Does religion dictate morality...another perspective?

[stvdv]

You are composed of 75 trillion cells. Maybe 200 billion neurones, about the same number of glial cells. You have a process going on that is unimaginably complex.

Thank you for sharing. Interesting.

Such type of numbers give us the possibility to become humble and refrain from arrogant claims like "my way is the highway" or "God wants you to do..."

Because I think no human does even know, let alone control the above "complex process" you gave us. How could he then ever make a claim about God?

 

[Howard Is]

Thank you for sharing. Interesting.

Such type of numbers give us the possibility to become humble and refrain from arrogant claims like "my way is the highway" or "God wants you to do..."

Because I think no human does even know, let alone control the above "complex process" you gave us. How could he then ever make a claim about God?

Yes. More brain cells than there are stars in our Milky Way galaxy. Each neurone and glial cell is a sophisticated system in itself. And given the number of dendrites, the ‘branches’ of the neurone that receive inputs from other neurones, the number of possible interconnections in the brain exceeds the number of atomic nucleii in the known universe.

And it’s all controlled by a little ego behind your eyes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

I never said anything about it being simple (or hard). I am only trying to point out that someone who has, for some time, belonged to a religion or faith, and taught that religion's or faith's values, and then subsequently seeks out another religion or faith because those values don't sit will with them is actually not believing that those values come from God. They've already decided what values they are comfortable with, on their own, and are now looking for the religion or faith that validates what they already believe.

That is, in my view, a very real (though possibly unconscious) denial that such values are the mandate of a deity.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

That is, in my view, a very real (though possibly unconscious) denial that such values are the mandate of a deity.

Yeah but that didn't stop them from finding a deity that mandated them, otherwise they would be happy with independence. They merely switch religions. Most religions probably acknowledge that there is a self at least, where you are able to audit the ideas external to it

 

[sealchan]

Being a very logical and intelligent person, I imagine that I could commit rape and murder and get away with it, if anybody could.

If I wanted to.

Which begs two questions ...

Why would I want to ?

And more relevant to this discussion...

Why would I NOT want to ?

The answer is NOT logical. It is about empathy, feeling, emotion.

I don’t want to because it is a horrible thing to do to someone, and everyone who cares about them. Also a horrible thing to do to myself.

I guess a person could say “Aha ! That’s your logic !”
If they really wanted to miss my point.

The gut reaction, the feeling, is what determines that choice. In simple uncomplicated English, it would be a horrible, subhuman, evil thing to do. And I don’t need to consult logic for one moment to know that.

In fact, if a person did need to consider logic to decide whether or not to rape and murder, I think that person is already 9/10ths degenerate.

Similarly, if their choice was based on religion or public opinion.

Rationality as thinking vs feeling is being understood as brain functions. It is science:

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Being a very logical and intelligent person, I imagine that I could commit rape and murder and get away with it, if anybody could.

If I wanted to.

Which begs two questions ...

Why would I want to ?

And more relevant to this discussion...

Why would I NOT want to ?

The answer is NOT logical. It is about empathy, feeling, emotion.

I don’t want to because it is a horrible thing to do to someone, and everyone who cares about them. Also a horrible thing to do to myself.

I guess a person could say “Aha ! That’s your logic !”
If they really wanted to miss my point.

The gut reaction, the feeling, is what determines that choice. In simple uncomplicated English, it would be a horrible, subhuman, evil thing to do. And I don’t need to consult logic for one moment to know that.

In fact, if a person did need to consider logic to decide whether or not to rape and murder, I think that person is already 9/10ths degenerate.

Similarly, if their choice was based on religion or public opinion.

I'm quite fond of the author Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens, Homo Deus, etc.), who says that "human beings are algorithms" (as are all organisms), differing from the usual algorithms only in that they are biochemical, and have evolved at the whim natural selection over millions of years. If our algorithms (our emotions and intuitions) lead us to help and support, rather than harm, those who help us to survive, as the social animal that we are, then they are adaptive, and likely to be retained.

 

[InChrist]

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?

This doesn't make any sense from the perspective of someone who is saved by Jesus Christ and born again because a believer's faith is not in a church or religion, but Christ alone. It does not matter what church one may go to as it is only God, His word, laws written on the human conscience, (and illuminated by the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer), which determine morality.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

And in that style of living they must also afford everyone else the same "luxury." To not do so is something along the lines of hypocritical, narcissistic, possibly sociopathic. All of which you can also say are relative positions, held by people "living their lives how they wish." Well... then they can't really complain when the rest of us catch them exercising their "livelihood" and then consequently live our lives how WE wish... by throwing them behind bars so they can't affect the rest of us in the harmful ways they seem to want to. As soon as there is more than one person in the equation, just about everything is automatically a two-way street. Locking people up, defending yourself, etc. - these are all actions of people living their lives how they wish. Just try and claim otherwise.

