Is a system of morality a religion?

[Darth Wong]

Religion is often defined as something you believe in. Interestingly enough, one must "believe in" certain ethical principles, in the sense that they do not have tangible, objective existence.

Oh sure, it is possible for one system of morality to be more objective than the next, in that an objective system bases its value judgements only on objective facts, eg- "that person stabbed this guy", as opposed to subjective facts, eg- "that person offended my imaginary God". However, its underlying value system still must incorporates a premise of some sort, eg- "humans have inalienable rights".

Therefore, a system of morality is arguably a belief system, is it not? And it could be argued to fit the definition of a "religion"? Is secular humanism a religion, then? Atheism is not; it is the absence of a particular belief. But humanism requires a belief in certain principles, which qualifies it as a religion.

I would also argue that Jedi is a religion, even if you don't think the Jedi are real. You need only believe in the principles espoused by the stark morality play of the films in order to consider Jedi a legitimate religion.

And on that note, the Toronto Star reported today that the 2001 Census found 20,000 Canadians to be members of the Jedi religion. Interestingly enough, they were all in BC, Alberta, and Ontario. The Quebeckers are INFIDELS!!!!!! The federal government, of course, refuses to recognize Jedi as a religion, despite the fact that we outnumber Satanists and Scientologists, both of whom are recognized. They cite the lack of an organized structure, even though this doesn't stop them from recognizing individual non-denominational "Christian" as a religion

[RedImperator]

Why do you people even bother responding to the troll? Christ, at least Darkstar acknowledged arguments, even if he just pretended he refuted them.

In regards to the OP, it's an interesting question. Would Confuscianism be a religion? What about Platonism? It depends on how broadly you want to define religion. Secular humanism rests on certain assumptions that can't be logically proven, as must all systems of morality, but secular humanists don't actually believe in any kind of force outside the realm of the objectively observable (which would separate them from the Platonists).

[Colonel Olrik]

note: RedImperator is refering to this thread, split from here and now burning in the HOS.

[SirNitram]

My thoughts on it, unintentionally caught in the attempt to kill the stupid.

Religion, defined as you put it, does extend to Secular Humanism. Interestingly enough, it extends well beyond that.

What seperates a law officer from another man with a gun, who wants to do good? Belief.. Belief that the law is right, that the law should be followed, that this man is an embodiment of that law. As long as that illusion.. That law officers are 'special'.. holds, society has keepers of the peace. When an individual sees through that, we get psychopaths who kill coppers for the fun of it.

[kojikun]

hey whered my response go?! Damn you!!!

[Colonel Olrik]

hey whered my response go?! Damn you!!!

Sorry, I didn't notice that there were two relevant posts in all that bullshit. I only saw the troll's posts and the replies. Post it again.

[SirNitram]

hey whered my response go?! Damn you!!!

Sorry, I didn't notice that there were two relevant posts in all that bullshit. I only saw the troll's posts and the replies. Post it again.

You're a little twitchy with that scythe.

[Colonel Olrik]

You're a little twitchy with that scythe.

Trolls make me nervous, now shut up

[GonK]

I would say that a religion is a system of morality, the two being very similar. The main difference being a system of morality is based on secular premise while a religion is based on spiritual premise, Law of God or Law of Man.

Religions, by which are meant the modes of divine worship proper to different tribes, nations, or communities, and based on the belief held in common by the members of them severally. . . . There is no living religion without something like a doctrine. On the other hand, a doctrine, however elaborate, does not constitute a religion. --C. P. Tiele (Encyc. Brit.).

source

Almost any system of belief/morality can be dressed up as a religion.
[Pulls on Nomex suit and starts playing Devil's advocate]
If you really wanted to you could describe Science as a religion. It is a belief system based on the premise that we can describe and understand the universe by the use of scientific methods and mathematical models. This isn't really too different from saying attempting to understand the universe by praying and meditating or from describing the universe in terms of gods and spirits.

You can say that no scientist ever feels the need to hold some ceremonyso that the theory of relativity continues to hold true. Unlike pagans who hold rituals and ceremonies to esure a good crop or the return of the sun after a long winter. However scientists are continually holding rituals to their "god" designed to improve their knowledge about the universe (experiments)
[Stop's playing Devils advocate but I'll keep the Nomex suit on for the moment]

Just for the record I have a degree in Mathematics, my father is a Church Of Scotland Minister and I haven't been inside a church in about 5 years.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Interesting argument, lets look at it more closely.

