NationStates Jolt Archive

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?

I want to sex you for being so smart.

Religious people will now say "NO because we CHOOSe to obey the blahblahblah

Awww, sugarpop! There's gonna be a fight.

Yes, of course ... though it does sometimes mean breaking the rules of your religion ....

I was saying to this just the other day on the phone to my Imam while drinking a beer, getting my dick sucked by a beautiful Asian 19 year old boy, and lighting some incense on my shrine to Kwan-Yin.

Now thems morals, baby!

I like the theory...someone will say the whole "we have the choice not to follow", but if they do follow, then it is still just obeying and not really making a choice.

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?


Nice! I hadn't thought of that. I'll say no.

Yes, of course ... though it does sometimes mean breaking the rules of your religion ....

I was saying to this just the other day on the phone to my Imam while drinking a beer, getting my dick sucked by a beautiful Asian 19 year old boy, and lighting some incense on my shrine to Kwan-Yin.

Now thems morals, baby!
sign me up for that religion ;)

I like the theory...someone will say the whole "we have the choice not to follow", but if they do follow, then it is still just obeying and not really making a choice.

They don't really have a choice not to follow. The choice to follow is forced upon them, because if they choose not to follow, then they suffer eternal damnation, and if they choose to follow, they enjoy eternal happiness. The choice is being forced upon them, and not much of a "choice".

Nice! I hadn't thought of that. I'll say no.

Meaning that you won't discuss it?

sign me up for that religion ;)

Hedonist Islam is awesome. :D

Interesting... but here's a thought. If the dog DOESN'T obey you, is it being immoral? Or is it simply expressing its own morality?

Free will is the key here. We can CHOOSE to follow a moral code of any sort, so if the one someone chooses happens to be the one put forth by a religion, they are not any less moral than someone who chooses to follow a moral code based on athesitic beliefs. Ultimately, the only people who are immoral are the ones who have a moral code of beliefs of their own (wherever they acquired them) that they believe to be right but choose to contravene that code.

It almost seems that the question underlying yours is "Which moral code is RIGHT?"

Hedonist Islam is awesome. :D

Warlike Buddhism is awesomer! Buddha says: Kill!

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?

I think it depends on why you obey rules. I don't avoid murder because I fear the consequences. I avoid it because I don't think it's right. I don't defend rights in hopes of sex with some feminist who is very in touch with her bisexual side. The sex is just a nice side-effect.

Warlike Buddhism is awesomer! Buddha says: Kill!

ROFL!

All life is suffering and I'm the bringer of pain. - The Buddha

It almost seems that the question underlying yours is "Which moral code is RIGHT?"

Nothing is inherently right or wrong. Morality and righteousness are both subjective.

Yes I know plenty of religious people who act in a very moral fashion. Helping suicidal people out of depression is a pretty moral thing to do IMO. That's one of my friends, and he is inspired by his Catholic religion to which he is devoted.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.
A moral action is a moral action, whether the concept of it being "moral" comes from the mind of the actor or from someone else. The effects of the action are still the same.

Then again, most genuinely moral religious people (no, spending your life bashing gays doesn't make you moral) that I know appear to think for themselves also.

I think it depends on why you obey rules. I don't avoid murder because I fear the consequences. I avoid it because I don't think it's right.

I avoid it because the targets keep moving .... *grumble*

Warlike Buddhism is awesomer! Buddha says: Kill!

We should all just institute the Bunny as our god and start sacrificing carrots to our new deity.

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?
As far as the religious are concerned, myself included, this is the way I've always looked at it. If you're following these rules and laws because you've always been told that to do otherwise is a sin, then you're merely obeying. If you're following them because you've experienced the negative effects in one way or another (be it by your own actions or the actions of another), you're being moral. Ergo, it depends on the individual experiences of the religious person in question.

I follow more my personal beliefs than the rules of the Catholic Church where morality is concerned, because though the values are the same in many aspects, there are several areas in which I just don't believe they're right to decide that for me. Hence, I believe I AM both moral and religious.

If Christians were Christians, then yes, Grave-n-idle, you would be right. They aren't however. Most Christians these days are just secular humanists that go to church once in a while. They base their morality off of secular concepts of human worth, not off of what God says they should do.

All life is suffering and I'm the bringer of pain. - The Buddha
To quote SJS, *FLORT*
oh, and sigged.

We should all just institute the Bunny as our god and start sacrificing carrots to our new deity.

http://www.colddeadfish.net/images/limecat.jpg

Limecat is your god now.

Interesting... but here's a thought. If the dog DOESN'T obey you, is it being immoral? Or is it simply expressing its own morality?


If the dog disobey... does that say anything about morality? Or does it just mean you have a disobedient dog?

Having watched dog behaviour before, having seen a male dog try to breed with just about every other member of it's 'family' and a cat... I'm inclined to think that dog behaviour is less about 'moral codes', and more about the 'pack'... where the non-alphas 'obey' the alpha.

Isn't that a perfect description of most religious heirarchies, also?

ROFL!

All life is suffering and I'm the bringer of pain. - The Buddha
Words have the power to both destroy and heal. And so do guns. -The Buddha

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?
yes a religious person can be moral

the codes set down by the various religions of the world are vague enough that they cant possibly cover all the possible situtations that humanity might find itself embroiled in.

all human situations take judgement. take homosexuality, for an easy example. a christian has big choices to make based on the teachings of the various sects and various commandments of the bible. the bible says that god hates gay sex (and for the purpose of this example we will say that its a correct interpretation) so one should be harsh with those who do things that god hates, but jesus says "whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers that you do unto me" and no one should be harsh with jesus. so what to do?

having to make that kind of judgement means you are a moral agent no matter what the "rules" are.

http://www.colddeadfish.net/images/limecat.jpg

Limecat is your god now.

*ponders while the Bunny and Lime Cat deity wage war over his head*

To quote SJS, *FLORT*
oh, and sigged.

Awesome! I love bein' sigged. Makes my nipples all hard.

Wait ... I think they're trying to have a serious discussion here.

I think it depends on why you obey rules. I don't avoid murder because I fear the consequences. I avoid it because I don't think it's right. I don't defend rights in hopes of sex with some feminist who is very in touch with her bisexual side. The sex is just a nice side-effect.

Well, obviously the bisexual feminist is a pragmatic choice... but the murder... why do you 'not think it is right'?

What is the basis for that thinking?

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?

Yes! The very point I brought up in our last RS lesson! Well done sir? (Note, the Reverend didn't have a proper answer ;) )

*ponders while the Bunny and Lime Cat deity wage war over his head*
limecat (http://www.colddeadfish.net/images/limecat.jpg) < evil bunny (http://www.worth1000.com/entries/176500/176702DgJF_w.jpg)

Awesome! I love bein' sigged. Makes my nipples all hard.

Wait ... I think they're trying to have a serious discussion here.

We'll see about that! Captain Threadhijacker to the rescue! [Pow!] [Smash!]

Awesome! I love bein' sigged. Makes my nipples all hard.

Wait ... I think they're trying to have a serious discussion here.

I think limecat and hard nipples win over serious thread-age...

Awesome! I love bein' sigged. Makes my nipples all hard.

Wait ... I think they're trying to have a serious discussion here.
first person to be sigged on this name, and only my second since coming to NS...Only Fass has made it before. Be honored, and enjoy the hard nipples while they last!
[/hijack]

Yes! The very point I brought up in our last RS lesson! Well done sir? (Note, the Reverend didn't have a proper answer ;) )

I've noticed some pretty good responses from NS already... especially Simonist and Ashmoria have given me pause for thought... which, I guess, means we just have a higher quality representation in MOST arenas than does the 'world at large'.

We'll see about that! Captain Threadhijacker to the rescue! [Pow!] [Smash!]

I love that guy!

If Christians were Christians, then yes, Grave-n-idle, you would be right. They aren't however. Most Christians these days are just secular humanists that go to church once in a while. They base their morality off of secular concepts of human worth, not off of what God says they should do.

That's not true. Christianity is housed around forgiveness. There is an assumption that NO ONE is good. Therefore morality is not what defines whether we are saved. Morality is still a choice made be fallible humans. What it really comes down to is whether you are motivated by reward and punishment, or simply inspired to make things better for others. This can happen in or out of Christianity.

To GnI, it's fairly clear that morality can be taught. It doesn't matter where we found the idea of what is moral and what is not, but why we adhere to that idea. I actually believe that it is not morality that saves us, but wisdom. Accepting that none of us are good is a wisdom I believe we are meant to learn from the Bible. The fallacy of pride. The idea that there is something larger than me. All wisdoms we need. And the wisdom that so many Christians miss that I find so obvious in the Bible is the value of recognizing how fallible we are, the vaule of accepting that as humans we know nothing of consequence and that what we know is not what saves us.

Yes I know plenty of religious people who act in a very moral fashion. Helping suicidal people out of depression is a pretty moral thing to do IMO. That's one of my friends, and he is inspired by his Catholic religion to which he is devoted.


A moral action is a moral action, whether the concept of it being "moral" comes from the mind of the actor or from someone else. The effects of the action are still the same.

Then again, most genuinely moral religious people (no, spending your life bashing gays doesn't make you moral) that I know appear to think for themselves also.

Ah yes, but.... is an 'action' moral? I was talking about people being moral, can an action actually have the property of 'morality'?

Indeed, IS the effect even important to morality? Isn't morality ALL about intent?

If the dog disobey... does that say anything about morality? Or does it just mean you have a disobedient dog?

Having watched dog behaviour before, having seen a male dog try to breed with just about every other member of it's 'family' and a cat... I'm inclined to think that dog behaviour is less about 'moral codes', and more about the 'pack'... where the non-alphas 'obey' the alpha.

Isn't that a perfect description of most religious heirarchies, also?

Well, yes... you just turned your own metaphor on its head. Obviously a dog does not have moral judgement... but a person who follows a religion, even if they do so slavishly, does.

I love that guy!

And Captain Threadhijacker loves you!

To GnI, it's fairly clear that morality can be taught. It doesn't matter where we found the idea of what is moral and what is not, but why we adhere to that idea. I actually believe that it is not morality that saves us, but wisdom. Accepting that none of us are good is a wisdom I believe we are meant to learn from the Bible. The fallacy of pride. The idea that there is something larger than me. All wisdoms we need. And the wisdom that so many Christians miss that I find so obvious in the Bible is the value of recognizing how fallible we are, the vaule of accepting that as humans we know nothing of consequence and that what we know is not what saves us.

Oh, I'm absolutely inclined to agree.

But (you knew that was coming...)

If all our morality is taught, then we are obedient, not 'moral'. It implies we have a capacity to learn, and to obey... but what does it say to our ability to discern morality?

Well, yes... you just turned your own metaphor on its head. Obviously a dog does not have moral judgement... but a person who follows a religion, even if they do so slavishly, does.

How does the slavishly obedient person demonstrate 'moral judgement'?

Ah yes, but.... is an 'action' moral? I was talking about people being moral, can an action actually have the property of 'morality'?

Indeed, IS the effect even important to morality? Isn't morality ALL about intent?

Yes. I can perform an action with horrible consequences that is moral, say sending a firefighter into a building to save a child and only succeeding in adding the death of the firefighter.

I can also steal money from someone that by them not spending it saves their life (say they would have went on a plane trip where the plane crashed).

How does the slavishly obedient person demonstrate 'moral judgement'?

Probably not at all but he could act moral by chance, sometimes.

Simonist']As far as the religious are concerned, myself included, this is the way I've always looked at it. If you're following these rules and laws because you've always been told that to do otherwise is a sin, then you're merely obeying. If you're following them because you've experienced the negative effects in one way or another (be it by your own actions or the actions of another), you're being moral. Ergo, it depends on the individual experiences of the religious person in question.

I follow more my personal beliefs than the rules of the Catholic Church where morality is concerned, because though the values are the same in many aspects, there are several areas in which I just don't believe they're right to decide that for me. Hence, I believe I AM both moral and religious.

Doesn't that actually place 'obedience' to our religions, and 'morality', in opposition? Doesn't it actually make the 'teaching' of religious 'morals' destructive?

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?

I think Paul makes the point several times in the New Testement about not being 'slaves' to the law (IE what the Bible teaches) so I wouldnt say that people just mindlessly obeying the Bible is something that God supports. On the other hand, look at the bible. The fruits of the spirit to name one example. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self control. Now those arnt concepts which you can really "teach" people. You can explain to them what they are, but it doesnt mean you can teach peolple to be them.

That's not true. Christianity is housed around forgiveness. There is an assumption that NO ONE is good. Therefore morality is not what defines whether we are saved. Morality is still a choice made be fallible humans. What it really comes down to is whether you are motivated by reward and punishment, or simply inspired to make things better for others. This can happen in or out of Christianity.


My point is that most Christians focus on the "inspiration to make things better" without actually having any interest whatsoever in acheiving salvation. Nor do they particularly care about reward and punishment. That's my basic point: most Christians are secular humanists. The rules of Christianity are not the rules that they base their decisions off of, and as such they can't be pegged into a description of simply being obedient.

Oh, I'm absolutely inclined to agree.

But (you knew that was coming...)

If all our morality is taught, then we are obedient, not 'moral'. It implies we have a capacity to learn, and to obey... but what does it say to our ability to discern morality?

No, see it's not where morals come from that determines whether our actions are moral, but rather our motivation for acting according to those morals.

Doesn't that actually place 'obedience' to our religions, and 'morality', in opposition? Doesn't it actually make the 'teaching' of religious 'morals' destructive?
I don't believe so in the least bit, no. It's one thing to have been taught religious morals as a child -- then you have a base in what's right and wrong in the eyes of proper society. But if, as you grow, you adapt those morals to a more personalized view, does that mean you're spitting in the face of the religious teachings you received in childhood? No, if anything you're a credit to the system, merely for being able to adapt in the situation and continue to live in the best way possible.

My point is that most Christians focus on the "inspiration to make things better" without actually having any interest whatsoever in acheiving salvation. Nor do they particularly care about reward and punishment. That's my basic point: most Christians are secular humanists. The rules of Christianity are not the rules that they base their decisions off of, and as such they can't be pegged into a description of simply being obedient.

You don't 'acheive' salvation, though. You are making an assumption that does not exist for most Christians. Reward and punishment is not the point of Salvation. It's acceptance of our fallibility. Acceptance that none of us good or even better than any other. You don't work for Salvation. You simply accept it. Salvation does not require obedience.

Yes. I can perform an action with horrible consequences that is moral, say sending a firefighter into a building to save a child and only succeeding in adding the death of the firefighter.


So - here, the intent is 'moral', and the action and result are side-effects of 'morality', yes?


I can also steal money from someone that by them not spending it saves their life (say they would have went on a plane trip where the plane crashed).

But, here, the intent is 'immoral', and the action and effect are immoral also? Except, very possibly, by chance? (There is no way we can be sure the money we stole would have paid for the flight, it MIGHT have been the orphanage donation, that got spent on a flight, instead....)

You don't 'acheive' salvation, though. You are making an assumption that does not exist for most Christians. Reward and punishment is not the point of Salvation. It's acceptance of our fallibility. Acceptance that none of us good or even better than any other. You don't work for Salvation. You simply accept it. Salvation does not require obedience.


Could one then actually say that being religious means slavishly following something or another? Or is being religious the same as thinking for yourself?
Being religious is on the other hand not the same as thinking for yourself (obviously).

Oh, I'm absolutely inclined to agree.

But (you knew that was coming...)

If all our morality is taught, then we are obedient, not 'moral'. It implies we have a capacity to learn, and to obey... but what does it say to our ability to discern morality?

The obvious answer to that is that we DO make choices. We don't all blindly follow what we have been taught. Some people go a completely different route than any of their parents or teachers would want them to go.

Not all do this. Some follow the path laid out for them by their religious leaders. But the fact that some do not shows that, as a species, we are capable of discernment. Whether or not we choose to USE the ability, we are capable of it, which makes morality ours, individually. Those who simply fall back on the religious morals they were taught out of laziness or a reluctance to explore (or, perhaps, the belief that what they were taught was right) are as responsible for their own morality as those who discard what they have been taught in favor of an entirely different system.

Your moral code might well indicate that people who do not to make a choice are immoral by your code. This does not mean that they are amoral, nor immoral by their own codes.

I think Paul makes the point several times in the New Testement about not being 'slaves' to the law (IE what the Bible teaches) so I wouldnt say that people just mindlessly obeying the Bible is something that God supports. On the other hand, look at the bible. The fruits of the spirit to name one example. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self control. Now those arnt concepts which you can really "teach" people. You can explain to them what they are, but it doesnt mean you can teach peolple to be them.

Indeed. If one looks at Jesus' ministry, one can pick out that a major theme is to avoid religious scripture, and the teaching of others. A great focus seems to be on denying the Pharisees and the idea of 'taught' religion in favour of a personal relationship with God.

But, that isn't often how that religion is 'passed on'.... nor how it is carried out.

So - here, the intent is 'moral', and the action and result are side-effects of 'morality', yes?



But, here, the intent is 'immoral', and the action and effect are immoral also? Except, very possibly, by chance? (There is no way we can be sure the money we stole would have paid for the flight, it MIGHT have been the orphanage donation, that got spent on a flight, instead....)
The point is that I don't hold actions or consequences as moral, but intent. What drives is morality, not what we do. Actions driven by only reward or punishment cannot be moral for the very reasons you listed. Moral action requires a consideration of consequence to others. That's the point in my mind. The larger the factor of aiming for good consequences for others (without violating their rights) in making the decision, the more moral the action in my mind.

You don't 'acheive' salvation, though. You are making an assumption that does not exist for most Christians. Reward and punishment is not the point of Salvation. It's acceptance of our fallibility. Acceptance that none of us good or even better than any other. You don't work for Salvation. You simply accept it. Salvation does not require obedience.

Very well then, most don't focus on accepting salvation/fallibility. My point still stands.

No, see it's not where morals come from that determines whether our actions are moral, but rather our motivation for acting according to those morals.

