Does religion dictate morality...another perspective?

[Aupmanyav]

All species have their dharma.
.. when did humans begin teaching a moral code ? Why ? Who taught them that ? Manu ?

Even animals teach their young the ways of the world.
Society. It began before we were human. Even the Neanderthals cared for their elders.

"La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1: Called the Old Man, a fossilised skeleton discovered in La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France, by A. and J. Bouyssonie, and L. Bardon in 1908. Characteristics include a low vaulted cranium and large browridge typical of Neanderthals. Estimated to be about 60,000 years old, the specimen was severely arthritic and had lost all his teeth long before death, leading some to suggest he was cared for by others."
Neanderthal - Wikipedia

 

[Howard Is]

Even animals teach their young the ways of the world.
Society. It began before we were human. Even the Neanderthals cared for their elders.

Exactly my point.

So animals are using logic ?

As you say, teaching their young the ways of the world is innate.

That sums up my observations and the view I am expressing.

 

[loverofhumanity]

We've all heard it…"You cannot be good without God." (A very good, sadly late, friend of mine, Dr. Robert Buckman actually wrote a book on the subject, titled "Can We Be Good Without God?" (For the record, he thought we could, but he was a secular Jew and President of the Canadian Humanist Association, so that's what he would say, eh?)

But then, it occurred to me just recently, when looking at the stats of how many people change their churches, and even their faiths, and the reasons for doing so, that there is a conundrum to be answered. Even people here, on RF, announce on a fairly regular basis that they've changed their church or the faith.

So what's the conundrum? Well, people change their church for faith for, essentially, one reason only...that their present church or faith is not providing them with what they need. I have to presume that means in the sense of satisfying their spiritual needs, but also in answering their moral questions.

And once they find the church or faith that satisfies their spiritual and moral needs, then they feel quite free to fall back on, "you cannot be good without God, and the God of my faith or church decides what is good."

But hang on a minute! Doesn't that mean that they, themselves, have actually made the choice? Whose morals, and whose spiritual needs, are in fact in play here? Certainly not the "god" of their last faith or church. I think you all know where I'm going? How would you respond?

The path of least resistance. I think people continually shop around for religions which support being irreligious and being free to do whatever one wants.

 

[Jos]

The real question that no one is asking is whether or not humans can even know whether or not an objective morality exists. Can humans even attain such a level of knowledge in the first place? Would humans be able to recognize an objective moral law if they saw one?

 

[Aupmanyav]

So animals are using logic ?

I think animals use logic as far as their life requires it. See how the hyenas and wolf attack in groups. The surround their prey and then focus on one animal. Animals don't pick up fights with the leader of the group, warn each other of dangers. See how the wild Buffaloes will gather to attack lions who trouble them. They too have thinking capability. Of course, elephants, dogs, whales and seals are a class apart. Even the squirrels and crows learn after a few attempts. And sure monkeys use implements. That is where we started.

The path of least resistance. I think people continually shop around for religions which support being irreligious and being free to do whatever one wants.

If it was that, there would have been more atheists. But what we find is different, which goes to show what is commonly said "Majority consists of fools".

 

[Jos]

The local moral code is an epiphenomenon, its objective basis is ‘in the matrix’, and expresses genetically and neurobiologically.

If it actually is objective as you claim then why have human cultures and even individuals had different moral values over the course of history and come to different conclusions on moral issues? Sure there's been some consensus on morality but there's also been many disagreements as well which to me with everyone having different moral intuitions which doesn't make it sense if it's objective.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The real question that no one is asking is whether or not humans can even know whether or not an objective morality exists. Can humans even attain such a level of knowledge in the first place? Would humans be able to recognize an objective moral law if they saw one?

Objective in relation to what? Morality is always in relation to the society. There is no absolute morality. It varies from one group to another. Muslims can marry cousins, Hinduism prohibits that. Christians generally (other than Amish) prefer one marriage, Allah permits four.
Am I correct, Bahais? Quaran, word of God, is it not?

 

[Howard Is]

I think animals use logic as far as their life requires it. See how the hyenas and wolf attack in groups. The surround their prey and then focus on one animal. Animals don't pick up fights with the leader of the group, warn each other of dangers. See how the wild Buffaloes will gather to attack lions who trouble them. They too have thinking capability/ Of course, elephants, dogs, whales and seals are a class apart. Even the squirrels and crows learn after a few attempts. And sure monkeys use implements. That is where we started.

Absolutely agree. I’ve spent a lot of time with the non-humans.

There are birds in a city, in Italy I think, which keep an eye on the traffic light sequence so they know when to get off the intersection where they pick up food scraps.

And countless other examples.

Humans are amazing, but also vainglorious idiots in their delusion that they have the only franchise on intellect.

 

[Howard Is]

If it actually is objective as you claim then why have human cultures and even individuals had different moral values over the course of history and come to different conclusions on moral issues? Sure there's been some consensus on morality but there's also been many disagreements as well which to me with everyone having different moral intuitions which doesn't make it sense if it's objective.

I never suggested a universal moral code.

I suggested that having a moral code is programmed into us, because it serves to consolidate the group and enable effective cooperation.

The details of that code for any given group can, and obviously do, vary a lot.

That is why I said that the morality we see is an epiphenomenon.

 

[atanu]

What Grayling is saying, in my personal view, is that the only real "good" is the freedom to live one's own life in the way that best suits him, and the only "not good" is to deprive anyone of that. From there, I have zero difficulty in determining whether what I want to do from moment to moment is right or wrong.

