Religion

[Nosajimiki]

I think that people can be good or evil in different ways.

Religion can help them. In any of these ways. Faith and belief can help people have trust in others and bear love towards them. But people who are not religious are not worse or better. They can trust as much and love as much.

^Now this is what I'm talking about

The whole laws of nation concept doesn't sit to well with me however as relgions (in the institutional since) have thier own laws that are in a fundimental since different only in that they deem punishment of the soul rather than body, but since you added the question mark towards the end I'll give my own take on the matter.

Now there is such thing as agreeing with laws both politically and religiously and not agreeing with them. I personally find certain secular laws such as not drinking and driving to be as inline with my since of morality as many religoius laws such as "thou shall not steal", last I checked not very many major religions oppose the use of intoxicants, "heck if Jesus drank, why not us" one might ask, but it still becomes a moral question that needs answering.

Truth be told politics, economics, and science do bring some people to a feeling of fulfillment that religion can't, (some people need the feeling of social responsibility that politics rasies, some to feel economically secure, and some people [perhaps part of what got this thread so out of hand]the need to feel like they know what is what, thus they will find thier fulfilment in science). It's all on an individual basis.

Just to be clear Floris, I fully respect everything you have posted in this thread and it is clear to me that your religion has had a possitive impact on your character, just be wary that there are other answers in life that are just as valid, even if not for you.

[formerly known as hf]

Good and evil are dynamic and subjective.
What may be 'good' to someone is not good in someone else's terms.

What's probably more worth asking is, is it better to base your moral values on what you percieve and feel in relation to others and the world around you, or upon what others tell you should be your moral values, for fear of retribution in the afterlife?

[Diego]

That's partially why I've always felt that only atheists can be truly moral. Their motivation stems from themselves and a sense of duty to the world or somesuch, rather than a price to pay for a reward. Eliminate the concept of Heaven and Hell and we'll see how many Christians are left.

[Floris]

That's partially why I've always felt that only atheists can be truly moral. Their motivation stems from themselves and a sense of duty to the world or somesuch, rather than a price to pay for a reward. Eliminate the concept of Heaven and Hell and we'll see how many Christians are left.

That's totally not true. Or in better words: I can not agree on that. (if it is what you believe(!) I can not say that it is not right. I don't care about Hell or Heaven, I honestly don't live by the two stone tables and I would not live the way do to get a reward. Ofcourse there are (a lot of) people who believe in most of the bible and therefore follow most of its rules.

If they come to the same moral conclusions as an atheist, how can you claim that the atheist is more truly in his morality. If (if!) there is a god, one could as well claim that a religious man is truly more moral, because his morality comes from the Creator, from the god of love.



Most honestly, if the Bible is entirely correct, I am very well on the way to hell.
Or in other words, the rewards or penalty is not an issue in my belief. It is the message that is the essence. The message the gospels are actually circled on and the message Christ probably died for and because of it may or may not have been resurrected.

I'm 20 years, and I have read a lot and heard a lot, but still remind myself not to forget Socrates: 'wisest is he who knows he knows nothing'. I have had a period like 7,8 years ago, that I absolutely did not believe. I find myself eight years later, believing in a way different from a lot of christians. Can I claim that my religion is true? I can claim that, for myself as individual believer, but not for any other single person that exists or existed. But even so, can another one claim that my religion is false, or wrong, or even evil? No he can not. The only things we can do is point out perhaps bad things or good things that we think come from believing or non-believing. Point out political or scientific proof that casts a new view on religions, atheism and ethics (and a whole lot more of things).



I probably have still a lot to see, but I think that your ethics, your morals are what you deem to be good. What you believe to be good.

But what both Diego and Nosajmiki claim is true: religion is not the only way towards morality, and not-religious people can be as moral and ethically developed as others.

