• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religion and Morality

We Never Know

No Slack
I see many arguments/debates about religion and morality. Here is a good but lengthy study on them.

I'm only posting the conclusion. You can read the whole lengthy study with sources, references, and footnotes here.

Religion and Morality

Conclusion

The relationship between religion and morality is a deep and emotive topic. The confident pronouncements of public commentators belie the bewildering theoretical and methodological complexity of the issues. In the scholarly sphere, progress is frequently impeded by a series of prevailing conceptual limitations and lacunae. Many contemporary investigations employ parochial conceptions of “religion” and “morality,” fail to decompose these categories into theoretically grounded elements, and/or neglect to consider the complex interplay between cognition and culture. The tendency to adopt a sanitized conception of prosocial behavior has hampered efforts to test theories of the extraordinary cultural dominance of “moralizing god” concepts—as we have seen, behaviors that allow religious groups to survive and expand may be anything but “nice.”

We have set out an encompassing evolutionary framework within which to situate and evaluate relevant evidence. Our view is that cultural representations—concepts, dogmas, artefacts, and practices both prescribed and proscribed—are triggered, shaped, and constrained by a variety of foundational cognitive systems. We have sought to identify the most currently plausible conjectures about biologically evolved connections between these systems, and have reviewed and evaluated the most prominent published debates in the cultural evolutionary domain. Ultimately, we see and foresee no pithily characterizable relationship between religion and morality. First, to the extent that the terms “religion” and “morality” are largely arbitrary and do not refer to coherent natural structures (as we have suggested), efforts to establish connections between religion and morality, conceived as monolithic entities, are destined to be facile or circular (or both). Second, under the pluralistic approach we advocate, which fractionates both religion and morality and distinguishes cognition from culture, the relationship between religion and morality expands into a matrix of separate relationships between fractionated elements. Thus some aspects of “religion” may promote some aspects of “morality,” just as others serve to suppress or obstruct the same, or different, aspects. In short, in discussing whether religion is a force for good, we must be very clear what we mean by “religion” and what we mean by “good.”

Although we eschew a simplistic story, we live in a very exciting time for psychological research on this topic. A key avenue for future work is to establish which biologically endowed cognitive structures and preferences are truly foundational where “religion” and “morality” are concerned. The aim should be to settle upon a parsimonious set of culturally and historically widespread cognitive predispositions that exhibit developmental and comparative evidence of innate preparedness, and that jointly account for the great bulk of culturally distributed items falling under the umbrella of religion and morality. In the meantime, taking into consideration data from non-WEIRD populations (Henrich et al., 2010), empirical work seeking to clarify relationships between religious and moral concepts and behaviors should capitalize on this fractionating approach by expanding the domain of relevant variables (for recent studies that have delineated a range of moral outcomes in accordance with MFT, see Cavrak & Kleider-Offutt, 2014; Gervais, 2014a). In particular, researchers should seek to characterize the range of “prosocial” outcomes (including outgroup aggression and hostility) more comprehensively, and when possible, should distinguish between parochial and more generalized variants of altruistic behaviors (e.g., Reddish, Bulbulia, & Fischer, 2013; Smith, Aquino, Koleva, & Graham, 2014). Research on “religion” and “morality” proceeds apace, but to capitalize on the gains that have been made, we must adopt higher standards of conceptual precision—a hallmark of maturation in any field of science.
 
Last edited:

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
First, to the extent that the terms “religion” and “morality” are largely arbitrary and do not refer to coherent natural structures (as we have suggested), efforts to establish connections between religion and morality, conceived as monolithic entities, are destined to be facile or circular (or both).
Yes. They usually are.
Thus some aspects of “religion” may promote some aspects of “morality,” just as others serve to suppress or obstruct the same, or different, aspects. In short, in discussing whether religion is a force for good, we must be very clear what we mean by “religion” and what we mean by “good.”
It depends on the religious followers attitude toward things along with the religion's teachings.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
I see many arguments/debates about religion and morality. Here is a good but lengthy study on them.

I'm only posting the conclusion. You can read the whole lengthy study with sources, references, and footnotes here.

Religion and Morality

Conclusion

The relationship between religion and morality is a deep and emotive topic. The confident pronouncements of public commentators belie the bewildering theoretical and methodological complexity of the issues. In the scholarly sphere, progress is frequently impeded by a series of prevailing conceptual limitations and lacunae. Many contemporary investigations employ parochial conceptions of “religion” and “morality,” fail to decompose these categories into theoretically grounded elements, and/or neglect to consider the complex interplay between cognition and culture. The tendency to adopt a sanitized conception of prosocial behavior has hampered efforts to test theories of the extraordinary cultural dominance of “moralizing god” concepts—as we have seen, behaviors that allow religious groups to survive and expand may be anything but “nice.”

