Morality of Non-Believers

[Coloradomtnman]

It was a joke, but you haven't been here long enough to know that. It's cool.

Oh. I should've known since it was you who posted it. Where is the embarassed emoticon?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Here's a Godless fellow who contributed greatly to civilization:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."

"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

-Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist

 

[xsited1]

It was a joke, but you haven't been here long enough to know that. It's cool.

Oh. I should've known since it was you who posted it. Where is the embarassed emoticon?

No, no, no. My mistake. I should have been a bit more obvious. It's all good.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Here's another well respected contributor to civilizatiion:

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I think your opinion is fine and stands on it's own. I should have been clearer. What I objected to was your generalization about others. I included the Lincoln quote in my post to back your position.

Lincoln was not a lover of the Christian faith, and yet he greatly contributed to American civilization.

Okay, you're right. I should've said, not all, but there are religious people who feel that non-believers have no sense of morality.

And thanks for backing me up with the Lincoln quote. Its a great one!

 

[Sky Dancer]

I think your opinion is fine and stands on it's own. I should have been clearer. What I objected to was your generalization about others. I included the Lincoln quote in my post to back your position.

Lincoln was not a lover of the Christian faith, and yet he greatly contributed to American civilization.

Okay, you're right. I should've said, not all, but there are religious people who feel that non-believers have no sense of morality.

And thanks for backing me up with the Lincoln quote. Its a great one!

I agree with you. There are plenty of religious people who think non-believers have no sense of morality.

One of the most moral and ethical paths in the world is Buddhism, and there is no God in that path.

 

[AllieBaba]

Buddhists are quite strict regarding sexual practices, I know.

 

[N4mddissent]

As far as primate behavior, it helps a lot if you clarify the primates. Chimpanzees and Bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) are our closest primate relatives. They have very different social behavior. Chimpanzees tend to be much more aggressive and "war-like". They often beat the female chimpanzees into submission. Female chimpanzees often have many sexual partners to lower the risk of infanticide (since males are less likely to kill a baby if it might be theirs). Bonobos on the other hand are much more cooperative and peaceful. Their groups are much more egalitartian and unlike chimpanzee copulation which is frequently more similar to rape, Bonobo copulation has a great deal of variety and seems to be done for pleasure. They experiment with many positions and partners, including homosexuality. Even female Bonobos engage in lesbian behavior, rubbing their genitals together. They also tend to share resources more readily than chimpanzees.

If cooperation is moral behavior, then we can see early traces of it in primates. Cooperation, though, I believe should be considered ethical behavior rather than moral. So I think it is fair to say that ethical behavior probably originated very early in the human species.

As far as morality and religion, I think it is fair to say that whichever developed first, it would be inappropriate for any particular religion to claim a position of sole authorship. Whether some religious system is necessary to develop a moral code in society (and I have seen no credible research promoting nor denying this idea) does not offer justification of any particular religious view and certainly does not indicate absence of religion results in absence of morality.

The fact that many different societies developed similar systems of morality despite having very different religious beliefs indicates that morals are a product of humanity rather than a product of a particular religious belief. If the content of the religious belief has little impact on morals, it would seem that morals could exist just as strongly in the absence of religious belief.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol.

 

[Amanda]

You should study anthropology, you might have a better appreciation for religion, and it's absolute necessity to having got us to where we are now. Your idea of religionless morality is too utopian to be workable in the past, now, or the foreseeable future.

I was an anthropology major at University of Colorado, Amanda. Anthropology has little to do with religion unless you are studying cultural anthropology. I also took some history classes. I would say that the millenium following the fall of the Roman Empire, aka the Dark Ages, is a perfect example of my point. The Church controlled everything, especially knowledge. Only monks and clergymen could read, and all reading material was controlled by the church. It wasn't until Martin Luther nailed his protest to the church door that people began to educate themselves and teach themselves to read. They established schools and lo and behold: The Renaissance. Do you know about the library Alexander the Great and Aristotle started in Alexandria? At the fall of the Roman Empire the scholars there knew that the world was round. They knew the Earth revolved around the Sun. They also, and I was really surprised to learn this, had a steam engine. The Church suppressed that information. And, look at what they did to Galileo when he rediscovered those facts.

Of course, then there was western exapansion when native tribes (labeled savages) were routinely massacred and even wiped out because of the Great Commission. Religion considered itself just and righteous and when its adherents committed genocide against the natives of the lands being colonized, the men in charge were considered heroes i.e. Columbus, Cortez, Pizarro and the imperialistic expansion of Europe into Africa and Southeast Asia. Religion was the justification (not the only reason) for the killing, the enslavement, and the suppression of the native cultures. The same goes for Australia and North America in the 19th Century.

Religious special interest groups in our own country want to curb stem cell research which could lead to cures for numerous diseases and conditions. Religious groups have funded campaigns to ban same-sex marriages. They want Christian creationism taught in public schools that atheist, agnostic, muslim, hindu, and buddhist children attend. When Bush Jr. proposed sending money to Africa to help with the AIDS epidemic, religious groups lobbied so that only organizations teaching abstinence received aid. Those advocating condoms or other preventive measures received none. This, according to the UN and other humanitarian organizations, has only hindered the prevention of the spread of AIDS and not done much to stem the epidemic.

So, if you can come up with an example of how religion has helped human beings advance as a civilization, then please, share it with me because, for the life of me, I can't think of one example.

