Abrahamic Religions Can Hinder One's Moral Capacity

[MSizer]

Realizing that drinking and driving is bad has nothing to do with believes or morality, it is called education and civilization that is improving it self on previous experience, but laying down and having sex male with male is being moral!!!

No thank you, I rather take my chances with my religion and people who follow it, rather then endanger my self around your society, witch will not survive this way anyways.

Of course our learned experiences change our sense of morality. We're born with a moral intuition that developped over the history of our species, and that's essentially instinct. We've also developped an incredible ability for introspection and reason, so now we can override our moral intuition in situations where it would benefit us. It's like language - we're born with an innate ability to learn grammar and linguistic structure, but the environment we're born into determines the specifics (english vs. russian or whatever). And language evolves, becomes more efficient and simplified. Morality evolves too (it used to be ok to drink and drive, now it's not). The fact that it used to be ok is because our species hasn't had alcohol or driving long enough to develop an instinct against drinking and driving, but the fact that it's now unacceptable is due to our experience and reason which can override our instinct that doesn't care about drinking and driving. Morality has to be dynamic, because human culture is dynamic. If our sense of morality doesn't change, it will become obselete as new technologies create new circumstances we haven't had to deal with in the past. That's why I credit religions for helping develop morality to it's current state, but try to help people understand that it has to keep evolving (basically, don't expect your scriptures to help you solve all problems - they won't be able to).

 

[arimoff]

Of course our learned experiences change our sense of morality. We're born with a moral intuition that developped over the history of our species, and that's essentially instinct. We've also developped an incredible ability for introspection and reason, so now we can override our moral intuition in situations where it would benefit us. It's like language - we're born with an innate ability to learn grammar and linguistic structure, but the environment we're born into determines the specifics (english vs. russian or whatever). And language evolves, becomes more efficient and simplified. Morality evolves too (it used to be ok to drink and drive, now it's not). The fact that it used to be ok is because our species hasn't had alcohol or driving long enough to develop an instinct against drinking and driving, but the fact that it's now unacceptable is due to our experience and reason which can override our instinct that doesn't care about drinking and driving. Morality has to be dynamic, because human culture is dynamic. If our sense of morality doesn't change, it will become obselete as new technologies create new circumstances we haven't had to deal with in the past. That's why I credit religions for helping develop morality to it's current state, but try to help people understand that it has to keep evolving (basically, don't expect your scriptures to help you solve all problems - they won't be able to).

I agree with you 100%, but why do you think that religion wont help? (I don't mean any religion, some of them just don't make sense), religion is believing in a Higher power capable of holding all accountable for the deeds we do, like you said drunk driving, why do we need a government or grow enough to make us stop when we can realize our selfs that we can take someone else's life away, and believing in a higher power who will hold me accountable for taking someone else's life? religion doesn't have to go against or either that or this, if it goes together it will work.

I just want to make clear what I mean religion. A believe in a higher power who holds us responsible for our deeds, witch as a result would make us act fare, honest, reasonable and so on.

 

[arimoff]

Its just that our history had so many negative results from so called men of G-D, and so called religious believes and believers (who used it for their political power) because of which its hard to even call that religion, and having so many of us grow up in them and see them fail results in a negative reaction towards it and sometimes even blaming G-D but honestly religion supposed to be a medicine a tool to co exist with our growth as humanity, otherwise it doesn't work, all of humanities inventions bring only to more weapons, and cultural fail, mix it with religion and boom, its a perfect creation.

 

[MSizer]

Its just that our history had so many negative results from so called men of G-D, and so called religious believes and believers (who used it for their political power) because of which its hard to even call that religion, and having so many of us grow up in them and see them fail results in a negative reaction towards it and sometimes even blaming G-D but honestly religion supposed to be a medicine a tool to co exist with our growth as humanity, otherwise it doesn't work, all of humanities inventions bring only to more weapons, and cultural fail, mix it with religion and boom, its a perfect creation.

