Morals and Religion

[SkepticalScience]

I know you all must have hashed this point out millions of times before. . .but, I was talking to a fundie last night that asked me a few questions I couldn't respond to properly:

"When I was in school taking a test, I didn't cheat because I didn't want to go to hell. If there was no god, what would prevent people from doing all kinds of immoral activities? Don't you agree??"

How would you all have responded to that??

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
I know you all must have hashed this point out millions of times before. . .but, I was talking to a fundie last night that asked me a few questions I couldn't respond to properly:

"When I was in school taking a test, I didn't cheat because I didn't want to go to hell. If there was no god, what would prevent people from doing all kinds of immoral activities? Don't you agree??"

How would you all have responded to that??

First off, if God sent someone to hell for cheating on a school test, then his priorities are pretty far out of whack. :D

My response would have been that religion does not prevent people from doing immoral things. I have known lots of religious people who been horrible human beings, doing immoral things and putting up a facade to cover it all up.

If the goal of religion is to instill morality in people, then it has failed miserably.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
I know you all must have hashed this point out millions of times before. . .but, I was talking to a fundie last night that asked me a few questions I couldn't respond to properly:

"When I was in school taking a test, I didn't cheat because I didn't want to go to hell. If there was no god, what would prevent people from doing all kinds of immoral activities? Don't you agree??"

How would you all have responded to that??
Evolved emotional responses (fear, guilt, remorse, etc) and/or rational decision making.

[uruk]

"When I was in school taking a test, I didn't cheat because I didn't want to go to hell. If there was no god, what would prevent people from doing all kinds of immoral activities? Don't you agree??"
When I was in school taking a test, I did not want to cheat for fear of getting caught and recieving a zero on the test and for other possible consequences.

Human beings are social creatures we are required to co-exists with other for survival. Co-existing in a community requires certain rules of conduct to be enforced and adheared to ensure that the community does not break down and thus reduce the chances for survival. Most mammals live in groups and do have rules which apply to proper behaiviour of individuals in the group.

Because we are a complex species so would our rules of conduct also be complex. If you notice the basics are there in all religions.(i.e don't kill, steal, mess around with another's spouse .etc.)

Your friend will no doubt respond that the laws of man don't prevent immoral activities, just tell him that religious laws dosen't prevent priests from fondleing young children either. (that's if you wanted to be a smart a$$ like me)

Morals are dictated by what ever the going social norm is. Behaiviour that we acceptable in the bible is not considered very acceptable nowadays. Polygamy and soforth.

The "hell" punishment was invented by the priests because people noticed that certain individuals commited immoral acts without god smiteing them in the act. The priest had to respond by saying "oh may have gotten away with it now, But when he dies and faces god, god will kick his a$$ six ways from sunday in the afterlife". and that of course made everyone feel better.

[Hawk one]

While Uruk has touched upon the subject, I believe that this link (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/whatismorality.html) might give you a better understanding of what morality's about according to someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife. Enjoy. ;)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
I know you all must have hashed this point out millions of times before. . .but, I was talking to a fundie last night that asked me a few questions I couldn't respond to properly:

"When I was in school taking a test, I didn't cheat because I didn't want to go to hell. If there was no god, what would prevent people from doing all kinds of immoral activities? Don't you agree??"

How would you all have responded to that??

Up until maybe my freshman year of high school, I didn't cheat because if I got caught, I would get a zero on the exam and it would harm my grade.

After maturing just a little, I didn't cheat because it would not be a fair assessment of my abilities, and I prefered to be honest about them.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
I know you all must have hashed this point out millions of times before. . .but, I was talking to a fundie last night that asked me a few questions I couldn't respond to properly:

"When I was in school taking a test, I didn't cheat because I didn't want to go to hell. If there was no god, what would prevent people from doing all kinds of immoral activities? Don't you agree??"

How would you all have responded to that??
His actions are not moral they are out of fear.

As a father I never tell my child to do what is right or I will burn him in a fire for all time or beat him to death as if I did I would not be a good father and seen as evil, rightly so. Yet many people who believe in Gods would say such actions by their god are "loving".

