Religion and it's application to morality

[dyanaprajna2011]

Ethics and morality is one of the evidences given by religious people for evidence of the truthfulness of their beliefs, especially in the debate of whether god exists. Some theists believe that it's not possible to be moral without their god, to varying extents.

However, it seems like the people who are the most religious are oftentimes the most immoral. Hypocrisy runs rampant through many religions. Believers will oftentimes say that one should judge the religion by it's own merits, and not by the actions of some of it's followers.

But here's my question: if the religion/god had any power, wouldn't this not be the case? Sure, you can't say this will or even should be true 100 % of the time, but it should be true to a great extent. So how much does a religion play in the morality of it's followers?

 

[Quirkybird]

Some of the most immoral people I have met in my life have claimed to be Christians of the 'born again' dogma. The pastor at our church, when I was a teenager of 14, would drive me home from the weekly youth meetings, and stroke my thigh telling me what a beautiful woman my mother was! He was married with adult children! I also knew others who were holier than thou in church on Sunday, but who had the morals of ally cats when it came to sexual infidelity. I knew some who you wouldn't have trusted any further than you could throw them where financial transactions were concerned.

 

[sandandfoam]

But here's my question: if the religion/god had any power, wouldn't this not be the case? Sure, you can't say this will or even should be true 100 % of the time, but it should be true to a great extent. So how much does a religion play in the morality of it's followers?

I can't understand myself and I certainly would not presume to understand, or speak for, God.
It seems to me that when people speak of God in the sort of scenario that you raise they are talking about themselves.

 

[Tumah]

But here's my question: if the religion/god had any power, wouldn't this not be the case? Sure, you can't say this will or even should be true 100 % of the time, but it should be true to a great extent. So how much does a religion play in the morality of it's followers?

It seems you are conflating the goal with the game. The goal is to acquire all these great attributes. The game is to train ourselves in them, by overcoming our evil-inclination. Maybe that is why people tell you to look at the religion and not the people. They mean, look at the goal, not the people who haven't achieved it yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't understand myself and I certainly would not presume to understand, or speak for, God.
It seems to me that when people speak of God in the sort of scenario that you raise they are talking about themselves.

Is there a circumstance when people aren't talking about themselves when they talk about God?

In my experience, a person's God is a reflection of themselves: kind people have kind gods, violent people have violent gods, greedy people have greedy gods. In each case, God is just an anthropomorphic (or quasi-anthropomorphic) version of the believer's values and ideals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems you are conflating the goal with the game. The goal is to acquire all these great attributes. The game is to train ourselves in them, by overcoming our evil-inclination. Maybe that is why people tell you to look at the religion and not the people. They mean, look at the goal, not the people who haven't achieved it yet.

In some cases, the goal isn't that hot either. And I've seen many cases where the "training" doesn't seem directed toward the stated goal.

 

[sandandfoam]

Is there a circumstance when people aren't talking about themselves when they talk about God?

In my experience, a person's God is a reflection of themselves: kind people have kind gods, violent people have violent gods, greedy people have greedy gods. In each case, God is just an anthropomorphic (or quasi-anthropomorphic) version of the believer's values and ideals.

I think that's fair enough.
Of course to the believer (like me) it can seem that there is something of God in everyone and that it is often God that talks through people.

 

[Tumah]

In some cases, the goal isn't that hot either. And I've seen many cases where the "training" doesn't seem directed toward the stated goal.

I'm not defending any religion, its goals or its people. I'm only giving my explanation of what I think people are saying when they say what the OP says they say to the people they say it to.

 

[Sunstone]

Ethics and morality is one of the evidences given by religious people for evidence of the truthfulness of their beliefs, especially in the debate of whether god exists. Some theists believe that it's not possible to be moral without their god, to varying extents.

However, it seems like the people who are the most religious are oftentimes the most immoral. Hypocrisy runs rampant through many religions. Believers will oftentimes say that one should judge the religion by it's own merits, and not by the actions of some of it's followers.

But here's my question: if the religion/god had any power, wouldn't this not be the case? Sure, you can't say this will or even should be true 100 % of the time, but it should be true to a great extent. So how much does a religion play in the morality of it's followers?

Thankfully, most people are better than their religions.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It seems you are conflating the goal with the game. The goal is to acquire all these great attributes. The game is to train ourselves in them, by overcoming our evil-inclination. Maybe that is why people tell you to look at the religion and not the people. They mean, look at the goal, not the people who haven't achieved it yet.

