Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have a minute nitpick with the wording here.

There are plenty of objective definitions of "morality" and there are whole ethical philosophies for extrapolating from these definitions in purely rational ways. While no two people practice the same ethical philosophy identically and many people have their own idiosyncratic moral intuitions, that doesn't necessarily discount objective critique from a given ethical position.

The messy part is when one definition of morality claims to be the only true one or the only valid one. Such as when a utilitarian calls deontology immoral or the other way around. That's not necessarily a subjective definition; it is ultimately deduced from objective axioms analogous to how math and logic follow from their axioms.

I think maybe a better way of wording it is that it's a "personally preferred" definition. That preference is subjective, but the definition itself technically isn't.

Does that make sense or am I just coming across as a sophist?

I could nitpick objective, but that would be to much skepticism or sophism. I get your position now.

 

[1213]

Good question.

When I said that theism often leads to immoral behaviour, I was thinking more of outcomes: theists often do immoral things as an expression of their theism.

As to how... my personal take on it is something like this:

- theism often comes as a package deal with unquestionable, supposedly divine tenets of a "revealed" religion that can command morally dubious things.

- accepting one absurd idea (e.g. theism) - whether by intellectual assent or by social pressure - is a good indicator that a person is susceptible to indefensible ideas generally, including immoral ideas.

So, actually it is "accepting absurd ideas" that can lead to immoral behavior, not necessary religions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

accepting one absurd idea (e.g. theism) - whether by intellectual assent or by social pressure - is a good indicator that a person is susceptible to indefensible ideas generally, including immoral ideas.

You say it's a good indication, yet this claim being wrong is large part of how I was able to escape it.
Sometimes it's just how people are raised and they don't know better or know anything different. Ergo you just can't correlate religious beliefs to the quality of thinking going on in the head.

 

[Kenny]

True, but it takes religion to tell people if your friend or a family member says to you lets go worship other gods, do not protect them but kill them and you are to cast the first stone (Deuteronomy 13:6-9).

You apparently are in the wrong Testament because Jesus said, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone". Jesus loves and redeems.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, actually it is "accepting absurd ideas" that can lead to immoral behavior, not necessary religions.

Yes. And more often than not (IMO), theistic religion both contains absurd ideas and trains its adherents to accept absurd claims uncritically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I specifically chose ideologies in which atheism is a core facet of them, in the same way that theism is a core facet of, for instance, Christian ethics.

Existentialism, Secular Humanism, and Social Darwinism were all philosophies formed in response to the loss of religion and the need for a new ethical system to replace it. They derive from atheism.

Stalinism, likewise, views religion (and theism) as a political obstacle and a lie that prevents people from recognizing the reality of their situation and staging a revolution.

Stalin - like many theocratic rulers, BTW - opposed specific organized religions that he saw as obstacles to his exercise of power. How do you get from there to an opposition to theism in all its forms?

Officially, the USSR under Stalin has a policy against religious persecution (which I recognize was often violated).

Similar to the above philosophies, it sees a necessity to replace religious devotion to God with a nationalistic devotion to the state, almost directly because there is no God to depend on and religion is an "opium of the people."

That line was from Marx, not Stalin.

Machiavellianism is meant to be an atheistic description of secular power dynamics. It's essentially advice given from a position of atheism and from the perspective that all morality, which at the time was almost exclusively associated with organized religions, was an illusion. It can't wholly exist without atheism, because its entire position is based on a rejection of any sort of governing supernatural force of law.

Nonsense. Divine Command Theory isn't a required part of theism. There's nothing atheistic about Machiavelliani.

So in all of these above examples, these philosophies are direct consequences of atheism in the same way religions can be direct consequences of theism.

Only in the rich fantasy world you seem to live in.

The only argument you're giving here to counter that seems to be some form of special pleading.

So you didn't understand my argument. That's fine.

LaVeyan Satanism and Buddhism might be the only ones where your counter-argument holds that they're merely atheistic philosophies and not philosophies formed as a consequence of atheism.

How about you step back for a moment and reflect on what you're saying "consequence of atheism"?

All atheism means is just not being a theist. It can't do or lead to anything in and of itself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You say it's a good indication, yet this claim being wrong is large part of how I was able to escape it.
Sometimes it's just how people are raised and they don't know better or know anything different. Ergo you just can't correlate religious beliefs to the quality of thinking going on in the head.

Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: if someone is accepting bad claims, this is a sign that something is wrong in the thought processes that the person uses to accept beliefs.

I didn't mean to imply that the problem is necessarily inherent to the person, though. I think that a lot of it is instilled by - and needs to be sustained by - the environment of the religion. If we were to take a person out of that environment, where accepting bad ideas is encouraged through authority structures and peer pressure, the quality of their reasoning would improve, IMO.

 

[Heyo]

So, actually it is "accepting absurd ideas" that can lead to immoral behavior, not necessary religions.

Not necessarily only religions. Not all absurd ideas are religious but all religions are absurd ideas.

 

[Ella S.]

How about you step back for a moment and reflect on what you're saying "consequence of atheism"?

All atheism means is just not being a theist. It can't do or lead to anything in and of itself.

I agree. For the same reason, all theism means is the belief or nonbelief in a God. It can't lead to anything in and of itself.

Do you agree with that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. For the same reason, all theism means is the belief or nonbelief in a God.

Belief, not non-belief, in a god (lowercase). Theism isn't just about a monotheistic God-with-a-capital-g.

It can't lead to anything in and of itself.

Do you agree with that?

Of course not.

Actions, beliefs, and positive positions are meaningful against a background of inaction.

For inaction and a lack of a position to be meaningful, you'd first have to establish a particular position as the background against which to measure. IOW, you'd have to establish theism as some sort of default. Good luck with that.

We can always talk about the effects of, say, stamp collecting or not playing baseball, but you can't measure the effects of not collecting stamps or not playing baseball until you establish a baseline against which to measure those effects.

 

[1213]

Not necessarily only religions. Not all absurd ideas are religious but all religions are absurd ideas.

Maybe to you. But, why do you think Christianity is absurd?

 

[Sand Dancer]

I disagree with that. Hypocrites taught you that.

So few Christians, so many hypocrites.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Religion is an emergent property of human psychology, & sociology.

Yes. It emerged from the fear of things we don't and can't know. It is comforting for the individual, which is good, but also some religions force their views on others which is bad.

 

[Sand Dancer]

When I quit being Christian it just served to make high school even worse for me than it was because it gave people another reason to hate me. Someone I even thought was a friend said I was possessed by a demon.

Did you go to a Christian school? I don't remember friends talking about any religion when I was in high school. Even those we knew were PKs were pretty normal and sometimes wild. Those who came from Catholic schools through middle school rebelled once they got to high school.

 

[Heyo]

Maybe to you. But, why do you think Christianity is absurd?

So many reasons, so little space. I guess the most ridiculous is the ritual cannibalism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Did you go to a Christian school? I don't remember friends talking about any religion when I was in high school. Even those we knew were PKs were pretty normal and sometimes wild. Those who came from Catholic schools through middle school rebelled once they got to high school.

I went to a very rural school in Indiana with lots of farmer's and military kids. It wasn't formally Christian, but the local environment stifling and overwhelmingly deeply Conservative and largely Evangelical.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I disagree with that. Hypocrites taught you that.

Where is your evidence? What exactly did they teach me? Was it them being hypocritical or just repeating what's in the Bible?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So few Christians, so many hypocrites.

Not mutually exclusive categories, IMO.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Belief, not non-belief, in a god (lowercase). Theism isn't just about a monotheistic God-with-a-capital-g.


Of course not.

Actions, beliefs, and positive positions are meaningful against a background of inaction.

For inaction and a lack of a position to be meaningful, you'd first have to establish a particular position as the background against which to measure. IOW, you'd have to establish theism as some sort of default. Good luck with that.

We can always talk about the effects of, say, stamp collecting or not playing baseball, but you can't measure the effects of not collecting stamps or not playing baseball until you establish a baseline against which to measure those effects.

The problem is that theism in practice are 2 kinds of systems.
The objective authority one and the individual one.
For the latter you can find it as this in general. My belief in a creator God, souls and Heaven is a personal one, but for the everyday life I am in this world with secular politics and secular science.
The effect is this: You can find 2 people who are the same for how they live in this world, yet one is a theist and the other is not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You apparently are in the wrong Testament because Jesus said, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone". Jesus loves and redeems.

But yet those are the commands of the Father, a god so petty and self-centered that he even describes himself as jealous.
And, of course,you're "wrong testiment" is not universally held by Christians. Amd your so-called "correct testament" has an offensive "prophet" who tells women to shut up and compares becoming an apostate to a dog eating it's vomit.