Which came first, morality or religion? - Split from The Bible's great fiction

[arthwollipot]

but the Majority of modern society (53%) do get their morals from Abrahamic religionsI disagree. I would argue that Abrahamic religions get their morals from the majority of modern society.

[Marduk]

I disagree. I would argue that Abrahamic religions get their morals from the majority of modern society.

for that to be true the writers of the laws of abrahamic religions would have needed time travel
I don't buy it
sorry
;)

[RandFan]

for that to be true the writers of the laws of abrahamic religions would have needed time travel
I don't buy it
sorry
;)He's right. Slavery is no longer seen as moral. Dashing the children of your enemies against the rocks is no longer seen as moral. Killing people who work on the Sabbath is no longer seen as moral. Killing adulterers is no longer considered moral. Killing disobedient children is no longer seen as moral. Many Abrahamic sects have adopted these morals. Many if not most believe in fundamental rights like freedom of expression. Most find that killing an animal to appease a god to be abhorant.

It seems that Abrahamic religions have evolved to fit the zeitgeist and not vice versa.

[TimCallahan]

for that to be true the writers of the laws of abrahamic religions would have needed time travel
I don't buy it
sorry
;)

Perhaps, if we deal with specifics, we can judge this issue more clearly. s it possible the two of you are talaking past each other?

[Hux]

I do not think Abrahamic religion has evolved at all. Its power has been challenged and minimised over centuries of enlightenment by secular determination. Reason, decency and morals have evolved but no thanks to religion that, given a free rein of power would never have relinquished their status or their morality. Without suitable restraint, all the religions would look like Islam.

[arthwollipot]

Do we need another thread for this, or can we consider it on-topic for this one?

[Marduk]

Without suitable restraint, all the religions would look like Islam.

all the religions do look like Islam.
;)

is it possible the two of you are talking past each other?
I think thats highly likely

[six7s]

I do not think Abrahamic religion has evolved at all. Its power has been challenged and minimised over centuries of enlightenment by secular determination.Please provide a example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimised

[Marduk]

Please provide a example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimised

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/michaelwalford/2006/10/06/triumph_of_the_will_stadium_shot.jpg
but only for a little while back in the 40s
;)

[RandFan]

Please provide a example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimisedArguably America.

The vast majority of Americans don't follow most of the Jewish commandments (http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm). America is secular and not theocratic. Theocratic laws have consistently been thrown out by the Supreme Court.

[six7s]

America is secular.Really?

So that's why new U.S. dollar coins were designed with the motto "In God We Trust" omitted (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/dollarcoin.asp), huh?

Theocratic laws have consistently been thrown out by the Supreme Court.So?

Some issues don't even get in...

Will U.S. Supreme Court Put Gay Marriage on Its Agenda? (http://www.diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/5724/?Will_US_Supreme_Court_Put_Gay_Marriage_on_Its_Age nda)
Despite two states legalizing same-sex marriage within a week, don't expect the issue to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court anytime soon, according to CBS News legal analyst and attorney Andrew Cohen. <snip/> Same-sex marriage is only legal in four states, and polls suggest that a majority of Americans are opposed to it.

And... Some of those opposed to it have been quite influential:I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage. And the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution

The fifth clear choice in this election is on the values that are so crucial to keeping America's families strong. Here my opponent and I are miles apart. I believe marriage is a sacred commitment...

[RandFan]

Really?What percentage of US Laws are theocratic in nature? What percentage of US Policy is theocratic? What theocratic legislatures or leaders act on behalf of any particular theology.

Yes.

REALLY!

BTW: SCOTUS ruled that the moto is secular in nature. I think that is nonsense but I don't know of anyone forced to go to church or observe some religious ritual or right because of a moto. Hardly devistating evidence.

I've no idea how the whims of SCOTUS (an institution that has banned prayer in school, ruled time and again aginst displaying the 10 commandmants at the court house, etc., etc.) as it relates to gay marriage has anything to do with a theocracy.

I'm sure you will explain it to me.

YES REALLY!

[six7s]

I'm sure you will explain it to me.

YES REALLY!

I could try... but I suspect it would be in vain

All I asked was for an 'example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimised''...

You said "Arguably America" and then went off on what seems like a tangent; suggesting that theocracy-status is some sort of benchmark criteria... that ain't an argument... not in my book

:confused:

[RandFan]

I could try... but I suspect it would be in vain

All I asked was for an 'example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimised''...

You said "Arguably America" and then went off on what seems like a tangent; suggesting that theocracy-status is some sort of benchmark criteria... that ain't an argument... not in my bookGiven that it's a demonstrable fact that we don't explicitly follow the rules I would say that is a damn great argument. I can't think of a better way to minimize the power of an Abrahamic religion.

Hey, let's decorate a tree for Baby Jesus (and be as materialistic as we can). Then we will remove religious perscriptions from our laws then we will watch lots of porn (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html), drink lots of alcohol (http://karmarogue.com/2007/11/20/alcohol-consumption-in-america/) and then skip church (http://themoralcollapseofamerica.blogspot.com/2008/10/church-attendance-in-america-is.html). That's my kind of maximizing of religion.

We're number 1! (in what I dont know).

[six7s]

Given that it's a demonstrable fact that we don't explicitly follow the rules I would say that is a damn great argument. Given that it's a demonstrable fact that you do implicitly follow the rules, I would say that your "damn great argument" sucks

[RandFan]

Given that it's a demonstrable fact that you do implicitly follow the rules, I would say that your "damn great argument" sucksThen you would be wrong. I don't follow any religious rules. None. Prohibitions against murder and lying predate abrahamic traditions and they are not exclusive of abrhamic traditions.

ETA: Why do religious people think that morality comes from religion or any specific religion?

[six7s]

Then you would be wrong. I don't follow any religious rules. None. Prohibitions against murder and lying predate abrahamic traditions and they are not exclusive of abrhamic traditions.Remember that you used the term 'we'?

My response, using the term 'you' implies 'the same group'

[RandFan]

Remember that you used the term 'we'?

My response, using the term 'you' implies 'the same group'What the hell are you talking about?

We don't explicitly follow religious rules. Sheesh. I've given you the stats. I've shown that we don't have any theocratic ruler. I've shown that we don't have any theocratic laws. I've shown that only a minority goes to church and that many "rules" of religion are ignored.

What the hell are you talking about?

[RandFan]

What percentage of US Laws are theocratic in nature? What percentage of US Policy is theocratic? What theocratic legislatures or leaders act on behalf of any particular theology.

I'm not going to let these questions go. They go to the heart of the matter. If you have any integrity then you can't just ignore them.

[Swagomatic]

Here's a suggestion: take the political discussion to the politics forum. :)

[six7s]

What the hell are you talking about?Teh irony, it BURNZZZ

We don't explicitly follow religious rules.So?

What the hell are you talking about? In other words, please explain what the hell that has to do with 'providing an example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimised''


I've given you the stats.FYI: your use ofthe words watch lots of porn, drink lots of alcohol and skip church as links wasn't an effective way of 'giving me stats'...

And anyhoo... so what if "the percentage of Americans regularly attending church is only 18.7%."? Is this a genuine attempt on your behalf to ''provide an example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimised''? :confused:

I've shown that we don't have any theocratic ruler.That's nice

I've shown that we don't have any theocratic laws.That's bollocks

[Piscivore]

Please provide a example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimised

I don't know what you mean by "minimised", but nearly every Western nation has seen the power of "Abrahamic religion" dramatically lessened in the last few hundred years.

[RandFan]

What the hell are you talking about? In other words, please explain what the hell that has to do with 'providing an example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimised''In America Abrahamic religion has little to no power. End of story.

Is this a genuine attempt on your behalf to ''provide an example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimised''? Hell yeah. What power does the church have left? When you go from a majority to a minority that would seem to be minimizing. When most people ignore you and won't follow your silly rules what the hell else could it be? It's loss of power in a pretty big way. Religion used to run the government and call the shots. When I was a kid we had blue laws and stores were closed on Sunday. That's all gone. IOW: The power of the Church is nealy non existent.

And your response?

That's bollocksOh, bollocks. Just bollocks. No listing of these theocratic laws. Just gainsaying. Ok sherlock, what are these theocratic laws?

Instead of repeatedly saying "uh-uh". Why don't you provide some evidence to support your claim?

[six7s]

The power of the Church is nealy non existent.So why, in 2008, was this regarded as news-worthy... all around the world, huh?

The Most Revolutionary Phrase of Obama's Inaugural Address (http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_levinson/2009/01/20/the_most_revolution_phrase_of_obamas_inaugural_add ress)I never thought I'd enjoy a Presidential Inauguration as much as I did JFK's in 1960, when I was a kid and I saw it on a black-and-white television, but Barack Obama's today was every bit as good on the big color screen, and even more revolutionary. The son of an African and an American being sworn in as President.

The single most daring words in Obama's inaugural address, I thought, was his inclusion of "non-believers" in his citing of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and the other faiths of our nation and world. That one phrase shows the profound inclusionary quality of President Obama's vision. It represents a revolution indeed. Non-believers are people, too.<snip/>Why was (is!!!) it "daring" to suggest that non-wooists should be 'included' in 21st century USA?

[RandFan]

So why, in 2008, was this regarded as news-worthy... all around the world, huh?

The Most Revolutionary Phrase of Obama's Inaugural Address (http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_levinson/2009/01/20/the_most_revolution_phrase_of_obamas_inaugural_add ress)Why was (is!!!) it "daring" to suggest that non-wooists should be 'included' in 21st century USA???? Whatever the answer is it sure as hell doesn't prove that America is a theocracy. It doesn't prove that America follows theocratic rules. Hell, it does't prove anything.

People have irrational fears of atheism. That they doesn't mean that the follow religious rules.

[six7s]

??? Whatever the answer is it sure as hell doesn't prove that America is a theocracy. It doesn't prove that America follows theocratic rules. Hell, it does't prove anything.

People have irrational fears of atheism. That they doesn't mean that the follow religious rules.Why are you fixated on the term 'theocracy'?

[RandFan]

Why are you fixated on the term 'theocracy'? Theocracy is the most effective means that a religion can use to express their power. Absent that they pressure their members from the pulpit. So, if there is no theocracy and most people don't go to church and people work and play on Sunday... well that leaves scant little evidence of religious power. I'm not saying it's non existent. I'm saying that it's minimized.

[six7s]

I'm saying that it's minimized.Compared to which period of US history?

[RandFan]

Interesting,Randfan and six7s but can you start a new thread? I love the stories and discussions in this thread..its different to the other religious threads. Please?shandyjan, you always have the right to notify a moderator. This kind of bickering is rather pointless and I appologize.

:)

[RandFan]

Compared to which period of US history?I say it's minimized. I don't really care which period. I would think it's been a steady decline since the beginning but it doesn't matter.

[arthwollipot]

Since the days of Cotton Mather, you mean?

[RandFan]

Since the days of Cotton Mather, you mean?Yeah, I'll agree it wasn't from the beginning. I misspoke.

[RandFan]

six7's. Instead of simply being a contrarian could you make a case? What rules in America are religious based? How does religion inform our morality today? Since the Bible condones slavery why isn't there slavery today? There are hundreds of Bible commandmants that are anachronistic. If we get our morality from the Bible why are most of the commandmants out of vogue (many are seen as immoral)?

It seems to me that if you really had a case you could make it.

[Bikewer]

How far back could we trace "morality"? Likely very far indeed.... The most primitive cultures studied have a system of taboos and practices which originated either out of superstition or sheer practicality.
One can see such primitive codes of behavior evolving along with culture to become well-organized "laws" which pre-date Abhraham by a fair bit.
Cultures completely outside the Abrahamic tradition had well-established codes of law.....

[Pure Argent]

Compared to which period of US history?

Puritanical?

[Hux]

How far back could we trace "morality"? Likely very far indeed.... The most primitive cultures studied have a system of taboos and practices which originated either out of superstition or sheer practicality.
One can see such primitive codes of behavior evolving along with culture to become well-organized "laws" which pre-date Abhraham by a fair bit.
Cultures completely outside the Abrahamic tradition had well-established codes of law.....

Morality in the animal kingdom was practised long before superstitious behaviour in one kind of Ape. It might not be the kind of morality we immediately understand or agree with but it is there and supersedes religion by millions of years.

[RandFan]

Morality in the animal kingdom was practised long before superstitious behaviour in one kind of Ape. It might not be the kind of morality we immediately understand or agree with but it is there and supersedes religion by millions of years.If morality is rules of behavior then many if not most animals have morality. Even piranha don't turn on each other no matter how hungry they are (unless one of them becomes sick or injured).

[Hux]

If morality is rules of behavior then many if not most animals have morality. Even piranha don't turn on each other no matter how hungry they are (unless one of them becomes sick or injured).

Yup. Morality is how we deal with each other and those we do not know. How we deal with Kin and strangers, Predators and predated. Its a fancy name for rules of behaviour and of course those that increase the chances of reproduction are passed on.

Which is why morality, just as much as our consciousness, has evolved.

Superstitious behaviour arose late and only, as far as we can measure, in us. I see this question posted umpteen times on boards and I still marvel that it gets posited (unless it is a believer that poses the question)

[Aepervius]

??? Whatever the answer is it sure as hell doesn't prove that America is a theocracy. It doesn't prove that America follows theocratic rules. Hell, it does't prove anything.

People have irrational fears of atheism. That they doesn't mean that the follow religious rules.

I do not know of many other western secular country which added a religious motto on their coin in the middle of the 20th century, try to beat evolution down and insert creationism in science class, and have such a vocal religious fanatic minority which must be catered to (abortion, gay mariage, ban on all sort of aborted embryo use, imposing some rule on NGO favoring abstinence etc...).

Really, de jure you are a secular country by excellence. de facto religious group have far more influence in your daily life than many other western countries.

[RandFan]

I do not know of many other western secular country which added a religious motto on their coin in the middle of the 20th century, try to beat evolution down and insert creationism in science class, and have such a vocal religious fanatic minority which must be catered to (abortion, gay mariage, ban on all sort of aborted embryo use, imposing some rule on NGO favoring abstinence etc...).

Really, de jure you are a secular country by excellence. de facto religious group have far more influence in your daily life than many other western countries. Oh, I agree they have too much influence. It's very unfortunate. The BS going on in the military is very bothersome to me.

[Hux]

America would like to be a theocracy, in the main. I think. Or I get the strong impression of that as an outsider, watching in.

However as a very late arrival as a country, they are not the best example of the kind of thing we are talking about in this thread. Were we moral first then religious or the other way around? I would submit Americas earliest settlers were a polyglot of differing ideas, neither fully religious or fully secular.

[Pure Argent]

America would like to be a theocracy, in the main. I think. Or I get the strong impression of that as an outsider, watching in.

Perhaps religious groups wish for a theocracy, but fortunately the other religions here won't stand for a government controlled by a competitor.

"Gentlemen - when we argue, the atheists win."

[Hux]

As an outsider, Its difficult to see any other way than a desire for theocracy in the US. You cant have an atheist as a President and the last incumbent insisted upon Faith based decisions. It seems you cant swing a cat around the halls of Washington without hitting a religious advisor or a pastor.

Bill Maher pointed out, although I would need confirmation, that the last administration had over 150 graduates of 'Law' from Pat Robertsons 'College'. I mean WTF? 3 years and one book and you are qualified to study law?

So is this a peculiarly right wing Conservative thing? Is the majority of America 'Liberal' (if thats not a dirty word) and do they not carry religiosity as a badge?

I admit, I have to suffer Fox Noise, since her indoors like watching O'Really for some reason. But if I was a praying man, Id be praying that O'Really isnt really representative of America (although he thinks he is its conscience). I try to balance this by watching reports by other channels.

So what's the deal? Is the US a Christian country, wanting a theocracy, spending its entire waking hours praising "Cheezis" or what? If you are becoming more and more Godless, how come it doesn't look that way?

[Hux]

Please provide a example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimised

Do you know of any country (apart from islamic Republics) that still follow the laws of Leviticus, Deteronomy and Numbers?

I sincerely hope you dont.

[Pure Argent]

As an outsider, Its difficult to see any other way than a desire for theocracy in the US.

Yes, but there are so many competing desires for theocracy that it will never happen. And, in any case, it is entirely unconstitutional for the government to favor one religion over another. Passing an amendment to support one religion would be impossible.

You cant have an atheist as a President

De jure, you can. De facto, however, you are correct. Most Americans are extremely distrusting of atheists and simply wouldn't vote for them. Why, I have no idea.

and the last incumbent insisted upon Faith based decisions.

He also happened to be one of the biggest idiots to ever hold office. Judging America on George Bush Jr... ouch.

It seems you cant swing a cat around the halls of Washington without hitting a religious advisor or a pastor.

:confused:

Where did you get that idea?

Bill Maher pointed out, although I would need confirmation, that the last administration had over 150 graduates of 'Law' from Pat Robertsons 'College'. I mean WTF? 3 years and one book and you are qualified to study law?

I hadn't heard this before. Can you give me a link to the source of this claim? I could look up whether or not its true for you.

So is this a peculiarly right wing Conservative thing? Is the majority of America 'Liberal' (if thats not a dirty word) and do they not carry religiosity as a badge?

I have no idea what the majority of Americans are. But I'm pretty sure that the ones that don't carry religion on their sleeves aren't half as loud as those that do. Even though the fundamentalist, hardcore practitioners are extremely outnumbered, they've always been one of the loudest groups.

I admit, I have to suffer Fox Noise, since her indoors like watching O'Really for some reason. But if I was a praying man, Id be praying that O'Really isnt really representative of America (although he thinks he is its conscience). I try to balance this by watching reports by other channels.

Good. O'Reilly doesn't represent much of America. It's a shame that he's one of its most famous voices.

So what's the deal? Is the US a Christian country, wanting a theocracy, spending its entire waking hours praising "Cheezis" or what? If you are becoming more and more Godless, how come it doesn't look that way?

