Religious Teachings in Your Life

[Trey of Diamonds]

Where did I lose you? I answered your question directly.

You said that Moral Philosophy was the source.

I said that since religion came first, wouldn't that be the source of Moral Philosophy.

Then you said "The authors of any given religious text probably sat down and discussed moral philosophy, and whatever they agreed upon they claimed as God's word."

So how does that answer the question? Religion is old, 30,000 years old at least. When did your Moral Philosophy come to be? 3 or 4 thousand years ago maybe? When your Moral Philosophers were discussing what Moral Philosophy was, don't you think they were discussing religion?

 

[CarlinKnew]

You said that Moral Philosophy was the source.

I said that since religion came first, wouldn't that be the source of Moral Philosophy.

Then you said "The authors of any given religious text probably sat down and discussed moral philosophy, and whatever they agreed upon they claimed as God's word."

So how does that answer the question? Religion is old, 30,000 years old at least. When did your Moral Philosophy come to be? 3 or 4 thousand years ago maybe? When your Moral Philosophers were discussing what Moral Philosophy was, don't you think they were discussing religion?

My point was that the authors of religious texts used moral philosophy to determine the laws of their particular religion. The ideas of moral philosophy came before the religion.

 

[Storm]

Stikes me a chicken-egg question, guys....

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

My point was that the authors of religious texts used moral philosophy to determine the laws of their particular religion. The ideas of moral philosophy came before the religion.

Not a chance. As I said, religion came many thousands of years before man could conceptualise something as complex as moral philosophy. Moral philosophy is part of the evolutionary process of religion but it comes much further down the line.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Not a chance. As I said, religion came many thousands of years before man could conceptualise something as complex as moral philosophy. Moral philosophy is part of the evolutionary process of religion but it comes much further down the line.

They decided what's right and wrong; that is moral philosophy. Then to claim authority they added "God says" x is right and wrong. The moral philosophy came before the religion.

 

[YmirGF]

I cannot be seriously described as a religious person by any stretch of the imagination. I have, found some (and I stress 'some') texts to be quite valuable. The thing is, I have never looked at religious texts to find "an answer", but rather, I used them initially to confirm what I had already discovered on my own. It was after looking at those religious texts, in light of my own experience, that I began to seriously doubt that the authors of said texts actually knew much about the topics they were writing on. In some ways, I see religious texts as being like the writings of blind men attempting to describe colours to an equally blind audience.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Atheist/Useless. I only have a finite amount of time for reading, and there are countless other books that are far superior, in every way, for me to spend my time reading.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

They decided what's right and wrong; that is moral philosophy. Then to claim authority they added "God says" x is right and wrong. The moral philosophy came before the religion.

Nope. The duality of right and wrong came way later than religion. First came the attempt to understand cause and effect. That is why ancient religions had mulitiple Gods, each responsible for a different cause and effect. When the concept of right or wrong came about you saw the birth of monotheism but that is pretty recent in religious evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not a chance. As I said, religion came many thousands of years before man could conceptualise something as complex as moral philosophy. Moral philosophy is part of the evolutionary process of religion but it comes much further down the line.

I don't think you give early humans enough credit.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I don't think you give early humans enough credit.

Why? Do you think that the concept of right and wrong came before the concept of cause and effect? When early humans saw lightening strike a tree did they ponder the right and wrong of it? It's not about credit, its about the evolution of thinking and what came first, not what they were capable of thinking of. A child can be fully capable of running but if they have not first learned to walk they will not be able to.

 

[Tristesse]

Why? Do you think that the concept of right and wrong came before the concept of cause and effect? When early humans saw lightening strike a tree did they ponder the right and wrong of it? It's not about credit, its about the evolution of thinking and what came first, not what they were capable of thinking of. A child can be fully capable of running but if they have not first learned to walk they will not be able to.

Actually, yes. Right and wrong is something very simplistic, it might not be all the right and wrongs we're familiar with. But the concept of right and wrong, definitely predates religion, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why? Do you think that the concept of right and wrong came before the concept of cause and effect? When early humans saw lightening strike a tree did they ponder the right and wrong of it?

