I was involved in a 'discussion' recently with a friend/co-worker about morality, and whether or not it's possible without religion. He, being an ardent Christian, vehemently denied it; he says a world without religion would be pure chaos and people would be killing and raping each other. This, of course, was paraphrased, and he just yelled at me about it without saying too much.
I, on the other hand-- the hand far, far away--, see morality as inevitable. As a species, I feel we have the urge to procreate and to protect our offspring, and our offspring's offsprings, et cetera. It would be nature to us to develop a sort of moral code(albeit, completely different from the general Western morals) for everyone to follow. I'm sure it would include: not killing another, do not steal, and a few other no-brainers.
I'm tired, this is probably very poorly worded, and I'll realize it tomorrow afternoon. Anyway, what do you think?
I, on the other hand-- the hand far, far away--, see morality as inevitable. As a species, I feel we have the urge to procreate and to protect our offspring, and our offspring's offsprings, et cetera. It would be nature to us to develop a sort of moral code(albeit, completely different from the general Western morals) for everyone to follow. I'm sure it would include: not killing another, do not steal, and a few other no-brainers.
I'm tired, this is probably very poorly worded, and I'll realize it tomorrow afternoon. Anyway, what do you think?
I dont want to go on a huge rant. But in short I think a world without religion would be a better place.
As do I, usually. A world without the Zarathustran/Abrahamic religions WOULD be a much better place (not that Asatru is much better). Religion could be a beneficial, albeit misguided, force for the world. Shame it isn't.
zarathustran religions?
if your friend thinks that morals are sufficient for religion, he is wrong. i am the counter-example.
if your friend thinks that morals are sufficient for religion, he is wrong. i am the counter-example.
Yeah, that was a misspelling/incorrect usage on my part. It should read "Zoroastrian"(Zoroaster being the common English spelling of his name Zarathushtra... for some reason). His religion is believed to be the first to be derived from "revealed" scripture. Judaism, and in kind Christrianity and Islam, is derived from it.
Also, my post was not meant to say ONLY these religions are at fault... these are just the ones I have the most experience with.
Also, my post was not meant to say ONLY these religions are at fault... these are just the ones I have the most experience with.
tp> I dont want to go on a huge rant.
why not? I don't know what you think about it.
tp> But in short I think a world without religion would be a better place.
I don't, it would be scary. It's fun to think about though and consider. If there weren't massive organizations of people who thought similarly I don't know what society would be like would politics be competitive in the same way it is? What would the billions of people in the world who attend some sort of religious group as part of their usual lives be doing other than [normally] peacefully minding their business? Ancient civilizations began because of religious institutionalism, and societal massing of like minded individuals. It would be a rough separation to eliminate religion in the world.
lr> if your friend thinks that morals are sufficient for religion, he is wrong. i am the counter-example.
What does sufficiency of morals have to do with respect to religion? I don't understand. By saying you are the counter example does this mean your morals surpass what is sufficient for religion? I could also read it as your immorals are insufficient to be religious, which i'm not sure is true since zorastrian religions generally accept the inherent immorality of man. Your ambiguity is fun to think about, but doesn't leave me with your meaning unless that's all you mean to leave.
phi_> His religion is believed to be the first to be derived from "revealed" scripture. Judaism, and in kind Christrianity and Islam, is derived from it.
moreover it presented a lot of the base dichotomizations of good versus evil and presented there being a counter balance of the awesome god, the devil.
check out some eastern religions, they don't necessitate this particular type of dichotomization.
why not? I don't know what you think about it.
tp> But in short I think a world without religion would be a better place.
I don't, it would be scary. It's fun to think about though and consider. If there weren't massive organizations of people who thought similarly I don't know what society would be like would politics be competitive in the same way it is? What would the billions of people in the world who attend some sort of religious group as part of their usual lives be doing other than [normally] peacefully minding their business? Ancient civilizations began because of religious institutionalism, and societal massing of like minded individuals. It would be a rough separation to eliminate religion in the world.
lr> if your friend thinks that morals are sufficient for religion, he is wrong. i am the counter-example.
What does sufficiency of morals have to do with respect to religion? I don't understand. By saying you are the counter example does this mean your morals surpass what is sufficient for religion? I could also read it as your immorals are insufficient to be religious, which i'm not sure is true since zorastrian religions generally accept the inherent immorality of man. Your ambiguity is fun to think about, but doesn't leave me with your meaning unless that's all you mean to leave.
phi_> His religion is believed to be the first to be derived from "revealed" scripture. Judaism, and in kind Christrianity and Islam, is derived from it.
moreover it presented a lot of the base dichotomizations of good versus evil and presented there being a counter balance of the awesome god, the devil.
check out some eastern religions, they don't necessitate this particular type of dichotomization.
> I don't, it would be scary.
look at western europe. most people aren't religious, those that are religious aren't even close to the evangelical shit in this country.
