[Godstud]

That sounds like nothing more than your opinion, Ahovking. I disagree with you, as society needs rules for it to run efficiently and well. When you follow these rules, it is GOOD. When you don't it's bad.

[Ahovking]

That sounds like nothing more than your opinion, Ahovking. I disagree with you, as society needs rules for it to run efficiently and well. When you follow these rules, it is GOOD. When you don't it's bad.

Religion also provides society with rules. Rules like "You shall not murder". Religion general isn't fair to all but when followed by the majority and the government as well (Best example is the United States and its jew-christian values of the west) it does seem to provide stability.

[Husky]

Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?

In discussion about normative ethics (note I say normative ethics and not meta-ethics), the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of an action can be determined using a formula designed to evaluate the outcome of said action. Humans have evolved to value a certain outcome of their actions over others. For instance, consequentialism is used to justify an action based on its consequences. On the other hand, deontological ethics evaluates the 'rightness' of an action based on the nature of the action, not the result. These two factors, as well as a confluence of other factors relating or pertaining to the values that their community values, determines one's morality. I would argue that religion is not necessary for humans to make a decision with a positive outcome, but being brought up in a certain culture definitely influences one's intuitive response to situations.

[work-in-progress]

Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?

After two pages, it's about time Euthyphro's Dilemma showed up!

In discussion about normative ethics (note I say normative ethics and not meta-ethics), the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of an action can be determined using a formula designed to evaluate the outcome of said action. Humans have evolved to value a certain outcome of their actions over others. For instance, consequentialism is used to justify an action based on its consequences. On the other hand, deontological ethics evaluates the 'rightness' of an action based on the nature of the action, not the result. These two factors, as well as a confluence of other factors relating or pertaining to the values that their community values, determines one's morality. I would argue that religion is not necessary for humans to make a decision with a positive outcome, but being brought up in a certain culture definitely influences one's intuitive response to situations.

Don't forget Virtue Ethics...where someone is supposed to develop their character sufficiently to be able to navigate their way to the proper decision by way of improving their own character. This is the core of the New Testament change in ethics from the Old, where it's all about following the Law. When Jesus says something like:'the Law should be written in your hearts', he's trying to convey to his disciples that they should know the difference between right and wrong without looking it up in the rule book!

Ideally, what would be best is if everyone did develop the kind of character to where they would act lawfully and generously with everyone, and as bad as things are, I think most people have a sufficient amount of virtue to be moral without coercion of any kind....although we all know the exceptions, who cannot develop any sort of moral compass of their own for guidance. If those kinds of people(sociopaths or psychopaths) can be allowed to live freely in society, they have to be ingrained with a strong set of deontological principles, and this usually means religion, though there may be exceptions.

As an aside, if anyone is familiar with the HBO series - Dexter, this is a perfect example of someone who does not have an instinctive sense of empathy or feel revulsion for committing acts of evil. Briefly, Dexter is a psychopath with a strong need for acceptance by his hero - his deceased father, who still appears to him as a voice in his head, telling him right from wrong. I missed the first 3 seasons of Dexter, so I'm a little sketchy about the rules he follows, that he believes come from The Code given to him by his father, but Dexter has been steered towards confining his strong killer impulse towards people that he could prove to be killers themselves through his job at the Miami Police Dept.. The first few seasons follow a pattern of Dexter managing to successfully follow the Code as he carries out his secret hobby. Near the end of last season, Dexter's secret is discovered by his sister, and everything starts to unravel for him when he has to break the Code to kill people who could uncover his secret. The odds of a real life Dexter, who stalks the margins seeking criminals for personal execution may not be a likely scenario; but the show leaves me wondering how many...almost exclusively men like Dexter, are psychopaths with a strong impulse for risk-taking and adventure, who prove themselves to be "super soldiers" or "super cops" because they never develop PTSD or other stress-related problems from constant exposure to death and live fire zones. Now that the wars are winding down, the U.S. now has the worry of how many "Dexters" who reveled in the worst days of Iraq and Afghanistan are going to settle in to life at home!

But aside from the adrenaline junkie - violent psychopaths, we are now learning that many with psychopathic tendencies are now firmly entrenched in the ruthless capitalism of the modern banking and investment world, where no morals other than earn more profits by any means necessary, is the operating principle....good luck with those ones to all of you fans of capitalism out there!

