Morals were stolen by religions, not created by them

[Politesse]

How ever were we able to stumble around and survive without revelation?

Why did you quote my post?

 

[icehorse]

You mean like the title of this thread?

and your counter example would be?...

 

[Politesse]

You haven't even explained what you mean, but you want your readers to provide "counter examples"? Counter to what? You haven't given an example of the thing you want them to counter.

 

[icehorse]

You haven't even explained what you mean, but you want your readers to provide "counter examples"? Counter to what? You haven't given an example of the thing you want them to counter.

Take your pick from "revealed morals"... how about "thou shalt not murder"? That was a well known moral truth long before it was written in some scripture from the middle east. So again, the challenge is to name a moral idea that was "revealed" before it was well known.

 

[Jumi]

I think stolen is too strong a word. Mostly adopted from surrounding culture and then propagated by religions, yes.

 

[icehorse]

I think stolen is too strong a word. Mostly adopted from surrounding culture and then propagated by religions, yes.

hmmm... plagiarized? dishonestly taken credit for? usurped? borrowed?

If the religious said that they were the keepers of learned wisdom, I wouldn't have started this thread. It's not what is claimed.

 

[George-ananda]

one of religion's major claims is that mankind would be adrift if not for supernaturally "gifted" morals. If - in fact - religions' morals were not original, then that claim is groundless...

I don't think religions claim they created morals. Morals are really just common sense. Religion encourages one to live morally against temptation.

 

[Quintessence]

I think stolen is too strong a word. Mostly adopted from surrounding culture and then propagated by religions, yes.

It is also very important to keep in mind that it is unrealistic to draw some sort of strong boundary between religion and culture, especially in antiquity. I don't know how one would even begin to suggest which came first, and I doubt the lines of evidence exist to settle the matter anyway. Nor does it particularly matter which came first with respect to the matter @icehorse intends to discuss, because the arguments made by those who claim their specific culture or religion has the "correct" morality really don't have much to do with what came first. We ought to hear what the proponents of such views have to say for themselves rather than put words into their mouths.

 

[icehorse]

I don't think religions claim they created morals. Morals are really just common sense. Religion encourages one to live morally against temptation.

Religious folks often claim that their god created morality. Religious folks often further claim that atheists cannot have a moral compass because "where else would morality come from".

Are you saying you haven't heard this set of claims countless times?

 

[Quintessence]

I think by "religious folks" you mean "certain specific denominations of Christianity and Islam?" No, I really don't hear that claim outside of certain specific denominations of those religions. Even then, I really don't hear it that often.

But really, if we think about Abrahamic theology, it isn't possible for morality to not come from their god, because everything ultimately comes from their god because it is a creator god. From there, some of them will suggest that "atheists" (which for all intents and purposes, includes anyone who does not follow the one-god), being out of touch with the creator of everything, are also going to be out of touch with morality. In any case, the ideas here still have little to do with what came "first." It's a philosophical or theological declaration. I don't see how painting it as "theft" changes that, or is a useful descriptor.

 

[icehorse]

I think by "religious folks" you mean "certain specific denominations of Christianity and Islam?" No, I really don't hear that claim outside of certain specific denominations of those religions. Even then, I really don't hear it that often.

But really, if we think about Abrahamic theology, it isn't possible for morality to not come from their god, because everything ultimately comes from their god because it is a creator god. From there, some of them will suggest that "atheists" (which for all intents and purposes, includes anyone who does not follow the one-god), being out of touch with the creator of everything, are also going to be out of touch with morality. In any case, the ideas here still have little to do with what came "first." It's a philosophical or theological declaration. I don't see how painting it as "theft" changes that, or is a useful descriptor.

Wow! If religion cedes its claim to the moral high ground what else does it have to offer?

 

[LuisDantas]

Wow! If religion cedes its claim to the moral high ground what else does it have to offer?

Quite a lot, actually. I wish more people acknowledged that.