Because, as we become more godless - or, at the very least, more religiously diverse (there are many, many more religions here - Judaism, JW, Buddhism, all are widespread, even if Christianity is still the largest group) - Christians sense the slide away from them. They don't want that to happen. They're used to being the most powerful. So they act up. They are doing the equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum because they are being ignored.

[six7s]

six7's. Instead of simply being a contrarian could you make a case? What rules in America are religious based?Erm... I already have 'made a case', one that - it seems - you have chosen to overlook: gay marriage

It seems to me that if you really had a case you could make it.Mr Pot, allow me to inroduce you to Ms Kettle

[Pure Argent]

Erm... I already have 'made a case', one that - it seems - you have chosen to overlook: gay marriage

Which is gaining increasing support.

[RandFan]

Erm... I already have 'made a case', one that - it seems - you have chosen to overlook: gay marriageWhich proves exactly what? I've conceded that religion has SOME influence.

Mr Pot, allow me to inroduce you to Ms KettleSorry no, you don't get to pull that nonsense. I've made a case. Religions used to run nations. They were the head of government, passed laws, enforced laws and sat in judgement.

THAT'S ALL GONE.

Further few people go to church. Most work or play on Sunday. Religious rules are ignored left and right. There's a word for that "MINIMIZED".

So don't tell me I haven't made a case when all I've done is make a case while you've said "gay marriage" as if that has any significance whatsoever.

Here's a hint. None given all the influence that religion once had. If all they can do is keep gays from marrying then they are a sorry lot as far as power goes. BFD.

[six7s]

Oh, I agree they have too much influence. It's very unfortunate. The BS going on in the military is very bothersome to me.And yet you make a claim that the power of Abrahamic religions has been minimised 'arguably in America' - a so-called argument that is unsubstantiated other than by stats indicating a drop in church attendance etc... minimised in comparison with a non-specified era...

:confused:

It's YOUR claim, Randfan... How about you start by quantifying and contrasting the 'power' in two (or more) specific eras in US history

Please note: I acknowledge that my (so-called) argument is merely one based on incredulity... I, too, have NOT quantified the power etc... But then I didn't join this tangent from the other thread by making a claim... I merely asked a question...

[drkitten]

Compared to which period of US history?

Almost any period.

A simple example : something like six states explicitly have a religious test for public office, in most cases demanding belief in an Abrahamic God. These clauses were put in to the various state laws for a reason --- and have been rendered unenforceable by court action, again, for a reason.

The authority of state governments to mandate the teaching of the Biblical version of creationism has been eliminated. The authority of the state to mandate church attendance has been eliminated. Most of the various religiously-motivated "blue laws" have been overturned; there is, for example, no law in existence in the US today (that I am aware of) that prohibits selling soda water on Sundays.

[Aepervius]

I think it is clear that religious influence has arguably diminished in the US, and nearly all other western countries (I am not so sure for a few in southern europe...).

But it can certainly be argued that the religious people *kept* in proportion far more influence in the US than the majority of the western like countries.

So for our contemporary judgement, the US looks ultra religious. But compared to the past, they have become mild.

Now should this be split or could we return to the original argument ?

For me it is clear that morality came first. You do not need word to respect your neighbor. You do not need word to recognize that stealing in a tribe or raping would lead to chaos. You barely need to understand each other, or at least understand the consequence of your action.

OTOH religion *need* mythos and words to be taught.

Basic morality definitively came in first before religion.

[Piscivore]

America would like to be a theocracy, in the main.

If that were true, we would be one.

[RandFan]

Please note: I acknowledge that my (so-called) argument is merely one based on incredulity... I, too, have NOT quantified the power etc... But then I didn't join this tangent from the other thread by making a claim... I merely asked a question...

Religion can, has and does ruled nations. Religions can, have and do pass laws and sit in judgement on citizens. Religions once could put people to death for failing to go to church or for working on the Sabbath. Religions in nations like Saudia Arabia permeate every day life. Christianity use to permiate nations that were largely Christian and in fact still permeate in the Vatican.

I give you that as a comparison. This does not happen in America. That you could look at once was and what is today and not see that there has been a significant decrease raises my incredulity.

Would you be willing to agree that there is a difference between former theocratic Christian nations and America? Would you be willing to admit that church influence has been diminished?

FWIW: I don't know how to quantify minimized. It could be minimized more but to me it's minimized.

[RandFan]

So for our contemporary judgement, the US looks ultra religious. But compared to the past, they have become mild. Thank you.

[drkitten]

FWIW: I don't know how to quantify minimized. It could be minimized more but to me it's minimized.

"Minimized" was a poorly chosen word. Technically, it means that something has been brought to a minimum. Obviously, the influence of Christianity on the United States -- or most other countries -- is not at a minimum.

It can be used loosely describe the process of bringing something to a minimum; if you are minimizing something, then it has not yet been minimized in the same sense that if you are baking a cake, it has not yet been baked (and you'll just have to sit down, shut up, and wait, you greedy glutton). We may indeed be "minimizing" the influence of religion in the United States, but I rather doubt it, simply because there are so many people intent on maximizing it instead, and I suspect the final result will not be minimal but merely "less."

[six7s]

That you could look at once was and what is today and not see that there has been a significant decrease raises my incredulity.My question involved the term power - a political concept, yes?

From my limited understanding of politics and history, I get the impression that power is primarily concerned with controlling resources... and... it seems to me that religion is merely a tool to this end; wielded in a way that promotes an 'us v. them' mentality - one that is at odds with peace

wikipedia.org You're either with us, or against us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_against_us)Use of the phrase
Historical quotations Jesus Christ, in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23 of the New Testament of Christianity, said, "He who is not with me is against me...".[3][4] However, in Mark 3:23-29, the same anecdote is related without including this passage.[5] In Mark 9:40, in a different context, he said: "...whoever is not against us is for us"[6], though this contains different implications than those discussed in this article.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in a speech discussing the Chief Committee for Political Education, told the assembled delegates that "It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco." [7]
George Orwell wrote in his 1942 essay "Pacifism and the War", "If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security."
Benito Mussolini declared in speeches across fascist Italy: "O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.<>
Hillary Clinton said on September 13, 2001: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." [8]
President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Maybe many of you living in the US feel like religion is less influential today...

Others have a different idea

www.amazon.co.uk God's Own Country: Power and Religion in the USA: Religion and Politics in the USA (Paperback) - by Stephen Bates (Author) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gods-Own-Country-Religion-Politics/dp/0340909277)Product Description
Right-wing evangelical Christianity has come to dominate American political and social life in recent years, dividing the country and sparking cultural and moral battles. High politics and low tactics frame a fierce debate which goes much further back in the country's history than the accession of George W. Bush in 2001.

It's a battle that sears America's soul and affects the world. In this book Stephen Bates explains why what happens in the Bible Belt matters to us and how there are those who hope to export the battle to Britain.

American fundamentalist religion has the potential to impact on crucial and acutely dangerous areas of the world. Its priorities are often arcane and sometimes weird. But it is already affecting American government policy at home and abroad: not least in Israel and the Middle East. How is religion affecting the current presidential elections and where will America's battle for its soul take the world next?

[Piscivore]

www.amazon.co.uk God's Own Country: Power and Religion in the USA: Religion and Politics in the USA (Paperback) - by Stephen Bates (Author) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gods-Own-Country-Religion-Politics/dp/0340909277)

"It's a battle that sears America's soul"? "[W]here will America's battle for its soul take the world next?"?

You might want to try sources that are a little less emotive, hyperbolic, and stinking with bias for your information, there.

As for "Right-wing evangelical Christianity has come to dominate American political and social life in recent years"- no. Right-wing evangelical Christianity has come to dominate some elements of the Republican Party, and they are no longer in power. They do like to make a lot of noise, though- don't they?

[drkitten]

"
As for "Right-wing evangelical Christianity has come to dominate American political and social life in recent years"- no. Right-wing evangelical Christianity has come to dominate some elements of the Republican Party, and they are no longer in power. They do like to make a lot of noise, though- don't they?

Well, to be fair, when the book was written, it probably did dominate American political life. Although even then, modern "right-wing evangelical Christianity" is pretty watered down compared to evangelical Christianity of even a few hundred years ago. Witness the demise of the blue laws and the temperance movement and the various forms of rights for women that have come into existence.

No one, even in the modern Republican party, seems to want to deprive women of the vote, shopkeepers of the ability to sell soda water on Sundays, or singers the ability to practice on Sundays.

[RandFan]

Product Description
Right-wing evangelical Christianity has come to dominate American political and social life in recent years, dividing the country and sparking cultural and moral battles. High politics and low tactics frame a fierce debate which goes much further back in the country's history than the accession of George W. Bush in 2001.

It's a battle that sears America's soul and affects the world. In this book Stephen Bates explains why what happens in the Bible Belt matters to us and how there are those who hope to export the battle to Britain.

American fundamentalist religion has the potential to impact on crucial and acutely dangerous areas of the world. Its priorities are often arcane and sometimes weird. But it is already affecting American government policy at home and abroad: not least in Israel and the Middle East. How is religion affecting the current presidential elections and where will America's battle for its soul take the world next?

Rhetoric. The points made I think are problematic but they are baised. Religion has influence. I concede. But it's influence is in fact very limited.
Blue laws are largely gone.
Businesess are open on the Sabath.
More people skip church than go.
The Supreme Court has severly limited religious influence over law.
Religions are trying to influence as much as they can and they do have some success. But creation STILL can't be taught in the classroom. Prayer STILL isn't allowed in the classroom. The 10 commandmants STILL are not allowed in courtroom and many governmental offices.

Oh, and for counter rhetoric watch this.

GN9zpf5cT0M

[six7s]

You might want to try sources that are a little less emotive, hyperbolic, and stinking with bias for your information, there.Erm... that wasn't posted as a source of information...

Rather, my aim was to illustrate there is a perception that religion and politics are inextricably entwined in 21st century USA

If that perception is inaccurate, then please - by all means - explain how/why/etc... I suspect that there may well be pacifists all around the world that would dearly love to know how to diffuse the sectarian hatred and violence that is (misguidedly?) directed at 'the American way'

[six7s]

No one, even in the modern Republican party, seems to want to deprive women of the vote, shopkeepers of the ability to sell soda water on Sundays, or singers the ability to practice on Sundays.So?

This does NOT address the issue of the power of religion

Sure... the tactics change... woo is nothing if not consistently inconsistent... However... the goal remains the same, no?

[RandFan]

Blue laws are largely gone.
It occurs to me that some folks might not know what blue laws are. See this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law).

[RandFan]

This does NOT address the issue of the power of religion. Yes it does. It addresses it directly. Power is the ability to control people. This is the reduction of that ability. Churches might have changed tactics in an attempt to retain some control but there is no question they can't control whether or not people can work on Sunday and therefore attendance has gone done. The means to control and the effect of the control have diminished. That's not a controversial point.

I think one needs to ask why there was theocracy in the first place and why it isn't in some places now. Why there were blue laws and why they have been repealed or not enforced. They existed because they were an effective means to control.

[drkitten]

Rather, my aim was to illustrate there is a perception that religion and politics are inextricably entwined in 21st century USA

The problem is that the perception that religion and politics are entwined does not mean that the influence of religion is not decreasing.

First of all, "21st century America" is hardly a baseline. That's like my going around predicting a major drought and a total worldwide collapse of the skiing industry because it's sunny and 40 outside right now.

Secondly, American politics is very polarized right now along a number of axes of which religion is one. But it is an axis of polarization, not really a substantive area of disagreement. Most of the actual disputes, for example, are about either the appearance of religiosity or are about other issues wrapped in religion for propaganda purposes. Aside from abortion (which is not about religion as much as it's about sex), gay marriage (ditto), and various symbols such as putting "in God we trust" on the currency, what are the actual "religious" issues that divide the USA?

The simple fact is that when genuine religious issues come up -- for example, the offering of a Baptist prayer (in a largely Baptist community) at a high school graduation -- the people who scream the loudest are the representatives of the other religions. (This actually happened, IIRC; the plaintiff in Lee vs. Wiseman was a Catholic who objected to the nature of the planned prayer.) And most of the actual day-to-day influence of religion has diminished over the years as people insist on being able to act secularly and do things like buy staplers on Sundays (true case -- Maryland).

[Piscivore]

Erm... that wasn't posted as a source of information...

Rather, my aim was to illustrate there is a perception that religion and politics are inextricably entwined in 21st century USA
Right. You might want to consider getting your perceptions from sources that are a little less emotive... yadda yadda yadda.

I din't say anything about information. I didn't see any information in what you quoted to comment on- just bluster.

If that perception is inaccurate, then please - by all means - explain how/why/etc...
RandFan has been.

I suspect that there may well be pacifists all around the world that would dearly love to know how to diffuse the sectarian hatred and violence that is (misguidedly?) directed at 'the American way'
Not just pacifists.

[drkitten]

This does NOT address the issue of the power of religion

Yes, it does.

Specifically, the power of religion to enforce its behavioral rules has been greatly diminished.

In 1950, I couldn't buy a stapler on Sunday in Maryland, because the priests didn't want me to.

Today I can.

[six7s]

what are the actual "religious" issues that divide the USA?I sincerley suggest that this misses the point...

Perhaps, in a discussion concerened with power, it would be more pertinent to ask 'what are the actual perceived "religious" issues that put the U in USA?'

[Pure Argent]

I sincerley suggest that this misses the point...

Perhaps, in a discussion concerened with power, it would be more pertinent to ask 'what are the actual perceived "religious" issues that put the U in USA?'

Are you asking what religious beliefs all Americans share?

[Piscivore]

Perhaps, in a discussion concerened with power, it would be more pertinent to ask 'what are the actual perceived "religious" issues that put the U in USA?'

There aren't any- we are not a nation founded, run by, or "United" by religion or religious issues in any way,shape, or form.

[six7s]

Yes, it does.

Specifically, the power of religion to enforce its behavioral rules has been greatly diminished.

In 1950, I couldn't buy a stapler on Sunday in Maryland, because the priests didn't want me to.

Today I can.Please explain why you think that this equates to a loss of power for those in control of your nation's resources

Pre 1985, I couldn't use a mobile phone, today I can. The profitability (power) of the major telcos has not been adversely affected

[drkitten]

I sincerley suggest that this misses the point...

And I sincerely suggest that "proves six7s wrong" is not the same as "misses the point."


Perhaps, in a discussion concerened with power, it would be more pertinent to ask 'what are the actual perceived "religious" issues that put the U in USA?'

Or perhaps it wouldn't. Because your whole argument has been about religious DIFFERENCES that have come to light recently.

The very fact that religious differences now exist where fifty years the religious view was held (and enforced politically) with remarkable uniformity is a sign of the loss of power. Especially since these views are no longer legally enforceable, which is also a sign of a loss of power.

[Hux]

If that were true, we would be one.

Some of us think that is already true.

[Pure Argent]

Please explain why you think that this equates to a loss of power for those in control of your nation's resources

Pre 1985, I couldn't use a mobile phone, today I can. The profitability (power) of the major telcos has not been adversely affected

No, it hasn't. But this is a straw man argument.

A religious law has been repealed. This points to a drop in religious influence. It's that simple.

[drkitten]

Please explain why you think that this equates to a loss of power for those in control of your nation's resources

Because I can now do what I wanted to do in 1950 and was physically able to do in 1950, but was legally prevented from doing by those in control of my nation's resources (for religious reasons).


Pre 1985, I couldn't use a mobile phone, today I can.

Not relevant. It would be more relevant if pre-1985, I could physically have used a mobile phone, but was legally prevented from doing so.

The telcos are actually a reasonably good example. Pre-1983 (or so, I forget the exact date) I was not able to get local telephone service without contracting with AT&T, despite the physical possibility of doing so. Today I can.

That's a direct indicator that AT&T has lost power, and specifically has lost control over local telephone access.

I don't think you understand what "power" means.

[drkitten]

Some of us think that is already true.

Some of you are wrong, then.

It really is that simple.

If this is a theocracy, who is the priest in charge?

[Piscivore]

Some of us think that is already true.

And those people are incorrect. It has been well covered in this thread.

[Pure Argent]

Some of us think that is already true.

And those people would be wrong.

America isn't a theocracy. Yes, religious groups have influence here. That's the same for every country in the world. People think that, because the government puts up with hardcore fundamentalist actions, that they are pandering to the wants of the most powerful religion. Not so.
America is founded on the belief that religious freedom is one of the basic rights of man. As such, it is part of the Constitution that the government shall not interfere in the practice of any religion. Nor shall it encourage the practice of any religion. Any right which one religion has, all have. But any restrictions that one religion has, the others also have.
The "Creation Museum" is a prime example. The government could not simply step in and shut the down the museum, even though it was peddling nonsense and lies to children who didn't know any better. The government is bound by the Constitution to not restrict the practice of any religion, even when it is doing something as stupid as opening a creation museum. But the government is also bound to keep creationism out of schools by the same document that binds it to allow the founding of the museum. Schools are a federal institution, and the government is required to keep all religions equal within areas under federal jurisdiction. Because intelligent design is a Christian belief, it cannot be taught in schools, as this would both violate the separation of church and state and promote one religion's beliefs over another's.
America is bound to allow free practice of religion within private bounds. But it is also bound to prohibit practice of religion within its government.

[Hux]

Bill Maher pointed out, although I would need confirmation, that the last administration had over 150 graduates of 'Law' from Pat Robertsons 'College'. I mean WTF? 3 years and one book and you are qualified to study law?
I hadn't heard this before. Can you give me a link to the source of this claim? I could look up whether or not its true for you.


Just go through the New rules videos on Youtube as I had to. I wasnt searching for it but it seems a common theme of his. He said this college was for people who couldnt get into the University of Phoenix! :D

The point I was trying to make is that it becomes a perception that the US is a Christian run country. But this impression, or even baldly stated, comes from your programming and that is all I have claimed. Is their any religious group with more autority than Christians -and who else but 'secular progressives' as O'Really puts it would complain? Surely there isnt another religious cult in the country that could either object or act against a Christian theocracy?

