Does religion dictate morality...another perspective?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We've all heard it…"You cannot be good without God." (A very good, sadly late, friend of mine, Dr. Robert Buckman actually wrote a book on the subject, titled "Can We Be Good Without God?" (For the record, he thought we could, but he was a secular Jew and President of the Canadian Humanist Association, so that's what he would say, eh?)

But then, it occurred to me just recently, when looking at the stats of how many people change their churches, and even their faiths, and the reasons for doing so, that there is a conundrum to be answered. Even people here, on RF, announce on a fairly regular basis that they've changed their church or the faith.

So what's the conundrum? Well, people change their church for faith for, essentially, one reason only...that their present church or faith is not providing them with what they need. I have to presume that means in the sense of satisfying their spiritual needs, but also in answering their moral questions.

And once they find the church or faith that satisfies their spiritual and moral needs, then they feel quite free to fall back on, "you cannot be good without God, and the God of my faith or church decides what is good."

But hang on a minute! Doesn't that mean that they, themselves, have actually made the choice? Whose morals, and whose spiritual needs, are in fact in play here? Certainly not the "god" of their last faith or church. I think you all know where I'm going? How would you respond?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

people change their church for faith for, essentially, one reason only...that their present church or faith is not providing them with what they need. I have to presume that means in the sense of satisfying their spiritual needs, but also in answering their moral questions.

I'd also have to suggest, in addition to spiritual and moral needs, it is a question of social needs, the need for fellowship, for affiliation, for belonging on a personal level with people who also feed their spiritual and ethical needs. I might even argue that social is primary among those...

And, that there are likely some other reasons as well...

 

[susanblange]

Isaiah 6. Pay particular attention to Isaiah 6:10.

 

[Howard Is]

But hang on a minute! Doesn't that mean that they, themselves, have actually made the choice?

Yes, it does.

I made a similar point to some less-than-humble devotees of a guru.

They were always saying that the only way to make spiritual progress was to surrender to an enlightened teacher.

I made the point that they had decided who was enlightened, despite admitting that they themselves weren’t.

Self-professed ignoramuses (ignorami ?) already know the truth before they become enlightened apparently.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, it does.

I made a similar point to some less-than-humble devotees of a guru.

They were always saying that the only way to make spiritual progress was to surrender to an enlightened teacher.

I made the point that they had decided who was enlightened, despite admitting that they themselves weren’t.

Self-professed ignoramuses (ignorami ?) already know the truth before they become enlightened apparently.

Thank you...you get it...

 

[Howard Is]

Thank you...you get it...

Well, we think I do, LOL

 

[Howard Is]

I'd also have to suggest, in addition to spiritual and moral needs, it is a question of social needs, the need for fellowship, for affiliation, for belonging on a personal level with people who also feed their spiritual and ethical needs. I might even argue that social is primary among those...

And, that there are likely some other reasons as well...

I think you also have a good point.
Not all members of congregations are bombastic bible bashers or militant moralists.

I guess the OP is more about those who are.

 

[Phaedrus]

Another way to look at the social angle is that it quite disproves the entire personal faith nonsense theists spew. From my perspective, the social angle identifies it as a group faith when individuals choose to follow a particular schism of belief.

Also, getting to the question does religion dictate morality, the answer is that religion tends to wish it had the monopoly on morality and then becomes upset when it cannot dictate how others live their lives.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I think you also have a good point.
Not all members of congregations are bombastic bible bashers or militant moralists.

I guess the OP is more about those who are.

I would even say a majority of religious people are not that way. Maybe 20 percent? People migrate to what works for them. Most are just regular people who are happy to see their Church friends on Sundays, help out in their communities and gain a little hope and comfort in their lives from the belief in the powers from above. There isn't a desire or need to claim they have "The Truth". The knowers of all truth are just the loud ones.

 

[Howard Is]

I would even say a majority of religious people are not that way. Maybe 20 percent? People migrate to what works for them. Most are just regular people who are happy to see their Church friends on Sundays, help out in their communities and gain a little hope and comfort in their lives from the belief in the powers from above. There isn't a desire or need to claim they have "The Truth". The knowers of all truth are just the loud ones.

I think you are right. Life is difficult, and to quote Firesign Theatre, “We’re all Bozos on this bus”.

I also think that a lot of people feel a need for reassurance in the face of mortality and suffering. They like the Jesus story for much the same reason they like Clint Eastwood. We like to think that the good guys will win against all odds.

It may not be true, but it sure beats going to pieces.

 

[Howard Is]

sure beats going to pieces.

