Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[muhammad_isa]

Nobody is talking about that. People are JUST talking about the different religious beliefs of people in the middle east and how that is handled by the authorities.

YOU are the one who's trying to make that about "treason" and absurd comparisons like "communists in the US" and whatnot..

I am merely explaining the rationale behind prosecution of those citizens who become opposed
to the state.
One cannot, in reality, completely separate religious and political beliefs.

That is demonstrated by the idea that Islamic governments are seen as "theocracies" by the West, whilst liberal Capitalist govts. are seen as democracies.
It's a misnomer .. China and Russia are not Islamic, but they do not follow Western democracy either.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Inspired by this thread:

Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

I'd suppose this depends on what you view as moral behavior but I thought I'd ask the question to see what people would say. It is easy to justify one's personal morals but I'd like you to consider the world at large. Is the world becoming more moral or less moral? And, does this have anything...

www.religiousforums.com

Sauce for the goose and all that.

My personal take: yes, theism often - though not always - leads to immoral behaviour.

My guess is that those who say no to this question live in religious societies, while those who say yes, live in secular ones. And both would be right too!

But in your view; why does theism (belief in deity/deities) lead to immoral (unconventional ethics) behaviour?


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[F1fan]

I am merely explaining the rationale behind prosecution of those citizens who become opposed
to the state.
One cannot, in reality, completely separate religious and political beliefs.

No, but representatives are supposed to understand their religious belief, and be sure not to create legislation that affects all citizens based on any religious belief. There are quite a few republicans in the USA that violate that constitutional principle. They have learned to do it in subtle ways, but it is still a violation.

That is demonstrated by the idea that Islamic governments are seen as "theocracies" by the West,

Religious governments ARE theocracies.

whilst liberal Capitalist govts. are seen as democracies.

Representative governments ARE democracies.

It's a misnomer .. China and Russia are not Islamic, but they do not follow Western democracy either.

They are dictatorships. Look at the human rights violations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My guess is that those who say no to this question live in religious societies, while those who say yes, live in secular ones. And both would be right too!

But in your view; why does theism (belief in deity/deities) lead to immoral (unconventional ethics) behaviour?


Humbly,
Hermit

First off, some clarification, since I see you defined "immoral" as "unconventional ethics": when I use the terms "moral" and "immoral," I'm talking about welfare. Immoral acts are acts that are contrary to the welfare of thinking beings. Immoral behaviour can be very much conventional behaviour in some societies and settings.

A few ways that theism can result in immoral behaviour:

- it can discourage reflection. The believer projects their values onto God, then infers "God's will" based on that. Because it's "God's will," it's followed with less questioning than would be applied to the believer's own judgment normally.

- it can come as a package deal with positions on factual matters that aren't actually correct that influence the morality of a decision. For instance, is it moral or immoral to leave someone to suffer needlessly? If their suffering will earn them overwhelming reward in Heaven, then it can be seen as moral. If Heaven isn't real, then it's probably immoral.

- theism can also come as a package deal with anything from deference to clergy to full-blown theocracy. These can serve as shields for immoral acts: for instance, accusing a priest of abuse can come with a major social cost, which reduces the likelihood of reporting abuse that does happen.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They are dictatorships. Look at the human rights violations.

Exactly .. it is not about belief systems per se, but about the structure of govt.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly .. it is not about belief systems per se, but about the structure of govt.

In a diverse society, a government structured around democratic rights cannot also be founded on religious values.

A religious government requires either:

- tyranny, or
- a sort of unanimity that is generally only possible in small groups.

 

[F1fan]

Exactly .. it is not about belief systems per se, but about the structure of govt.

Do you think “the structure of government” has nothing to do with beliefs?

 

[muhammad_isa]

In a diverse society, a government structured around democratic rights cannot also be founded on religious values.

I don't agree .. if the "diverse society" converges and desires "religious values", that will be represented in a true democracy.
Democracy does not just have to be about left v right.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you think “the structure of government” has nothing to do with beliefs?

No .. I don't.
I have already said that there is an overlap between religion and politics.

However, I do not believe that an Islamic republic/nation needs to be a dictatorship.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't agree .. if the "diverse society" converges and desires "religious values", that will be represented in a true democracy.
Democracy does not just have to be about left v right.

My point was that unless nearly everyone is being inculcated from birth with the same religion, you won't get that convergence. In a society where that doesn't happen - i.e. one where people hold a diverse range of beliefs - religion gets infused into government through tyranny.

 

[Copernicus]

People of religious faith don't seem to understand how it is that atheists would be motivated to behave morally without some divine authority watching over them to motivate such behavior when they can get away with doing something immoral. Atheists have the same trouble imagining what would motivate a person of faith to behave morally if that person suddenly experienced a crisis of faith leading to loss of belief in their moral authority. When religious legislators get together to pass a bill banning, say, homosexual behavior, is it because they fear they would become homosexuals if they didn't fear God's disapproval?

