seed if you will, of hope and humility in humans. The question I should have asked, should have been “does any religion/s gives us ethics, morals and laws that we would have not discovered by our selves.”


I just read what I wrote and for some reason I sound ill tempered, which is not the intent, please don’t take it the wrong way, I am just trying to make a point with my very limited writing abilities.

I am trying to understand morality by questioning the true nature of religion, I am so damn confused. Forgive me for any incoherencies.

 

[saviourmachine]

Jerry

I put the human being as we know them today, named Jerry, and put him in the world by himself... Jerry would began to form a morality based on the fact that some things feel good and some things feel bad.

This hypothetical situation looks okay, but I want to name a few discrepancies (I don't want to call them flaws, because it's hypothetical). In the 'real world' morality develops out of a sense of empathy and the (social) environment (IMHO). So the morality Jerry develops would not only be different because of a different environment, but his empathic feelings are maybe directed to for example wolves (or whatever).

Raping sheep

if Jerry finds rapping sheep pleasurable and torturing animal fun, should he continue to do that?

That could be the case, definitely! But it could be that he develops 'higher' morals than most of us have: "not even eating animals". If we all were vegetarians you had probably asked if Jerry would find eating flesh pleasurable and killing fun. It just depends of his empathy capabilities and what he observes/experiences (animals killing each other, being hurt by some animal and so on).

 

[Amir]

But it could be that he develops 'higher' morals than most of us have: "not even eating animals". If we all were vegetarians you had probably asked if Jerry would find eating flesh pleasurable and killing fun. It just depends of his empathy capabilities and what he observes/experiences (animals killing each other, being hurt by some animal and so on).

saviourmachine: so you consider vegetarians to be of higher morals? I always thought that to be matter of choice and culture. I have seen some very nasty vegetarians, but that’s beside the point. One thing that you pointed out and which bears a great relevance to the subject is “empathy”, I think empathy is the key link for developing a certain attitude towards something, “one must be in someone’s shoes to understand ones situation” I think that’s what produces compassion, but where does religion comes into play? Ten Commandments for example,... was that a revolutionary concept at the time of Moses? did Mohamed introduced something new to the Arabs of Arabia? as far as morals are concerned...??

 

[saviourmachine]

Morals

saviourmachine: so you consider vegetarians to be of higher morals?

No, I'm almost a hedonist, only (sometimes) considering freedom of choice as 'higher' value. I'm speaking in an evolutionary context, seeing morals as something that 'survived', some 'inheritance', something that can 'evolve'. Actually I'm agnostic about the existence of a god or 'moral giver', so maybe I should shut my mouth in regard to morality & religion. :shy: I'll try to say a few words.

Morality in religion

but where does religion comes into play? Ten Commandments for example,... was that a revolutionary concept at the time of Moses? did Mohamed introduced something new to the Arabs of Arabia? as far as morals are concerned...??

I think religion can be the way to spread moral news over the place. Probably some concepts were quite revolutionary at the time of Moses. I'd expect that, because probably the laws written down were thought about. There were laws presented to discern a murder by purpose and unpurposely. Nice to see how the concept of the 'perfect being' (god) also changes over time. To have preferences, to discriminate seem to be okay for the jewish god. The christian god seems to love everyone and persons have the ability to choose for it or not.

Questions
It would nice to know something from religious people:

• Does morality come from religion? How? Is this more acceptable than an evolutionary view?
• Does the origin of morality has to do with its value?
• Why can morality that's (also) regarding behaviour between humans, be formulated by a higher being? Do agreements not have to be made between the parties that are involved (in stead of by a third party)?
• In how much is this kind of morality universal, in how much is it interpretable?
• What's the relation between morality and 'judging'? Does only the law maker have the 'right' to judge? Why?
• What's the relation between morality and justification and forgiveness? What is 'just', what is 'kind'?

 

[bd1976]

hmm...

My family is christian so i'll try to answer these.

Does morality come from religion? How? Is this more acceptable than an evolutionary view?

Yes. Its written in the bible. Its more acceptable for some people because many poeple believe that murder is wrong - not because its a social nusiance - but because it actually is "WRONG".

Does the origin of morality has to do with its value?

Erm not entirely sure what you mean by this. However one viewpoint is that the commandments in the bible were actually just common sense i.e only eat kosher meat becuase its more healty etc and that is why they because so important. However since a christian person believes that morality comes from god then probally the origin has nothing to do with value.

Why can morality that's (also) regarding behaviour between humans, be formulated by a higher being? Do agreements not have to be made between the parties that are involved (in stead of by a third party)?