Even so, morals and ethics are a combination of cultural and individual elements. You yourself decide by what norms and 'rules' you live, but a lot of what you choose is already in a way 'set' on you. By your education, by your family and parents, by your religion perhaps, by your newspaper, by your culture. No offense to people not from Europe or the States, but I think that a whole lot, not to mention practically anything, of the ethics and moral values that are often classified as the Western Values, has been influenced by culture, history, evolution(human and scientific) and religion. Even more, I dare claim that religion and faith have had more effect on the moral values of people than science and history. Science has given mankind a far better understanding of the way it all works, but on the field of the spiritual it can not bring as much as religion(this does not say that people cannot receive spiritual satisfaction from a life devoted to science, or that they can not have moral values and a developed inner self).


In conclusion of this confusing and disordered text, I'd like to say something on life's meaning from different views.

Under the scope of atheism, there is no superhuman being that created the world and humans and therefore in a way could give a meaning to it all.
No, in this scope, life, any life, my life, your life, his life is all coincidence. A fact happening, that did not even have the smallest possible chance of happening. Being it all coincidence, there is no reason you exist, and there is also no reason for your life. It would be easy to say it has no meaning too, but that's not true. (it would also be easy to say that the meaning of your life would be reproduction, and I think I can not disagree with such a statement, but if that would be the meaning of my life, well no, not solely that(I'm okay with love and having a family and raising children, but it can not be that alone). Here opens the field of giving meaning to your life yourself.
I understand that, and I even like it, but I would like to hear how? Living a good life of moral and ethic goodness? Alright, but to what purpose. Just giving meaning to your life. But why then, what does it give you?
And so on....

Why on the other hand, believing in any sort of superhuman being immediately gives your life a reason to start with. If the Creator created you, you have a purpose. But, here different questions but of the same kind will pop up as under atheism. Why live a good life, because God wants you to? Follow those rules because they are in your holy book? Sleep with many women(or men), because your chief god Zeus does so as well?
However, I find here easier to incorporate a divine message(love your neighbour as thyself and do not treat others as you would not want to be treated yourself). Can give this meaning to one's life? For some it obviously can. To me it would more be( or is ) some sort of red thread around which my life's meaning would be weaved. And most probably anything I'd do in my life that would be in conflict with that message I expect not to give meaning to my life. However that goes a bit too far, because the job and career I will later pursue will in a way give meaning too? Yes, but then again if there'd be things in my job or career that conflict with the message, they should not give meaning to my life(sacking someone definitely ought not give my life anymore meaning, no probably less; but then again there are those powers outside your control).

Well, I'm rambling on, and writing, and actually have kind of lost what point I was trying to make. So, again I'm very eager to read what other people think about it.

[Diego]

That's totally not true. Or in better words: I can not agree on that. (if it is what you believe(!) I can not say that it is not right. I don't care about Hell or Heaven, I honestly don't live by the two stone tables and I would not live the way do to get a reward. Ofcourse there are (a lot of) people who believe in most of the bible and therefore follow most of its rules.

I said what I said more as a passing comment, a random musing than a tested philosophical statement. However, it would be interesting, as a thought experiment, to consider the effect of the inexistence of an ultimate reward and punishment system on the likes of Christian morality (in practice, not in theory, as in, for the average Christian layman, whom I suspect isn't too devout).

If they come to the same moral conclusions as an atheist, how can you claim that the atheist is more truly in his morality. If (if!) there is a god, one could as well claim that a religious man is truly more moral, because his morality comes from the Creator, from the god of love.

How can you not? An atheist's morality is born solely from the accumulation of his experiences, his nature and his perception of the nature of the world that surrounds him. A religious man's morality, on the other hand, is as shifting as his Creator's stance--if tomorrow God stands up and declares it is his wish for good men to rape and murder children, doing so is moral in a religious person's eyes. Far too dependant on an outside source to seem to have any sense of depth to it, in my opinion.

Most honestly, if the Bible is entirely correct, I am very well on the way to hell.
Or in other words, the rewards or penalty is not an issue in my belief. It is the message that is the essence. The message the gospels are actually circled on and the message Christ probably died for and because of it may or may not have been resurrected.

