Does religion = Morality

[JBeukema]

Why is it 'good'; to obey the commandments of one's deity, if one believes in a deity that gives commands? How does a commandment from deity make an action 'good;, 'right', or 'moral', as opposed to merely to religious and obedient act?

For instance, if 'god' commands you to kill a man, how does that make killing him good or moral? Are you not merely obeying out of fear and the desire top be rewarded and not punished by deity? Why is genocide or human sacrifice- normally deemed immoral and 'wrong'- suddenly 'good' the moment a deity demands it?


It speaks to a very important matter- that is, religion does not inherently teach morality. the Abrahamic faiths, for instance do not teach morality so much as they teach law, regardless of whether it is 'good' and demand obedience for the purely selfish reason that one does not wish to be punished, but rather to enjoy the benefits of obedience. Isn't this the same as the Nuremberg defense, where it was said, 'I merely did what I was told, so that I would be rewarded instead of punished, killed, or tortured'?

fast-forward

 

[JBeukema]

....


So my argument goes unchallenged? The theists of USMB concede the point?

 

[ZhaoYun]

If God = Good
Then
God's Law = Morality

Though I'm not a theist, and I appreciate your point.

 

[KittenKoder]

The point is this, without reward then why be good? Honestly, I can't find any other reason to keep myself from mowing down a bunch of dumbass hairless apes if I do not have a reward for living and letting live.

 

[ZhaoYun]

I believe that most of them teach, in varying degrees, that good is it's own reward, and evil it's own punishment. "The Golden Rule" comes to mind.

 

[JBeukema]

If God = Good
Then
God's Law = Morality

Though I'm not a theist, and I appreciate your point.

1)Why does good=good, if god gives commands that would otherwise be considered immoral?
2)do not those commandments disprove 'god=good'?

The point is this, without reward then why be good? Honestly, I can't find any other reason to keep myself from mowing down a bunch of dumbass hairless apes if I do not have a reward for living and letting live.

Good way to paraphrase 1.2 of the OP

I believe that most of them teach, in varying degrees, that good is it's own reward,

'good' must still be defined, something that humanists, for example, address directly

and evil it's own punishment

If that were true, deity wouldn't punuish 'evil' or need to

. "The Golden Rule" comes to mind

Golden rule= social contract and ethics, not morality

 

[ZhaoYun]

1. No, because we are incapable of understanding God and the nature of the universe. Furthermore, in an ethical system that values obedience to god above all else(it's the very meaning of Islam(submission, actually)) the definition is not necessary.
2. Saying that the golden rule is a social contract (late 18th c.) and ethics rather than morality is taking it out of context, and quibbling.

I'm not a "theist" and am not about to spend a lot of time defending their positions. They are clear. Ethically, I value honesty, communication, and earnest good faith, so I am morally charged with the duty to try my damnedest to understand and accept another's explanation of his beliefs, no matter how inconsistent with mine they may be. These questions and their answers are really quite simple. There is nothing more to dig out, or that need be argued, except as an exercise in learning, or to satisfy a persons desire for conflict.

 

[JBeukema]

1. No, because we are incapable of understanding God and the nature of the universe.

Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean we can't understand it. Nor have you addressed the question: if a given act (for example, genocide) is considered immoral or wrong, why does it suddenly become the 'right' thing to do because that which gives the order appear 'supernatural'?

Furthermore, in an ethical system that values obedience to god above all else(it's the very meaning of Islam(submission, actually)) the definition is not necessary.

Why is submission good? Again, you end up setting forth law and still leaving unaddressed the issue of morality.

2. Saying that the golden rule is a social contract (late 18th c.) and ethics rather than morality is taking it out of context, and quibbling.

It's not out of context, because morality and ethics are two very different things. My point is that while they might be good at unifying a peoples beneath a common ethical code, attributing law to deity still fails to address the matter or morality.

Ethically, I value honesty, communication, and earnest good faith,

you value them morally, society might or might not value them and they might or might not be ethical

In short, you have failed completely to address the issue.

 

[Tinktink]

1. No, because we are incapable of understanding God and the nature of the universe.

Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean we can't understand it. Nor have you addressed the question: if a given act (for example, genocide) is considered immoral or wrong, why does it suddenly become the 'right' thing to do because that which gives the order appear 'supernatural'?

