Religion is a matter of perspective
- Thread starter Jocariah
- Start date
This coming from an atheist is very surprising. If you accept that morality is rational and that it is for man's well-being and happiness then how do you explain religious morality? The moral code of this society is littered with morals seeped and based on religion. You also ignore that certain morals that were and are, are designed to keep a form of stratification in place and may or may not be beneficial to an individual. I provided standard definitions of morality, why the hell are we even arguing about this? Reason--logic is not morality. Morality is not based on reason. Ethics tries to explain morality in the rational sense. We accept certain moral codes like "Do not kill" as if it were innate. Simply beause it is beneficial to "society" does not make it beneficial to the individual. To an individual, thou shall not kill is illogical in many many instances. Morals are developed within society, to keep society. Moral codes differ for each society because the culture of that society-- the way of life--- and thus what must be maintained, are different. You talk of rationality, of logic. Take for instance old attica, before logical reasoning was discovered, there was morality. Society demands morality. Even a lawless society must have a sort of moral code.
Religious morality!
I will assume you made this statement in haste, without examining all---religions.
But here is an easy example of reasoning, in fact a whole field, based on morality: Ethics.
Also concepts such as good, bad, evil, wrong, etc... these are morality-based.
Thefountainhed,
Religious morality can never be as effective because it is not based on the needs of mankind but on the alleged desires of fictional supernatural forces.
While the reasoning of some groups may well be of dubious accuracy especially when based on invalid or false premises, they are nevertheless always striving to base their code on a rational system. If the standards succeed then the values will survive while others like the 10 commandments punishments will fade into disuse. But Christian morality for example still has some way to go before it catches up with modern values since it still practices intolerance, bigotry, hypocrisy, homophobia, and various other petty discriminations.
Why?
No, I said effective morality, I quote ” Without reason no effective morality could have arisen.” Religious morality is based on rules whereas rational morality is based on standards.
Religious morality can never be as effective because it is not based on the needs of mankind but on the alleged desires of fictional supernatural forces.
And many such rules survive because they appeal to human reasoning. But notice that many components of religious morality quietly evolve into disuse. For example the 10 commandments are often quoted as being a good basis for human morality, however, what is quietly forgotten is that all these commandants are accompanied by the correct punishments, and in all but one of the commandments the punishment is death, usually by stoning I believe. We have reasoned that such behavior endorsed by religion is now barbaric and immoral.
That would likely be an issue that could be debated. The balance between what is good for society and what is good for the individual. From my perspective the individual should always come first. The choice must be made based on the reasoned objectives of the group or culture.
If not based on reason then on what?
Perhaps you mean ‘do not murder’. I have no problem with killing for self-defense.
You seem to be supporting my case. Each culture will develop their own moral code based on what they deem to be of value for that culture.
So what is your problem then? Each group will define a moral code based on what they feel is value to the group, or perhaps the individuals in the group. All of these practices follow the same general rule that I stated before -” Rational morality is a code of values required by man for his survival, well-being and happiness. Such a code must be based on the facts of human value and only reason can determine what is and is not of value to man.”
While the reasoning of some groups may well be of dubious accuracy especially when based on invalid or false premises, they are nevertheless always striving to base their code on a rational system. If the standards succeed then the values will survive while others like the 10 commandments punishments will fade into disuse. But Christian morality for example still has some way to go before it catches up with modern values since it still practices intolerance, bigotry, hypocrisy, homophobia, and various other petty discriminations.
thefountainhed,
From Webster: Religion - the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
Unless you can show otherwise there is no factual basis for any such claims.
I assume all religions have at their core the belief in a supernatural influence of some type, whether it be gods or spirits, or reincarnation realm.
From Webster: Religion - the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
Unless you can show otherwise there is no factual basis for any such claims.
LostInThought7
Registered Senior Member
Hey now, Chris, don't bash the Christians (though most of them need a good bashing). If they lived like the Christ (supposedly) did (which is what a Christian is supposed to do, "Christian" meaning Christ-like), they wouldn't be nearly as bad. According to the Bible, Jesus fought the hipocracy of the Pharisees all the time, and taught that you shouldn't think yourself better than anyone else and to love your neighbor and treat them as you would have them treat you.
Don't stereotype. It is morally wrong.
If by Christian morality you meant prevalent Christian behavior, it probably would be better if you said that. But then, it wouldn't have had anything to do with what was being said...
LostinThhought,
Hi welcome to sciforums.
Yes a fair comment and I know there are Christians who follow those underlying concepts. Yet we don’t need a religion to understand and implement those concepts. Remember it was men who developed those ideas, that they incorporated them into a religion was unfortunate but that was the dominant powerful mechanism of the time that could exploit such ideas.
My objection is with the Christian institutions that continue to set supposed moral ‘rules’ that their apparent unthinking flock must follow. They base their rulings on outdated ideals set at a time when the world was significantly more barbaric and ignorant than today. For example the catholic edicts against contraception in a world that is overpopulated and where AIDS is a curse, is an immoral ruling, and similarly with the insistence that homosexuality is immoral. That a large number of Christians ignore these irrational rulings shows that many do exercise their ability to think rationally.
