With no punishment expected in the after life, the only thing that keeps people from behaving in a bad way would be a fear of being caught and punished, in the present. With no silent watcher seeing everything a person does, there would be no reason to comply with any laws a society might make. If I kill you, so, if I don't get caught, what is the big deal. To you, yeah, and your family, but to me, if I got what I wanted from the killing and didn't get caught that would be the end of it. As humans show time and again, compassion is something that has to be taught, at least to most of the people in the world. Look at any play ground, it isn't exactly a paradise of peace and understanding, the adults, who have been taught through a long history of religously based ethical codes, step in to correct the behavior.
Sam Harris: Religions Are Failed Sciences
- Thread starter Ken Morgan
- Start date
I will not deny that religion has influence on morality and culture etc.
However Jenna and billcihak, what laws in your opinion are from religious doctrine?
I like your thought about 'raising the children far removed from religion' as a thought experiment. It would greatly depend on the caregivers ideas. Are the caregivers giving them moral concepts, just without religious foundation? Or is it more sterile than that? Is it more like they are 'rats in a maze'? If they are rats in a maze with 'no guidance whatsoever', I think the natural way of things will push them to work together, seek each other for comfort, since we are social animals etc.
Many other creatures display moral codes as well. Not just Homo sapiens.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
Without socialization, children will grow to become selfish barbarians. This is practically a truism; nobody's really arguing otherwise. Most of those in the thread are contending with the claim that one cannot socialize said child without reference to religion. I happen to be one of those who disagrees.
Since I am not religious I have no reason to suspect there is a cosmic justice system. So, why do you think it is I help people when it is needed, and generally display good moral values etc. ? There are many things that I can 'get away with' but still don't, even though I know I won't get punished. Most people are like this.
Well, here are the six of the ten that I think have had the most effect on the moral and legal code:
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit
adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE:
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
TEN:
'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your
neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor
his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Also, as to raising kids without religion, there is no safe, or moral way to test that theory, even in "communist" countries, you cannot completely expunge the effects of religion completely. Even an experiment that tried to raise children without a belief in any after life is tainted by the existence of those beliefs for so long in the evolution of society. I guess we would need to narrow down what we are talking about. No concept of an after life with judgement at the end would be one part of the process. A set of rules passed down to children, but that presents a problem, what rules. Stealing and killing can be harmful but they can also be rewarding, why not do it, why shouldn't it be allowed or sanctioned?
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit
adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE:
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
TEN:
'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your
neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor
his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Also, as to raising kids without religion, there is no safe, or moral way to test that theory, even in "communist" countries, you cannot completely expunge the effects of religion completely. Even an experiment that tried to raise children without a belief in any after life is tainted by the existence of those beliefs for so long in the evolution of society. I guess we would need to narrow down what we are talking about. No concept of an after life with judgement at the end would be one part of the process. A set of rules passed down to children, but that presents a problem, what rules. Stealing and killing can be harmful but they can also be rewarding, why not do it, why shouldn't it be allowed or sanctioned?
Nomad
Master Black Belt
Lord of the Flies aside, are you sure about that? While I certainly agree that some chaos would ensue, I strongly suspect that the children involved would create their own society, with multiple different roles and possible outcomes depending on the personalities and predilections of those involved. I think claiming that the children would be "selfish barbarians" is overly simplistic and ignores a host of other possibilities.
Who knows, without having been trained in their parents prejudices and insecurities (including religiously spawned ones), they could even end up with a better model than our current society.
Fang jian, I don't know where you may have grown up, but if you grew up in the states, at least, you will have been swimming in a society steeped with moral and ethical traditions based on religuos teachings. It would be hard to isolate those out of your upbringing.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Nothing about atheism requires a complete disavowal of all things religious. Your conclusions do not follow from your premise. Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s), that is all. There is no other requirement to atheism. There are even religious atheists. Most (not all) buddhists, for instance, would qualify as religious atheists.
So the only reason you don't kill anyone who you might want to is because God told you not to?
There are entire ethical and moral philosophical traditions that make no reference to the supernatural. Utilitarianism, for instance.
I just mean that as an example, yes it is facile and but necessarily so to give the point brevity. I would be interested in answers to that example whereby a man has slain your family and is convicted of it, why - without reference to religion-engendered moral teachings - would it be wrong for you to kill him?
I am from the states.
All of this stuff was around before the Abrahamic mythologies though. Why do you think that is?
It depends on the circumstaces. It could be completely reasonable or completely horrific
OP
- Thread Starter
- #31
Religion gives us our morality?:BSmeter:
Yeah sure, tell that to the thousands raped and tortured by the priests of the Roman Catholic church, that the ones who defiled them are some ideal of morality
Yeah sure, tell that to the thousands raped and tortured by the priests of the Roman Catholic church, that the ones who defiled them are some ideal of morality
Empty Hands
Senior Master
I gave you a link to one such reasoning system. Here are arguments from others:
Utilitarianism: Killing Breivik would be wrong because it would not produce the greatest good or best outcome for the world at large.
Kantianism: Killing Breivik would violate the first and second formulations of the Categorical (Moral) Imperative because doing so would not produce a greater good if everyone did what you do in all times and situations (Universality) and because you would be treating Breivik, a rational agent, as a means instead of an end in himself.