The argument could be made, that many Christians follow 'Christian morality', because they don't want a big-dusty-hand to spank them down through the ages.

Thus, since the motivation could be argued as a spiritual 'fear'.... isn't it, therefore, impossible for such a person to behave in a 'moral' fashion?

Could one then actually say that being religious means slavishly following something or another? Or is being religious the same as thinking for yourself?
Being religious is on the other hand not the same as thinking for yourself (obviously).

The point is that in Christianity and many other religions slavishly following rules is not the essence of Salvation. I'm not blowing myself up in hopes of sex with 70 virgins after I die. My experiences after death are already set. It's no longer a part of the consideration or motivation for my actions. My actions are motivated by what I think creates a better world for us, and that IS a part of my religion. Clearly the Golden Rule isn't about Salvation, it's about making the world better.

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

.
So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?

It is possible to be moral and religious, but you are not necessarily moral because you're religious, nor are you religious because you're moral. The two are mutually exclusive. If religion and morality were bound together then atheists and agnostics could not be moral, and that is simply not the case.

Simonist']I don't believe so in the least bit, no. It's one thing to have been taught religious morals as a child -- then you have a base in what's right and wrong in the eyes of proper society. But if, as you grow, you adapt those morals to a more personalized view, does that mean you're spitting in the face of the religious teachings you received in childhood? No, if anything you're a credit to the system, merely for being able to adapt in the situation and continue to live in the best way possible.

Except that, according to strict adherence to the raising... you cannot 'accomodate'. By not following the 'morality' you were taught, you are apostate.

Thus, you can either be moral, or follow your 'religion'.... no?

Very well then, most don't focus on accepting salvation/fallibility. My point still stands.

No, it doesn't. They don't have to focus on it. You built a strawman version of Christianity and said anyone who doesn't match it isn't a 'true' Christian. Once we've accepted Salvation, it's a part of us. A focus on the afterlife is not a requirement of Christianity. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, Christianity does not require a slavish following of the rule and it has nothing to do with Salvation. Jesus was a teacher not a lawmaker.

Weird isn't it? Both communism and religion were good ideas (basically), but they were still fucked up. Says something about humans maybe?

It is possible to be moral and religious, but you are not necessarily moral because you're religious, nor are you religious because you're moral. The two are mutually exclusive. If religion and morality were bound together then atheists and agnostics could not be moral, and that is simply not the case.

I agree that the two are related in type, but not connected.

However, I have seen it argued that an Atheist can NOT be moral, because they must always initiate from an 'immoral' perspective.

Except that, according to strict adherence to the raising... you cannot 'accomodate'. By not following the 'morality' you were taught, you are apostate.

Thus, you can either be moral, or follow your 'religion'.... no?
Once again, I must disagree.

Nobody ever told us, growing up, "This is the way we teach you, and the way it has to be". They told us that it was a basic outline of the actions and circumstances that are acceptable for all of our society and that there would likely be times in our lives that we believed contrary, then they pointed out that the most important thing is doing the right thing. They never told us "THIS is the right thing", either......just taught us how to make the distinction for ourselves.

So no, I find I probably won't be able to stand on equal ground with you on this one -- our experiences are probably too vastly removed from one another's to see eye-to-eye on it. I just hope, at the least, I've opened your eyes to another aspect you hadn't before considered.

The argument could be made, that many Christians follow 'Christian morality', because they don't want a big-dusty-hand to spank them down through the ages.

Thus, since the motivation could be argued as a spiritual 'fear'.... isn't it, therefore, impossible for such a person to behave in a 'moral' fashion?

And I would argue that they are not moral and you know that. Come on, GnI, you're playing Devil's advocate and you know it. Consideration of rewards and punishments is not a requirement of Christianity. You and I have corrected many people who think that Dante's version of Hell is an aspect of the Bible rather than something drawn into Christianity like so many of the holidays and whatnot. Simply because some Christians follow aspects of Christianity not born of the Bible, does not make it a core part of Christianity nor of religion in general.

I agree that the two are related in type, but not connected.

However, I have seen it argued that an Atheist can NOT be moral, because they must always initiate from an 'immoral' perspective.

If immoral means irreligious, then I suppose you can say that. But if we separate the two, then there is no immoral perspective in this instance. But, perhaps, a better word to use would be ethical rather than moral

Your moral code might well indicate that people who do not to make a choice are immoral by your code. This does not mean that they are amoral, nor immoral by their own codes.

Here is kind of the crux, though....

If there IS objective morality.... then being "amoral, nor immoral by their own codes" is irrelevent.

On the other hand, if there is NO objective morality, then the religious person who follows teaching (as opposed to making his/her own decision) is either amoral, or immoral... depending how you view it).

No, it doesn't. They don't have to focus on it. You built a strawman version of Christianity and said anyone who doesn't match it isn't a 'true' Christian. Once we've accepted Salvation, it's a part of us. A focus on the afterlife is not a requirement of Christianity. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, Christianity does not require a slavish following of the rule and it has nothing to do with Salvation. Jesus was a teacher not a lawmaker.

If someone with a religion and someone without it do exactly the same things in the same situations, then the religion is irrelevant. Christianity has to inform people's actions in some way for it to exist as a religion. That information may not be a direct "struggling to avoid punishment" type of thing, but surely you'd agree that it consists of something. If not rules, then perhaps a general way to live life, or to understand the universe. After all, a teacher has to teach something. My point was that except for at a few important ceremonies, most people who identify themselves as Christians don't occupy themselves with any of this in any way shape or form. They make decisions for the same reasons secular humanists make them.

consider american slavery...

good christian men and women backed by the laws and traditions of their country owned slaves. the most christian of them treated their slaves well, raised them as christians and made sure their spiritual needs were met

good christian men and women defied the laws and traditions of their country and hid runaway slaves in their attics and barns, risking their own freedom and livelihoods.

someone did some moral thinking there that was still within the notions of christianity.

Simonist']Once again, I must disagree.

Nobody ever told us, growing up, "This is the way we teach you, and the way it has to be". They told us that it was a basic outline of the actions and circumstances that are acceptable for all of our society and that there would likely be times in our lives that we believed contrary, then they pointed out that the most important thing is doing the right thing. They never told us "THIS is the right thing", either......just taught us how to make the distinction for ourselves.

So no, I find I probably won't be able to stand on equal ground with you on this one -- our experiences are probably too vastly removed from one another's to see eye-to-eye on it. I just hope, at the least, I've opened your eyes to another aspect you hadn't before considered.

Indeed, you have given me much to think about...

However, I have been in a number of churches of different denominations, and a lot of them teach the Bible (in that particular branch of the Abrahamic faith, obviously) as innerant word-of-god. A lot of them also teach things (especially, for example, the (alleged) Ten Commandments) as being unarguable and inviolable.

If your church taught discernment rather than obedience, my hat is off to it... but I fear it is an exception rather than a rule.

How does the slavishly obedient person demonstrate 'moral judgement'?

His morals say that slavish obedience is what is required. By his own code, if he is following the rules laid out by the church, he is moral. If he violates those rules, he is immoral. He may believe whatever he likes about some afterlife punishment and reward system based on his actions, but if he does something here and now that he knows to be wrong by his own beliefs (no matter WHERE those beliefs originate) then he is violating his own moral code.

The point I am making is that WHERE the code comes from is not important. What the individual chooses to believe is. If he chooses to go whole hog and buy the entire package of religious morals, then he is individually bound by those morals. Ultimately, I think each of us makes the choice to either believe what we are told, or not. You often hear about people coming to big religious crossroads and making the decision to go one way or the other, but I think, at some point, even on a small scale, EVERYONE makes a similar sort of decision about following or not someone elses set of moral beliefs.

And, as there is no objective morality, the religious man is just as moral as the next guy, religious or not, if each of them follows their own moral code.

If, however, the man pays lip service to the religious code, but does not believe the rules to be moral in his heart, yet he obeys them anyway, THEN I believe he is immoral. If, for instance, he follows the religious rule that causes him to say homosexuals are sinning (just an example) yet what he truly believes that they are not, he is not being true to his true moral beliefs (merely to the set he professes outwardly) and is thus immoral.

But if he actually believes that homosexuality is a sin, then he IS behaving in a moral fashion if he preaches against it. You and I might think his behavior is immoral, but we are operating under a different set of rules.

Here is kind of the crux, though....

If there IS objective morality.... then being "amoral, nor immoral by their own codes" is irrelevent.

On the other hand, if there is NO objective morality, then the religious person who follows teaching (as opposed to making his/her own decision) is either amoral, or immoral... depending how you view it).

It depends on whether you think morality can be objective from our perspective. I argue that it can't. I think what a personal relationship with the Savior brings is the focus on making moral decisions rather than decisions focused on rewards and punishments.

Again, it's the motivation, the true motivation, for an action that decides its morality. I think that's exactly what we are supposed to learn when we think of Jesus being in our hearts. We're not required to do 'moral' acts, but inspired to behave morally.

Think about what Jesus brought to Judaism. You know that the Old testament focused on fear. Punishing and rewarding. And Jesus suggested that we must strive to be good for goodness sake. Jesus teaches even though it causes him to be turtured and killed. In the old testament, people were good to avoid these types of consequences. Jesus suggests that if you eye leads you astray to tear it from your head. In the OT, we were taught to be good to avoid such a terrible consequence. Jesus suggested a new style of decision-making driven by righteousness not perception. Christianity was movement to the before-the-fact examination required for morality, rather than the after-the-fact review for rewards and punishments.

Indeed, you have given me much to think about...

However, I have been in a number of churches of different denominations, and a lot of them teach the Bible (in that particular branch of the Abrahamic faith, obviously) as innerant word-of-god. A lot of them also teach things (especially, for example, the (alleged) Ten Commandments) as being unarguable and inviolable.

If your church taught discernment rather than obedience, my hat is off to it... but I fear it is an exception rather than a rule.
Well, if it is a case of exception rather than rule, then I do wonder what it's like growing up as a Catholic anywhere else in the nation or world. I know that there are many Protestant churches (I'll not get into any denominations, to avoid hurt feelings) that are notorious for "forcing" their morality onto others, but I haven't experienced that firsthand. Overall, the Kansas City church scene is far more laid back and open to individual spirituality than most of the rest of the Midwest.

And I would argue that they are not moral and you know that. Come on, GnI, you're playing Devil's advocate and you know it. Consideration of rewards and punishments is not a requirement of Christianity. You and I have corrected many people who think that Dante's version of Hell is an aspect of the Bible rather than something drawn into Christianity like so many of the holidays and whatnot. Simply because some Christians follow aspects of Christianity not born of the Bible, does not make it a core part of Christianity nor of religion in general.

Of course I admit that there is a certain amount of 'advocacy of a Luciferian style' going on here. Anyone that has debated with me often, probably knows my exact stand on the issue... but I'm searching for 'truth' here... and that often makes us step into new territories, no?

You KNOW I agree that the Dante version of Christianity is non-scriptural... but I'm not sure that matters. By which I mean... what I know, and what you know, may not agree with what a lot of people 'know'... and, those people are 'religious', also... yes?

What I seem to be seeing here, is that there is a definite current of persons that accept moral AND religious, and the requirement SEEMS to be that the Pharisees NEED to be tempered - on a daily basis - with a personal relationship. (Or that the two cannot be reconciled if one follows slavishly.... whichever 'translation' seems more appropriate)...

If immoral means irreligious, then I suppose you can say that. But if we separate the two, then there is no immoral perspective in this instance. But, perhaps, a better word to use would be ethical rather than moral

Well, those that would make the argument I stated... are the people who claim that God is more than just the 'instigator' of morality... but also, in some fashion, the 'fabric'. According to their logic, one cannot feasibly be Atheistic AND moral... which was part of the seed that spawned this thread.

If someone with a religion and someone without it do exactly the same things in the same situations, then the religion is irrelevant. Christianity has to inform people's actions in some way for it to exist as a religion. That information may not be a direct "struggling to avoid punishment" type of thing, but surely you'd agree that it consists of something. If not rules, then perhaps a general way to live life, or to understand the universe. After all, a teacher has to teach something. My point was that except for at a few important ceremonies, most people who identify themselves as Christians don't occupy themselves with any of this in any way shape or form. They make decisions for the same reasons secular humanists make them.

No, it's not. You make religion be about action, but it's not. It can be an inspiration or a comfort, but our religion is not about action, it's about thought. Again, you keep rebuilding this strawman, but once one's name is written in the book of life, it cannot be unwritten. If anything Christianity drives many to set a better example, but again that is an examination of consequences for people, not of rewards and punishments.

My parents taught me a general way to live life, and, of course, all teachings I have ever learned affect me. However, your true Scotsman fallacy and your strawman do not make for an argument. You claimed we have to focus on salvation and fallibility in order to Christians. We don't. We accept it. Done. The flesh and the spirit may affect one another, but they are not the same. The fact that one chose Christ as a teacher does not forgive us the need to examine those teachings and find a path as much as any other teacher. I believe that Christ wanted us to engage our forebrains and examine the world and our spirits. It's not secular humanism to do so.

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Here I would just like to make a note. Christianity differs from any other religion I've ever studied, which includes everything from Zoroastrianism to Buddhism, in that you do not have to follow a set of rules to be saved.

The Law of Moses is a set of rules that one must follow to make oneself worthy of heaven. But the Bible teaches us that man is incapable of following the Law. So God came to earth as a man and fulfilled the requirements of the Law for man. Now all anyone has to do to be worthy of heaven, and thus the presence of God, is to accept the gift of God, which would be the sinless life he has already lived for you.

Jesus was once asked "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

Jesus replied:" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

He pretty much hammered the nail on the head, but he was a carpenter, so you'd expect him to. These are very good moralities.

Now, there are two possibilities: you follow these commandments or you do not. You have the, yes I am going to say it, choice to do one or the other. If you follow the commandments, then you are being moral, because they are very good morals. You are also being religious, because you are following God's rules.

Of course I admit that there is a certain amount of 'advocacy of a Luciferian style' going on here. Anyone that has debated with me often, probably knows my exact stand on the issue... but I'm searching for 'truth' here... and that often makes us step into new territories, no?

You KNOW I agree that the Dante version of Christianity is non-scriptural... but I'm not sure that matters. By which I mean... what I know, and what you know, may not agree with what a lot of people 'know'... and, those people are 'religious', also... yes?

What I seem to be seeing here, is that there is a definite current of persons that accept moral AND religious, and the requirement SEEMS to be that the Pharisees NEED to be tempered - on a daily basis - with a personal relationship. (Or that the two cannot be reconciled if one follows slavishly.... whichever 'translation' seems more appropriate)...

There you go. You answered your own question. An answer we both knew prior to entering this thread. Religious people and areligious people can be moral or not, but their status as religious or not is not what decides that. Some religious people are incapable of morality because what drives their actions is blind. Their actions are driven by a selfish desire to please God rather than make the world better. Some areligious people are driven by selfish desire only as well. And some are driven by a greater calling.

Morality is not dependent on being religious nor on being areligious.

His morals say that slavish obedience is what is required. By his own code, if he is following the rules laid out by the church, he is moral. If he violates those rules, he is immoral. He may believe whatever he likes about some afterlife punishment and reward system based on his actions, but if he does something here and now that he knows to be wrong by his own beliefs (no matter WHERE those beliefs originate) then he is violating his own moral code.

The point I am making is that WHERE the code comes from is not important. What the individual chooses to believe is. If he chooses to go whole hog and buy the entire package of religious morals, then he is individually bound by those morals. Ultimately, I think each of us makes the choice to either believe what we are told, or not. You often hear about people coming to big religious crossroads and making the decision to go one way or the other, but I think, at some point, even on a small scale, EVERYONE makes a similar sort of decision about following or not someone elses set of moral beliefs.

And, as there is no objective morality, the religious man is just as moral as the next guy, religious or not, if each of them follows their own moral code.

If, however, the man pays lip service to the religious code, but does not believe the rules to be moral in his heart, yet he obeys them anyway, THEN I believe he is immoral. If, for instance, he follows the religious rule that causes him to say homosexuals are sinning (just an example) yet what he truly believes that they are not, he is not being true to his true moral beliefs (merely to the set he professes outwardly) and is thus immoral.

But if he actually believes that homosexuality is a sin, then he IS behaving in a moral fashion if he preaches against it. You and I might think his behavior is immoral, but we are operating under a different set of rules.

Overall, I'm inclined to agree with the premise you set forth... but the last sentence gives me pause...

"You and I might think his behavior is immoral, but we are operating under a different set of rules".

Here is a conflict, no? Here we see the objective morality taight by a church... but we are treating it as subjective morality. Obviously it cannot be both objective AND subjective... so either the person who preaches against the homosexual is moral, or he (or she) is immoral - in EMPIRICAL terms, no?

Here I would just like to make a note. Christianity differs from any other religion I've ever studied, which includes everything from Zoroastrianism to Buddhism, in that you do not have to follow a set of rules to be saved.

The Law of Moses is a set of rules that one must follow to make oneself worthy of heaven. But the Bible teaches us that man is incapable of following the Law. So God came to earth as a man and fulfilled the requirements of the Law for man. Now all anyone has to do to be worthy of heaven, and thus the presence of God, is to accept the gift of God, which would be the sinless life he has already lived for you.

Jesus was once asked "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

Jesus replied:" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

He pretty much hammered the nail on the head, but he was a carpenter, so you'd expect him to. These are very good moralities.

Now, there are two possibilities: you follow these commandments or you do not. You have the, yes I am going to say it, choice to do one or the other. If you follow the commandments, then you are being moral, because they are very good morals. You are also being religious, because you are following God's rules.

I think your exposure to religions outside of Christianity is very limited if you believe that Christianity is unique in such things.

Simonist']Well, if it is a case of exception rather than rule, then I do wonder what it's like growing up as a Catholic anywhere else in the nation or world. I know that there are many Protestant churches (I'll not get into any denominations, to avoid hurt feelings) that are notorious for "forcing" their morality onto others, but I haven't experienced that firsthand. Overall, the Kansas City church scene is far more laid back and open to individual spirituality than most of the rest of the Midwest.