Effective morality must be a dynamic mechanism that must change as the needs and values of mankind or the community grows and evolves. To implement such changes we have no choice but to use our ability to reason to determine how modern values change. Any attempt to base such guidelines on texts and values set in the distant past is ludicrous.
Note that the Golden Rule that is being associated with Jesus and which you are highlighting has numerous variations and where most religions have their own version.
http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/golden.html
Note also that the Christian version is not a particularly good variation since it encourages interference with the freedom of others.
Hi welcome to sciforums.
Yes a fair comment and I know there are Christians who follow those underlying concepts. Yet we don’t need a religion to understand and implement those concepts. Remember it was men who developed those ideas, that they incorporated them into a religion was unfortunate but that was the dominant powerful mechanism of the time that could exploit such ideas.
My objection is with the Christian institutions that continue to set supposed moral ‘rules’ that their apparent unthinking flock must follow. They base their rulings on outdated ideals set at a time when the world was significantly more barbaric and ignorant than today. For example the catholic edicts against contraception in a world that is overpopulated and where AIDS is a curse, is an immoral ruling, and similarly with the insistence that homosexuality is immoral. That a large number of Christians ignore these irrational rulings shows that many do exercise their ability to think rationally.
Effective morality must be a dynamic mechanism that must change as the needs and values of mankind or the community grows and evolves. To implement such changes we have no choice but to use our ability to reason to determine how modern values change. Any attempt to base such guidelines on texts and values set in the distant past is ludicrous.
Note that the Golden Rule that is being associated with Jesus and which you are highlighting has numerous variations and where most religions have their own version.
http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/golden.html
Note also that the Christian version is not a particularly good variation since it encourages interference with the freedom of others.
Hello Cris,
A person’s belief system is theirs alone, if they, according to their belief system, are motivated to commit an act against society, then that is society’s responsibility to deal with that, as is often the case.
There will always be those fanatics and such that justify their actions by way of one doctrine or another - so what. Isn’t that the nature of man to do so?
What about the crusades? Throughout the ages, what crimes against humanity were committed in the name of the Christian god? But that was then, and this is now.
It seems that you, by way of your words, are attempting to judge someone’s belief system based on their impact (good or bad) upon society. Of course that is your right.
My point is that our perspective or belief system is ours alone. Our actions are ours alone as well.
The two are not synonymous.
Cheers
Christian morality is based on two "unproven" axioms: Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. It seems that your morality is based on one "unproven" axiom: "Love your neighbor as yourself". And the catholic edict wrote documents expaining why they came to the conclusion that conception was wrong. If people joined monogamous relationships then AIDS wouldn't be half the problem that it is now. Because AIDS is spread mainly by unprotected extra-marital sex, I don't see why the Church's statement is going to save someone from AIDS when they are already breaking the teachings.
I don't see this at all. How is doing unto others what you would have done to youself interfering with their freedom?
Okinrus,
I find a more appropriate guideline in the Wiccan Rede –
”An it harm none, do what thou wilt.”
Note that many of those “golden” rules are about NOT doing things to others, which is a wisdom that Christianity does not seem to comprehend.
Because you will be imposing your standards on others whether they want them or not. Christianity makes the arrogant assumption that what it deems is good MUST be good for everyone.
I find a more appropriate guideline in the Wiccan Rede –
”An it harm none, do what thou wilt.”
Note that many of those “golden” rules are about NOT doing things to others, which is a wisdom that Christianity does not seem to comprehend.
Okinrus,
You seem to be guessing here, but no, my morality is based on the freedom of the individual, and love plays no role.
You mean contraception I think. But OK I understand. The issue I see is that modern day sex is now seen in a very different way as it has been over the past 2000 years. Catholicism simply has an issue understanding that there is nothing wrong with personal pleasure.
But that isn’t what people want to do. Modern society is changing. Women are now attaining equality with men after thousands of years of repression and discrimination, and they are seeking their rightful independence. People are now living on average 3 times longer than they did in ancient times. The idea that one stays married for life and has only one partner is now an increasingly futile concept. The entire human culture is shifting away from permanent couples to increasingly mobile independent individuals who have no need to be tied to a single, other person. But because the Church is rooted in ancient values it is unable to adapt to the modern evolving needs of mankind. Its concept of morality is stuck in the past, and it is no longer relevant to modern man.
My point is that the teachings are out of date so the Church should bring itself up to date.
ok, will you fantacise about a sexual orgy with the wife of your best friend who trusts you.? no harm to them is done. if you enjoy doing this. for that matter, would you really have sex with her if she likes.? no way your friend is going to know that. unless he knows no harm is done to him emotionally if you are healthy. ????
<i>You seem to be guessing here, but no, my morality is based on the freedom of the individual, and love plays no role.</i>
You cannot build a moral system only on freedom. Otherwise it will become the freedom to do whatever one chooses. But you could say "You can do anything you want insofar that you do not restrict my freedom". This does not help us decide what youdo in a given situation only the allowance of what others do.