In the christian sense god defines what is right and wrong. He created people in his own image etc... there is no "agreements" god doesn't have to be fair/unfair.

In how much is this kind of morality universal, in how much is it interpretable?

Almost all of it is interpretable. Hence different denominations.

What's the relation between morality and 'judging'? Does only the law maker have the 'right' to judge? Why?

God judges people according to his morality. He has the "right" because he is god.

What's the relation between morality and justification and forgiveness? What is 'just', what is 'kind'?

Well in the Bible God creates people, they start doing bad things. God get angry. God sends his son jesus to die thus atoning for those sins. Thats prety much the story. So I suppose that morality comes from god. god is just and judges people if they break his morality. Forgiveness is when god gives you another chance having broken the moral code.

 

[Tigron-X]

Ha ha! In that case I've probably the same religion as these chimps! What kind of religion do chimp have, Tigron? And ants?

I have no idea what religion chimps have or ants; let alone for me to say that they have one. The next time I have a convo with an ant though, I'll let you know.

As for you, if you say you have no religion then define religion. If you say religion is belief in God then you must include the absence of belief in God which is the samething as atheism. Atheism is a religion.

 

[Artorius]

Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is best compared with the term theism for clarification.

Theism is a position in which there is belief in a god or many gods.
Atheism is a position in which there is a lack of belief in a god or many gods.

I do not know of any religion which lacks belief in some god, either historical or present. In this sense, atheism cannot be deemed a religion.

 

[Locrian]

Those who say that atheism is a religion do the term "religion" a great injustice. Religion includes many possible individual and social aspects and values, while the definition of atheism includes only one - that you do not believe in a god or gods.

Religion can include many different cultural interpretations, many different moral values, even different belief systems. To be an atheist, one must only not believe in God.

Until recently I would have agreed with ARtorius and said that atheism prohibits religion. I am no longer so sure. An atheist can sometimes acquire a set of cultural customs and values that seem very "religious." Take the Church of Freethought, for example. These people gather weekly, discuss issues, work on charitable projects together, support each other and do many of the things a religious organization do. Am I to tell them they have no religion? I am undecided.

What I do know is that not all atheists have these cultural customs and values. In fact, many atheists lack any belief or custom usually associated with religion. I cannot repeat enough; those who defiantly state that atheism is a religion are incorrect, because the two words describe very different things that overlap much less than people suggest.

 

[russ_watters]

I read your other thread and typed a response, but had a network problem. I have two major (though related) problems with this:

Yes. Its written in the bible. Its more acceptable for some people because many poeple believe that murder is wrong - not because its a social nusiance - but because it actually is "WRONG".

First, it appears contradictory: is it murder wrong simply because it appears in the Bible or is there some reason why its wrong? Ie, does God just make up these rules on an arbitrary whim?

If the answer to that question is no (ie, God has a reason why murder should be wrong and that reason makes logical sense), why do we need to base morality on God - why can't we base morality on reason?

 

[saviourmachine]

As for you, if you say you have no religion then define religion. If you say religion is belief in God then you must include the absence of belief in God which is the samething as atheism. Atheism is a religion.

Okay... Albeit that I think that religion has to do with rituals and so on, I would couple it with believe. I certainly do believe in something. I am agnostic about the existence of god or its non-existence. So I'm not an atheist. (Besides, doesn't have something to exist, to be without-something, or it would be a tautology?)

I do believe in some kind of deeper reality, that gives rise to what we see and what we are; a kind of disk on which both data and memory are kept. I do believe scientists about scientific things, my mother about social things, my father about technical things, and so on. I've not time enough to observe everything in person.
Supernatural things didn't happen in my short life, even the 'religious experiences' I had felt pretty 'emotional', so I still am inclined not to believe about that kind of things.

I believe it's good to live. That ant too? Then do we share the same religion.

 

[bd1976]

I read your other thread and typed a response, but had a network problem. I have two major (though related) problems with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd1976
Yes. Its written in the bible. Its more acceptable for some people because many poeple believe that murder is wrong - not because its a social nusiance - but because it actually is "WRONG".

First, it appears contradictory: is it murder wrong simply because it appears in the Bible or is there some reason why its wrong? Ie, does God just make up these rules on an arbitrary whim?

If the answer to that question is no (ie, God has a reason why murder should be wrong and that reason makes logical sense), why do we need to base morality on God - why can't we base morality on reason?

Well, yes, God makes up the rules on an arbitary whim. (sort of the same as axioms in maths) However it has to be said that most christians I have met would say that the rules are of benefit to humanity.. i.e you will be happier if you follow them. In the Bible it says that God "loves" the world so I suppose that the rules should be designed so that they are beneficial. That could be taken as the resoning behind them I suppose.

