Why Religious Leaders Have Rarely Been Moral Leaders

[Murad]

Humanity is, and always has been making moral progress. We are treating each other better than at any time in the past. Compare the moral code of today's world to say the Middle Ages.

Arrogance, probably driven by the need to feel superior to others, is the arch troublemaker within us all, varying in degree from mild to severe. When we look for a cause for a moral failing, arrogance should be our prime suspect.

Our religion is better than your religion!
Our nation is better than your nation!
Our race is better than your race!
Our tribe is better than your tribe!

Group pride, thought to be a virtue, is not. We know intuitively that the man extremely proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud if, by some twist of fate, he had been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. He thinks of his groups as wonderful because they're HIS groups and HE'S wonderful. Group pride is disguised arrogance.

When our arrogant nature is satisfied, we gloat. Highly arrogant people often resist change because it feels good to feel superior.

Since two attitudes can't occupy the same space, forming the habit of treating others as equals will automatically displace arrogant attitudes. This has been happening in public policy the world over. People whose ancestors were slaves now have equal rights. Women, homosexuals and minorities are gaining equal rights as well.

The ambition to lead and gain a measure of power and control over others is a symptom of arrogance. Leaders sometimes mean well and sometimes they don't; but we can't, as a general rule, expect them to be moral leaders since most were corrupted in the womb when they inherited an inclination toward arrogance from their parents.

The Abrahamic religions were founded by arrogant leaders who meant well, but they were not moral leaders. They then passed the torch down to men who were just like them. When moral progress has been made on a global scale, religion's leaders have typically lagged behind quoting scripture in protest.

That's how I see it. Do you agree or disagree?

(11) O ye who believe! Let not some men among you laugh at others: It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): Nor let some women laugh at others: It may be that the (latter are better than the (former): Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames: Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, (to be used of one) after he has believed: And those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong.
(12) O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it...But fear Allah: For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
(13) O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

 

[Ponder This]

Harvard psychologist Steven Pincker has researched and written extensively on this topic. Here's a link to a quick summary of his findings.
Intelligent Optimism

I agree that the world is a better place.
I am not convinced that people have better morals.

Do you think bully tyrants, like Adolf Hitler, cause so much trouble because they're ignorant? Doesn't the combination of high intelligence + high arrogance = a dangerous human being?

I agree that arrogance is a problem, but not that it is the "prime suspect".
For example, what about all the people who blindly followed Hitler?
Which was greater? Hitler's arrogance or the gullibility of the people?
What about the way all the neighboring nations ignored Hitler's rise to power?
Not one nation's leader, but all nations' leaders.

Why do you think that?

I think that having the expectation that our leaders be moral puts pressure on them to consider the morality of their actions.
If don't expect our leaders to act morally, then why should they?

I have no idea. They are hard to find in any culture. Who would you consider to be a moral leader currently?

I think any leader today should be regarded as leading morally in addition to whatever else they are doing.
However, if you want a list of people being more specifically regarded as moral leaders...
Here are a few:
Pope Francis, Oprah Winfrey, Dalai Lama, Deepak Chopra, Eckhart Tolle, Sri Sri Rava Shankar.
I think you will find that people place an even higher moral expectation on religious/spiritual leaders.
Who would you place an expectation of morality on? Or do you not expect anyone to be morally responsible?
Maybe you want people to fulfill a certain criteria before you will regard them as moral leaders. In that case, how about the Nobel Peace Prize. If you're having trouble identifying the moral leaders of any time period, then it means you aren't looking.

Being a moral leader doesn't mean you're right. It just means that people look to you to either set a moral example or provide moral guidance.

 

[joe1776]

What kind of moral progress you are talking about.!!!!.

Harvard psychologist Steven Pincker has researched and written extensively on this topic. Here's a link to a quick summary of his findings.
Intelligent Optimism

Depend on what you judge that abrahamic religion leader were immoral

I claimed that religion's leaders were rarely moral leaders not that they were immoral, although they sometimes were.

 

[joe1776]

I agree that the world is a better place.
I am not convinced that people have better morals.

That doesn't make sense.

I agree that arrogance is a problem, but not that it is the "prime suspect".
For example, what about all the people who blindly followed Hitler?

He told the German people they were members of a master race entitled to take the lands of Eastern Europe for their own. He appealed to their arrogance.

I think that having the expectation that our leaders be moral puts pressure on them to consider the morality of their actions. If don't expect our leaders to act morally, then why should they?

