NationStates Jolt Archive

The question is:

Does religion exist because of morality, or does morality exist because of religion?

The question is:

Does religion exist because of morality, or does morality exist because of religion?

Well, here's my question: Is religion necessarily moral?

Well, here's my question: Is religion necessarily moral?

All religion is based on morality, in my opinion. Maybe not your personal morality, but morality nonetheless.

I know Atheists who are more moral and ethical than a lot of Christians ...so I'm going to say unrelated. Just because someone isnt religious, doesnt mean they dont have a high sense of whats right and how to treat people well.
Now I think that good morals can be attained through religion, but it doesnt rely on it at all. If Bible class tells you to treat others fairly and love your family and dont steal or lie or cheat...then yay for religion. The very same traits exist in the absence of religion in many many instances.

Well, here's my question: Is religion necessarily moral?

This is the best possible reply to the OP.

-Pants

They're completely unrelated. I've not been to church even once in my life, and I've got more "morals" than the dorks who preach to people. In fact, many of those people are scum, like Oral Roberts.

They're completely unrelated. I've not been to church even once in my life, and I've got more "morals" than the dorks who preach to people. In fact, many of those people are scum, like Oral Roberts.

So you also don't think that religion has a basis in morality. Remember that I am talking about religion in general, not organized religion.

If so, what do you think is the basis for religion? What caused it to come about?

Well, I guess they are not completely unrelated, because in almost all religions try to enforce some kind of moral standards, but of course they can exists independently from each other.

In my opinion religion exists in in order to explain things. For example why there is anything in this world.

This question makes me think of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Which came first, mans ability to know right from wrong and to be kind to each other, or religion? Perhaps people were inspired to worship and celebrate their behavior and beliefs and/or morals and decided they should gather as a group and share the same set of values.

None of the above.

Religion does not require morality. Morality does not require religion.

That is not to say they are "unrelated." At a minimum, both morality and immorality may be inspired by religion and vice versa.

So you also don't think that religion has a basis in morality. Remember that I am talking about religion in general, not organized religion.

If so, what do you think is the basis for religion? What caused it to come about?

I think the basis for religion is control of the populace, with their twisted definition of "morality" in a very distant second.

This question makes me think of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Which came first, mans ability to know right from wrong and to be kind to each other, or religion? Perhaps people were inspired to worship and celebrate their behavior and beliefs and/or morals and decided they should gather as a group and share the same set of values.

You are exactly right, and that is exactly the type of answer I am looking for.

Who are you by the way?

I would somewhat agree that religion is based on morality, but religion is also based on many other things. I feel that religion was created to explain our existance/situation, while enforcing traditions and morals. Overall though I think morality and religion are two seperate entities, that only share a vague relationship.

I certainly do not believe that morality is an extension of religion since moral people can exist without the practice of religion.

I'm going to go with Potaria and say that religion, like law, is about authority.

EDIT: Both draw on some moral code as a basis for authority.

I think the basis for religion is control of the populace, with their twisted definition of "morality" in a very distant second.

The Lenin in me wants to believe that as well, and I definitely see it in religious leaders. But what has caused it to be accepted so fully by the populace?

In my opinion religion exists in in order to explain things. For example why there is anything in this world.
I agree. It exists because people wanted an explanation for everything. Making up deities that are elements or control all elements made sense at the time. Now we have science, so religion is not nessecary. Unfortunatly, many people are still holding on to unrealistic views of the world based on viewpoints and histories invented years ago.

Religion has become morality-related in the view of many religious people, I'm sure. I don't think that was the original purpose of spirtuality, though.

It appears to me as though religion is an extension of an undefined "morality"; that is, man's ability to know what is right and what is wrong. It has been said that religion is not by necessity moral, but I would argue that any established, organized religion lays down laws and rules by which it's users must abide in order to accomplish the "ultimate goal" of that religion. These laws and rules may not be moral by our definition, yet it still seems to me that such laws and rules would be definition fall under the concept of "morality."

I see it like this.

------------------------MORALITY
-----------------------/----------\
----------------------/------------ \
---------------------/--------------- \
----------------RELIGION---------PHILOSOPHY

Of course, there are many connections and overlaps. But basically, as I see it, you are moral, and you base your morals either off religion[dogma] or philosophy[reason].