Why do Presidents wheel out the religious theocrats?

[Hokulele]

The point I was trying to make is that it becomes a perception that the US is a Christian run country.


Pfft. Go over to the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum and there will be any number of people who will tell you that the Jews run the US. And everything else.

[Piscivore]

Why do Presidents wheel out the religious theocrats?

Pandering to the loudmouths.

[Hux]

So then, am I correct in assuming that the Christian faith has little influence in politics or any other avenue?

[Pure Argent]

Just go through the New rules videos on Youtube as I had to. I wasnt searching for it but it seems a common theme of his. He said this college was for people who couldnt get into the University of Phoenix! :D

And you trust YouTube as a reliable source?

The point I was trying to make is that it becomes a perception that the US is a Christian run country. But this impression, or even baldly stated, comes from your programming and that is all I have claimed.

Well, if that is the impression, then it's an incorrect one. Kinda sad that that's our image, though.

Is their any religious group with more autority than Christians

More people? No. More authority? No - but that's because Christians have no legal authority. At least, not beyond voting for the candidate they believe supports their various stances.

-and who else but 'secular progressives' as O'Really puts it would complain? Surely there isnt another religious cult in the country that could either object or act against a Christian theocracy?

Uh, you mean, aside from every single one of them?

Why do Presidents wheel out the religious theocrats?

What?

[Hux]

And you trust YouTube as a reliable source?

I trust it as a reliable source for what people say on video. Whethere they mean it or not is a different matter.

[Pure Argent]

So then, am I correct in assuming that the Christian faith has little influence in politics or any other avenue?

The only influence it has is the ability to vote. That's the same influence everyone else has.

Also, this forum requires that you want 60 seconds between posts. Please try again in 1 seconds.

[Pure Argent]

I trust it as a reliable source for what people say on video. Whethere they mean it or not is a different matter.

Well, you're correct. I did a little research on the subject, and Bush did employ a large number of graduates from that university.
Not really a surprise. Bush is regarded as one of the biggest idiots ever to hold office over here. Almost everything he did was one giant screw-up.

[Hux]

As I say, its all about perception, laid down by your own media. If its not at all true, I would not be in the least surprised.

[Pure Argent]

Well then, feel free to be not surprised.

Also, once again, THIS FORUM REQUIRES THAT I WAIT 60 SECONDS BETWEEN POSTS. PLEASE TRY AGAIN IN 1 SECONDS.

>:E

[Hux]

Irritating aint it?

[Hokulele]

So then, am I correct in assuming that the Christian faith has little influence in politics or any other avenue?


One problem with this sort of statement is that it misses probably the most important reality of American politics and culture which is the vast difference between the various regions of the U.S. Although there is a central federal government, it probably has much less influence on individuals than the local jurisdictions (state, county, city, etc.). The politics and culture of New Orleans has very little in common with the politics and culture of Honolulu which has very little in common with the politics and culture of Bangor. Most of what is taught in public schools is controlled by local school boards, not the federal government. What can (and cannot) be done on Sundays, on public thoroughfares, or in the privacy of one's bedroom is most often controlled by local legislatures, not the federal government.

When there are conflicts or contradictions between local and federal laws, federal laws win, but neither can trump the U.S. consititution.

And that constitution, as has been shown in many other threads, is completely secular.

[RandFan]

Some of us think that is already true.Why is prayer not allowed in schools then? Why is creationism not allowed in schools? 10 commandmants in courthouses? Who is the religious leader that calls the shots?

I think there are folks who are trying to move us in a theocratic direction. I think there are having some effect. However, given that Blue Laws are waning and not increasing and given that I live my life with very little religious intrusion I can't see how we are a theocracy. I don't see how we meet any defintion of the word.

[RandFan]

So then, am I correct in assuming that the Christian faith has little influence in politics or any other avenue?The Christian faith has a lot of influence. Nothing in our constitution says they can't. I think your point about Bush is dead on. I would add that there are many preachers who violate the law and campaing from the pulpit. But that doesn't make us a theocracy. Besides, there are Christians on the left and right. The right is more effective at the moment.

[six7s]

When there are conflicts or contradictions between local and federal laws, federal laws win, but neither can trump the U.S. consititution.

And that constitution, as has been shown in many other threads, is completely secular.I suspect that few, if any, of those threads have been widely read in New Orleans, Honolulu and Bangor - let alone Tehran, Karachi, Riyadh, Timbuktu and Jakarta

What's written in the U.S. consititution has little if any relevance to those humming the 'your either with us or against us' mantra

[Aepervius]

Am I the only one wanting to debate on "morality or religion which came first" ? Or am I in the wrong thread ? (I am sober I swear)

[drkitten]

What's written in the U.S. consititution has little if any relevance to those humming the 'your either with us or against us' mantra

Except it does. Because ultimately the Constitution controls how far those people can go to enforce their bizarre little world-view.

It's like Orly Taitz and her birther nonsense; while she can say anything she likes, it doesn't have any effect outside of her own little echo chamber, and the people who keep her confined to that echo chamber do so by virtue of the constitution.

Similarly, it's the Constitution that kept the Dover, PA school board from pushing "cdesign proponentism" on the school children there, and it's the Constitution that keeps high school games in Baylor, TX from beginning with a prayer.

Basically, it's the Constitution that keeps what they want to happen from happening.

[drkitten]

So then, am I correct in assuming that the Christian faith has little influence in politics or any other avenue?

No, but apparently I'm correct in assuming you are having problems seeing the difference between "is an influential power group" and "is in control."

[six7s]

What's written in the U.S. consititution has little if any relevance to those humming the 'your either with us or against us' mantraExcept it does. Because ultimately the Constitution controls how far those people can go to enforce their bizarre little world-view.Maybe... ultimately... in the USA...

Note that NOT all of "those people" live in the USA

And... it would seem that for many that are in the US - living ordinary lives in their ordinary neighbourhoods - the 'ultimate' power of the US Constitution is rarely if ever invoked on a 'personal' level

[drkitten]

And... it would seem that for many that are in the US - living ordinary lives in their ordinary neighbourhoods - the 'ultimate' power of the US Constitution is rarely if ever invoked on a 'personal' level

Invoked directly? Perhaps not. Invoked indirectly? --- hell, yes, it's invoked. See post #90, and note that many of the things that RandFan cites as direct influences were standard practice in the US even a few hundred years ago. If you look at early 19th century hornbooks, (http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/professional-development/childlit/toy31.html) for example, Bible verses such as the Lord's Prayer and the 23rd Psalm were used as reading texts.

[six7s]

Invoked directly? Perhaps not. Invoked indirectly? --- hell, yes, it's invoked. See post #90, and note that many of the things that RandFan cites as direct influences were standard practice in the US even a few hundred years ago. If you look at early 19th century hornbooks, (http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/professional-development/childlit/toy31.html) for example, Bible verses such as the Lord's Prayer and the 23rd Psalm were used as reading texts.I'm not suggesting that the US Constitution (or any such document) is ineffective... in conjunction with a bunch of other 'techniques' (courts, lawyers, etc)

Rather, I'm suggesting that (just as speed limits don't prevent speed-related carnage on our roads) the US Constitution and other such documents (in any country) seem pretty much irrelevant to Mr & Mrs Joe Average/Arheddis Varkenjaab & Aywellbe Fayed/the man on the Clapham omnibus/etc - in the privacy of their own heads

[Pure Argent]

I'm not suggesting that the US Constitution (or any such document) is ineffective... in conjunction with a bunch of other 'techniques' (courts, lawyers, etc)

Rather, I'm suggesting that (just as speed limits don't prevent speed-related carnage on our roads) the US Constitution and other such documents (in any country) seem pretty much irrelevant to Mr & Mrs Joe Average/Arheddis Varkenjaab & Aywellbe Fayed/the man on the Clapham omnibus/etc - in the privacy of their own heads


Yes.

So?

[six7s]

Yes.

So?So?

The power of religion is exercised inside peoples heads

For the context of my reply:

I do not think Abrahamic religion has evolved at all. Its power has been challenged and minimised over centuries of enlightenment by secular determination.

Please provide a example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimisedArguably America.

[drkitten]

The power of religion is exercised inside peoples heads

... sometimes.

Sometimes the power of religion is exercised atop bonfires. Sometimes the power of religion is exercised in the courts. Sometimes the power of religion is exercised in the dungeons of the Inquisition.

And when a religion that used to be able to project its power through dungeons, courts, and bonfires as well as through heads is reduced to only being able to project its power through heads --- that's a loss of power.

Three hundred years ago, I could call the bailiff to come and to compel you to attend the church of my choice. I could compel you to pay taxes to support the projects of my church, and I could forbid you from practicing any act that I found distasteful,.... all in the name of my religion.

Today, I cannot do the first at all, and I can only do the third if I can establish to the satisfaction of the legislature and the courts that my distaste rests on a legitimate secular purpose.

Is that not a loss of power?

[RandFan]

Rather, I'm suggesting that (just as speed limits don't prevent speed-related carnage on our roads) the US Constitution and other such documents (in any country) seem pretty much irrelevant to Mr & Mrs Joe Average/Arheddis Varkenjaab & Aywellbe Fayed/the man on the Clapham omnibus/etc - in the privacy of their own heads

So?

The power of religion is exercised inside peoples heads

For the context of my reply.


Yet church attendence is shrinking. Religious prescriptions are being ignored more and more.

What better metric could I give? What evidence would possibly convince you?

[Pure Argent]

So?

The power of religion is exercised inside peoples heads

1) Okay, I see the problem. I'm talking about legal power, while you're talking about personal power.
2) RandFan has already pointed out that church attendance is falling.

[RandFan]

Please provide a example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimised Abrahamic religions once decreed businesses could not be open on the Sabath. Abrahamic religions decreed blaspamey a crime. People were pressured to go to church. Read the bible. Abstain from various activities.

All of that is changing.

But you will acknowledge none of it.

Now you won't respond to me so I assume you've got your fingers in your ears and are humming loudly.

[RandFan]

1) Okay, I see the problem. I'm talking about legal power, while you're talking about personal power.BTW: This is Six7s moving the goal posts.

2) RandFan has already pointed out that church attendance is falling.Not just church attendance either. Rules regading fidelity. Prohibitions against divorces. Rules regarding vice. These are being ignored in ever greater and greater numbers.

I don't know what else I could possibly say. I don't know of any instance where I've provided more justification only for the opponent to say "no".

What can we do six7s?

[RandFan]

The power of religion is exercised inside peoples headsHang on....

Do we need another thread for this, or can we consider it on-topic for this one?

Please provide a example of a country where 'the power of an Abrahamic religion has has been minimised

Hux didn't say heads.
You didn't say heads.
Why should anyone assume the discussion is what's in people's heads? What goal post will you move next?

[six7s]

Hang on....The power of religion is exercised inside peoples heads

Hux didn't say heads.
You didn't say heads.
Why should anyone assume the discussion is what's in people's heads? What goal post will you move next?Please, do describe a more significant 'field' for evaluating the power of religion

[six7s]

1) Okay, I see the problem. I'm talking about legal power, while you're talking about personal power.I'm talking about the 'power of religion'... in response to Hux's post:
I do not think Abrahamic religion has evolved at all. Its power has been challenged and minimised over centuries of enlightenment by secular determination.If this counts as 'moving the goalposts' then colour me surprised

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hmm, 3 pages

I'm sure it's already been said but probably bears repeating -- neither came first. Both spring from the same well -- the neural structures that enable cooperation in our social species.

[jadey]

Morality. Morality definitely came first.

[six7s]

... neither came first. Both spring from the same well -- the neural structures that enable cooperation in our social species.

Morality. Morality definitely came first.

How do you, jadey, distinguish the two?

[RandFan]

Please, do describe a more significant 'field' for evaluating the power of religionI've given you about every concievable measure for power. You've not acknowledged any of them. I don't know what was in Hux's head and I don't suppose you do either. All that was said was "power". I've demonstrated why Abrahmic religions don't have the power they once did.

You then say in people's heads.

I demonstrate that church attendance is waining. I point out that in opposition to church preferences divorce is up. So is contraception and abortion. People work on Sundays. You've given me homophobia.

Aside from your ego what more is there?

Why won't you respond to the evidence and arguments? Why won't you answer the questions?

[RandFan]

If this counts as 'moving the goalposts' then colour me surprisedWhy? No one said anything about "in people's heads". Only power. There was a time when Abrhamic religions had a great deal of power. They ruled theocracies. Even after that there were religious rules on the books. Those are being eliminated. There was a time when the church could pressure people into going to church, paying tithing, staying married, avoiding contraception, not having abortions, etc., etc.

All those are changing.

Yet you persist in refusing to address the arguments made or the evidence provided. You only tried to restrict what you meant by power. Late in the game you said it was in people's heads. Well why didn't you state that up front?

I've no clue why you would be surprised but it doesn't matter. It's clear the power of the church has waned in everything except homophobia and perhaps some other areas. You sure won't tell us.

[RandFan]

Hmm, 3 pages

I'm sure it's already been said but probably bears repeating -- neither came first. Both spring from the same well -- the neural structures that enable cooperation in our social species.Morality existed in our most recent ancestors. Morality exists in many animals.

Morality came first.

[RandFan]

How do you, jadey, distinguish the two?Morality is what chimps and other great apes have. Religion is what chimps and other great apes don't have.

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html)

Monkey Morality: Can Evolution Explain Ethics? (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6221)

[six7s]

You then say in people's heads.

I demonstrate that church attendance is waining. I point out that in opposition to church preferences divorce is up. So is contraception and abortion. People work on Sundays. You've given me homophobia.

Aside from your ego what more is there?

www.religioustolerance.org Americans' beliefs about God (http://www.religioustolerance.org/godpoll.htm)
When asked: "Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?" Americans' beliefs have been quite constant. The Gallup Organization has found: 1
Year | Percentage "Yes"
1947 | 94%
1953-4 | 99%
1978 | 94%
1994 | 96%

Whilst I acknowledge that the Q includes "or a universal spirit", I see no reason to suggest that the power of religion is on the decline in the USA

[RandFan]

Whilst I acknowledge that the Q includes "or a universal spirit", I see no reason to suggest that the power of religion is on the decline in the USAAnd what pray tell does this have to do with "power of religion"?

ETA: I question your figures. I'm looking for other sources.

[jadey]

How do you, jadey, distinguish the two?

Interesting question. I view religion as something created by humans to explain the unexplainable (for the appropriate time). I consider morality to be more of a determination about how an individual should behave in a group and in nature.

I'd be interested in your answer to the same question.

[Piscivore]

And what pray tell does this have to do with "power of religion"?

Association fallacy. Anti theists- and most other ideologues and crusaders- are prone to it, in my experience.

[RandFan]

Those who identify themselves as non-religious is on the rise.

Demographics of atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism)

The 2001 ARIS report found that while 29.5 million U.S. Americans (14.1%) describe themselves as "without religion", only 902,000 (0.4%) positively claim to be atheist, with another 991,000 (0.5%) professing agnosticism. The most recent ARIS report, released March 9, 2009, found in 2008, 34.2 million Americans (15.0%) claim no religion. Add to that the decline of church attendances and it's clear that while people may believe in god the power of religion is without doubt waning.

[Darth Rotor]

I do not think Abrahamic religion has evolved at all.

Given that Jews no longer stone adulterers, I think you ought to think again.

DR

[Hokulele]

Whilst I acknowledge that the Q includes "or a universal spirit", I see no reason to suggest that the power of religion is on the decline in the USA


Believing in a god is not the same thing as being religious.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Morality existed in our most recent ancestors. Morality exists in many animals.

Morality came first.

I could just as easily say that other animals have only some form of proto-morality.

Depends on how you define morality. We can certainly define it in such a way as to include other animal behavior, but that isn't normally how we use the word. If morality means "adherence to a group norm" or a basic sense of fairness, then we can also broadly define religion to include "a shared life narrative that promotes group cohesion" where narrative needn't necessarily imply the existence of language. Wolves could probably be said to engage in a common narrative, keeping the pack together.

Religion and morality have many other aspects to them, of course. Morality depends critically on valuation, which arises from emotion and "feeling". Religion generally involves certain types of beliefs and practices generally dealing with the gods.

We could play all sorts of games over the definitions, but both have a common source in those neural structures that permit group action and promote group cohesion.

Chimps demonstrate some features of what we call morality in us. So do wolves. But chimps also coordinate other types of actions as a group. They hunt together. They engage in war. I cannot conceive that they do not have a rich inner life underlying those coordinated behaviors. We often call that inner life "religion" in humans. In chimps it would be some form of proto-religion that permits their own coordinated action.

Just because the expression of religion in humans generally sucks does not mean that we have to overdo it when we bash it.

[Darth Rotor]

America would like to be a theocracy, in the main. I think.
Nope.

You are spending too much time reading and believing your own line of BS.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

My question involved the term power - a political concept, yes?

From my limited understanding of politics and history,
You are being far to generous to yourself.

DR

[six7s]

Interesting question. I view religion as something created by humans to explain the unexplainable (for the appropriate time). I consider morality to be more of a determination about how an individual should behave in a group and in nature.

I'd be interested in your answer to the same question.I regard morality, not as an 'individual phenomenomenomenon, rather as a 'collective agreement' (between members of the same family / community / society / culture) that 'codifies' what is and what is not acceptable

I regard all of the various religions as a variation on morality with the terms acceptable and unacceptable defined and enforced by 'authorities'

[RandFan]

Bear with me here. It's going to get bumpy but we will get through it and I suspect that some disagreement is simply in semantics. I'd like to avoid that.


I could just as easily say that other animals have only some form of proto-morality. Depends on how you define morality. I can accept these. I would define morality loosely as rules of behavior.

We can certainly define it in such a way as to include other animal behavior, but that isn't normally how we use the word. If morality means "adherence to a group norm" or a basic sense of fairness, then we can also broadly define religion to include "a shared life narrative that promotes group cohesion" where narrative needn't necessarily imply the existence of language. Wolves could probably be said to engage in a common narrative, keeping the pack together. I think pirahana not killing other pirahana is adherence to a group norm. But let's move up the food chain. Game theory predicts altruistic behavior in social animals and indeed that is what we find. (See Dawkin's The Selfish Gene). Particularly in apes.