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

If the goal of religion is to instill morality in people, then it has failed miserably.
Seems so, but what method has better results?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
I know you all must have hashed this point out millions of times before. . .but, I was talking to a fundie last night that asked me a few questions I couldn't respond to properly:

"When I was in school taking a test, I didn't cheat because I didn't want to go to hell. If there was no god, what would prevent people from doing all kinds of immoral activities? Don't you agree??"

How would you all have responded to that??
There is really no shortage of authority to appeal to who have argued for secular interpretations of morality. On the large scale of things, judging moral behaviors can be done through categorical imperatives, utilitarian comparisons, knowledge of prima facie duties, social contracts, etc.

But, most people dont really know a great deal about those types morality, so for the most part people are taught how to behave. A kid sticks his hand in a cookie jar, so say to the kid "no, Yahweh, thats a bad Yahweh", and I learn how to behave.

After a while of moral development, I would ideally learn become self-motivated to behave in a moral and responsible way (look up Kolhberg and Piaget's theories of moral development for more information into just exactly what this process entails).

Presently, we dont have a problem with atheists running amok trying to skin people and turn them into funny hats - it actually seems that most atheists seem to a fairly good job at behaving ethically. It isnt really so hard to say that the belief that morality is essentially obtained through a belief in god is empirically false.

Besides, there are plenty of religious, such as the Buddhists and the Jains, who flatly reject the belief in god-commanded morality, yet these godless religions have certainly very admirable moral codes.

And I dont really think believing in God really means a great deal in terms of morality. It really seems that belief in God merely shifts all the responsibility for justifying ones actions morally away from the believer, and towards superstitious beings.

I personally dont see what the difference is between God command's having moral weight, such as "thou shalt not kill", yet if I were to make same commands they would contain no moral weight at all. Unless God has moral standards that exist outside of his own commands (which negates the idea that morality must come from God), then the only real authority that God's commands should have over mine is the fact that God can make you go smush and die.

A really interesting question to ask about the the idea of theistic morality is whether God condemns sinful actions because they are bad, or whether sinful actions are bad because they God condemns them.

Arguably, on the first interpretation, there are objective reasons not to perform any sinful actions, and whatever objective reasons a theist can come up with, an atheist can come up with as well. On the second interpretation, a theist can make no more objective justification for performing or not performing a sinful action than an atheist can, and so the atheist is no worse off than the theist in a moral sense.


Essentially, theistic morality is basically summed up as "I think my God believes these things are moral", and in this sense there is absolutely nothing cannot be defended as moral correct. Everything from being kind to your neighbors to hurling bombs at the non-believers can be moral if defended as a divine command. Although this is essentially no different than an extreme version of ethical relativism, one of the major differences with this interpretation of theistic morality and relativism is that theistic morality is very difficult to reason:

Take for instance that two people have opposing opinions on the soundness of affirmative action. If I believe that affirmative action increases social justice, and you believe that affirmative action is harmful to social justice, then we can at least reason with one another because we are working toward the same goal: maximizing social justice. If on the other hand, I believe God approves of affirmative action, and you believe God disapproves of affirmative action, how are we supposed to reason with one another? Are we supposed to say "what I believe God thinks is correct', or judge just exactly who's God should we glorify and who's God we should anger? It really does no good to think about moral questions in terms of God, unless everyone agrees on what God thinks and believes (which people, for the most part, do not).

As long as we are capable of reasoning moral behavior outside of what we believe our gods think, such as how to maximize social justice or determine on what basis some types of suffering should be considered morally tolerable (or any other relevant moral questions), then it is absolutely possible to construct very useful moral codes without ever having to appeal to any gods.

In all the ways we look at the question, it seems that belief in god or gods is neither necessary nor relevant to answering any moral questions. However, most persistent theists would be unsatisfied, and would ask whether being a moral atheist has something do with being motivated to behave morally:
I would argue that if people arent already self-motivated to behave morally, then one way to ensure that people behave the way they ought to is to rigorously enforce a system of morality - such as in the case of law enforcement, a system of rewards and punishments, or forming social contracts. (And of course, it could be necessary to use watchdog groups, or a system of checks and balances, or whatever means necessary to ensure the best possible compromise between people's frustrations of being unable to throw acid at their neighbors, and satisfactions obeing equally protected against a renegade act of violence.)

[uruk]

Seems so, but what method has better results?
Social pressure. At least the consequences are more visceral than "eternal damnation".