Your position is shifting. Our topic was moral leadership.

However, if you want a list of people being more specifically regarded as moral leaders...
Here are a few: Pope Francis, Oprah Winfrey, Dalai Lama, Deepak Chopra, Eckhart Tolle, Sri Sri Rava Shankar.

Good grief. The only one on your list likely to qualify is the Dalai Lama. Pope Francis is trying to bring Catholics up to par but he's not leading them to higher moral ground than the the rest of the enlightened world..

Who would you place an expectation of morality on? Or do you not expect anyone to be morally responsible?

I think there always have been people with keener consciences than the rest of us. They feel the injustice of say slavery and they speak out and make others examine their conscience on the matter. But arrogant leaders, in religion, politics. or anywhere else, are not usually people with keen consciences.

If you're having trouble identifying the moral leaders of any time period, then it means you aren't looking.

Nonsense

Being a moral leader doesn't mean you're right. It just means that people look to you to either set a moral example or provide moral guidance.

Sorry, Amigo, I don't recognize you as an authority on what the terms of my argument mean.

 

[Murad]

Harvard psychologist Steven Pincker has researched and written extensively on this topic. Here's a link to a quick summary of his findings.
Intelligent Optimism

I claimed that religion's leaders were rarely moral leaders not that they were immoral, although they sometimes were.

The morality obviously even over one or tow generation is declining, you can see that at individual level , you see opportunism, lying, egoism and many many others. "Scientific progress is not part of the moral system". At the level of societies, crime, racism, materialism, and blind obedience and dictatorial dictatorship of the media and those who lead them / either international and globally , the situation is even worse.

Harvard psychologist Steven Pincker has researched and written extensively on this topic. Here's a link to a quick summary of his findings.
Intelligent Optimism

I claimed that religion's leaders were rarely moral leaders not that they were immoral, although they sometimes were.

Things are getting worse very quickly now. The list of what we are required to approve is growing ever longer. Consider just the domain of sexual practice. First we were to approve sex before marriage, then without marriage, now against marriage. First with one, then with a series, now with a crowd. First with the other sex, then with the same. First between adults, then between children, then between adults and children. The last item has not been added yet, but will be soon: you can tell from the change in language, just as you can tell the approach of winter from the change in the color of leaves.
Bruce Atkinson

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I can agree with ' hard wired ' because, unless damaged, we come equipped with an in-born conscience.
There are people who have had their brains damaged so that their conscience does Not work.
If a person is very abused they often become abusers, so to me the way a built-in conscience is treated or trained can definitely have an outcome as to whether a person's conscience can either excuse actions or accuse actions.

What about the believers that tell us that atheists have no reason not to go out berserking? Such people are telling us that without an external list of rules to follow and the belief that somebody is reading one's mind and will reward or punish them according to their thoughts and deeds, that there is no inhibition against going on violent sprees.

Isn't such a person telling us that he doesn't know what a conscience is or does, that is, that he doesn't have an internal moral compass, and that he's projecting his condition onto others? He sees me as just like him but without that which keeps him from being a mass murderer.

And this is generally a person assuming the moral high ground. This is a person who sees atheists as immoral and himself as moral.

 

[joe1776]

Things are getting worse very quickly now. The list of what we are required to approve is growing ever longer. Consider just the domain of sexual practice. First we were to approve sex before marriage, then without marriage, now against marriage. First with one, then with a series, now with a crowd. First with the other sex, then with the same. First between adults, then between children, then between adults and children. The last item has not been added yet, but will be soon: you can tell from the change in language, just as you can tell the approach of winter from the change in the color of leaves.
Bruce Atkinson

Bruce, since I reject religion, I reject many of the laws that the Christian majority in the USA have voted into existence.

Marriage is a religious sacrament. IMO, the state shouldn't be involved with marriage at all. The problem of dividing property when a couple splits can be handled by prior agreement. I think some states offer them as an option.

If a religion wants to take a position against same sex marriage as part of their faith, I don't care. It's none of my business.

As for sex, if there's harm to an innocent victim, then the act is immoral and the state should punish it. But, it's high time that the existing laws on victimless crimes get repealed. It's immoral to make criminals of people who have harmed no one.

Two women, one man, two men, one woman -- if it works for them, I think it's fine. In my moral world, if harm isn't caused to an innocent victim, it's fine with me.

In the early part of the last century, a husband could beat his wife and kids and molest his daughters with impunity. That's no longer the case and I see that as moral progress. The fact that we read about more child molestation now is, in one way, a good thing. That means it's no longer ignored as it was early in the last century.