Religion is defined as something you believe in.

Under this definition any fact or premise one accepts either alone, or in tandem with other facts or premises becomes a religion; regardless of their origin, validity, or content. Thus we can see why we need a more clearly defined definition for religion, the term becomes meaningless if we use your definition; everything is a religion in it. To define something is to define it for its distinguishing characteristics, "your" definition fails to do that. Generally speaking, the distinguishing characteristic of religions are some degree of faith and worship combined.

Using these distinguishing characteristics we can see that moral codes are not necessarily religions; even if the moral code is not based on objective facts it is not a religion unless it incorporates faith and worship into the code.

Interestingly enough, one must "believe in" certain ethical principles, in the sense that they do not have tangible, objective existence.

The fact that many abstract concepts do not exist tangibly does not change the fact that they are derived from reality. For example Justice does not exist as a tangible object in objective existence, but we arrive at the concept through evaluating human conditions in objective existence. The fact that Justice, and other ethical principles, are abstractions does not mean that they are subjective or irrational. In this context, "belief" does not mean an irrational faith in something.

Oh sure, it is possible for one system of morality to be more objective than the next, in that an objective system bases its value judgments only on objective facts, eg- "that person stabbed this guy", as opposed to subjective facts, eg- "that person offended my imaginary God". However, its underlying value system still must incorporates a premise of some sort, eg- "humans have inalienable rights".

The premise upon which a value system is based is ultimately what determines whether a particular system is objective or subjective. Religions are subjective because there value system's rely on an unproven premise. A rational morality relies on a premise that is derived from reality.

[Darth Wong]

[Pulls on Nomex suit and starts playing Devil's advocate]
If you really wanted to you could describe Science as a religion. It is a belief system based on the premise that we can describe and understand the universe by the use of scientific methods and mathematical models.

Wrong. It is an attempt to describe the universe as accurately as possible. The belief that science has achieved perfect comprehension of the universe would be a religion.

This isn't really too different from saying attempting to understand the universe by praying and meditating or from describing the universe in terms of gods and spirits.

Wrong. Science contains no such unnecessary terms. Any term in science is there because it NEEDS to be there in order to produce accurate models.

Just for the record I have a degree in Mathematics, my father is a Church Of Scotland Minister and I haven't been inside a church in about 5 years.

Mathematicians are not required to learn the scientific method because it has no bearing on their work. This may explain your misconception.

[Darth Wong]

Under this definition any fact or premise one accepts either alone, or in tandem with other facts or premises becomes a religion; regardless of their origin, validity, or content.

It's an oversimplified explanation, I agree. Perhaps I should have been more specific, and said "something you believe in without evidence"?

Using these distinguishing characteristics we can see that moral codes are not necessarily religions; even if the moral code is not based on objective facts it is not a religion unless it incorporates faith and worship into the code.

A religion need not incorporate worship. Meditative religions, for example, do not contain worship rituals. As for faith, there is no real evidence for any underlying moral PREMISE; every moral system incorporates at least one premise which its supporters defend as "self-evident".

The fact that many abstract concepts do not exist tangibly does not change the fact that they are derived from reality.

OK, derive the ethical principle "it is bad to hurt people" from objective data.

[SirNitram]

OK, derive the ethical principle "it is bad to hurt people" from objective data.

I can do this one. It's in perfect accordance with survival of the species, the best interest of any species, or Darwinism in action.

[Darth Wong]

OK, derive the ethical principle "it is bad to hurt people" from objective data.

I can do this one. It's in perfect accordance with survival of the species, the best interest of any species, or Darwinism in action.

Two problems with that:

1. You are merely cloaking one premise by replacing it with another. In this case, the new premise is that "survival of the species" is good. You are still working off a "self-evident" premise.
2. Survival of the species and Darwinism do NOT require that you avoid hurting people. Indeed, a more violent society might theoretically produce a stronger species.

Sorry, but it's not possible to produce any moral system without some kind of leap of faith somewhere, even if it's something that seems "obvious", like "it's bad to hurt people".

[Thirdfain]

Survival of the species and Darwinism do NOT require that you avoid hurting people. Indeed, a more violent society might theoretically produce a stronger species.

