The problem with religious morality...

[Skeptisch]

The problem with religious morality is that it often causes people to care about the wrong things, leading them to make choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering.

Consider the Catholic Church: This is an institution that excommunicates women who want to become priests, but it does not excommunicate male priests who rape children. The Church is more concerned about stopping contraception than stopping genocide. It is more worried about gay marriage than about nuclear proliferation. When we realize that morality relates to questions of human and animal well-being, we can see that the Catholic Church is as confused about morality as it is about cosmology. It is not offering an alternative moral framework; it is offering a false one.
Neuroscientist Sam Harris in “The Moral Landscape” (How Science Can Determine Human Values)

 

[Skwim]

Well, religious morality often does try to establish norms that speak only to its particular needs rather than a universal good.

 

[TheKnight]

The problem with religious morality is that it often causes people to care about the wrong things, leading them to make choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering.

Consider the Catholic Church: This is an institution that excommunicates women who want to become priests, but it does not excommunicate male priests who rape children. The Church is more concerned about stopping contraception than stopping genocide. It is more worried about gay marriage than about nuclear proliferation. When we realize that morality relates to questions of human and animal well-being, we can see that the Catholic Church is as confused about morality as it is about cosmology. It is not offering an alternative moral framework; it is offering a false one.
Neuroscientist Sam Harris in “The Moral Landscape” (How Science Can Determine Human Values)

I'm sorry but your example doesn't follow. You say that religious morality is problematic because people with religious morality (like sociopolitical economical organizations such as the Catholic Church) do and support things that we don't like?


In that case, the problem with money is that it often causes people to do immensely stupid things and lead to choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering.

The problem with sex is that it often causes people to do the wrong things and lead to choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering.

Should I keep going or do you get it?

And then even past that, you use an organization with political and economic interests as your example? You don't even use an individual, like someone who does something wrong because "God told them to", but you use a centuries old business that calls itself a religious institution as your example?

I think you need to reconsider.

 

[PolyHedral]

The problem with sex is that it often causes people to do the wrong things and lead to choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering.

Might want to pick your examples more carefully next time.

 

[Skwim]

Might want to pick your examples more carefully next time.

But

Sex + sex +sex + sex +sex + sex +sex + sex +sex etc = more people + more people + more people + more people + more people + more people + more people etc.
​

AND

More people + more people + more people + more people + more people + more people + more people etc. = more suffering + more suffering + more suffering + more suffering + more suffering + more suffering + more suffering + more suffering etc.
​

Whereas

No sex + no sex + no sex + no sex + no sex + no sex + no sex + no sex + no sex etc. = no people +no people + no people +no people + no people +no people + no people +no people + etc.
​

And

No people +no people + no people +no people + no people +no people + no people +no people + etc.= no suffering + no suffering + no suffering + no suffering + no suffering + no suffering + no suffering + no suffering + etc.
​

 

[McBell]

I'm sorry but your example doesn't follow. You say that religious morality is problematic because people with religious morality (like sociopolitical economical organizations such as the Catholic Church) do and support things that we don't like?

Nice strawman.

Should I keep going or do you get it?

By all means, whip that strawmans arse!!

And then even past that, you use an organization with political and economic interests as your example? You don't even use an individual, like someone who does something wrong because "God told them to", but you use a centuries old business that calls itself a religious institution as your example?

Perhaps you missed his point?
I can easily see how if your strawman is all you were able to get out of the OP.

 

[PolyHedral]

Sex + sex +sex + sex +sex + sex +sex + sex +sex etc = more people + more people + more people + more people + more people + more people + more people etc.

To the quote the internet in general, ur doin' it rong. (And to be slightly more serious, responsible sex IMO isn't a bad thing at all, but lots of people don't do it responsibly.)

 

[Autodidact]

I'm sorry but your example doesn't follow. You say that religious morality is problematic because people with religious morality (like sociopolitical economical organizations such as the Catholic Church) do and support things that we don't like?


In that case, the problem with money is that it often causes people to do immensely stupid things and lead to choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering.

The problem with sex is that it often causes people to do the wrong things and lead to choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering.

Should I keep going or do you get it?

And then even past that, you use an organization with political and economic interests as your example? You don't even use an individual, like someone who does something wrong because "God told them to", but you use a centuries old business that calls itself a religious institution as your example?

I think you need to reconsider.

Neither sex nor money are usually held up as sources of morality; religions, and religious institutions, are. This often leads to negative results.

 

[TheKnight]

Might want to pick your examples more carefully next time.

Do you not agree? Sex and the various actions people take as a result of their sex drive (such as rape for instance) can needlessly perpetuate human suffering.

Perhaps you missed his point?

Yes, perhaps I missed his point. What exactly was his point? That X causes people to care about the "wrong things" and leads to choices that perpetuate human suffering?
[sarcasm]
I apologize for not being able to see that religious morality is the cause of bad choices and human suffering. Nothing else causes it. Nope nothing at all, just religious morality. And religious morality always leads to bad choices and the perpetuation of human suffering.

I mean, just look at that Catholic Church. It's an example of religious morality gone horribly wrong. Its bad choices have nothing to do with political or economic interests. Nope, it's just religious morality gone bad.

Hey, this whole circle jerk thing is kind of fun. Let's not think, let's just jerk each our collective intellectual libido all day long!

[/sarcasm]

Neither sex nor money are usually help up as sources of morality; religions, and religious institutions, are. This often leads to negative results.

The OP literally says, "X often causes people to care about the wrong things, leading them to make choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering."