And I'd think twice before you say religeon is responsible for social pressure.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

" If there was no god, what would prevent people from doing all kinds of immoral activities?"
The fact that they wrong? Fairy-tales about heaven and hell serve the same purpose as fairy-wheels on a child's bicycle: they keep him upright until he has got the knack of it.

[Ausmerican]

Just finished reading Shermers book 'The Science of Good & Evil' and he had a good response to that question. One he called a debate ender.
Simply ask your religious friend how he would act if he knew there was no god. Either he will answer that he would act without morals and lie, cheat, steal and kill (which of course no one would admit to) or he will say he would act the same as he does.
Answer 1 tells you more about that person than their religion while answer 2 tells you that morality isnt religiously based.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by uruk
Social pressure. At least the consequences are more visceral than "eternal damnation".
Agreed. Those with the most clubs, spears, & warriors make and enforce the rules.


And I'd think twice before you say religeon is responsible for social pressure.
Probably not; it's just a question of what type of crowd control allows civilizations to best persevere against "them" for the longest timespan.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by hammegk
Seems so, but what method has better results?

People seem to come to their morality regardless of religion. Perhaps for some, it's a useful tool like Aesop's Fables, but in the end, you still have to decide what's moral for yourself.

[arthwollipot]

How many Christians are there on Death Row awaiting execution?

How many atheists?

[uruk]

How many Christians are there on Death Row awaiting execution?
How does that saying go? "There are no atheists on death row."

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by uruk
How does that saying go? "There are no atheists on death row."

I know that is not a saying you believe in but the next time someone says it to you ( the old foxhole saying) remind them That it would be a statment against death row/ capital punshiment not against atheists and of course there are many atheists on death row unless they could prove other wise.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
People seem to come to their morality regardless of religion.

Perhaps, but I suspect religion was The source of moral teachings for most posters here, and most people we interact with.


Perhaps for some, it's a useful tool like Aesop's Fables, but in the end, you still have to decide what's moral for yourself.
Anarchy sounds like fun to you? I disagree.

[Bentspoon]

Posted by "Ausmerican":

"Just finished reading Shermers book 'The Science of Good & Evil' and he had a good response to that question. One he called a debate ender.
Simply ask your religious friend how he would act if he knew there was no god. Either he will answer that he would act without morals and lie, cheat, steal and kill (which of course no one would admit to) or he will say he would act the same as he does.
Answer 1 tells you more about that person than their religion while answer 2 tells you that morality isnt religiously based."

There is a basic flaw in this agument that exists in any counter to the "morality requires fantasy being threat to exist in man"

That is that it is logical and the question is theological. I have found that the two don't mix. Whenever, there is posed a theological question on the logical plane, I simply point to the fallacy of the question. Why would you want argue an irrational belief on the logical plane. You have faith. Logic is not part of it.

Relating this to morality - here is an example of the kind of thinking I am talking about.

Years ago I got into a discussion with my father regarding the legalization of marijuana. One of his arguments was that if legalized, we would have a bunch of pot heads walking around, making work places dangerous etc. I countered with this:

"So what you are telling me is that people who now do not indulge in it are going to be doing it in droves when legalized." He affirmed. So I said "then you are just waiting for it to be legalized and then you are going to run right out and smoke it. No?? then you have friends that you know are going to do this. No?? Who do you know that is just waiting for it to be legalized so they can run out and dope up legally; none???"

Here is the point. It is universal through all arguments like this. It is why judeo/chrisitian/musilims et al want to control what we see and hear and touch.

It is because they are concerned about the great unwashed masses - the infidels - not themselves oh no they would never be immoral, but what about those other yahoos out there.

Like you and me. Therefore Shermer's argument will fall apart because it is logic discussed on the irrational plane.

If you have the one and right way - you don't need to worry about yourself - it is those others.

Bentspoon

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by hammegk
Perhaps, but I suspect religion was The source of moral teachings for most posters here, and most people we interact with.

Mmmmm. I think morality has been taught by religion, yes, but not monopolized by it, as the friend in the first post seems to think so. I also think that morality is very subjective, especially the religious views of morality.

Anarchy sounds like fun to you? I disagree.

I never said anything of the sort.

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I know that is not a saying you believe in but the next time someone says it to you ( the old foxhole saying) remind them That it would be a statment against death row/ capital punshiment not against atheists and of course there are many atheists on death row unless they could prove other wise.