I have to admit, my time in Kansas City was hours, rather than days, weeks or years.

However, I've spent some time 'out-west' (Montana/Utah/Colorado, etc), and a lot MORE time in the 'dirty South' (mainly Georgia... especially 'rural' Georgia). I've also spent time in the UK (where religion, collectively, TENDS to be a little less fire-and-brimstone... although there are exceptions).

Most of the churches I've spent any time in, have seemed a lot more 'authoritarian' than you describe. I vastly PREFER the vision you sell.

I think your exposure to religions outside of Christianity is very limited if you believe that Christianity is unique in such things.
Seconded.....as somebody who not only studied various aspects of Christianity, but also many other religions, suffice to say that Christianity is hardly all that different, at the core, than many other religions, and is far from unique in this example.

Morality is not dependent on being religious nor on being areligious.

True, but you can't follow a religion (or anything else, really) like a drone and have morals. With luck you could avoid doing stupid things, but unless you choose for youself you don't take any responsibility. And without being responsible you can't take any credits for being moral either.

The fact that one chose Christ as a teacher does not forgive us the need to examine those teachings and find a path as much as any other teacher.

Wise words indeed, my friend.

:)

Wise words indeed, my friend.

:)

This thread has gone deeply philosophical.

I think your exposure to religions outside of Christianity is very limited if you believe that Christianity is unique in such things.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about. And I also think that is ad hominem.

I was not raised Christian. Becoming a Christian was a choice that I made. Before that I studied many other religions just as much as Christianity, because I was looking for the truth, and at the time I did not know it.

And any other religion that proposes something similar to salvation by faith looks slightly different just under the surface. Feel free to bring up any example you wish.

I have to admit, my time in Kansas City was hours, rather than days, weeks or years.

However, I've spent some time 'out-west' (Montana/Utah/Colorado, etc), and a lot MORE time in the 'dirty South' (mainly Georgia... especially 'rural' Georgia). I've also spent time in the UK (where religion, collectively, TENDS to be a little less fire-and-brimstone... although there are exceptions).

Most of the churches I've spent any time in, have seemed a lot more 'authoritarian' than you describe. I vastly PREFER the vision you sell.
Yes, hard to believe that a mere hour or so west of here, you get the Phelps gang and a whole bunch of live-in Bible thumpers (Topeka), but by and large I think that maybe if our mindset as we're taught in my area could spread throughout the country (and we're in a prime geographical location for such a spread, technically speaking), it would do the world some good.

As for me, I'm out of this thread....you and I seem to have done as much as we can for each other, GnI, and I don't know that I have much more to contribute.

It's been famous.

It depends on whether you think morality can be objective from our perspective. I argue that it can't. I think what a personal relationship with the Savior brings is the focus on making moral decisions rather than decisions focused on rewards and punishments.

Again, it's the motivation, the true motivation, for an action that decides its morality. I think that's exactly what we are supposed to learn when we think of Jesus being in our hearts. We're not required to do 'moral' acts, but inspired to behave morally.


I agree with Jocabia but come at it from the opposite side. Moral decisions are the intentions we have that motivate our actions and are based upon what we believe to be 'right', regardless of what punishment or reward those actions will bring us (either on the "here's a big check, hero!" or the "welcome to heaven!" scale). I can and do take God out of the picture entirely, and still come to the conclusion on my own that the path I take and the decisions I make are moral based on my personal beliefs of what is right and what is wrong. Many of those morals are informed by various religious beliefs, many are not. I believe that I hold the final responsibility for my choices, and that is my morality.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about. And I also think that is ad hominem.

I was not raised Christian. Becoming a Christian was a choice that I made. Before that I studied many other religions just as much as Christianity, because I was looking for the truth, and at the time I did not know it.

And any other religion that proposes something similar to salvation by faith looks slightly different just under the surface. Feel free to bring up any example you wish.

Pardon? I didn't attack you. I assume you're not lying so the only other choice is that you haven't been exposed to the aspects of other religions that make them similar to Christianity in the way you mentioned, and the aspects of Christianity that make it similar to other religions 'just under the surface'. I didn't suggest you were blind, just that you haven't been exposed to such things. Your defensiveness on the subject belies your confidence in your knowledge of the subject. Now if you'd like to discuss it further start a thread or search out the dozens where GnI, myself and others educated others such as yourself on the bias that generally leads one to such a proclamation.

EDIT: By the way, one has to laugh at someone who starts with "you don't know what you're talking about" and then accuses me of an ad hominem. Your statement was almost exactly equivalent to mine only I was trying to be a little nicer about it.

Overall, I'm inclined to agree with the premise you set forth... but the last sentence gives me pause...

"You and I might think his behavior is immoral, but we are operating under a different set of rules".

Here is a conflict, no? Here we see the objective morality taight by a church... but we are treating it as subjective morality. Obviously it cannot be both objective AND subjective... so either the person who preaches against the homosexual is moral, or he (or she) is immoral - in EMPIRICAL terms, no?

Personally, I would say that the church is incorrect about objective morality. The religious man would think otherwise. We are in conflict about this. Personally, I would find his preaching to be immoral. He would disagree.

The question here becomes, who is right? Well, by his lights, he is, and by mine, I am. If what we are really, at heart, discussing objective morality, then you have posed an entirely different question, not "can you be religious and moral?" but rather "is religious morality right?"

I think it is obvious from the discussion that has ensued from the first post that most here are arguing from the point of subjective morality. I think the religious man can BELIEVE that his morality is objective (in fact, he probably must believe it to be) and I can believe otherwise, and what we end up with is a non-issue. I won't convince him, he won't convince me... yet we still behave in a moral fashion, as we still adhere to WHAT WE BELIEVE to be a correct moral code.

If you want to tell me that morals are, in fact, objective... well, we may end up having no way to continue this discussion, as we are speaking different languages.

On an interesting side note, this is the problem in most discussions between liberals and conservatives... a paradigm problem.

There you go. You answered your own question. An answer we both knew prior to entering this thread.


Yes. I've been 'feeding', I admit. I've been trying to promote honest debate. I had an inkling of what I expected to get from it, of course.

Religious people and areligious people can be moral or not, but their status as religious or not is not what decides that. Some religious people are incapable of morality because what drives their actions is blind. Their actions are driven by a selfish desire to please God rather than make the world better. Some areligious people are driven by selfish desire only as well. And some are driven by a greater calling.

Morality is not dependent on being religious nor on being areligious.

Thank you. This is about perfect.

True, but you can't follow a religion (or anything else, really) like a drone and have morals. With luck you could avoid doing stupid things, but unless you choose for youself you don't take any responsibility. And without being responsible you can't take any credits for being moral either.

I'm inclined to agree, and I think the consensus does, too.

I'm inclined to agree, and I think the consensus does, too.
I would possible think so too, if i only knew what consensus means.

Simonist']Yes, hard to believe that a mere hour or so west of here, you get the Phelps gang and a whole bunch of live-in Bible thumpers (Topeka), but by and large I think that maybe if our mindset as we're taught in my area could spread throughout the country (and we're in a prime geographical location for such a spread, technically speaking), it would do the world some good.

As for me, I'm out of this thread....you and I seem to have done as much as we can for each other, GnI, and I don't know that I have much more to contribute.

It's been famous.

Thanks. I don't know whether you'll be back to read my thanks, of course...

As I said earlier, you gave me cause to think.

Odd really, I normally run away from Aes Sedai....

Personally, I would say that the church is incorrect about objective morality. The religious man would think otherwise. We are in conflict about this. Personally, I would find his preaching to be immoral. He would disagree.

The question here becomes, who is right? Well, by his lights, he is, and by mine, I am. If what we are really, at heart, discussing objective morality, then you have posed an entirely different question, not "can you be religious and moral?" but rather "is religious morality right?"

I think it is obvious from the discussion that has ensued from the first post that most here are arguing from the point of subjective morality. I think the religious man can BELIEVE that his morality is objective (in fact, he probably must believe it to be) and I can believe otherwise, and what we end up with is a non-issue. I won't convince him, he won't convince me... yet we still behave in a moral fashion, as we still adhere to WHAT WE BELIEVE to be a correct moral code.

If you want to tell me that morals are, in fact, objective... well, we may end up having no way to continue this discussion, as we are speaking different languages.

On an interesting side note, this is the problem in most discussions between liberals and conservatives... a paradigm problem.

Oh, I agree entirely.

If it helps, I do not embrace any kind of 'objective' morality, myself.

Most people probably wouldn't call me 'religious', either. :)

I would possible think so too, if i only knew what consensus means.

Really? The 'consensus' is pretty much the 'majority' opinion.

Really? The 'consensus' is pretty much the 'majority' opinion.

Ok, just checked it up myself. Damn fancy words... It's too confusing for simple beings like myself :(

Thanks. I don't know whether you'll be back to read my thanks, of course...

As I said earlier, you gave me cause to think.

Odd really, I normally run away from Aes Sedai....
Well, luckily for you I'm of the Grey Ajah.....

I mean.....what?!

I checked back in to see if you'd owned up to feeding the debate yet, as I figured you were probably doing....

Simonist']Well, luckily for you I'm of the Grey Ajah.....

I mean.....what?!

I checked back in to see if you'd owned up to feeding the debate yet, as I figured you were probably doing....

So long as it's not Red Ajah, I think we can still talk... I mean, huh?

Yes, I came clean. I wanted to see what was thought by 'each side', and what the arguments were. I was pretty pleased with the efforts of just about all concerned, I think. :)

Ok, just checked it up myself. Damn fancy words... It's too confusing for simple beings like myself :(

Allow me to be the first to offer... my most sincere contrafibularities! I am anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous... to have caused... such pericombobulation.

Yes, I came clean. I wanted to see what was thought by 'each side', and what the arguments were. I was pretty pleased with the efforts of just about all concerned, I think. :)

A decent debate on NS? Quick, before it goes away! Take a photograph!

Allow me to be the first to offer... my most sincere contrafibularities! I am anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous... to have caused... such pericombobulation.

:eek: Run away!

A decent debate on NS? Quick, before it goes away! Take a photograph!

They happen occassionally... :)

They happen occassionally... :)

Surprisingly the "I'm right and you are evil" crowd has given this thread a miss entirely. Well, I've enjoyed the discussion. Even with you bouncing back and forth.

:)

Surprisingly the "I'm right and you are evil" crowd has given this thread a miss entirely. Well, I've enjoyed the discussion. Even with you bouncing back and forth.

:)

That crowd doesn't like it when they see Atheists and Christians agreeing. It makes them worried that logic is present somewhere in the thread ;)

Surprisingly the "I'm right and you are evil" crowd has given this thread a miss entirely. Well, I've enjoyed the discussion. Even with you bouncing back and forth.

:)

There was no bouncing! I didn't actually state where in the matter I am situated, so I get to play Devilled Avocado, if I choose.

But thanks, you input was appreciated.

That crowd doesn't like it when they see Atheists and Christians agreeing. It makes them worried that logic is present somewhere in the thread ;)

(Another reason I didn't 'state my platform' at the start...)

Thanks, my friend.

There was no bouncing! I didn't actually state where in the matter I am situated, so I get to play Devilled Avocado, if I choose.

But thanks, you input was appreciated.


Hmmm... I want the recipe for deviled avocado.

Now I'm hungry.

Hmmm... I want the recipe for deviled avocado.

Now I'm hungry.
Eh, just eat Grave_n_idle....

Simonist']Eh, just eat Grave_n_idle....

Oh no. Not again.

(This happens every time I start a thread...)

Simonist]
Eh, just eat Grave_n_idle....

Oh no. Not again.

(This happens every time I start a thread...)

Never fear... I got out of Christianity because of the symbolic cannibalism, so I am not terribly interested in going all the way into actual cannibalism just because you won't share your secret recipe with me.

(One way or another, we will get SOMEBODY mad enough to make this thread devolve into a spamfest! Oooh... spam and deviled avocados!)

Ah yes, but.... is an 'action' moral? I was talking about people being moral, can an action actually have the property of 'morality'?

Indeed, IS the effect even important to morality? Isn't morality ALL about intent?
No, morality is also about results. It's possible for someone with morally good intentions to do the wrong thing, and it's possible for someone with morally bad intentions to do the right thing.

No, morality is also about results. It's possible for someone with morally good intentions to do the wrong thing, and it's possible for someone with morally bad intentions to do the right thing.

We're not asking if it's the right thing. We're asking if it's moral. Are you actually saying that you can moral by accident?

No, morality is also about results. It's possible for someone with morally good intentions to do the wrong thing, and it's possible for someone with morally bad intentions to do the right thing.

Sort of. You can say that an action is good or bad, but you can't really measure the morality of a person by the results of their actions. After all, a person who tries to do good still has goodness within them no matter how badly their attempts accidentally turn out; by contrast, I'd still be willing to call a man evil even if by his evil intent he accidentally did the right thing.

As such, while I'd be willing to say that a good man will do good things more often than a bad person will, I still define them as good or bad purely on the basis of the goodness or badness of their intents.

Sort of. You can say that an action is good or bad, but you can't really measure the morality of a person by the results of their actions. After all, a person who tries to do good still has goodness within them no matter how badly their attempts accidentally turn out; by contrast, I'd still be willing to call a man evil even if by his evil intent he accidentally did the right thing.

As such, while I'd be willing to say that a good man will do good things more often than a bad person will, I still define them as good or bad purely on the basis of the goodness or badness of their intents.

Yes, that's an excellent way to put it.

Well of course. Why just the other day I saw two Atheists beating an elderly man with a stick and they were nice enough to take the pictures of his grandchildren out of his wallet and throw them on top of him before taking his wallet.


That was just for GNI.;)

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?

Not really. Moses Maimonides defined true faith is being able to find no logical reason to disbelieve something, a definition I happne to agree with. If so, then my faith in religious precepts roots itself not so much in "Because God said x, x must be true" so much as my reasoned judgment that God in fact was correct in his assessment when making the rules. As such, anyone practicing true faith necessarily exercises morality rather than merely obeys the code.

I have thought this before as well. The prime way of getting this point through to religious people is to ask them "Would you murder someone if you found out there was no God and there would be no reprecussion?"

Not really. Moses Maimonides defined true faith is being able to find no logical reason to disbelieve something, a definition I happne to agree with. If so, then my faith in religious precepts roots itself not so much in "Because God said x, x must be true" so much as my reasoned judgment that God in fact was correct in his assessment when making the rules. As such, anyone practicing true faith necessarily exercises morality rather than merely obeys the code.

The trouble is that the existence and works of God are not falsifiable, so your definition of faith is meaningless.

This thread has gone deeply philosophical.
Well, Grave started it, so i think that's par for the course. *nods*

I have thought this before as well. The prime way of getting this point through to religious people is to ask them "Would you murder someone if you found out there was no God and there would be no reprecussion?"

The only thing you could hope to prove there is that a religious person believes that the only reason they have morals is that God dictated them. On the other hand, if they WOULD murder someone, then they don't REALLY hold the moral beliefs of their religion anyway (and here we are assuming Christianity, I think).

Morality and religion are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they dependent upon each other.

The only thing you could hope to prove there is that a religious person believes that the only reason they have morals is that God dictated them. On the other hand, if they WOULD murder someone, then they don't REALLY hold the moral beliefs of their religion anyway (and here we are assuming Christianity, I think).

Morality and religion are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they dependent upon each other.

You prove that morality is not contingent on the existence of God.

Either they accept that they will be moral without a God, or they admit that they are immoral, but only act moral for fear of punishment.

You prove that morality is not contingent on the existence of God.

Either they accept that they will be religious without a God, or they admit that they are immoral, but only act moral for fear of punishment.

One can believe in God and not act in fear of punishment.

One can believe in God and not act in fear of punishment.

Ok, then they admit that they are immoral, but act morally because they are told to.

There is little difference.

Ok, then they admit that they are immoral, but act morally because they are told to.

There is little difference.

Did you even read what I wrote? It is possible to believe in God and still not choose actions out of fear of punishment. You can want to behave morally whether or not you believe in God. Christianity is a teacher not a lawmaker. Do Atheists simply follow the law because they are afraid of going to jail or because they believe in the laws? It could be one or the other or both. Your point only stands if Christians are motivated by fear of reprisal or hope for a reward. While some Christians may act for that reason, it's not a given.

In Christianity, Salvation is not dependent on behavior and it is accepted that none of us have earned good treatment from our behavior.

Jocabia is absolutely correct.

The religious people you propose, the ones who do what they are told is right for fear of punishment, are not acting morally but pragmatically. One can, however, hold the belief that morals come from God, and can additionally behave morally. Many people do. Others believe that morals do NOT come from God, and still behave morally. It doesn't matter where you believe your morals originate, what matters is what you do with them once you have got them.

Jocabia is absolutely correct.

The religious people you propose, the ones who do what they are told is right for fear of punishment, are not acting morally but pragmatically. One can, however, hold the belief that morals come from God, and can additionally behave morally. Many people do. Others believe that morals do NOT come from God, and still behave morally. It doesn't matter where you believe your morals originate, what matters is what you do with them once you have got them.

Exactly.

You prove that morality is not contingent on the existence of God.

Either they accept that they will be religious without a God, or they admit that they are immoral, but only act moral for fear of punishment.

I think I found the problem. Religious does not equal moral in this discussion.

These people either accept that they will be moral without a God, or they admit they are immoral, but only act moral for fear of punishment.

The discussion is, can they be both moral and religious at the same time? And the answer is yes. If they can be moral WITHOUT God, then they can be moral with God.

I suppose one could contend that if one cannot be moral without God, then one cannot be moral with God either. What it boils down to is that morality is a personal choice, which may or may not be informed by religion.

The trouble is that the existence and works of God are not falsifiable, so your definition of faith is meaningless.

My existence as a mind isn't exactly falsifiable empirically either, but I don't therefore posit my mind's existence as meaningless. You can base your knowledge purely on reason rather than empirical truth; in point of fact, if David Hume is right, you have to do so in order to have any knowledge whatsoever.