Religion and morality have many other aspects to them, of course. Morality depends critically on valuation, which arises from emotion and "feeling". Religion generally involves certain types of beliefs and practices generally dealing with the gods.

We could play all sorts of games over the definitions, but both have a common source in those neural structures that permit group action and promote group cohesion.

Chimps demonstrate some features of what we call morality in us. So do wolves. But chimps also coordinate other types of actions as a group. They hunt together. They engage in war. I cannot conceive that they do not have a rich inner life underlying those coordinated behaviors. We often call that inner life "religion" in humans. In chimps it would be some form of proto-religion that permits their own coordinated action. I think there is a much greater stretch for religion (I suspect what you really mean is culture) than morality. We know that chimps have a sense of fairness, compassion and empathy. Clearly it's not as complex as the human framework. I would suggest that human morality has advanced because we could write down the morality. Analyze the morality and reason better morality.

I think in the end that humans and chimps have a stronger shared sense of morality than we do with culture. IOW: The sense of morality in chimps is far closer to us than there sense of culture.

Just because the expression of religion in humans generally sucks does not mean that we have to overdo it when we bash it. That's fine.

[drkitten]

Whilst I acknowledge that the Q includes "or a universal spirit", I see no reason to suggest that the power of religion is on the decline in the USA

You need better/more detailed surveys. (http://news.uchicago.edu/news.php?asset_id=1748). Here's a big one, possibly too big to fit into little information McNuggets. From the summary, "The nature of the American religious experience is changing as a rising number of people report having no formal religious affiliation," a sign of how religion is losing its power.

Table 1 covers, among other things, the frequency with which people attend services -- the percentage that "never" attend is way up since 1972, the percentage attending "weekly+" is way down.

The percentage with "no religious preference" is way up, the preference with "strong religious preference" is way down.

Table 2 shows that "belief in God" has dropped from nearly 100% in the 1950s to about 90% in 2005. Similarly the percent that "absolutely" believe in God has dropped substantially since the 1950s.

Acceptance of an atheist candidate for president has gone up from 18% in the 1950s to about 45% in recent years.

Support for civil liberties for anti-religionists is way up. The number of people who think churches should have "less" or "much less" influence is way up, the number of people asking for "more" or "much more" is way down. Contribution to churches is way down.

Here's the "summary of trends" -- negative numbers in the last column are LESS religiosity. Notice the trend:


Pray Daily GSS 15 1983-2006 + 5.2
GSS 26 1972-2006 - 9.2
Attend Weekly+
Has Religion GSS 26 1972-2006 -10.8
Strong Religion GSS 24 1974-2006 - 4.8
Believe in Afterlife GSS 21 1973-2006 + 3.7
Belief in God Misc. 33 1944-2006 - 3.0
Certain Belief in God NORC 11 1964-2006 -14.4
Absolute Belief in God Misc. 3 1952-1996 -15.0
Vote for Atheist President Gallup 12 1958-2007 -28.0
Anti-religionist Civil
Liberties (average 3 items) GSS 24 1954-2008 -41.2

The two items that are actually up -- praying daily and belief in afterlife -- are exactly the sort of thing that you would expect from the rise of muddled "spirituality" (such as various forms of neo-paganism or generic "belief") at the expense of actual religion.

Which is exactly what the authors' said:


In the US there has been a shift towards, the “spiritual, but not religious”
perspective. As Table 19A shows, in 1998 those who considered themselves more
spiritual than religious (19.3%) slightly outnumbered those rating themselves as more
religious than spiritual (19.3% - 17.0%=+2.3 percentage points). In 2006 and 2008, the
edge of the spiritual over the religious had increased to +13.9-15.5 points. Further
indication of a shift appears when age differences are examined. In 2006-08 among those
under 40, 31-33% rated themselves as more spiritual than religious. This judgment
declined with age to just 15.8% for those 70+. Likewise, in 2008 those who said they did
not follow a religion, but were a “spiritual person interested in the sacred and
supernatural” decreased from 27-29% of those under 40 and just 15% of those 70+.



Basically,


In sum, the tilt of religious change in the United States over the last half century
has clearly been in the secular direction


Detailed enough for you?

[drkitten]

I could just as easily say that other animals have only some form of proto-morality.

Depends on how you define morality. We can certainly define it in such a way as to include other animal behavior, but that isn't normally how we use the word. If morality means "adherence to a group norm" or a basic sense of fairness, then we can also broadly define religion to include "a shared life narrative that promotes group cohesion" where narrative needn't necessarily imply the existence of language.

Except for the fact that narrative does imply the existence of language.

Otherwise, you have no way to distinguish between a "group norm" and a "shared narrative." You've just Humpty-Dumpty'ed the question out of existence.

Wolves could probably be said to engage in a common narrative, keeping the pack together.

And how would you distinguish this from a 'mere' group norm?

[RandFan]

I regard morality, not as an 'individual phenomenomenomenon, rather as a 'collective agreement' (between members of the same family / community / society / culture) that 'codifies' what is and what is not acceptable'The problem is that there are universals. Most of us are born with a sense of morality. We have compassion and empathy. We feel that we should be fair and follow the golden rule. Game theory predicts altruistic behavior in social animals and it is what we find. We evolved a sense morality.

In short, there is an individual sense of morality and a group one. Both influence the other. It's called the zeitgeist.

[Darth Rotor]

I regard morality, not as an 'individual phenomenomenomenon, rather as a 'collective agreement' (between members of the same family / community / society / culture) that 'codifies' what is and what is not acceptable

I regard all of the various religions as a variation on morality with the terms acceptable and unacceptable defined and enforced by 'authorities'
Thank you. Bickering subsiding, approach to a discussion, with provisional definitions, beginning. Allow me to offer a quick visual aid to the discussion.
15835
Cases 1 and 2 show varying degrees of overlap in Religion and morality. Case 3 shows complete intersection, pure theocracy I suppose, whereas case 4 shows no overlap. Case 4 may not illustrate any society I can think of, but some of you may be able to provide an example.

Depending upon how you describe the way religion grew into what we know today as religion, and how you trace the acceptance of norms, and taboos associated with them, as morality, jadey's opening line that puts morality first is tough to argue against.

I don't think I can make a good case against.

Most of us are born with a sense of morality
I thought morality was a learned behavior, in terms of children absorbing the lessons and examples of the environment around them.

Can you elaborate on being born moral?

DR

[plumjam]

If it wasn't morality that came first it would have been religion that came first.

If anyone would like further clarification on this don't hesitate to pm me.

[six7s]

You need better/more detailed surveys. (http://news.uchicago.edu/news.php?asset_id=1748). Here's a big one, possibly too big to fit into little information McNuggets. From the summary, "The nature of the American religious experience is changing as a rising number of people report having no formal religious affiliation," a sign of how religion is losing its power.So I keep reading

I assure you, I ain't being obtuse...

I simply fail to see evidence of 'loss of power'

The USA is a, no the world power, right?

The power has been held by (and for) a select few, right?

Please note that I do NOT adhere to conspircay theories... however... from these distant shores, I see the power in the US is wielded more on Wall Street than anywhere else...

Please... if I'm missing something significant, then help me join the dots

[Ichneumonwasp]

Bear with me here. It's going to get bumpy but we will get through it and I suspect that some disagreement is simply in semantics. I'd like to avoid that.


I can accept these. I would define morality loosely as rules of behavior.

I think pirahana not killing other pirahana is adherence to a group norm. But let's move up the food chain. Game theory predicts altruistic behavior in social animals and indeed that is what we find. (See Dawkin's The Selfish Gene). Particularly in apes.

I think there is a much greater stretch for religion (I suspect what you really mean is culture) than morality. We know that chimps have a sense of fairness, compassion and empathy. Clearly it's not as complex as the human framework. I would suggest that human morality has advanced because we could write down the morality. Analyze the morality and reason better morality.

I think in the end that humans and chimps have a stronger shared sense of morality than we do with culture. IOW: The sense of morality in chimps is far closer to us than there sense of culture.

That's fine.


Sure, I agree. I simply think it more productive to look at the basis of all of these types of behaviors; both morality and religion (an expression of a shared culture) arise from neural correlates that are present in all higher social animals, in what permits them to be social.

I don't think it is productive to quibble over which came first because I don't think we can really know. We can see social norms to some degree, empathy, etc. in other animals and we can see some sense of cultural identity as well, even if only on the family or 'clan' level -- and this is the basis for all religions.

We have problems with all these definitions. "Rules of behavior" also includes the actions of ants, bees and wasps, but I don't many folks want to call that morality. One aspect of morality is that there is choice in behavior and it isn't clear what degree of freedom there is in insect action.

[drkitten]

So I keep reading

I assure you, I ain't being obtuse...

I simply fail to see evidence of 'loss of power'

There may be a contradiction between these two sentences.



The USA is a, no the world power, right?

Yes, metaphorically.


The power has been held by (and for) a select few, right?

No. Most of the US's power is economic, not political or military, and it's largely a function of the entire economy.



Please... if I'm missing something significant, then help me join the dots

Yes. You're missing the well-documented fact that religious belief is losing its ability to influence the behavior of individual Americans and by extension, the behavior of Americans collectively.

Re-read the survey. Fifty years ago, there was essentially no way that an atheist could have been elected president of the United States (and even the election of a non-Protestant was extremely controversial). What changed? And how does it reflect changes in "power"?

[Hokulele]

Can you elaborate on being born moral?


I think there is a difference between a specific set of morals, and a sense of morality. Most children seem to have a sense of morality in that they will be quick to claim, "That is not fair!" or to react poorly when they feel someone else has been treated unjustly (seeing others as moral beings).

[RandFan]

I assure you, I ain't being obtuse...You just won't look at the evidence. You won't address the evidence.

No theocracy.
No bue laws.
Church atendence down.
Secularism up.
I can't think of any other word that describes a refusal to acknowledge or address evidence and argument.

Obtuse fits.

[jadey]

We have problems with all these definitions. "Rules of behavior" also includes the actions of ants, bees and wasps, but I don't many folks want to call that morality. One aspect of morality is that there is choice in behavior and it isn't clear what degree of freedom there is in insect action.

In my "definition" of morality, I refered to it as the determination of how an individual should behave. Perhaps humans recognize that we have a variety of ways that we can behave, and conciously establish some rules of behavior, whereas other species are governed more by innate rules of behavior?

[RandFan]

We have problems with all these definitions. "Rules of behavior" also includes the actions of ants, bees and wasps, but I don't many folks want to call that morality. One aspect of morality is that there is choice in behavior and it isn't clear what degree of freedom there is in insect action.Thanks.

I think it important for people to understand the link between behavior of non-human social animals and humans. It turns out it's pretty strong.

Just because most people don't want to call that morality doesn't mean tht it isn't. However, my post really focuses more on chmps than social insects or fish. Though it's important to understand that these animals (social animals like insects and fish) behave according to social norms. Sociobiologists tell us that very important foundations of morality are found there. It's not enough to simply not want to see them as moral (though I assure you I understand what you mean).

Hopefuly we don't have to get into a discussion of free will. With that hope I will accept degree of freedom for the sake of argument. It is for this reason I wanted to focus on chimps. It turns out that chimps do in fact act, sometimes, in opposition to social norms. Usualy it's when they think they can get away with it. Say a chimp finds food. In ecperiments it turns out that some chimps who find themselves in that situation will try and eat it before the others find out. Others will call the rest of the group. Those who cheat and are found out usually are punished. So, there is a sense of justice among chimps.

See Science of Good and Evil (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Good-Evil-People-Gossip/dp/0805075208)

Moral Animal (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996)

[six7s]

Most of us are born with a sense of morality.You and I must be using contradictory defintions of morality... from my perspective, morality is communicated to a child by its family then wider influences; up until at least a few months of age, human infants are incapable of interpreting anything but the simplest messages... and morals ain't simple... they're complex

[six7s]

You just won't look at the evidence. You won't address the evidence.

No theocracy.
No bue laws.
Church atendence down.
Secularism up.
I can't think of any other word that describes a refusal to acknowledge or address evidence and argument.

Obtuse fits.I've looked at your 'evidence' and deemed it irrelevant - in keeping with your interpretation of the term power

[blobru]

Sure, I agree. I simply think it more productive to look at the basis of all of these types of behaviors; both morality and religion (an expression of a shared culture) arise from neural correlates that are present in all higher social animals, in what permits them to be social.

I don't think it is productive to quibble over which came first because I don't think we can really know. We can see social norms to some degree, empathy, etc. in other animals and we can see some sense of cultural identity as well, even if only on the family or 'clan' level -- and this is the basis for all religions.

We have problems with all these definitions. "Rules of behavior" also includes the actions of ants, bees and wasps, but I don't many folks want to call that morality. One aspect of morality is that there is choice in behavior and it isn't clear what degree of freedom there is in insect action.


Zoological bases of morality and religion? -- there's an interesting tack (tho' not unexpected, given the alias, eh). ;) Morality typically comes down to weighting benefits to the individual versus to the group for that individual's choice; religion exists, typically, as a means to bind the individual to the group: that is, to weight the individual's choices in favor of the group the religion represents.

If that's the case, then an animal would need some sense of self -- a reason to be self-ish -- to qualify as moral; else, one could argue that bees, for example, are supremely "moral", with group benefits weighted at 100% and ruthlessly adhered to (though new queens do fight over succession "for themselves" in a sense -- this may be to the benefit of the group, though -- hive solidarity versus civil war. Anyway, whether bugs are supremely moral or strictly amoral will come down to definitions).

Our mammalian neighbors, such as wolves aforementioned, are a tougher call, I think. The "lone wolf" would seem to have some sense of self, developed enough to exist on its own for long stretches; however, I don't know if lone wolves are usually accepted meantime by the pack, as auxillary to it, if at all. Once a wolf gets out of line over food or sex (or whatever wolves argue about) and belies its status in the pack, it's chased out, ostracized. I suppose the impulse to get out of line and to too belligerently challenge a higher-up might qualify as a "moral" decision, and the custom of ostracizing the overly belligerent challenger as wolf "religion"... I don't know. It's a tough call (assuming I'm even describing pack behavior correctly; reading Jack London as a kid hardly makes me an expert).

Wolves howling at the moon: I love to think of that as 'cultured' -- moral, religious, and/or artistic somehow -- above the level of ruthless instinct. I know I'm anthropomorphising: they're probably just letting off steam, not writing arias to the moon. Still, "letting off steam" in a socially acceptable way, so that pent-up energy doesn't lead to group dissension and individual ostracism, for the pack and against the lone wolf, does meet many reasonable criteria for morality and religion, for culture. Maybe the fact that they don't write it down shouldn't prejudice us too much.

[RandFan]

You and I must be using contradictory defintions of morality... from my perspective, morality is communicated to a child by its family then wider influences; up until at least a few months of age, human infants are incapable of interpreting anything but the simplest messages... and morals ain't simple... they're complex No one said that they were simple. Of course they are complex. Very complex. However there are universals in humans and we can predict many things from an evolutionary POV. We can predict the likelihood a step parent is to save a step child compared to a biological one. We can predict to what degree an uncle or aunt will help out a niece or nephew compared to a stranger or non biological acquaintance. Even if the acquaintance is better known. These rates compare to animals in the wild. The predictions are made according to game theory. Further we have MRI's and objective tests and we have biological explanations such as mirror neurons that are confirmed by these dignostics.

Evolutionary based morality isn't controversial for evolutionary biologists.

Creationists don't like it.

[RandFan]

I've looked at your 'evidence' and deemed it irrelevant - in keeping with your interpretation of the term powerIf you can't explain how or why or rebut the arguments or data then you are being obtuse.

There's simply no other way around it.

[RandFan]

Zoological bases of morality and religion? -- there's an interesting tack (tho' not unexpected, given the alias, eh). ;) Morality typically comes down to weighting benefits to the individual versus to the group for that individual's choice; religion exists, typically, as a means to bind the individual to the group: that is, to weight the individual's choices in favor of the group the religion represents.

If that's the case, then an animal would need some sense of self -- a reason to be self-ish -- to qualify as moral; else, one could argue that bees, for example, are supremely "moral", with group benefits weighted at 100% and ruthlessly adhered to (though new queens do fight over succession "for themselves" in a sense -- this may to the benefit of the group, though -- hive solidarity versus civil war. Anyway, whether bugs are supremely moral or strictly amoral will come down to definitions).

Our mammalian neighbors, such as wolves, are a tougher call, I think. The "lone wolf" would seem to have some sense of self, developed enough to exist on its own for long stretches; however, I don't know if lone wolves are usually accepted by the pack, if at all. Once a wolf gets out of line over food or sex (or whatever wolves argue about) and belies its status in the pack, it's chased out, ostracized. I suppose the impulse to get out of line and to too belligerently challenge a higher-up might qualify as a "moral" decision, and the custom of ostracizing the overly belligerent challenger as wolf "religion"... I don't know. It's a tough call (assuming I'm even describing pack behavior correctly; reading Jack London as a kid hardly makes me an expert).

Wolves howling at the moon: I like to think of that as 'cultured' -- moral, religious, and/or artistic somehow -- above the level of ruthless instinct. I know I'm anthropomorphising: they're probably just letting off steam, not writing arias to the moon. Still, "letting off steam" in a socially acceptable way, so that pent-up energy doesn't lead to group dissension and individual ostracism, for the pack and against the lone wolf, does meet many reasonable criteria for morality and religion, for culture. So the fact that they don't write it down shouldn't prejudice us too much. You've simply defined morality to include selflesness. I've no problem with that definition but it's just one of many. I'm not sure how you declare by fiat that your definition is the only one possible.

However, for the purpose of the argument. I'm happy with that. I think you would be better to focus on chimps as they seem to be much closer to us as it concerns morality.