Without religion as a control mechanism civilization wouldn't be what it is now. A strong tribal leader can control a tribe, not a nation.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Without religion as a control mechanism civilization wouldn't be what it is now. A strong tribal leader can control a tribe, not a nation.

You might be right, though I would say civilization would be a lot better without the religious mechanism of control.

I think, to support your point, one can only speculate.

I think, to support my point, there is a lot of evidence which I included in my earlier post.

 

[AVG-JOE]

There are many who still claim that the only source for true morality is faith in religion.

...<snip for space>...

just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm with you in spirit on this one, brother... Save one of my favorite quotes:

"If there is a God of this world, and if He loves us, I should not like to be Him, as the history of mankind in this world would surely break my heart"

-Joe

 

[N4mddissent]

Without religion as a control mechanism civilization wouldn't be what it is now. A strong tribal leader can control a tribe, not a nation.

You might be right, though I would say civilization would be a lot better with the religious mechanism of control.

I think, to support your point, one can only speculate.

I think, to support my point, there is a lot of evidence which I included in my earlier post.

So is the debate possibly becoming one concerning whether organized religion is a "vestigial organ" so-to-speak of human social development?

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, we can look to the superiority of the nations of ISLAM to see how much better civilization is when religion is politically mandated.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Without religion as a control mechanism civilization wouldn't be what it is now. A strong tribal leader can control a tribe, not a nation.

You might be right, though I would say civilization would be a lot better with the religious mechanism of control.

I think, to support your point, one can only speculate.

I think, to support my point, there is a lot of evidence which I included in my earlier post.

So is the debate possibly becoming one concerning whether organized religion is a "vestigial organ" so-to-speak of human social development?

Could be. Go with it man! Personally, I'd like to see what you have to say about that and since I started the thread...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Yes, we can look to the superiority of the nations of ISLAM to see how much better civilization is when religion is politically mandated.

Hey, thanks for the back-up Allie! I didn't expect it from you, but I appreciate it.

 

[N4mddissent]

You might be right, though I would say civilization would be a lot better with the religious mechanism of control.

I think, to support your point, one can only speculate.

I think, to support my point, there is a lot of evidence which I included in my earlier post.

So is the debate possibly becoming one concerning whether organized religion is a "vestigial organ" so-to-speak of human social development?

Could be. Go with it man! Personally, I'd like to see what you have to say about that and since I started the thread...

I once toyed with the idea that human intelligence is exceptional primarily because of its pattern recognition ability. This would allow the development of language and higher order thinking. Greater pattern recognition ability would be selected for, or perhaps perceived pattern recognition ability would be selected for. Even mistaken patterns that did not have catastrophic results could be selected for through sexual selection. Therefore, moving beyond simple patterns like recognizing animals returning to the same pool of water, but false patterns like a certain chant bringing about rain could be selected for as a pattern recognition ability. As early social structure began to develop with "big men" or "head men" taking on some form of mild leadership role, it would naturally fall to those who achieve higher social standing due to their abilities to recognize patterns (false or otherwise). The identified patterns become formalized over time, being passed on through the development of communication and in conjunction with more formalized socio-political development. Since those with pattern recognition ability tend to be in places of greater social power, it is natural for the developing social heirarchy to assimilate the more formalized patterns creating a socio-religious power structure which could then be passed down through formalized communication and the pattern recognition ability would be diminished in its importance in perpetuating the system (although it could still lend itself to influence change in the system).

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I once toyed with the idea that human intelligence is exceptional primarily because of its pattern recognition ability. This would allow the development of language and higher order thinking. Greater pattern recognition ability would be selected for, or perhaps perceived pattern recognition ability would be selected for. Even mistaken patterns that did not have catastrophic results could be selected for through sexual selection. Therefore, moving beyond simple patterns like recognizing animals returning to the same pool of water, but false patterns like a certain chant bringing about rain could be selected for as a pattern recognition ability. As early social structure began to develop with "big men" or "head men" taking on some form of mild leadership role, it would naturally fall to those who achieve higher social standing due to their abilities to recognize patterns (false or otherwise). The identified patterns become formalized over time, being passed on through the development of communication and in conjunction with more formalized socio-political development. Since those with pattern recognition ability tend to be in places of greater social power, it is natural for the developing social heirarchy to assimilate the more formalized patterns creating a socio-religious power structure which could then be passed down through formalized communication and the pattern recognition ability would be diminished in its importance in perpetuating the system (although it could still lend itself to influence change in the system).

Wow. That is a really interesting thought. I don't think that would've ever occurred to me. I wish there was someway for you to get funded by the NSA to do research for this, if there were some way to actually find any evidence.

Yeah, I guess its like saying: If we had some bread, we could have a cheese sandwich, if we had some cheese.

I can't even think of anything else to add. Implying religion could be an evolutionary by-product and defuncting intelligent design in one paragraph. Like I said, you're a brilliant man.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Buddhists are quite strict regarding sexual practices, I know.

Exactly. No adultery. No harming others. "Do no non-virtue whatsover, practice virtue throroughly. Completely tame your own mind--this is the Buddha's teaching"

 

[Sky Dancer]

Not only that, but the Christian faithful, for the most part, don't have "faith in religion". We don't worship religion.

We worship God. There's a difference, do a little research, Colom.

I think you worship Christianity.