 

[FooYang]

We've all heard it…"You cannot be good without God." (A very good, sadly late, friend of mine, Dr. Robert Buckman actually wrote a book on the subject, titled "Can We Be Good Without God?" For the record, he though we could, but he was a secular Jew and President of the Canadian Humanist Association, so that's what he would say, eh?)

But then, it occurred to me just recently, when looking at the stats of how many people change their churches, and even their faiths, and the reasons for doing so, that there is a conundrum to be answered. Even people here, on RF, announce on a fairly regular basis that they've changed their church or the faith.

So what's the conundrum? Well, people change their church for faith for, essentially, one reason only...that their present church or faith is not providing them with what they need. I have to presume that means in the sense of satisfying their spiritual needs, but also in answering their moral questions.

And once they find the church or faith that satisfies their spiritual and moral needs, then they feel quite free to fall back on, "you cannot be good without God, and the God of my faith or church decides what is good."

But hang on a minute! Doesn't that mean that they, themselves, have actually made the choice? Whose morals, and whose spiritual needs, are in fact in play here? Certainly not the "god" of their last faith or church. I think you all know where I'm going? How would you respond?

Why hold onto the concept of "Morality" at all? that's the question. That bronze age superstition should be let go. There is no right, wrong, good or evil, it's all entirely relative.

 

[Howard Is]

Why hold onto the concept of "Morality" at all? that's the question. That bronze age superstition should be let go. There is no right, wrong, good or evil, it's all entirely relative.

Tell that to a murdering rapist, should you ever be unfortunate enough to meet one.

 

[FooYang]

Tell that to a murdering rapist, should you ever be unfortunate enough to meet one.

Yeah? so what? I'm not gonna impose bronze age superstition onto them. They live their lives how they wish.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

So what's the conundrum? Well, people change their church for faith for, essentially, one reason only...that their present church or faith is not providing them with what they need. I have to presume that means in the sense of satisfying their spiritual needs, but also in answering their moral questions.

And once they find the church or faith that satisfies their spiritual and moral needs, then they feel quite free to fall back on, "you cannot be good without God, and the God of my faith or church decides what is good."

I guess you are essentially describing hypocrisy, but you might be leaving a thing or two out of the equation. What if in moving to the new religion, it was actually immensely more challenging to the person, even though it satisfied them in the end? Though they got what they foresaw a need for, it was by no means a simple feat.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yeah? so what? I'm not gonna impose bronze age superstition onto them. They live their lives how they wish.

Other members of society may have different ideas about allowing murders and rapists (etc) to 'live their lives how they wish' without resorting to 'bronze age superstition' to stop or punish them.

 

[FooYang]

Other members of society may have different ideas about allowing murders and rapists (etc) to 'live their lives how they wish' without resorting to 'bronze age superstition' to stop or punish them.

No, it's exactly what morality is.

 

[ArtieE]

Why hold onto the concept of "Morality" at all? that's the question. That bronze age superstition should be let go. There is no right, wrong, good or evil, it's all entirely relative.

Evolution and Functionally Objective Morality - The Gemsbok

 

[Howard Is]

No, it's exactly what morality is.

That’s a bit tedious. A teaser campaign.
Instead of just baiting hooks, say what you mean.

 

[Spirit of Light]

We've all heard it…"You cannot be good without God." (A very good, sadly late, friend of mine, Dr. Robert Buckman actually wrote a book on the subject, titled "Can We Be Good Without God?" For the record, he though we could, but he was a secular Jew and President of the Canadian Humanist Association, so that's what he would say, eh?)

But then, it occurred to me just recently, when looking at the stats of how many people change their churches, and even their faiths, and the reasons for doing so, that there is a conundrum to be answered. Even people here, on RF, announce on a fairly regular basis that they've changed their church or the faith.

So what's the conundrum? Well, people change their church for faith for, essentially, one reason only...that their present church or faith is not providing them with what they need. I have to presume that means in the sense of satisfying their spiritual needs, but also in answering their moral questions.

And once they find the church or faith that satisfies their spiritual and moral needs, then they feel quite free to fall back on, "you cannot be good without God, and the God of my faith or church decides what is good."

But hang on a minute! Doesn't that mean that they, themselves, have actually made the choice? Whose morals, and whose spiritual needs, are in fact in play here? Certainly not the "god" of their last faith or church. I think you all know where I'm going? How would you respond?

Of course, Morality does not belong only to Religious teaching But since a lot of the teaching in religion is based on how to become a better morally as a human being i would say 95-99% of religion is based of the teaching is toward morality, Bt it is always the person who follows the religious teaching who must do the change in his or her moral standard, if they do not change toward the better, how can they gain anything from the teaching?
But of course, there do exist very highly moral atheists too without they follow a religion