We have set out an encompassing evolutionary framework within which to situate and evaluate relevant evidence. Our view is that cultural representations—concepts, dogmas, artefacts, and practices both prescribed and proscribed—are triggered, shaped, and constrained by a variety of foundational cognitive systems. We have sought to identify the most currently plausible conjectures about biologically evolved connections between these systems, and have reviewed and evaluated the most prominent published debates in the cultural evolutionary domain. Ultimately, we see and foresee no pithily characterizable relationship between religion and morality. First, to the extent that the terms “religion” and “morality” are largely arbitrary and do not refer to coherent natural structures (as we have suggested), efforts to establish connections between religion and morality, conceived as monolithic entities, are destined to be facile or circular (or both). Second, under the pluralistic approach we advocate, which fractionates both religion and morality and distinguishes cognition from culture, the relationship between religion and morality expands into a matrix of separate relationships between fractionated elements. Thus some aspects of “religion” may promote some aspects of “morality,” just as others serve to suppress or obstruct the same, or different, aspects. In short, in discussing whether religion is a force for good, we must be very clear what we mean by “religion” and what we mean by “good.”

Although we eschew a simplistic story, we live in a very exciting time for psychological research on this topic. A key avenue for future work is to establish which biologically endowed cognitive structures and preferences are truly foundational where “religion” and “morality” are concerned. The aim should be to settle upon a parsimonious set of culturally and historically widespread cognitive predispositions that exhibit developmental and comparative evidence of innate preparedness, and that jointly account for the great bulk of culturally distributed items falling under the umbrella of religion and morality. In the meantime, taking into consideration data from non-WEIRD populations (Henrich et al., 2010), empirical work seeking to clarify relationships between religious and moral concepts and behaviors should capitalize on this fractionating approach by expanding the domain of relevant variables (for recent studies that have delineated a range of moral outcomes in accordance with MFT, see Cavrak & Kleider-Offutt, 2014; Gervais, 2014a). In particular, researchers should seek to characterize the range of “prosocial” outcomes (including outgroup aggression and hostility) more comprehensively, and when possible, should distinguish between parochial and more generalized variants of altruistic behaviors (e.g., Reddish, Bulbulia, & Fischer, 2013; Smith, Aquino, Koleva, & Graham, 2014). Research on “religion” and “morality” proceeds apace, but to capitalize on the gains that have been made, we must adopt higher standards of conceptual precision—a hallmark of maturation in any field of science.

Do you mean morals or morays. One is prescriptive and one descriptive.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
we must be very clear what we mean by “religion” and what we mean by “good.”

That to me is one of the central points of the OP. "Hinduism", for example, is not a simple religion having vast differences obscured by using the expression "Hindu religion". There are hierarchical religions and non-hierarchical religions. There are religions with no necessary deity such as Buddhism and some nature religions.

Good is also partly cultural. In ancient Greece, we had sacred prostitution, for example. So when speaking of 'good', we can ask what varies over time and with religion and what central principles are present no matter what.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I have to read and digest this over some time here, but I find the first graphic interesting...a look by country of whether the population believes one needs belief in God in order to be moral...

well darn...the graphic won't copy and paste...ah! there it is! The US looks less like Europe and more like nations where Islam dominates, as well as poorer nations where Christianity is also dominant, such as those of South America, and some in Africa...

upload_2019-6-1_14-31-6.png
 

We Never Know

No Slack
That to me is one of the central points of the OP. "Hinduism", for example, is not a simple religion having vast differences obscured by using the expression "Hindu religion". There are hierarchical religions and non-hierarchical religions. There are religions with no necessary deity such as Buddhism and some nature religions.

Good is also partly cultural. In ancient Greece, we had sacred prostitution, for example. So when speaking of 'good', we can ask what varies over time and with religion and what central principles are present no matter what.

This starement also caught my attention.

"We argue that to make progress, the categories “religion” and “morality” must be fractionated into a set of biologically and psychologically cogent traits, revealing the cognitive foundations that shape and constrain relevant cultural variants. "
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I see many arguments/debates about religion and morality.

Parsimonious readings of many of the world's most popular religious scripture make it easy to conclude that scripture tends to fail miserably in the context of modern understandings of morality and ethics. This is not surprising once you admit that scripture is man made, and men didn't know much about morality or ethics thousands of years ago.

Now apologists turn "religion" into a sort of infinitely malleable, slippery idea that cannot be pinned down. It's great work if you can get it, a thing that can be followed and defended, but is too slippery to attack. The part of the study posted in the OP follows this standard, obfuscatory, apologist strategy. It feels fundamentally dishonest to me.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I have to read and digest this over some time here, but I find the first graphic interesting...a look by country of whether the population believes one needs belief in God in order to be moral...

well darn...the graphic won't copy and paste...ah! there it is! The US looks less like Europe and more like nations where Islam dominates, as well as poorer nations where Christianity is also dominant, such as those of South America, and some in Africa...

View attachment 29557

It's a long study with lots of information.
Parsimonious readings of many of the world's most popular religious scripture make it easy to conclude that scripture tends to fail miserably in the context of modern understandings of morality and ethics. This is not surprising once you admit that scripture is man made, and men didn't know much about morality or ethics thousands of years ago.

Now apologists turn "religion" into a sort of infinitely malleable, slippery idea that cannot be pinned down. It's great work if you can get it, a thing that can be followed and defended, but is too slippery to attack. The part of the study posted in the OP follows this standard, obfuscatory, apologist strategy. It feels fundamentally dishonest to me.

From the OP...

"Ultimately, we see and foresee no pithily characterizable relationship between religion and morality. "

Do you agree or disagree with that?
 
Top