 

[cogito]

I read your other thread and typed a response, but had a network problem. I have two major (though related) problems with this: First, it appears contradictory: is it murder wrong simply because it appears in the Bible or is there some reason why its wrong? Ie, does God just make up these rules on an arbitrary whim?

If the answer to that question is no (ie, God has a reason why murder should be wrong and that reason makes logical sense), why do we need to base morality on God - why can't we base morality on reason?

Hooray for Euthyphro's question. Plato asked this originally, and it's been a headache for theists ever since.

 

[Locrian]

Hooray for Euthyphro's question. Plato asked this originally, and it's been a headache for theists ever since.

Hah yes. Except I thought Plato was relating Socrates asking the question?

Well, yes, God makes up the rules on an arbitary whim. (sort of the same as axioms in maths) However it has to be said that most christians I have met would say that the rules are of benefit to humanity.. i.e you will be happier if you follow them. In the Bible it says that God "loves" the world so I suppose that the rules should be designed so that they are beneficial. That could be taken as the resoning behind them I suppose.

You begin this paragraph saying the rules are arbitrary. By the end you have reasoned that, since God loves the world, that the rules aren't arbitrary. If you believe God would not make a rule that says, for instance, "it is good to kill other people's babies," then you believe that God has reasonings behind his ideas, and therefore his rules are not arbitrary.

In the interest of the discussion, would you care to expand on your view?

 

[Tigron-X]

I have two major (though related) problems with this: First, it appears contradictory: is it murder wrong simply because it appears in the Bible or is there some reason why its wrong? Ie, does God just make up these rules on an arbitrary whim?

If the answer to that question is no (ie, God has a reason why murder should be wrong and that reason makes logical sense), why do we need to base morality on God - why can't we base morality on reason?

Well, we basically do and it all depends on how you look at it. A lot of people see God as the All Knowing Being while we look at ourselves and see beings that have a lot to learn. So, should we base our reasonings of judgment on our lack of understanding or should we look to a Divine Truth?

 

[Tigron-X]

Atheism is best compared with the term theism for clarification.

Theism is a position in which there is belief in a god or many gods.
Atheism is a position in which there is a lack of belief in a god or many gods.

I do not know of any religion which lacks belief in some god, either historical or present. In this sense, atheism cannot be deemed a religion.

mmm... Quakers?
I could be wrong on that...

Those who say that atheism is a religion do the term "religion" a great injustice. Religion includes many possible individual and social aspects and values, while the definition of atheism includes only one - that you do not believe in a god or gods.

Religion can include many different cultural interpretations, many different moral values, even different belief systems. To be an atheist, one must only not believe in God.

Until recently I would have agreed with ARtorius and said that atheism prohibits religion. I am no longer so sure. An atheist can sometimes acquire a set of cultural customs and values that seem very "religious." Take the Church of Freethought, for example. These people gather weekly, discuss issues, work on charitable projects together, support each other and do many of the things a religious organization do. Am I to tell them they have no religion? I am undecided.

What I do know is that not all atheists have these cultural customs and values. In fact, many atheists lack any belief or custom usually associated with religion. I cannot repeat enough; those who defiantly state that atheism is a religion are incorrect, because the two words describe very different things that overlap much less than people suggest.

Actually I'd have to disagree with you saying that by claiming atheism as a religion it does a great injustice to the term. One's beliefs on life influences his/her values, social behavior, and all decisions that a person makes or will make. These beliefs are what you claim define a religion, however at the basis of those beliefs is the core belief of what one defines as his/her governing principal whether it be God, a diety or dieties, or lack there of. And as for those lacking such beliefs, one cannot live without a governing principal so he/she does have a higher power that is followed, but it isn't claimed as your traditional beliefs in God, god, or gods. Because it isn't a traditional religion it can't be claimed as a religion? I wasn't aware of that rule.

 

[saviourmachine]

the core belief of what one defines as his/her governing principal whether it be God, a diety or dieties

What you define as 'core' others don't regard as such. What is the difference between me - agnost - and a deist? (Most often) just some rational explanation how the universe came to be. Is that important? Is that something you would assign the loaded term 'belief' to? My belief in life, sex, music and myself is much stronger than my agnostic(!) belief in a supernatural being. It's a very tiny aspect of my personality.

 

[Locrian]

Because it isn't a traditional religion it can't be claimed as a religion? I wasn't aware of that rule.

Well that isn't suprising; you don't seem to be interested in using a definition of religion that already exists, so why should you be aware of what it says?