So, I see moral progress and you don't because we see many things differently. Looking at the very long term, Christians have made outstanding progress. I can tolerate being spammed by Christian messages sent by thoughtless friends when I remember that long ago heretics like me would have been burned at the stake.

~ Joe

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Enlightenment values of evidence and reason over prophets and revelations are what has made the difference. Christians have sometimes been in the forefront of social improvements. But generally, they have been the traditionalists. They saw little problems with genocide and monarchy and oppression and poverty because their ethics came from the Bible and were rather primitive.

Agree.

But I would contend that any moral progress that has been made since the Bible was cobbled came from applying reason to compassion - so-called rational ethics, which, as you well know, is the method that unbelievers use to decide moral issues. Humanists look to man to solve his moral issues himself as they become evident.

We contrast that with the faith based method for determining moral values and behavior, which is to receive them in a holy book, and to be unquestioningly obedient to the commandments contained within. These values are considered infallible, timeless, and objectively real precepts that didn't come from man and can't be improved upon by man - the precise opposite of humanism. There is no moral progress possible from such a perspective. One has to step outside of that method to grow.

It's great that some religious people are adopting the reason and compassion method. The Christian abolitionists obviously did, since the scriptures, ossified for millennia now, offered no guidance there except.

Those believers that don't object to same sex marriage are also using the method of rational ethics secular. If one goes to the book, he will see that homosexuality is an abomination. If that's how you make moral judgments - faith in revelation - the issue is settled. No reason or compassion are needed, just the willingness to accept an ancient, irrational, arbitrary, and harmful idea unquestioningly.

 

[joe1776]

But I would contend that any moral progress that has been made since the Bible was cobbled came from applying reason to compassion - so-called rational ethics, which, as you well know, is the method that unbelievers use to decide moral issues. Humanists look to man to solve his moral issues himself as they become evident.

This unbeliever doesn't agree that reason is the solution. I see reason as part (not all) of the problem. Moral judgments are the province of conscience, an immediate, intuitive judgment coming out of our subconscious.

The Bible is an example of the way men reason on morality. The reasoning mind wants to make rules. It was a well-meant reasoning mind that came up with the useless commandment You should not kill.

We humans would have no knowledge of morality whatsoever if it wasn't for conscience because all knowledge begins with an observation derived from the senses. When a murder was committed, our ancestors couldn't see, hear, taste or smell it -- but they felt the wrongness immediately.

I think we humans are much too proud of our ability to reason. The idea that it can make better moral judgments than conscience is a delusion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Finally, we might be seeing religious leaders who are also themselves
capable of exemplifying the very morality they preach. Oh, happy day!
Robot 'priest' can beam light from its hands and give automated blessings

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This unbeliever doesn't agree that reason is the solution. I see reason as part (not all) of the problem. Moral judgments are the province of conscience, an immediate, intuitive judgment coming out of our subconscious.

The Bible is an example of the way men reason on morality. The reasoning mind wants to make rules. It was a well-meant reasoning mind that came up with the useless commandment You should not kill.

We humans would have no knowledge of morality whatsoever if it wasn't for conscience because all knowledge begins with an observation derived from the senses. When a murder was committed, our ancestors couldn't see, hear, taste or smell it -- but they felt the wrongness immediately.

I think we humans are much too proud of our ability to reason. The idea that it can make better moral judgments than conscience is a delusion.

I think that we are discussing different things and calling both "reason."

Also, there was no claim that the reasoning faculty can "make better moral judgments than conscience"

The conscience supplies the empathy and the values.

Reason, which is a different faculty, is used to make that which is considered good come to pass.

Together, they are the "ought" and the "is"

When they work in tandem, they can inform us of what value and how to achieve it.

 

[joe1776]

I think that we are discussing different things and calling both "reason."

Also, there was no claim that the reasoning faculty can "make better moral judgments than conscience"

The conscience supplies the empathy and the values.

Reason, which is a different faculty, is used to make that which is considered good come to pass.

Together, they are the "ought" and the "is"

When they work in tandem, they can inform us of what value and how to achieve it.

It sounds like we're on a different page. I'll use a case in a court of criminal justice as an example to help me explain my position..

The following are questions of reason:

What exactly happened?
Did the act cause serious harm to an innocent person?
Was the harm intended?
Did the defendant commit the act?