Furthermore, I would say you are confusing "truth" and "meaning". The sentence "Invisible pink unicorns exist" is untrue from our standard of verification, but it's hardly a meaningless statement to make.

Well, those that would make the argument I stated... are the people who claim that God is more than just the 'instigator' of morality... but also, in some fashion, the 'fabric'. According to their logic, one cannot feasibly be Atheistic AND moral... which was part of the seed that spawned this thread.


If morality is externally imposed, and the imposer is a religion, then, you're correct - an atheist can't be moral - his/her behavior is internally generated, coming from a personal ethical core. Which is why I use the term ethical. So I would say the Atheists and Agnostics are ethical but, perhaps, not moral while the religious are moral but, perhaps, not ethical.

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?


Very intresting my man

Did you even read what I wrote? It is possible to believe in God and still not choose actions out of fear of punishment. You can want to behave morally whether or not you believe in God. Christianity is a teacher not a lawmaker. Do Atheists simply follow the law because they are afraid of going to jail or because they believe in the laws? It could be one or the other or both. Your point only stands if Christians are motivated by fear of reprisal or hope for a reward. While some Christians may act for that reason, it's not a given.

How is this different from when I said that it proves that morality is not contingent on the existence of God. You are stating that their morality precedes their religion, and that religion only helps them guide their morality.

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?
I believe that many (perhaps most) superstitious beliefs halt an individual's moral development at an early stage. In particular, I believe that death-denial makes it impossible for any individual to be a fully moral adult.

A superstitious person is fully able to act in a moral manner, and to engage in positive and helpful activities. However, I believe that a person who does good deeds to please God or to get into Heaven is no different than an animal that does a trick to receive a treat. A person who makes "moral" decisions based on what a superstitious being may or may not want is no different than a child who behaves himself to please his parent. Without conscious human reason, morality is a carrot-and-stick system that hardly rises above the level of instinct. This does not make the actions "bad," it merely strips away a level of moral value.

How is this different from when I said that it proves that morality is not contingent on the existence of God. You are stating that their morality precedes their religion, and that religion only helps them guide their morality.

No, that's not what the only thing you said and this is why I disagreed. People can have God and be taught their morality by their religion and still choose to act morally. This makes the two associated but not dependent on each other. There are others that act immoral because of the superiority their religion makes them feel. They aren't contingent on one another, but you can't say they are not related ever.

I think I found the problem. Religious does not equal moral in this discussion.

It was my intention to say that they would be moral without the existence of a God. The word "religious" was a typo.

These people either accept that they will be moral without a God, or they admit they are immoral, but only act moral for fear of punishment.

That is what I meant to say.

The discussion is, can they be both moral and religious at the same time? And the answer is yes. If they can be moral WITHOUT God, then they can be moral with God.

I suppose one could contend that if one cannot be moral without God, then one cannot be moral with God either. What it boils down to is that morality is a personal choice, which may or may not be informed by religion.

That is what I was trying to say. Logically you can force a christian to admit that either religion is independent of morality or that they are immoral.

So while it is possible to be moral while being religious, it has absolutely nothing to do with the religion.

I believe that superstitious beliefs halt an individual's moral development at an early stage. In particular, I believe that death-denial makes it impossible for any individual to be a fully moral adult.

A superstitious person is fully able to act in a moral manner, and to engage in positive and helpful activities. However, I believe that a person who does good deeds to please God or to get into Heaven is no different than an animal that does a trick to receive a treat. A person who makes "moral" decisions based on what a superstitious being may or may not want is no different than a child who behaves himself to please his parent. Without conscious human reason, morality is a carrot-and-stick system that hardly rises above the level of instinct. This does not make the actions "bad," it merely strips away a level of moral value.

Only if one buys that they are doing it for the carrot. Acknowledging the carrot does not mean that one must being chasing the carrot. If morality is possible without religion it must obviously be possible with religion. It depends on the motivation not on where the lessons on morality come from.

It was my intention to say that they would be moral without the existence of a God. The word "religious" was a typo.



That is what I meant to say.



That is what I was trying to say. Logically you can force a christian to admit that either religion is independent of morality or that they are immoral.

So while it is possible to be moral while being religious, it has absolutely nothing to do with the religion.

Not being contingent on each other is not the same as necessarily being independent of one another. I can get to the store with or without a car, but that doesn't mean my car didn't make it more likely I would get to the store.

No, morality is also about results. It's possible for someone with morally good intentions to do the wrong thing, and it's possible for someone with morally bad intentions to do the right thing.

As Jocabia argues, there is (possibly) a very real difference between what is 'right' and what is 'moral'... especially if you do not hold to an objective image of morality.

I'd argue that a 'thing' is only 'moral'... in as much as it is a product of 'morality', or a manifestation of a 'moral' concept.

Thus, I can't actually envision a 'moral' result... only 'good' or 'bad' results of moral intent (or immoral intent).

So - if person A murders person B (an 'immoral' action)... it doesn't matter that person B's lawyers execute his Will giving all his money to orphans... the orphans receive a 'good' result, but the action was 'immoral'.

Results (as I see it) or never more than a by-product of 'morality'... I don't see that they are a 'factor' IN morality.

Well of course. Why just the other day I saw two Atheists beating an elderly man with a stick and they were nice enough to take the pictures of his grandchildren out of his wallet and throw them on top of him before taking his wallet.


That was just for GNI.;)

;)

That's obviously because Atheists are immoral sinners... but in a 'lovable Cockney' way. :)

Only if one buys that they are doing it for the carrot. Acknowledging the carrot does not mean that one must being chasing the carrot.

This is true, and it is also why I editted my post to specify "many" superstitious beliefs. There are certainly some superstitious beliefs that would not result in this outcome.


If morality is possible without religion it must obviously be possible with religion.

I only partially agree with this statement. I believe a certain level of morality is possible with religion, and that some religious beliefs may allow greater moral growth than others, but I also believe that any person who sees a superstitious force as the source of their morality is a person who will never be able to attain moral adulthood. Thus, I believe that in many cases morality is not possible with religion.


It depends on the motivation not on where the lessons on morality come from.
I disagree here as well. I believe that both can be quite important.

Not really. Moses Maimonides defined true faith is being able to find no logical reason to disbelieve something, a definition I happne to agree with. If so, then my faith in religious precepts roots itself not so much in "Because God said x, x must be true" so much as my reasoned judgment that God in fact was correct in his assessment when making the rules. As such, anyone practicing true faith necessarily exercises morality rather than merely obeys the code.

I'd argue with that as a definition of 'true faith'... since faith doesn't NEED justification.

I'd argue even further with the application of the theory... if you can accept ONE religion, how can you 'logically' not accept any other?

It's like Pascal... it's a nice justification for a faith you ALREADY hold... but not a valid tool for determining the 'value' of a faith.

I think what you are arguing here, however - is that you'd only 'accept' the Ten Commandments (for example) if, on examination, they matched your own compass?

Well, Grave started it, so i think that's par for the course. *nods*

My thanks, friend. :)

If morality is externally imposed, and the imposer is a religion, then, you're correct - an atheist can't be moral - his/her behavior is internally generated, coming from a personal ethical core. Which is why I use the term ethical. So I would say the Atheists and Agnostics are ethical but, perhaps, not moral while the religious are moral but, perhaps, not ethical.

But this brings me back, again...

ARE 'the religious' moral? Or, ONLY when they exercise 'moral discernment' on the precepts of their faith?

In which case, isn't just 'following your religion', actually immoral?

... I believe a certain level of morality is possible with religion, and that some religious beliefs may allow greater moral growth than others, but I also believe that any person who sees a superstitious force as the source of their morality is a person who will never be able to attain moral adulthood. Thus, I believe that in many cases morality is not possible with religion...



I disagree with you. The point made repeatedly is that it matters not where your morality comes from, but rather what you do with it. If you choose to accept a moral code based on a religion, then proceed to behave morally according to that code, you are, by definition, a moral person. There is nothing inherently inferior about the moral rules that come from a superstitious force. It is no different than an atheist who chooses a moral code based on some other source than religion. The important question is whether one acts based on their own morals, no matter where the morals come from.

This is true, and it is also why I editted my post to specify "many" superstitious beliefs. There are certainly some superstitious beliefs that would not result in this outcome.


I only partially agree with this statement. I believe a certain level of morality is possible with religion, and that some religious beliefs may allow greater moral growth than others, but I also believe that any person who sees a superstitious force as the source of their morality is a person who will never be able to attain moral adulthood. Thus, I believe that in many cases morality is not possible with religion.


I disagree here as well. I believe that both can be quite important.

Ha. Why? Why does it matter if a persons morals came from an ancient text supposedly written by God, an ancient text written by Alexander the Great or their parents so long as the examine the world around them and try to apply their moral judgement in their behavior? Are you arguing there is objective morality? If so, where does it come from and who decides who is right? If not, then why does it matter where one learns their morality? If your morality could be traced back three generations to coming from the Bible, would you suddenly become less of a 'moral adult'?

Methinks that you let your personal bias defy logic on this one, Bottle.

I disagree with you. The point made repeatedly is that it matters not where your morality comes from, but rather what you do with it. If you choose to accept a moral code based on a religion, then proceed to behave morally according to that code, you are, by definition, a moral person. There is nothing inherently inferior about the moral rules that come from a superstitious force. It is no different than an atheist who chooses a moral code based on some other source than religion. The important question is whether one acts based on their own morals, no matter where the morals come from.
That is a belief that many people on this thread seem to hold, yes. It is not one that I share. For me, morality has as much to do with one's reasons as it does with one's conclusions.

However, I also believe that morality is completely subjective, so I don't see my beliefs on the subject as being "right" while everybody else must be "wrong." :)

But this brings me back, again...

ARE 'the religious' moral? Or, ONLY when they exercise 'moral discernment' on the precepts of their faith?

In which case, isn't just 'following your religion', actually immoral?
geez does only the highest and most sophisticated form of morality count as moral? cant we give people credit for not falling into the most common forms of temptation?

shouldnt the rich used car salesman who only goes to church for the business contacts get credit for not forcing the live-in housekeeper to give him blowjobs under threat of the INS because he would be mortified if his church group found out?

I believe that many (perhaps most) superstitious beliefs halt an individual's moral development at an early stage. In particular, I believe that death-denial makes it impossible for any individual to be a fully moral adult.

A superstitious person is fully able to act in a moral manner, and to engage in positive and helpful activities. However, I believe that a person who does good deeds to please God or to get into Heaven is no different than an animal that does a trick to receive a treat. A person who makes "moral" decisions based on what a superstitious being may or may not want is no different than a child who behaves himself to please his parent. Without conscious human reason, morality is a carrot-and-stick system that hardly rises above the level of instinct. This does not make the actions "bad," it merely strips away a level of moral value.

My thanks. I was hoping you'd arrive. :) If Dempublicents turns up... I've got 'the full set'. :)

You open an interesting door... the 'eternal life' clause. If one 'knows' there is an afterlife, even IF that is not why they behave 'morally', is not the simple knowledge of infinity a mitigator... the fact that you can acknowledge 'eternal reward' or 'eternal punishment' acts as a 'buffer' on your own interpretations of 'morality'... perhaps?

That is a belief that many people on this thread seem to hold, yes. It is not one that I share. For me, morality has as much to do with one's reasons as it does with one's conclusions.

However, I also believe that morality is completely subjective, so I don't see my beliefs on the subject as being "right" while everybody else must be "wrong." :)

Yes, reasons is a factor for me as well. But my religion tells me that Jesus would approve of my examining right and wrong and seeking to behave morally not just by blindly following rules, but by examining the world around me and trying to make it better. The golden rule, which Jesus used to summarize the Law and the Prophets, is often quoted by Atheist and Theist alike. Does the Atheist who follows the golden rule because s/he thinks it the right thing to do somehow have a moral advantage over a Christian doing so for the exact same reason?

Ha. Why? Why does it matter if a persons morals came from an ancient text supposedly written by God, an ancient text written by Alexander the Great or their parents so long as the examine the world around them and try to apply their moral judgement in their behavior? Are you arguing there is objective morality? If so, where does it come from and who decides who is right? If not, then why does it matter where one learns their morality? If your morality could be traced back three generations to coming from the Bible, would you suddenly become less of a 'moral adult'?

Methinks that you let your personal bias defy logic on this one, Bottle.
As I have said, I believe that the process of arriving at a moral conclusion is as important as the conclusion itself, when it comes to determining the "innate morality" at work. This does not necessarily impact the "morality" of the outcome. In other words, refraining from killing other people is generally a "good thing" regardless of why a person does it, but the reason why a person feels that murder is wrong is also important to me.

Pragmatically, this is largely due to the fact that a person's moral reasoning is part of what will predict their actions in future situations. If a person has used what I believe to be flawed reasoning to arrive at one particular moral conclusion, I feel there is a higher likelihood they could make a similar leap when arriving at future moral conclusions. While this does not impact the external "goodness" of their current decision, it does impact my willingness to trust in their future choices. In a sense, one could say that part of my definition of "morality" has to do with how trustworthy a person's individual "moral compass" is.

I disagree with you. The point made repeatedly is that it matters not where your morality comes from, but rather what you do with it. If you choose to accept a moral code based on a religion, then proceed to behave morally according to that code, you are, by definition, a moral person. There is nothing inherently inferior about the moral rules that come from a superstitious force. It is no different than an atheist who chooses a moral code based on some other source than religion. The important question is whether one acts based on their own morals, no matter where the morals come from.

I suppose the argument could be made that ALL 'morals' are flawed, since they cannot be proven to be empirically valid...

An argument for 'pragmatism' versus 'morality', perhaps?

I suppose the argument could be made that ALL 'morals' are flawed, since they cannot be proven to be empirically valid...

I dunno about that. I think you'd have trouble defining how you are going to test "valid." You can't empirically "prove truth" when it comes to moral matters, so you would have to use empirical measures of "success" for the given morality. A given moral system may be more successful at producing a given outcome, and that could be empirically tested.


An argument for 'pragmatism' versus 'morality', perhaps?
Well, this is what I generally see you advocating when it comes to public law, and what I personally support. I don't think an individual necessarily needs to choose between the two (at least, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive), but when you're trying to reconcile the "morality" of a mass of individuals then the only practical bet is to opt out of the "moral" mess entirely and stick with pragmatism.

geez does only the highest and most sophisticated form of morality count as moral? cant we give people credit for not falling into the most common forms of temptation?


I don't know... I'm not trying to 'discredit' ANY view of 'morality'. My goal here is purely philosophical... to examine 'morality', logically... and to see whether the wheels fall off when you shake it.


shouldnt the rich used car salesman who only goes to church for the business contacts get credit for not forcing the live-in housekeeper to give him blowjobs under threat of the INS because he would be mortified if his church group found out?

As far as I'm concerned, no.

I see nothing 'moral' in that situation.

And, even as 'pragmatism', I find 'fear' a weak motivation...

My thanks. I was hoping you'd arrive. :) If Dempublicents turns up... I've got 'the full set'. :)

You open an interesting door... the 'eternal life' clause. If one 'knows' there is an afterlife, even IF that is not why they behave 'morally', is not the simple knowledge of infinity a mitigator... the fact that you can acknowledge 'eternal reward' or 'eternal punishment' acts as a 'buffer' on your own interpretations of 'morality'... perhaps?

It depends on whether you believe your access to eternal reward is contingent on behavior. I don't.

Here's a thought excercise. Let's say I am very faithful. And God comes to me and says if you willingly go to Dante's version of hell to be tortured for all eternity, I will allow the souls of all current, past and future persons into heaven. Or I could personally choose to go to heaven and leave everyone else to fend for themself. Now, that would make it possible to behave morally with a knowledge, not just faith, of afterlife. I could behave morally and be punished for it, or behave immorally and be rewarded.

Now, the scenario above isn't going to be a realistic one for those that don't believe in God, nor does it fit my belief in God, but it illustrates the point that one must take a simplistic view of religion in order to say that morality and religion are not always dependent on one another but are also not mutually exclusive.

As I have said, I believe that the process of arriving at a moral conclusion is as important as the conclusion itself, when it comes to determining the "innate morality" at work. This does not necessarily impact the "morality" of the outcome. In other words, refraining from killing other people is generally a "good thing" regardless of why a person does it, but the reason why a person feels that murder is wrong is also important to me.

Pragmatically, this is largely due to the fact that a person's moral reasoning is part of what will predict their actions in future situations. If a person has used what I believe to be flawed reasoning to arrive at one particular moral conclusion, I feel there is a higher likelihood they could make a similar leap when arriving at future moral conclusions. While this does not impact the external "goodness" of their current decision, it does impact my willingness to trust in their future choices. In a sense, one could say that part of my definition of "morality" has to do with how trustworthy a person's individual "moral compass" is.

Can't I be religious AND feel that murder is wrong for the EXACT same reason you do?

I dunno about that. I think you'd have trouble defining how you are going to test "valid." You can't empirically "prove truth" when it comes to moral matters, so you would have to use empirical measures of "success" for the given morality. A given moral system may be more successful at producing a given outcome, and that could be empirically tested.


Well, this is what I generally see you advocating when it comes to public law, and what I personally support. I don't think an individual necessarily needs to choose between the two (at least, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive), but when you're trying to reconcile the "morality" of a mass of individuals then the only practical bet is to opt out of the "moral" mess entirely and stick with pragmatism.

Indeed, my PERSONAL preference is for 'pragmatism' as a compass... but, in this debate, I have been trying (very hard) to play all the cards, not just the ones I like. :)

As far as I can see - 'pragmatism' is the only purely empirical mechanism, because you can argue it's results in terms of pure statistical result (although, of course, you can quible what the results MEAN).

Any other 'morality' mechanism seems (to me) to require assumptions about 'meanings' or 'values' that are 'beyond' measure.

...Logically you can force a christian to admit that either religion is independent of morality or that they are immoral.

So while it is possible to be moral while being religious, it has absolutely nothing to do with the religion.


Not being contingent on each other is not the same as necessarily being independent of one another. I can get to the store with or without a car, but that doesn't mean my car didn't make it more likely I would get to the store.

