Religion and morality

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

Religion and morality 11.21.03 (7:16 pm)   [edit] Well, I had a post a few weeks ago discussing arguments for and against God and someone finally commented in disagreement of something I said. Since the post is now archived, I'll just copy and paste the comment left and my response: [b]sardonic: "Well, you would have to live your life for yourself, make your own decisions and trust them as being your own, and you would have no one to count on except for yourself. What's so bad about that?" Hmm... So if everyone thinks this way, wouldn't that mean that the moral system would disintegrate? Therefore, I can do anything I want. I can loot, murder, steal. Because I can only count on myself and make my own decisions. If I decide to shoot you any time it would be justified that I am just counting on myself and thinking that this is right... Is that so?[/b] [i]DragonBait22: Reply to: sardonic No, that does not in any way mean the "moral system" would disintegrate. To claim that would be to assert that we have no free will as it is, that our morals are dictated to us by God or religion. Moral standards are necessary to ensure that you don't go around killing people and such, I agree, but morality is not exclusive to religious belief. Just because I'm an atheist, it does not mean that I am amoral, and it certainly doesn't mean that I am immoral. Have some faith in humanity.[/i] My basic point in all that was that morality is not dependent on religion and we must all take accountability for our own actions. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and I certainly don't claim to be any sort of expert on religion. But the claim that morals are dictated solely by religion is biased, ethnocentric, and unfounded. I could argue that man created religion, therefore man created morals, but there is the obvious counter to this argument: God/religion is responsible for the creation of man and man's morality. I don't think there's any way for either side of that argument to win, so I won't go into it. But, I would like to point out that the argument that if we did not have religion we would not have morals is a bit contradictory and presumptuous. What religion's morals are we to embrace? Each religion's followers would surely claim that their religion is the one that is right, the one in which human morality is based. From a great (slight sarcasm) article ([url=http://www.christiancourier.c...]Read in entirety here[/url] ) "“Right” and “wrong” exist. They are not merely evolved inclinations that were humanly contrived in order to introduce a sense of order and security into society. Nor are “right” and “wrong” subjectively determined so that, practically speaking, each person functions as his own law-maker. Rather, morality is to be measured by the laws and principles of divine revelation, as made known in the inspired writings of the Bible. Ultimately, morality is grounded in the very nature of God Himself." This is a fine and dandy assertion for Christians, but what about any non-Christians? I suppose non-Christians are automatically viewed as immoral. This doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It is impossible to clearly define moral standards by which all humanity is to ascribe to, religion or no religion. I agree that religion fosters morality, and honestly that's about the only justification for religion I see, aside from providing a false sense of comfort for the believer. It is also argued that all moral standards must come from somewhere and that they come from the Bible, ultimately. That may be so, I wouldn't attempt to trace morality's historical heritage, but even so, the Bible can be read as fiction and the stories in it taken as only moral guidelines. Morality is not exclusive to religion. Ultimately, this is a question of belief, a question of faith. I cannot hope to alter someone's belief system by writing this, but I do feel the need to justify and defend my own morality. It is offensive to be judged incapable of having morals solely because of a lack of beliefs. My moral standards are actually quite high. Whether or not the Bible is where my morals are derived, I cannot say, but I can say that my moral standards, and those of any non-Christian, are not dependent on religion or God.   posted by: sardonic (reply) post date: 11.21.03 (8:49 pm) "Have some faith in humanity." Hold it... You seem to be biased toward humanism, and that in entirety is a religion by itself. Secular Humanism treats humans as the ultimate superior beings on earth. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 11.21.03 (9:13 pm) Reply to: sardonic lol, sardonic, I would like to know what your definition of religion is! Not to mention the fact that not all of the 21% of Americans who do not believe in God are Secular Humanists. Most have a personal philosophy that continually changes as they explore the world, rather than a set of never-to-be-questioned-absolute-truth dogma. Also, I don't understand how a morality based on doing whatever Jesus says is superior to a morality based on figuring out what the best action is your yourself. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 11.21.03 (11:09 pm) sardonic: How does my encouraging you to have some faith in humanity automatically make me a Secular Humanist?? SOME faith in humanity is not equivalent to holding humanity as superior to everything else. That was stated in reaction to your comments that showed that you put little faith in humans' ability to reason without the direction of religion. I'm not biased towards humanism, or anything else for that matter. Spartacus, thanks, you already said it all for me! :) posted by: sardonic (reply) post date: 11.22.03 (8:50 am) What is Secular Humanism? Accurate definitions are difficult to come by. When one hears the word "humanism," several different ideas may come to mind. For example, Mr. Webster would define humanism something like this: "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, or dignity predominate." Others may think of a liberal arts