I'm 20 years, and I have read a lot and heard a lot, but still remind myself not to forget Socrates: 'wisest is he who knows he knows nothing'. I have had a period like 7,8 years ago, that I absolutely did not believe. I find myself eight years later, believing in a way different from a lot of christians. Can I claim that my religion is true? I can claim that, for myself as individual believer, but not for any other single person that exists or existed. But even so, can another one claim that my religion is false, or wrong, or even evil? No he can not. The only things we can do is point out perhaps bad things or good things that we think come from believing or non-believing. Point out political or scientific proof that casts a new view on religions, atheism and ethics (and a whole lot more of things).



I probably have still a lot to see, but I think that your ethics, your morals are what you deem to be good. What you believe to be good.

I largely agree. The issue here is that religion-based morality is entirely independant from what one considers to be good, as they define the concept of "good" as entirely and irrefutably tied to a supreme being, rather than an absolute North in a compass of its own.

Of course, one could argue that if the basic morality of a given religion did not fit the worldview of an individual, he or she would not believe in it in the first place. However, this portrays religion in a very diminished role--merely a spiritual peace-of-mind provider, a buffet where you pick and choose the structures that justify your preexisting ideas under the banner of a supreme being, leaving you with a nice sensation of spiritual righteousness for "free". Religion then would lose its inherent importance as a discovery of the true supernatural origins or characteristics of this world, its weight as a spiritual finding of that which was already there, becoming instead a way of giving spiritual justification to what you wanted to do anyway.

An excuse.

But what both Diego and Nosajmiki claim is true: religion is not the only way towards morality, and not-religious people can be as moral and ethically developed as others.

Even so, morals and ethics are a combination of cultural and individual elements. You yourself decide by what norms and 'rules' you live, but a lot of what you choose is already in a way 'set' on you. By your education, by your family and parents, by your religion perhaps, by your newspaper, by your culture. No offense to people not from Europe or the States, but I think that a whole lot, not to mention practically anything, of the ethics and moral values that are often classified as the Western Values, has been influenced by culture, history, evolution(human and scientific) and religion. Even more, I dare claim that religion and faith have had more effect on the moral values of people than science and history. Science has given mankind a far better understanding of the way it all works, but on the field of the spiritual it can not bring as much as religion(this does not say that people cannot receive spiritual satisfaction from a life devoted to science, or that they can not have moral values and a developed inner self).

Well, this should be fairly obvious; religion attempts to dictate morality in most cases, whereas science does not--it simply describes the world around us and how it functions. If its discoveries at times refute claims of morality of some belief systems, well, that's merely incidental, and not an attempt to go against religion or to define morality.

In conclusion of this confusing and disordered text, I'd like to say something on life's meaning from different views.

Under the scope of atheism, there is no superhuman being that created the world and humans and therefore in a way could give a meaning to it all.
No, in this scope, life, any life, my life, your life, his life is all coincidence. A fact happening, that did not even have the smallest possible chance of happening. Being it all coincidence, there is no reason you exist, and there is also no reason for your life. It would be easy to say it has no meaning too, but that's not true. (it would also be easy to say that the meaning of your life would be reproduction, and I think I can not disagree with such a statement, but if that would be the meaning of my life, well no, not solely that(I'm okay with love and having a family and raising children, but it can not be that alone). Here opens the field of giving meaning to your life yourself.
I understand that, and I even like it, but I would like to hear how? Living a good life of moral and ethic goodness? Alright, but to what purpose. Just giving meaning to your life. But why then, what does it give you?
And so on....

You'll find in secular humanism an entire philosophical belief of atheists who find a meaning to leading ethical lives. The matter of implied meaning and purpose in life and its relevance (or lack thereof) has been tackled multiple times by various philosophers, particularly the existentialist and absurdist crews, that managed to find a meaning in meaninglessness. It's not impossible, just not the usual way Westerners think. Hell, it's not even necessary, as absurdists embrace.

[Nosajimiki]

Even more, I dare claim that religion and faith have had more effect on the moral values of people than science and history.