For a person who IS religious, it has absolutely everything to do with religion, as that is where his moral code is based. Yes, you can get him to admit hypothetically that he would have the same moral code without religion, but the fact remains that his moral code is currently what it is BECAUSE of his religion. Morality in GENERAL may not be contingent on religion, but his morality in this SPECIFIC instance is.

Just as the atheist's morality is based on other teachings.

It depends on whether you believe your access to eternal reward is contingent on behavior. I don't.

Here's a thought excercise. Let's say I am very faithful. And God comes to me and says if you willingly go to Dante's version of hell to be tortured for all eternity, I will allow the souls of all current, past and future persons into heaven. Or I could personally choose to go to heaven and leave everyone else to fend for themself. Now, that would make it possible to behave morally with a knowledge, not just faith, of afterlife. I could behave morally and be punished for it, or behave immorally and be rewarded.

Now, the scenario above isn't going to be a realistic one for those that don't believe in God, nor does it fit my belief in God, but it illustrates the point that one must take a simplistic view of religion in order to say that morality and religion are not always dependent on one another but are also not mutually exclusive.

I like the example... and it's a construct that is going to give me some thought... but, what I mean is... if you KNOW there is 'something after' (whether good or bad, whether it is reward or punishment... whether or not it is WHY you do what you do...) is that knowledge (in and OF itself) not affecting your capacity to MAKE those (independent) judgements about morality?

A subconscious mitigator? Am I any clearer?

Yes, of course ... though it does sometimes mean breaking the rules of your religion ....

I was saying to this just the other day on the phone to my Imam while drinking a beer, getting my dick sucked by a beautiful Asian 19 year old boy, and lighting some incense on my shrine to Kwan-Yin.

Now thems morals, baby!



ROTFLMFAO! Can I sig that?

I like the example... and it's a construct that is going to give me some thought... but, what I mean is... if you KNOW there is 'something after' (whether good or bad, whether it is reward or punishment... whether or not it is WHY you do what you do...) is that knowledge (in and OF itself) not affecting your capacity to MAKE those (independent) judgements about morality?

A subconscious mitigator? Am I any clearer?


I see what you mean, and I think the answer is no, that knowledge does not necessarily affect your ability to be moral. It would be impossible for me to say that I don't possess the knowledge that murder will get me thrown in jail. I don't believe that is the reason I don't COMMIT murder, however. Of course, I see no way of proving that it doesn't factor in, somewhere, but it is certainly not the prime cause.

Likewise, a person who is religious and believes in the afterlife can still choose to behave morally while alive because it is the right thing to do, aside from the rewards.

In fact, some Christian sects believe that there is nothing at all they can do to earn heaven, that God has already predetermined who gets to go, so they live a good life simply because it is, by their beliefs, the right thing to do. They know heaven exists, but until they get there, and quite divorced from anything they may do (even if they are evil bastards, if God says you are in, you are in) they don't know who gets a ticket. Yet they still behave morally.

I see what you mean, and I think the answer is no, that knowledge does not necessarily affect your ability to be moral. It would be impossible for me to say that I don't possess the knowledge that murder will get me thrown in jail. I don't believe that is the reason I don't COMMIT murder, however. Of course, I see no way of proving that it doesn't factor in, somewhere, but it is certainly not the prime cause.

Likewise, a person who is religious and believes in the afterlife can still choose to behave morally while alive because it is the right thing to do, aside from the rewards.

In fact, some Christian sects believe that there is nothing at all they can do to earn heaven, that God has already predetermined who gets to go, so they live a good life simply because it is, by their beliefs, the right thing to do. They know heaven exists, but until they get there, and quite divorced from anything they may do (even if they are evil bastards, if God says you are in, you are in) they don't know who gets a ticket. Yet they still behave morally.

Still missing part of it, I think...

I'm not talking about rewards or punishment... I'm just talking about the EXISTENCE of more-after-this... (of whichever flavour)... having an impact on your ability to INDEPENDENTLY assess your moral stance...?

I see what you mean, and I think the answer is no, that knowledge does not necessarily affect your ability to be moral. It would be impossible for me to say that I don't possess the knowledge that murder will get me thrown in jail. I don't believe that is the reason I don't COMMIT murder, however. Of course, I see no way of proving that it doesn't factor in, somewhere, but it is certainly not the prime cause.
*snip*


Hmm, what if it is the reason you (and i, and Santa...) don't kill people? Thinking that one wouldn't do it whether it get's one thrown in jail or not could just be a way to feel good about oneself.
But then, why aren't people killing each other for gain when they think they can get away with it? Wait, they are doing it! Except that mostly they aren't. Maybe. Now i only need to figure out if i really believe the above to be true, and if morals therefore can be said to exist....

It depends on whether you believe your access to eternal reward is contingent on behavior. I don't.

Here's a thought excercise. Let's say I am very faithful. And God comes to me and says if you willingly go to Dante's version of hell to be tortured for all eternity, I will allow the souls of all current, past and future persons into heaven. Or I could personally choose to go to heaven and leave everyone else to fend for themself. Now, that would make it possible to behave morally with a knowledge, not just faith, of afterlife. I could behave morally and be punished for it, or behave immorally and be rewarded.

Now, the scenario above isn't going to be a realistic one for those that don't believe in God, nor does it fit my belief in God, but it illustrates the point that one must take a simplistic view of religion in order to say that morality and religion are not always dependent on one another but are also not mutually exclusive.

Interesting construct, indeed... I wonder though, if the reward isn't that all the other souls get to go to heaven? If you spent eternity feeling good about yourself in hell, and that was better than feeling bad about yourself in heaven, does that flip the reward/punishment scale, or is it merely the result of doing the right thing? So is altruism really moral in this case, or is it pragmatic?

Let me pose an alternate question. What if God came to you and said "I want you to paint this person green**, an act which I declare to be moral, and which you, after consideration have accepted to be moral. There will be bad consequences for you." Do you do it? God has told you it needs to be done. It is moral. You will suffer for it.

** substitute here any action which you consider moral but which has no emotional weight for you personally... one for which there is no particular built in reward.

Still missing part of it, I think...

I'm not talking about rewards or punishment... I'm just talking about the EXISTENCE of more-after-this... (of whichever flavour)... having an impact on your ability to INDEPENDENTLY assess your moral stance...?

And I am saying that I don't see that there is any way to KNOW. I THINK that it does not, but I cannot be sure, simply because there is no way for me to compare it to NOT knowing that such a condition exists.

I think I can independently assess my moral stance, and that I can make moral judgements regardless of the knowledge that my actions will, ulitmately, have consequences on my well being, but I don't have any way to prove it one way or the other.

I don't know how it could be proved, save that you could test morals in a vacuum somehow, but since morals don't GROW in a vacuum, I don't know how you could arrange that.

Let me pose an alternate question. What if God came to you and said "I want you to paint this person green**, an act which I declare to be moral, and which you, after consideration have accepted to be moral. There will be bad consequences for you." Do you do it? God has told you it needs to be done. It is moral. You will suffer for it.

** substitute here any action which you consider moral but which has no emotional weight for you personally... one for which there is no particular built in reward.

If i was a devout follower of said god i would paint the guy green and feel good about having done the Will of God. Otherwise i wouldn't, because it would only piss off the guy being painted, and get me into trouble. So i think that at least i am driven by the awards of my actions (even if the award is "only" feeling good about myself). I don't know how to be moral without doing "what feels right" so i would probably feel moral in both cases. But viewing this affair objectively, i would say painting the guy green isn't very nice against him (moral against him). Not painting him green would therefore be the right thing to do.

For a person who IS religious, it has absolutely everything to do with religion, as that is where his moral code is based. Yes, you can get him to admit hypothetically that he would have the same moral code without religion, but the fact remains that his moral code is currently what it is BECAUSE of his religion. Morality in GENERAL may not be contingent on religion, but his morality in this SPECIFIC instance is.

Just as the atheist's morality is based on other teachings.

A Christian's morality can also be based on other teachings. Certainly you don't argue that all Christians get the exact same percentage of their morality from the Bible. I would suggest that many non-Christians in the US got some of their morality from the Bible whether directly or indirectly. I don't think the source of our morality is as independent of one another as Atheists and Theists sometimes believe.

Interesting construct, indeed... I wonder though, if the reward isn't that all the other souls get to go to heaven? If you spent eternity feeling good about yourself in hell, and that was better than feeling bad about yourself in heaven, does that flip the reward/punishment scale, or is it merely the result of doing the right thing? So is altruism really moral in this case, or is it pragmatic?

Let me pose an alternate question. What if God came to you and said "I want you to paint this person green**, an act which I declare to be moral, and which you, after consideration have accepted to be moral. There will be bad consequences for you." Do you do it? God has told you it needs to be done. It is moral. You will suffer for it.

** substitute here any action which you consider moral but which has no emotional weight for you personally... one for which there is no particular built in reward.

Oh, no, so now if there is any reward must I have done it for that reward? Most moral actions have a reward of some sort if nothing more than simply knowing that you did something moral. The difference is only whether or not the personal benefits or detriments is what drove the decision.

If you did it knowing someone else would/night suffer so that you would benefit, immoral.

If you did it simply because someone else would benefit, moral.

If you did it so that you would benefit and someone else would benefit or so you wouldn't suffer, amoral.

Hmm, what if it is the reason you (and i, and Santa...) don't kill people? Thinking that one wouldn't do it whether it get's one thrown in jail or not could just be a way to feel good about oneself.
But then, why aren't people killing each other for gain when they think they can get away with it? Wait, they are doing it! Except that mostly they aren't. Maybe. Now i only need to figure out if i really believe the above to be true, and if morals therefore can be said to exist....

Hm. While you probably won't believe me, this is actually true. There was a point at which I could have killed Bush Sr. when he was still VP and gotten away clean. I am not going into details, but it is absolutely true. I certainly didn't care for him at the time, and I also knew he was running for, and likely to be elected president. I didn't, as you may have noticed, kill him.

I certainly would have gained from it... and would not have been caught (of this I am completely sure). However, I believe that killing people is wrong, so I didn't do it. I guess my morals kicked in.

My existence as a mind isn't exactly falsifiable empirically either, but I don't therefore posit my mind's existence as meaningless. You can base your knowledge purely on reason rather than empirical truth; in point of fact, if David Hume is right, you have to do so in order to have any knowledge whatsoever.

Reason without empirical evidence is worthless, but that is beside the point.

The point is that you stated that faith is not being able to find a logical reason to disbelieve. Since it is impossible to find a logical reason to disbelieve in God, then that test is meaningless when dealing with God.

So while the concept of God is not meaningless, your test to determine what is true faith is.

I like the example... and it's a construct that is going to give me some thought... but, what I mean is... if you KNOW there is 'something after' (whether good or bad, whether it is reward or punishment... whether or not it is WHY you do what you do...) is that knowledge (in and OF itself) not affecting your capacity to MAKE those (independent) judgements about morality?

A subconscious mitigator? Am I any clearer?

No, I get your point, but it relies on that existence giving me some benefit for being moral or some punishment for being immoral. If that is not what you believe, the existence of the supernatural makes no difference.

Reason without empirical evidence is worthless, but that is beside the point.

The point is that you stated that faith is not being able to find a logical reason to disbelieve. Since it is impossible to find a logical reason to disbelieve in God, then that test is meaningless when dealing with God.

So while the concept of God is not meaningless, your test to determine what is true faith is.

To extend your point, there is actually a logical reason to disbelieve in all supernatural gods and deities. Assume a supernatural god/deity exists. Assume that this deity requires belief for salvation. What are the odds that we will believe exactly the right thing independently of interference by said being?

So given the variety of beliefs on earth the odds of being exactly right are astronomical.

Now, what if that being is jealous of choosing the wrong being to believe in. Suddenly, that belief has put you in disfavor where there was none before.

It seems the odds are advantage are small and the odds of disadvantage are large.

That's why faith requires *gasp* faith and not some ridiculous attempt to logically argue that one should simply cover their bases.

Oh, no, so now if there is any reward must I have done it for that reward? Most moral actions have a reward of some sort if nothing more than simply knowing that you did something moral. The difference is only whether or not the personal benefits or detriments is what drove the decision.


Well, that is sort of why I asked, since the question leading to your construct had to do with reward... but yes, I am aware that the actions themselves often lead to their own reward, and that is ok. It certainly doesn't, in my view, make them LESS moral simply because they carry their own benefits... but I was trying to pose the same question in a way that didn't have those benefits attached.

I am, you see, sort of still interested in that deviled avocado that GnI offered yesterday.
:)

Well, that is sort of why I asked, since the question leading to your construct had to do with reward... but yes, I am aware that the actions themselves often lead to their own reward, and that is ok. It certainly doesn't, in my view, make them LESS moral simply because they carry their own benefits... but I was trying to pose the same question in a way that didn't have those benefits attached.

I am, you see, sort of still interested in that deviled avocado that GnI offered yesterday.
:)

Weighing of consequences for yourself and others is not about reward/punishment. What it means is that selfish gain at a cost to no one is amoral, selfish gain at the cost of someone else is immoral, and unselfish loss to the gain of someone else is moral as is simply effort for gain for someone else.

Note: this is independent of outcome and deals only with forethought.

For a person who IS religious, it has absolutely everything to do with religion, as that is where his moral code is based. Yes, you can get him to admit hypothetically that he would have the same moral code without religion, but the fact remains that his moral code is currently what it is BECAUSE of his religion. Morality in GENERAL may not be contingent on religion, but his morality in this SPECIFIC instance is.

Just as the atheist's morality is based on other teachings.

The question here, though, is whether that is true morality. It is not moral to simply follow the law, which is what a person following a religious moral code is doing.

So if you suggest that a person's morality is based in a religious moral code, then you must either bite the bullet and say that you would be willing to murder if the religious moral code permitted it, or admit that you do not use religion to form a moral code, only fit religion into an already established moral code.

Weighing of consequences for yourself and others is not about reward/punishment. What it means is that selfish gain at a cost to no one is amoral, selfish gain at the cost of someone else is immoral, and unselfish loss to the gain of someone else is moral as is simply effort for gain for someone else.

Note: this is independent of outcome and deals only with forethought.

Gotcha. Good answer, thanks.

Hm. While you probably won't believe me, this is actually true. There was a point at which I could have killed Bush Sr. when he was still VP and gotten away clean. I am not going into details, but it is absolutely true. I certainly didn't care for him at the time, and I also knew he was running for, and likely to be elected president. I didn't, as you may have noticed, kill him.

I certainly would have gained from it... and would not have been caught (of this I am completely sure). However, I believe that killing people is wrong, so I didn't do it. I guess my morals kicked in.

So morals do seem to exist (newsflash!). But the scary thing is that if people would be more immoral/amoral they would benefit from it. And this would also mean that morality is illogical. Unless people actually put value on the wellbeing of others (the Greater Good, if you will). Which is probably the meaning of morals. The system does however seem to suck, as it promotes selfishness. I am beginning to think that we do live in a screwed world.
Well, at least we can choose what we do... unless reality is deterministic. Which would suck, so therefore it probably is.

To extend your point, there is actually a logical reason to disbelieve in all supernatural gods and deities. Assume a supernatural god/deity exists. Assume that this deity requires belief for salvation. What are the odds that we will believe exactly the right thing independently of interference by said being?

So given the variety of beliefs on earth the odds of being exactly right are astronomical.

Probabilities and odds cannot be calculated for supreme beings, as we cannot possibly understand the process nor the scope of possible outcomes.

It could be entirely possible that the supreme being presents himself in different forms to all people, and all that matters is whether the person responds like he should.

If you look at it that way, two people who have two completely different concepts of God could both be completely right.

In other words, reason doesn't apply because there is no benchmark for judgement.

That's why faith requires *gasp* faith and not some ridiculous attempt to logically argue that one should simply cover their bases.

I agree completely. Reason and logic are not suitable tests for faith, as faith is what takes over when reason and logic run out.

So if you suggest that a person's morality is based in a religious moral code, then you must either bite the bullet and say that you would be willing to murder if the religious moral code permitted it, or admit that you do not use religion to form a moral code, only fit religion into an already established moral code.

Well, unless the religion in question does permit murder it really doesn't make a difference. But if the religion did permit murder i wouldn't personally think it was moral, and would therefore agree with you on that point. Therefore it depends on the religion. But morality is really about choosing not to do evil, not about not doing evil just because someone forces you not to.

ahh, this is one of those silly threads that's going to get almost 10 pages of the same arguments and everyone ignoring each other.

Have fun!

The question here, though, is whether that is true morality. It is not moral to simply follow the law, which is what a person following a religious moral code is doing.

So if you suggest that a person's morality is based in a religious moral code, then you must either bite the bullet and say that you would be willing to murder if the religious moral code permitted it, or admit that you do not use religion to form a moral code, only fit religion into an already established moral code.

No no no no no, and no. You are missing the point. A person following a religious moral code is not necessarily just following the law. If they have considered the code and accepted it, they are as moral as anyone else who has accepted any other code after the same consideration. You are trying to put forth the idea that a religious moral code CANNOT actually be moral, and I disagree entirely.

Murder being PERMITTED and being REQUIRED are two entirely different issues. IF a person's morality is based in a religious moral code that stipulates murder as morally required, and that person has accepted the morality that murder is correct, then if the situation demanded it, and they did not commit murder, they would be violating THEIR OWN moral code. If murder was morally permissable, and yet the person chose not to commit murder, that does not negate the morality, it is simply a different choice. No bullet biting required.

That the moral code was been derived from religious beliefs makes no difference to personal morality. But it is entirely possible for it to have been so derived. And it does not matter. Religion CAN be the basis on which you decide what your morals are, just as the reading of fairy tales can, or the acceptance of your parent's beliefs, or any other source you use. If it happens that the religious moral code is not in sync with YOUR OWN personal code, Vittos, it in no way impinges on the validity of the religious moral code in and of itself, nor of those who CHOOSE to follow it, no matter which way you twist it.