But what about religions like Christianity, particularly evangelical Christianity, where they are the same? Once you're "saved", that's it. Morality doesn't seem to mean much, from that perspective.

 

[Tumah]

But what about religions like Christianity, particularly evangelical Christianity, where they are the same? Once you're "saved", that's it. Morality doesn't seem to mean much, from that perspective.

You're pulling one over me. They don't really believe that... do they? I mean, when everyone says that a murder goes to heaven if he believes in jesus and the best person in the world goes to hell if he doesn't. That's just oversimplifying it. I hope. Isn't it? I don't know very much about Christianity, I just assumed.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

You're pulling one over me. They don't really believe that... do they? I mean, when everyone says that a murder goes to heaven if he believes in jesus and the best person in the world goes to hell if he doesn't. That's just oversimplifying it. I hope. Isn't it? I don't know very much about Christianity, I just assumed.

I'm not sure to what extent they take it, but when I was an evangelical Christian, that's what I was taught.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're pulling one over me. They don't really believe that... do they? I mean, when everyone says that a murder goes to heaven if he believes in jesus and the best person in the world goes to hell if he doesn't. That's just oversimplifying it. I hope. Isn't it? I don't know very much about Christianity, I just assumed.

That's it for the salvation side of the equation (edit: in the denominations that believe in the "five solas", anyhow). However, many of the Christian denominations that believe in salvation by faith alone also believe that a person with saving faith will be guided by the "indwelling Holy Spirit", so while behaving morally doesn't save a person, a saved person will behave morally.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

That's it for the salvation side of the equation. However, many of the Christian denominations that believe in salvation by faith alone also believe that a person with saving faith will be guided by the "indwelling Holy Spirit", so while behaving morally doesn't save a person, a saved person will behave morally.

But morality is inconsequential to their salvation. An individual can rape and kill 10 people, ask god for forgiveness, and still be "saved", at least from my understanding of it.

EDIT: especially those churches that believe in eternal security.

 

[Sunstone]

You're pulling one over me. They don't really believe that... do they? I mean, when everyone says that a murder goes to heaven if he believes in jesus and the best person in the world goes to hell if he doesn't. That's just oversimplifying it. I hope. Isn't it? I don't know very much about Christianity, I just assumed.

I've known plenty of Evangelicals who have believed that confessing Jesus is your lord and savior inevitably results in salvation and forgiveness of all sins.

 

[Sunstone]

Jared Diamond is of the opinion that religions were seldom if ever associated with morality by early humans. He bases that belief largely upon his 35 years studying roughly 100 or so tribes in New Guinea -- none of whom linked religion to morals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But morality is inconsequential to their salvation. An individual can rape and kill 10 people, ask god for forgiveness, and still be "saved", at least from my understanding of it.

EDIT: especially those churches that believe in eternal security.

Kinda sorta. A lot of the time, they'll argue that when one of the congregation goes on a killing spree, this is evidence that they were never "really" saved to begin with.

 

[fantome profane]

It seems you are conflating the goal with the game. The goal is to acquire all these great attributes. The game is to train ourselves in them, by overcoming our evil-inclination. Maybe that is why people tell you to look at the religion and not the people. They mean, look at the goal, not the people who haven't achieved it yet.

That is all well and good. But even in those cases where we agree that the goals are themselves laudable, there is still the question of whether or not this method is effective in moving towards those goals. If it seems that a particular method (religion) is not effective in moving towards those goals, or if it actually moves people away from those goals, then we are justified in criticizing that method.

 

[Tumah]

I've known plenty of Evangelicals who have believed that confessing Jesus is your lord and savior inevitably results in salvation and forgiveness of all sins.

Ok. Let's say that worked. But it doesn't say anything about the future morality of the individual. Just that whatever he did until now is all gravy now. No?

That is all well and good. But even in those cases where we agree that the goals are themselves laudable, there is still the question of whether or not this method is effective in moving towards those goals. If it seems that a particular method (religion) is not effective in moving towards those goals, or if it actually moves people away from those goals, then we are justified in criticizing that method.

But that's no so easy to determine. Every religion, every denomination within a religion has their good people and bad people. And chances are that the good ones will attribute their goodness to their religion's method. How will you determine how accurate that is?

 

[Quintessence]

However, it seems like the people who are the most religious are oftentimes the most immoral.

Meaningfully evaluating some of your other questions requires this claim to be substantiated with evidence. "Seeming like" is not good enough. Although you're only likely to find correlation-based studies, correlation is better than vague "seems like" statements. I do not notice this "seeming like" that you do, and until I have evidence upon which to base my assessment, I have little comment.