Morals Without Religion

MadamDarkmatter · Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:37 pm

While I'm not very religious (or at all, I don't know), I often wonder where we'd be morally without religion.

Granted, being religious doesn't guarantee that you are also a moral person, but it seems as if all moral standards have thier roots in religions one way or another. Would they have grown on thier own without religion? If we did not have religion, would we have no morals-would we as a race arbitrarily make decisions with no guidance? Can we?

I believe in neither inherent good or evil in people, but that we're shaped by examples and, with a few exceptions, we're born "morally neutral". I haven't been exposed formally to any religious teachings, or any particualarly atheistic influences, so where does everyone else weigh in on this?

Rajesh · Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:32 am

What I think is, it is not the religion but the society which injects the moral values in to us... In different countries where the same religion is followed are having different moral values..

youkrst · Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:54 am

personally i dont buy the thought "without religion we'd all be immoral beasts"

religion has probably caused far more immorality than it has stopped.

various religions like to "lay claim" to this and that as if the thought never manifested anywhere else earlier, what i'm getting at is...

if it didn't say in the bible "do unto others as you would have them do to you" it would be no big deal, because the same thing is written in buddhist, hindu and egyptian texts in various forms much earlier and if it wasn't, who cares, because little billy higgins from number 23 down the road would probably say it sooner or later if no-one else did.

in other words things exist before they manifest in a particular place and time, the truth of "do unto others" was potentially there before anybody said it. just like gold was there before anyone dug it up, or noticed it lying on the ground, it's just that someone had to get there sooner or later.

morals may stem from religion but religion stems from man, so it is all in man, but a word like man can mean many things to many people

mere man, mental man, imaginative man, murderous man etc etc

what humans are is far more amazing than anything they usually think.

i guess what i'm trying to say is humans have the potential to transcend good and evil, left and right, up and down, the illusion of duality etc etc

there is a "place" you can get to from here where you transcend all thought and have a direct experience of unity with the immanent transcendant within, kids do it all the time when they are playing, before some ignorant adult says "you need to get your head out of the clouds kid!"

i'm a bit of a morals schmorals kind of a guy, i just see ignorance as the enemy.

immorality is just ignorance in disguise

i'm also a bit religion schmiligion, because in my experience most religious people dont even understand their own belief system and many people who know next to nothing about "religions" say and experience stuff that is in those religions, religion must serve man not man religion.

i mean just look at fundamentalist literalism (if you have a strong stomach) it has produced great mental sickness and huge immorality in muslims, jews, christians and even buddhists for goodness sake!!!

the problem with religion is bad people just ruin it and good people already have their own.

HOWEVER!

having said all that, the greatest moments of my life have been moments where i have gotten a sudden insight into a thought form contained in an ancient belief system and even better moments when i have directly experienced what they were trying to get at.

BTW:
wow i just love that twain quote Rajeshma! i was having fun improvising with it
eg. a person who wont think has no advantage over a person who cant think.

Rajesh · Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:32 am

MadamDarkmatter, I guess first we have to define what is moral and what is immoral before discussing this topic ..

lady of shallot · Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:22 am


	MadamDarkmatter wrote: While I'm not very religious (or at all, I don't know), I often wonder where we'd be morally without religion.

Actually right where we are. All morals are man made and might differ according to the religion devised by man in the particular part of the world where particular morals are practiced. But the basic biggies remain pretty much constant.

The knowledge of "right" and "wrong" is inborn or very soon developed. No society, human, or those of lesser animals; would exist long without what we call "morality" but what is really simple survival for whatever species we are talking about.

MadamDarkmatter · Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:29 pm

Rajeshma- I suppose I mean doing what's best for others and mantaining a sense of fairness and justice despite personal desires. However, I couldn't say what that fairness or justice is. Isn't that a relatively subjective term, depending on your perspective and societal influences? I can't say what it means for everyone, and I'm not sure what it means to me (if that makes any sense). The whole subject of morality is confusing to me

Lady of shallot- Is that to say that religion has no influence on how our morals develop? I thought religion at least had...standardized morals in a way

lady of shallot · Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:52 pm


	MadamDarkmatter wrote: Lady of shallot- Is that to say that religion has no influence on how our morals develop? I thought religion at least had...standardized morals in a way

I am saying that man invented religion(s) so the "morals" attributed to any religion are in fact invented by man. We can see this currently (although not given a religious basis, but a scientific) yet still a moral belief. . . things like living green, global warming, re-cycling etc. Also things like acceptance of gay life styles, gay marriage, no bullying. These are still moral precepts, yet not necessarily religious based, still they are a reflection of what society deems most desirable for itself at this point in time and in this culture.

I guess in a way you could define "moral" as a behavior that is condoned by a particular society at a particular point in time. And that the members of that society are made to feel guilty if they do not conform to that behavior.

johnson1010 · Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:44 pm


	Quote: MadamDarkmatter wrote: Lady of shallot- Is that to say that religion has no influence on how our morals develop? I thought religion at least had...standardized morals in a way

People develop morality.