 

[Politesse]

Take your pick from "revealed morals"... how about "thou shalt not murder"? That was a well known moral truth long before it was written in some scripture from the middle east. So again, the challenge is to name a moral idea that was "revealed" before it was well known.

On the grounds of what evidence? I see a long string of evidence for killings, stretching very far back into human prehistory. When do you propose, and by whom, a general prohibition against them was formulated? And what is your evidence that those who formulated it were atheist philosophers?

Or were you merely stating a belief, whether or not it could be supported by evidence?

 

[paarsurrey]

So we should mention Socrates and Plato, and before then the authors of the Babilonian Epic of Gilgamesh; the Greek Homer; the Nordic Eddas' authors and, sure several other nam,es that are usually associated with religion.

And Socrates was a believer in G-d and a philosopher like Buddha was.
Regards

 

[Iti oj]

I don't think religions claim they created morals. Morals are really just common sense. Religion encourages one to live morally against temptation.

Logically, philosophy must have developed to some degree in most any community with enough of a culture, often independently and at the same time. Most of those will be lost to the sands of time, so we have to speculate and work with those that left a record of some kind.

For the purposes of this thread, we are apparently talking about moral philosophy specifically, and that helps in restricting the possible answers slightly.

So we should mention Socrates and Plato, and before then the authors of the Babilonian Epic of Gilgamesh; the Greek Homer; the Nordic Eddas' authors and, sure several other nam,es that are usually associated with religion.

Hammurabi

 

[Politesse]

Hammurabi

The "Favored son of Anum and Enlil"? What an ... interesting choice.

"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the God of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

...

When Marduk sent me to rule over humans, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . , and brought about the well-being of the oppressed."
​

Not sure old Hammu is quite on your side on this one?

 

[Iti oj]

The "Favored son of Anum and Enlil"? What an ... interesting choice.

"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the God of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

...

When Marduk sent me to rule over humans, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . , and brought about the well-being of the oppressed."
​

Not sure old Hammu is quite on your side on this one?

i never took this as atheism vs theism or religion vs secular . i took it as a response to a common christian (or other specific groups )claim.

 

[LuisDantas]

And Socrates was a believer in G-d and a philosopher like Buddha was.
Regards

That is speculative at best, Paarsurrey.

I very much doubt either of those fine gentlemen would spend a lot of time thinking about whether there is a god, let alone caring to believe in one.

 

[icehorse]

On the grounds of what evidence? I see a long string of evidence for killings, stretching very far back into human prehistory. When do you propose, and by whom, a general prohibition against them was formulated? And what is your evidence that those who formulated it were atheist philosophers?

Or were you merely stating a belief, whether or not it could be supported by evidence?

Whoa. Evidence of killings is orthogonal to a moral statement. As for when, I believe there is evidence in many advanced animal societies, so it probably goes back hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.

So Politesse, what do you think is true in this regard? Are you perhaps saying that pre-monotheistic cultures created these morals and then they were usurped by monotheists? I think that also makes my point...

 

[Politesse]

Whoa. Evidence of killings is orthogonal to a moral statement. As for when, I believe there is evidence in many advanced animal societies, so it probably goes back hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.

So Politesse, what do you think is true in this regard? Are you perhaps saying that pre-monotheistic cultures created these morals and then they were usurped by monotheists? I think that also makes my point...

No, you're not turning this around. What is the evidence for your claim? If it is dependent on my personal opinions, it's not evidence for your claim. So are you making a claim, or not? There's no point in producing a "counter" example if there is no example. What "advanced animal societies" have demonstrable rules against murder, and how can you demonstrate that those animals had atheist philosophies? And when did humans acquire this rule from those societies of animals, and how can you demonstrate that those societies were atheist?

Don't worry, you don't actually have to produce all that. That you aren't sure whether the rule is "thousands" or "millions" of years old makes it clear that you are speculating, not deducing. And they have a word for folks who speculate on the basis of belief whether or not evidence can support that belief...

And no, a premonotheistic society proves nothing. You said "religion", not monotheism. If you're changing your argument because you knew you couldn't defend it, be honest about it.