Is it possible to morality in schools without invoking a religion?

[thebrucebeat]

Morality only exists if there is a right and a wrong, good and evil. And there can only be a good and evil if someone or something has delineated somethings as good and somethings as evil.

You could argue natural law rather than religion. But even natural law presupposed someone has written the laws that are natural.

Morality is a cultural agreement regarding what constitutes right and wrong. It varies globally, and every one of these cultures believes they have the unique bead on what "true" morality is.
It changes over time within a culture (civil rights have morphed to include women and blacks in the U.S.). It changes from culture to culture.

mo·ral·i·ty[ mə rállətee ]1.accepted moral standards: standards of conduct that are generally accepted as right or proper
2.how right or wrong something is: the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards
3.virtuous behavior: conduct that is in accord with accepted moral standards

Accepted moral standards.
Nothing more.
No theological aspect.
No supernatural aspect.
Just people deciding what is for the collective good.

 

[PostmodernProph]

It comes up repeatedly.

really?.....you mention it a lot, do you?.....any particular reason why?.....

 

[thebrucebeat]

It comes up repeatedly.

really?.....you mention it a lot, do you?.....any particular reason why?.....

The bible mentions it repeatedly in the telling of the Abram story.
I understand why you are not familiar with it.
You don't know your bible.

 

[amrchaos]

I did not know that my question would cause such a reaction in people that no one would read my opinion.

The opinion is a flat "yes" we could.

The idea is to take out the laws and commandments that
1) Does not reflect the god of the religion
2)Include laws/rules that are both "modern" and non-oppressive as for instance "do not steal" could be a rule but "stoning adulterers"
3) These laws/rules do not have to be phrased as commandments. For instance, it could be phrased as slogans like telling the student to practice "Good thoughts. Good Deeds. Good words"(I forgot where tht comes from)

In other words, what I am saying is that not all the moral themes that are derived from religion are bad. In fact there are some good and simple ideas that can be savaged from different religions.

By the way, I just realized I didn't fully elaborate the idea in the op. Sorry about that. I guess that could be part of the source of misunderstanding here as well.

Your proposal suggests that the religions need to be carved up, edited and/or re-written to remove the nastier elements.

You really can't separate the ideoogy from actions of the adherents. Christianity, like all religions, has been an obstacle to social enlightment. It has been used, since the days of the Spanish Conquistadors, to conquer contrary social as well as religious thought through oppression. Thus, Jews have been oppressed by Christians - And more than once. All of Europe was oppressed during the "Dark Ages". American immigrants, such as the Pilgrims came to the US to escape oppression by Christianity. Women were oppressed at the "Salem witch trials". Blacks were oppressed by the "Christian" Klu Klux Klan.

Protestants oppress Catholics in Ireland. Give a Christian access to a radio microphone and he'll preach as much oppression as any other religion. Religion is naturally oppressive and Christianity is no different when used by political leaders. It's because of this that America had to separate Church from State, or the State would have become oppressive.

I am not talking about separating the ideology from the actions of the adherents. I am talking about taking different ideologies, break them into pieces, and grabbing the stuff that has social value(i.e. the parts that teaches how to be a good citizen) and tossing the rest into a dumpster.

 

[Avatar4321]

Morality only exists if there is a right and a wrong, good and evil. And there can only be a good and evil if someone or something has delineated somethings as good and somethings as evil.

You could argue natural law rather than religion. But even natural law presupposed someone has written the laws that are natural.

Ummm, sorry. But no, there is nothing in nature that implies "someone" has written the laws that are natural.

The assertion makes no sense. You are presupposing that this "someone" is you god(s) and that would mean that the natural world was constructed by the supernatural. There are no indications of supernatural underpinnings anywhere in the universe.

I have to advise that I’m disappointed in how often these kinds of comments appear. The various and competing holy texts are not a pathway to science and I really, really, really cringe at the suggestion that any of them be viewed as a part of a science curriculum. But it's true that those who already wish to restrain knowledge for reasons of pride or willful miscalculation often grasp upon their holy books hoping to do precisely that.

The fault doesn't lie with the holy book, but with the reader.

2,000 years may not be long enough to extinguish the errors and false assumptions of spiritual claims to gods and supernaturalism, but it's hopeless for anyone looking to expand the boundaries of scientific knowledge to propose that science is lagging behind the bibles, korans, whatever.

What I've seen consistently in thread after thread with this kind of attitude is the false claim of the holy text illuminating science when it's actually the other way around. The interpretations are filled with apologetics for lack of scientific vocabulary in a 2,000-year-old spiritual work. Well, duh! Yeah. I think these types of arguments do more harm than good by feeding the ignorance of those who are satisfied with their own lack of training outside religious studies.

The false claims of inerrancy and prophesy are ridiculously easy to debunk, and having debunked the "science" in a spiritual work, the "spiritual" truths get washed out like a baby with the bathwater. Every time I see a religionist arguing against something as clear as, well, the ascendency of scientific knowledge vs. superstition and falsehood, it makes me question the agenda of the religionist.

Neither the natural world nor "gods" are defined in any differentiable, testable fashion in the bibles. I've seen the resident apologists take really spectacular liberties with allegorical interpretations of their holy text in this thread and others, while entirely dodging the fundamental problem that no demonstrably accurate version of the scripture is available.

Sure. All those laws in nature don't imply a lawgiver.

Everything just magically is.

 

[Hollie]

Morality only exists if there is a right and a wrong, good and evil. And there can only be a good and evil if someone or something has delineated somethings as good and somethings as evil.