Which is why our genetically ingrained "morals" don't stop us from killing people- they just attach an extremely strong social stigmata to killing other members of our "tribe." It leaves us free to kill the members of the next "tribe" over with general impunity. Our morals are useful for pack animals such as humans.

[GonK]

Wrong. It is an attempt to describe the universe as accurately as possible. The belief that science has achieved perfect comprehension of the universe would be a religion.

However some religions are about attaining an understanding such as Buddism and reaching a state of Nirvana.

Wrong. Science contains no such unnecessary terms. Any term in science is there because it NEEDS to be there in order to produce accurate models.

But from a religious view point prayer, meditation, gods and spirits aren't unneccesary. They are there as a neccesary part of the religious model of the universe.

Mathematicians are not required to learn the scientific method because it has no bearing on their work. This may explain your misconception.

However the scientific method is something which we were taught at school and was certainly talked about in the first and second year phyics courses I took.

[Darth Wong]

Wrong. It is an attempt to describe the universe as accurately as possible. The belief that science has achieved perfect comprehension of the universe would be a religion.

However some religions are about attaining an understanding such as Buddism and reaching a state of Nirvana.

Science does not attempt to reach understanding or nirvana. It only seeks to produce measurably accurate models.

But from a religious view point prayer, meditation, gods and spirits aren't unneccesary. They are there as a neccesary part of the religious model of the universe.

Religious rituals are necessary for subjective purposes. Science only accepts that which is necessary to produce an accurate model of objective reality.

However the scientific method is something which we were taught at school and was certainly talked about in the first and second year phyics courses I took.

No, you learned the Cliff Notes version of the scientific method. Most people who describe and supposedly learn the scientific method have trouble answering simple questions like "what is the purpose of science"? They tend to answer with some kind of drivel like "trying to understand the universe".

[GonK]

No, you learned the Cliff Notes version of the scientific method. Most people who describe and supposedly learn the scientific method have trouble answering simple questions like "what is the purpose of science"? They tend to answer with some kind of drivel like "trying to understand the universe".

Thats probably true enough in my case, most of what I was taught of the scientific method was along the lines of observation, hypothesis, prediction, verification.

As to what is the purpose of science I would say that it is a way of studying and learning about the natural phenomenon using mathematical models. Engineering is more about the application of science while science itself is about the gathering of knowledge.

It's almost half three in the morning here and I'll say that while you could describe science as a religion it wouldn't be a very good comparison.[/i]

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

It's an oversimplified explanation, I agree. Perhaps I should have been more specific, and said "something you believe in without evidence"?

You still need to be more specific, this defination is still too vague. I could say that I believe that there are mexicans living in your basement and it would be a religion. Only by having well defined definations for both moral code and religion will you be able to determine what is a moral code and what is a religion. If the two were identical then they could be used interchangibly, this is not the case.

A religion need not incorporate worship. Meditative religions, for example, do not contain worship rituals.

That dosen't change the fact that both religions and moral codes both have definations based on their distinguishing characteristics. There can be variations on the definations, as long as they still share many/most of the distinguishing characteristics.

As for faith, there is no real evidence for any underlying moral PREMISE; every moral system incorporates at least one premise which its supporters defend as "self-evident".

Thats because ultimatley we rely on our senses to obtain information. Life's and happiness's existence can only be verfied through the senses, thus we say it is self evident. God's existence (or whatever the thing to be taken on faith is) is another case entirel, we are to accept it regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

OK, derive the ethical principle "it is bad to hurt people" from objective data.

its bad to hurt people <= if you hurt people they might hurt you back and cause pain <= pain is something to be avoided (it hurts)<= pain exists as a human sensation<=humans exist and have sensations<=existence exists

[Darth Wong]

its bad to hurt people <= if you hurt people they might hurt you back and cause pain <= pain is something to be avoided (it hurts)<= pain exists as a human sensation<=humans exist and have sensations<=existence exists

This merely adds more premises:

1. That the victim of your attack is capable of striking back equally
2. That avoidance of pain is a moral imperative, rather than an instinctive one (naturalistic fallacy: assuming that natural instincts must be moral)

[Nova Andromeda]

Religion is often defined as something you believe in. Interestingly enough, one must "believe in" certain ethical principles, in the sense that they do not have tangible, objective existence.

