Religion and Morality?

[Vyraeth]

I'm in the midst of a debate where I'm arguing that morality does not come from religion (not just Christianity, in-general). Yet, I'm getting shot down because people keep pointing out that every government's laws were inspired by religion (if we say laws enforce morality that is), and I can't give a tangible example.

Can someone help me or do I have an incorrect position?

[SirNitram]

Where do they get the idea that laws spring from religion? What evidence promotes this? Hint: If they say the Founders, suggest they actually read 'Common Sense'. It's practically the foundation of Deism, which sure as hell doesn't promote an ethical system.

[Rye]

Can they point to the religion of a mother chimp? There are lots of moral species, family ties being the most common denominator between them. This would imply that morals come from biology as well as being taught.

[Zero]

Just cite leviticus, and point out that none of it's codified law except in theocracies. Also point out that many of the greatest attrocities can be connected to theocracies.

[Darth Raptor]

On the subject of Leviticus, point out how much of that is nothing close to actual morality.

[Vyraeth]

I brought up the chimpanzee point and all I hear is that there's scientific debate.

I tried to bring up Common Sense, and now they're asking about cultures from 4,000 BC who had ancient forms of religion.

I think a great way to shut them down would be to point out an ancient society that had morality and no religion. Can anyone help with this?

I also pointed out that we can rationalize, why for instance murder is wrong without pointing to the ten commandents (i.e. it's wrong because it violates someone's right to live), and I made some ground, but then I got this:

"You can't prove religion isn't responsible for morality, just as we can't prove morality isn't responsible for religion."

Now that's an obvious fallacy, but somehow I feel raising the fact that it's a fallacy would get lost on the person I'm debating. Could someone give me a society that doesn't have a "religion" per say to demonstrate my point? I tried to refer to the tribes that make up the pygmies of Africa, since most of their beliefs, if I recall correctly, in religion deal with natural phenomena not morality.

[General Zod]

I brought up the chimpanzee point and all I hear is that there's scientific debate.

I tried to bring up Common Sense, and now they're asking about cultures from 4,000 BC who had ancient forms of religion.

I think a great way to shut them down would be to point out an ancient society that had morality and no religion. Can anyone help with this?

I also pointed out that we can rationalize, why for instance murder is wrong without pointing to the ten commandents (i.e. it's wrong because it violates someone's right to live), and I made some ground, but then I got this:

"You can't prove religion isn't responsible for morality, just as we can't prove morality isn't responsible for religion."

Now that's an obvious fallacy, but somehow I feel raising the fact that it's a fallacy would get lost on the person I'm debating. Could someone give me a society that doesn't have a "religion" per say to demonstrate my point? I tried to refer to the tribes that make up the pygmies of Africa, since most of their beliefs, if I recall correctly, in religion deal with natural phenomena not morality.

You could point them out to China, but they'd likely start crying that it's a communist dictatorship, and by default immoral.

[Vyraeth]

See, but then they say that China came up with it's own morality after religion created it!

I'm trying to show them that religion was not required for morality and I can't think of a good way to do it.

[Surlethe]

See, but then they say that China came up with it's own morality after religion created it!

I'm trying to show them that religion was not required for morality and I can't think of a good way to do it.

You could cite secular humanism, for example, to show that religion is not a necessary condition for a moral code. The thing is that, historically, morality tends to find its way into religion (at least the Abrahamic ones), since morality is generally a code which promotes the welfare of society, and the Abrahamic religions act as instruments of social control; hence, variations of those religions which include morality to promote social welfare will tend to be more successful than those which don't. So, if you've got an Abrahamic religion, you've got bits and pieces of morality scattered in with dogma which promotes the religion, favors the priesthood, etc. -- consider, stereotypically, the 10 Commandments, e.g.: several of them, exist to propagate the religion, while the rest exist to increase societal welfare.

EDIT: added qualification of Abrahamic religion. Thank you for the correction below, Darth Wong.

[Ou des]

I can't really say because I hardly know anything about it, but could morality be described by game theory?

My understanding of game theory is that it tries to describe how a person acts when he knows someone else, or a group of other people, is going to react to what he does. So even though that person does what's best for himself, his behavior is modified by the reaction he expects, with a goal of getting the most positive reaction from the group possible. And since each individual observer also acts with the same constraints the result is that everyone has a the same basic set of behavioral boundaries that work for the good of the group.

For instance suppose caveman A is hungry and caveman B has a caught a rabbit. If caveman A acts on no other motives than his own hunger then his course is clear, he should try to steal the rabbit. Likewise caveman B has no reason to share any of the meal, since it would decrease his portion. But caveman B is no fool. He knows that if he shares his meal with caveman A, he'll see benefits beyond the immediate relief of his hunger. Since both caveman A and B realize their roles may be reversed in the future, it will benefit each of them to assist the group. In this case by sharing a meal, or in religious terms, by being charitable. To me that seems like a good non-religious foundation for morality.