Sure, you choose to follow a religion (and what parts of it you follow), but this only means that there is thinking involved in the process. If you only act morally because you fear that you are going to hell/prison otherwise, you're only intimidated into doing the right thing, which isn't the same as choosing to (at least not the same as choosing without bias). Same goes if you are only interested in the rewards. So whether or not you follow a religion/the laws of a country is irrelevant.

Probabilities and odds cannot be calculated for supreme beings, as we cannot possibly understand the process nor the scope of possible outcomes.

That's not what I mean. I mean that given the number of varying beliefs if one assumes that number of people who hold a belief compared to the number of people in the world is a representation of the odds of any random person landing on that belief, which given that we know the outcome is reasonable, then the odds of being right are astronomical even if the most popular belief is correct (given the variations on any given religion).

It could be entirely possible that the supreme being presents himself in different forms to all people, and all that matters is whether the person responds like he should.

In which case, the odds argument becomes useless in both directions. I was simply saying there is as more room to make a reasoned case against being faithful than not being faithful.

If you look at it that way, two people who have two completely different concepts of God could both be completely right.

In other words, reason doesn't apply because there is no benchmark for judgement.

Which is fair, but I was responding to the application of reason suggesting that one should believe. I was simply pointing out that suggesting that the unfaithful can reasonably shown to be wrong is spurious.

I agree completely. Reason and logic are not suitable tests for faith, as faith is what takes over when reason and logic run out.
Not run out, it just treads on ground where reason and logic cannot. As was pointed out, given my definition of morality, morality defies logic as well.

ahh, this is one of those silly threads that's going to get almost 10 pages of the same arguments and everyone ignoring each other.

Have fun!

Uh-huh. Glad to see that you couldn't be arsed to actually educate yourself before speaking. The discussion has been respectful and exploratory.

I'd argue with that as a definition of 'true faith'... since faith doesn't NEED justification.

I'd argue even further with the application of the theory... if you can accept ONE religion, how can you 'logically' not accept any other?

It's like Pascal... it's a nice justification for a faith you ALREADY hold... but not a valid tool for determining the 'value' of a faith.

I think what you are arguing here, however - is that you'd only 'accept' the Ten Commandments (for example) if, on examination, they matched your own compass?

Well, first of all, I was a little sloppy in my writing, so I should be more precise about what I mean to clear up any confusion. More specifically, if you have an argument that proves/disproves x, and you cannot come up with a logical argument that defeats said argument proving/disproving x, then you have faith in the existence or non-existence of x.

I'd agree that it's a different definition of faith than the more conventional one used by Christians, but I think also think it's a better one too, because if you believe in something in spite of reason or in the absence of reason, what have you proven but that you are irrational and therefore denying the very gifts that in the religious mind are what God gave us to seperate us from animals?

Now, as for the application, I think you could use such a method to come up with a very finely honed definition of God (or Gods), since you could use reason to abstract whether there is one God or many, Gods instead of none, a good God versus an evil God, etc. In that sense, it's hardly a justifactory measure so much as a tool to parse out exactly what God is and whether he is or is not a being worthy of worship.

No no no no no, and no. You are missing the point. A person following a religious moral code is not necessarily just following the law. If they have considered the code and accepted it, they are as moral as anyone else who has accepted any other code after the same consideration.

What are they doing by considering the religious code and accepting it?

They are examining it and comparing it to their already established moral code. So my point still stands, either they are acting immoral, or their morality is not based at all in their religion (quite to the contrary in fact, as the religion is based in the morality).

You are trying to put forth the idea that a religious moral code CANNOT actually be moral, and I disagree entirely.

Not at all. I am saying that the blind following of a religious code is not moral. I believe laws against murder are moral, but if someone does not commit murder only because of the law, he is not being moral.

The only alternative to blind following of a religious code is a rational examination of the code. That requires a preceding independent moral code.

If murder was morally permissable, and yet the person chose not to commit murder, that does not negate the morality, it is simply a different choice. No bullet biting required.

If a religion permits it but doesn't require it then murder would be morally ambigious. Now if an action is morally ambigious, a person would be willing to commit that action.

That the moral code was been derived from religious beliefs makes no difference to personal morality. But it is entirely possible for it to have been so derived. And it does not matter. Religion CAN be the basis on which you decide what your morals are, just as the reading of fairy tales can, or the acceptance of your parent's beliefs, or any other source you use. If it happens that the religious moral code is not in sync with YOUR OWN personal code, Vittos, it in no way impinges on the validity of the religious moral code in and of itself, nor of those who CHOOSE to follow it, no matter which way you twist it.

My point is this:

If moral views are drawn from a blind adherence to a religious moral code, the person is not acting in a moral way. He does not make a reasonable assessment of his own actions and beliefs, so he cannot accurately determine the effects of his views and actions on others.

If he were to accept the religious moral code by assessing its moral value, he must have already had his own moral code with which to make the comparison. In this situation his choice of religion is an extension of his own moral code, and not a basis for it.

What are they doing by considering the religious code and accepting it?

They are examining it and comparing it to their already established moral code. So my point still stands, either they are acting immoral, or their morality is not based at all in their religion (quite to the contrary in fact, as the religion is based in the morality).



Not at all. I am saying that the blind following of a religious code is not moral. I believe laws against murder are moral, but if someone does not commit murder only because of the law, he is not being moral.

The only alternative to blind following of a religious code is a rational examination of the code. That requires a preceding independent moral code.



If a religion permits it but doesn't require it then murder would be morally ambigious. Now if an action is morally ambigious, a person would be willing to commit that action.



My point is this:

If moral views are drawn from a blind adherence to a religious moral code, the person is not acting in a moral way. He does not make a reasonable assessment of his own actions and beliefs, so he cannot accurately determine the effects of his views and actions on others.

If he were to accept the religious moral code by assessing its moral value, he must have already had his own moral code with which to make the comparison. In this situation his choice of religion is an extension of his own moral code, and not a basis for it.
Sometimes, VO, you make me sad. You simply ignore all evidence contrary to you assertions and keep making them. If my parents offer up a moral code and examine and choose to follow it, then I behave morally. If I find a moral code in a Shakespearean play and do the same, then I behave morally. If I find it in a religious manual and do the same, then I behave morally. So long as the rewards and punishments offered by the religion are not driving my decision-making then I am behaving morally. And so long as my moral compass was influence by my religion, it is not independent.

They are not contingent on one another, but one's morality can be related to one's religion despite your claims to the contrary.

You pretend that one must have a moral compass in order to evaluate a moral compass. Where did my initial moral compass come from or are you claiming that people have an inherent moral compass? Because if one can't evaluate a moral compass without comparing it to a compass of one's own, then it must be true that either no one is moral or we develop a moral compass automatically.

Sometimes, VO, you make me sad. You simply ignore all evidence contrary to you assertions and keep making them. If my parents offer up a moral code and examine and choose to follow it, then I behave morally. If I find a moral code in a Shakespearean play and do the same, then I behave morally. If I find it in a religious manual and do the same, then I behave morally. So long as the rewards and punishments offered by the religion are not driving my decision-making then I am behaving morally. And so long as my moral compass was influence by my religion, it is not independent.

You quoted it but I don't think you read it:

"What are they doing by considering the religious code and accepting it?

They are examining it and comparing it to their already established moral code. So my point still stands, either they are acting immoral, or their morality is not based at all in their religion (quite to the contrary in fact, as the religion is based in the morality)."

They are not contingent on one another, but one's morality can be related to one's religion despite your claims to the contrary.

They can be related, but the development of moral values cannot be based in religion. Either the moral values must have precedence to the religion or there is no moral decision in following the religion.

You pretend that one must have a moral compass in order to evaluate a moral compass. Where did my initial moral compass come from or are you claiming that people have an inherent moral compass? Because if one can't evaluate a moral compass without comparing it to a compass of one's own, then it must be true that either no one is moral or we develop a moral compass automatically.

I would say that morals come from experience and genetic predispositions. People are born with only those predispositions which allowed us to evolve into such social creatures. Those predispositions are molded by the experiences and reason of the person.

I have a better question. How can one evaluate the moral value of a religious code if one does not already have a set of moral values?

You are pretty much stating that someone who has never known what a dollar was can accurately judge how many dollars he should pay for a sandwich.

ahh, this is one of those silly threads that's going to get almost 10 pages of the same arguments and everyone ignoring each other.

Have fun!

We are. And it's been very productive, thus far. Shame you appear to have missed that.

You quoted it but I don't think you read it:

"What are they doing by considering the religious code and accepting it?

They are examining it and comparing it to their already established moral code. So my point still stands, either they are acting immoral, or their morality is not based at all in their religion (quite to the contrary in fact, as the religion is based in the morality)."

I did read it. You make an assertion that's ridiculous. Where did the 'already established moral code' come from? It's possible to evaluate moral code with no basis for comparison. To simply look around oneself and see the consequences of one moral code or another and determine if they agree with the moral code they find in religion. It is just as possible to do as with one taught by your parents. Either morality does not exist at all, it can come from religion, or it's ingrained and unavoidable.

They can be related, but the development of moral values cannot be based in religion. Either the moral values must have precedence to the religion or there is no moral decision in following the religion.

Based on what? Your inability to evaluate an alternative. Fortunately, most are not so limited.

I would say that morals come from experience and genetic predispositions. People are born with only those predispositions which allowed us to evolve into such social creatures. Those predispositions are molded by the experiences and reason of the person.

If it's instinct then it's not moral. It's simply acting according to our predisposition. If experience plays into it, then it's quite obvious that our religious lessons are part of of our experiences. Checkmate.

I have a better question. How can one evaluate the moral value of a religious code if one does not already have a set of moral values?

Already answered that.

You are pretty much stating that someone who has never known what a dollar was can accurately judge how many dollars he should pay for a sandwich.
Not true. I'm stating that someone who never knew what a dollar was, could pick one up and evaluate the cost in dollars of everything they can find and figure it out.

Your bias is astounding. You make the claim that religious morality is not morality, but other morality is. If it's ingrained then it's not morality, it's instinct and that's obvious. It's not a result of decision-making but natural inclination. If it's a result of experience or partially the result of experience, which we appear to agree on, then religion is a part of our experiences. It appears that you simply won't allow your bias to include a particular kind of experience because then you'll have to admit the fallacy of your arguments.

Well, first of all, I was a little sloppy in my writing, so I should be more precise about what I mean to clear up any confusion. More specifically, if you have an argument that proves/disproves x, and you cannot come up with a logical argument that defeats said argument proving/disproving x, then you have faith in the existence or non-existence of x.


I'd have to start by pointing out that an 'argument' can never 'prove' anything. If I have an argument that 'suggests' that there is a god (like the one in the Bible), but there is NO empirical evidence, then it is not 'logical' to believe in that god, at all.

At best, we should be skeptical about a newly opened avenue. At worst, we should discount immediately since there is no way to 'quantify' it.

It is sloppy logic (indeed, it is not actually 'logic', at all) to assume that just because I CAN'T 'prove' "random speculation one" wrong, it must be true.

I'd agree that it's a different definition of faith than the more conventional one used by Christians, but I think also think it's a better one too, because if you believe in something in spite of reason or in the absence of reason, what have you proven but that you are irrational and therefore denying the very gifts that in the religious mind are what God gave us to seperate us from animals?


But, if you believe in something BECAUSE of 'evidence'... you are not exhibiting ANY kind of 'faith'.

Unless, you also believe that lloking at a sunrise is 'faith' in the sun.

Now, as for the application, I think you could use such a method to come up with a very finely honed definition of God (or Gods), since you could use reason to abstract whether there is one God or many, Gods instead of none, a good God versus an evil God, etc. In that sense, it's hardly a justifactory measure so much as a tool to parse out exactly what God is and whether he is or is not a being worthy of worship.

On the contrary - if you can accept the existence of ONE god, I can't see how you can logically deny the possibility of MORE THAN one god.

Similarly, if you are willing to accept Jehovah God as a concept, I can see no realistic logical way to refute 'Allah'.

What you have, is a wayto measure lines you've ALREADY drawn. It serves no purpose as a guideline to draw by.

*snip*

I thoroughly enjoyed that, my friend.

I thoroughly enjoyed that, my friend.

My last little 'outing'?

Tell me, my friend... is it just me - or is 'god of holes' now being used as a tool to justify the EXISTENCE of God... ?

I did read it. You make an assertion that's ridiculous. Where did the 'already established moral code' come from? It's possible to evaluate moral code with no basis for comparison. To simply look around oneself and see the consequences of one moral code or another and determine if they agree with the moral code they find in religion. It is just as possible to do as with one taught by your parents. Either morality does not exist at all, it can come from religion, or it's ingrained and unavoidable.

You are just rewording your argument. How does one evaluate the consequences of a moral code without already having a set of moral values?

If the consequences of a religion leads to the death of a million people, you must already have a moral conviction that those deaths are wrong to decide that the religion is immoral.

If experience plays into it, then it's quite obvious that our religious lessons are part of of our experiences. Checkmate.

Experiencing religious lessons and experiencing religion are two different things.

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?



I'll use this the next time I want to tackle religion in Debate Class. ;)

You are just rewording your argument. How does one evaluate the consequences of a moral code without already having a set of moral values?

If the consequences of a religion leads to the death of a million people, you must already have a moral conviction that those deaths are wrong to decide that the religion is immoral.



Experiencing religious lessons and experiencing religion are two different things.

Then allow me to pick up the argument for a while... I agree with what Jocabia has said so far, and you keep ignoring it and going back to your idea that one cannot evaluate "religious morals" unless one already has a set of morals.

OK... where did those other morals come from?

Point 2, if the consequences of ANYTHING (how about patriotism?) leads to to a million deaths, and if you have a moral conviction that says those deaths are wrong, then you will decide that the patriotism was wrong. If, however, your moral conviction is that the deaths were right, you will decide that patriotism is right.

WE are suggesting that you decided, based on what you learned from the study of patriotism, it was morally correct to kill a million people. If so, then you, and patriotism would still be moral, by your standards.

You keep trying to put religious morals in some sort of a box as separate from any other kind of morals one might acquire. Fundamentally, there is no difference. And if you insist that one cannot choose ones morals without having morals to begin with, you have to tell us WHERE those original morals come from.

Your dollar bill analogy doesn't work, because even if one has never encountered a dollar before, one can gather information about the value of a dollar, see what else a dollar will buy, and make a decision if a dollar seems to be a fair price for a sandwich. You acquire morals the same way. You are offered a premise, you look at what it means, and you weigh its value. You don't have to have a dollar to start off with, you get a dollar and work through the problem.

You are just rewording your argument. How does one evaluate the consequences of a moral code without already having a set of moral values?

By how it affects others, both in the short and long-term. You still fail to see the flaw in the logic that says morals must come from morals. If morals are required to create morals, then we're all lost or we're all just following instinct.

If the consequences of a religion leads to the death of a million people, you must already have a moral conviction that those deaths are wrong to decide that the religion is immoral.

Or if the consequences of your political beliefs, or the consequences of your cultural beliefs.

Experiencing religious lessons and experiencing religion are two different things.

They are? How?

OK... where did those other morals come from?

From reason and experience, as I have already said.

WE are suggesting that you decided, based on what you learned from the study of patriotism, it was morally correct to kill a million people. If so, then you, and patriotism would still be moral, by your standards.

OK, some where along the line you HAVE to make a value judgement of some action or ideology.

In this situation, after you have gathered information about patriotism, how do you come up with a valuation of it? How do you make the decision that patriotism is worth the death of a million people?

You keep trying to put religious morals in some sort of a box as separate from any other kind of morals one might acquire. Fundamentally, there is no difference. And if you insist that one cannot choose ones morals without having morals to begin with, you have to tell us WHERE those original morals come from.

A person is not truly moral if he follows a moral code for the sake of religious teachings. I am not saying that the morals themselves are different, only that the reasons for following them are different. Following a moral for the sake of religion and not for the merit of the moral itself is not truly moral.

If a moral is not valued for the "sake of religion" then religion is only coincidental.

By how it affects others, both in the short and long-term. You still fail to see the flaw in the logic that says morals must come from morals. If morals are required to create morals, then we're all lost or we're all just following instinct.

Morality comes from experience, and experience comes from actions. You cannot experience religion.

Or if the consequences of your political beliefs, or the consequences of your cultural beliefs.

What?

They are? How?

Are you experiencing WWII in a history lecture?

Morality comes from experience, and experience comes from actions. You cannot experience religion.

That's a load of crap. Everything we see, everything we hear, everything we think about and consider and learn and read, etc., is an experience. I'm sorry that is beyond your understanding.

What?

I'm saying that the example you gave could be applied to everywhere else we get morality from.

Are you experiencing WWII in a history lecture?
Yes. As a matter of fact, I certainly am. It's not a first-hand experience, perhaps not even a second-hand experience, but I'm definitely experiencing it. More imiportantly, I am most certainly experiencing the lecture.

Yes. As a matter of fact, I certainly am. It's not a first-hand experience, perhaps not even a second-hand experience, but I'm definitely experiencing it. More imiportantly, I am most certainly experiencing the lecture.


0_0

You must have some intense history lessons...even when my teacher has been smoking too much dope he doesn't make us enact WWII...

That's a load of crap. Everything we see, everything we hear, everything we think about and consider and learn and read, etc., is an experience. I'm sorry that is beyond your understanding.

Can anyone experience the existence of God? Can anyone say that they are 100% positive that they experienced an answered prayer? Can anyone say that they can tell the difference between helping out of kindness and helping out of religion?

People experience actions and words, they cannot experience religion. Sure they can experience a religious lecture, but they cannot experience the religion behind the lecture to give them some guide as to whether to accept the idea. Religion must be accepted on faith and not a reasonable evaluation of the merits of its morality.

I'm saying that the example you gave could be applied to everywhere else we get morality from.

I do not put individual rights first because I am a libertarian, I am a libertarian because I put individual rights first. I have a morality and I am libertarian because it fits my morality. A christian has a morality and is christian because it fits their morality.

If a christian takes the christian moral code and adapts their moral code to it, they are being disingenious and not moral.