 

[SomeRandom]

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?

This presumes that morals are objective. I think that ethics can be objective, insofar as most reasonable people can agree with certain societal rules, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Don’t steal, don’t assault or murder people etc.
But morality? I think that’s highly flexible.
Religion dictates rituals, but confirms a person’s subjective morals, imo.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This presumes that morals are objective. I think that ethics can be objective, insofar as most reasonable people can agree with certain societal rules, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Don’t steal, don’t assault or murder people etc.
But morality? I think that’s highly flexible.
Religion dictates rituals, but confirms a person’s subjective morals, imo.

I wonder, really, whether it's actually even sensible to try to separate ideas like "morals," "ethics" and "right and wrong." And that we continue to try to force these distinctions are precisely what makes for our "societal rules." The problem, for me and for many, is that "societal rules" too often wind up twisting people into knots trying desperately not to be who and what they are in an effort to comply.

When maybe compliance is simply a silly thing to try to do!

This moves towards the very heart of my own personal philosophy, which is based on the very "Idea of Liberty." To show this, I am going to quote a paragraph from A.C. Grayling's book, Towards the Light, in which he discusses England's Bill of Rights (1689), America's Declaration of Independence (1776), France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), US Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10) (1791), and the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948 -- the year of my birth). In these, he says, "the idea of rights has become the central organising concept among those of constitutionality, democracy, and the rule of law."

That this is so is independent of the philosophical debate that has surrounded the idea of natural rights. Critics have focused on the arbitrariness of the claim that nature or a deity has somehow magically endowed people with rights to life, liberty, property and happiness, when in fact the idea of these things is a human invention, and their existence as rights (in those dispensations where they are indeed rights) is the result of decisions to regard them as such. I call this the 'arogatory theory of rights': experience and rational reflection show what is required to give individuals the best chance of making flourishing lives for themselves, and these framework requirements we institute as rights in order to make the chance of such flourishing available. It is as simple, yet profound, as that."

What Grayling is saying, in my personal view, is that the only real "good" is the freedom to live one's own life in the way that best suits him, and the only "not good" is to deprive anyone of that. From there, I have zero difficulty in determining whether what I want to do from moment to moment is right or wrong.

 

[SomeRandom]

I wonder, really, whether it's actually even sensible to try to separate ideas like "morals," "ethics" and "right and wrong." And that we continue to try to force these distinctions are precisely what makes for our "societal rules." The problem, for me and for many, is that "societal rules" too often wind up twisting people into knots trying desperately not to be who and what they are in an effort to comply.

When maybe compliance is simply a silly thing to try to do!

This moves towards the very heart of my own personal philosophy, which is based on the very "Idea of Liberty." To show this, I am going to quote a paragraph from A.C. Grayling's book, Towards the Light, in which he discusses England's Bill of Rights (1689), America's Declaration of Independence (1776), France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), US Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10) (1791), and the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948 -- the year of my birth). In these, he says, "the idea of rights has become the central organising concept among those of constitutionality, democracy, and the rule of law."


What Grayling is saying, in my personal view, is that the only real "good" is the freedom to live one's own life in the way that best suits him, and the only "not good" is to deprive anyone of that. From there, I have zero difficulty in determining whether what I want to do from moment to moment is right or wrong.

I won’t pretend to be a philosopher or indeed know anything about philosophy. But I think there are certain base ethical values that are the result of our species being social. Cooperation helped us survive and sure our tribal tendencies often cause infighting. But a peaceful society is normally achieved by people simultaneously leaving people alone to do their own thing (as long as no harm is befallen anyone) and minding their own business. Something which religious people often struggle with.
Societal rules are not hard and fast, they too often come with their own nuance.

 

[Scott C.]

We've all heard it…"You cannot be good without God."

I don't believe we can be good without God. Goodness comes from God, is one with God, and is defined by God. There is no goodness if there is no God, but then there is no us either. The desire to be good, to love, to help others, and to empathize comes from our Creator, whether we believe in God or not. If you asked the question "Can I be good without religion?", I would answer differently.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't believe we can be good without God. Goodness comes from God, is one with God, and is defined by God. There is no goodness if there is no God, but then there is no us either. The desire to be good, to love, to help others, and to empathize comes from our Creator, whether we believe in God or not. If you asked the question "Can I be good without religion?", I would answer differently.