Furthermore, in an ethical system that values obedience to god above all else(it's the very meaning of Islam(submission, actually)) the definition is not necessary.

Why is submission good? Again, you end up setting forth law and still leaving unaddressed the issue of morality.

2. Saying that the golden rule is a social contract (late 18th c.) and ethics rather than morality is taking it out of context, and quibbling.

It's not out of context, because morality and ethics are two very different things. My point is that while they might be good at unifying a peoples beneath a common ethical code, attributing law to deity still fails to address the matter or morality.

Ethically, I value honesty, communication, and earnest good faith,

you value them morally, society might or might not value them and they might or might not be ethical

In short, you have failed completely to address the issue.

Wow Jb, you are here 24/7....

 

[JBeukema]

at night, I check in every few hours, after insomnia causes me to fail at sleep

 

[ZhaoYun]

Okay, perhaps you better define your terms for me, because your uses of the words moral and ethical seem to be inconsistent with my understanding. And if you're going to use a dictionary, better make it the OED.
" Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean we can't understand it" Yeah, actually in many religions, like christianity, it does.
You are clearly carrying so much baggage about these issues that you are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. Look, you need to accept that in the Abrahamic faiths (your chosen example), YHWH = Good. No matter what. If YHWH commands a man to kill, rape, steal, or pick his nose, it is God's will, and therefore good. I didn't say it made sense. It's just another paradox that requires faith to overcome. The religions have histories and most importantly scriptures that present the desired ethical foundations, or goals and values that shape the societies, and the morals, or laws based on the ethics and revelations that define the religion.
It's all very simple, and not subject to logic, argument, or even disagreement.
In short, I have explained the issue three times, and three times have you(speaking generally) demonstrated the kind of sophistry and obstinacy that gives the rational human a bad name.
Now I have to go find out how the quoting thing is done here.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

No.

Actually, a lot of religious practice is immoral, such as female circumcisions, the practices of the aztecs and the phoenicians being prime example of immoral religion.

But religion can be useful adjunct to morality. It helps enforce the social order, which is sometimes how it can be immoral also.

 

[JBeukema]

Okay, perhaps you better define your terms for me, because your uses of the words moral and ethical seem to be inconsistent with my understanding. And if you're going to use a dictionary, better make it the OED.

Screw oxford; I usually use Princeton

It's a simple matter/ Morality deals with 'right' and 'wrong' where ethics deals with what is acceptable and what is not. For instance, many professions medical and legal fields, for instance) have codes of conduct- ethical codes considering what is and what is not acceptable. Whether something is considered moral is another matter altogether, and they are not always in agreement

" Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean we can't understand it" Yeah, actually in many religions, like christianity, it does.

No, it doesn't. It simply means that we don't understand it. That's realty, regardless of what any religion might declare unknowable in order to maintain the mystery.

You are clearly carrying so much baggage about these issues that you are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.

You're evading the issue at hand.

Look, you need to accept that in the Abrahamic faiths (your chosen example), YHWH = Good. No matter what. If YHWH commands a man to kill, rape, steal, or pick his nose, it is God's will, and therefore good.

That is the dogma, but it does not follow. The point is that they cannot defend such amorality, and it is not morality at all. It is merely law (ethics, if you stretch it).

It's all very simple, and not subject to logic, argument, or even disagreement.

Then they should never step foot in the realms of logic


You have explained nothing. You have simply declared the same faulty reasoning that I have challenged. You have settled nothing, refuted no points, and built no case. All you have done is flee from reason.

 

[ZhaoYun]

The OED is definitive, and your understanding of the terms is incorrect. Look them up again. And talk about evading the issue. You stipulate to it, and still refuse to see the obvious:

That is the dogma

That's all I've been saying.

Then they should never step foot in the realms of logic

Agreed. And I have never claimed that it was logical. You are the person trying to eat a bowl of soup with a fork. You claim to have challenged faulty reasoning. You have failed because the reasoning is not faulty. The premises are.
I have explained everything. You have understood nothing. Logic is best used for opening minds, not closing them. You clearly desire conflict, not understanding. You are wasting your time.