Anyway, enough about the misfits! What I have noticed in recent years, especially as psychologists are applying neuroscience research, is that most normal people agree with consequentialist, or utilitarian principles at a rational, higher level of analysis, but at a gut level, feel an intuitive response to go with basic feelings that would be better described by virtue ethics. For example, the Trolley Car Problemthought experiments show that when most people are given the simple dilemma of the train car bearing down on a group of five people, with the only option being to flip a switch to an offtrack where one bystander is killed....more than 90% of responses make that utilitarian calculation that it's better to save five lives than one, and choose an action that will cause the death of one person if five will be saved. However, when the question is tweaked by...instead of flipping a switch, the subject has to get actively involved and push a fat man off an overpass onto the track (supposedly for the purpose of example, he's so fat that he can stop a train, but still be able to be pushed off the bridge), the responders become reluctant to take action, even though it is the same one life for five calculation. They start conflating contrived objections to taking a life that they did not express when it was just a matter of flipping a switch....indicating that the more personally involved we have to be, the less willing we are to take a life, even if it means that five will die through our inaction. Interesting to note that the people most likely to keep making the one for five calculation also score high for psychopathy!

So, I guess for me, all this talk about ethics and moral theories boils down to there being no one right or correct system of ethics to use for all situations. No doubt that complicates things a lot, but any ethical system can be taken to ridiculous extremes if it is to be adhered to rigidly in all circumstances.

[Husky]

Indeed - ethics is situational and adjustable, and is bound and wrapped in what we perceive to be rational. The relativity of an action's worth is stark and complicates an accurate analysis.

A chilling conclusion is that the very concept of morality is somewhat nebulous. Without cultural norms and standards, there effectively is no [concept of] morality.

[Rich]

Religion also provides society with rules. Rules like "You shall not murder".

Or in the case of Joshua: You shall murder. Or take Aztec traditonal religion. In many religions murder has not just been allowed but has been obligatory.

jew-christian values

Christianity is the opposite of Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is xenophobic Nazi style racism where none Jews are considered filth who wouldn't deign to share a table with. A real Jew doesn't even enter the house of a gentile unless there is money to be made. Christianity is universal anti racist and anti rigid laws. It is the very negation of Judaism. Reformed Jews are Judaists in name only. They may retain some of the outer forms of Judaism but in essence they have converted to Christianity.

How has this confusion arisen? Because modern radical progressive Liberalism and its progeny, international Communism are actually Christianity in their essential moral outlook. The emphasis on equality, helping the poor, not judging and acceptance are all very Christian values. Of course with a rather similar shadow to boot.

[Godstud]

All the surviving cultures today, think murder is evil(bad for society). I find it a bit unbelievable that most of the laws pertaining to religion are common amongst most of these cultures, irrespective of religion. I think society deems something "evil"(although they might not call it as such) when it's disruptive and damages the society. Many such things would still be "bad" even if religion wasn't present as some a poor guide book, of sorts.

[Suska]

C'mon stud, good and bad in religion isn't determined by throwing darts at words. You act like people don't have minds because they believe in God. Good is good in every way, so of course normally it's good for people. duh

[Ahovking]

Or in the case of Joshua: You shall murder. Or take Aztec traditonal religion. In many religions murder has not just been allowed but has been obligatory.

Your ignorance is shameful and embarrassing (or maybe i am the ignorance one ) , Doesn't matter if the religion is genrally negative or positive it seems religion does proveds a sense of stability and security to the believer.

Organized religions serve many different functions today from running charities and hospitals to generating laws and providing political organization. Yet, most of these complex social functions have nothing to do with life in the simpler subsistence societies that defined us as a species.

When religions first arose, they must have helped our ancestors as individuals. Many scholars assume that religious individuals were more successful at raising children. Yet family size is more or less fixed by ecological factors - such as availability of food - and that it cannot be arbitrarily raised or lowered by religion (1). Another possibility is that religion helped provide a sense of emotional security – acting much like the security blanket from which a small child derives comfort when distressed.

Religion as security blanket

According to the security blanket concept of religion, supernatural belief systems provide peace of mind and help believers to cope with the more stressful events in their lives. This is a valuable service because chronic stress increases blood pressure leading to heart disease, clinical depression, and contributing to a number of other health problems ranging from obesity to cancers.

Although religious people tend to reject the security-blanket approach to religion as simplistic, it is versatile and helps us understand a great deal about religious practices that are otherwise difficult to explain. It has yet to be embraced by religion scholars who prefer loftier terms such as “existential security” that mean much the same.

The security blanket idea succeeds in explaining why some situations evoke a religious response. It encompasses the known physiological effects of religious rituals and beliefs. It also helps us to understand why religion is in decline in the most developed countries where citizens enjoy an exceptionally good standard of living.