Yes. As a matter of fact, I certainly am. It's not a first-hand experience, perhaps not even a second-hand experience, but I'm definitely experiencing it. More imiportantly, I am most certainly experiencing the lecture.

The lecture is all you are experiencing, by attending class you are not plunged into 1942 Europe.

0_0

You must have some intense history lessons...even when my teacher has been smoking too much dope he doesn't make us enact WWII...

Apparently you don't know what it means that it is not firsr-hand. Look that up and we'll chat when you know what that means.

Can anyone experience the existence of God? Can anyone say that they are 100% positive that they experienced an answered prayer? Can anyone say that they can tell the difference between helping out of kindness and helping out of religion?

People experience actions and words, they cannot experience religion. Sure they can experience a religious lecture, but they cannot experience the religion behind the lecture to give them some guide as to whether to accept the idea. Religion must be accepted on faith and not a reasonable evaluation of the merits of its morality.

HAHAHA!. What does that have to do with anything? Religion is not God and God is not religion. People can experience the lessons of religion and experience the act of being religious or being part of a religion. You are squirming and it's unbecoming. God must be accepted on faith and aspects of the religion, but because some things must doesn't mean that all things must. I can examine the lessons of religion as surely as I can examine my math lessons.

I do not put individual rights first because I am a libertarian, I am a libertarian because I put individual rights first. I have a morality and I am libertarian because it fits my morality. A christian has a morality and is christian because it fits their morality.

If a christian takes the christian moral code and adapts their moral code to it, they are being disingenious and not moral.

Ha. I love how you keep redefining things and then using those false definitions to argue your point. Christianity is not a blanket moral code. I believe that Jesus wanted us to examine the world and try to figure out how to be as moral as us flawed humans can possilby be.

The lecture is all you are experiencing, by attending class you are not plunged into 1942 Europe.

You have a very limited definition of experience. The purpose of a story is to experience it second-hand or third-hand or possibly to re-experience it.

HAHAHA!. What does that have to do with anything? Religion is not God and God is not religion.

Because I bring up God does not mean that I equate God with religion. It is a little thing that is called an example.

Religion is about the supernatural, which no one can say that they experienced with certainty.

People can experience the lessons of religion and experience the act of being religious or being part of a religion.

Someone who follows a moral code because they like the feeling of being religious is not accepting a moral code and are not being moral.

God must be accepted on faith and aspects of the religion, but because some things must doesn't mean that all things must. I can examine the lessons of religion as surely as I can examine my math lessons.

How do you examine the lessons of religion?

Ha. I love how you keep redefining things and then using those false definitions to argue your point. Christianity is not a blanket moral code. I believe that Jesus wanted us to examine the world and try to figure out how to be as moral as us flawed humans can possilby be.

So your morality does not actually come religious doctrines and teachings, but your own evaluation of the world?

It is possible to be moral and religious but it is very hard to be conservative fundamentalist in any religion and be moral. Most religious leaders/founders recognized this. That is why such people as Jesus saved his harshest criticism for those who claimed to be the most religious.

Well, doesn't being religious make you moral only if you have the intention to actually follow the rules of your religion instead of doing it because you're told to?

Ha. I love how you keep redefining things and then using those false definitions to argue your point. Christianity is not a blanket moral code. I believe that Jesus wanted us to examine the world and try to figure out how to be as moral as us flawed humans can possilby be.

And back the train up here Joc,

I said a while back:

If the consequences of a religion leads to the death of a million people, you must already have a moral conviction that those deaths are wrong to decide that the religion is immoral.

To which you said:

Or if the consequences of your political beliefs, or the consequences of your cultural beliefs.

Now that caused me to go off and point out that I get my political beliefs from my morals, not the other way around, which is how religion should be.

But that gets away from the original point I was trying to make, which you never addressed.

I think it depends on why you obey rules. I don't avoid murder because I fear the consequences. I avoid it because I don't think it's right. I don't defend rights in hopes of sex with some feminist who is very in touch with her bisexual side. The sex is just a nice side-effect.

This is essentially what I was going to say. A dog obeys rules because it fears punishment, not because it believes they are right. Some people treat religion this way, and I would not call them moral people. They live a "moral" life, not because they are moral people who believe that what they do is right, but because they are afraid of punishment otherwise. These are the same people who say, "If there is no God, there is no reason not to rape/steal/kill/etc."

On the other hand, one can be religious and think that morals come from God, but still follow them because one feels they are right, not because one is afraid of some punishment otherwise. I would call this an overall more mature view.

The same question, by the way, could be asked of children. Children, especially the very young, often follow rules because of fear of punishment, or hope of a reward, not because they yet understand why we tell them not to hit another child or something else. As they get older, they (hopefully) begin to understand why these rules are in place, why it is wrong to harm another, and they begin to refrain out of a sense of morals, rather than out of fear of punishment.

Well, doesn't being religious make you moral only if you have the intention to actually follow the rules of your religion instead of doing it because you're told to?

Exactly, for you to be religious and moral at the same time, religion and morality must be coincidental. You should behave in a way because it is the moral behavior, not because it is in a religious code.

On the other hand, one can be religious and think that morals come from God, but still follow them because one feels they are right, not because one is afraid of some punishment otherwise. I would call this an overall more mature view.

And that is a perfectly fine view. However, were your morals not divine in nature, would you still follow them? In other words, is your morality defined by your religion, or are your morals and religion coincidental?

The same question, by the way, could be asked of children. Children, especially the very young, often follow rules because of fear of punishment, or hope of a reward, not because they yet understand why we tell them not to hit another child or something else. As they get older, they (hopefully) begin to understand why these rules are in place, why it is wrong to harm another, and they begin to refrain out of a sense of morals, rather than out of fear of punishment.

Yes, morals develop as a reasonable extension of experience.

If Christians were Christians, then yes, Grave-n-idle, you would be right. They aren't however. Most Christians these days are just secular humanists that go to church once in a while. They base their morality off of secular concepts of human worth, not off of what God says they should do.

How do you know that what God says we should do is not the same as those ideals reached by secular humanism?


If the dog disobey... does that say anything about morality? Or does it just mean you have a disobedient dog?

Having watched dog behaviour before, having seen a male dog try to breed with just about every other member of it's 'family' and a cat... I'm inclined to think that dog behaviour is less about 'moral codes', and more about the 'pack'... where the non-alphas 'obey' the alpha.

Isn't that a perfect description of most religious heirarchies, also?

To a point, perhaps. But not all religion follows a hierarchy, other than God being the guiding figure in an individual's life.

And that is a perfectly fine view. However, were your morals not divine in nature, would you still follow them? In other words, is your morality defined by your religion, or are your morals and religion coincidental?

That's a bit of a trick question because I don't think there is a such thing as morals that are not divine in nature. I think we, as a species, are moving towards the correct morality, learning as we mature as a society - but moving towards those morals laid out by God in the first place.

But if you are asking if, were I to for some reason stop believe in God, I would still follow the same morals, the answer is yes. I don't follow them because they come from God, but instead because they are right. Much like I don't follow the things my mother taught me because she will be mad - she certainly wouldn't punish me for them at this point - but because I know them in my heart to be the right thing to do, and thus I still follow them.

Yes, morals develop as a reasonable extension of experience.

I would say that morals develop out of empathy and understanding, not necessarily out of experience. I have never known someone who was murdered or who committed murder, but I know that murder is wrong. I have never, to my knowledge, known someone who was HIV positive or had AIDS, but I know it would be wrong to ostrasize them. I know this because I, put in the same position, would not want those things to happen to me. This is something my religion teaches, but it not because my religion says it that I know it to be true. To a point, it may be the other way around. I know my religion to be true because its teachings are.

That's a bit of a trick question because I don't think there is a such thing as morals that are not divine in nature. I think we, as a species, are moving towards the correct morality, learning as we mature as a society - but moving towards those morals laid out by God in the first place.

Granted.

But if you are asking if, were I to for some reason stop believe in God, I would still follow the same morals, the answer is yes. I don't follow them because they come from God, but instead because they are right. Much like I don't follow the things my mother taught me because she will be mad - she certainly wouldn't punish me for them at this point - but because I know them in my heart to be the right thing to do, and thus I still follow them.

So your morals are not dependent on your religious views, your religious views only reflect what you believe to be the most acceptable explanation for our existence (or something like that).

I would say that morals develop out of empathy and understanding, not necessarily out of experience. I have never known someone who was murdered or who committed murder, but I know that murder is wrong. I have never, to my knowledge, known someone who was HIV positive or had AIDS, but I know it would be wrong to ostrasize them. I know this because I, put in the same position, would not want those things to happen to me.

Yes, I agree that there are evolutionary traits developed as we became social creatures, namely empathy and understanding. But I don't think one can be empathetic without firsthand experience of a particular role. If one does not know how one would feel in a certain position, he/she could not project that on to another person.

This is something my religion teaches, but it not because my religion says it that I know it to be true. To a point, it may be the other way around. I know my religion to be true because its teachings are.

Exactly. To be truly moral and religious, one knows their religion through their morals, not their morals through their religion.

Tell me Dempublicents, are you a deist, in that you believe God set everything in motion and then stepped back, or do you think he keeps a constant intervention?

My point is that most Christians focus on the "inspiration to make things better" without actually having any interest whatsoever in acheiving salvation. Nor do they particularly care about reward and punishment. That's my basic point: most Christians are secular humanists. The rules of Christianity are not the rules that they base their decisions off of, and as such they can't be pegged into a description of simply being obedient.

You seem to think that a Christian should focus on reward and punishment or achieving salvation. Of course, what you seem to think is the polar opposite of Christ's teachings - ie. Christianity. The focus is not supposed to be reward and punishment, although they are there. And the focus is not supposed to be an attempt to achieve salvation, although it is freely given as a gift. The focus in following Christ is to focus on the "inspiration to make things better." Doing so wouldn't make you less religious in following Christ, but more so. And the "rules of Christianity" are the teachings of Christ.


Could one then actually say that being religious means slavishly following something or another?

Not across the board, no.

Or is being religious the same as thinking for yourself?
Being religious is on the other hand not the same as thinking for yourself (obviously).

How is that "obvious"? If you ask your mother for advice, does that mean that you are not thinking for yourself? Why then, if I ask God for guidance, am I said to "not be thinking for myself"?

Tell me Dempublicents, are you a deist, in that you believe God set everything in motion and then stepped back, or do you think he keeps a constant intervention?

I don't believe that God is constantly physically affecting things, if that's what you're asking. The laws of the universe are as they are - as they were set out to be, and they have been working and developing our world and the species in it since these things began.

But I do believe that God intervenes, by providing guidance to those who ask for it. I also believe that Christ was a human incarnation of God (in some form or another, I don't get really deep into the various theologies there) come to provide salvation and a healthy dose of guidance to all of humanity.

Edit: This wasn't a great answer - I'm a little tired. I do know what deism is, so I know you weren't specifically asking about major physical intervention, but that is what some people are thinking when they ask if God intervenes.

So long as it's not Red Ajah, I think we can still talk... I mean, huh?

Yes, I came clean. I wanted to see what was thought by 'each side', and what the arguments were. I was pretty pleased with the efforts of just about all concerned, I think. :)

Oh dear. Does this mean the thread was officially over before I even joined (and only halfway into the pages that are already here)??

=)

Sort of. You can say that an action is good or bad, but you can't really measure the morality of a person by the results of their actions. After all, a person who tries to do good still has goodness within them no matter how badly their attempts accidentally turn out; by contrast, I'd still be willing to call a man evil even if by his evil intent he accidentally did the right thing.

As such, while I'd be willing to say that a good man will do good things more often than a bad person will, I still define them as good or bad purely on the basis of the goodness or badness of their intents.

This same thing actually goes for selfishness. We will call an action selfish, nonselfish, or selfless based on the results of the action. But this is only because we can only see the results of the action; we cannot measure the intent behind them. Selfishness and selflessness, however, are descriptors dependent upon the motivation. Anything that one does for their own purposes, with disregard for others, is selfish. But it could be possible for someone to do something selfishly that appeared unselfish or even selfless. If a person gives to charity for the tax write-off or gives blood to fit in with the rest of the guys at work, he is being selfish, but from the results of his actions we would deem it to be nonselfish.

I have thought this before as well. The prime way of getting this point through to religious people is to ask them "Would you murder someone if you found out there was no God and there would be no reprecussion?"

The scary ones are those who say yes.

I only partially agree with this statement. I believe a certain level of morality is possible with religion, and that some religious beliefs may allow greater moral growth than others, but I also believe that any person who sees a superstitious force as the source of their morality is a person who will never be able to attain moral adulthood. Thus, I believe that in many cases morality is not possible with religion.

Why does it matter where you think morals ultimately "come from"? It could be God. It could simply be evolution - that we as a society developed morals as a survival technique. It could be that you think morality is just out there to be found and don't place a source on it at all.

But if the reasoning and the conclusions are ultimately the same, why does it matter where you think they came from? If my mother tells me a fable of sorts that teaches me a lesson, does it matter if my mother wrote the story? Does it matter that I learned the lesson from a fable, rather than from actual occurrence?

My thanks. I was hoping you'd arrive. If Dempublicents turns up... I've got 'the full set'.

=) I turned up eventually, so maybe you'll check this tomorrow and see. I won't be on during the day for a few - I'm out of town at a place with *gasp* 28.8 k dial up.

You open an interesting door... the 'eternal life' clause. If one 'knows' there is an afterlife, even IF that is not why they behave 'morally', is not the simple knowledge of infinity a mitigator... the fact that you can acknowledge 'eternal reward' or 'eternal punishment' acts as a 'buffer' on your own interpretations of 'morality'... perhaps?

One could say the same about a belief that there is no afterlife - it will temper a person's morality as well. My fiance looks at morality as a way of bettering the world while we're here - partially because he thinks that here and now is *all* that we have.

The question here, though, is whether that is true morality. It is not moral to simply follow the law, which is what a person following a religious moral code is doing.

Is an atheist who comes to a moral code simply following the law? You seem to be stuck in the idea here of *organized* religion, and a code already being set out before a person starts to explore a religion. But religion need not be set out by other people. For some of us, it is a very personal thing. Thus, when it comes right down to it, we are no more simply following the law than an atheist is when said atheist follows the moral code she has come to somehow.

So if you suggest that a person's morality is based in a religious moral code, then you must either bite the bullet and say that you would be willing to murder if the religious moral code permitted it, or admit that you do not use religion to form a moral code, only fit religion into an already established moral code.

First of all, just because something is permitted does not mean that one would do it. My religion permits me to bunjee jump. I'm not going to do it.

Secondly, one is not necessarily "fitting religion into an already established moral code." Both evolve in concert and are interrelated in the religious person. The more one's moral code develops, the more one's religion develops, and vice versa.

Can anyone experience the existence of God?

Yes.

Can anyone say that they are 100% positive that they experienced an answered prayer?

No.

Can anyone say that they can tell the difference between helping out of kindness and helping out of religion?

From an outside viewpoint? No.

People experience actions and words, they cannot experience religion.

Of course they can. They simply cannot experience the religion of another, any more than they can experience the motivations of another.

OK... where did those other morals come from?

From reason and experience, as I have already said.

A person is not truly moral if he follows a moral code for the sake of religious teachings. I am not saying that the morals themselves are different, only that the reasons for following them are different. Following a moral for the sake of religion and not for the merit of the moral itself is not truly moral.

If a moral is not valued for the "sake of religion" then religion is only coincidental.

If the way we get morals in the first place is "from reason and experience" how can you decide that if morals that are acquired through the experience of religious teachings, this makes the person choosing them somehow less moral? You follow your morals for the sake of "reason and experience", so how does someone whose reasons and experiences are different than yours become not moral? Simply because you don't LIKE their reasons?

We have LONG since dispensed with the idea that a person who follows a religious code of morals is doing so without benefit of having explored those morals... that may have been a discussion point earlier, but we are past that. So here we have two people, one who says "I am religious, I believe certain things, and I have examined the moral code of my religion and hold it to be true in my own life", and one who says "I am not religious. I believe certain things. I have pulled my moral code from non religious sources and examined it and hold it to be true in my own life." There is absolutely NO fundamental difference between the morality of these two people. None. Each is completely moral if he follows the precepts of his own moral code.


WE are suggesting that you decided, based on what you learned from the study of patriotism, it was morally correct to kill a million people. If so, then you, and patriotism would still be moral, by your standards.

OK, some where along the line you HAVE to make a value judgement of some action or ideology.

In this situation, after you have gathered information about patriotism, how do you come up with a valuation of it? How do you make the decision that patriotism is worth the death of a million people?

If you are asking how I would, the answer is, I wouldn't. But you had posited a case where someone had made that particular moral judgement, based on religion. I was trying to point out that the judgement itself had nothing to do with religion, that if you substituted something else in the place of religion (and I used the example of patriotism), that making such a moral judgement would be EXACTLY the same as if you had used religion to get there.

I wonder... is the problem here that you somehow think that when I speak of religious morals you think I mean objective morals? I don't. I am speaking of subjective morals, entirely. A moral judgement is not good or bad in a vacuum, but only when it is put into practice and one BELIEVES it to be good or bad. This is true of a moral system posed by a religion, as well as one posed by a comic book.

Yes, I agree that there are evolutionary traits developed as we became social creatures, namely empathy and understanding. But I don't think one can be empathetic without firsthand experience of a particular role. If one does not know how one would feel in a certain position, he/she could not project that on to another person.

You give little or no credit to one of the most powerful tools in our arsenal, our imagination. The reason stories are so powerful, the reason we can be empathetic about things that have never happened to us is that we can take the experiences we've had, what we've been told and what we've read and mold them into what we think another person is feeling. If what you say above were true a man could never empathize with a woman and a woman could never empathize with a man. The brain and our imaginations are much more creative than that.

To a point, perhaps. But not all religion follows a hierarchy, other than God being the guiding figure in an individual's life.


Which is why I am a MUCH bigger fan of (what I term) 'disorganised' religion, rather than 'organised'.

