Morality

[thesummerqueen]

Btw, I find it insulting as an atheist that you would suggest I am more or less moral than the devout Christian I sit next to who cheats on his wife.

[Citereh]

Makes you wonder how isolated tribes in the Amazon etc are still around today considering there lack of exposure to the 10 commandments.

Kind Regards,

Citereh

[frankiej]

Makes you wonder how isolated tribes in the Amazon etc are still around today considering there lack of exposure to the 10 commandments.

Kind Regards,

Citereh

They are going to hell of course... Yes, it is unfair, but god works in mysterious ways...he is also a just god? eh?

[Citereh]

Theres that point also. But I was trying to suggest more that they have managed to survive quite well and peacefully might I add, considering they don't have the 10 commandments to teach them how to behave morally.

Kind Regards,

Citereh

[frankiej]

They may survive fine enough... but once they enter the afterlife...ooooohhh bbbboyyy, are they in trouble.

But yes, I see what you are saying and it is true. They seem to do alright... apart from living in a forest...

[Faith No More]

An analogy For example, here in the u.k there has been a big debate on "legal drugs." More people have been experimenting with legal drugs, because they are legal. those people would not use illegal drugs for the very fact that they are illegal.

People are doing legal drugs because they're cheaper and easier to obtain, not because they suddenly feel it's socially acceptable. Besides, drugs need to be decriminalized and hallucinogens legalized.

Similarly, if boundaries on morality were strictly in place it may stop people from engaging in immoral acts, because that boundary was there i.e religion. Once the boundary has been removed, it allows immorality to be engaged in.

You mean like it stopped the pedophile priests?

Well I honestly think I would be a worse person if it were not for religious teachings. As a young boy we were taught religion and "right and wrong" in school. These foundations are present in us even in adulthood.

You are giving religion the credit for morals when they really appeared as humans started to live larger societies to maintain order. Religion then highjacked these morals and claimed them.

Of course there is no evidence to suggest that as a species we were more immoral before abrahamic religions took hold in the world. Mostly due to the fact that the concept of morality had not yet been devised.

Morals most definitely predate the abrahamic religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Psychologist Matt J. Rossano argues that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[12] The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival

I feel that even atheists who act decently, are going on the religious precedent set before them.

As stated before, religion was only going on the precedent already set, so giving it credit for anyone's morality, theist or atheist, is incorrect.

[downbeatplumb]

But religion tells us how to keep slaves and the best way to beat your wife, without these quide books how would we know that beating with a stick thicker than your thumb is wrong?

[Faith No More]

Trial and error?

[The Grand Nudger]

Trial, for a slave? You make me laugh. After all, "the man is his money." Exodus 21:21

Honestly who gives a shit what the law says to do with slaves. Once you've endorsed slavery it's GG.

[TeslaTrooper]

Makes you wonder how isolated tribes in the Amazon etc are still around today considering there lack of exposure to the 10 commandments.

Kind Regards,

Citereh

I actually was thinking about this on the way home. How jungle tribes exist. But I think alot of them still hold some kind of belief, such as spirits ancestors etc. Which I guess is still some form of worship.

---

Hi everyone, first post and not sure which topic area to put this in, or forum etiquette, its not really a question but something for discussion, but here it goes.

Its basically a concept I have been grappling with for a while. For those of us who aren't religious or live in secular societies, it would appear that their is a significant correlation with the decline in morality, and the decline in religion. In the past In my country, Christianity provided a "moral guideline" if you will for how we should live our lives. And through the fear of hell, or living in religious society or whatever, it kept people in line/ under control through these guidlines. It would appear that as people have lost faith, their moral standards have declined dramatically, many adopting a mentality of "why". That is to say, "why is it wrong" "why shouldn't I behave like this" "why should you tell me whats right and wrong". Which from an atheistic/agnostic viewpoint, it is very difficult to tell them otherwise, as if there is no God and if religion is a farce, then who is to say that the way they are living/behaving is wrong?

Going to have to disagree quite strongly. More secular societies are actually far more peaceful than religious ones. More law biding and productive. Sweden has a 85% non-religious population, and it's ranked as one of the top most peaceful nations in the world. Very religious nations and societies have been found to be quite violent and dis-orderly.

Morality does not come from religion. I've never committed a single crime throughout my life, maybe one little mistake as a very young lad but that's all and yet I've never been religious. Atheist all my life.
Teaching right from wrong isn't too difficult.
Like how my uncle taught his kids. When his kids vandalise property, he damages their property then asked them "how do you like it when it's done to you?". He's with the 'treat others how you would like to be treated' approach. Works. If your kids destroy property, destroy some of theirs. Or sell it to cover the damages.
I used to throw stones at cars as they drove by when I was little, till I learnt how to put myself in their shoes. I saw the wrong and corrected myself. Never was religion required, only for the weak minded.
So no, the decline of religious influence does not cause the sense of morality to decline also. Intelligence is the best form of morality, not fear.

You say lad so I may guess you may be from the U.K also. I can agree to an extent that some secular societies are less barbaric than religious ones. But generally I feel that is a east vs west thing rather than religious argument. I feel in general the west has become more civilised over time. I guess what I was thinking about was 1950s Britain, and how the form of christianity to me gave it a better sense of right and wrong than we have today. Perhaps other factors weighing into it all aswell as the religious argument.