It continues at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... t-religion

[Someone5]

Everyone follows some kind of religion or ideology, the only question is whether they are aware of it or not. For example, there are plenty of western atheists that are Judeo-Christian in all their values and thoughts.

By the same token every human on earth is following caveman values. That is not meaningful. When there is a substantial divergence of moral beliefs and founding moral principles (as in the case of atheists), one can no longer meaningfully characterize that as "Judeo-Christian values."

[govbot]

I detest organised religion but as a species do we need it to manifest right and wrong in a way people can appreciate.

I believe morality can be achieved without a false sense of mysticism attached.

[Rei Murasame]

When there is a substantial divergence of moral beliefs and founding moral principles (as in the case of atheists), one can no longer meaningfully characterize that as "Judeo-Christian values."

I'm am arguing precisely that there is not a substantial divergence, for quite a few of them. Sometimes they do sound quite the same.

[Drlee]

By the same token every human on earth is following caveman values.

Really? How do you know this? Give us about 100 words detailing what "caveman values" were. Reference them. Dates. In my day, we had to have dates. Since you are writing history we need dates.

I am surprised at you Someone5. You are so in love with logical arguments then you fail like this. What gives? You seem to be into creating your own creation story now?

That is not meaningful. When there is a substantial divergence of moral beliefs and founding moral principles (as in the case of atheists), one can no longer meaningfully characterize that as "Judeo-Christian values."

What is this supposed to mean? You are so proud of your abilities at logic. It seems to me that you would have to grant that there are, in fact, a group of values that can be characterized as "Judeo-Christian". To the extent that any group of people largely share these values, then the use of the term "Judeo-Christian" values is quite acceptable.

But you may wish to argue that because there are atheists there is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" values. I hope not. That would be a logical fallacy. You would hate to employ one of those. But then you spoke of "substantial divergence". Define substantial? Your argument no sense anyway because although it is entirely possible for people of differing religious beliefs to share the same values, when a community is formed by people who largely hold the same values, and when those values are informed by their common religious beliefs, then it is logical to assume that their common religious beliefs were the source of THEIR community beliefs.

I believe morality can be achieved without a false sense of mysticism attached

Tell me. What is a "false sense of mysticism"?

[oscar]

"Moral" instincts long predated organized religion. Homo Sapiens' survival (as well as other species) was likely predicated on the ability of Man to work with each other. "Civilization", which probably pre-dated any organized religion) involved cooperation to grow food for the collective good rather than hunt for it as individuals. The principle of "Thou shalt not kill" et al probably arose long before Moses allegedly came down from some hill to deliver the 10 Commandments.

[Drlee]

Why can't atheists at least try to stick to facts. They are so proud of them. Let's see.

"Moral" instincts long predated organized religion.

What is a "moral instinct". Name five of them. Tell us when the first instance of organized belief was.

Homo Sapiens' survival (as well as other species) was likely predicated on the ability of Man to work with each other.

"

This statement makes no sense. If you want to point to some herd evolutionary process then you are way out of the scope of this discussion. And you are completely in the land of conjecture by the way.

Civilization", which probably pre-dated any organized religion) involved cooperation to grow food for the collective good rather than hunt for it as individuals.

Evidence? I think that most anthropologists would tell you that religion and grouping happened about the same time. Cave paintings seem to suggest this. But unlike you I will not jump to conclusions. Also I believe the first groups of humans are generally thought of as hunter-gatherers. Growing food came much later. Hunter gatherer groups existed into modern times by the way. I believe there are still some today.

The principle of "Thou shalt not kill" et al probably arose long before Moses allegedly came down from some hill to deliver the 10 Commandments.

Undoubtedly. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the story of Moses. No I misspoke. OBVIOUSLY you are unfamiliar with the story of Moses. Setting aside for the moment scholarship which sees (as do many religious people) Moses as a composite figure in history, should you wish to use the more common view of Moses you would do well to remember that he got up that mountain the first place because he was a murderer and the Egyptian authorities were chasing his ass.

If you had a rudimentary knowledge of religion in general you would also know that it is not a belief of the Judeo-Christian world that the 10 commandments were the origins of the laws therein. All the 10 commandments are to us is a list of what God thinks are some important rules that his people should obey. If you had actually studied religion you would know that although followers of the God of Abraham are enjoined to obey them there was no expectation that others would too. The 10 commandments are rules assigned to members of a particular people singled out by God. Neither God nor the Israelites expected the Egyptians (for example) to follow all of these laws. Some yes some no. Clearly it was illegal in Egypt to steal, to commit adultery, to murder and to lie in court. The Egyptians were probably not to concerned with worshiping the God of Abraham.