> What does sufficiency of morals have to do with respect to religion? I don't understand. By saying you are the counter example does this mean your morals surpass what is sufficient for religion?
no, it's logic. "morals are sufficient for religion" is the logical equivalent to "morals => religion". and i am the counterexample to this logical statement because i am "morals AND not(religion)".
> Your ambiguity is fun to think about, but doesn't leave me with your meaning unless that's all you mean to leave.
there was no ambiguity. it was very straightforward logic. (a => b, to prove this false show a . ~b)
look at western europe. most people aren't religious, those that are religious aren't even close to the evangelical shit in this country.
> What does sufficiency of morals have to do with respect to religion? I don't understand. By saying you are the counter example does this mean your morals surpass what is sufficient for religion?
no, it's logic. "morals are sufficient for religion" is the logical equivalent to "morals => religion". and i am the counterexample to this logical statement because i am "morals AND not(religion)".
> Your ambiguity is fun to think about, but doesn't leave me with your meaning unless that's all you mean to leave.
there was no ambiguity. it was very straightforward logic. (a => b, to prove this false show a . ~b)
> look at western europe. most people aren't religious, those that are religious aren't even close to the evangelical shit in this country.
It's news to me that any particular area is especially devoid of religion.
What do you mean they're not close? Our evangelists are more extreme in absurdity than theirs?
> no, it's logic. "morals are sufficient for religion" is the logical equivalent to "morals => religion". and i am the counterexample to this logical statement because i am "morals AND not(religion)".
I see how the logic makes sense. I don't see how the logical equivelant is such. I would not come to the conclusion that 'morals are sufficient' means that morals are dependent on religion.
The term 'sufficient' would mean to me that religion is assumed to have 'enough morality' to call it religious. Putting you as a counter to this, see how you would be morally deficient for being religious? This changes your point since you are talking about sufficiency and not dependency or requirement. 'Sufficient' suggests that morality is on par with religion, it also suggests there is an antecedent, insufficient.
It's news to me that any particular area is especially devoid of religion.
What do you mean they're not close? Our evangelists are more extreme in absurdity than theirs?
> no, it's logic. "morals are sufficient for religion" is the logical equivalent to "morals => religion". and i am the counterexample to this logical statement because i am "morals AND not(religion)".
I see how the logic makes sense. I don't see how the logical equivelant is such. I would not come to the conclusion that 'morals are sufficient' means that morals are dependent on religion.
The term 'sufficient' would mean to me that religion is assumed to have 'enough morality' to call it religious. Putting you as a counter to this, see how you would be morally deficient for being religious? This changes your point since you are talking about sufficiency and not dependency or requirement. 'Sufficient' suggests that morality is on par with religion, it also suggests there is an antecedent, insufficient.
> It's news to me that any particular area is especially devoid of religion.
What do you mean they're not close? Our evangelists are more extreme in absurdity than theirs?
here's what i quick google produced:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-10 … over_x.htm
such evangelical churches don't really go down there, i think. it's a lot more traditional where it exists. but on the whole, europe is very less religious.
> I would not come to the conclusion that 'morals are sufficient' means that morals are dependent on religion.
"In logic, the words necessary and sufficient describe relations that hold between propositions or states of affairs, if one is conditional on the other. For example, one may say: * Drinking water regularly is necessary for a human to stay alive.* Jumping is sufficient for leaving the ground.* Having an ID card is a necessary and sufficient condition for being allowed in."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficient
What do you mean they're not close? Our evangelists are more extreme in absurdity than theirs?
here's what i quick google produced:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-10 … over_x.htm
such evangelical churches don't really go down there, i think. it's a lot more traditional where it exists. but on the whole, europe is very less religious.
> I would not come to the conclusion that 'morals are sufficient' means that morals are dependent on religion.
"In logic, the words necessary and sufficient describe relations that hold between propositions or states of affairs, if one is conditional on the other. For example, one may say: * Drinking water regularly is necessary for a human to stay alive.* Jumping is sufficient for leaving the ground.* Having an ID card is a necessary and sufficient condition for being allowed in."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficient
Yeah, larz is right, if you look at religious participation the US is almost as high as it gets in countries with religious freedom. BTW Scandinavia has the highest quality of living in the world! Here is another link:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
I have had this discussion with my Baptist zealot roommate numerous times. I think the main difference in our beliefs is that he thinks that morality is an innate part of the universe that God created, that it exists at a higher level than humanity. In this sense, no one without the proper metaphysical beliefs can be moral.
My take is that morality is a product of the human mind, that in a state of nature there is no morality. And let's face it, philosophers are always trying to make consistent systems under which there is a universal morality, but in truth our moral beliefs are rooted in pragmatism and empathy, and therefore relativism rules.