I agree that this is true in that, as Diago pointed out, science and history intrinsically are not ment to provide a moral compass, they are ment to fulfill a different aspect of human desire, but what of secular philosophy? Socrates who you just quoted wrote on a secular level as did many ancient greek and roman philosophers and writers who, though given little credit for it, were the true driving force in Western Philosophy. If you read the Aenied, you see a lot of the same cry for moral reform taking place in the secular sector of the Roman Empire several decades before Christ came, it has even been sugested that Jesus was directly influnced by the writings of Virgil opening his eyes to the flaws in the Jewish church (ofcourse you probly wouldn't believe this if you assume Jesus to be God). Regardless, Christianity appealed to the morals of the Romans of the time allowing it to spread. As has already be brought up and (I think mostly agreed on), a person's predispositions effect thier morality more than religious or secular laws. So, it was a secular movement that paved the way for religion. Only in moderen times (still discussing Western Culture here, can't definatlively speak for other cultures) is it the otherway around now that you see a lot of people with the freedom to turn from thier religions w/o persicution that you see a lot of secular morality being religion driven because it was "there first" as we see it.

Edit: Although the Aenied has Roman gods in it, Virgil wrote it in the secular since that it went against the views of greco/roman relgion and it was something that he wrote intirely from his own imagination in contrast to other mythologies that were compiled from oral traditions that held religious values to these civilizations. Therefore, it had no religious precident.

[Nalaris]

For the record, I rarely have to rely on my desire for Heaven or fear of Hell to get myself motivated to do the right thing (it's not even a reasonable motivation for Hell: getting into Hell is pretty difficult). I'm mostly motivated by my debt to God and by the fact that every time I sin, Christ had to pay for it Gethsemene (sp?). That weighs on you.

If Satan were to somehow overthrow God and gain omnipotent control over the afterlife, I would stand by God, even if it meant going to Hell(although, having not been to Hell, I can't say this with total certainty).

HF seems much more calm now...go figure.

[formerly known as hf]

Time of the month

[Pie]

How can you not? An atheist's morality is born solely from the accumulation of his experiences, his nature and his perception of the nature of the world that surrounds him. A religious man's morality, on the other hand, is as shifting as his Creator's stance--if tomorrow God stands up and declares it is his wish for good men to rape and murder children, doing so is moral in a religious person's eyes. Far too dependant on an outside source to seem to have any sense of depth to it, in my opinion.

You know what? Everything is an addiction. Doing morrally rong things are an addiction. Do you know how they got these addictions? Becaus of
"His experiences, his nature and his perception of the nature of the world that surrounds him" These addictions could be anything frome alcohol to murder.

I just find it easyer to refrain frome doing these when I have alredy have an addiction to something.

(And as for god just changing the rules just like that... if (IF) god is real and he did do all of those wonderfull things in the bible, than... well... there is more of a chance that another string of coincedences will happen in the same galixy as the milky way to form highly intelegant beings in just 1 million years)

[Diego]

You know what? Everything is an addiction. Doing morrally rong things are an addiction. Do you know how they got these addictions? Becaus of
"His experiences, his nature and his perception of the nature of the world that surrounds him" These addictions could be anything frome alcohol to murder.

I just find it easyer to refrain frome doing these when I have alredy have an addiction to something.

You exhibit a wildly liberal use of the word "addiction", holding no respect for actual psychological and medical definitions. In other words, "No, bullshit."

(And as for god just changing the rules just like that... if (IF) god is real and he did do all of those wonderfull things in the bible, than... well... there is more of a chance that another string of coincedences will happen in the same galixy as the milky way to form highly intelegant beings in just 1 million years)

God does change his mood and the rules whenever he feels like it. Similarly, God being God, his nature, behavior and "probability" of his actions are all far beyond the realm of understanding of the human mind--or statistics. Simply put, he has changed his mind before, and he can do it again. The fact that this seems to you unlikely doesn't take away from the actual point being argued--the flexibility and committment of the concept of morality as tied to the will of a mutable outside source make morality seem quite shallow for the religious man.

