Difference in moral thought between atheists and believers

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will be referencing the points of the following article:

Atheists and believers have different moral compasses

Atheists and believers have a moral compass, just not the same one.

www.livescience.com

Research indicates that when it comes to morality, Atheists and the devoutly religion all tend to be very moral people. (It seems to be the nominally religious that tend to make excuses why something isn't wrong in their unique case). In both cases, fairness and helping the vulnerable play a dominant role.

However, the researchers found "differences between believers and disbelievers on the other three values: authority (respecting authority figures, such as police, parents and teachers), loyalty (being loyal to one's group, such as a country — not burning a country's flag, for instance) and sanctity (not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous)."

This seems to be related to the fact that believers are more concerned with group cohesion -- ethics that bind a community together. This is not the first time I have come across a study documenting this.

Another difference that has come up both in this study, and previous studies I have read is that Atheist morality tends to be more outcome based than rule based. Basically, atheists were more likely than believers to base their judgments about what is or isn't moral based on the consequences of their actions.

An example of this is the statistical differences in the two groups in their response to the classic trolley car problem.

For those who don't know what that is, imagine a trolley car going down the track, approaching a division in the track. If left to follow how the track is currently configured, the trolley car will hit and kill 5 people. However, if you pull a switch, it will switch tracks, and kill only one person. Do you pull the switch or do you just allow things to happen without intervention?

"In that situation, the disbelievers are more inclined to say 'flip [the] switch and kill the one person rather than five,' because they are assessing the relative harm," Ståhl told Live Science. "Whereas believers are more icky about that because they feel like they're actively killing someone, and they shouldn't kill. So, they are less comfortable with those calculations."

Now, just for fun, I am including the following video simply for levity. It shows a two year old's solution to the trolley car dilemma.

Years ago, I saw the same split between views on dimensions of morality presented as conservatives vs. liberals rather than believers vs. non-believers.

I wonder where liberal believers fall here.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Sometimes we do. For example for me it is love for all of nature including all people everywhere.

What good is it for people to have morals dictated to them by God, when they mostly ignore what He says, interpret His words to say what they want them to say, or make up excuses for not doing it? (just a few examples of how they avoid doing what He says and sometimes even do just the opposite)

But that is your choice, there is nothing dictating or guiding you to it. You could just as easily choose to be an evil person and it would be morally correct. Only others opinions of your actions would come into play.

For instance today we think a grown man marrying and impregnating a fifteen year old is morally wrong ( which it is) but there was a time when it was considered morally acceptable because population numbers in a given society dictated that births were needed simply for the community to exist.

Without God there is no moral guidance, people can and will simply make it up as they go along.

 

[Niatero]

You could just as easily choose to be an evil person and it would be morally correct.

That's no different from believers. They can, and do, find excuses for doing whatever they want to do, no matter how much harm it might do, as much as anyone. It might even be worse, because they tell themselves that God Made Them Do It.

(later) Believers often, often use God as their excuse for harmful attitudes and behavior.

Anyway, if you think that believers generally do more good and less harm than other people, I don't think you have any ground to stand on, even from the scriptures.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Which god would that be surely not the Abrahamic god, having read the bible and also being the recipient of his mindset i csn think on nothing that is more immoral

----



Nonsense. Morality is a human (and some animals) trait, developed to allow group centered animals (including humans) to form civilisations. Which in the case of humans then developed gods and religion. Religion then stole morality, adapted it to exclude anyone not in the club and so we now get the sort of nonsense i read in your posts



I don't steal, not because i have a god on my shoulder telling me what to do but because not stealing is the right thing to do




Again, nonsense, most people don't steal from a long time before they knew what punishment even was


And at anytime i would pit my morality against yours and be confident of the outcome

Wrong.

Civilizations happen out of need, they then develop morality out of fear.

Murder is considered wrong because they themselves do not want to be murdered.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

You have completely discounted the one true basis of morality among those who don't need a magic sky fairy to tell them right from wrong - empathy.

Have you never heard a parent say to their child after they hurt someone, "How would you feel if someone did that to you?" That is where morality comes from.

Believers can’t have empathy also?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Most of morality is based on two biological instincts: a sense of fairness, and empathy. Atheists have the same biology as theists.

I would hope that the reason you don't steal would be that you love your neighbor as yourself. If the only reason is because "that's the rule," I would say that your moral development got stalled as a kid.

We do both.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I've been reading it for 20+ years.



Yawn. Can't you come up with a better pretend rebuttal? Do you even know the verse I'm talking about?

Good then you know that religious text is not about the endorsement of violence which was my point.

 

[Soandso]

A believer has morals, values, and ethics dictated to them by their God, whoever that may be.