The following are questions of conscience (immediate, intuitive judgments are felt)

Was the act immoral?
Is this sentence fair?

In other words, I see reason's job as the gathering and analyzing facts so that conscience can judge the act right or wrong, fair or unfair. The final judgment in a moral question belongs to conscience.

Exception: In moral dilemmas, for example, if two courses of action are available and both feel wrong, it is probably the reasoning function which weighs and chooses the lesser evil because two parts of the brain light up under fMRI when moral dilemmas are being considered.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What about the believers that tell us that atheists have no reason not to go out berserking? Such people are telling us that without an external list of rules to follow and the belief that somebody is reading one's mind and will reward or punish them according to their thoughts and deeds, that there is no inhibition against going on violent sprees.
Isn't such a person telling us that he doesn't know what a conscience is or does, that is, that he doesn't have an internal moral compass, and that he's projecting his condition onto others? He sees me as just like him but without that which keeps him from being a mass murderer.
And this is generally a person assuming the moral high ground. This is a person who sees atheists as immoral and himself as moral.

What you wrote ^ above ^ makes me think of a book called Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski.
Such political people ( and can include others outside of politics ) see or project others like themselves.......
Even if professing ' belief ' are they really, that to me is why Isaiah 11:3-4 mentions that Jesus will Not judge by the mere appearance to the eyes......

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Harvard psychologist Steven Pincker has researched and written extensively on this topic. Here's a link to a quick summary of his findings.
Intelligent Optimism
I claimed that religion's leaders were rarely moral leaders not that they were immoral, although they sometimes were.

I would say that from a 'secular view' that there would be No future paradisical Earth free of sickness and wars.
It is only in the Bible that teaches No more war (Psalms 46:9; Micah 4:3-4) and No more sickness (Isaiah 33:24).
Pincker also did Not envision an end to enemy death as 1 Corinthians 15:26, 55; Isaiah 25:8 mentions, so from a non-biblical viewpoint I can see how he envisions the future. Leaving out what the Bible really teaches, does Not mean the Bible is wrong.

 

[joe1776]

I would say that from a 'secular view' that there would be No future paradisical Earth free of sickness and wars.
It is only in the Bible that teaches No more war (Psalms 46:9; Micah 4:3-4) and No more sickness (Isaiah 33:24).
Pincker also did Not envision an end to enemy death as 1 Corinthians 15:26, 55; Isaiah 25:8 mentions, so from a non-biblical viewpoint I can see how he envisions the future. Leaving out what the Bible really teaches, does Not mean the Bible is wrong.

I linked Steven Pincker's site because he is an authority who would support my claim that humanity has been making moral progress. His views are based on statistics. He's not making predictions that would either support or reject Bible prophecies.

 

[Augustus]

My general statement, that "religion's leaders are rarely moral leaders," isn't
contradicted by pointing out cherry-picked exceptions like Martin Luther King.

You couldn't name a religious leader in the forefront of the abolition movement and your claims for Quakers and evangelical Christians are exaggerated. The movement grew in various places and at various times from various sources..

If you just read even the basics about it, you could find plenty of names yourself For example: Clapham Sect - Wikipedia. Sufficient?

Yes it grew in various ways, most important of which was a movement in Britain driven by evangelical Anglicans and Quakers. This is a simple historical fact whether or not it is convenient to your preconceived opinions. Is it really surprising that religion has been both a force for good and bad?

Anyway, moral leaders (whatever that term even means) are rare in the general population, and therefore obviously even rarer in a subset of that population.

You're wrong. Harvard psychologist Steven Pincker has researched and written extensively on this topic. Here's a link to a quick summary of his findings.Intelligent Optimism

Pinker starts to be wrong at the 1st word, calling those that disagree 'declinists'. He gets no more right after that point.

His 'research' didn't extend to aiming for accurate casualty figures in past wars, and, unscientifically (and pretty dishonestly), he always chooses the highest figures despite these being completely unrealistic in most cases. He converts numbers to 'deaths per 100,000' as if wars are supposed to increase in a perfectly linear manner compared to population.

From another perspective, massive casualty wars (over 1 million dead) are actually massively increasing in frequency (see: The big kill)

He conflates technological and moral progress, despite them being 2 completely different things - nobody doubts technological progress after all. He seems to significantly underestimate the potential problems that could arise from advanced technology though and simply dismisses it out of hand.

When he says 'The most destructive human activity, war between powerful nations, is obsolescent.' he is mirroring what people were saying in 1910, right before the most violent century in history started earning its chops. Industrialised genocide, the deliberate carpet bombing of civilians (most destructively by the 'good guys'), nuclear weapons.