I wonder if you know how much you ignore, when you make this heartfelt faith statement. You ignore, for example, that while you claim goodness comes from God, implicit in your faith is that everything comes from God, so of course evil must, as well. You ignore that the Bible itself claims that evil comes from God (Isaiah 45:7). Islam confirms the same notion when it affirms that everything that happens is "inshallah," which means "if God wills it."

The definitions that you give are yours, not God's.

And whether you would answer differently if I asked "can we be good without religion" is, I think, somewhat moot. Since what you are expressing, while perhaps not an identified religion, is still religion.

 

[FooYang]

And in that style of living they must also afford everyone else the same "luxury." To not do so is something along the lines of hypocritical, narcissistic, possibly sociopathic. All of which you can also say are relative positions, held by people "living their lives how they wish." Well... then they can't really complain when the rest of us catch them exercising their "livelihood" and then consequently live our lives how WE wish... by throwing them behind bars so they can't affect the rest of us in the harmful ways they seem to want to. As soon as there is more than one person in the equation, just about everything is automatically a two-way street. Locking people up, defending yourself, etc. - these are all actions of people living their lives how they wish. Just try and claim otherwise.

Your whole comment here is just subjective opinion combined with false value judgement. Typical for people brainwashed by bronze age superstition.

 

[MikeDwight]

I think the two comments are non-conflicting and compatible that nothing I could have ever figured or chosen would have been Good, without God, as a moralist, philosopher, decisionmaker, And that the Church- what did you call it?- was something that happened? The Church is a gathering in the Lord of the like-minded. After all, the word "Presbyterian" is simply a tipping point of the massing of swords and men-at-arms, in an association, a word directly from the Bishop's War. We're not needing to become Whole upon the formation of "Church"? I'm curious, are there those Churches, like probably the Catholic Church, and our soul is harmed and we got to go get it fixed and forgiven every week?

 

[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.

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

Your whole comment here is just subjective opinion combined with false value judgement. Typical for people brainwashed by bronze age superstition.

So, do you think that maybe it’s all about Bronze Age superstition ?

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

It gets worse....
If the only reason you are behaving in a moral way is because you either expect reward and/or fear retribution from a deity, then are you, as a person, really moral? I would think not.

 

[InChrist]

I wonder if you know how much you ignore, when you make this heartfelt faith statement. You ignore, for example, that while you claim goodness comes from God, implicit in your faith is that everything comes from God, so of course evil must, as well. You ignore that the Bible itself claims that evil comes from God (Isaiah 45:7).

According to the Bible only goodness comes from God, never moral evil (which is not what the context of Isaiah 45:7 is referring to, despite the continual misuse of this verse by anti-theists). Moral evil originates in the desires and mind of the creature in rebellion to God's goodness, giving birth to sin, evil, and death.

When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
James 1:13-17

 

[Scott C.]

I wonder if you know how much you ignore, when you make this heartfelt faith statement. You ignore, for example, that while you claim goodness comes from God, implicit in your faith is that everything comes from God, so of course evil must, as well. You ignore that the Bible itself claims that evil comes from God (Isaiah 45:7). Islam confirms the same notion when it affirms that everything that happens is "inshallah," which means "if God wills it."

The definitions that you give are yours, not God's.

And whether you would answer differently if I asked "can we be good without religion" is, I think, somewhat moot. Since what you are expressing, while perhaps not an identified religion, is still religion.

I don't accept that evil comes from God. It's the Lord's will that we be free to choose good or evil, but he always wants us to choose good. I believe the Lord "weeps" when we reject him.

The question "Can we be good without God?" is like asking "Can we hear, see, and smell without God?" If there is a God, then no, but if there is no God, then yes. So it comes back to the question, "Is there a God?"

I answer the question "Can we be good without religion" from the standpoint that God does exist. My answer is yes, a person can be good without accepting a particular religion. True religion helps us to be better. False religion might encourage evil. There's a lot of gray area in there with so many religions teaching conflicting values. But since there is a God, if a person has no religion to teach moral values, the moral compass within, put there by God, goes a long way.

 

[InChrist]

It gets worse....
If the only reason you are behaving in a moral way is because you either expect reward and/or fear retribution from a deity, then are you, as a person, really moral? I would think not.

Wrong. The only real reason to refrain from evil and live in a moral way is love, real love for God and others before self-centeredness.