This argument even implies to me that religion stems from morality. Since the 'good' behavior is more desirable than the 'bad', the group will try to promote 'goodness'. However at the most basic level, people are good because they think someone else is watching, and judging. So why should someone behave morally if no one is watching? Because someone could be watching. And so an idea evolves, there is Someone watching. For the individual this watcher makes his good behavior with no plausible motive reasonable. From the group's perspective people are encouraged to be good when they might have no reason otherwise. And so spirits, or gods, or God are an instrument of morality and moral behavior, not the cause.

...

But again, I could be totally wrong about what game theory actually is.

[Vyraeth]

I certainly agree religions incorporated morality into their doctrines, what I was seeking was evidence that religion and morality do not exist.

My problem that I run into now, after having debating this is that it's left off at "Well, you can't prove that religion isn't the cause of morality, just as we can't prove morality is the cause of religion." Yet, I know that's not right, I know that morality is not caused by religion.

Now there are lots of good answers in this thread, but not matter what I throw up it always goes back to, "Well, every civlization had religion, that had morality." and all that jazz, and when I ask for proof of this, I'm told that I'm the one who should be doing my homework.

So far, I just let it stand there, but I plan to do some digger deeping to dispel this notion. There has to be some culture that's fairly ancient that existed without morality, or some way to show the people I'm debating what I know in my head without giving them the option of saying "religion is first".

It's just really abit frustrating, but thank you for your comments on "game theory", I'm going to bring that up as well eventually.

[Vyraeth]

Sorry, I'm not seeking evidence that religion and morality don't exist, rather, I'm seeking evidence that shows religion IS NOT the cause of morality.

[Rye]

Sorry, I'm not seeking evidence that religion and morality don't exist, rather, I'm seeking evidence that shows religion IS NOT the cause of morality.

Social animals. Much older than religion, with plausible explanations for why it was successful. Given that, they've now got a burden of proof to show that religion was the source of morality when there's an older source staring you in the face.

[Darth Wong]

It's a common misconception that all religions are like Christianity, with moral rules embedded into them, but that's completely false. The ancient Hellenistic (Greco-Roman) religion is a series of stories about the exploits and powers of ancient Gods, but nowhere does it contain moral rules. In fact, the gods themselves are acknowledged to be capricious, vain, etc. Not only that, but the Hellenistic religion has no Scriptures of any kind, relying instead on the oral tradition of telling stories. That's why you can't find any Hellenistic Bible.

In Ancient Greece, religion and morality were completely separated, and that was typical for much of the ancient world. Morality came from philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, etc. Religion, on the other hand, told stories and mythologies. The two were not assumed to be intrinsically related.

So when people talk of ancient cultures that had religion, just point out that Ancient Greece, the birthplace of western civilization, did not mix religion and morality and in fact called upon philosophers to define its morality.

[Vyraeth]

Sorry for my delayed response, I brought up your point Mr. Wong and practically shut down my opponent. They immediately didn't want to debate anymore.

I do have a question in follow up to this thread. During the course of the debate, I mentioned the points about animals showing signs of morality, of which my opponents retored that animals have morality because of instinct.

Now instinct doesn't require thought, whereas I said morality would, but they tried to make the point that there are no evil apes (when pointing out mortality in apes, for instance).

I have a feeling that my opponents are obviously wrong, but could you explain why? I've looked up apes and what not, but I haven't been able to read about how they exhibit signs of a moral conscious or what not.

A link or an explanation would be greatly appreciated so I could use this point next time around.

Thanks in advance.

[Darth Wong]

Sorry for my delayed response, I brought up your point Mr. Wong and practically shut down my opponent. They immediately didn't want to debate anymore.

I do have a question in follow up to this thread. During the course of the debate, I mentioned the points about animals showing signs of morality, of which my opponents retored that animals have morality because of instinct.

Now instinct doesn't require thought, whereas I said morality would, but they tried to make the point that there are no evil apes (when pointing out mortality in apes, for instance).

There are actually lower primates who do things that we would consider evil, like rape and wanton violence with no defensive or food motive.

Certain kinds of animals do exhibit certain social instincts which we would consider virtuous; for examples, dogs exhibit the virtue of loyalty. But animals most certainly do not have an advanced system of morality, and particularly not one which is capable of adapting quickly to new and unforeseen situations (a similar problem plagues scriptural morality, which was made by people who could not foresee major changes in technology and the priorities of human society such as the present-day overpopulation problem).