Oh sure, it is possible for one system of morality to be more objective than the next, in that an objective system bases its value judgements only on objective facts, eg- "that person stabbed this guy", as opposed to subjective facts, eg- "that person offended my imaginary God". However, its underlying value system still must incorporates a premise of some sort, eg- "humans have inalienable rights".

Therefore, a system of morality is arguably a belief system, is it not? And it could be argued to fit the definition of a "religion"? Is secular humanism a religion, then? Atheism is not; it is the absence of a particular belief. But humanism requires a belief in certain principles, which qualifies it as a religion.

I would also argue that Jedi is a religion, even if you don't think the Jedi are real. You need only believe in the principles espoused by the stark morality play of the films in order to consider Jedi a legitimate religion.

And on that note, the Toronto Star reported today that the 2001 Census found 20,000 Canadians to be members of the Jedi religion. Interestingly enough, they were all in BC, Alberta, and Ontario. The Quebeckers are INFIDELS!!!!!! The federal government, of course, refuses to recognize Jedi as a religion, despite the fact that we outnumber Satanists and Scientologists, both of whom are recognized. They cite the lack of an organized structure, even though this doesn't stop them from recognizing individual non-denominational "Christian" as a religion

--I beleive I've stated my position on the topic several times over the life of this board. First it is objective that humans have a goal (you may say they have many, but that is the same as one complex goal -- refer to math). It is objective since humans have decision making capacity (derived from observation) and a goal (i.e., criteria) is absolutely required for decision making. In addition, humans (as well as anything with a goal) cannot do something contrary to their goal without being forced, screwing up, or via random chance (if you think you can then try to provide an example). Since humans happen to be highly intelligent we can attempt to determine the best course of action that will help us obtain our overall goal. This analysis leads to a system by which we can judge actions as either good or bad. Since humans are not intelligent enough or all knowing the analysis is incomplete, filled with errors, and based on assumptions that seem to work. In addition, it is heavily influenced by instinct. Nevertheless, if the system were fully determined and solved it would be entirely objective, not based on assumptions, and look just like any other system of morality for our purposes (which is to judge right and wrong).

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

its bad to hurt people <= if you hurt people they might hurt you back and cause pain <= pain is something to be avoided (it hurts)<= pain exists as a human sensation<=humans exist and have sensations<=existence exists

This merely adds more premises:

1. That the victim of your attack is capable of striking back equally
2. That avoidance of pain is a moral imperative, rather than an instinctive one (naturalistic fallacy: assuming that natural instincts must be moral)

Moral codes are derived logically from reality, they're not tangible because they're abstractions. Having premises in a moral code does not make it a religion.

[weemadando]

Religion /= Morality

It can be argued that Morality based upon religion is defined by a series of absolutes. An "ideal" so to speak, which, when applied to the real world is clearly pointless and misleading.

Morality based upon circumstance is a much better concept. Some religions can be seen as being very much related to circumstance related morality such as bhuddism and hinduism, which though they have a system with some absolutes, accept that human nature and the nature of the world is imperfect and subject to change and interpretation. This is in contrast to other religions such as Christianity that utilise a single series of teachings, for example the ten commandments as an eternal unchanging grounds of morality.

[Illuminatus Primus]

note: RedImperator is refering to this thread, split from here and now burning in the HOS.

LOL.

I thought he was talking about Wong.

[lgot]

Darth Wong:

It's an oversimplified explanation, I agree. Perhaps I should have been more specific, and said "something you believe in without evidence"?

But Moral codes can be basead over experience or evidence. You may be against violence because your own exposure to it. Or against Killing because you lost someone in the same way.
Actually, the very origem of all moral codes come from society's conflict to solve the matter when it happens.
The only thing, Moral codes are followed because they allow you to fit in one society, education, not the faith of religion. Moral codes are the primary condition for a formation of a society, so in this, Moral Codes overlaps religion (and even science). Both Religious and scietific groups must follow some moral's belief when not everyone following a moral belief must pratice religion or science.

You know, with a bit of word , everyone can reduce all beliefs in faith, but you know that it is wrong. The same way you easily dismiss that your trust in science is not a faith, you probally can dismiss your trust in the moral code you follow as not basead on faith.
The only thing you could say that they have both as similar is that you rarely question those principles (someone that question a moral code will reform it and eventually split from it, but those question usually only happens when reality put that question to work) and eventually someone that question relgions end leaving that religion.