The Lenin in me wants to believe that as well, and I definitely see it in religious leaders. But what has caused it to be accepted so fully by the populace?
People want to believe in something. They want answers, a black and white view of the world, a distinguishable good and evil. It's easy. It's simple. Perhaps if I were less questioning of things I would be happier, believing that being a "good Christian" would make me a good person, and I would be reserved my spot in "heaven".

You know what they say, ignorance is bliss. Perhaps there's some truth to that.

People want to believe in something. They want answers, a black and white view of the world, a distinguishable good and evil. It's easy. It's simple. Perhaps if I were less questioning of things I would be happier, believing that being a "good Christian" would make me a good person, and I would be reserved my spot in "heaven".

You know what they say, ignorance is bliss. Perhaps there's some truth to that.

Bah, I was gonna post something very similar, but I guess this is better. Less work for me!

I agree. It exists because people wanted an explanation for everything. Making up deities that are elements or control all elements made sense at the time. Now we have science, so religion is not nessecary. Unfortunatly, many people are still holding on to unrealistic views of the world based on viewpoints and histories invented years ago.

Religion has become morality-related in the view of many religious people, I'm sure. I don't think that was the original purpose of spirtuality, though.

I would like to point out that in the Bible (sorry, Christianity is all I know), only one book was dedicated to why we are here, while the rest was dedicated to dictating how we should live. I would say that religion is far less concerned with the meaning of life than it is the morals it imparts.

People want to believe in something. They want answers, a black and white view of the world, a distinguishable good and evil. It's easy. It's simple. Perhaps if I were less questioning of things I would be happier, believing that being a "good Christian" would make me a good person, and I would be reserved my spot in "heaven".

You know what they say, ignorance is bliss. Perhaps there's some truth to that.

But wouldn't distinguishing a good and an evil be determining morality, and not the origin of existence?

But wouldn't distinguishing a good and an evil be determining morality, and not the origin of existence?

It could be, but it's more of a "fear doing something other than what we tell you, or be damned to eternity in a fiery pit". And, if you do exactly as the church says, well then, you know the story.

It's much more of a population control system than a "morality" system.

Classic ancient philosophy has done more for both "determining good and evil" and "the origin of existence" than religion, if you ask me.

Also there are also enough non-religious philosophical theories on morality around to prove to me that it has nothing to do with religion. Religions may be there to "make you feel better" about why you live and what will be after death, but in the end it's mostly about control.

Fran

It could be, but it's more of a "fear doing something other than what we tell you, or be damned to eternity in a fiery pit". And, if you do exactly as the church says, well then, you know the story.
Hey, look, somebody came to aide me! WHOO! Thank you, Potaria!

And I said (or meant to say) that I thought religion STARTED because of the simplicity of believing in the existance of elements or a higher power, but continues today because of the simplicity of someone defining good and evil for a large group of people. Did I explain it more clearly this time?

Hey, look, somebody came to aide me! WHOO! Thank you, Potaria!

No problem.

And I said (or meant to say) that I thought religion STARTED because of the simplicity of believing in the existance of elements or a higher power, but continues today because of the simplicity of someone defining good and evil for a large group of people. Did I explain it more clearly this time?

I knew what you were saying in the first place, but yes, it is easier to understand this time around.

Hey, look, somebody came to aide me! WHOO! Thank you, Potaria!

And I said (or meant to say) that I thought religion STARTED because of the simplicity of believing in the existance of elements or a higher power, but continues today because of the simplicity of someone defining good and evil for a large group of people. Did I explain it more clearly this time?

I guess the existence of God must have been established before his intentions could be explored. So people would have had to create God to explain their existence before assigning it's intent to explain their morality.

I do not believe one must be religious or have religion to be "moral". And I do not think one must be "moral" to be religious.

Look at Jimmy Swaggart for instance...

I guess the existence of God must have been established before his intentions could be explored. So people would have had to create God to explain their existence before assigning it's intent to explain their morality.
Well, I'm just sayin'... which would people be curious about first, "Why is the sky blue?" or "Why do I want to beat Ugg to a bloody pulp?" I think it's the first of those.

You are exactly right, and that is exactly the type of answer I am looking for.