If we also look at the amazon tribe example, it could be argued that we may have an innate sense of right and wrong also, but I dont know how much of that is true. They say babies have a basic understanding of mathematics, but again I wouldnt want to hold to much weight on that argument. I guess because christianity is the precedent in the u.k it is difficult to determine whether or moral principles would exist without that Christian history. Again the only way would be to study cavepeople without any concept of religion and see how they behave.

I would 100% agree with the statement that intelligence would be the best form of morality not fear. If we take the the u.k as an example again, I would say a large percentage have lost their traditional faith in religion. To me it seems that now the "chains" of religion have been removed, secular society is not living up to the promise of "freedom." I feel we are not promoting an example, in that we can behave properly without the restraints of religion around us. This is my opinion only, but the whole premise to my original question/ramble, is how can we preserve morality in secular society, through choice rather than fear, because to me it seems like we are failing.

The other thing that I cant get my head around still is that concept of morality is heavily subjective within secular society, because that lack of religious framework (which is far more rigid). For example I see getting blind drunk and rolling around in the gutter as immoral, whereas someone esle regards it as a good time. Without that framework in place, neither he nor I is wrong. I say to him "thats immoral" he says to me "says who" I say "says me" he says "who are you?" Bring a third person into the equation and he may consider kissing scenes on television immoral, wheras I wouldnt.

......if that all makes sense.

---

First of all, religion is a shite idea of morality control. People still do all sorts of things no matter what religion they subscribe to.

Second, it sounds as if you're not entirely against certain things being done because their immorality is debatable, you just don't want it out in public. Now THAT is something to discuss. Are you uncomfortable with certain things?

Personally, I prefer more things to be out in the open. My mother's habit of pretending I've never had sex is rather annoying. I often say that if my last man had knocked me up, she would have preferred to imagine it happened through some magical process of his sperm growing little wings and seeking me out from all the way across a mansion sized house. This ludicrous attitude has led to all sorts of body issues. "Morality" has more consequences than just social control.

I agree religion is a poop idea of controlling morality, as it does just that, i.e control. We should be free too choose. The problem I think is, with choice we make the wrong ones. For me i dont accept certain things just because they are done in private, some things (for me) are wrong regardless whether public or not. But say if two people were having sex on a shopping center floor, I would regard that as immorality in public. Two people having sex in the privacy of their own home, would not be immoral (assuming they are not committing adultery or other immoral acts).

I do feel a more open society is better. If we take Iran for example. Everybody is doing what we do here except in private. Sex drugs alcohol etc. Repression is certainly not the answer.

As I said in my other post, is that how can secularism provide the same moral guideline as religion has done. I guess I just see the difference in attitudes amongst different generations here in the u.k. Just wondering how can we bring things back slightly, as for me (opinion) this hedonistic approach to life, is having alot of negative side affects.

---

Btw, I find it insulting as an atheist that you would suggest I am more or less moral than the devout Christian I sit next to who cheats on his wife.

Not saying that at all, and do not wish to offend anyone. For example my brother is not religious at all. And when discussing religion etc, he always states "well im a good person so thats all that matters." But I always say "good by whose standard?" If you asked 100 people what a good person is, im sure you will get a varied array of answers. But I guess as long as you follow your heart, and you feel you are doing good, thats all you can do.

Secondly I find people who dont practice what they preach massive hypocrites. And people who do bad things in the name of religion are far worse, as they are taking a lifestyle choice that gives many comfort in difficult times and turns it into something nasty and horrible.

---

An analogy For example, here in the u.k there has been a big debate on "legal drugs." More people have been experimenting with legal drugs, because they are legal. those people would not use illegal drugs for the very fact that they are illegal.

People are doing legal drugs because they're cheaper and easier to obtain, not because they suddenly feel it's socially acceptable. Besides, drugs need to be decriminalized and hallucinogens legalized.

Similarly, if boundaries on morality were strictly in place it may stop people from engaging in immoral acts, because that boundary was there i.e religion. Once the boundary has been removed, it allows immorality to be engaged in.

You mean like it stopped the pedophile priests?

Well I honestly think I would be a worse person if it were not for religious teachings. As a young boy we were taught religion and "right and wrong" in school. These foundations are present in us even in adulthood.

You are giving religion the credit for morals when they really appeared as humans started to live larger societies to maintain order. Religion then highjacked these morals and claimed them.

Of course there is no evidence to suggest that as a species we were more immoral before abrahamic religions took hold in the world. Mostly due to the fact that the concept of morality had not yet been devised.

Morals most definitely predate the abrahamic religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Psychologist Matt J. Rossano argues that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[12] The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival

I feel that even atheists who act decently, are going on the religious precedent set before them.

As stated before, religion was only going on the precedent already set, so giving it credit for anyone's morality, theist or atheist, is incorrect.

I dont know how to reply to each post so will reply in general. The evolution of morality bit seems quite interesting if a little vague. I guess it would highlight the possibility that we may possess an innate sense of right or wrong when interacting with each other. In some ways if we take pre abrahimic religous cultures, there would have been some concept of right or wrong, i.e the greco roman civilisations/egyptians, pagans etc. Again it is the subjectivity of morality that may be the issue for me. It is perhaps because we are so heavily influence by the abrahamic religious concepts of morality, that we hold particular ideals as moral certainty. When in fact there is no such thing as moral certainty.

But even athiests concept of right and wrong, still falls heavily in line with the abrahamic teachings. Perhaps this is cultural rather than religious? And the particular point at which we are at currently in history. Another issue I may be having is that without the farce of moral certainty that religion provides, I feel secular society cannot keep a moral code.. I dont know to be honest.