[RandFan]

I've looked at your 'evidence' and deemed it irrelevant - in keeping with your interpretation of the term power Boy, wouldn't that be the end all of discussion for all debates?

Scientist: Here is my evidence. It's peer reviewed. It's been veted and all experiments have been replicated.
Judge: I deem your evidence irrelevant. I order creationism taught in schools.

Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to willful ignorance. But I should tell you that this is a skeptics forum.

[six7s]

Fifty years ago, there was essentially no way that an atheist could have been elected president of the United States (and even the election of a non-Protestant was extremely controversial). What changed?What changed? Same as what changes across the board for most (all?) other big businesses - they adapt the 'hype, spin, etc' to suit the market in order to maintain/improve the status quo

You make a distinction (I presume) between Protestants and Catholics... whereas I see them and Jews and (lately, in the US) Muslims as one entity... call it Abraham Inc... with the same goal... no, nothing to with gods... its crowd control - aka power

And how does it reflect changes in "power"?N/A

[six7s]

I should tell you that this is a skeptics forum.You should note that your high-horse has a horn sticking out of its head

[six7s]

No one said that they were simple. Of course they are complex. Very complex. However there are universals in humans and we can predict many things from an evolutionary POV. We can predict the likelihood a step parent is to save a step child compared to a biological one. We can predict to what degree an uncle or aunt will help out a niece or nephew compared to a stranger or non biological acquaintance. Even if the acquaintance is better known. These rates compare to animals in the wild. The predictions are made according to game theory. Further we have MRI's and objective tests and we have biological explanations such as mirror neurons that are confirmed by these dignostics.

Evolutionary based morality isn't controversial for evolutionary biologists.

Creationists don't like it.Fascinating

Are you using all them fancy big words with a lofty air of condescension to pretend that your use of the word morality belongs in the sentence "Most of us are born with a sense of morality."?

Good luck with that

[RandFan]

What changed? Same as what changes across the board for most (all?) other big businesses - they adapt the 'hype, spin, etc' to suit the market in order to maintain/improve the status quo

You make a distinction (I presume) between Protestants and Catholics... whereas I see them and Jews and (lately, in the US) Muslims as one entity... call it Abraham Inc... with the same goal... no, nothing to with gods... its crowd control - aka powerAnd no blue laws. Less church worship. More secularism. All the things religions want they are losing grip of. The crowds aren't doing what religions want them to do. More and more people are doing what they want to do. More "R" rated movies. More gay themes in popular culture (queer as folk, L word), etc., etc.

What power do they have?

You've got this vague "crowd control". You provide no metrics. No data. Oh, you gave us percentage of people that believe in god. All the while the number of people that consider themselves religous is dropping. The number of people that are going to church is droping.

What do you have left?

Anything?

Crowd control? What the hell is religion in your mind. The Highway Patrol? Security gaurds? What are you talking about?

[RandFan]

Fascinating

Are you using all them fancy big words with a lofty air of condescension to pretend that your use of the word morality belongs in the sentence "Most of us are born with a sense of morality."?

Good luck with thatThis is all rhetoric. Are you able to form a cogent argument? Do you have any argument?

[RandFan]

You should note that your high-horse has a horn sticking out of its headI should tell you that this is only rhetoric. I should add that you've not presented any evidence or argument to support your position.

[blobru]

You've simply defined morality to include selflesness. I've no problem with that definition but it's just one of many. I'm not sure how you declare by fiat that your definition is the only one possible.

You're right about my definition; not by fiat, though... just for discussion: "If this is the case, then this follows..." It very very likely is not the case; however, I suspect it is part of the case, and so relevant.

However, for the purpose of the argument. I'm happy with that. I think you would be better to focus on chimps as they seem to be much closer to us as it concerns morality.

They don't howl at the moon, though ;) (well, maybe howler monkeys... but they're just complaining about bruised fruit, no doubt, and ain't chimps anyhow).

[RandFan]

You're right about my definition; not by fiat, though... just for discussion: "If this is the case, then this follows..." It very very likely is not the case; however, I suspect it is part of the case, and so relevant.

They don't howl at the moon, though ;) (well, maybe howler monkeys... but they're just complaining about bruised fruit, I'd guess, and ain't chimps anyhow).Fair enough. :)

[drkitten]

What changed? Same as what changes across the board for most (all?) other big businesses - they adapt the 'hype, spin, etc' to suit the market in order to maintain/improve the status quo

Wrong. Lots of businesses fail to adapt and simply, er, fail. They shrink, or downsize to the point of irrelevance. Do you remember when Sears was the largest retailer in the United States? Do you remember when GM had a market share twenty or thirty points higher than it now has? Do you remember when Digital Equipment Corporation was the second-largest computer company in the world? What happened to Enron, again?

Neither GM, Sears, nor DEC has "adapted" to maintain the status quo. They've lost, badly, and their place in the grand scheme of things has been taken by others.

And, of course, we can go a little further back. Do you remember Pan-Am, the largest airline in the world? Do you remember Bethlehem Steel? Gulf Oil used to be something like the fifth largest oil company in the world, and today employs fewer than 300 people.

Religion is getting outcompeted by nonbelief and losing power, just as GM is getting outcompeted by Toyota and Sears is getting outcompeted by Wal-Mart. And you can read the decline and fall of all three in the market shares; Toyota is gaining market share, GM is losing it, just as "religion" is losing market share.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Except for the fact that narrative does imply the existence of language.

Otherwise, you have no way to distinguish between a "group norm" and a "shared narrative." You've just Humpty-Dumpty'ed the question out of existence.



And how would you distinguish this from a 'mere' group norm?



Yes. That's my primary point. If we define morality in such a broad sense as to include the actions of other animals, are we not obliged to doe the same for religion?

We see what has been called proto-moral behavior in other animals. We see proto-cultural behavior as well. There is undoubtably proto-language in other animals where they think and plan according to the same sorts of rules that govern our language.

The problem is with definitions; I am arguing against Humpty-Dumptyism with 'morality' in essence.

If we define morality as 'human morality', then it necessarily depends on language as well. If we define morality as 'rules of behavior' then we end up with such a broad notion that it must also include bees wiggling in hives to communicate pollen location and which tie I should choose to wear today.

If all "oughts" are moral, then the decision to wear white after Labor day is a moral decision? Is that really how broadly we want to define this word? This simply isn't how we use the term generally.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Thanks.

I think it important for people to understand the link between behavior of non-human social animals and humans. It turns out it's pretty strong.

Just because most people don't want to call that morality doesn't mean tht it isn't. However, my post really focuses more on chmps than social insects or fish. Though it's important to understand that these animals (social animals like insects and fish) behave according to social norms. Sociobiologists tell us that very important foundations of morality are found there. It's not enough to simply not want to see them as moral (though I assure you I understand what you mean).

Hopefuly we don't have to get into a discussion of free will. With that hope I will accept degree of freedom for the sake of argument. It is for this reason I wanted to focus on chimps. It turns out that chimps do in fact act, sometimes, in opposition to social norms. Usualy it's when they think they can get away with it. Say a chimp finds food. In ecperiments it turns out that some chimps who find themselves in that situation will try and eat it before the others find out. Others will call the rest of the group. Those who cheat and are found out usually are punished. So, there is a sense of justice among chimps.

See Science of Good and Evil (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Good-Evil-People-Gossip/dp/0805075208)

Moral Animal (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996)


We keep returning to this term -- the foundations of morality. That is the term that I think we should all focus on and that is the thrust of what I am trying to say.

That other animals share the basis for what we call morality with us is obvious and there is an extensive literature on it (which I have read in some depth including all the sources you have mentioned).

But the same is true for religion. There is much less extensive literature on the latter, though, because religion has always been one of those "don't touch" subjects. There was a fairly good examination of this in the Week in Review section of the New York Times this past weekend.

The funny thing about it is that the origin for both is probably the same -- the real origin for religion lies in the same sorts of group cohesion behaviors that serve as the origin for our morality (which goes some way in explaining why the two are so often confounded by fundamentalists).

We cannot focus on the "foundations of morality" and discuss only the full expression of religion. If we want to talk about the foundations of moral action, then we must also discuss the foundations of religious action. Treat both the same.

If we define morality as "rules of behavior", then all sorts of behaviors that we don't define as moral suddenly become moral, and this includes what insects do. It also includes what paramecia do. It includes decisions to brush teeth or eat what is common in our culture as opposed to something else.

Ultimately the point I'm trying to make is that this is a dumb question based on a misunderstanding -- that one could be first. Neither is first. They both arise in the structures that allow us to coexist in the first place.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Perhaps this will help explain my position, since I see the problem here in word definitions (I think this is a pseudo-issue).

We have this word - morality. It is a single word, so it seems to refer to a single thing, as though we have one integrated behavior, "morality".

But this is not the case. What we call morality is a collection of behaviors and computational schemas. Empathy is one big part of the picture, but empathy alone is not morality. Valuation is one big part of the picture, but values are not the whole story. The group of behaviors we call "character" is a huge chunk of what constitutes morality but is not the whole enchilada. We have two sometimes competing computational paradigms for deciding if an action is moral or not -- one concerns utility for the group and the other concerns our sense of 'fairness'.

All of these behaviors go into the mix of what we call morality.

Religion is not one thing. It depends critically on a group of behaviors as well.

Both of these behavior complexes have predecessors in other animals, but they are not fully expressed as in humans except in humans (as far as we know).

I think it is wrong to single out religion as something later or somehow degenerate. It is also wrong to make the mistake in the other direction of arguing that religion is 'natural' and therefore it is somehow degenerate for someone to forgo any of the available religions that we have today.

Neither religion nor morality are "things" or even simple actions. They are behavioral suites; and we can pick and choose amongst the suite of behaviors that constitute the full expression of what we call morality -- why we act as utilitarians sometimes and deontologists other times. And we can pick and choose amongst the behavioral suite that constitutes religion, which is really just a collection of group cohesion behaviors with a story behind it. One of the easier bits to leave out is the idea of God, as some types of Buddhism do and most of us here do as well even though we still hang together and discuss things as a group.

The reason we have these types of debates is because none of these complex behavioral suites are one "thing", even though they are referred to by a single word, so that we tend to think of them as a single "thing".

There are words that much more closely refer to one thing -- like Teflon -- so this is not a completely universal character of every bit of language; but it is a common theme for the charged words that we use on a regular basis.

And the language that we use is so mired in dualistic assumptions that we often cannot see how those assumptions shape this and many other debates.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Zoological bases of morality and religion? -- there's an interesting tack (tho' not unexpected, given the alias, eh). ;) Morality typically comes down to weighting benefits to the individual versus to the group for that individual's choice; religion exists, typically, as a means to bind the individual to the group: that is, to weight the individual's choices in favor of the group the religion represents.

If that's the case, then an animal would need some sense of self -- a reason to be self-ish -- to qualify as moral; else, one could argue that bees, for example, are supremely "moral", with group benefits weighted at 100% and ruthlessly adhered to (though new queens do fight over succession "for themselves" in a sense -- this may be to the benefit of the group, though -- hive solidarity versus civil war. Anyway, whether bugs are supremely moral or strictly amoral will come down to definitions).

Our mammalian neighbors, such as wolves aforementioned, are a tougher call, I think. The "lone wolf" would seem to have some sense of self, developed enough to exist on its own for long stretches; however, I don't know if lone wolves are usually accepted meantime by the pack, as auxillary to it, if at all. Once a wolf gets out of line over food or sex (or whatever wolves argue about) and belies its status in the pack, it's chased out, ostracized. I suppose the impulse to get out of line and to too belligerently challenge a higher-up might qualify as a "moral" decision, and the custom of ostracizing the overly belligerent challenger as wolf "religion"... I don't know. It's a tough call (assuming I'm even describing pack behavior correctly; reading Jack London as a kid hardly makes me an expert).

Wolves howling at the moon: I love to think of that as 'cultured' -- moral, religious, and/or artistic somehow -- above the level of ruthless instinct. I know I'm anthropomorphising: they're probably just letting off steam, not writing arias to the moon. Still, "letting off steam" in a socially acceptable way, so that pent-up energy doesn't lead to group dissension and individual ostracism, for the pack and against the lone wolf, does meet many reasonable criteria for morality and religion, for culture. Maybe the fact that they don't write it down shouldn't prejudice us too much.



Yeah, what he said.

[Hux]

If they are behavioural studies then we appear to have artefacts of day to day behaviour much more primitive than signs of superstitious and religious thought.

I think we can be certain that the common ancestor of chimps and hominds had no abstract thoughts such as religion. They were pretty much tied up in survival. Just as we do not observe any 'religious' type ritual in Chimps or the other Apes. Being able to consider anything other than survival - actually being able to consider anything to an extent, arrived very late in an evolving consciousness. Whereas, dealing with each other justly (or unjustly) can be a matter of very early behaviour.

[drkitten]

Yes. That's my primary point. If we define morality in such a broad sense as to include the actions of other animals, are we not obliged to doe the same for religion?

Short answer : no.

Long answer : Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooo.

We define "eating" in such a broad sense as to include the actions of other answers, but for some reason we don't feel compelled to do the same for "programming computers" or "Formula 1 racing."

The reason is, we have an a priori definition of most things that is based on an observation of the thing itself, a definition that we can then observe and see whether it applies to other animals.

We have a pretty good observational understanding of what "morality" is; it's a type of behavioral social norm. We also have a fairly good understanding of what "religion" is, and it involves a belief system with propositional content.

That's a key distinction. People are typically NOT able to justify merely "moral" behavior in terms of propositional content. You do something, or refrain from doing it, "just because." "That's how we've always done it." "It's just not done." "Religion," on the other hand, explicitly involves propositional content -- at the very least, it typically involves a belief that "a supreme being" "exists." (The courts are well aware of this distinction as well, and there has been a lot of ink spilled about whether or not a particular practice is "religious" or merely "moral" and the decision often hinges on the identification of these types of beliefs.)

Animal have social norms, but we've got no evidence that animals have beliefs with abstract propositional content.


We see what has been called proto-moral behavior in other animals. We see proto-cultural behavior as well. There is undoubtably proto-language in other animals where they think and plan according to the same sorts of rules that govern our language.

Yes, yes, and no. If you really think that you have evidence for naturally occuring "proto-language," I suggest you write it up for the journals, because the people who study animal behavior and the people who study language don't know about it.

[Hux]

Given that Jews no longer stone adulterers, I think you ought to think again.

DR

That is true, but they dont stone adulterers because they got modern. Quite the opposite. Morality evolved despite religions.

[drkitten]

That is true, but they dont stone adulterers because they got modern. Quite the opposite. Morality evolved despite religions.

Um,.... yes, that's why the Quakers were notorious for their support of slavery when the secular world around them was trying to abolish it.

Exactly.

What color was the sky in your world again? :confused:

[Hux]

So you reckon that the later iniquity of one little cult defers the entire idea that secularity has overridden religious sensibilities?

For instance, does secular law (other than Shariah) not preside over human affairs than religious courts?

The secular world was trying to abolish slavery by refusing to follow religious permission any longer. Just because a few religions held out demonstrates that secular ideas had taken the upper hand and denied the barbarity of religion. We know its morally wrong to keep slaves (there is some suggestion that in the Islamic world, slavery still lives on) but aside from that, we know its wrong despite the scriptures saying its fine to do so. So who evolved? Literalists wouldn't have changed a thing.

[Piscivore]

The secular world was trying to abolish slavery by refusing to follow religious permission any longer. Just because a few religions held out demonstrates that secular ideas had taken the upper hand and denied the barbarity of religion. We know its morally wrong to keep slaves (there is some suggestion that in the Islamic world, slavery still lives on) but aside from that, we know its wrong despite the scriptures saying its fine to do so. So who evolved? Literalists wouldn't have changed a thing.

Ahem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers
In the public eye, Quakers are known for their social activism, having been instrumental in the campaign against the transatlantic slave trade, as well as campaigning for the rights of minorities such as women, prisoners or gay people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Religious_Society_of_Friends#Abolit ion_of_Slavery

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

[Hux]

Ah yes, My apologies. I see what you mean. That does not change my view that secular laws and morality has advanced and evolved away from religious power - and not without a fight.

[Darth Rotor]

That is true, but they dont stone adulterers because they got modern. Quite the opposite. Morality evolved despite religions.
Try this sentence on for size: morality evolved in parallel with religion. Go back and look at my little .jpeg sketch.

15835

That does not change my view that secular laws and morality has advanced and evolved away from religious power - and not without a fight.
A reasonable position to take, but that isn't what this conversation was focused on. What was asked is "which came first" not "what has been changing" nor "what has changed."

DR

[Hux]

Ive seen the sketch. I do not think religion has evolved much and certainly not as quick as secular humanity. I am struck by how the Torah must be written exactly and precisely as the copy before it. It is immutable. Yet, Jews, orthodox or otherwise, don't stone adulterers any more, completely ignoring their holy scriptures. (I have no doubt a few would still enjoy doing it)

I suggest secular suppression of religion and wrestling the law away from religion has caused an evolution of morality. It does not seem to be a position that religion gave up willingly.

I know what the thread was about. I said morality is profoundly ancient. Religion came as our consciousness grew.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Short answer : no.

Long answer : Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooo.

We define "eating" in such a broad sense as to include the actions of other answers, but for some reason we don't feel compelled to do the same for "programming computers" or "Formula 1 racing."

The reason is, we have an a priori definition of most things that is based on an observation of the thing itself, a definition that we can then observe and see whether it applies to other animals.

We have a pretty good observational understanding of what "morality" is; it's a type of behavioral social norm. We also have a fairly good understanding of what "religion" is, and it involves a belief system with propositional content.

That's a key distinction. People are typically NOT able to justify merely "moral" behavior in terms of propositional content. You do something, or refrain from doing it, "just because." "That's how we've always done it." "It's just not done." "Religion," on the other hand, explicitly involves propositional content -- at the very least, it typically involves a belief that "a supreme being" "exists." (The courts are well aware of this distinction as well, and there has been a lot of ink spilled about whether or not a particular practice is "religious" or merely "moral" and the decision often hinges on the identification of these types of beliefs.)