education. Both of these are well and good, but what we are seeking is a definition of the worldview known as Secular Humanism. First, Secular Humanism is a worldview. That is, it is a set of beliefs through which one interprets all of reality - something like a pair of glasses. Second, Secular Humanism is a religious worldview. Do not let the word "secular" mislead you. The Humanists themselves would agree that they adhere to a religious worldview. According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is "a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view." Not all humanists, though, want to be identified as "religious," because they understand that religion is (supposedly) not allowed in American public education. To identify Secular Humanism as a religion would eliminate the Humanists' main vehicle for the propagation of their faith. And it is a faith, by their own admission. The Humanist Manifestos declare: "These affirmations [in the Manifestos] are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith." What are the basic beliefs of Secular Humanism? What do Secular Humanists believe? Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says that "Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe." Corliss Lamont agrees, saying that "Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods." Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists - the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. Carl Sagan said it best in the introduction to his Cosmos series: "The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be." Roy Wood Sellars concurs. "Humanism is naturalistic," he says, "and rejects the supernaturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic Ruler." Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution. Julian Huxley, for example, insists that "man ... his body, his mind and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution." Sagan, Lamont, Sellars, Kurtz - all Secular Humanists are in agreement on this. Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism - the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment. If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. Humanist Max Hocutt says that human beings "may, and do, make up their own rules... Morality is not discovered; it is made." Secular Humanism, then, can be defined as a religious worldview based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical relativism. But this definition is merely the tip of the iceberg. A more complete discussion of the Secular Humanist worldview can be found in David Noebel's Understanding the Times, which discusses (in detail) humanism's approach to each of ten disciplines: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics and history. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 11.22.03 (8:17 pm) Reply to: sardonic Well, then, I am not entirely a Secular Humanist. But the challenge was to define religion, not Secular Humanism. And even if God did exist, He couldn't make an absolute moral code. posted by: sardonic (reply) post date: 11.22.03 (8:37 pm) But seriously, why would you think this way? If God is an omnipotent being who can do anything, why is it impossible for Him to establish an absolute moral code? Look at the Ten Commandments... DragonBait: Sorry I misinterpreted your post. :-) Religion: Defined as the cause, principle,or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 11.22.03 (9:13 pm) Reply to: sardonic Whoa, I wasn't expecting a discourse on Secular Humanism lol. Though I appreciate it, I already had a pretty good understanding of Secular Humanism. While I do share many of the philosophical ideas of Secular Humanists, I do not consider myself a humanist. My philosophical ideas are not concrete, not fixed or unchanging. I maintain a standard of open-minded exploration and do not associate with any particular system of beliefs. As for why God cannot establish an absolute moral code, it is dependent on absolute, universal belief in God. Morality is relative because belief in God, and therefore His moral code, is not a universal standard. The Ten Commandments do qualify as a moral code, but not as an absolute moral code. Your definition of religion leaves a bit out. Granted, it is difficult to define religion, but you left out some important aspects that I think define religion. The three main characteristics of religion are dogma, rituals, and moral code. Religion also includes a belief in a supernatural power accepted as the creator of the universe (this belief falls under the category of dogma, but I thought it should be written out, as it is the main element of religious belief). Which means that Secular Humanism, based in atheism isn't really a religion, anyway. posted by: sardonic (reply) post date: 11.23.03 (2:28 am) Oh well. took that definition out of Webster. Lolz. Anyways, nice discussing... thanks for enlightening... posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 11.23.03 (11:16 am) Reply to: sardonic Yes, thank you, sardonic, for the discussion. :) posted by: sardonic (reply) post date: 11.23.03 (8:11 pm) I read on a Christian website that atheists claim man was created by chance via a reaction from some "primordial chemical soup". The paragraph went further on to say that if man were created by this sort of chance, then everything else he'd been thinking would be chance. And then how would he be able to distinguish between right and wrong? Care to comment? I'd love to hear an atheist's point of view on this... posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 11.23.03 (9:12 pm) Reply to: sardonic I can't possibly speak for all atheists, but my thoughts are that, assuming everything in the universe was created by chance (though I'd rather say everything came into existence through natural processes, rather than by "chance"), our mental capacity, as it has evolved through the ages, allows us to distinguish between right and wrong. I suppose you believe that our capability to distinguish between right and wrong is derived from some sort of divine revelation or otherwise spiritual influence, right? This would