I have a feeling that my opponents are obviously wrong, but could you explain why? I've looked up apes and what not, but I haven't been able to read about how they exhibit signs of a moral conscious or what not.

Most humans don't exhibit signs of moral thinking, and base most of their morality upon social conformist instincts and/or rationalization of self-interest. Why do you think Nazism occurred? How do you think the entire US South convinced itself that slavery was OK? It is only a small minority of the more intellectally inclined part of humanity which actually analyses morality.

That's why most societies have always revered certain elders, wise men, prophets, or philosophers within their ranks: the few who could look beyond gut instinct and mob mentality to a higher view of morality. The problem is that modern followers of Christianity fail to do that, and instead look to wise men who lived thousands of years ago in the vain hope that their moral wisdom is superior to that of modern thinkers despite being hopelessly out of date and ill-informed.

I would match up Voltaire or Mill against Jesus as moral philosophers any day, but you can't ask a Christian to make that matchup because he is unaccustomed to thinking of morality as a philosophical debate; he thinks of it as the ironclad rules of a dictator, passed down from on high.

[rhoenix]

Now instinct doesn't require thought, whereas I said morality would, but they tried to make the point that there are no evil apes (when pointing out mortality in apes, for instance).

No "evil" apes? Interesting. As Darth Wong pointed out, there certainly are animals that engage in "evil" acts, by the definition of the people you're debating with. Chimpanzees have been filmed dismembering another monkey that dared encroach on their territory. I'm thinking that one of the Trials of Life tapes is where I saw it - unfortunately, I forget which specific one.

I'd suggest pointing out that many mammalian species of animals have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior. By the view of the people you're debating this, those animals are going directly to Hell, since they "chose" to do this.

[Count Dooku]

People make the claim that morality MUST have come from god because it's un-thinkable, to them, that any human could have come up with a system of morals. I commonly get the old, "if there's no god, then why don't we just go out and kill people" routine. I'd like to think that we've evolved to the point where we can distinguish between good and bad.

And on the subject of religion and morality, how 'moral' can Christians really be? Dozens of wide scale and extremely destructive wars have been started by Christians who were just 'doing god's will'. Would a god who preaches tolerance and love really want you to go and kill in his name? Christians are the largest organized group of hypocrites just about anywhere. Buddahists are the only religious folk who've got my respect, and if my studies haven't failed me, Buddahists don't believe in the existance of a god - only their spiritual self, or something like that.

[Darth Wong]

The thing that's maddening about the "you need supernatural beliefs for morality" assumption is that Christians believe it's universal when in fact it is largely restricted to a single triumvirate of related religions. If you look at the bulk of religious and moral writings and beliefs in the world, you cannot help but reach the conclusion that Christianity-Islam-Judaism is somewhat unique in its insistence that all morality flows from its deity's edicts.

[Dark Hellion]

If you want to completely destroy any Divine Command Theory of Morality (morality comes from god/religion) it has actually been done before. It goes as such.
If DCT holds true, then either god commands only what is moral, or whatever god commands is moral.
If god only commands what is moral, then the morality already exists and god is irrelevant.
If whatever god commands is moral, then morality is arbitrary. Unless the opposition wishes to accept a completely arbitrary morality, then this is disproof of that.
Its a standard dilemma set-up and really they are damned if they do (DCT falls apart) or damned if they don't (they have a completely arbitrary system of morality, with no ability to predict if your moral actions today will be moral or immoral tommorow).

[Surlethe]

The thing that's maddening about the "you need supernatural beliefs for morality" assumption is that Christians believe it's universal when in fact it is largely restricted to a single triumvirate of related religions. If you look at the bulk of religious and moral writings and beliefs in the world, you cannot help but reach the conclusion that Christianity-Islam-Judaism is somewhat unique in its insistence that all morality flows from its deity's edicts.

The assumption pervades the education and beliefs of most every Christian in the United States, even the moderates and some liberals, so they're quite susceptible to arguments based on it. Even I myself sometimes have to step back and remind myself that I shouldn't assume this, and I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, anything other than a liberal Christian.

[Count Dooku]

The thing that's maddening about the "you need supernatural beliefs for morality" assumption is that Christians believe it's universal when in fact it is largely restricted to a single triumvirate of related religions. If you look at the bulk of religious and moral writings and beliefs in the world, you cannot help but reach the conclusion that Christianity-Islam-Judaism is somewhat unique in its insistence that all morality flows from its deity's edicts.

But, if I recall, didn't the Old Testament take Hammurabi's code, and insert it into the Bible as the law given to the Hebrew's by god? Any historian knows that Hammurabi had no affiliation with the Hebrews, and the he and his scholars wrote down the infamous, "eye for an eye" doctrine years before the Hebrews ever became a group. That is the key, IMO, to thwarting the religion came from god argument.