Not only is religion unnecessary for morality, as sociological studies of secular societies prove, it's not even helpful as a framework for discussions on morality. Religion, rather than provide a constructive guide, by its very nature confuses our moral judgment. Let me emphasize that this isn't just a problem with certain questionable verses in the Bible or Quran regarding the rape of sex slaves, the genocide of enemy tribes or the beating of slaves. Even ignoring all these specific verses, there is a fundamental problem with the way religion-based morality that can't help but be damaging to our moral compass.
By its nature, religion wants two things: more converts and greater control over said converts.
Any religion that doesn't make these two objectives a priority will quickly be eclipsed by those that do. Evolution will take its course with memes as surely as it does with life. If you need any examples, compare the religions of Islamo-Christianity, the denominations of which collectively dominate our discussion of religion, with the less-successful religions of the Jians or the Zoroastrians.
Reading the Bible or the Quran cover-to-cover makes it clear that Islamo-Christianity is primarily concerned with the "virtues" of proper beliefs and adherence to proper rituals as well as the "evils" of such victimless crimes as blasphemy, idolatry or conversion to other religions. While it's true that there are occasional admonishments of charity, peace or honesty that are ripe for cherry-picking, it's clear that most of the attention throughout these books is given to having "proper" metaphysical beliefs. Indeed, many Islamo-Christians will tell you that God will be primarily concerned with faith, not works, on judgment day (and even those who do consider "works" to be important will often define prayer, rituals and church attendance as part of that mix).
If you don't have the time to read the Bible cover-to-cover, consider the ten commandments, held by Christians as the basis for moral law. The first four, presumably the most important if order means anything, deal exclusively with the victimless crimes of apostasy, idolatry, blasphemy and failure to observe a holy day. Ironically, Christianity is in violation of #4 since it moved the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. So much for unchanging laws set in stone.
Secular morality, by contrast, understands that where our actions impact other sentient beings, questions of morality apply. This is a complicated topic and there are different approaches to try to unravel our evaluations of right and wrong. What we can all agree on is that morality is a function of our relation to other conscious beings. As Sam Harris has noted, we have no moral obligations toward rocks. Neither do we have any toward trees, which are technically alive but not sentient. When we say something is "wrong", we usually mean acts of dishonesty, violation of the rights of others or wanton disregard for taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions.
By introducing other considerations to the mix, never mind bumping them up on the priority list as religion is inclined to do, we confuse our ability to understand right and wrong. We begin to obsess over victimless crimes like blasphemy or partake in useless, unhelpful pseudo-virtues like prayer.
Examples of "moral issues" that religion pushes today:
1. Discouraging condom use in AIDS stricken areas of the world
2. Abstinence only sex education, which is proven to increase unwanted pregnancy and STDs.
3. Violence against gays or treating them like second class citizens.
4. Preventing stem-cell research, possibly the most promising field of medical research.
5. Using resources to send audio-Bibles to Haiti instead of food or medical aid.
All this to say nothing of more dramatic examples of sectarian war, torture and execution.
Religion confuses our moral impulses. It's not only unnecessary, it's unhelpful.
By its nature, religion wants two things: more converts and greater control over said converts.
Any religion that doesn't make these two objectives a priority will quickly be eclipsed by those that do. Evolution will take its course with memes as surely as it does with life. If you need any examples, compare the religions of Islamo-Christianity, the denominations of which collectively dominate our discussion of religion, with the less-successful religions of the Jians or the Zoroastrians.
Reading the Bible or the Quran cover-to-cover makes it clear that Islamo-Christianity is primarily concerned with the "virtues" of proper beliefs and adherence to proper rituals as well as the "evils" of such victimless crimes as blasphemy, idolatry or conversion to other religions. While it's true that there are occasional admonishments of charity, peace or honesty that are ripe for cherry-picking, it's clear that most of the attention throughout these books is given to having "proper" metaphysical beliefs. Indeed, many Islamo-Christians will tell you that God will be primarily concerned with faith, not works, on judgment day (and even those who do consider "works" to be important will often define prayer, rituals and church attendance as part of that mix).
If you don't have the time to read the Bible cover-to-cover, consider the ten commandments, held by Christians as the basis for moral law. The first four, presumably the most important if order means anything, deal exclusively with the victimless crimes of apostasy, idolatry, blasphemy and failure to observe a holy day. Ironically, Christianity is in violation of #4 since it moved the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. So much for unchanging laws set in stone.
Secular morality, by contrast, understands that where our actions impact other sentient beings, questions of morality apply. This is a complicated topic and there are different approaches to try to unravel our evaluations of right and wrong. What we can all agree on is that morality is a function of our relation to other conscious beings. As Sam Harris has noted, we have no moral obligations toward rocks. Neither do we have any toward trees, which are technically alive but not sentient. When we say something is "wrong", we usually mean acts of dishonesty, violation of the rights of others or wanton disregard for taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions.
By introducing other considerations to the mix, never mind bumping them up on the priority list as religion is inclined to do, we confuse our ability to understand right and wrong. We begin to obsess over victimless crimes like blasphemy or partake in useless, unhelpful pseudo-virtues like prayer.
Examples of "moral issues" that religion pushes today:
1. Discouraging condom use in AIDS stricken areas of the world
2. Abstinence only sex education, which is proven to increase unwanted pregnancy and STDs.
3. Violence against gays or treating them like second class citizens.
4. Preventing stem-cell research, possibly the most promising field of medical research.
5. Using resources to send audio-Bibles to Haiti instead of food or medical aid.
All this to say nothing of more dramatic examples of sectarian war, torture and execution.
Religion confuses our moral impulses. It's not only unnecessary, it's unhelpful.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