Who are you by the way?


its me Vitto! :fluffle:

I believe that religions reflect the collective conscious of the followers of the religion. But over time it has been obscured as religion has become highly divided. Religion, starting as a reflection of the people morals, became an institution, which then formed all of these rules and it separated and morphed into a new beast. But still, its roots tie back to morality.

The 10 commandments are an example, religious rules that to pretty much everyone are morally agreeable. The general idea that it was wrong to kill or steal already existed. it was then transformed into this big religious story.

I would like to point out that in the Bible (sorry, Christianity is all I know), only one book was dedicated to why we are here, while the rest was dedicated to dictating how we should live. I would say that religion is far less concerned with the meaning of life than it is the morals it imparts.

First, if you are talking about Christianity -- not "religion" in general -- you should be more explicit.

Second, I would argue there is relatively little in the Bible about morality. There are a lot of allegedly historical stories. There are a lot of rules - many of which are contradictory. There is a lot about "salvation." There are occasional "moral" teachings. There is also a great deal of immorality taught in the Bible.

Finally, I am still confused on why you think religion comes from morality. I would think most Christians would think religion came from God.

If you presuppose religion is a man-made concept, what makes you think it was motivated by morality rather than ignorance, fear, and doubt?

I'm going to go with Potaria and say that religion, like law, is about authority.

EDIT: Both draw on some moral code as a basis for authority. Hmm, it really depends what religion. Some religions are naturally not authoritation. The early (Sumerian etc.) religions may have come about that way… or they may have been explanations based on what men could see.

its me Vitto! :fluffle:

I thought so. :fluffle: (and I don't give out too many fluffles)

This is said earlier, but I say it again... I think one can be without the other...
And one is without the other...

Hmm, it really depends what religion. Some religions are naturally not authoritation. The early (Sumerian etc.) religions may have come about that way… or they may have been explanations based on what men could see.

Yeah, that's true, but I'm just thinking of the judeo-christian-islam category here. They're much more focused on laying down a code of conduct than about explaining how we got here.

Besides, what am I going to do? Throw my vote away on some ridiculous third-party religion?

First, if you are talking about Christianity -- not "religion" in general -- you should be more explicit.

In my original post I was referring to religion in general. In the post you quoted I was referring to Christianity specifically. I apologized ahead of time because I referenced Christianity and knew that people would believe that I was singling out Christianity instead of all religion. I just cannot bring up examples based on other religions because I am woefully ignorant of most major religions.

Second, I would argue there is relatively little in the Bible about morality. There are a lot of allegedly historical stories. There are a lot of rules - many of which are contradictory. There is a lot about "salvation." There are occasional "moral" teachings. There is also a great deal of immorality taught in the Bible.

I would still hold that the majority of the Bible is based on morality. All of the stories in the bible, whether historical accounts or myths have an underlying moral to them. You are correct that much of the Bible is based on salvation through belief in God, which would lend itself to the existence argument.

I did state that the creation of God would have to come first before his intentions could be explored, meaning that people initially looked for reasons for their own existence, then as an extension of that looked for how that God would want them to behave.

I do want examples of immorality being taught in the Bible, though.

Finally, I am still confused on why you think religion comes from morality. I would think most Christians would think religion came from God.

If you presuppose religion is a man-made concept, what makes you think it was motivated by morality rather than ignorance, fear, and doubt?

The problem was with my original line of thinking and the way I phrased the question. Asking for the basis was a very poor choice and misrepresented the discussion I was hoping to start.

I should have asked:

"Do people take their morality and apply it to their religion, or take their religion and apply it to their morality."

The origins of either of them should not have come into play.

*snip* Besides, what am I going to do? Throw my vote away on some ridiculous third-party religion?

:D ROTL

*snip*
I would still hold that the majority of the Bible is based on morality. All of the stories in the bible, whether historical accounts or myths have an underlying moral to them. You are correct that much of the Bible is based on salvation through belief in God, which would lend itself to the existence argument.

*snip*

I do want examples of immorality being taught in the Bible, though.

*snip*

I snipped parts of your response because you explained where you were coming from and I understand. No need for me to respond.

Do your really want me to go into examples? I think that will lead us in a different direction. I'll gladly do it, however.