<i>But OK I understand. The issue I see is that modern day sex is now seen in a very different way as it has been over the past 2000 years. Catholicism simply has an issue understanding that there is nothing wrong with personal pleasure.</i>
I see the exact opposite. The law set forth by the Church evolved to face the modern needs of people. There's no real bibical condemnation of contraception and if the church wanted to they could have allowed it. Moral laws are not going to change drastically because what makes people happy yesterday is as relevant today. If they do change, is this then some progress to an ideal moral law or decay? If it's to an ideal moral law, why not just start with it?
<i>But that isn’t what people want to do. Modern society is changing. Women are now attaining equality with men after thousands of years of repression and discrimination, and they are seeking their rightful independence. People are now living on average 3 times longer than they did in ancient times. The idea that one stays married for life and has only one partner is now an increasingly futile concept.</i>
No, living longer should only give the couple more time to enjoy life.
<i>The entire human culture is shifting away from permanent couples to increasingly mobile independent individuals who have no need to be tied to a single, other person.</i>
Is this good? Does it bring enjoyment to be independent or is more enjoying to be part of a small town?
<i>My point is that the teachings are out of date so the Church should bring itself up to date.</i>
The Church has a practical reason for barring contraception but they follow from their belief that life is sacred and created by God.
If you value freedom so much, why do you want nuns handing out condems? The Church in no way told other humanitarian aid groups to do things the church's way. They only made sure that their own humanitarian aid was alligned with the church's teachings. If people practiced abstance and monogamy we wouldn't have AID's on such a scale. So why do you expect the Church to hand out condoms but not teach abstance and monogamy both of which are probably more effective in the AIDS prevention than condoms.
You cannot build a moral system only on freedom. Otherwise it will become the freedom to do whatever one chooses. But you could say "You can do anything you want insofar that you do not restrict my freedom". This does not help us decide what youdo in a given situation only the allowance of what others do.
<i>But OK I understand. The issue I see is that modern day sex is now seen in a very different way as it has been over the past 2000 years. Catholicism simply has an issue understanding that there is nothing wrong with personal pleasure.</i>
I see the exact opposite. The law set forth by the Church evolved to face the modern needs of people. There's no real bibical condemnation of contraception and if the church wanted to they could have allowed it. Moral laws are not going to change drastically because what makes people happy yesterday is as relevant today. If they do change, is this then some progress to an ideal moral law or decay? If it's to an ideal moral law, why not just start with it?
<i>But that isn’t what people want to do. Modern society is changing. Women are now attaining equality with men after thousands of years of repression and discrimination, and they are seeking their rightful independence. People are now living on average 3 times longer than they did in ancient times. The idea that one stays married for life and has only one partner is now an increasingly futile concept.</i>
No, living longer should only give the couple more time to enjoy life.
<i>The entire human culture is shifting away from permanent couples to increasingly mobile independent individuals who have no need to be tied to a single, other person.</i>
Is this good? Does it bring enjoyment to be independent or is more enjoying to be part of a small town?
<i>My point is that the teachings are out of date so the Church should bring itself up to date.</i>
The Church has a practical reason for barring contraception but they follow from their belief that life is sacred and created by God.
If you value freedom so much, why do you want nuns handing out condems? The Church in no way told other humanitarian aid groups to do things the church's way. They only made sure that their own humanitarian aid was alligned with the church's teachings. If people practiced abstance and monogamy we wouldn't have AID's on such a scale. So why do you expect the Church to hand out condoms but not teach abstance and monogamy both of which are probably more effective in the AIDS prevention than condoms.
Still, I disagree. While I will admit that reduction forces us at some point to rely upon some assumed propositions reason is the only proper method for determining moral values. As a Christian it is very likely you do the same, you simply work from a particular set of assumptions. Again, I would ask what else you would base them upon.
Indeed, but these are rational observations. The point for me is to reduce the number of assumptions I am relying upon and to try to make sure that those are as self-evident as possible.
~Raithere
No, I am quite sure where they overlap and where they divide.
If you'll take another look you'll find that I did not say that all morals are rationally derived. However, logic and reason are quite useful in the analysis of morality and morality can be (and often was) rationally derived.
To some extent, yes they are. Morals are the basic rules of a society, they form a base set of rules for interaction between its members. As such there is a certain amount of reason behind their development. This fact is apparent in their function. What is the function of "Thou shall not murder" for instance? Quite simply, a society cannot function if its members go hacking away at each other at whim. The most common moral codes are usually this self-evident.
No, I'm not asking you upon what you think they should be based or whether you care. I'm asking you upon what you think they are based. If they were contrived entirely without reason, please explain the commonalities we find and why moral codes are, for the most part, quite functional instead of simply random like the examples I provided?
Why, why, why? Ask questions. Morals did not just appear out of nowhere, people invented them. Ask why, and what their reasoning was. Were they just arbitrary or did they have a point?
No, I'm not confusing them the moment you join the discussion of morals and morality you are in the field of ethics. And no, it's not irrelevant, you're just missing the point.
Since you're fond of definitions:
ethics n 1.a. A set of principles of right conduct. 1.b. A theory or a system of moral values. (AHD)
morality n. 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct. (AHD)
~Raithere