You state that a person must have a governing principle, but provide no reason for someone to believe this. I see no reason for that to be true at all, since there are times in my life where it didn't apply. You want to stretch the definition of religion to include anything, but all that does is reduce the definition to meaninglessness.

In the end you are still left with the fact that religion includes a large number of attributes that the term atheist does not describe. You can try to force a belief of some kind on someone by making vague statements like that of the governing principle, but how you will force culture, values and social interactions on them is beyond me. Since there are atheists who don't have these attributes, your statement that atheism is a religion is unfounded.

This is a very common tactic I see employed. In an effort to get a rise out of atheists, people go on a great crusade to redefine and reduce the term religion until they can somehow get it to apply. It seems to me a rather self destructive errand.

 

[Tigron-X]

What you define as 'core' others don't regard as such. What is the difference between me - agnost - and a deist? (Most often) just some rational explanation how the universe came to be. Is that important? Is that something you would assign the loaded term 'belief' to? My belief in life, sex, music and myself is much stronger than my agnostic(!) belief in a supernatural being. It's a very tiny aspect of my personality.

Of course it is. You are your own being. I was talking about the influence it has on one's character which inturn influences personality. Perspective is reality, or better said, individual reality. One's beliefs influence the way he/she sees the world, and thus rules are set on how one will behave. If one's behavior does not return an experience that fullfills one of Life's needs, then the consequences of such actions can influence one's beliefs until Life's needs are met.

Well that isn't suprising; you don't seem to be interested in using a definition of religion that already exists, so why should you be aware of what it says?

You state that a person must have a governing principle, but provide no reason for someone to believe this. I see no reason for that to be true at all, since there are times in my life where it didn't apply. You want to stretch the definition of religion to include anything, but all that does is reduce the definition to meaninglessness.

In the end you are still left with the fact that religion includes a large number of attributes that the term atheist does not describe. You can try to force a belief of some kind on someone by making vague statements like that of the governing principle, but how you will force culture, values and social interactions on them is beyond me. Since there are atheists who don't have these attributes, your statement that atheism is a religion is unfounded.

This is a very common tactic I see employed. In an effort to get a rise out of atheists, people go on a great crusade to redefine and reduce the term religion until they can somehow get it to apply. It seems to me a rather self destructive errand.

Well first off, I like to think about what I believe in all the time so I can increase my awareness, and I respect atheism because of the thoughts it produces, but I also see the limits it can produce as well. The same goes for known religions. Anyhow, the only rise I want is an intellectual one no matter how stupid you may think I am. lol...

Anyhow... No, I've read the definition and understood what it's defining. It tends to deal with spiritual content with respect to one's beliefs in a higher power and/or life, and I think it's pretty safe for me to say that everyone has beliefs. From my observation, in most conversations religion is usually associated with belief(s) in God or a diety/dieties. Now, couldn't one consider that the absence of such beliefs is still a belief with respect to spirtual content? In other words, isn't zero still considered a number? If one asked another person who holds atheistic beliefs what religion he/she is, then could that person not respond with, "I'm Athiest."? And, couldn't a person who says, "No Religion," be considered as one who has atheistic beliefs?

Now, according to you, (and correct me if I'm wrong), you say that Atheism cannot be considered a religion because there isn't an Atheist book out there that describes how an Athiest should live; a book that would define culture, values, and/or behavior. Last I checked, the definition of religion doesn't speak of needing a book or anything of that sort. The definition of religion doesn't speak of needing a set defined culture, value, or expected behavior. The type of religion does that; Christianity, Budhism, Muslim, and so on. Everybody has culture, values, and behaviors that are defined by his/her beliefs whether he/she can state and define them to you or not when specifically asked.

The great thing about Athiesm as compared to other types of religions is that the belief does not have a set of beliefs tagged on with it and people are more open to think for themselves, but at the same time one can miss the principals taught in other types of religion. In that instance, one can have trouble thinking beyond him/her-self or humanity. Beliefs limit awareness.

Also, one's instincts are influenced by beliefs. And no matter how big someones ego is, he/she cannot truly come to believe that he/she or humanity is the highest form of intelligence in existence because our instinct won't let us due to the fact we learn on a daily basis and in various ways. The very knowledge of the forces acting upon us or within us can only be seen depending on an individual's sense of awareness.

Governing Principals are the Laws that govern Life and existence. Beliefs are our interpretations of the Laws as we learn to influence our experienced consequences. Values are the order of importance to these beliefs. Morality is judgment on which value set is better.

 

[GONE2UCF]

Your morals are created according to your values.