Animal have social norms, but we've got no evidence that animals have beliefs with abstract propositional content.



Yes, yes, and no. If you really think that you have evidence for naturally occuring "proto-language," I suggest you write it up for the journals, because the people who study animal behavior and the people who study language don't know about it.



Your definition of religion is off and not in keeping with the typical definitions offered by religious scholars over the years; and it is with that I primarily disagree, though I also disagree with the broadness of your definition of morality.

It seems that those pushing the 'morality came first' position want to define morality in its broadest way but not religion.

So, let's look at both issues. First, from Kant's viewpoint most people do not act morally; and your suggestion that most people cannot enunciate the reasons for their actions is proof positive. He even seems to imply that to act because you feel that the action is moral colors that action with less moral worth than someone acting purely out of moral duty -- which is propositional and depends not only on reason but on language. In fact, from Kant's perspective, the entire thrust of the evolutionary explanation for moral behavior is wrongheaded. He was, in part, disagreeing with Hume's emotivism.

It is simply not the case that morality simply consists in -- I feel like it's right so I do it; I feel that it is wrong so I don't. While it is clearly (at least to me) true that one source of our developed morality arises in emotivism, it is also true that many folks would argue against emotivism as the upshot of morality or moral action.

To take the converse with religion -- first "propositional content" in a broad sense does not require language. We can tell stories perfectly well without language and many animals communicate quite nicely without it. My dogs even lie to one another without the use of language.

A large branch of theory of mind and cognitive research deals with the basic structure of thought. From Lacan, who I otherwise consider a complete waste of time, we have the idea that the unconscious is structured like a language. It is also the case that our general way of thinking is also structured like a language, which is no surprise because language did not spring from bare ground but arose from the basis of our (and other animals's) ability to think. Thought is intentional and shares with language certain types of fit for certain types of propositions -- what has been called world to word or word to world fit when one discusses commands vs. descriptions. Animals clearly command others in their groups. They also take in information from the world and communicate that information to others, otherwise bees would not wiggle and dogs would not bark.

Religion has been variously defined by Rudolph Otto as consisting in the overwhelming feeling of awe inspired by mystery and by Durkheim as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things or places (where sacred is defined as things set apart).

We can never know if animals feel an overwhelming sense of awe at the wonder of the world, but I have no reason to suppose that they do not. It is clear that they set off space in different ways and treat different parts of space differently (and not just -- this is mine and that is yours). Does this rise to the level of identifying some areas as profane and others as sacred? We can't know. We can know that the basis for viewing space in differential fashion is clearly present in their behavior.

Another key aspect of religion is shared experience and bonding of community, which is clearly present in animal behavior.

I don't think anyone wants to argue that chimps have a moral system in the way that humans do, that chimps or any other animal is properly 'moral', just as no one would want to argue that chimps have religion (though the rain dances they display come very close to ritualized behavior like humans engage in). Show me a chimp who weighs the pluses and minuses of whether or not to steal from his neighbor and I will change my mind.

The point is that we are not really discussing true morality when we discuss animal behavior. We discuss the foundations of morality. We should be discussing the foundations of religion in an equal way. Both arise from the same ground.

Neither came first in any meaningful way. They are both complex human activities that have antecedents in animal behavior.

Unless you want to tell me that ants are moral creatures. They abide by a behavioral social norm. I'm not willing to call that morality; I think it washes the term of all useful meaning.

[Darth Rotor]

Ive seen the sketch. I do not think religion has evolved much and certainly not as quick as secular humanity.
"Quickly" is a curious term to use for morality and religion, two things that have been around for millenia. Are you playing short attention span on us here? And when did the goal post move to "secular humanity" occur? :confused:

Screw the topic, just toss out sound bytes.
I know what the thread was about. I said morality is profoundly ancient. Religion came as our consciousness grew.
Thank you for that.

DR

[jadey]

Show me a chimp who weighs the pluses and minuses of whether or not to steal from his neighbor and I will change my mind.


I saw a special on this where one researcher has created/executed experiments that demonstrate just that. I'll see if I can find it and provide some detail. (I'm making no statements to the validity of the experiment, just repeating what I interpreted from the show.)

[jadey]

Show me a chimp who weighs the pluses and minuses of whether or not to steal from his neighbor and I will change my mind.


I saw a special on this where one researcher has created/executed experiments that demonstrate just that. I'll see if I can find it and provide some detail. (I'm making no statements to the validity of the experiment, just repeating what I interpreted from the show.)

Rhesus Monkeys Can Assess The Visual Perspective Of Others When Competing For Food (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050310102832.htm)

ScienceDaily (Mar. 12, 2005) — Researchers Jonathan Flombaum and Dr. Laurie Santos, both from Yale University, have found that rhesus monkeys consider whether a competitor can or cannot see them when trying to steal food.

When I saw the special, I interpreted this to mean that the monkeys were "weighing the pluses and minuses" of their actions. I guess they are, but I don't think that is really what you are after.

[imjohn]

I detect more than a whiff of anti-Americanism in this thread.
:(

[Ichneumonwasp]

Rhesus Monkeys Can Assess The Visual Perspective Of Others When Competing For Food (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050310102832.htm)



When I saw the special, I interpreted this to mean that the monkeys were "weighing the pluses and minuses" of their actions. I guess they are, but I don't think that is really what you are after.



I thank you for the link and for pointing out the sloppiness of my earlier response. I certainly did not mean to imply or want anyone to infer that I meant that animals do not deliberate in decision making, for they surely do.

You are correct that this was not what I was after. What I meant was "show me an animal deliberating on a moral matter", in other words deliberating whether or not to perform an action based on the rightness or wrongness of the action (whether right or wrong is defined in terms of duty, enhancing the well-being of the greatest number, or basic character traits).

That example shows animals deciding based on whether or not they think they can get food without getting slapped (is he going to be nice or mean). The further example would be "can I steal that" or "can I get away with the action". I don't think anyone wants to call that moral deliberation. From a human perspective it is more akin to a criminal deciding whether or not to knock over a convenience store based on whether or not she thinks she can get away with it. Or with the rhesus example, how likely is she to help me out, so should I even ask?

For the situation with stealing food to be a moral decision, we would first have to establish that rhesus monkeys have a sense of ownership over food. I don't think they do. For example, I don't think that a rhesus monkey taking food from another is an immoral action because I don't think they view food the same way we do. My impression from watching mostly dogs is that for most species if you can get it, it's yours. And if someone can take it away, then it's hers. There is no sense of right or wrong about it; no sense that there is a social norm that says -- once I touch this food it's mine.

[RandFan]

We keep returning to this term -- the foundations of morality. That is the term that I think we should all focus on and that is the thrust of what I am trying to say.

That other animals share the basis for what we call morality with us is obvious and there is an extensive literature on it (which I have read in some depth including all the sources you have mentioned).

But the same is true for religion. There is much less extensive literature on the latter, though, because religion has always been one of those "don't touch" subjects. There was a fairly good examination of this in the Week in Review section of the New York Times this past weekend.

The funny thing about it is that the origin for both is probably the same -- the real origin for religion lies in the same sorts of group cohesion behaviors that serve as the origin for our morality (which goes some way in explaining why the two are so often confounded by fundamentalists).

We cannot focus on the "foundations of morality" and discuss only the full expression of religion. If we want to talk about the foundations of moral action, then we must also discuss the foundations of religious action. Treat both the same.

If we define morality as "rules of behavior", then all sorts of behaviors that we don't define as moral suddenly become moral, and this includes what insects do. It also includes what paramecia do. It includes decisions to brush teeth or eat what is common in our culture as opposed to something else.

Ultimately the point I'm trying to make is that this is a dumb question based on a misunderstanding -- that one could be first. Neither is first. They both arise in the structures that allow us to coexist in the first place.I understand your argument and I can see how one could follow the line of thought to your conclusion that the question is dumb. I think one could be persuaded that the argument could come down to semantics. I think one would be wrong.

In any event, your second to last paragraph begs the question. In essense you are saying "if we difne morality as that which it isn't". But I understand the point you are trying to make.

I don't think the question necassarily dumb or unanswerable. I think the answer quite clear. Human morality as opposed to the morality of fish and insects is based on more than hard wired rules of behivor. It includes empathy, compassion and reason. For what we would consider to be human morality or something aking to that then empathy and compassion along with hard wired rules of behavior are requisite. This is why I excluded from my examples animals other than great apes. These things clearly came before even the most rudimentary of aspects that we call religion by any common usage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion). We had a sense of morality before we began to bury the dead with tokens of love and affection. We know we did because chimps and other great apes have these and they don't have religion.

Now, if you want to say that formal systems of morality and religion from that point on evolved together. That would be fine.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I understand your argument and I can see how one could follow the line of thought to your conclusion that the question is dumb. I think one could be persuaded that the argument could come down to semantics. I think one would be wrong.

In any event, your second to last paragraph begs the question. In essense you are saying "if we difne morality as that which it isn't". But I understand the point you are trying to make.

I don't think the question necassarily dumb or unanswerable. I think the answer quite clear. Human morality as opposed to the morality of fish and insects is based on more than hard wired rules of behivor. It includes empathy, compassion and reason. For what we would consider to be human morality or something aking to that then empathy and compassion along with hard wired rules of behavior are requisite. This is why I excluded from my examples animals other than great apes. These things clearly came before even the most rudimentary of aspects that we call religion by any common usage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion). We had a sense of morality before we began to bury the dead with tokens of love and affection. We know we did because chimps and other great apes have these and they don't have religion.

Now, if you want to say that formal systems of morality and religion from that point on evolved together. That would be fine.


But how do you restrict examples to great apes and not have to admit that you have decided this arbitrarily?

This is why I began by saying that it all depends on how we define morality and how we define religion. From the outside it looks -- at least superficially -- like an attempt to stack the deck in favor of one side at the expense of the other. Most of the real definitions of morality -- from a philosophical perspective -- consider it a function of rules put forward by a society, something that clearly requires language.

I personally do not call the proto-moral behaviors of great apes "morality"; and I'm not sure how many others do. I certainly do not get the impression that Shermer thinks dogs or apes are moral creatures; rather his take is that they show evidence of behaviors that make up what we call morality when those behaviors become part of a larger social system that depends on sharing social rules via language.

We can all see many of the factors that play into morality in many other animals, and there is no question that morality is an inherited tendency in humans. But the converse is also true. What we call religion has precedent in other animals, in proto form. No one will argue (I don't think, and I would certainly argue against them) that other animal species are religious in any traditional sense.

It is also undeniable that there is currently a better set of data demonstrating animal proto-morality than anything like proto-religion/proto-culture; but consider that research into the former is funded easily and research into the latter is not (religion still be a hands-off topic).

[RandFan]

But how do you restrict examples to great apes and not have to admit that you have decided this arbitrarily?I'm happy to include any species that you can demonstrate possess empathy and compassion. It's not arbitrary and I've placed no restrictions.

This is why I began by saying that it all depends on how we define morality and how we define religion. From the outside it looks -- at least superficially -- like an attempt to stack the deck in favor of one side at the expense of the other.No. I've been very clear and specific. "Morality" for the purpose of the discussion isn't simply rules of behavior nor is it that which is reasoned. It's an evolved sense. Religion isn't.

Most of the real definitions of morality -- from a philosophical perspective -- consider it a function of rules put forward by a society, something that clearly requires language.I don't understand this response given the books cited and the example of chimps. I'm talking about an evolved sense of morality that relies on hardwired reciprocal altruism, compassion and empathy. No cultural advances needed. Not all chimps share the same abilities for tool making etc. but they all share the same moral sense.

I personally do not call the proto-moral behaviors of great apes "morality"; and I'm not sure how many others do. I certainly do not get the impression that Shermer thinks dogs or apes are moral creatures; rather his take is that they show evidence of behaviors that make up what we call morality when those behaviors become part of a larger social system that depends on sharing social rules via language.

We can all see many of the factors that play into morality in many other animals, and there is no question that morality is an inherited tendency in humans. But the converse is also true. What we call religion has precedent in other animals, in proto form. No one will argue (I don't think, and I would certainly argue against them) that other animal species are religious in any traditional sense.

It is also undeniable that there is currently a better set of data demonstrating animal proto-morality than anything like proto-religion/proto-culture; but consider that research into the former is funded easily and research into the latter is not (religion still be a hands-off topic).You are certainly free to ignore conventional wisdom. There is no dogma in science. That said, I don't think there is anything "proto-religion" in any species. "proto-cultural" of course but that's not at all equivalent of what I'm talking about.

Hardwired rules of behavior like reciprocal altruism along with empathy, mirror neurons, and many other aspects are morality in a way that any other behavior isn't "religion". What you seem to fail to grasp is how significant these things are to morality. They aren't simply a foundation as you would suppose. They are not simply "proto". They comprise morality. Now, there is another level of morality. A social layer that evolves and is not absolutely universal. We call it the zeitgeist and it is of course not what I'm talking about.

You are minimizing one and maximizing the other to find some sort equivalency that just isn't there, IMO.

In fact, I would dare say that if you had an equivalent link you would have something quite extraordinary worth of publishing. You could do a book similar to Pinker's, Shermer's and Wright's. I realize this is an appeal to authority and isn't a conclusive proof but I think the dearth of material speaks volumes. If instead of proto-religion you spoke of proto-culture I would be inclined to agree. However, in truth, I think your point is that what I would call "proto-culture" is "proto-religion". Meh~

[Ichneumonwasp]

I guess I should let on why I have a problem viewing what I call primate proto-morality as "morality".

I've been trying to stay away from specific examples because they are always open to charges of anthropomorphism, but there is one occurrence that has stuck with me for years.

I don't recall all the details, but in Jane Goodall's group of chimps there was a very weird mother-daughter pair. The daughter's infant died and there was at that time in the group another new mother nursing her infant within the larger group. The mother-daughter pair kidnapped, killed, and if memory serves ate the other infant. I seem to recall that Dr. Goodall called one of the individuals involved "Melissa", but I can't recall a lot of other details.

I do recall one thing though. The mother-daughter pair, while weird, were not ostracized by the group after the murder. They continued to engage in grooming behavior from what I recall; and they were certainly not cast out.

Now if anything counts as a universal in ethics it should be that murder is wrong; it shouldn't matter what species is involved if we can accept our way of looking at morality. Granted most chimps don't murder rampantly, as would be expected by game theory; but if they had any sense of a moral code that they had internalized or employed, I would expect some sort of group retribution against the mother-daughter pair. In this case, as far as I can recall there was none. If anyone knows better details I would appreciate an update because my memory is a bit shoddy on this score.

That is one of the reasons why I do not call what other animal species do "morality". Proto-morality, foundation of morality, sure. But not what I would call morality. This case would seem to imply that there was no explicit group-identified sense that murder was wrong.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm happy to include any species that you can demonstrate possess empathy and compassion. It's not arbitrary and I've placed no restrictions.

No. I've been very clear and specific. "Morality" for the purpose of the discussion isn't simply rules of behavior nor is it that which is reasoned. It's an evolved sense. Religion isn't.

I don't understand this response given the books cited and the example of chimps. I'm talking about an evolved sense of morality that relies on hardwired reciprocal altruism, compassion and empathy. No cultural advances needed. Not all chimps share the same abilities for tool making etc. but they all share the same moral sense.

You are certainly free to ignore conventional wisdom. There is no dogma in science. That said, I don't think there is anything "proto-religion" in any species. "proto-cultural" of course but that's not at all equivalent of what I'm talking about.

Hardwired rules of behavior like reciprocal altruism along with empathy, mirror neurons, and many other aspects are morality in a way that any other behavior isn't "religion". What you seem to fail to grasp is how significant these things are to morality. They aren't simply a foundation as you would suppose. They are not simply "proto". They comprise morality. Now, there is another level of morality. A social layer that evolves and is not absolutely universal. We call it the zeitgeist and it is of course not what I'm talking about.

You are minimizing one and maximizing the other to find some sort equivalency that just isn't there, IMO.

In fact, I would dare say that if you had an equivalent link you would have something quite extraordinary worth of publishing. You could do a book similar to Pinker's, Shermer's and Wright's. I realize this is an appeal to authority and isn't a conclusive proof but I think the dearth of material speaks volumes. If instead of proto-religion you spoke of proto-culture I would be inclined to agree. However, in truth, I think your point is that what I would call "proto-culture" is "proto-religion". Meh~



Hold on a second. You are misrepresenting what I said. I am not calling equivalent what we see in other primates in terms of morality and religion. I'm not sure why you came to the conclusion that I was arguing that, since I certainly haven't said that explicitly -- especially because I don't believe it.

What I argued was that the question is stupid because the basis for what we call morality and what we call religion in humans has at least one source in common and both arise from underlying neural structures that emerge from our evolutionary history. I don't see actual morality or actual religion in other animals, and I think it is impossible to say when either actually began.

My point is that what we see in other animals does not rise to the level of what we generally identify as morality. There isn't a sense of conscious rule following, a necessary pre-condition for what we generally identify as morality in humans. If a human automaton followed rules we would say "Whew" but we wouldn't call any of those actions moral.

Sure, there are unconscious social rules in animals. Those rules are followed. Sure there is empathy. I've not downplayed that fact at all. If I have, perhaps you can show me where I think it isn't important or have said that empathy is not important.

What I said is that empathy is not morality because it isn't. Neither is rule following. Nor is social rule following in and of itself. Morality is a much more complex issue.

Of course religion is much more complex than anything that other animal species do. I've never argued against that fact. In fact, I have specifically said that I don't think anyone would ever argue that other animals have anything exactly like a religion. There are some folks who did argue after Jane Goodall described the "rain dance" as the beginnings of religious behavior, but that probably stretches things too far.

As to the issue over morality as "social rule following" I only followed your lead in that matter. You identified morality as social rule following. If you think that empathy is necessary, then we need to define empathy and define how it plays its role. As to whether or not insects have any sense of empathy, I haven't a clue as how to show that it is or is not the case. I certainly don't think social insects have a sense of empathy, but how could we tell?