 

[JBeukema]

I have never claimed that it was logical....You are wasting your time.

edited for correctness and accuracy

BTW, do any search for 'morality ethics difference' and you'll see that I use the terms as they are used in all relevant philosophical and sociological discussion

 

[Neser Boha]

Why is it 'good'; to obey the commandments of one's deity, if one believes in a deity that gives commands? How does a commandment from deity make an action 'good;, 'right', or 'moral', as opposed to merely to religious and obedient act?

For instance, if 'god' commands you to kill a man, how does that make killing him good or moral? Are you not merely obeying out of fear and the desire top be rewarded and not punished by deity? Why is genocide or human sacrifice- normally deemed immoral and 'wrong'- suddenly 'good' the moment a deity demands it?


It speaks to a very important matter- that is, religion does not inherently reach morality. the Abrahamic faiths, for instance do not teach morality so much as they teach law, regardless of whether it is 'good' and demand obedience for the purely selfish reason that one does not wish to be punished, but rather to enjoy the benefits of obedience. Isn't this the same as the Nuremberg defense, where it was said, 'I merely did what I was told, so that I would be rewarded instead of punished, killed, or tortured'?

fast-forward

Agree... But I'd like to answer your initial question that is also the title of this thread: Does religion=morality? No.

It has always attempted to do so. It mostly failed. I'm sure there are a lot of religiosos out there that would claim a direct opposite is true and all that... oooh... all the hidden meanings of Bible/Koran/what-have-ya... But I'm not at all interested in that rhetoric... At the same time, I think everyone should be free to believe the wildest craziest bullshit they want to believe, but they should also accept the consequences - that they're going to be laughed at - by me

Peace... Live and let live. :*

 

[editec]

The point is this, without reward then why be good? Honestly, I can't find any other reason to keep myself from mowing down a bunch of dumbass hairless apes if I do not have a reward for living and letting live.

How about doing right simple because you know it's right?

Is that really such an alien concept to you?

Must there be a great spirit in the sky that frightens you with eternal punishment if you transgress his laws?

When some believer tells me that without GOD there can be no morality, I realize that I am encountering a sociopathic personality, rather than a truly moral person.

No GOD is necessary to explain morality.

Morality is the invention of mankind because mankind is a social creature and social creatures need rules of behavior to coexist in society.

 

[Al Gunn]

Religion = immorality.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The point is this, without reward then why be good? Honestly, I can't find any other reason to keep myself from mowing down a bunch of dumbass hairless apes if I do not have a reward for living and letting live.

Actually, I have a book recommendation for you! Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments is a freebie on line, and it answers your question in pretty good style.

And the record shows that Smith's impartial observer is a better enforcer of morality than Gd, because Gd gets you later, the impartial observer gets you right now.

The rewards and punishments of heaven are distant and quite frankly, Heaven sounds worse than hell.

So the question of why be good is answered in the Smithian way, because it is in your narrow psychological self interest to do so.

 

[amrchaos]

The point is this, without reward then why be good? Honestly, I can't find any other reason to keep myself from mowing down a bunch of dumbass hairless apes if I do not have a reward for living and letting live.

LOL
You have made my week, KK! I wish I can keep a follow order on your postings!!


Now let see if I can answer the question without letting your post enter my response.

If morality is considered a religious concept and only a religious concept, then religion implies morality. Unfortunately, such a concept is not just the property of one religious order and therefore (religious)morality may differ between belief systems.

So I must use a more secularized term for (religious)morality and use the term civility. From this viewpoint, civility is akin to (religious)morality except it is freed from the restrictions pertaining to any one religious group.

Now if I ask the question--does religion equates to civility, the answer is no. (religious) morality, in theory, contains all the necessary parts for a believer to be civil, but civility is actually a unionized and larger concept than any religious morality one can come up with. In other words, civility is the accepted behavior approved as religious morality with the addition of accepted behavior not described in religious text. So we are now at the point of recognizing that (religious) morality is dictated by the religous group. And civility is considered the general accepted behavior.

Now Let me drop the affixed term (religious) and reiterate the answer to the question posed.

Religion does equates to morality.