That doesn't even include the non-war violence with entire cities of people being marched across countries and worked to death in the fields, the most murderous regimes in history, 'the cultural revolution', etc. Educated, humanistic Western liberals were still acting as apologists for these regimes until the 1980s (there has always always been a violent strain of radicalism based on 'Enlightenment values' anyway).

Great powers don't fight each other directly much due to the cost (deterrence), not because of some moral epiphany. They have constantly fought each other by proxy all over the world since the end of WW2 though (Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, etc).

There might well have been a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis which was only averted when a Russian submariner overruled his captain's desire to launch a nuclear torpedo. Had Vasili Arkhipov not been the lone dissenting voice, Pinker might well not have been around to get excited by 'deaths per 100,000 people', and if he was then the numbers would likely look very, very different.

 

[Murad]

Bruce, since I reject religion, I reject many of the laws that the Christian majority in the USA have voted into existence.

Marriage is a religious sacrament. IMO, the state shouldn't be involved with marriage at all. The problem of dividing property when a couple splits can be handled by prior agreement. I think some states offer them as an option.

If a religion wants to take a position against same sex marriage as part of their faith, I don't care. It's none of my business.

As for sex, if there's harm to an innocent victim, then the act is immoral and the state should punish it. But, it's high time that the existing laws on victimless crimes get repealed. It's immoral to make criminals of people who have harmed no one.

Two women, one man, two men, one woman -- if it works for them, I think it's fine. In my moral world, if harm isn't caused to an innocent victim, it's fine with me.

In the early part of the last century, a husband could beat his wife and kids and molest his daughters with impunity. That's no longer the case and I see that as moral progress. The fact that we read about more child molestation now is, in one way, a good thing. That means it's no longer ignored as it was early in the last century.

So, I see moral progress and you don't because we see many things differently. Looking at the very long term, Christians have made outstanding progress. I can tolerate being spammed by Christian messages sent by thoughtless friends when I remember that long ago heretics like me would have been burned at the stake.

~ Joe

Then you have to define the moral from immoral. and first you have to tell me who is the one have the authority to difine morals.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You think we could do better today, but if you traveled back and lived when they lived, could you have actually been a better moral leader?

I typically agreed with your post, but this quote stood out. Question: If you are a mouthpiece from God, would you not expect to have better sense than the people around you?

 

[joe1776]

Anyway, moral leaders (whatever that term even means) are rare in the general population, and therefore obviously even rarer in a subset of that population..

That' not a valid point because religion is a massive "subset" and its leaders offer moral advice as part of their job.

As for your parenthetical gripe: (whatever that term even means), MLK was a moral leader. So, your pointing him out indicates that you weren't as mystified by my use of the term "moral leader" as you pretend to be.

if my claim was that "religious leaders have never done anything good," your posts would have been on point. Or, if my claim was that "religious leaders have never been moral leaders," your posts would have been on point. But my claim is that religious leaders have rarely been moral leaders. Since he's an exception to the rule, your pointing out Martin Luther King, who probably was motivated by his race as much as his faith, doesn't contradict my general statement.

You made the wildly exaggerated claim that the abolitionist movement was driven by Quakers and evangelical Christians. Then, you offered offered a Wikipedia link to support your claim. But the article only supported the fact that the Chapman Sect of the Church of England founded by John Newton was active in the abolition movement.

The Wikipedia timeline credits the English court case, Somerset v Stewart, as the key event in the abolition movement in England. However, the movement was already well underway when that happened. Your claim that The abolitionist movement was driven by Quakers and evangelical Christians. just isn't supported by the facts.
Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom - Wikipedia

I suspect that you have formed your worldview by what you read in the daily media which mostly prints bad news. In order to see trends, I suggest you compare the present to anytime in the distant past.

Steven Pincker is the best source for facts on this based on data but there is other research. For example, Oxford sociologist Manuel Eisner's study persuasively demonstrated a long-term pattern of declining homicide rates across Europe over 800 years.

Making more claims and cherry-picking the evidence won't support your claim that we humans are morally declining. Have you any research to support you?

 

[joe1776]

Then you have to define the moral from immoral. and first you have to tell me who is the one have the authority to difine morals.

When your neighbor is brutally murdered, you feel a sense of moral outrage. That's your conscience making a moral judgment that the act was immoral. Conscience is our only moral authority.