Hey arimoff, one of the things I get a bit annoyed with is when I hear someone say something like "don't judge a religion by it's malpractitioners". I don't think that I do. I realize that many people paint things with one brush so to speak, and say silly things like "christianity was responsible for the crusades", which may be partially true, but most christians are not crusaders, and many christians run voluntary 3rd world hospitals. I am fully aware that religion has had its place in history. My concern is that it's based on false premesies (higher powers) which causes many people to think that scripture is the best source for moral intelligence. I disagree. I think many scriptures are a great source for insight into useful codes of behavior, but the world is more complicated than it was when those scriptures were written, and morality has to evolve in order to remain effective. I believe codes of conduct can become obselete, and that's my concern with religious believers who think that God is the source of morality, and that therefore the scriptures the only source of information to solve any problem. I disagree.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My concern is that it's based on false premesies (higher powers) which causes many people to think that scripture is the best source for moral intelligence. I disagree.

A couple of observations:

• Labeling belief in "higher powers" as a false premise is, itself, a premise and nothing more.
• Neither belief in a higher power nor belief that scripture is the best source for moral intelligence insures stagnate codes of conduct.
• Neither belief in a higher power nor belief that scripture is the best source for moral intelligence necessitates a belief "that God is the source of morality, and that therefore the scriptures the only source of information to solve any problem."

I suspect that, driven by your own presuppositions, you are in fact painting with a far broader brush than you might imagine.

 

[MSizer]

A couple of observations:

• Labeling belief in "higher powers" as a false premise is, itself, a premise and nothing more.
• Neither belief in a higher power nor belief that scripture is the best source for moral intelligence insures stagnate codes of conduct.
• Neither belief in a higher power nor belief that scripture is the best source for moral intelligence necessitates a belief "that God is the source of morality, and that therefore the scriptures the only source of information to solve any problem."

I suspect that, driven by your own presuppositions, you are in fact painting with a far broader brush than you might imagine.

You are amazing. And also calling oneself Jewish does not guarantee that one practices Jewish traditions, so what? You seem to have this recurring habit of pointing out that my claims are not universal, when I don't even state that they are in the first place (nor do I believe that they are when in reference to groups. I'm very often glad to point out that you can't paint all of the members of a group with one brush).

Maybe you think morality comes partly from scripture and partly from one's intelligence. That doesn't mean that there aren't many people who do in fact think that only scripture is the single place from wich we can gain moral intelligence. I know for a fact there are such people. I've met some of them face to face. Now lay off with the ridiculous "Not everybody..." comments. Of course not everybody - I'd assume that's a given.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are amazing.

Thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If X "can" result in Y, and
if X "can" result in NOT-Y, and
if NOT-X "can" result in "Y", and
if NOT-X "can" result in NOT-Y, then

the association of Y with X is irrelevant and, not atypically in discussions such as this, a fallacious attempts to smear X with Y.​

 

[MSizer]

If X "can" result in Y, and
if X "can" result in NOT-Y, and
if NOT-X "can" result in "Y", and
if NOT-X "can" result in NOT-Y, then

the association of Y with X is irrelevant and, not atypically in discussions such as this, a fallacious attempts to smear X with Y.
​

Good observation, now could you let the rest of us honest people discussing an important topic get on with it. If you want to make hints at unfounded accusations of malice, find someone who deserves it an stop following me around.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good observation, now could you let the rest of us honest people discussing an important topic get on with it. If you want to make hints at unfounded accusations of malice, find someone who deserves it an stop following me around.

You certainly whine a lot. Why is that?

 

[dugri]

Abrahamic religion isn't always a moral handicap, but since you've qualified your statement with that "often," I don't know how anybody could possibly disagree with it. All one would have to do is take a look at the religiously-justified statements issuing from Pat Robertson, Osama bin Laden, Efraim Hershkovits, Mahmoud al-Zahar, Pope Benedict XVI, and Chuck Colson. Just for starters.

Where did you even HEAR of Efraim Hershkovits, and why on earth did you include him in that list. I know him, and putting him next to Osama Bin Laden is probably the funniest thing I've ever read in my life.