mean that we are only as good or bad as God makes us, we are only capable of whatever God allows us, and we do not have the free will to think and/or act on our own. If this were true, it would be horribly depressing to me, and that's reason enough for me not to believe it. So, we either believe everything man thinks is based on chance or based on some sort of divine revelation. Either way, we have a certain mental capacity in which we have the ability to reason, and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. I don't think either of these stances entirely dismisses the other. It just depends on whether we were created by God or came into existence through natural processes. Obviously, I believe in the latter position, but who's to say which is right? posted by: sporadic (reply) post date: 11.24.03 (8:05 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 Well... It's more of God creating humans in His image and allowing them to make their own decisions. That's what I think. What use would God have to create a bunch of robots, right? Hence each person is uniquely created from the time an embryo is fertilised within the mother's womb. So in the end, everything boils down to the origin of the human species, eh? posted by: sardonic (reply) post date: 11.24.03 (8:05 am) Lolz... sporadic is also me... Just created a blog on this site too... posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 11.24.03 (12:15 pm) Reply to: sporadic Okay, so if man is created in the image of God and God allows man to make his own decisions, what would it matter if a person decides not to believe in God? How would that put their morality in question? Yes, it does depend on the origin of the human species, as well as the origin of the universe. But, my point is that morality is not dependent on religious beliefs, morality is not exclusive to religion. posted by: sardonic (reply) post date: 11.24.03 (6:38 pm) To not have a belief in God means one can do almost anything he wants. Man's heart is inclined to sin by nature. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 11.24.03 (7:04 pm) Reply to: sardonic Um how do you get that? According to the principle stated in your previous comment- that man is created in the image of God and given free will and the ability to reason- he has the ability to make his own decisions. He can do almost anything he wants regardless of whether or not he believes in God. posted by: sardonic (reply) post date: 11.25.03 (3:41 am) Precisely. But his heart is inclined to sin. Because man's lot is with evil. That sorta thing. He's born a sinful creature and is inclined to sin. Hence it would be meaningless to establish a moral code. Not when his heart has the huge propensity to sin. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 11.25.03 (7:03 pm) Reply to: sardonic I'm confused, are you agreeing with me, that morality is not exclusive to religious belief? That comment doesn't seem to relate to anything you've said before, please elaborate. posted by: sporadic (reply) post date: 12.08.03 (6:25 pm) Ok... Let me start from the top again... God created man. And after Adam sinned, everyone after him was born steeped in sin. God allows us all to have a free will. Whether we want to trust in Him as our Lord and Saviour in the form of Jesus Christ. When man is steeped in sin, anything goes. He can do what he wants because he is not accountable to anyone but himself. That's your point, right? So it'd be meaningless to set up some absolute moral code when man is inclined toward sin. Look at Holland now, a place steeped in sin. Pornography is rife and so is prostitution pervading the streets of Amsterdam. and yet, with the redeeming grace of Christ, we are new creations. No more in condemnation. Since we are living new lives with Christ in us, and we have the mind of Christ, we ought to live as Christ lived. Hence the phrase WWJD, or What Would Jesus Do? apply in many circumstances. Christ lived a faultless life on earth and we ourselves who have been redeemed ought to go and do likewise, hence to foloow Christ we also ought to follow His moral code of conduct. Sorry for the delay... posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 12.08.03 (6:39 pm) Reply to: sporadic Yes, man is accountable only to himself. But that is not such a negative thing, as you seem to think. I don't believe man is inclined to sin, at least not entirely. I believe we choose our own course in life and decide our own morality. Perhaps I am just idealistic, but I have a difficult time believing that man is inclined to "sin," or to act in ways that are generally accepted by society as immoral. I don't think that if there was no God or no religion that humanity would resort to savage murderous tendencies. Again, I encourage you to have some faith in humanity. Sin may be naturally committed by all humans, but that does not mean that we are all inclined to barbaric acts unless we accept God and follow the messages of Christ. Don't get me wrong, I have no objections with the teachings of Jesus, only the method. And how do you know for certain that Jesus was without sin? And what's so bad about pornography and prostitution? ;) posted by: sporadic (reply) post date: 12.09.03 (12:39 am) Because Christ is the Son of God. In God no sin can be found, neither in His Son can be found any sin. Pornography encourages lust. Look at what casual sex does. Without the help of condoms or contraceptives. Millions of single mothers all around the world. And sexual diseases spread like crazy. Gonorrhea, syphilis, AIDS... If all men on earth did maintain faithfulness to their wives, and unmarried men did not go about indulging in pre-marital sex, would you think stuff like AIDS would spread so quickly? Promiscuity comes about through prostitution and pornography. Men are stimulated by sight. Images of sexual acts send his testosterone levels soaring and his drive to increase, it fuels him to desire sex. And that's when it becomes a lust, leading to promiscuity to fulfil that desire. Lean back and enjoy the show. Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins