Sources of morality from a Unitarian perspective.

[Upchurch]

Being the good Unitarians that we are, my wife and I are finally starting to get back into the habit of going to church on a semi-regular basis.

Yesterday's <strike>philosophy lecture</strike> sermon was about the sources of our morality and was entitled something along the lines of "Do we need God to be moral?" This is only about the hundredth time that I wished I had a transcript of one of these sermons to share with you folks. The arguments she presented were wonderfully constructed and supported and there is no way I'm going to do them justice, not with my memory.

Anyway, I'll try my best to outline the main points:

1. Statistically, regular church goers, or people who belong to a religious community, are more likely to give a larger portion of their income to charity and/or to volunteer their time.
2. Believers in God attribute religion and belief in God as the source of this moral obligation to help those less fortunate.
3. Various moral philosophers (I'm sorry, I can't remember the names) attribute morality to one's social group and that the tighter knit that group is, the more tightly those moral beliefs are clung to. In other words, people are moral in order to conform to the norms of their society rather than out of a belief in God.
4. Her conclusion was that morality originates from society rather than strictly from God. However, because religious groups like churches tend to be tighter knit and have higher standards for its members, religious people tend to be more moral than non-religious people, who lack that level of peer pressure.

It used to be that when people asked my religion, I would jokingly say, "Boy Scout." And I was half-serious because the Boy Scouts taught me more about right and wrong and helping others than religion ever did. In light of the above, it turns out that I may have been more correct than I knew.

On an aside: She had an interesting take on the "put God back in our government/schools" people. While all of the founding fathers were religious and many of them were Christian, they formed the government to be impartial to religion. Putting the ten commandments up in a court room or in a classroom doesn't make the people there more moral, it is an attempt by Christians to tell those who came later whose country this really is. It is not the religious dogma or icons that encourage morality, it is the atmosphere and beliefs of the society that do so.

Anyway, now that I've thuroughly butchered a wonderful set of arguments, I'll leave it alone to refine in future posts.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yesterday's <strike>philosophy lecture</strike> sermon was about the sources of our morality and was entitled something along the lines of "Do we need God to be moral?" This is only about the hundredth time that I wished I had a transcript of one of these sermons to share with you folks.

This needs a sermon?

People get their morality from

1) Themselves
2) Other people
a) Directly
b) Indirectly, through books, movies, etc.

Religious people sometimes claim, variously,

1) The Holy Spirit is inside me, so I know what God wants
2)
a) That person is God's representative on Earth
b) God wrote that book

This changes the proximate source not a whit.

However, because religious groups like churches tend to be tighter knit and have higher standards for its members, religious people tend to be more moral than non-religious people, who lack that level of peer pressure.

If you're looking for a tight-knit group with exacting standards, peer pressure, and a clear sense of morality, you need look no further than the KKK. I've heard Al Qaeda is pretty tight, too.

Sure, it's nice to get all warm and fuzzy about morality, but it's disingenuous to ignore the destruction that has been done in its name. I do not think that there has been a single important monster in human history who has not been utterly devoted to a morality.

Merely selfish monsters are limited by their appetites. Even Jeffrey Dahmer probably got tired of roast leg of insurance salesman and went out for a salad occasionally. But mix in some morality and peer pressure, and you can have a holocaust with millions dead.

On an aside: She had an interesting take on the "put God back in our government/schools" people. While all of the founding fathers were religious and many of them were Christian, they formed the government to be impartial to religion. Putting the ten commandments up in a court room or in a classroom doesn't make the people there more moral, it is an attempt by Christians to tell those who came later whose country this really is.

That's an ambiguous statement. Does it mean something like "wog go home?"

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by epepke

This needs a sermon?I'm using the word "sermon" in the loosest possible terms. We are talking about Unitarians here, after all.
People get their morality from

1) Themselves
2) Other people
a) Directly
b) Indirectly, through books, movies, etc.

Religious people sometimes claim, variously,

1) The Holy Spirit is inside me, so I know what God wants
2)
a) That person is God's representative on Earth
b) God wrote that book

This changes the proximate source not a whit.That's basically what I said. Or what I was trying to say. The religious claim that morality only comes from God is rediculous because non-religious people can be moral
If you're looking for a tight-knit group with exacting standards, peer pressure, and a clear sense of morality, you need look no further than the KKK. I've heard Al Qaeda is pretty tight, too.The KKK was, indeed, an example used. Members of that society act "morally" within the norms of their society. The mob was another example given, as were the Nazis.
Sure, it's nice to get all warm and fuzzy about morality, but it's disingenuous to ignore the destruction that has been done in its name. You lost me there with the "warm and fuzzy" bit. At no time did she claim that religious morality could only be considered the best kind of morality, nor that there was one right answer. Morality is subjective. Unitarians, remember?
But mix in some morality and peer pressure, and you can have a holocaust with millions dead.I'm not saying one culture's morality can't look like utter immorality from another culture's set of standards. I think you're missing my point here. I'm talking about the source of our sense of morality, not the moralities of certain groups of people.

And Jeffrey Dahmer had a mental defect that made his brain not work the same way that most people's do. I don't think it's fair to use him as a counter-example.
That's an ambiguous statement. Does it mean something like "wog go home?" Again, I think either you've got the wrong impression or I'm not good at explaining myself. Maybe both.

Her point was that Christians who try to impose Christian "tradition" in US Government and schools are doing it not for their proported reasons for bringing morality back into those institutions but rather to push forth the concept that the US belongs to the Christians. She was blaming Christians of lying about their intended purpose, whether consciously or unconsciously.

[Checkmite]

A lot of people aren't completely familiar with the concept of Unitarianism, Upchurch. You started your post by talking about "my wife and I are going to be attending church more often"...and a lot of people, when they hear (or see, as the case may be) the word "church", can't get the mental picture of "Give yourself to Jaaaayzus!" out of their heads. This puts them on a sort of Red Alert, I suppose, and epepke may have misread your post as Christian apologetic. As an aside, it's fascinating how a reader's preconceptions can affect the message, regardless of the author's intention.

[Bluegill]

This is a bit off-topic, but anyway,..

Over the past year or so, my wife has expressed interest in going (with me) to a Unitarian church. I told her I was not interested in going to any church.

Last week I took, for the first time, the Belief-O-matic quiz at Belief.net (http://www.belief.net) I got 99% for Secular Humanism, and 100% for Unitarianism. "Huh," I said to myself, "Maybe I'll be going to church with her after all."

I wonder what accounted for that 1% on my results? I'll have to check on this Unitarian Univeralism thing.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
A lot of people aren't completely familiar with the concept of Unitarianism, Upchurch. You started your post by talking about "my wife and I are going to be attending church more often"...and a lot of people, when they hear (or see, as the case may be) the word "church", can't get the mental picture of "Give yourself to Jaaaayzus!" out of their heads. This puts them on a sort of Red Alert, I suppose, and epepke may have misread your post as Christian apologetic. As an aside, it's fascinating how a reader's preconceptions can affect the message, regardless of the author's intention.

A church is a church.

I went to a wedding in a Unitarian Church and although it was a nice ceremony, 80% of it was polluted with references to the word of God (the Bible). So, please don't try to misguide the public.
Everybody, let's keep the red alert! :D

Q-S

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Q-Source


A church is a church.

I went to a wedding in a Unitarian Church and although it was a nice ceremony, 80% of it was polluted with references to the word of God (the Bible). So, please don't try to misguide the public.
Everybody, let's keep the red alert! :D

Q-S

That's because those Unitarians were probably Christian, and had probably requested a Christian-themed wedding. Were the couple-to-be Humanists, or Bah'ai, or Jewish (etc) the wedding would've proceeded along different lines.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Q-Source


A church is a church.

I went to a wedding in a Unitarian Church and although it was a nice ceremony, 80% of it was polluted with references to the word of God (the Bible). So, please don't try to misguide the public.
Everybody, let's keep the red alert! :D

Q-S

I was raised Unitarian, still go occasionally. Some are barely religious (as is mine, in Dallas) and some are a bit more. The worst part is the hymns. Other than that, not much reference to God or Jesus in most of the sermons I attend. Usually the sermons are about something thought-provoking. Last year, I attended one about Thelonius Monk which turned me on to his music (which is all that was performed that day).

I am a die-hard atheist, BTW, and I still enjoy attending. I would recommend attending the Unitarian Church to anyone.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
A lot of people aren't completely familiar with the concept of Unitarianism, Upchurch. *sigh*

My continuing Unitarian evangalism (http://stoney.sb.org/uujokes.html) must continue, it seems.

Don't forget to hit the refresh button for more evangelizing.

[daenku32]

Forget "Moral Relativism", let's talk about "Religious Relativism"...

How do you define a sensible religion without the use of old fashioned common sense that's absent of religion? (it must be absent of religion, how else you going to be objective?)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by daenku32
How do you define a sensible religion without the use of old fashioned common sense that's absent of religion? (it must be absent of religion, how else you going to be objective?) I don't understand the question. Could you elaborate?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Upchurch
*sigh*

My continuing Unitarian evangalism (http://stoney.sb.org/uujokes.html) must continue, it seems.

Don't forget to hit the refresh button for more evangelizing.

UU Prayer: "Dear God, if there is a God, if you can, save my soul, if I have a soul."


:D :D :D

[Upchurch]

From the above:What is a Unitarian Universalist?