I also fail to see how affixing empathy to social rule following creates morality. I see both as components in our behavior that we call morality, but that's as far as I can take it.

[RandFan]

Now if anything counts as a universal in ethics it should be that murder is wrong; it shouldn't matter what species is involved if we can accept our way of looking at morality.

Your assumption is circular. Morality isn't a priori. The ability to feel empathy and compassion does not obviate other drives and motives nor does it rule out violent behavior. Primate behavior, including that humans, isn't monolithic (see sociopaths) nor is it simplistic or static. On the contrary it's complex and dynamic. A complex and dynamic model that involved sex drive, hunger, survival instinct, etc., could and often would include rape, incest, brutality, genocide, etc..

I should note that Jane Goodall also was the first to document raiding parties. A brutal and wanton act where a group of male chimps go out in search of a lone member of another group, set on that individual and tear it to shreds paying specific attention to the genitals.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Your assumption is circular. Morality isn't a priori. The ability to feel empathy and compassion does not obviate other drives and motives nor does it rule out violent behavior. Primate behavior, including that humans, isn't monolithic (see sociopaths) nor is it simplistic or static. On the contrary it's complex and dynamic. A complex and dynamic model that involved sex drive, hunger, survival instinct, etc., could and often would include rape, incest, brutality, genocide, etc..

I should note that Jane Goodall also was the first to document raiding parties. A brutal and wanton act where a group of male chimps go out in search of a lone member of another group, set on that individual and tear it to shreds paying specific attention to the genitals.


I never said anything about morality being a priori. What I said was that if anything constitutes a universal it should be murder -- in group murder. This does not arise a priori, in fact that immorality of murder is arrived at through various different moral frameworks.

There is no circularity involved.

OK, I'm thoroughly confused now. What exactly is your definition of morality? I'm not asking for what components help to make it up, but what morality is. Without common ground there is no basis on which any discussion can continue.

While I consider that many different components make up what we call morality, we certainly have working definitions -- one of the most commonly accepted is that it is a set of rules put forward implicitly and, more importantly, explicitly by a social group.

[RandFan]

I don't see actual morality...I've no idea what "actual morality" is. I suspect you are not able to define it.

My point is that what we see in other animals does not rise to the level of what we generally identify as morality.My point is that humans posses a moral sense. Humans don't posses a religious sense.

Sure, there are unconscious social rules in animals. Those rules are followed. Sure there is empathy. I've not downplayed that fact at all. If I have, perhaps you can show me where I think it isn't important or have said that empathy is not important. You miss my point. There is no such equivelant to religion.

Morality = hardwired rules of behavior. Compassion and empathy.

What I said is that empathy is not morality because it isn't. Neither is rule following. Nor is social rule following in and of itself. Morality is a much more complex issue.I don't agree at all. I think you are defining morality to be something that folks like Pinker, Shermer, Wright and let me add Dennett don't.

Of course religion is much more complex than anything that other animal species do. I've never argued against that fact. In fact, I have specifically said that I don't think anyone would ever argue that other animals have anything exactly like a religion. There are some folks who did argue after Jane Goodall described the "rain dance" as the beginnings of religious behavior, but that probably stretches things too far.

As to the issue over morality as "social rule following" I only followed your lead in that matter. You identified morality as social rule following. If you think that empathy is necessary, then we need to define empathy and define how it plays its role.

As to whether or not insects have any sense of empathy, I haven't a clue as how to show that it is or is not the case. I certainly don't think social insects have a sense of empathy, but how could we tell?

I also fail to see how affixing empathy to social rule following creates morality. I see both as components in our behavior that we call morality, but that's as far as I can take it.Please to provide a link or quote where I said that morality is "social rule following"?

Empathy requres theory of mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind)? A being that is capable of empathy must be self aware and recognize that others are self aware. We can reasonably exclude insects.

Golden rule or the corollary, do not unto others as you would have them not do unto you.

The golden rules requires A.) theory of mind and B.) the recogniztion that others can feel pain as we do.

Empathy reinforces "B" in that we not only recognize when others feel pain but we experience it ourself.

The golden rule exists without social advancement because of theory of mind and empathy. We can advance it socially and overcome some of our other drives and motivations by conceptualizing and stressing it but it exists in and of itself.

[RandFan]

I never said anything about morality being a priori. What I said was that if anything constitutes a universal it should be murder -- in group murder. This does not arise a priori, in fact that immorality of murder is arrived at through various different moral frameworks. "Murder"? I should have addressed that earlier. What you are talking about is killing. It is a priori that ending the life of another is killing. What makes it murder? That is the devil in the details.

Circular. You presume (you take as a given) that killing is per se immoral (murder). I contend no such thing.

OK, I'm thoroughly confused now. What exactly is your definition of morality? I'm not asking for what components help to make it up, but what morality is. Without common ground there is no basis on which any discussion can continue. For this discussion morality is a personal sense of right and wrong. Most chimps may perceive that killing another is wrong under many circumstances.

While I consider that many different components make up what we call morality, we certainly have working definitions -- one of the most commonly accepted is that it is a set of rules put forward implicitly and, more importantly, explicitly by a social group.I've tried to make clear that I'm talking about a sense of morality and not the moral zeitgeist.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Please to provide a link or quote where I said that morality is "social rule following"?




Post 127. But you left out the social part, which I included -- I didn't think you would mind.

[QUOTE=RandfanI would define morality loosely as rules of behavior. [/QUOTE]

But we should probably let that go along with much of the rest.

I think we are arguing past one another.

Let me make my position clear. I am discussing as morality what we can clearly identify as morality in humans. I don't think we can call what we see in other animals morality in that sense, and the examples we see with chimps demonstrates this, I think.

Don't get me wrong. I know this literature. I agree fully that there is no question that chimps have empathy, compassion, etc. Sure, we can call it a moral sense. But a moral sense is not morality. It is a moral sense.

No, I do not think that humans have a religious sense in the same way. But that was not the issue at discussion -- it certainly was not the title of the thread. The thread title was "what came first?"

I don't think we can say what came first. Morality, as we define it, depends on social rules that are expressed so that they can be followed or not. When not followed, and when the transgression is discovered, the violator is generally punished -- all of this is part of what we call morality, the important part of punishment as far as morality is concerned is the internal sense of doing wrong (please do not nitpick this into legal vs. illegal).

I made a specific claim -- that the underlying neural structures that result in morality are shared in the expression of religion. The general rules of empathy, social cohesion are important for the expression of both morality and religion. Compassion and social cohesion do not constitute morality or religion.

Let me repeat things I did not say. I did not say that religion was equal to morality. I did not say that religion has an equivalent neural structure to morality in other animals. I didn't even imply it. I did not say that animals are religious. I am not trying to defend religion for goodness sakes.

What I said was that just as there are underlying structures in animals that play into the full expression of morality in humans, there are structures in animals that play into the expression of religion in humans.

I think we agree that animals have a moral sense. I don't think I can count how many times I have said or implied that fact. I did not argue that animals have an equivalent religious sense. But they do have the underlying structures that become expressed in humans as religion.

Sure it's easier to get from the moral sense that animals have to human morality than it is to move from the cultural precedents that play into religion in humans. But that doesn't mean that we can identify what came first.

[Ichneumonwasp]

"Murder"? I should have addressed that earlier. What you are talking about is killing. It is a priori that ending the life of another is killing. What makes it murder? That is the devil in the details.

Circular. You presume (you take as a given) that killing is per se immoral (murder). I contend no such thing.

For this discussion morality is a personal sense of right and wrong. Most chimps may perceive that killing another is wrong under many circumstances.

I've tried to make clear that I'm talking about a sense of morality and not the moral zeitgeist.



I'm specifically talking about in-group killing -- something that should be taken care of by a moral sense by any game theory paradigm. Allow in-group killing and you can't have a group. How could that not rise to a universal as far as any group is concerned.

Do you have any sense how in-group killing does not rise to being wrong?

I'm not discussing out-group killing as with war. That is an entirely different issue.

And, as I continue to try to say -- moral sense is not morality. Morality is much more complex than the existence of a moral sense.

[RandFan]

What I said was that just as there are underlying structures in animals that play into the full expression of morality in humans, there are structures in animals that play into the expression of religion in humans.

I think we agree that animals have a moral sense. I don't think I can count how many times I have said or implied that fact. I did not argue that animals have an equivalent religious sense. But they do have the underlying structures that become expressed in humans as religion.

Sure it's easier to get from the moral sense that animals have to human morality than it is to move from the cultural precedents that play into religion in humans. But that doesn't mean that we can identify what came first. I think it does mean that. I don't know at what point we realized cause and affect and that we realized that we could be the cause of effects like the production of tools. And having done so anthropomorphized cause and effect of rain, sun, wind, growth of plants, etc. I'm sure it was very early in our devlopment but I think there is a very good case to be made that rudimentary morality (a sense to treat others they way we would like to be treated) predated it.

I do understand your point. I think it can be argued. I think we should move on.

[RandFan]

I'm specifically talking about in-group killing -- something that should be taken care of by a moral sense by any game theory paradigm. Allow in-group killing and you can't have a group. How could that not rise to a universal as far as any group is concerned.

Do you have any sense how in-group killing does not rise to being wrong?

I'm not discussing out-group killing as with war. That is an entirely different issue.I don't think in-group killing is per se murder. I think we have a moral sense that unnecessary killing is wrong.

And, as I continue to try to say -- moral sense is not morality. Morality is much more complex than the existence of a moral sense.I don't agree with you. You are saying morality isn't morality. If you want to simply state that the question is about a more formal complex morality then I can be persuaded. But I don't think that is the subject at hand. I could be wrong and in which case yeah, we are simply arguing past each other. But a moral sense is morality. If I think myself it's wrong to kill another unnecessarily then that is morality.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't think in-group killing is per se murder. I think we have a moral sense that unnecessary killing is wrong.

I don't agree with you. You are saying morality isn't morality. If you want to simply state that the question is about a more formal complex morality then I can be persuaded. But I don't think that is the subject at hand. I could be wrong and in which case yeah, we are simply arguing past each other. But a moral sense is morality. If I think myself it's wrong to kill another unnecessarily then that is morality.


Well, from where I sit, a moral sense is the beginnings of morality, since most definitions of morality depend on expressed social rules that individuals can follow or not (those social rules obviously arising in the underlying moral sense). Most of the definitions of morality that hit what it is at heart include the expression of a group's mores (as opposed to the relatively useless definitions we find on sites like dictionary.com that just list the components of a moral sense). So, I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.

The reason why philosophers do not consider a moral sense as morality proper is because there is no sense in which one's moral sense can be called wrong. If Charlie Manson thinks it is right to stab people repeatedly, then we have no way of calling him immoral.

Morality to have meaning depends on social expression of rules that are agreed to within the group.

But, yes, this is off topic.

We should move on.

[RandFan]

Morality to have meaning depends on social expression of rules that are agreed to within the group.I don't understand this line of reasoning but I'm happy to agree to disagree.

But, yes, this is off topic.

We should move on.So long as I get the last word. ;)

[Ichneumonwasp]

I blame no one for not reading this long ramble, which I will couch as a general reply to Randfan, or for rejecting it if they disagree, but with your indulgence I would like to lay out more fully my opinion on this matter (if for no other reason than to make myself clear). Sorry, Rand, but you will now have to add another word to get the last one.

Morality has been defined descriptively as a code of conduct put forward by a society or some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior; and it has been defined normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons (adapted from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
As such, there are clear cognitive aspects to this, and I must say, most definitions of morality.

What you have proposed is a form of naturalism, which has been argued most forcefully by emotivists, such as AJ Ayer, in the 20th century and traces its origins to David Hume. Being largely a Humean I am definitely sympathetic to the idea, but even Hume did not stop with emotivism/naturalism. He also seemed to argue that there are cognitive and social aspects to morality, that morality is more than just the “moral sentiments”.

Debates, such as this, usually focus on broader moral issues and generally use Hitler or some other deviant actor (I used Charles Manson earlier) to highlight problems with simplistic notions of emotivism. For, if morality consists only in “what I feel is right”, then there are no grounds on which anyone can say that anyone else is not moral. “Do what you feel” is a personal code, but it does not rise to the level of what we generally label as “morality”. Instead, morality, especially as defined above, requires further cognitive and social input. Most the emotivist literature focuses on narrower moral definitions and concerns.

While morality has its origins in the “moral sentiments”, and these moral sentiments are clearly selected for and native to both humans and other animals to varying degrees, those moral sentiments cannot be the full content of any sort of established morality as that word is generally used. For that word to have the meaning we give it, it must also include social elaboration. We feel what is right and what is wrong, but morality itself takes those moral sentiments into the wider social sphere where they are agreed to or discarded by the group. We develop the general principle that murder is wrong through social interaction; that principle has its origins in our basic moral sentiment that tells us that murder is wrong on a fundamental level, but we also teach the idea, with exceptions, in theory to all members of the society.

In part this situation pertains because there are no actual moral absolutes, no actual moral universals (as moral sentiments). For all the tens of thousands who feel in their gut that killing an innocent is wrong, there are a few sociopaths who were not born with that feeling. Moral universals are social elaborations, social abstractions that depend on the feelings of the overwhelming majority of folks. What we end up with is a combination of our underlying moral sentiments and learned social behavior. When we want to examine our own moral lives it is very difficult to piece out what is native and what is learned social elaboration. Conscientious objectors may feel that war is wrong, vegans may feel that killing an animal is wrong, but how much of each stance is pure native moral sentiment and how much depends on learning/cognitive aspects is difficult to determine.

To sum up, moral sentiments do not constitute morality in and of themselves. They are the foundation of morality, the necessary pre-condition – unless, of course, you would like to conclude that a sociopath killing an innocent is morally correct because s/he is only acting on his/her underlying moral sentiment. While you can certainly construct a coherent story along those lines, that is not what most folks mean when they speak of morality; and, pragmatically speaking, when it comes to teaching others who are not sympathetic to the idea that moral sentiments are selected for, I fear that stance would immediately turn them off, so they would also reject the idea of moral sentiments possibly being an evolutionary product out of hand.

When it comes to religion the issue is admittedly murkier.

Keep in mind that religion, like morality, is a cultural product, so it bears the stamp of cultural evolution. As we have moral sentiments, we also have cultural/group sentiments; and the drive to live in groups is just as surely selected for as our moral sentiments. In fact, we can view morality and culture as two aspects of one basic drive – our cultural sentiments band us together (providing for greater protection than an individual could ever obtain) and our moral sentiments permit this to occur (so that we can solve social problems). Social cohesion is the basic underlying thrust of each – that is why I initially identified morality and religion as springing from the same source.

I also stated that the way one approaches such questions depends on one’s definitions. While you have focused on the naturalist aspects of morality, most of the definitions offered for what constitute religion seem to focus on social elaborations. In fact, most of the definitions I have seen in this thread (I did not read any part of it before I joined the conversation, so forgive me if such definitions were offered earlier) appear to be derived from examination of Western monotheistic religions. That is not how I view what religion *is*, however.

Folks who spend their time trying to understand religion have offered very different sorts of definitions. I mentioned two of them earlier in this thread – those of Otto Rank and Emile Durkheim. Rank focused on the sense of awe and wonder at deep mystery as the underlying theme of religion and religious experience; and Durkheim, being a sociologist, focused on the social aspects, defining religion as a collection of beliefs and practices that bind together groups and concern the sacred.

The sense of wonder and awe seems, to me, an individual experiential “thing”; and, from having experienced it, I am not sure that language or culture is a necessary component. Language and culture are clearly necessary components when talking about it in a greater context – “how weird that we are all here” – but, at the risk of seriously anthropomorphizing, I have a hard time not believing that other animals share this sentiment in some form.
As for Durkheim’s view, I think it pretty clear that animals treat space differentially. I do not mean this simply in terms of marking out territory, but rather that space is used in different ways at different times. Social animals tend not to urinate in feeding or sleeping areas, and they perform grooming actions in different areas than where they sleep, etc. I bring this up because by embuing space with different values – this area is good for this activity, that for that – we see the necessary pre-condition for differences between the sacred and the profane.

These are two parts of what we call religious experience that I think are reflected in animal behavior. In addition, hunting groups must share beliefs that bind them – that animal is good to eat so it’s hunting time, those guys might take our territory so let’s attack – also a necessary pre-condition for what we see in religion.

I certainly have no way of proving that animals share a sense of wonder and awe, but I think it highly likely. I certainly do not think that they place the same type of value on space that we do in our religious practices, but they clearly have the underlying processes that make this possible. And they clearly share some types of beliefs that bind them in groups – not to the extent that language makes possible, obviously.

My further argument, relating to both morality and religion, is that neither is a monolith. Both are collections of behaviors. With morality, as you have pointed out so elegantly, empathy and compassion are necessary components. But we also seem to have in-built calculators that inform us about group consequences (we make moral decisions based on consequences for the group, the basis of utilitarianism) and whether or not an action is fair. All of these behaviors comprise what we call morality (which is then elaborated by social interaction, etc.); there is no one thing that morality *is*. I think the same is true of religion. It is a collection of behaviors, many of which we can identify in other animals in some form. We then elaborate these basic behaviors into “established religions”.

We can then accept or reject particular moral systems just as we can accept or reject religions. We can act or not act on our moral sentiments, but we cannot eradicate those sentiments (or, at least, not easily). The same is true, I think, of “religious sentiments” if we can call them that. While I can reject organized religion, I cannot easily eradicate in myself the religious sentiment that tells me that world is an absolutely awe-inspiring place, that different bits of space have different value to me, or that I share several beliefs with my fellows that bind me to them. I can act or not act on them, but those sentiments are there.