Three questions. How one decides what suits one best? How one decides the limit of what constitutes 'depriving someone'? And what is the basis of this whole moral prescription?

 

[atanu]

It gets worse....
If the only reason you are behaving in a moral way is because you either expect reward and/or fear retribution from a deity, then are you, as a person, really moral? I would think not.

That is not really correct.

 

[Ponder This]

We've all heard it…"You cannot be good without God." (A very good, sadly late, friend of mine, Dr. Robert Buckman actually wrote a book on the subject, titled "Can We Be Good Without God?" (For the record, he thought we could, but he was a secular Jew and President of the Canadian Humanist Association, so that's what he would say, eh?)

But then, it occurred to me just recently, when looking at the stats of how many people change their churches, and even their faiths, and the reasons for doing so, that there is a conundrum to be answered. Even people here, on RF, announce on a fairly regular basis that they've changed their church or the faith.

So what's the conundrum? Well, people change their church for faith for, essentially, one reason only...that their present church or faith is not providing them with what they need. I have to presume that means in the sense of satisfying their spiritual needs, but also in answering their moral questions.

And once they find the church or faith that satisfies their spiritual and moral needs, then they feel quite free to fall back on, "you cannot be good without God, and the God of my faith or church decides what is good."

But hang on a minute! Doesn't that mean that they, themselves, have actually made the choice? Whose morals, and whose spiritual needs, are in fact in play here? Certainly not the "god" of their last faith or church. I think you all know where I'm going? How would you respond?

Sometimes the sinners just want everyone to be called a sinner. It's easier to hide that way.
They can point the finger at you and say, "Who are you to talk? You're a sinner too!"
And then, they don't feel so bad about their own bad behavior because everyone sins, right?

So they won't let anyone be good without God. Everyone has to fail, because, otherwise, they can't self-justify.
In fact, your lack of dependency on God to enable you to be a good person becomes your sin!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Then why hold onto morality? when it's entirely superstitious and subjective.

Obviously there is no requirement that I believe as you do about morality. Our ideas, thoughts and discussions of morality are extremely productive, I feel. They let us know one of the things you're keen on - which is that morality is subjective. However it does us much good as a species, and especially within cultural/tribal groups to come to a consensus regarding those moral principles that we, as a group, find most beneficial. Being the intelligent, abstract-thinking beings that we are, we can then use those collective constructs to come up with laws, govern societies, and setup frameworks within which our people's success spreads and we bolster one another and become stronger as a group. And as a group, we may find certain behaviors unacceptable. And, reiterating my point earlier, if you grant any individual their freedom to behave as they wish, then you must grant the individuals within the group their freedom to band together and impose restrictions on others. It's really all the same, when it comes down to it. Except that one must always take into consideration the comfort/happiness/contentment with which they wish to mete out their own existence - and that must, necessarily, be thought about within the context of other individuals (and other groups) existing around you. It is your view on this that I find sophomoric. You seem to want to discount that other individuals exist, and seem to want to react as you wish to the world, without consequences. That isn't going to happen. If you think it should, then I find your opinions extremely naive.

 

[Howard Is]

In fact, if a person did need to consider logic to decide whether or not to rape and murder, I think that person is already 9/10ths degenerate.

Similarly, if their choice was based on religion or public opinion.

It gets worse....
If the only reason you are behaving in a moral way is because you either expect reward and/or fear retribution from a deity, then are you, as a person, really moral? I would think not.

We clearly share a view about the lack of integrity being exposed when moral behaviour is only a product of fear or coercion.

Although to be technically correct, a person could be 9/10ths degenerate, by dint of considering rape and murder for example, but still moral if they choose not to do it.

It is actions that can be immoral, not merely considering them, IMO, because we all have the capacity to be what we consider immoral.

That person considering rape who only refrains for fear of either god or the law is nevertheless refraining from being immoral, even though he may be internally degenerate.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's not a matter of proof. You do know that atheists cannot prove God does not exist either. I think there is ample evidence that has been presented by apologists over the years or which can be found when one sincerely researches the subject, which makes belief in God a reasonable conclusion. Yet, if a person is committed to rejecting God no amount of reason or evidence will matter.

This is the most tired, shop-worn argument in the history of religious debate. There are an infinite number of things that nobody can prove do not exist. But because we cannot prove the non-existence of something is scarcely a reason to therefore suppose that it must exist.

You can't prove that Elvis Presley didn't morph into a naked blue space elephant, and is currently singing around the galaxy, and neither can I. I can't speak for you, but I do not accept that as any sort of reason to suppose he's currently crooning aliens, with his own built-in-trumpet!

 

[Howard Is]

I do not accept that as any sort of reason to suppose he's currently crooning aliens, with his own built-in-trumpet!

But that’s just your lack of an overactive imagination.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But that’s just your lack of an overactive imagination.

Hey, it was me what imagined the thing!

 

[Howard Is]

Hey, it was me what imagined the thing!

Oh yeah. I seem to lack some basic skills of analysis and comprehension.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Objective in relation to what? Morality is always in relation to the society.

I agree with this completely. It is my view, and the view of pretty much all humanists, everywhere, that morality is a product of evolution and human experience. And it is a fact that humans are not the only creatures that exhibit moral behaviours; many other species, with a complete lack of belief in supernatural entities, exhibit moral behaviours.

And we can see how evolution plays its part, in watching very young children, and even infants, who display some aspects of moral cognition and behaviours far, far earlier than they are able to reason about complex philosophical or religious beliefs.

 

[Howard Is]

that morality is a product of evolution and human experience

But that is objective. Or is that your point ?