The question is:

Does religion exist because of morality, or does morality exist because of religion?
pretty much all religious people have their own code of morality, they just layer religion on top of it. for whatever reason they decide they need to convince themselves that God or their church/temple/etc is the source of their morality...maybe it's safety in numbers, maybe it's a need to feel like the ruler of the universe agrees with them, i don't really know.

the simple test i use for religious people is the following:

if your God/god/gods specifically and clearly communicated directly with you, and told you the only way for you to please them would be to go drown a cat right now, would you do it? now, replace "cat" with "human child." would you do it?

the answer is almost always one of two things:
1. "my God/god/gods wouldn't ask that!"
2. "no."

you very rarely encounter anybody who would actually obey that sort of command, because most people have a sense of morality that runs deeper than their faith. they have a sense of what they believe is wrong, and they will not accept the divinity of a creature that conflicts with the values they already hold.

I snipped parts of your response because you explained where you were coming from and I understand. No need for me to respond.

Do your really want me to go into examples? I think that will lead us in a different direction. I'll gladly do it, however.

You are right that examples would be a serious detour. Plus I probably have already heard the examples you would use.

What I would like to know is if the examples you speak of promoted acts that would be considered morally reprehensible at the time they were written or by today's standards?

While many of the things in the bible would be considered morally wrong by today's standards, they were nevertheless based on a morality.

You are right that examples would be a serious detour. Plus I probably have already heard the examples you would use.

What I would like to know is if the examples you speak of promoted acts that would be considered morally reprehensible at the time they were written or by today's standards?

While many of the things in the bible would be considered morally wrong by today's standards, they were nevertheless based on a morality.

So God taught a different morality then than now?

I know that is the common response, but it hardly reconciles with the idea that the Bible teaches morality.

Here is one nice example -- are you saying it is moral by any standard:

2 Kings 2:23-24: "And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

42 kids killed or mauled by bears for mocking an old man?

So God taught a different morality then than now?

I know that is the common response, but it hardly reconciles with the idea that the Bible teaches morality.

Here is one nice example -- are you saying it is moral by any standard:

2 Kings 2:23-24: "And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

42 kids killed or mauled by bears for mocking an old man?


It is based on the morality that one should respect your elders, but the punishment is obviously way to severe, and there are multiple instances in the bible that states that children are innocent and pure. So this is certainly an example of the Bibles inconsistency, but it is still based on morality. Appalling morality, but still morality.

It is based on the morality that one should respect your elders, but the punishment is obviously way to severe, and there are multiple instances in the bible that states that children are innocent and pure. So this is certainly an example of the Bibles inconsistency, but it is still based on morality. Appalling morality, but still morality.

What you call "appalling" and inconsistent morality, I call immorality.

I'd say "Poh-tay-tow… poh-tah-tow," but what under your definition qualifies as immoral?

A lot of people are saying unrelated because there are plenty of atheists who are moral, and I see this. I say that makes religion an extension of morality. I have wavered between different religions and agnostic/atheist but my basic moral code has never significantly changed. I believe religion is simply a structured and prescribed version of morality, probably invented by someone like me who loves to overanalyze shit and be hyperorganized. There is also, perhaps, an element of explaining where people came from, but I think its primary purpose was to unite communities under a single code of behavior.

Of course, now it does the opposite, splitting the world apart, but that is another topic.

What you call "appalling" and inconsistent morality, I call immorality.

I'd say "Poh-tay-tow… poh-tah-tow," but what under your definition qualifies as immoral?

That question is for another thread altogether.

All I am saying is that, under the person who wrote that particular scripture's morality, people who mock a elder man of God should die, even if they are children. I find it immoral, you find it immoral, but it is still based on his individual morality.

A moral or ethical system of beliefs is completely seperate from Religion, which essentially takes one ethical stance and tries to make it comprehensive regarding life, death, God (or the absence of one), and how to (usually) force their ethics/morals on others. Religion is just a load of bullshit people came up with to claim the one moral code is better than another.

I believe that religions reflect the collective conscious of the followers of the religion. But over time it has been obscured as religion has become highly divided. Religion, starting as a reflection of the people morals, became an institution, which then formed all of these rules and it separated and morphed into a new beast. But still, its roots tie back to morality.