I think it is easier for us to “see” the moral sentiments because morality is a special type of social rule following behavior that concerns emotionally highly charged issues (death, theft, sex). We follow other social rules that are not so highly charged but call them “fashion” or something similar. I don’t think that the underlying “religious sentiments” are as highly emotionally charged (even though established religions can co-opt them in highly emotionally charged ways), so they are not as obvious as the moral sentiments.
I fear that the way we discuss such issues creates problems. I feel just as strongly as, and perhaps even more strongly than, you that everyone should know about research in animal behavior including research into the “moral sentiments”. The people who need to know this material the most – those who reject it out of hand – will not listen if we try to stack the deck against what they consider most important. I know that this type of discussion always begins as reaction to the tired claim that morality is not possible without religion, and that religion is primary and everything proceeds from it. I am entirely sympathetic with attempts to crush this way of thinking, particularly because it is so infantile. But I think we perform an educational disservice when we emphasize the natural aspects of morality and neglect the natural aspects of religion; we can be accused of committing the same type error that evolution deniers commit (neglecting a large chunk of the available data).

Religious devotees know that they are correct. They know this because their gut tells them that their belief system is correct. Their gut tells them this because they have underlying religious sentiments that help them to feel that they are right and those other guys are wrong; and those sentiments, being tied to group behavior, are reinforced when others share them. I do not think that we should overlook this issue; instead, I think it is vitally important that we point it out, and then explain quietly that while we all feel the same underlying sentiments (atheists as a group do not reject anything that is truly basic to religion, belief not actually being basic to it if we identify Buddhism as a religion), it is not necessarily the case that their particular way of viewing the world – their individual elaborated established religion – is The Way.
When we over-generalize a particular moral sentiment we can run into problems – think Charlie Manson again, if he thinks it is fine to stab people and so everyone should think so too. People who confound their underlying religious sentiment with the elaborate religious structure they follow, feeling that they have found The Way as a general truth of the cosmos, need a wake-up call, especially when it is obvious that their “solution” (their particular religion) contradicts known facts (virtually all forms of religious fundamentalism) or causes problems in the world (radical Islam is the current prime example). They need to know that the basic feeling is not wrong, only that their solution to that feeling may be. That is where critical thinking comes into play and why education is so vitally important.

We have natural moral sentiments. We have natural religious sentiments. We also – naturally – have the ability to think critically and examine evidence. We can decide if the evidence supports or not the feelings that we have about the world; and hopefully with a lot of hard work and honest refection we can arrive at some approximation of the truth, or at least a solution that works.

[RandFan]

We have natural moral sentiments.
We have natural religious sentiments.
(enumeration mine)

I will give you #2 for the sake of argument. Your longwinded post notwithstanding, they don't begin to equate. What we would call the golden rule is affixed in most humans and so it's a bit more than simple moral sentiments. It's morality and it's shared by the majority of social members. Religion not so much.

Like I said earlier. You are minimizing one and embelishing the other to get them to equate.

You know, sometimes it's best to just find common ground. We both agree that formal systems of morality began the same time that religion did so I think that could be our common ground. Let me know. If it is then I'd happily give you the last word.

RandFan

[qayak]

(enumeration mine)

I will give you #2 for the sake of argument. Your longwinded post notwithstanding, they don't begin to equate. What we would call the golden rule is affixed in most humans and so it's a bit more than simple moral sentiments. It's morality and it's shared by the majority of social members. Religion not so much.

Like I said earlier. You are minimizing one and embelishing the other to get them to equate.

You know, sometimes it's best to just find common ground. We both agree that formal systems of morality began the same time that religion did so I think that could be our common ground. Let me know. If it is then I'd happily give you the last word.

RandFan

I have scanned the thread but haven't really read it in depth so this maybe a repeat. It would seem to me that morality came first and is a part of any social group. Religion came after and was, at first, no more than peoples' attempts to understand the world around them. It was only later that religion became tied to morality.

It would also seem to me that questions of right and wrong [morality] are a natural offshoot of any society. To say that society existed without religion, which it did, but without a formal system of morality, wouldn't seem possible.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Like I said earlier. You are minimizing one and embelishing the other to get them to equate.



RandFan


I haven't the slightest idea what "getting them to equate" even means. Could you explain?

I don't call them equal. I don't imply that they are equal. I don't even have an idea how "equal" can even apply to this situation. I simply stated my reasons for viewing the entire questions as poorly conceived. Or, let me make an analogy to philosophy of mind discussions -- we have dualists and we have monists, but John Searle has argued that the original mistake was to start counting in the first place. The proper response from his perspective is that we should reject the idea of counting at all; in other words reject the Cartesian categories on which that whole dialogue is based.

Personally I don't think the question "which came first" has any real meaning.

As far as "equating the two", I'm afraid that I really have no idea what you are getting at.

[RandFan]

I haven't the slightest idea what "getting them to equate" even means. Could you explain?You are the one that is making a comparison. I think we can compare the two but I think there are distinct differences.

Personally I don't think the question "which came first" has any real meaning. I disagree.

As far as "equating the two", I'm afraid that I really have no idea what you are getting at.Perhaps you shouldn't compare the two. If apples and oranges can't be equated then perhaps we shouldn't compare them.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You are the one that is making a comparison. I think we can compare the two but I think there are distinct differences.

I disagree.

Perhaps you shouldn't compare the two. If apples and oranges can't be equated then perhaps we shouldn't compare them.


I don't understand how you perceive that I am comparing the two. I gave examples of how each arise from pre-human precursors. That is all. I draw no equation from that, no sense that one is better or more important than the other.

What is the basis for "equating the two" or denigrating the one and elevating the other?

I'm not affixing any value judgments here, yet you seem to be accusing me of doing so.

I'm arguing why I think the question is dumb. You disagree. That's fine. But I still have no idea what it is that you are accusing me of doing -- equating, comparing? On what grounds do you view me comparing or equating them? What possible grounds could even serve to equate or compare them?

I'm sorry but I don't understand. Please explain what you are getting at.

[RandFan]

I'm not affixing any value judgments here, yet you seem to be accusing me of doing so.It's not my position that you are placing a value judgment. You are making an analogy. The analogy, IMO, fails. The analogy fails because though there are similarities there are fundamental differences. You do in fact argue that they are similar or roughly equivlent. I'm sorry but you have drawn parallels. If you now dismiss those parallels then fine. Morality is fundamentaly different from religion even if there are similariaties.

That's fine. But I still have no idea what it is that you are accusing me of doing -- equating, comparing?"Comparing" Yes. Comparing.



We have natural moral sentiments.
We have natural religious sentiments.
This is a comparison.


What I said was that just as there are underlying structures in animals that play into the full expression of morality in humans, there are structures in animals that play into the expression of religion in humans.
To restate.

A has B and C has B.

B plays into the expression of A.
B Plays into the expression of C.

That is a comparison.

[RandFan]

The point is that we are not really discussing true morality when we discuss animal behavior. We discuss the foundations of morality. I don't know what "true morality" is. I don't think any such thing exists.

We should be discussing the foundations of religion in an equal way. Both arise from the same ground. "Equal"? "Equate"?

Here you are drawing parallels. Making a comparison. Why should we discuss the foundations in an equal way? Is it because you think they are similar? I think they are similar. That said, morality in chimps and early humans isn't simply foundational. Most of us without the benifit of social advancement have a shared and workable morality. It's called the golden rule. We are born with it. It's not absolute. It does not always obviate or rule out other drives and motivations.

There is no analog for religion. Because they are NOT the same is, in part, the basis for me to say that morality came first.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's not my position that you are placing a value judgment. You are making an analogy. The analogy, IMO, fails. The analogy fails because though there are similarities there are fundamental differences. You do in fact argue that they are similar or roughly equivlent. I'm sorry but you have drawn parallels. If you now dismiss those parallels then fine. Morality is fundamentaly different from religion even if there are similariaties.

"Comparing" Yes. Comparing.


This is a comparison.

To restate.

A has B and C has B.

B plays into the expression of A.
B Plays into the expression of C.

That is a comparison.


Now wait a second here. I have not once argued that proto-religion and proto-morality are equivalent in some sense. Again, I have no idea what that would even mean.

The only similarity I see in them is that both arise from neural structures, that both are evident in other animals. There is no way to compare them. They serve similar functions, yes, but what possible difference does that make.

I'm not dismissing any parallels. I repeat the parallels I raised earlier -- as above.

What possible difference could it make that both arise in neural structures. There is nothing else to it than that.

What exactly are you after with this? I cannot fathom an objection to the fact that we have moral sentiments and we have religious sentiments. You can disagree with the analysis, but what other possible objection could you make to this?

I'm sorry but I find this extremely bizarre.

[RandFan]

I'm sorry but I find this extremely bizarre.I find your position likewise bizarre so at least we have that in common. I'm not sure how you are missing the point.

You said both were "proto". I dispute that. At least I would dispute the degree to which they were proto. So what is your opinion. Were they equally "proto" or not? Or are you saying that a blanket statement of "they were proto" is all that is needed and the degree to which they were advanced isn't important?

If so then no, I don't accept that and I find that a bit weasely. There is no bright and shiny line. No missing link. No Crocaduck. There is only a gradient. Just as one can't tell the exact moment day becomes night or child becomes adult we cannot determine when exactly rudimentary morality became "true morality" or "actual morality" or even what the hell that means. I sure don't know what it means and I assume you don't either.

You've yet to define those terms BTW.

Now wait a second here. I have not once argued that proto-religion and proto-morality are equivalent in some sense. Again, I have no idea what that would even mean.Morality in chimps and early humans is more structured and less proto than the proto-culture that gave rise to religion.

While I don't exactly share your semantics I agree that there was a more rudimentary morality and a more rudimentary culture in chimps and early humans. Thing is, I think the morality wasn't as unformed as the culture (I wouldn't begin to call it religion at this point).

If you agree that what you and I consdier as foundational morality was more advanced than this so called foundational culture then fine. That would seem to make my point and I don't know what point you originaly were trying to make. You were drawing parallells and comparing the two. You seemed to be saying, "look, they were both similarly in their infancy".

[Ichneumonwasp]

I find your position likewise bizarre so at least we have that in common. I'm not sure how you are missing the point.

You said both were "proto". I dispute that. At least I would dispute the degree to which they were proto. So what is your opinion. Were they equally "proto" or not? Or are you saying that a blanket statement of "they were proto" is all that is needed and the degree to which they were advanced isn't important?

If so then no, I don't accept that and I find that a bit weasely. There is no bright and shiny line. No missing link. No Crocaduck. There is only a gradient. Just as one can't tell the exact moment day becomes night or child becomes adult we cannot determine when exactly rudimentary morality became "true morality" or "actual morality" or even what the hell that means. I sure don't know what it means and I assume you don't either.

You've yet to define those terms BTW.

Morality in chimps and early humans is more structured and less proto than the proto-culture that gave rise to religion.

While I don't exactly share your semantics I agree that there was a more rudimentary morality and a more rudimentary culture in chimps and early humans. Thing is, I think the morality wasn't as unformed as the culture (I wouldn't begin to call it religion at this point).

If you agree that what you and I consdier as foundational morality was more advanced than this so called foundational culture then fine. That would seem to make my point and I don't know what point you originaly were trying to make. You were drawing parallells and comparing the two. You seemed to be saying, "look, they were both similarly in their infancy".


What do you mean by referring to the degree of both being proto? There is no degree to discuss because that isn't the sort of thing we could really know.

I agree that proto-morality is better demonstrated, or if you want to say "better formed" (though I'm not sure how anyone could demonstrate that or what it even means). I stated as much earlier, calling the links to culture and religion "murkier".

This isn't a debate about what is more advanced -- whatever that means or how we could even define it in animal behavior -- but if the question even makes sense (what came first?).

Look, let's say I grant that moral sentiments are more advanced in chimps than cultural/religious sentiments (even though that phrase is meaningless as far as I can tell) -- what difference does that make to "what came first?". You still couldn't tell what came first from at least two vantages -- what proto set of behaviors first arose in other animals (doesn't matter to what degree you see them expressed in any individual species since there are all sorts of variations possible), and what occurred first in humans (which is really the only place where we can properly talk of morality as we define it and religion as we define it). And the whole idea of seeing something better expressed tells you nothing but that one has a more obvious expression. I could anthropomorphize and call social grooming a clear example ritualized religious behavior obviously based in belief that ticks and fleas are evil influences that must be eradicated. That would be a stupid argument, but how could anyone tell? In the absence of language the best we can do to demonstrate shared beliefs is with behaviors were it is obvious that they must exist -- as with hunting or war parties. We simply cannot tell anything about the subtleties of communal action in other ways.

One of the main reasons why we began to look for the foundations of morality in other animals is because it is a universal human attribute, where universal is defined as occurring in all social groups studied (not necessarily in all individuals). The reason that some folks are now doing the same thing with the foundations of religious behavior is because of the same issue -- religions have been found in all studied human groups. While it is possible that this is the result of some environmental factor, it is much more likely that religious sentiment has a biological basis -- it was selected for, probably because it aids group cohesion which is one factor that aids the survival of a social species.

For the last time I am not arguing that they are equal in some way or that one came before the other or that one is better or worse represented in other animals. The only statements I made regarding that matter is that I don't see religious or cultural sentiments as well or as easily in other animals. I don't think anyone does. Maybe you read too quickly, but I also fail to see how you missed that point in my earlier posts.

Since both are apparent in other animals both are apparent in other animals. It's just as simple as that. I don't claim anything else.

Unless you are willing to commit the naturalistic fallacy we cannot call what we see in other animals "morality"; it's a foundation. We clearly can't call what we see in other animals "religion", and I have not done so. I just can't understand what this charge of "equating" the two consists in; it makes absolutely no sense to me.

None of this should even matter to this discussion -- which is about what came first. My contention is that the question itself is a waste of time. There simply is no way to demonstrate what came first.

And I have wasted far too much of my time on it. Goodbye.

[RandFan]

What do you mean by referring to the degree of both being proto? There is no degree to discuss because that isn't the sort of thing we could really know."Know"? Do we really know that early humans didn't have high technology? No. We only have evidence that they didn't.

This isn't a debate about what is more advancedWhen exactly does a child become an adult? What age? When exactly does day become night? What time in minutes?

Features found in modern humans can be traced backwards all the way to Ida (I believe Ida is still a viable candidate for a transitional form). Along the way we will find dead ends. Are you really saying that it is impossible to state that some of these are more human than others?

It would take a great stretch, IMO, to declare that chimps have religion. I think it can be done. I don't think it's compelling. People have devoted time to study primate culture but religion? Like you said, faint hints at best. This just isn't true when it comes to morality. Chimps and bonobos and others are intensively studied for morality.

There is just simply no comparison.


-- whatever that means or how we could even define it in animal behavior -- but if the question even makes sense (what came first?).

Look, let's say I grant that moral sentiments are more advanced in chimps than cultural/religious sentiments (even though that phrase is meaningless as far as I can tell) -- what difference does that make to "what came first?". You still couldn't tell what came first from at least two vantages -- what proto set of behaviors first arose in other animals (doesn't matter to what degree you see them expressed in any individual species since there are all sorts of variations possible), and what occurred first in humans (which is really the only place where we can properly talk of morality as we define it and religion as we define it). And the whole idea of seeing something better expressed tells you nothing but that one has a more obvious expression. I could anthropomorphize and call social grooming a clear example ritualized religious behavior obviously based in belief that ticks and fleas are evil influences that must be eradicated. That would be a stupid argument, but how could anyone tell? In the absence of language the best we can do to demonstrate shared beliefs is with behaviors were it is obvious that they must exist -- as with hunting or war parties. We simply cannot tell anything about the subtleties of communal action in other ways.

One of the main reasons why we began to look for the foundations of morality in other animals is because it is a universal human attribute, where universal is defined as occurring in all social groups studied (not necessarily in all individuals). The reason that some folks are now doing the same thing with the foundations of religious behavior is because of the same issue -- religions have been found in all studied human groups. While it is possible that this is the result of some environmental factor, it is much more likely that religious sentiment has a biological basis -- it was selected for, probably because it aids group cohesion which is one factor that aids the survival of a social species.

For the last time I am not arguing that they are equal in some way or that one came before the other or that one is better or worse represented in other animals. The only statements I made regarding that matter is that I don't see religious or cultural sentiments as well or as easily in other animals. I don't think anyone does. Maybe you read too quickly, but I also fail to see how you missed that point in my earlier posts.

Since both are apparent in other animals both are apparent in other animals. It's just as simple as that. I don't claim anything else.

Unless you are willing to commit the naturalistic fallacy we cannot call what we see in other animals "morality"; it's a foundation. We clearly can't call what we see in other animals "religion", and I have not done so. I just can't understand what this charge of "equating" the two consists in; it makes absolutely no sense to me. I reject your claim that to assert that morality is innate to chimps is a naturalistic fallacy. That is a silly argument. It would only be a naturalistic fallacy if I asserted that any behavior was moral because it was natural.


None of this should even matter to this discussion -- which is about what came first. My contention is that the question itself is a waste of time. There simply is no way to demonstrate what came first.

And I have wasted far too much of my time on it. Goodbye.
Goodbye, oh BTW, morality, demonstrably, came first.

Thanks.

[Beerina]

Goodbye, oh BTW, morality, demonstrably, came first.



I submit religion was born of superstitial behavior (think B.F. Skinner's pigeons), itself born of perfectly reasonable evolution, because suspecting there was mind behind that moving grass was the safest thing to do. This exists in animals, and thus long precedes morality.

But one could argue animals also have instinctual behaviors that, when translated to human thoughts, become interpreted as morality. Things like caring for your young, or even a sick member of your immediate family.

As the brain grew, would it conjure up rationalizations (memes) for these behaviors, even as it expanded on the "mind behind the waving grass" behavior to posit angry spirits causing lightning and droughts?

Yet animals have little production behavior but lots of hunt-and-gather behavior. This is now known to be a grotesquely inefficient manner of population survival, compared to freedom-based capitalism, which relies on the rule of law to secure property from "hunting and gathering", when you look at the survival gradient descent space for evolution.

So that suggests morality came somewhat after religious behavior, although in truth, both exist purely as non-memetic instinctual behaviors in animals far, far antecedent even to early hominids.