So I don't think any religious or metaphysical considerations are necessary for a system of morality, and religions, while not wrong all the time, have no moral authority.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
I have had this discussion with my Baptist zealot roommate numerous times. I think the main difference in our beliefs is that he thinks that morality is an innate part of the universe that God created, that it exists at a higher level than humanity. In this sense, no one without the proper metaphysical beliefs can be moral.
My take is that morality is a product of the human mind, that in a state of nature there is no morality. And let's face it, philosophers are always trying to make consistent systems under which there is a universal morality, but in truth our moral beliefs are rooted in pragmatism and empathy, and therefore relativism rules.
So I don't think any religious or metaphysical considerations are necessary for a system of morality, and religions, while not wrong all the time, have no moral authority.
Just ran into this: http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html
sorry for the bumpage but I recently got into a discussion with a friend of mine about this. it didn't start out with this but turned into morality without religion.
I am a firm believer that there would be morality without religion. I feel that everyone truly holds some basic moral beliefs such as not causing harm to other, or not killing but these can be affected through the environment and relationships that a person lives in or has.
I am a firm believer that there would be morality without religion. I feel that everyone truly holds some basic moral beliefs such as not causing harm to other, or not killing but these can be affected through the environment and relationships that a person lives in or has.
i think morality could be explained as much through pragmatics as religion though i am not sure if either are sufficient to explain all of morality.
Basic morality is something built in to the human brain, like sight, language, emotions, etc.
This includes things like killing, raping, stealing etc. All the important stuff.
Morality, like most human aspects, has its root in evolution, humans works best in groups, and you can't work together in a group if everyone is killing and raping everyone else.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_ … ominations
34% of Dutch citizens responded that "they believe there is a God".
37% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
27% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".
I can assure you, there is no chaos in the Netherlands (Not that I've ever seen anyway), and people are not raping and killing each other, I would not be suprised if crime rates would actually lower than it is in the U.S.
Oh, by the way, drug use is also lower in the Netherlands than it is in the U.S., in spite of our `evil' and `immoral' drug laws ... But that's a different topic...
Religion does introduce new morals, for example homosexuality, abortion, etc.
One might argue something like ``If you don't like homosexuality, then don't be one'', but this would be the same as saying ``If you don't like raping, then don't rape''
Because raping is considered morally bad, we also feel that all our fellow humans must adhere to this same value, if someone rapes, then we punish him/her.
Because many topics (such as homosexuality) are so moralized by religious groups, they are settled in the ``morality part'' of the brain, and these people also feel all their fellow humans must adhere to those same rules ... That those new morals make little sense doesn't matter.
-- Hope this makes sense ... It is late
This includes things like killing, raping, stealing etc. All the important stuff.
Morality, like most human aspects, has its root in evolution, humans works best in groups, and you can't work together in a group if everyone is killing and raping everyone else.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_ … ominations
34% of Dutch citizens responded that "they believe there is a God".
37% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
27% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".
I can assure you, there is no chaos in the Netherlands (Not that I've ever seen anyway), and people are not raping and killing each other, I would not be suprised if crime rates would actually lower than it is in the U.S.
Oh, by the way, drug use is also lower in the Netherlands than it is in the U.S., in spite of our `evil' and `immoral' drug laws ... But that's a different topic...
Religion does introduce new morals, for example homosexuality, abortion, etc.
One might argue something like ``If you don't like homosexuality, then don't be one'', but this would be the same as saying ``If you don't like raping, then don't rape''
Because raping is considered morally bad, we also feel that all our fellow humans must adhere to this same value, if someone rapes, then we punish him/her.
Because many topics (such as homosexuality) are so moralized by religious groups, they are settled in the ``morality part'' of the brain, and these people also feel all their fellow humans must adhere to those same rules ... That those new morals make little sense doesn't matter.
-- Hope this makes sense ... It is late
i realize that you might not be saying that morality is biological. 'built in to the human brain' is a rather vague terminology that leaves itself open to interpretation. if i am misinterpreting your argument and am creating a scarecrow out of you, i apologize, it is not intentional.
i don't think it is sufficient to demonstrate the biological roots of morality through the religious preferences of the netherlands. this debate goes back into the age old nature vs nurture debate. religion would probably be classified as a type of nurture. however, even if you had successfully eliminated the possibility of religion being the basis for morality, you have not eliminated other potential 'nurture' type behavior that may be responsible for the development of morality, such as behavior reinforcement through parental approval and peer approval. i am highly skeptical of arguments that suggest that morality is biological.
i don't think it is sufficient to demonstrate the biological roots of morality through the religious preferences of the netherlands. this debate goes back into the age old nature vs nurture debate. religion would probably be classified as a type of nurture. however, even if you had successfully eliminated the possibility of religion being the basis for morality, you have not eliminated other potential 'nurture' type behavior that may be responsible for the development of morality, such as behavior reinforcement through parental approval and peer approval. i am highly skeptical of arguments that suggest that morality is biological.
No one likes being raped... ergo it's in your best interest not to do it... as all those people who frown upon that action will kill you.