Ok.....So you killed off Religion...

[ronedee]

Hi Rondee,

Sorry for the late reply, work and everything.

Anyway, thanks Good discussion is central to the learning process IMHO.

Thanks again for your intelligent and civil replies! Very interesting stuff!

The central question you post (where do morals come from) is a central question that I don't think has a right or wrong answer. I am (naturally) an advocate of the evolved sense of 'self' and 'worth'. I'm sure you've heard it before, but as a quick recap, the benificial aspects of keeping your tribe alive and to ensure they are all happy and prosperous (Maslow coined this in contemporary terminologies as the heriarchy of needs) is equally benefcial to you and, of course, your genes (should you wish to pass them along).

I see, but would this theory translate to others outside the immediate family? Or if there is no family? I think the [attachment theory] has more recently supplanted ol Abes'. So, it would seem that "self" needs a "good start" for morals to be instilled.

The so called 'golden rule' of doing unto others would be a basis of this, especially as we began to learn what empathy was. Ultiamtely it comes down, for me, to brain chemistry and how it is formed by the context that surrounds you. I can't cite definitional evidence of this (I'm no biologist), but I can cite where the system becomes defunct, such as in psychopaths and sociopaths (specifically violent and unctrolled ones ones). It would appear that the context that one is brought up in can inform one's morality and behaviour in the long term (people with a psychopathic mindset can be completely 'normal' and exist as a normal member of society. When their upbringing is not formed around a cohesive set up, specifically regarding rules of behaviour, then there is evidence to suggest their mindset can cause the type of violent crimes that serial killers are often most famous for committing).

OK! So this would support a religious up bringing..Especially if there is no "attachment" formed. Assuming of course an attachment is a moral one.

Now to your 'belief in morals' concept. I must disagree, I don't think there is such a thing as a 'belief' in morality. I think morality is a very subjective and very spurious term to use. Just as an example, one could ask members of different religions the same question about morality, including the golden rule, and still get different responses. Often it might be a variant of "do unto others...", but with a caveat, informed by the contextual arrangement of their specific religion. For a Bhuddist in Burma, it might be "do unto others...except for those Muslims", or in South America it might be the same but for an exclusion of homosexuals (homosexuality is still heavily persecuted in most Catholic South American states unfortunately). And so on and so on.

Well, in practice we all have our prejudices, but in theory if we have a "moral code" (love/help one another) we should live by it as a "generally" good person. I don't know if your examples are good in the sense that it would seem to be either extreme, (Muslims who kill us) or immoral (homosexuality) according to church doctrine. Also I'm sure there are degrees in of persecution by the perpetrators (i.e. some with a club, some with a cold shoulder).

I don't think that there ever was a conversion en masse to 'believe' in morality, I think there was a general conditioning of behaviour for survival, especially when 'man' was an evolving simpleton that was massively outnumbered and outgunned by both other species and other tribes. Again, what it comes down to is preservation of the self, and the context that allows the self to exist. When the titanic sank, whislt there were many who probably went down with the ship with honour and dignity, there were most likely many more who asked what the honour was in dying. I think the romantic element of the string quartet playing Nearer My God to Thee often overshadows the (probable) fact that people were stepping over each other to see if they could survive. So, again, morality here is contextual and subjective both to the wider context that the people were born and raised in, and in addition to the situation they were presented with at that current point in time.

I wasn't saying en masse, per se. But there seems to be an evolution in terms of morality after Jesus' time. There may have been other reason also. Or, some may say it was just man's evolution naturally that brought him towards morality. But what can we point to as the "goal" specifically of a moral being? It is Love. Also, there are degrees in which people have their faith in God. As for the Titanic? Probably another bad example. The accounts from survivors was very sad! Yes a lot of people didn't make it into the life boats...they just hung on to the sides and eventually slip into the sea and drowned. What do degrees of morality translate to in this situation? I'm not sure. But I would say it would be a low degree of morality that would make someone yank a woman or child out of a raft to climb in themselves!

Regarding the attraction of Atheism issue you raise, I (again) must disagree. I don't think there is a specific demographic that attracts 'atheists'. Again, I think it's the context that one exists in that may give rise to the possiblity of 'remaining' an atheist (as I am a proponent that you are born with no concept of god. I have never once beleived in on since I can remember forming thoughts). Very few of the people I know are religious, and indeed, using the latest census and British social attitudes survey (circa 2010 I think was the last one), around 20 to 50% of the population (depending on the census) are nominal atheists. Not all of those can be liberal socialists (as I tend to see the stereotype of an atheist is), so I think that alone makes the case for the idea that atheists can be anyone who lacks a belief in a deitiy.

50%! Wow! Maybe the world in it's communications revolution is getting outside of demographic boundaries. I remember at one time most in Scandinavia were considered atheists. Religion still seems to follow certain areas. Probably because of fellowship/worship and evangelizing. But, yes it is apparent "all kinds" are attracted to atheism... And now they will eventually feel our pain!

And finally, I think we need to be careful when talking about secular and atheist. I could be wrong (so please ignore me if I am), but it seems you're implying that secularism and atheism are one and the same. In fact, when I joined the National Secular Society here in Britain, by virtue of the demographics of my local area, there were more Christian Secularists than atheist ones!

Well... I am guilty at times, but with an excuse! The word(s) "secular" and all its variations and ambiguity can be confusing. And sometimes I get a little "free" with my usage (as you've probably witnessed).

Thanks for your thoughts and stimulating conversations! Ron