Question on religious morality

Syzygys

Syzygys

As a mother, I am telling you
Valued Senior Member
I thought this line of thought deserves its own thread. Seriously, I have never understood this about religious people, who put atheists down on the supposed lack of morality. Of course it is dumb, because a person can get his/her morality from anywhere. For a good start, the laws of the land where one lives is an advisable set of morals to folllow...

Anyway, here is the ponderable:

Let's build this as a logical argument:

Statement #1:
Through the known (recorded) history of humankind most people have been religious (with their religious morality).

Statement #2:

There have always been wars and crimes against fellow humans.

Therefore:

Most crimes were committed by religious people.

Conclusion:

It is safe to say, that religion didn't give such a morality to humans that would have stopped them from killing each other or committing crimes.

So really:

What is religious morality good for? If the only thing what it does is to make you feel guilty, but it doesn't work and doesn't protect society??? Isn't any kind of law or morality that is practical and followable BETTER than one that humans can not keep?
 
What the laws define as such...Laws come from traditions and consensus...

I am just going to quote myself because I love this line so much:

Syzygys said:
Most crimes were committed by religious people.
Click to expand...
 
Syzygys said:
What the laws define as such...Laws come from traditions and consensus...
Click to expand...

Ah you mean socially defined rules. The same ones that atheists purport to follow without giving much thought to why.
I am just going to quote myself because I love this line so much:
Click to expand...
You can prove they weren't atheists masquerading as theists, I suppose?
 
Most people are religious by name and/or affiliation. You have people saying "I'm Muslim", or "I'm Christian", but they don't really give a damn about their religion, nor do they know anything about it. You know, the hypocrites who change the rules when it suits their convenience.

I'd say very few people throughout history have been truly devote, religious people, especially in comparison to those who weren't religious/were religious only by name. Therefore, it's safe to say most crimes are committed by people who don't take religion very seriously, according to your logic. Most of the "religious" people simply use religion as a feel-good fad. All flash, no substance.
 
Kadark said:
Most people are religious by name and/or affiliation. You have people saying "I'm Muslim", or "I'm Christian", but they don't really give a damn about their religion, nor do they know anything about it. You know, the hypocrites who change the rules when it suits their convenience.

I'd say very few people throughout history have been truly devote, religious people, especially in comparison to those who weren't religious/were religious only by name. Therefore, it's safe to say most crimes are committed by people who don't take religion very seriously, according to your logic. Most of the "religious" people simply use religion as a feel-good fad. All flash, no substance.
Click to expand...

There you go. Thread over.:)
 
So religious morality is no more effective than atheist morality. Both follow personal rules because they want to live in a society where those rules are followed.
 
there is a social paradigm that illustrates 4 cumulative approaches to religious ethics/principles etc

dharma - simply the acceptance of the primary foundations of religious morality
artha - after a sufficient level of morality is established, advanced aspects of society can develop - like agriculture for eg (Its a bit difficult to grow a crop in a society that can't see any problems with rape and rampaging for eg)
kama - and of course the reason people are busying securing all these material resources is to provide nicer material facilities - home, house and hearth, etc
moksa - and after all is said and done in the material field, one eventually tires of it and seeks something more sublime in the form of liberation from the material sphere and its inherent fallibilities.

These are just four general categories, but it illustrates how there are many parts to the process of religion where one can be stabilized on an unsatisfactory level of performance. For example, a person may be operating out a religious paradigm simply for the sake of kama. On that level,a practitioner may feel greatly inclined to reneg on certain religious issues
 
S.A.M. said:
Ah you mean socially defined rules.
Click to expand...

hate to break it to you, but even religious morality is socially defined rules. Unless you have the original 10 commandments...

The same ones that atheists purport to follow without giving much thought to why.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter how much thought is given?? How many times did you ponder about why you have to pray 5 times a day instead of 4 or 6???

Hey, I drink alcohol, but when I visit Saudi Arabia, I go dry, because that is the LAW OF THE LAND!! I could give 100 thougths to ponder if that rule is logical or not, but it doesn't matter!! The same with laws general.

You can prove they weren't atheists masquerading as theists, I suppose?
Click to expand...

No, they were BAD theists, obviously...
 
Syzygys said:
hate to break it to you, but even religious morality is socially defined rules. Unless you have the original 10 commandments...
Click to expand...

Nope, religious morality is a guideline. Not a rule. For a certain type of society, but usually, they are corrupted by men with little regard for religion.
Why does it matter how much thought is given?? How many times did you ponder about why you have to pray 5 times a day instead of 4 or 6???
Click to expand...

Or 50? What makes you think you have to pray only 5 times? Or that all Muslims do?
Hey, I drink alcohol, but when I visit Saudi Arabia, I go dry, because that is the LAW OF THE LAND!! I could give 100 thougths to ponder if that rule is logical or not, but it doesn't matter!! The same with laws general.
Click to expand...

Exactly, utilitarianism. You love your neck so you don't drink. But, there are many Saudis who do drink.
No, they were BAD theists, obviously...
Click to expand...

Not very good ones, at any rate. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top