Probably. In my experience, people are like that. I certainly don't think they spent thousands of years listlessly worshipping things around them until they finally struck on the idea of morality.

It's not about credit, its about the evolution of thinking and what came first, not what they were capable of thinking of. A child can be fully capable of running but if they have not first learned to walk they will not be able to.

IMO, human morality is rooted in our social structure and conventions, and we've been social animals from the beginning of humanity. Before the beginning.

 

[ChristineES]

I like the word faithful better than religious. I wouldn't know what Jesus' commands were without the New Testament. I have also read other faiths' writings as well.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So you really think that ancient man sat around thinking about what was right and what was wrong? Well, since we weren't there we can't say for sure but I totally disagree. The first question asked by man was why. Why do things happen. The first observations were simple cause and effect. Push a rock, it moves. Lightening strikes a tree, it catches fire. Then came the hard questions, why did lightening strike the tree in the first place. Something outside their understanding sent the lightening. This became religion. Eventually they got around to placing blame. God sent the lightening because someone did something wrong. But this came later in the thought processes, not first.

 

[CarlinKnew]

So you really think that ancient man sat around thinking about what was right and what was wrong? Well, since we weren't there we can't say for sure but I totally disagree. The first question asked by man was why. Why do things happen. The first observations were simple cause and effect. Push a rock, it moves. Lightening strikes a tree, it catches fire. Then came the hard questions, why did lightening strike the tree in the first place. Something outside their understanding sent the lightening. This became religion. Eventually they got around to placing blame. God sent the lightening because someone did something wrong. But this came later in the thought processes, not first.

Yes of course ancient man thought about right and wrong. Our morality is innate in us as primates. Placing blame was necessary for the survival of tribes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you really think that ancient man sat around thinking about what was right and what was wrong? Well, since we weren't there we can't say for sure but I totally disagree. The first question asked by man was why. Why do things happen. The first observations were simple cause and effect. Push a rock, it moves. Lightening strikes a tree, it catches fire. Then came the hard questions, why did lightening strike the tree in the first place. Something outside their understanding sent the lightening. This became religion. Eventually they got around to placing blame. God sent the lightening because someone did something wrong. But this came later in the thought processes, not first.

I think you have a faulty image of early humans. They weren't lone individuals making observations in the wilderness, they were social creatures living in communities. Long before they wondered about why lightning happened, they were more concerned with questions like "his food looks good. Should I take it?"

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I think you have a faulty image of early humans. They weren't lone individuals making observations in the wilderness, they were social creatures living in communities. Long before they wondered about why lightning happened, they were more concerned with questions like "his food looks good. Should I take it?"

Yes but the answer to the question "Should I take it" was based on "am I able to" rather than "is it right or wrong to". There was no deep contemplation of what was right or wrong. If it benefited the tribe or individual, it was right. There was no thought process to this conclusion, it was instinctual. Thought comes from curiosity. Instinct told early man what was right and wrong but it didn't say anything about why things happened. The first thoughts of early man were "why did that happen", not "is it right or wrong".

 

[Riverwolf]

"Religious" is not the best term to describe my beliefs, as I'm the only one who holds them.

But I do have a set of spiritual beliefs, and for me, religious texts serve as great guides for the spiritual journey.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes but the answer to the question "Should I take it" was based on "am I able to" rather than "is it right or wrong to". There was no deep contemplation of what was right or wrong. If it benefited the tribe or individual, it was right. There was no thought process to this conclusion, it was instinctual.

What benefits the tribe and what benefits the individual, at least in immediate terms, are often in conflict. When you sort out that conflict, you have morality. We see this in every social species; why would humans be any different?

 

[CarlinKnew]

Yes but the answer to the question "Should I take it" was based on "am I able to" rather than "is it right or wrong to".

This is where you're wrong. Our capacity for morality is innate. When that ancient man was a child, he would have developed a strong sense of right and wrong by interacting with his fellow tribesmen. He would have observed that, when he takes his cousin's food, his cousin suffers. Having experienced suffering himself, he wouldn't want his cousin to suffer. This is empathy. It is innate in us.