The 10 commandments are an example, religious rules that to pretty much everyone are morally agreeable. The general idea that it was wrong to kill or steal already existed. it was then transformed into this big religious story.

You mean the last 7 commandments are the ones that pretty much everyone can agree on? Many Christians can't agree on how to interpret the first three:

1) I am the Lord Thy God.
2) Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
3) Thou shalt have no graven images.

In point of fact, it was the sticky contention over how to interpret the 3rd Commandment that led to the first split in the church into Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic factions. It is also why Catholics and/or some Protestant denominations have a different 10 commandments than do Eastern Orthodox denominations: they didn't want to give up their crucifixes, so they deleted the graven images commandment and split the covetousness commandment into two (presumably because the 9 commandments just doesn't sound as authoritative).

Of all the posts thus far, I'd say that Bottle's post is the most sensible, but I'm not sure it quite lays the finger on the problem. The short answer for how morality and religion are different yet related is because they are both attempts to answer different yet related questions. Morality or Ethics is the philosophical field devoted to answering the question: "Now that I'm here, how best do I live my life?" Religion is a species of metaphysics, the philosophical field devoted to answering the question: "Why am I here?" As you can see, the two are closely related questions (obviously, if you know why you're here, it's easier to answer what to do with yourself now that you are here), but not identical.

As for why atheists can be moral people, the answer is fairly obvious: they simply take a different metaphysical tack than do religious people. Depending on how they answer the "Why am I here" question, they may or may not turn out to be moral people, but there is no necessary link between accepting a particular metaphysical view and accepting the moral ethical view of life.

A moral or ethical system of beliefs is completely seperate from Religion, which essentially takes one ethical stance and tries to make it comprehensive regarding life, death, God (or the absence of one), and how to (usually) force their ethics/morals on others. Religion is just a load of bullshit people came up with to claim the one moral code is better than another.

EXACTLY! Very well-put, good sir.

Religion is just a load of bullshit people came up with to claim the one moral code is better than another.
i wouldn't be that harsh about it, to be honest. i think it's more accurate to say that people feel the need to believe in religion because it reinforces their own morality and gives them confidence. some people aren't sure enough or brave enough to stand up for their values alone, and if somebody tells them that the Creator of the Universe is on their side then they gain a great deal of strength in their convictions. we all suffer from self-doubt from time to time, but some people can deal with that and find themselves despite the doubt...others cannot, and need reassurance from an outside source.

They're completely unrelated. I've not been to church even once in my life, and I've got more "morals" than the dorks who preach to people. In fact, many of those people are scum, like Oral Roberts.

I disagree as far as whether or not they're related. I am also an atheist, and have gotten my morals without the help of religion.
But religion was invented to teach morals and explain life. It was intended to make people behave in a moral many, though the morals may not be our morals. But they are not unrelated. Not everyone needs religion to be taught morals, but some people do.

I disagree as far as whether or not they're related. I am also an atheist, and have gotten my morals without the help of religion.
But religion was invented to teach morals and explain life. It was intended to make people behave in a moral many, though the morals may not be our morals. But they are not unrelated. Not everyone needs religion to be taught morals, but some people do.

Which is why I say it was made to control the populace, first and foremost.

None of the poll answers provided are entirely right. Morality is merely a system of ideas that identify right and wrong conduct. While most religions have a morality code of some sort, some do not. Conversely, many codes of conduct have nothing to do with any religion. So to postulate that one necessarily emanates from the other is incorrect. But it is also incorrect to say that they are unrelated. A code of moral conduct can easily become a religion in time, in much the same way that a religion can come to embrace a set of moral standards.

I think they're independent. I'm irreligious and have my own way of viewing the world, of looking at situations with ethics in mind.

Gartref has a good point. Our idea of religion prescribing the moral way to live is a cultural bias, albeit a widely shared one. Whereas the religions that we are most familiar with- mostly sects of Judaism and Christianity- are either ethical or legal religions, many earlier religions (including early Judaism) tried to derive the most benefit from gods instead of performing rituals out faith or love. And while the "official" beliefs of Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, etc have a definite moral code, these religions are often practiced in ways that place far more emphasis on traditional superstition than the morality of the religious scholars. (Oh, and you can add Christianity to that list- just take a look at the folktales of the Brothers Grimm, for instance)