An atheist with children.Conversation overheard:

Person A (Mainstream Protestant Denomination): I hear that you allow all sorts of weirdos in your church. Atheists, Buddhists, Pagans...

Person B (Unitarian Universalist): We allow Christians too -- we're very open minded!A Unitarian is just a Quaker with Attention Deficit Disorder.Asked if he belonged to any organized religion, the man responded, "Oh no; I'm a Unitarian Universalist."There is another great one I saw, but I can't get it to come back around.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I have nothing against you, but I don't quite get Unitarianism.

All of the foulness of priestcraft, yet no Heaven. :D :p

Nor Hell for unbelievers. That's the most fun of belonging to a church.

Unitarians are folks who sing songs through their noses and argue about the lyrics.

No fun in that, I say, but whatever floats your boat! :p

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I have nothing against you, but I don't quite get Unitarianism.

All of the foulness of priestcraft, yet no Heaven. :D :p

Nor Hell for unbelievers. That's the most fun of belonging to a church.

Unitarians are folks who sing songs through their noses and argue about the lyrics.

No fun in that, I say, but whatever floats your boat! :p

I must disagree. The most fun of belonging to a chuch is the POTLUCKS and CAMPOUTS, and we have those! :p

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


I must disagree. The most fun of belonging to a chuch is the POTLUCKS and CAMPOUTS, and we have those! :p

Well then, I take it all back. Except for the part about Hell. It's loads of fun thinking that all the folks you don't like are going to Hell. Really. :D

Dunno how you Unitarians get along without it. :p

[c4ts]

I want to have a Jewish wedding in an inflatable church.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by c4ts
I want to have a Jewish wedding in an inflatable church.

http://www.inflatablechurch.com/

[epepke]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm using the word "sermon" in the loosest possible terms. We are talking about Unitarians here, after all.
That's basically what I said. Or what I was trying to say. The religious claim that morality only comes from God is rediculous because non-religious people can be moral


Well, if that's all you get, I'm going to continue to sleep in on Sunday.

I did get 50 bucks once for doing a talk on non-theistic systems of morality, which seemed to me a pretty good deal.

You lost me there with the "warm and fuzzy" bit. At no time did she claim that religious morality could only be considered the best kind of morality, nor that there was one right answer. Morality is subjective. Unitarians, remember?

OK, I'll up the ante some, then, if it wasn't clear enough. I am not moral. I distrust all morality, whether religious or not.

Now, by saying that I am not moral, that's a partial lie, as there are probably bits of morality. I can only say that, whenever I encounter a shred of morality inside myself I assiduously try to destroy it as well as I can.

I do have empathy and honor, and those, my Unitarian friend, are way better.

And Jeffrey Dahmer had a mental defect that made his brain not work the same way that most people's do. I don't think it's fair to use him as a counter-example.

Defect, schmefect. Besides, I used him as an example of how little harm amoral people can do. If you can think of an amoral person who has done more harm and who has no defect, according to your lights, you are welcome to present that person as a case. I still doubt that it will match the truly destructive things that some moral people have done.

Again, I think either you've got the wrong impression or I'm not good at explaining myself. Maybe both.

OK, let me try simple. I'm pulling your chain.

Her point was that Christians who try to impose Christian "tradition" in US Government and schools are doing it not for their proported reasons for bringing morality back into those institutions but rather to push forth the concept that the US belongs to the Christians. She was blaming Christians of lying about their intended purpose, whether consciously or unconsciously.

So, basically, it does mean "wogs go home." A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by epepke


OK, I'll up the ante some, then, if it wasn't clear enough. I am not moral. I distrust all morality, whether religious or not.

Now, by saying that I am not moral, that's a partial lie, as there are probably bits of morality. I can only say that, whenever I encounter a shred of morality inside myself I assiduously try to destroy it as well as I can.

I do have empathy and honor, and those, my Unitarian friend, are way better.


Can anybody be both moral and honorable at the same time?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Can anybody be both moral and honorable at the same time?

Damn good question. Thought-provoking and all, the epitome of what this website should be about.

Answer: beats the hell out of me. The best I can come up with is kind of a stupid answer: when they don't conflict, yes, and when they do conflict, no.

When I think, for example, "Balsamic vinegar? Yum!" it doesn't conflict either with honor or morality.

But there are certainly plenty of cases where they conflict. Say you find out your 17-year-old daughter is having sex with her 18-year-old boyfriend. Clearly, the moral thing to do is to drag her into the ER and make her undergo a "rape examination" which involves plucking 20 pubic hairs and 20 head hairs and thereby start the legal process according to which her boyfriend will be imprisoned, raped, and possibly infected with HIV. The honorable thing to do might be to trust your daughter's choices, have a talk with her about contraception, and be willing to be there when the relationship breaks up.