...Until god changes his mind. New covenant vs. old covenant. This isn't so different from secular laws changing in the face of a changing culture. Religions change their stance on changing culture all the time. It's no different

Non-believers have nothing dictating morals to them until they get into a group and decide what the rules are.

How is morals via religion any different than morals via moral code, then? You can say that if you take the moral code away from secular people they have nothing, but if you do the same thing with religious people and their religion it's the same result

I don’t steal because God forbids it, non-believers don’t steal because they’ve decided there would be a punishment for it. My morals will never change but a non-believer’s could if society changes their view.

Religion changes it's moral stance all the time because society changes as well, though. When's the last time followers of Yahweh stoned someone to death in the street because they picked up sticks on the Sabbath day? Why don't they do that anymore? Hell, every Christian I've ever known has used Sunday as a day to do chores and run errands even though it is literally part of the ten commandments to remember the sabbath. How did we go from "do not pick up sticks on the Sabbath or be drug out into the streets and be stoned to death" to "Sunday's a good day to rake the yard and mow the lawn" if there are no societal changes?

 

[F1fan]

What the heck? I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but the way you are making it is incredibly offensive.

It was an extreme reply to a naive claim.

I see believers try to whitewash religion and belief (which I find immoral) and it is a duty to point out that the history of religion is not free of extremism and violence. If we are going to seriously discuss the morality of believers to non-believers we can't allow believers to assume some moral superiority just due to status.

 

[Revoltingest]

...Until god changes his mind. New covenant vs. old covenant. This isn't so different from secular laws changing in the face of a changing culture. Religions change their stance on changing culture all the time. It's no different



How is morals via religion any different than morals via moral code, then? You can say that if you take the moral code away from secular people they have nothing, but if you do the same thing with religious people and their religion it's the same result



Religion changes it's moral stance all the time because society changes as well, though. When's the last time followers of Yahweh stoned someone to death in the street because they picked up sticks on the Sabbath day? Why don't they do that anymore? Hell, every Christian I've ever known has used Sunday as a day to do chores and run errands even though it is literally part of the ten commandments to remember the sabbath. How did we go from "do not pick up sticks on the Sabbath or be drug out into the streets and be stoned to death" to "Sunday's a good day to rake the yard and mow the lawn" if there are no societal changes?

Religion certainly allows bad people to do bad things.
They need only read portions of scripture in a manner
providing justification for evil. But another problem
is that scripture can command good people to do bad
things they wouldn't otherwise do, eg, oppress infidels,
foment hatred.

 

[Niatero]

But that is your choice, there is nothing dictating or guiding you to it. You could just as easily choose to be an evil person and it would be morally correct. Only others opinions of your actions would come into play.

For instance today we think a grown man marrying and impregnating a fifteen year old is morally wrong ( which it is) by ut there was a time when it was considered morally acceptable because population numbers in a given society dictated that births were needed simply for the community to exist.

Without God there is no moral guidance, people can and will simply make it up as they go along.

I like what you've said in some other threads, but this just looks so wrong to me, like you're trying to promote prejudice against people who aren't believers.

You keep changing the goal posts! You started out by saying that without belief in God, a person's morality can't be consistent because it can only come from the surrounding society. So I told you that mine comes from a love for all of nature including all people everywhere. Then you switch gears and say that I could change my mind. Maybe so, but do you know how many people stop believing in God every day? (Neither do I. )

Maybe I do see what you're getting at though, the changes in morals over time, but you're barking up the wrong tree. You don't think that there has been any change in the moral standard of believers? What about divorce? What about slavery? In fact the example you gave of changing morals is a change in the morals of believers.

I can sympathize with your concern about changing morals, but promoting prejudice against people who aren't believers won't do anything to solve that problem. It will only make things worse for everyone. I'm not thinking that's what you're trying to do, but I'm thinking that's mostly only what the effects will be. Maybe if you try, you can find a better way to think about what the problem is, why and how it's happening, and what to do about it. I might be able to help you with that.

(later) Also, believers promoting prejudices are validating prejudices against believers. That should not stop you from saying what you think is true, but it should cause you to look again and think again, about the world around you and what the scriptures are saying.

My view is that all the problems are from popular attitudes and behavior in all of society. Imagining it as being from one side or another of some dividing line or the other is part of that.

 

[Soandso]

Religion certainly allows bad people to do bad things.
They need only read portions of scripture in a manner
providing justification for evil. But another problem
is that scripture can command good people to do bad
things they wouldn't otherwise do, eg, oppress infidels,
inspiring hatred.