It just so happens that I believe Jesus ALSO preached 'disorganised' religion... and that this 'organised' variety that seems so prevalent (especially in my current geography) is almost 'missing the point'.

Oh dear. Does this mean the thread was officially over before I even joined (and only halfway into the pages that are already here)??

=)

Considering my previous LONGEST thread was, I don't know... maybe 3 pages.... I wasn't expecting it to get as far as it even had, when I wrote how much I'd appreciated the efforts of all concerned.

As I wrote later (and, as I see you read later), I had hoped you were going to put in an appearance, anyway. :)

=) I turned up eventually, so maybe you'll check this tomorrow and see. I won't be on during the day for a few - I'm out of town at a place with *gasp* 28.8 k dial up.


Yay! Thanks for your thoughts. :)

Now... what is this '28.8k dial-up' of which you speak? I've heard the WORDS, before, but I don't understand any way they could make sense... is it like 'an 8-track'?

;)


One could say the same about a belief that there is no afterlife - it will temper a person's morality as well. My fiance looks at morality as a way of bettering the world while we're here - partially because he thinks that here and now is *all* that we have.

I see where you are coming from... but I see the 'no afterlife' as something of a default... since we FIRST encounter a finite world, long before we learn to stretch outside of it's borders. One only has to look at how long we (collectively) remained heliocentric to see evidence of that.

So - I guess I'm assuming that the 'default' setting is the 'morality' (if it exists) of the person who conceives NO afterlife... and gaining an understanding of eternity must, then, be a departure from the 'default'.

Make sense? Hideously flawed?

Which is why I am a MUCH bigger fan of (what I term) 'disorganised' religion, rather than 'organised'.

It just so happens that I believe Jesus ALSO preached 'disorganised' religion... and that this 'organised' variety that seems so prevalent (especially in my current geography) is almost 'missing the point'.

Why is it so hard to find, oh, I don't know, Christians, who also notice this? I'm tired of taking my spiritual guidance from an Atheist ;)

I see where you are coming from... but I see the 'no afterlife' as something of a default... since we FIRST encounter a finite world, long before we learn to stretch outside of it's borders. One only has to look at how long we (collectively) remained heliocentric to see evidence of that.

So - I guess I'm assuming that the 'default' setting is the 'morality' (if it exists) of the person who conceives NO afterlife... and gaining an understanding of eternity must, then, be a departure from the 'default'.

Make sense? Hideously flawed?
May I object? The world I FIRST encountered had existed forever, and would exist forever. 'Death' was just a word, not a concept; although it was sad when dad's car "died", I was reassured that it would be "turned into scrap metal", so all's well. Continuity is maintained, and we are safe. 'Mortality' came much later.

Why is it so hard to find, oh, I don't know, Christians, who also notice this? I'm tired of taking my spiritual guidance from an Atheist ;)


Likely because the majority of those that use the label Christian (and the majority of people, it being a human condition, not a uniquely Christian issue), are comfortable with a known structure and being told what to do rather than the effort of thinking and discovering/deciding for themselves.

Now, if we could sort based on those that are Christian because it's the label they inherited vs. those that are Christian because they are convinced that Christ is their Lord and Messiah, I think you might find them easier to find in the latter group.

Because I bring up God does not mean that I equate God with religion. It is a little thing that is called an example.

Religion is about the supernatural, which no one can say that they experienced with certainty.



Someone who follows a moral code because they like the feeling of being religious is not accepting a moral code and are not being moral.

You would have a point if I suggested that's what I was talking about. There are religious experiences that we have that can teach us morality, but don't require us to blindly accept that morality. You seem to not see the difference and I don't think it's accidental. It's fairly clear to me that you're going to keep redefining the terrain here until we can't possibly be right. That's why you want to redefine experiences to actions, because it makes it impossible to learn from the experience of religion. Unfortunately, objectively experiences are more than that, not just for the purposes of this discussion, but generally. I will not allow you to make up a fantasy world just so you don't have to admit that your claims are unfounded.

How do you examine the lessons of religion?

The same way I examine any lessons. You want to treat them as unique but I examine all things using the same faculties. But you cannot argue that my behavior would be identical minus the teachings of my mother or the teachings of the Bible. Both had a significant effect on how I view the world, but both are not followed blindly.

So your morality does not actually come religious doctrines and teachings, but your own evaluation of the world?[/QUOTE]
It comes from both. Morality can come seperately from religion of it can have partially or fully from religion. Because we've analyzed the lessons of a teacher and applied them to the world, does not negate the effect of the teacher.

Why is it so hard to find, oh, I don't know, Christians, who also notice this? I'm tired of taking my spiritual guidance from an Atheist ;)

It's a thought that actually (seriously) crosses my mind from time to time... HAS 'organised' religion deliberately stamped-out as much of the 'personal' kind as it could? Kind of monopolies... chasing out the alternatives. Making sure if you want 'god' you have to 'buy' the Official Version?

May I object? The world I FIRST encountered had existed forever, and would exist forever. 'Death' was just a word, not a concept; although it was sad when dad's car "died", I was reassured that it would be "turned into scrap metal", so all's well. Continuity is maintained, and we are safe. 'Mortality' came much later.

Ah - you misunderstand me... we have no initial concept of duration, much less when duration 'ends'... that is entirely different from having a concept of duration of eternity.

Look at the world through the eyes of the child. You live on street A, you go to school on street C. It is very easy to miss even the EXISTENCE of street B, though it is between the other two.

That's just how our 'world perception' works, as a young child. We have to LEARN context, where we ARE in the universe.

Until that happens, the universe we see could be ALL fo it, because we only interact with it as an ASPECT of ourselves. It's like the way children suddenly realise that other children are different PEOPLE, rather than aspects of the environment.

It's a thought that actually (seriously) crosses my mind from time to time... HAS 'organised' religion deliberately stamped-out as much of the 'personal' kind as it could? Kind of monopolies... chasing out the alternatives. Making sure if you want 'god' you have to 'buy' the Official Version?

Deliberately?
No.

People in general fear differences, especially if those differences imply they might be wrong and if being wrong causes them to fear for their place in eternity, then you have a dangerous cocktail.

Deliberately?
No.

People in general fear differences, especially if those differences imply they might be wrong and if being wrong causes them to fear for their place in eternity, then you have a dangerous cocktail.

I don't know.... this particular 'brand' of 'organisation' has nearly two millenia of practise, and it has certainly been fairly 'deliberate' at times.

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?

Well, i suppose if you come to a moral decision about how you should live your life, THEN find that it matches a religion and so become religious, then yes, you can.

I don't know.... this particular 'brand' of 'organisation' has nearly two millenia of practise, and it has certainly been fairly 'deliberate' at times.

Yes, so much so that it sought to exterminate other sects and turned being outside of the church (excommunicated) into a stigma and a recipe for financial and cultural doom.

Yes, so much so that it sought to exterminate other sects and turned being outside of the church (excommunicated) into a stigma and a recipe for financial and cultural doom.

Indeed, more than once, it seems, since I arrived in the Bible Belt... I have been 'held back' in work, or treated as 'second class'... because I am not a 'good Christian'...

I don't know.... this particular 'brand' of 'organisation' has nearly two millenia of practise, and it has certainly been fairly 'deliberate' at times.


You speak of it as if it is some form of collective sentience instead of the disjointed hopes and fears of countless souls, both good and vile struggling to find Truth or Power or Faith or Control.

Indeed, more than once, it seems, since I arrived in the Bible Belt... I have been 'held back' in work, or treated as 'second class'... because I am not a 'good Christian'...

It's times when I hear things like that make me feel America is suddenly so alien when it so often otherwise seems so similar to us.

You speak of it as if it is some form of collective sentience instead of the disjointed hopes and fears of countless souls, both good and vile struggling to find Truth or Power or Faith or Control.

The entity he is talking about was not just a conglomeration fo souls. It was a very deliberate agency that required membership in many places. In the past the Christian Church was practically a nation state. It hardly fits the description you give it.

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?


You're confused. Being moral has nothing to do with 'obeying' God. Even non-believers have morals when it suits them. The difference is that a Christian attempts to follow the moral examples set by Jesus; which often exceed secular moral viewpoints. Any shortcomings don't imply that we aren't obedient to God since we still believe in Jesus Christ. Besides, "There is none righteous, no, not one".

The entity he is talking about was not just a conglomeration fo souls. It was a very deliberate agency that required membership in many places. In the past the Christian Church was practically a nation state. It hardly fits the description you give it.


Which Christian Church is this that you are referring to and is it somehow reaching out and deliberately stamping things out?
I don't deny parts of it have been just as you describe in the past, but still, that is parts, not the whole.

Even "The Christian Church" itself is a conglomeration of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and too numerous to name Protesting denominations.

Which Christian Church is this that you are referring to and is it somehow reaching out and deliberately stamping things out?
I don't deny parts of it have been just as you describe in the past, but still, that is parts, not the whole.

Even "The Christian Church" itself is a conglomeration of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and too numerous to name Protesting denominations.

Yes, be we were talking about specifically the Catholic Church centered in Rome. We were talking about a particular incarnation of the Christian Church, not all Christians nor all Christian Churches. That's the point. Are you arguing that Church didn't exist or do you not have a point?

Is an atheist who comes to a moral code simply following the law? You seem to be stuck in the idea here of *organized* religion, and a code already being set out before a person starts to explore a religion. But religion need not be set out by other people. For some of us, it is a very personal thing. Thus, when it comes right down to it, we are no more simply following the law than an atheist is when said atheist follows the moral code she has come to somehow.

I completely agree with you. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that religious people can be moral. However, when people take on a moral code because their religion ordains it, then they are not being moral.

Those who combine religion and morality are like you. They find their morality using their reason and what they know about the world, then they assume that their morality comes from God.

First of all, just because something is permitted does not mean that one would do it. My religion permits me to bunjee jump. I'm not going to do it.

If your morality permits it but doesn't require it, it is morally ambigious. If an action is morally ambigious, then you will undertake it if it improves your situation.

Secondly, one is not necessarily "fitting religion into an already established moral code." Both evolve in concert and are interrelated in the religious person. The more one's moral code develops, the more one's religion develops, and vice versa.

But the morality develops independently and the religion adapts to it. If at any time one thinks "This is moral because my religion says it is" they have ceased to be moral.

If the way we get morals in the first place is "from reason and experience" how can you decide that if morals that are acquired through the experience of religious teachings, this makes the person choosing them somehow less moral? You follow your morals for the sake of "reason and experience", so how does someone whose reasons and experiences are different than yours become not moral? Simply because you don't LIKE their reasons?

If you accept religious teachings without examination you are not being moral. If you accept religious teachings upon careful examination, you are using your reason to analyze what you know of the world to decide on your morals. Either you are not being moral, or you are not using religion.

We have LONG since dispensed with the idea that a person who follows a religious code of morals is doing so without benefit of having explored those morals... that may have been a discussion point earlier, but we are past that. So here we have two people, one who says "I am religious, I believe certain things, and I have examined the moral code of my religion and hold it to be true in my own life", and one who says "I am not religious. I believe certain things. I have pulled my moral code from non religious sources and examined it and hold it to be true in my own life." There is absolutely NO fundamental difference between the morality of these two people. None. Each is completely moral if he follows the precepts of his own moral code.

I have never said that one could not explore religious morals and decide to adopt them.

I have only said that, in that situation, the code enters into a person's morality because it meshes with how he perceives the world. Someone forms their morality through their interpretation of how the world works, religion is coincedental.

If you are asking how I would, the answer is, I wouldn't. But you had posited a case where someone had made that particular moral judgement, based on religion. I was trying to point out that the judgement itself had nothing to do with religion, that if you substituted something else in the place of religion (and I used the example of patriotism), that making such a moral judgement would be EXACTLY the same as if you had used religion to get there.

Assuming that you had a mind that could reach that conclusion, how would you reach that conclusion?

And just like religion, if you make blanket moral judgements based on your political ideology you are being immoral as well. The only possible way to be moral is to reasonably assess the cost and benefits of one's actions on another person. Another person CANNOT benefit from YOUR religion, so if religion has any weight on your decision, your decision will be immorally skewed.

Yay! Thanks for your thoughts. :)

Your welcome. It's an interesting thread, especially in light of the numerous "can you be atheist and moral?" questions that seem to come up.

Now... what is this '28.8k dial-up' of which you speak? I've heard the WORDS, before, but I don't understand any way they could make sense... is it like 'an 8-track'?

Sort of, except that you *can* find something to use it on. It just doesn't work well. =)

I see where you are coming from... but I see the 'no afterlife' as something of a default... since we FIRST encounter a finite world, long before we learn to stretch outside of it's borders. One only has to look at how long we (collectively) remained heliocentric to see evidence of that.

So - I guess I'm assuming that the 'default' setting is the 'morality' (if it exists) of the person who conceives NO afterlife... and gaining an understanding of eternity must, then, be a departure from the 'default'.

Make sense? Hideously flawed?

It does make sense, except for one thing - most people are raised in a household where believing in an afterlife of some sort is a matter of fact, at least in most societies. Thus, it would seem that the default in most places is, once you are old enough to conceive of one or the other, to believe in an afterlife, and only those who move outside of that default decide that there isn't one.

This could be off-base and colored by my own experience in a majority-Judeo-Christian type society, but it does seem to be the teachings of most societies. And children seem to have trouble conceiving of death itself, much less what comes (or doesn't come) after.

You give little or no credit to one of the most powerful tools in our arsenal, our imagination. The reason stories are so powerful, the reason we can be empathetic about things that have never happened to us is that we can take the experiences we've had, what we've been told and what we've read and mold them into what we think another person is feeling. If what you say above were true a man could never empathize with a woman and a woman could never empathize with a man. The brain and our imaginations are much more creative than that.

We will get into a debate on epistemology if we are not careful.

Anyway, imagination is a powerful tool, it is how we project our own feelings on to another person, and yes, it can allow us to know what it feels like to be in a situation we have never been in before. However, imagination needs some basis in experience.

It's a thought that actually (seriously) crosses my mind from time to time... HAS 'organised' religion deliberately stamped-out as much of the 'personal' kind as it could? Kind of monopolies... chasing out the alternatives. Making sure if you want 'god' you have to 'buy' the Official Version?

To a point, yes. I think those who have gained power (in this life, obviously) from the control of others would have to work very hard to stamp out any notion of personal religion. If you don't need the hierarchy, how can they gain stature, power, and money just by being the hierarchy? The utter hypocrisy of so many of those "higher ups" within even a single church was a big part of what turned me off to the organization of religion.

Indeed, more than once, it seems, since I arrived in the Bible Belt... I have been 'held back' in work, or treated as 'second class'... because I am not a 'good Christian'...

From what I've told, this type of thing is even more prevalent in Salt Lake City if you aren't a "good Mormon", never mind being a Christian - it's got to be Mormon there. Not that I would find it excusable for any religion, anywhere.

I completely agree with you. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that religious people can be moral. However, when people take on a moral code because their religion ordains it, then they are not being moral.

You are still stuck on the idea of religion as "other". I have a moral code because my religion ordains it and a religion because my moral code ordains it. The two cannot be logically separated in me.

If your morality permits it but doesn't require it, it is morally ambigious. If an action is morally ambigious, then you will undertake it if it improves your situation.

Here you assume that a moral code derived from a religious one must necessarily include only that which was included in the pre-made religious code. Basing my religion (and morality) upon the teachings of Christ does not mean that I make no judgements about those things which Christ did not specifically refer to.

But the morality develops independently and the religion adapts to it. If at any time one thinks "This is moral because my religion says it is" they have ceased to be moral.

No, it doesn't. The morality develops in concert with the religion. They are intertwined to the point that one cannot say that one is independent of the other - at least not in some people. It is an ongoing process of discovery and refinement, and both have effects on each other.

I don't have a set and established moral code any more than I have a set and established religion. They are both questioned constantly, and evolve as the questions are answered.

You are still stuck on the idea of religion as "other". I have a moral code because my religion ordains it and a religion because my moral code ordains it. The two cannot be logically separated in me.

So, if you were faced with the realization that there was no supreme being, would your morality crumble or would it stand on its own?

No, it doesn't. The morality develops in concert with the religion. They are intertwined to the point that one cannot say that one is independent of the other - at least not in some people. It is an ongoing process of discovery and refinement, and both have effects on each other.

I don't have a set and established moral code any more than I have a set and established religion. They are both questioned constantly, and evolve as the questions are answered.

Have you ever accepted morality based on the word of a religious authority, or has all of your morals been rigorously examined by your reason?

Do you accept your religion based on that same reason?

So, if you were faced with the realization that there was no supreme being, would your morality crumble or would it stand on its own?

I doubt it would crumble, but it would have to be vigorously reexamined.

Have you ever accepted morality based on the word of a religious authority, or has all of your morals been rigorously examined by your reason?

Once again, you assume an organized religion. Of course I have accepted morality based on religious authority - that of God. But both my morals and my religion have been, and continue to be, examined by way of reason - concurrently.

What you don't understand is that the two are inextricably intertwined. It isn't that I have morals and make my religion or have religion and make my morals. Both are being constantly reexamined, questioned, and changed to fit knew realizations. And they do so together.

Yes, be we were talking about specifically the Catholic Church centered in Rome. We were talking about a particular incarnation of the Christian Church, not all Christians nor all Christian Churches. That's the point. Are you arguing that Church didn't exist or do you not have a point?


Is there some reason you're taking a belligerent stance with me?
I responded to GnI's post about being a second class citizen for not being a good Christian in the American Bible Belt. That can hardly be taken as referencing a particular incarnation of the Roman Catholic church.

I can see where you were referring to the RC church for a couple of posts, but that is a different tangent from where I engaged GnI in conversation.

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?
You have a point, but I don't agree. I am a Christian and I follow God's laws, but what I do to be, well for lack of a better word, 'good' goes far beyond that. The Bible doesn't tell us everything, but it does tell us a lot. Yes, obeying God's laws is a matter of obedience, but when you are faced with a subject which is not directly in the Bible, then it would classify as morality.