I asked the question - I didn't make a statement. I do not know what the answer is, but I strongly suspect that there are more Christians than atheists on death row.

[clarsct]

What about simple dignity? Personally, I would know I cheated. What good is a victory you had to cheat to get? What kind of man relishes achievements made dishonestly? No one I would want to know. I know such people exist, but the good news is that you're not one of them. (At least I hope not.)

As far as who else installs the morality, I have one big suggestion:

PARENTS!

It worked for me!

[arthwollipot]

That's what gets me about the old Pascal's Wager schtick. Would God be nice to me because I bet the odds? If you choose to believe it should be for good reasons, not just because you're a smart gambler.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
I know you all must have hashed this point out millions of times before. . .but, I was talking to a fundie last night that asked me a few questions I couldn't respond to properly:

"When I was in school taking a test, I didn't cheat because I didn't want to go to hell. If there was no god, what would prevent people from doing all kinds of immoral activities? Don't you agree??"

How would you all have responded to that??

What? The threat of being caught, getting failed, and facing your parent's wrath isn't enough to keep you honest? Believe me, growing up I was more afraid of my father than I Am.

Regardless of whether or not there is a God, the fact still remains that I share this planet with 5 billion other people (300 million alone in this country). If I go around mistreating them in some way, chances are that they will come after me to stop me, imprison me, or even kill me. That would scare me straighter than anything some "god" would have in store for me after I die because at least I know the punishment is going to happen.

[rppa]

Originally posted by hammegk
Perhaps, but I suspect religion was The source of moral teachings for most posters here, and most people we interact with.

I suspect that a strong role-model (usually, but not always, parents) was the source of most people's morality. Religion teaches certain things, but most people develop their own sense of right and wrong by example. When people are deciding whether it's all right to cheat on their taxes, while it is true that a clergyman could point you to the reasons against it in the 10 Commandments, it is other things that go into the decision.

And even the 10 Commandments are silent on running a red light, what to do with a wallet you find on the street, or if you should take that last brownie on the plate.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by rppa
I suspect that a strong role-model (usually, but not always, parents) was the source of most people's morality.
The point I was making concerns the source of the morality to be passed on. Ergo, my religion-based comment.

Morality (until recently in -- in particular -- Western societies) was not something everyone decided for themselves on a day-to-day basis. That was the basis for my comment on anarchy.

Also please note that "religion" is an endeavor staffed by men, not god. Any dictator can enforce any "morality" he cares to dream up, given sufficient men with clubs who support him. Religious "Gods" are ideas used in lieu of the clubs to keep everyone in line.

Just my 2cts .... :)

[ReFLeX]

So does the existence of God denote moral realism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism)

[hammegk]

I'd posit that history demonstrates the persistence, breadth, and accomplishments of a "successful" society (rather than any specific god) imply moral realism is a better societal choice than moral relativism.

[ReFLeX]

Ummm... what I meant more was this: suppose an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. Obviously it cannot do any wrong. But that would imply a single standard by which to judge wrongness. Does moral realism then follow? Or is this wrong somewhere?

On the other hand, I do agree one has to suppose moral realism to uphold a system of laws, because of the problems inherent in assuming people can decide what is right on their own; i.e. How many people does it take to dictate the rightness of a moral action? How will this information be obtained? And so on...
But as a moral non-cognitivist myself, I hold that moral relativism, while not valuable as a prescriptive ethical theory, describes reality more correctly than assuming there are truly right and truly wrong things for homo sapiens sapiens to do.

[epepke]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
I know you all must have hashed this point out millions of times before. . .but, I was talking to a fundie last night that asked me a few questions I couldn't respond to properly:

"When I was in school taking a test, I didn't cheat because I didn't want to go to hell. If there was no god, what would prevent people from doing all kinds of immoral activities? Don't you agree??"

How would you all have responded to that??

Simple.

"If a fear of hell is the only reason you don't cheat or do 'all kinds of immoral activities,' as opposed to empathy, honor, pride, love, enlightened self-interest, a sense of fairness, or simply a desire to be a productive and cooperative member of a community, then there is a possibility that you have Antisocial Personality Disorder, formerly known as sociopathy, and you should seek professional help.

If it is not, then you are lying."