Pragmatic Ethics: Killing Breivik would be wrong because it would be damaging to current social mores and order.
Virtue Ethics: Killing Breivik would be wrong because it would be damaging to one's character and virtue.
Consequentialism (generally): Killing Breivik would be wrong because it would have bad consequences, to the individual and society at large.
As I said, there are many ethical systems that make no reference to the supernatural. Divine Command Theory (God said so) is generally frowned on in Philosophical circles because it rests on a logical fallacy. It's also subject to Socrates' famous critique: "is it right because the gods say it is, or do the gods say it is because it is right?"
Also remember that those who claimed to be atheists killed close to if not over 100 million people from 1918-1946 and beyound. And it would be right to kill the man for the same ethical reasons listed above. A proven killer, in jail, can still kill again, either prisoners and guards, or if he escapes, more innocent people, so the greater good would dictate ending his life to save other innocent life.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
Maybe they would, then again maybe they'd create an even more stratified, savage society. But you are correct that society didn't arise from nowhere, and that a large enough group of unraised children forced to live together would eventually form their own society with its own rules.
I'm pretty comfortable in saying, however, that all the notions of fairness, justice, right and wrong, values, and whatnot are all dependent upon being conveyed through socialization. The idea of a noble savage who just internally develops and upholds a moral code is largely a fantasy; human beings aren't born with these values, they learn them.
I appreciate your reply and you have outlined several pertinent social theories cogently. Can you tell me please, in your example, which one(s) of those particular social theories would make it wrong for you personally to kill Breivik had he gunned down and murdered your children?
fwiw, if it is relevant, I myself have a personal faith and but I am no supporter of orthodox religions in general, which are more often than not, hypocritically secular in their operations. I am simply trying to open the discussion (as you seem open to doing) beyond the utter closed-minded indoctrination of many athiests, Jenna.
and what do you think I have been 'indoctrinated' with?
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Arguments about the origins of morality aside (morality is a construct, and, within various frameworks, quite flexible), it might have been more cogent for him to argue as some do that "creation myths" are failed attempts at scientific explanations. In that most of them were originally intended to be allegories, this would only be partially correct, but it would at least make more sense than labeling "religion" as failed science, when many religious technologies, like Buddhist meditation, yoga, Christian mysticism and shamanism are actually quite functional, and scientifically tested.
I am sorry I do not know you well enough to make a guess as to what doctrine you follow. I apologise if you felt I was directing that comment at you. I meant it in a general sense. I have had many conversations with friends professing atheism (as opposed to what I see as a more strictly logical agnosticism) who are quite dogmatic and incapable of taking in the notion of validity in views other than theirs. They are in that case as indoctrinated by the sovereignty of science as many religious faithful are by their holy texts. It is not for me to comment on whether you are or are not thus indoctrinated.
In its simplest terms, if anyone is NOT prepared to acknowledge validity (to me personally) in my view as a believer in God, or regards my belief in God as "BS" then there is no chance of any discussion here, and all that remains is for you to beat me over the head with your own view.
Science has done much to prove that many of the former notions that were throughout history TAKEN as proof of God are not in fact any such thing. That does not stop me from believing in God and trusting my personal faith. Why? Not because I have no trust in science and but rather because for me personally, science is not my only metric in assessing the things that happen in my life and the world that bears me.
Plainly none of us would be where we are now without scientific advances. I do not seek to put faith against science where many of my athiest acquaintances would seek to put science against faith and have them fight it out, ensuring that the fight rules are somewhat unfairly, "the rules of science". I guess that is reflective of the differing nature of people. I feel there is a drive among certain branch scientists that they would almost seek to metaphorically "kill" God through incontrovertible proof. Personally I feel that displays a level of hubris which at the very least makes discussion in a place like this nigh impossible.
So, I personally am apt to OPEN discussion without preconceptions and but only if any of you (as atheists) are also.
Science has done much to prove that many of the former notions that were throughout history TAKEN as proof of God are not in fact any such thing. That does not stop me from believing in God and trusting my personal faith. Why? Not because I have no trust in science and but rather because for me personally, science is not my only metric in assessing the things that happen in my life and the world that bears me.
Plainly none of us would be where we are now without scientific advances. I do not seek to put faith against science where many of my athiest acquaintances would seek to put science against faith and have them fight it out, ensuring that the fight rules are somewhat unfairly, "the rules of science". I guess that is reflective of the differing nature of people. I feel there is a drive among certain branch scientists that they would almost seek to metaphorically "kill" God through incontrovertible proof. Personally I feel that displays a level of hubris which at the very least makes discussion in a place like this nigh impossible.
So, I personally am apt to OPEN discussion without preconceptions and but only if any of you (as atheists) are also.
Last edited:
-Christian mysticism is scientifically tested- huh?
No need for apologies.
I do not understand your wording. What is this 'strictly logical agnosticism' ?
I recognize the scientific method as being, thus far, the best approach in finding out if something is true or not. ( Observe phenomena-develope hypothesis-test/experiment/observe-publish results ). Whether you want to find out about specific scientific questions, or simple things, like "how do you know your spouse loves you?" type of question, the 'scientific method' and its variations, is what you use. Is this 'indoc' ?
