If no relgious text is sufficient, upon what should morality be based? (ritual, morals)

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Booko

What is physicist Weinberg's scientific basis for stating that good people do good things and bad people do bad things?

Using what standard does he measure "good" and "evil"?

Where, primarily, has our human sense of "good" and "evil" come from?

If you notice, he didn't say "I did studies and this is what my studies show..." he just made his statement as an average citizen. The nobel prize part was brought in to show this man is smart.

I think the quote should be... "Good people do good things, evil people do evil things. It takes religion to make evil people to do good things and good people to do evil things."

Originally Posted by Booko

If I have a neighbor who needs a little moral pick me up in order to not do wrong things to me, and I get to choose whether he gets some moral Viagra or not, guess which one I would choose?

I wonder if Dennett would choose otherwise?

I would rather have a neighbor who wants to do good things rather than a neighbor who requires a book to tell them to do good things.

Originally Posted by Booko

I suggest you take a scientific approach to religion and do some more research before you come to any firm conclusions on this matter.

How would a scientific approach to the morality of religion work? Taking a scientific approach to religion and religious texts requires you to dismiss them all... Unless if there is an unbiased scientist there are those events doing more than just "observing" or if these events can be recreated using instrunments from those times.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

If you notice, he didn't say "I did studies and this is what my studies show..." he just made his statement as an average citizen. The nobel prize part was brought in to show this man is smart.

He posted it in the Science vs Religion forum, Ryan. What else was I supposed to think?

Oh, btw, I acknowledge that any Nobel-prize winner is smart -- in his area of expertise, and probably some more a well.

All of which says nothing about whether he's smart in areas he hasn't studied.

And which says nothing whatsoever about his wisdom.

I would rather have a neighbor who wants to do good things rather than a neighbor who requires a book to tell them to do good things.

Yes, well that's not the world I live in, Ryan. People have weaknesses, and some of them rather severe.

So you find your perfect neighborhood, and let me know how that works out.

How would a scientific approach to the morality of religion work? Taking a scientific approach to religion and religious texts requires you to dismiss them all... Unless if there is an unbiased scientist there are those events doing more than just "observing" or if these events can be recreated using instrunments from those times.

All that proves is that science has limits when looking at th subject of morality.

In which case, one wonders why a scientist should be put forth as an "expert" source of information on the subject in the first place?

Thanks for proving my point.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Booko

I would say you could look at it like anything else in life. If basing your life on the text creates a situation you'd rather be living in, than it's "moral."

Originally Posted by NetDoc

A good tree bears good fruit. It's an easy enough concept to grasp.

It seems to me that both of you are saying that we can base morality on results. This strikes me as a very practical approach. But the point remains that in order to determine whether “basing your life on the text creates a situation you’d rather be living in”, or “bears good fruit” you have to use something other than just the text to make that determination. So this seems to support the basic premise that “no religious text is sufficient”.

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Booko

He posted it in the Science vs Religion forum, Ryan. What else was I supposed to think?

Oh, btw, I acknowledge that any Nobel-prize winner is smart -- in his area of expertise, and probably some more a well.

All of which says nothing about whether he's smart in areas he hasn't studied.

And which says nothing whatsoever about his wisdom.

If you notice you actually did not comment at all on the statement and rather dismissed it because it was not said by a philospher. Here is what I got from your post...

"He cannot possibly know what he is talking about and we should dismiss what he says because he is a scientist and does not study religion"

This is only a tiny fallacy.

Originally Posted by Booko

Yes, well that's not the world I live in, Ryan. People have weaknesses, and some of them rather severe.

So you find your perfect neighborhood, and let me know how that works out.

I don't quite get what you mean... Are you saying it is impossible for someone to not give in to their moral slips without a outside factor? If someone suddenly has the urge to dump leaves on their neighbors lawn but then decides they would rather read the bible to quit with their moral slip will they dump these leaves on their neighbors yard if they go inside and cannot find the bible?

Originally Posted by Booko

All that proves is that science has limits when looking at th subject of morality.

In which case, one wonders why a scientist should be put forth as an "expert" source of information on the subject in the first place?

Thanks for proving my point.

He was not put forth as an "expert", simply someone with something to say... Again, you are playing on a fallacy by saying someone cannot make a good point in a field outside of their own. Sure someone who studies religion, is a psychologist, or is a sociologist would be the best person to get the quote from, but the person is not the subject of the debate. The subject of the debate is the quote they said.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by ejbman

The Nobel-Prize winning physicist Stephen Weinberg has been quoted as saying something like: "Ordinarily, good people do good things and evil people do evil things. It takes religions to get good people to do evil things."

Weinberg is being witty but superficial here. He would be more in line with the evidence if he had said, "It takes an ideology to get good people to do evil things." After all, Marxism has resulted in a great deal of evil in the world, but Marxism is not a religion. There is something about ideologies, whether of the left or of the right, and whether religious or non religious, that can provoke good people to do evil.

Also, philosopher Daniel Dennett has been quoted as saying something like "many people use religion as a kind of moral Viagra" to encourage them to do the right thing when they are in a state of moral weakness.

Do they? Many people believe that religion causes people to do good things. But I have very seldom met anyone in my 50 years who did good solely because of their religious beliefs. I think religion can encourage people to do good, but I do not believe that it is usually the sole reason people do good.

If religious texts are based only upon heresay and lack sufficient evidentiary substantiation...

Of the world's million plus religious texts, which have you studied well enough to make that claim?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Of the world's million plus religious texts, which have you studied well enough to make that claim?

What claim?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

What claim?

The claim that "religious texts are based only upon heresay and lack sufficient evidentiary substantiation..."

[standing_on_one_foot]

That quote seems to me a somewhat odd one. A good person does good things and a bad person does bad things...True, but the implication that you could have a good person independent of their actions (or vice versa) seems a bit strange to me, for starters.

And yes, it's an unfair quote in that it doesn't mention the good religion can do. But he does have a point that religion can be a very powerful force and has the potential to go horribly and irrationally wrong. Surely if you look at human history you can find plenty of examples (although it's not uniquely religious, it's more just a human trait intensified by religion).

General decency is a fair start for morality, though, Golden Rule and all that, for everyday things (and most of us, fortunately, don't run into the terrible grey areas where even religion can be a bit unsure with anything approaching regularity). Not hurting other people, basically behaving in a way that allows people to get along in society, that sort of thing.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

It seems to me that both of you are saying that we can base morality on results.

Not at all. I am saying that the proof is in the pudding. IE our results are based on our morality. Don't put the cart before the horse.

However, my real point was that texts have little to do with a revealed faith. Not really.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Not at all.

Ok, colour me confused????????

Let me take your second point (your real point) first.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

However, my real point was that texts have little to do with a revealed faith. Not really.

This does not seem to be a contradiction of the premise that no religious text is sufficient. In fact it is just a more extreme statement of the same premise. So if all you are trying to tell me is that few if any revealed faiths ever claimed that the text was all there was to it, then fine. Point well taken.

But that leaves us with the original question, if not the text, then what?

Originally Posted by NetDoc

I am saying that the proof is in the pudding. IE our results are based on our morality. Don't put the cart before the horse.

The question that is being asked is on what can we base morality. It seemed to me at first that you were saying that we can base morality on results. Now it seems you are telling me that it is the other way around. That we base results on morality. Surely you are not saying that if we behave morally only good things will happen to us.

But regardless of that, it does not answer the question. I am not putting the cart before the horse, but I am asking “what is pulling the cart”? You tell me that results are based on our morality, but what is that morality based on?