Ehhh, yes but change still happens - albeit, much more slowly in the case of religious dogma. The march of time continually moves forward, and religions that don't follow risk irrelevancy. That said, there are many that dig their heels in as much as they can get away with before reluctantly moving forward

 

[Revoltingest]

Ehhh, yes but change still happens - albeit, much more slowly in the case of religious dogma. The march of time continually moves forward, and religions that don't follow risk irrelevancy. That said, there are many that dig their heels in as much as they can get away with before reluctantly moving forward

3 steps forward, & 2 steps backward, eh.

 

[ChristineM]

Wrong.

Civilizations happen out of need, they then develop morality out of fear.

Murder is considered wrong because they themselves do not want to be murdered.

You don't know much about pre history do you?

According to the gtoly books the Abrahamic god did a fine job of genocide and murder.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Wrong.

Civilizations happen out of need, they then develop morality out of fear.

Murder is considered wrong because they themselves do not want to be murdered.

Much more likely that morality came before civilisations - small groups and such - given the evidence coming from animal studies. Unless one goes the route of the God created humans and no relation to anything else view - which is nonsense.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Well morality does not actually exist in the world, neither do ethics or values.

They are defined by society but remove society and you have nothing.

Same could be said for math and science. That doesn't make them useless in determining things about the world.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It was an extreme reply to a naive claim.

I see believers try to whitewash religion and belief (which I find immoral) and it is a duty to point out that the history of religion is not free of extremism and violence. If we are going to seriously discuss the morality of believers to non-believers we can't allow believers to assume some moral superiority just due to status.

I am not one to whitewash the abuse of religion. There are con men who use religion to fraudulently get your money with promises that by giving "seed money" God will make you rich. There are Machiavellian sorts who use religion to give them an excuse to make war or otherwise eliminate adversaries, whether ideological or practical. There are pedophiles who take advantage of the tendency of religious people to forgive those who repent; a few tears when they are caught and they are back in good graces. We know that psychopaths will become clergy and create extremely toxic cults that harm their congregants. Etc.

But this acknowledgement is balanced against the fact that religion is a basically good thing. We know that involvement in a religious communities statistically increase the health and well being of People. Today's evolutionary biologists speak of the fact that religion function to bind communities together and create cooperative groups. Our inclination to religion has evolved because it is ADAPTIVE.

So let's not confuse the abuse of religion with religion itself. The fact that you have evil people within a religious community absolutely does not mean that most congregants are not good, decent people.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We do both.

Wonderful!

 

[Revoltingest]

I will be referencing the points of the following article:

Atheists and believers have different moral compasses

Atheists and believers have a moral compass, just not the same one.

www.livescience.com

Research indicates that when it comes to morality, Atheists and the devoutly religion all tend to be very moral people. (It seems to be the nominally religious that tend to make excuses why something isn't wrong in their unique case). In both cases, fairness and helping the vulnerable play a dominant role.

However, the researchers found "differences between believers and disbelievers on the other three values: authority (respecting authority figures, such as police, parents and teachers), loyalty (being loyal to one's group, such as a country — not burning a country's flag, for instance) and sanctity (not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous)."

This seems to be related to the fact that believers are more concerned with group cohesion -- ethics that bind a community together. This is not the first time I have come across a study documenting this.

Another difference that has come up both in this study, and previous studies I have read is that Atheist morality tends to be more outcome based than rule based. Basically, atheists were more likely than believers to base their judgments about what is or isn't moral based on the consequences of their actions.

An example of this is the statistical differences in the two groups in their response to the classic trolley car problem.

For those who don't know what that is, imagine a trolley car going down the track, approaching a division in the track. If left to follow how the track is currently configured, the trolley car will hit and kill 5 people. However, if you pull a switch, it will switch tracks, and kill only one person. Do you pull the switch or do you just allow things to happen without intervention?

"In that situation, the disbelievers are more inclined to say 'flip [the] switch and kill the one person rather than five,' because they are assessing the relative harm," Ståhl told Live Science. "Whereas believers are more icky about that because they feel like they're actively killing someone, and they shouldn't kill. So, they are less comfortable with those calculations."

Now, just for fun, I am including the following video simply for levity. It shows a two year old's solution to the trolley car dilemma.

A problem I see with scripture is the many specific
prescriptions & proscriptions can work against
solutions to problems when there are over-arching
goals like optimizing life, liberty, & happiness.
For example, if one believes one can never kill,
refusing armed defense can result in unjust deaths.

"Nons" lack specific constraints, thereby allowing
more options. It's no guarantee of optimum outcome,
but it tends to be better for secular goals.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's right, non believers have to think for themselves and question things more. And hopefully for the correct outcome.

Except that most moral decisions are made deep within the brain BEFORE the cerebral cortex activates. IOW, our moral decisions are NOT consciously reasoned out in most cases. They are instinctual.