Do you honestly believe the only or best answer for X is religious morality? And you honestly think that religious morality always results in bad choices and perpetuated human suffering?

 

[Autodidact]

The OP literally says, "X often causes people to care about the wrong things, leading them to make choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering."

Do you honestly believe the only or best answer for X is religious morality? And you honestly think that religious morality always results in bad choices and perpetuated human suffering?

I think if you compare X to other sources of morality, such as secular/humanist morality, then it results in significantly increased human suffering and poorer choices, on average.

 

[LuisDantas]

"sex" and "money" aren't real good fits for X either, Knight.

Of course religious morality isn't always bad. It really depends on how superstitious it is.

 

[smokeybear]

From The Ten Commandments of Materialism:

​

 

[TheKnight]

I think if you compare X to other sources of morality, such as secular/humanist morality, then it results in significantly increased human suffering and poorer choices, on average.

Really? Well in that case it also results in far more benefit to humanity than secular humanist morality. In fact, religious organizations remain at the forefront of providing charitable benefit to humanity.

All we can take from this observation is that religion is a powerful motivator, both for good and for evil. It can powerfully motivate people to do either.

That doesn't mean it is inherently problematic.

"sex" and "money" aren't real good fits for X either, Knight.

I know. I don't think any one thing is a good fit for X. That's why I think the OP is ridiculous.

 

[waitasec]

Do you not agree? Sex and the various actions people take as a result of their sex drive (such as rape for instance) can needlessly perpetuate human suffering.

rape is not a sex act it is a violent controlling act...much like religion...

edit: certain religions...

 

[McBell]

Do you not agree? Sex and the various actions people take as a result of their sex drive (such as rape for instance) can needlessly perpetuate human suffering.


Yes, perhaps I missed his point. What exactly was his point? That X causes people to care about the "wrong things" and leads to choices that perpetuate human suffering?
[sarcasm]
I apologize for not being able to see that religious morality is the cause of bad choices and human suffering. Nothing else causes it. Nope nothing at all, just religious morality. And religious morality always leads to bad choices and the perpetuation of human suffering.

I mean, just look at that Catholic Church. It's an example of religious morality gone horribly wrong. Its bad choices have nothing to do with political or economic interests. Nope, it's just religious morality gone bad.

Hey, this whole circle jerk thing is kind of fun. Let's not think, let's just jerk each our collective intellectual libido all day long!

[/sarcasm]




The OP literally says, "X often causes people to care about the wrong things, leading them to make choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering."

Do you honestly believe the only or best answer for X is religious morality? And you honestly think that religious morality always results in bad choices and perpetuated human suffering?

Wow.
Not only have you jumped up on a high horse but you have already been reduced to false dichotomy.

If you want to have a discussion on the OP after you calm down and have stopped whipping your strawmans arse, let me know.

Unless of course you are going to continue to jump from one strawman to another.

 

[painted wolf]

I think the OP is more about entrenched power structures than "religious morality".
Those in entrenched positions of power will do anything to maintain and exploit that power.

Look at secular institutions like Wall Street and Congress. Good Ol'Boys protect each other at the expense of the victimized. I blame the monkeysphere.

wa:do

 

[LuisDantas]

Really? Well in that case it also results in far more benefit to humanity than secular humanist morality. In fact, religious organizations remain at the forefront of providing charitable benefit to humanity.

In all honesty, that is probably true. But it is testimonial of how wide religious influence has historically been, not of any real advantage of same.

All we can take from this observation is that religion is a powerful motivator, both for good and for evil. It can powerfully motivate people to do either.

That doesn't mean it is inherently problematic.

Which naturally begs the questions: has it been problematic? Is it likely to be?

How would you answer them?

I know. I don't think any one thing is a good fit for X. That's why I think the OP is ridiculous.

Are you denying that religious doctrine is a major, often faulty source of moral directives then?

 

[TheKnight]

rape is not a sex act it is a violent controlling act...much like religion...

edit: certain religions...

Rape is an action people do as a result of some sort of sexual drive combined with a damaged psyche.

Which naturally begs the questions: has it been problematic? Is it likely to be?

How would you answer them?

It in and of itself cannot be problematic. People are problematic. Any powerful motivator can motivate people to do horrendous things. Does that make the motivator less valuable in its ability to motivate for good?

Are you denying that religious doctrine is a major, often faulty source of moral directives then?

Its definitely a major source of moral directives. Whether or not they're faulty depends on the religion. Most religions, in their intended sense, don't provide faulty morals at all.

 

[Autodidact]

Really? Well in that case it also results in far more benefit to humanity than secular humanist morality. In fact, religious organizations remain at the forefront of providing charitable benefit to humanity.

All we can take from this observation is that religion is a powerful motivator, both for good and for evil. It can powerfully motivate people to do either.

That doesn't mean it is inherently problematic.

If it results in a moral system that says:
It is right to do anything, no matter how much suffering it causes, no matter how unjust, if I believe that God commands it, then yes, it is inherently problematic.

If it asserts that it is responsible to form beliefs without adequate evidence, then it is inherently problematic.

 

[Autodidact]

It in and of itself cannot be problematic. People are problematic. Any powerful motivator can motivate people to do horrendous things. Does that make the motivator less valuable in its ability to motivate for good?

However, some have worse results than others. People take actions based on their beliefs. If they believe that God will reward them for slaughtering their enemies, then they are more likely to go around slaughtering.

Its definitely a major source of moral directives. Whether or not they're faulty depends on the religion. Most religions, in their intended sense, don't provide faulty morals at all.

Morality based on beliefs that are not justified by evidence is inherently faulty.