I think that the reason people behave morally has little to do with obedience to moral authority. That is how we all came to acquire our sense of right and wrong in childhood, but do we really need something to replace parental authority when we get older? To me, it seems that the main driver governing behavior, if fear is involved, is fear opprobrium--fear of public disapproval of one's behavior. Most of us want to be respected and feel a part of society. We want those close to us to admire us and respect us. But then there is a personal sense of respect for oneself, too. We want to feel good about ourselves and to contribute to the general welfare of the society that we benefit from. So there are a lot of rather mundane reasons for exercising self-restraint and treating others as we would like them to treat us. Morality doesn't really come from fear of a vengeful god's punishment or some high-minded principle. It comes from a sense of self-worth and social integration.

 

[muhammad_isa]

My point was that unless nearly everyone is being inculcated from birth with the same religion, you won't get that convergence. In a society where that doesn't happen - i.e. one where people hold a diverse range of beliefs - religion gets infused into government through tyranny.

Not necessarily .. there are "Christian Democrat" parties in European politics,
where they have proportional representation .. as opposed to 'first past the post'.

They can be the largest party, in some countries.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Most of us want to be respected and feel a part of society. We want those close to us to admire us and respect us. But then there is a personal sense of respect for oneself, too. We want to feel good about ourselves and to contribute to the general welfare of the society that we benefit from. So there are a lot of rather mundane reasons for exercising self-restraint and treating others as we would like them to treat us. Morality doesn't really come from fear of a vengeful god's punishment or some high-minded principle. It comes from a sense of self-worth and social integration.

It is not an either/or situation, imo.
Nevertheless, pious Catholics and Muslims for example, have moral values from their scriptures,
while atheists obviously do not.

 

[Copernicus]

It is not an either/or situation, imo.
Nevertheless, pious Catholics and Muslims for example, have moral values from their scriptures,
while atheists obviously do not.

If that's what you think you need to motivate your moral behavior fine. All I'm saying is that you wouldn't probably be motivated to go around committing violence and mayhem if you lost faith in those scriptures. Nor do I feel a need for that extra incentive to treat others with respect and dignity.

I do believe that those scriptures can be interpreted by some to justify violent and disrespectful behavior towards certain groups of people--for example, homosexuals or apostates. Atheists don't have a scriptural basis to motivate such behavior, but they can find other excuses, if they search for them.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I think empathy and logic can be corrupted.

Usually by people who have neither, LOL.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

When religious legislators get together to pass a bill banning, say, homosexual behavior, is it because they fear they would become homosexuals if they didn't fear God's disapproval?

"Become?" Bruh, every time some legislator rails against the gays, you can count on one hand the seconds it will take for them to land in the news over some gay scandal they participated in.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I do believe that those scriptures can be interpreted by some to justify violent and disrespectful behavior towards certain groups of people--for example, homosexuals or apostates..

Such discourse is more about "political correctness" than anything else.
We only have to go back a few decades, to see that women were often treated as inferior to men
in the West.
..but now, it seems, that mankind has finally seen the error of their ways.
Now, we see that pedophiles are the "bogyman", and homosexuality is normal.

..whatever..

 

[Copernicus]

Now, we see that pedophiles are the "bogyman", and homosexuality is normal.

Watch your step on that slippery slope.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

First off, some clarification, since I see you defined "immoral" as "unconventional ethics": when I use the terms "moral" and "immoral," I'm talking about welfare. Immoral acts are acts that are contrary to the welfare of thinking beings. Immoral behaviour can be very much conventional behaviour in some societies and settings.

A few ways that theism can result in immoral behaviour:

- it can discourage reflection. The believer projects their values onto God, then infers "God's will" based on that. Because it's "God's will," it's followed with less questioning than would be applied to the believer's own judgment normally.

- it can come as a package deal with positions on factual matters that aren't actually correct that influence the morality of a decision. For instance, is it moral or immoral to leave someone to suffer needlessly? If their suffering will earn them overwhelming reward in Heaven, then it can be seen as moral. If Heaven isn't real, then it's probably immoral.

- theism can also come as a package deal with anything from deference to clergy to full-blown theocracy. These can serve as shields for immoral acts: for instance, accusing a priest of abuse can come with a major social cost, which reduces the likelihood of reporting abuse that does happen.

I see. Yet, what does it say if you look up the English definition of “immoral”?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see. Yet, what does it say if you look up the English definition of “immoral”?

Breaching principles of natural law, rectitude, or justice, and so inconsistent with the demands of virtue, purity, or "good morals"; not right, not moral.

immoral - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.m.wiktionary.org

And?