Religions have adopted morality and claimed it as their exclusive domain, but in actuality, religion is an outgrowth of humanity’s attempt to grasp the world and understand it, long before it was known that subjectivity and opinion had little to do with the true character of reality. But in the absence of objectivity, where opinion reigns, the only way to defend that opinion is through censorship, punishment, and threats of eternal damnation for those who oppose that opinion. Because there is no way to point to the objective reality and to confirm that some way of looking at things is the correct way if there is no reference to empirical fact and evidence in the foundation of those assertions.

Because religion essentially has banned dissent and any attempt to controvert the current opinion of religion, it has the effect of stagnating and ossifying the rules set out by the dominant class of whatever culture invented that religion. Out of their grim defense of the indefensible, they have made questioning and changing any precept of religion the moral equivalent of treason against humanity, and as a result whatever false notions and principles that were held when those codes were laid down can never be changed (according to the religion) and so must forever remain as wrong as they ever were no matter what the consequence. For to acknowledge the inaccuracy of any of their baseless claims is to allow for further inquiry. And since the whole thing is founded on baseless opinions, rather than fact and evidence, the whole thing is bound to fly apart if it were seriously questioned. Cosmology, morality, the valuation of human life, and the lot of it.

So religion has functioned as a snap shot, of sorts, of the prevailing prejudices, attitudes, and philosophies of it’s founders. In some cases these philosophies overlap with what we would today call good moral behavior and that is fine, even to be expected. It’s hard to imagine a culture that endorses murder as a morally upright behavior, for instance, or the taking of property from those who do not wish to relinquish it. But where these moral codes overlap with our society, and even other societies which share less cultural heritage it is simply the codification of rules already in use by pre-historic cave men that facilitated peaceful, productive co-existence of a group of animals who could survive and be more prosperous together than apart.

These moral codes can be found in any number of other literature and are not the exclusive domain of religious text, no matter what proponents would have you think. The valuation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, (thou shalt not kill, steal, adultery etc..) so to speak, is a simple extension of empathy. Where religions do have specific behaviors they would enforce and which are not found elsewhere in other literature we find that those pieces of advice either push some specific agenda related to the acquisition and retention of power for the administrators of that religion, or are meant to instill some fabulous spooky sense of awe in the believer to solidify that religion’s hold on them. (that a sacrificial bird should have it’s head twisted off, rather than chopped, or on which side to place the sacrificial blood to the alter etc…) In either case it has little relevance for what we would call a moral life (Keep holy the Sabbath, no god before me etc…)

Rajesh · Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:31 am

MadamDarkmatter, Yeah.. Fairness , justice, Moral values etc are relatively subjective terms, depending on your perspective and societal influences...

As Lady of shallot said , "moral" is a behavior that is condoned by a particular society at a particular point in time. And a set of such moral values at that time was taken by the religion. So religions are fossils or a snapshot of the period in which they were evolved.

Consider the religion as a photograph of you as a kid and society as yourself. You will keep on changing but the photo won't. Religions and their moral values are rigid and it reflects the moral values and beliefs of an ancient society. Just like your photograph.Whatever you see in the photo is how you looked when you were a kid..

DWill · Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:56 pm

johnson, in your last sentence you hint at another of the functions of what seem to anyone as pointless ritual behaviors and commandments: to enforce the solidarity of a people. We can easily see this function of religion in the 600-odd commandments of Judaism. Some of them might have once had a practical purpose, but mostly they serve to set aside one group from all other groups. Like the advanced primates we are, we like to bond in groups and to preserve group identity.

With regard to the moral codes of religion, most famously the Ten Commandments, it's easy to forget what it must be like to live in a society without laws. True, small societies had social customs that functioned similarly to laws, but these didn't work well enough as societies grew bigger and more complex. The religion's moral code was like a set of laws covering many groups of people. So I think the Ten Commandments were more than just a reflection of what already was; they were an attempt to impose a moral order on a state or national level. There does seem to be good cause to see civil institutions as being born in the religious institutions that preceded them. It took a long while for societies to become really secular, and a few aren't even there today.

Wikipedia makes a good point here about the 10 Cs as essential organizing principles of a good society, as that was viewed at the time:

The Ten Commandments concern only matters of fundamental importance: the greatest obligation (to worship only God), the greatest injury to a person (murder), the greatest injury to family bonds (adultery), the greatest injury to commerce and law (bearing false witness), the greatest intergenerational obligation (honor to parents), the greatest obligation to community (truthfulness), the greatest injury to moveable property (theft).[17]

Because they are fundamental, the Ten Commandments are written with room for varying interpretation.[17] They are not as explicit[17] or detailed as rules and regulations[18] or many other biblical laws and commandments, because they provide guiding principles that apply universally, across changing circumstances. They do not specify punishments for their violation. Their precise import must be worked out in each separate situation.[18]

Kevin · Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:40 am


	johnson1010 wrote: These moral codes can be found in any number of other literature and are not the exclusive domain of religious text, no matter what proponents would have you think. The valuation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, (thou shalt not kill, steal, adultery etc..) so to speak, is a simple extension of empathy.