That is the problem with arguments like yours. It is just to easy to prove that you don't understand that about which you hold forth.

So what is your point sir? Obviously you are having some considerable trouble expressing it.

[govbot]

I believe morality can be achieved without a false sense of mysticism attached

Tell me. What is a "false sense of mysticism"?

Too many people in all religions resort to it, instead of consulting a well thought, reasonable foundation for making moral choices.

Too much of religion is focused on aspects other than a well thought, reasonable foundation for making moral choices.

When religion is corrupted, it is often by people who have a vested interest in convincing the flock to resort to a false sense of mysticism when making moral choices. "This choice doesn't align with the great power I don't understand." Or vaguely, "God would be happy/mad," or "The Church would/wouldn't like it".

Morality doesn't require the leap of faith. The best part of all the religions with which I'm familiar is the explanation of moral truths by a prophet adept at doing so in a way that anyone can understand. Doing so leaves no need for mystical seatbelts.

[Suska]

'too much' 'too often' 'too many'

Words like morality and religion have too much flex room to be acting like you've got it nailed. You happen to think morality is a word that belongs in a secular dialect, fair enough and then of course it doesn't need religion. There's an argument to be made for the idea that morality is actually not a word in a secular dialect and maybe you mean ethics. Then also there's an argument to be made for the idea that ethics is just cribbed morality. You're just playing with words and stereotypes here. In fact the only thing I learned from that post was that you're the usual antigodbot, which is a far more ridiculous thing to be than a regular old godbot.

[Drlee]

Nice. Now answer my question. What is a "false sense of mysticism". It would appear that you don't understand what the word "mysticism" means.

You do like logic I see. Could you try to practice a little?

Too many people in all religions resort to it, instead of consulting a well thought, reasonable foundation for making moral choices.

What "it" this that? Tell me why it is better to decide not to kill your neighbor because you want to maintain the interdependent social construct of a homogenous community than it is because you believe God doesn't want you to.

When religion is corrupted, it is often by people who have a vested interest in convincing the flock to resort to a false sense of mysticism when making moral choices.

You did it again. You don't understand what mysticism is. And you are confusing mysticism with organized religion. Please learn what mysticism is.

Morality doesn't require the leap of faith.

Morality is all about faith. Faith in the notion that your idea of wrong and right is the best one to follow. There is no moral absolute. Not in religion or outside of it.

You would be well to practice some observation. Observe the officially atheist countries of our time...their laws based upon logic and the supposed social welfare. That would be the Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China. If that is your idea of logic and reason as the best basis for law your argument is in pretty bad shape. Why don't you try to find an example of a group of atheists constructing this wonder of wonderlands and get back to me.

[Godstud]

Morality is all about faith.

Only by your definition.

Morality
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... ood?q=Good

Good and bad exist irrespective of religion. What is good for a society is something that doesn't harm it. If something harms a society it is deemed bad. Good and bad aren't necessarily linked to religion, but if you were to look at Good/Evil then perhaps then you could come to that conclusion. Redefining words to make them suit your agenda, doesn't change the actual meaning of words.

Within the wide range of moral traditions, religious moral traditions co-exist with contemporary secular moral frameworks such as consequentialism, freethought, humanism, utilitarianism, and others. There are many types of religious morals. Modern monotheistic religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and to a certain degree others such as Sikhism and Zoroastrianism, define right and wrong by the laws and rules set forth by their respective scriptures and as interpreted by religious leaders within the respective faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

You simply don't need religion for morals to exist, as morality can be based on personal values, cultural mores, an ideology or a philosophy.

[Drlee]

Good and bad exist irrespective of religion

Of course. Why did you quote me. I never said they did not. But I will temper it and say that good and bad are matters of faith. We assume (which is faith isn't it?) that our actions are good for society often without evidence.

If you simply went back a very few years you would have heard an almost universal assertion that homosexuality was immoral and that it was bad for society.

People of all races, when I was a child accepted universally that mixed marriage was immoral and bad for society.

These assumptions were simply matters of faith. Faith that what has "always been" was "always good". You note that I chose one example with religious roots and one with secular roots. So you have to grant that either what is good or bad changed or that the notion of good or bad is always a matter of faith in whatever process one chooses to determine good and bad.

Godstud you are preaching to the converted. The answer to the question posed in this thread is actually very simple. The answer is that religion directly informs the moral scope of the majority of people in the world. It influences the moral scope of all people by association with religious people and religiously influenced institutions. But no matter what it is that is the source of your moral compass, whether any aspect of it is good or bad is just a matter of faith. And before you answer contemplate on this. Faith is not necessarily a religious term.