[Mykey]

I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are not right.

[formerly known as hf]

This is just a slap in the face with an obvious fish, but it needs saying. Widely held interpretations of teachings of religious figures and texts do not necessarily (and I'd say rarely) have any connection with the moral spectrum of any individual of that faith.

One of the notable things about religious teachings - whether in the form of a holy text of a holy person - is that said teachings can be interpreted in a vast number of ways, lending justifiability to almost any moral stance.

It often seems that religious people do garner their personal moral spectrum from social, rather than religious, norms. What was once morally righteous at the begining of Christianity - the stoning of adulteresses and homosexuals - is now not so morally righteous (at least not the stoning bit...).

As such, religious teachings tend to get interpreted to fit whatever the general social norm of morality is for the time.

This ease of interpretation, in our diverse world (I'd say our postmodern world, but someone would probably take me up on that) leads to a vast array of moral spectrums, even within a single religion. Obvious example: Homosexuality is considered evil by some branches of Christianity, vs Homosexual members of the clergy in other branches of Christianity.

[Floris]

Hmm, that is in a way also why I do not agree with Diego on the point of atheists being more truly moral.

Diego dixit: "An atheist's morality is born solely from the accumulation of his experiences, his nature and his perception of the nature of the world that surrounds him."

Well, onthis issue, my believing in Christ and God is exactly based on those: my experiences, mynature and my perception of the world, the people in it and all that's around.

I fear that the problem here is that you define 'more truly moral' as the morality that is more created by an individual human beings own thoughts with as least outside interference as possible.

So following this, a perfect atheist, one totally not influenced by the outside world, would be truly the most moral.

However, that can not happen, because without outside influence, there is nothing to be moral about.

Furthermore, I can not see why morality coming from your own experience(thus your social interaction, your education, your travels, the news about conflicts, criminals,...) without religious experience is more truly than the same experiences but added to it, religion.

Please note that I am talking about an intelligent, believing person who has his own moral values and not necessary all those of his religion(for that is I think an assumption that is wrong to make). On a perhaps 'lower' platform, in my case, it means that what the Church of Rome teaches and claims is not directly and exactly incorporated in my moral values. Religion is however a basis, just like history is, or education whatever learning or experience that has impact on your moral values. (for example on the churches attitude about homosexuality, anticonception and lots of these things more, I simply do not agree with it and they are therefore not part of my morality).



"A religious man's morality, on the other hand, is as shifting as his Creator's stance--if tomorrow God stands up and declares it is his wish for good men to rape and murder children, doing so is moral in a religious person's eyes. Far too dependant on an outside source to seem to have any sense of depth to it, in my opinion. "

As said above, totally not true.
Even more, if God were to stand up tomorrow, it would obviously be absolute proof that the atheists are wrong. Or in other words, under the assumption that God created the world and everything in it, he is the most supreme authority of morality, ethics and how you have to live.
Someone following his word then, would, under this assumption, be most truly moral.

Conclusion: from an atheist point of view, the atheist moraility is most truly, from a religious point of view(a religion with a god-creator then; like any of the larger monotheistic religions) the religious man's morality is most truly.

Buddhism would probably be more confusing, as there is no deity there to have created the world, their morality can not be backed up by a supreme authority. On the other hand, they can not be accused of simply following a learning. Or can they?


Anyway, which each post in this topic more questions rise in me, and less get answered, so keep it coming, I enjoy talking and hearing about these things (although Wittgenstein would probably not approve ('Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen').

[Zanthos]

*clap*

[deadboy]

Floris, you asked for a question and I'm going to ask one just for the sake of it . You're christian right? So, before God made the universe, as according to the bible he did in seven, well six days but that's probably rubbish or a misinterpritation from the hebrew texts (I read that somewhere), but anyway, before God made anything -where- do you think he existed and -how- do you think he existed?

By the way, me myself, I'm christian, but following some of my thought proccesses I've had during my life, I'm not certain that the universe does exist

But I'm sure it must, it just -shouldn't- Logically I mean