Yes, and "might makes right" is the simple extension of selfishness. What makes one approach of more upright morality than the other? Raskolnikov kills because he's better than the person killed. It's doing humanity a favor when the best is bettered, he figures. It's the same then with humanity as it is with the rest of the kingdom. Absolutes. Disregarding them, we should at least come up with some argument for why empathy is something to be strived for. Throughout history deformed babies (to the parent of high standards this means 'appreciably less than perfect') have been killed. Why shouldn't they? What if you can't empathize with that freak? Absolutes. Without them we're swinging that axe with good reason.

johnson1010 · Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:13 pm

Sam harris has been thinking about these issues longer than me.

He makes excellent points in this video.

ant · Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:46 pm


	Quote: religion has probably caused far more immorality than it has stopped.

I find it odd that the more discerning minds here are okay with not questioning generalizations like the above.

What specific religion are you referring to here? All of them? Some? One in particular?
What religious tenants were being rationalized by the perpetrator(s) when the immoral act was committed? Is it something that all people of that particular faith would agree on?

Let's say you are referring to Christianity here (just a wild guess).
No Christian in their right mind would condone immoral, evil acts committed in the name of a warped sense of Christian doctrine.
Highlighting a negative and ignoring a positive (what is religion responsible for that has been good?) exposes a simpleminded bias.

A sane person understands that heinous crimes have been committed throughout history that were free from religious influence. If you are attempting to arrive at a precise body count to compare and contrast, I say that demonstrates simplistic score keeping.

Find the side of nice, big building to use that broad brush of yours. There's no use for it when it comes to serious matters like religion.

Dexter · Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:16 pm

ant wrote:


	Quote: religion has probably caused far more immorality than it has stopped.

I find it odd that the more discerning minds here are okay with not questioning generalizations like the above.

What specific religion are you referring to here? All of them? Some? One in particular?
What religious tenants were being rationalized by the perpetrator(s) when the immoral act was committed? Is it something that all people of that particular faith would agree on?

Let's say you are referring to Christianity here (just a wild guess).
No Christian in their right mind would condone immoral, evil acts committed in the name of a warped sense of Christian doctrine.

Find the side of nice, big building to use that broad brush of yours. There's no use for it when it comes to serious matters like religion.

I understand the frustration in blaming religion for individual acts, at least you didn't try to bring in the "Hitler" argument.

But is there a major religion in which the sacred text doesn't provide some justification for punishing nonbelievers? Saying that all people of that religion wouldn't agree on that interpretation is to make excuses a little too easily -- why is the literal interpretation of the "perfect book" so misleading?

youkrst · Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:04 pm


	ant wrote: I find it odd that the more discerning minds here are okay with not questioning generalizations like the above.

cool ant, lets take it in a more specific direction so that your more discerning mind doesnt have to overtax itself.

on the one hand you have the good is attached to religion through the good in people caught up in it, then on the other hand you have

kill the infidel
gays are worthy of death
burn in hell you pagan scum
blow up the abortion clinic
etc etc etc

now the mental anguish that comes from the feeling of alienation caused by literalist belief systems

i personally have witnessed untold mental distress that in two cases lead to suicide, this distress was extremely aggravated by literalist religion where some good thinking would have greatly alleviated the stress and helped immensely in recovery

just one single literalist denomination in my town was famous for breaking up families because when a person joined this sect they were encouraged to put jesus first (which meant put the movement first)

i mean it's a self evident point dumb religions are causing more harm than good, or do you want to move in between the faction in india or palestine


	Quote: Communal conflicts have periodically plagued India since it became independent in 1947. The roots of such strife lie largely in the underlying tensions between sections of its majority Hindu and minority Muslim communities, which emerged under the Raj and during the bloody Partition of India. Such conflict also stems from the competing ideologies of Hindu fundamentalism versus Islamic fundamentalism and Islamism; both are prevalent in parts of the Hindu and Muslim populations.


	Quote: The roots of the modern Arab–Israeli conflict lie in the rise of Zionism and Arab Nationalism towards the end of the nineteenth century. The conflict between Palestinian Jews and Arabs emerged in the early 20th century, expanding to all Arab League countries with the creation of the modern State of Israel in 1948. Territory regarded by the Jewish people as their historical homeland is also regarded by the Pan-Arab movement as historically and presently belonging to the Palestinian Arabs,[2] and in the Pan-Islamic context, in territory regarded as Muslim lands.

it goes on and on it's endless

female circumcision
female oppression

countless ignorances justifies by literalist readings of metaphors

i cant believe i'm having to spell this out

ant are you really that dumb?

ok you put up against the well known millenia of atrocities of literalist faiths all the good they do and we'll see how they balance out

:lol:

ps: ant, if you are going to patronise and niggle i'll just give it back, if you address me without the patronism i'll also modify my style.

you come off in posts to me like a popinjay, a fool in love with his own mental superiority so i post in a somewhat corresponding fashion back.

if you dont think literalist belief systems cause more harm than good then prove it, as far as i know everyone here except you already takes it for granted from personal observation.

Forum rules

Morals Without Religion Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!