You could argue natural law rather than religion. But even natural law presupposed someone has written the laws that are natural.

Ummm, sorry. But no, there is nothing in nature that implies "someone" has written the laws that are natural.

The assertion makes no sense. You are presupposing that this "someone" is you god(s) and that would mean that the natural world was constructed by the supernatural. There are no indications of supernatural underpinnings anywhere in the universe.

I have to advise that I’m disappointed in how often these kinds of comments appear. The various and competing holy texts are not a pathway to science and I really, really, really cringe at the suggestion that any of them be viewed as a part of a science curriculum. But it's true that those who already wish to restrain knowledge for reasons of pride or willful miscalculation often grasp upon their holy books hoping to do precisely that.

The fault doesn't lie with the holy book, but with the reader.

2,000 years may not be long enough to extinguish the errors and false assumptions of spiritual claims to gods and supernaturalism, but it's hopeless for anyone looking to expand the boundaries of scientific knowledge to propose that science is lagging behind the bibles, korans, whatever.

What I've seen consistently in thread after thread with this kind of attitude is the false claim of the holy text illuminating science when it's actually the other way around. The interpretations are filled with apologetics for lack of scientific vocabulary in a 2,000-year-old spiritual work. Well, duh! Yeah. I think these types of arguments do more harm than good by feeding the ignorance of those who are satisfied with their own lack of training outside religious studies.

The false claims of inerrancy and prophesy are ridiculously easy to debunk, and having debunked the "science" in a spiritual work, the "spiritual" truths get washed out like a baby with the bathwater. Every time I see a religionist arguing against something as clear as, well, the ascendency of scientific knowledge vs. superstition and falsehood, it makes me question the agenda of the religionist.

Neither the natural world nor "gods" are defined in any differentiable, testable fashion in the bibles. I've seen the resident apologists take really spectacular liberties with allegorical interpretations of their holy text in this thread and others, while entirely dodging the fundamental problem that no demonstrably accurate version of the scripture is available.

Sure. All those laws in nature don't imply a lawgiver.

Everything just magically is.

Well, your comment requiring a "lawgiver" is poorly formed in at least the following ways.

First, there appears to be no evidence of “design,” or at least not of “intelligent design” anywhere we look in the universe. Was Shoemaker-Levy "intelligent design"? How about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago; "intelligent design"?

The functioning in nature appears to be the product of a bottom up process of trial and error, not a top down process of planning.

Second, natural laws are decidedly not random. They might be statistical, but they are not random.

You may be surprised to learn that physics can describe much of the magic that you attribute to a "lawgiver".

What, specifically, about "all those laws" must imply a supernatural designer? I'm supposing actually nothing, other than your religious belief presupposes a "designer" therefore you presume "design" for "all those laws".

Most of the universe is profoundly hostile to humans, life in general and human life. And even in this tiny corner of the universe where chance has conspired to make human life possible, the planet Earth is at best indifferent to human life, and at worst actively hostile.
But concluding that the existence of life is the “purpose” for which natural laws were “designed,” is like concluding that because someone wins the lottery, the lottery was designed for them to win. In actuality, lotteries were “designed” for a completely different purpose, i.e. for states to make money. The fact that (rarely) somebody actually wins is just a side effect.

That you imagine that life’s ability to develop on earth means it is the purpose of natural law is a spectacular example of hubris. We are an accidental side affect of a universe that is actually profoundly hostile to life, and does not care one whit whether we exist or not.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes. You can be anti bullying without bringing religion into it.

 

[sealybobo]

Proof Christianity is outdated. Jesus said nothing about bullying.

 

[PostmodernProph]

It comes up repeatedly.

really?.....you mention it a lot, do you?.....any particular reason why?.....

The bible mentions it repeatedly in the telling of the Abram story.
I understand why you are not familiar with it.
You don't know your bible.

the question remains....why do YOU bring up something which is so......well, irrelevant to everything?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I think its silly to speak of natural laws of morality....take the prohibition against murder, for example.....if you examine nature, it becomes pretty obvious that just about everything kills something else, simply to survive.....if anything, the "natural law" would be "Look! Food! Kill it before it runs away!"......

 

[Hollie]

I think its silly to speak of natural laws of morality....take the prohibition against murder, for example.....if you examine nature, it becomes pretty obvious that just about everything kills something else, simply to survive.....if anything, the "natural law" would be "Look! Food! Kill it before it runs away!"......

That was pretty silly. But considering it was your post, silly is expected.

 

[thebrucebeat]

really?.....you mention it a lot, do you?.....any particular reason why?.....

The bible mentions it repeatedly in the telling of the Abram story.
I understand why you are not familiar with it.
You don't know your bible.

the question remains....why do YOU bring up something which is so......well, irrelevant to everything?......

I was responding to a post about incest in the bible.
How quickly we forget.

 

[PostmodernProph]

The bible mentions it repeatedly in the telling of the Abram story.
I understand why you are not familiar with it.
You don't know your bible.

the question remains....why do YOU bring up something which is so......well, irrelevant to everything?......

I was responding to a post about incest in the bible.
How quickly we forget.

oh, wait.....you mean something that was prohibited by God a thousand years after Abraham died....now I get it......you thought it had something to do with the debate.....now that you know better, what would you like to talk about next.....

 

[sealybobo]

I bet if you go to every white elementary school, middle school and high school and see who the bullies are I bet you they are all christians raised by christians.