Then morality is what people want it to be and religion is no more moral than any other conventional activity.
That's certainly one way to look at it.
Then morality is what people want it to be and religion is no more moral than any other conventional activity.
I think generally the more democratic and open a society becomes, the more the rights of the individual are protected, and the less culturally acceptable it becomes for men to impose themselves on young girls. Exactly where you draw the consent-line is, of course, still an inexact science; here in the UK it's 16, whereas over in Sweden where some of my family live (a similar society in many ways) it's 15.
rwam said:I agree, Sarpedon....except if I were to say the last sentence, I'd replace "the difference between right and wrong" with "what was socially acceptable".
any concept of morality HAS to be based upon a Religious North Star of Morality....otherwise, any moral is really just an invention of man.
This is false, unless you are defining "Religious" or "God" so broadly as to be meaningless. Take Platonism, for instance - the idea is that there are forms, existing independent of man, including the form of perfect justice, perfect beneficience, and all other moral concepts. The forms are not "God" in any meaningful sense of the word, yet according to Platonism, they form the basis of morality. To reply that the forms are in fact the invention of man is to beg the question against the view.
You can question whether a moral system has real legitimacy if it is not based on something beyond what a society made up, but to claim that if it is based on something beyond that, it must be based on God and/or religion is simply false.
Thing is...the way you describe Platonism - it sounds like a religious belief. At a minimum, believing in these invisible Platons (?) seems to be a matter of faith.
Thing is...the way you describe Platonism - it sounds like a religious belief. At a minimum, believing in these invisible Platons (?) seems to be a matter of faith.
Platonism - i.e. the philosophy of Plato - did start to become something of a religious belief (esp. in neo-Platonism) and it influenced many of the fathers of the Christian Church (such as Augustine and Origen) as well as Islamic thinkers.
Though, Plato felt that you could derive the existence of the Forms through logic, so for him the most religious bit of it was probably the Form of the Good, which was pretty damn mystical. People like Plotinus did some expanding on that.
Not everything that involves "faith" in the sense of believing things that are not 100% known is a matter of religious faith. I have faith that the mail will be delivered today, in that I believe it without having irrefutable proof of it, but that doesn't mean I have a religious belief centered around the postal service. If you are defining 'religion' so broadly that it includes anything you believe without airtight proof, then I think the claim that morality requires religion is a trivial one.
For this reason the Platonism example isn't perfect, since for the Ancients philosophy and religion blended. Nonetheless, one could subscribe to Platonism (specifically, his beliefs about the forms, not his beliefs generally), or any one of a number of other moral theories, without having any beliefs that are religious in a meaningful sense of the word.
Why do morals and religion have to be inclusive. It is very small-minded to say that only people who believe in God can be moral. Are all religious people moral? Not at all. How many horrible acts have been done in the name of God? The Inquisition, Holy Wars, murder, ritual sacrifice. Many people of today would call these acts highly immoral.
Besides, I would trust an athiests morals more quickly than a many Christians. Why? And athiest who does good, does it simply because they know right from wrong, and choose to do the right thing because, well, it is the right thing. How many Christians do what is right because they fear God's wrath? Because they don't want to go to hell? Sure, they might want to be good because it is right. But it sure seems like religion is trying to force them through guilt and fear. Can those kinds of morals even be trusted?
Quakers essentially reverse the terms of discussion: that is, religious people are not, because of that, moral; rather, moral people are giving evidence of the Quaker belief of that of God in everyone. Doing the Right Thing celebrates that Inner Light.
All kinds of reasons. Empathy and reciprocity, mainly.
Quakers essentially reverse the terms of discussion: that is, religious people are not, because of that, moral; rather, moral people are giving evidence of the Quaker belief of that of God in everyone. Doing the Right Thing celebrates that Inner Light.
My question: Can there be MORALITY without RELIGION? Think about the US court system; think rule of law; think the very basic foundations and tenets of a civil society and it's framework-- all of it obviously grounded in religious principle.
Your thoughts?
Without a God (in most religions, Someone who serves as a "North Star of Right and Wrong") to tell us what is Right and what is Wrong, then anything labeled Right or Wrong is ultimately an invention of Man.
In the example above, I think a fair question for an atheist would be "What is your basis for labeling pedophilia as bad?"
Disclaimer: I'm not saying atheists are incapable of adhering to morals - two of my best friends are atheists and are some of the best, kindest, sharing and selfless people I know...I'm just saying any concept of morality HAS to be based upon a Religious North Star of Morality....otherwise, any moral is really just an invention of man.
This.
Morality isn't based on religion. It's based on instincts. Y'know, those instincts that make us not eat our children. AFAIK, that's where empathy comes from. We feel other humans' pain along with them, so we make sure we don't inflict it.
Altruistic behavior has been found among monkeys and (I think) other animals not known for having religion.
Morals (as a general code as opposed to spontaneous acts of kindness) are an abstraction of that. So is religion.
Except, religion has more sources than altruism. It's also based on power and (lack of and/or unequal distribution of) knowledge.
Inequality is at religion's core. It begins with shamans keeping their skills to themselves so they can rule. From an atheist perspective, this can be seen as corrupting even the moral standards religion holds up.