I know, I know. This is a topic we've seen before. But I'm hoping to bring a new twist to it.

There is an ongoing question of whether morality would exist if not for its religious basis. Most pro-religion people argue that morality could not have been developed if not for religion. Atheists and Agnostics tend to disagree and say that morality is based in CIVILIZATION rather than religion, and would have developed regardless of whether religion had existed or not.

I don't really know what to believe.

But I would like to make this comment. Perhaps it's a new twist, perhaps not.

What is morality?

When we think of morality today, we generally think of the "judeo-christian" (I hate that term) values that we see in the "modern world" (ei: Europe, the USA, Australia, etc.) Most Atheists that I speak to seem to assume that these "judeo-christian" morals would have developed even if Judaism and Christianity had never existed, because they are good, and just, and right, and therefore, mankind would have gotten to that point eventually, even without religion. (Or at least that is my interpretation of what I have heard them say. I could be misinterpreting their positions, and if I am, I apologize.)

But the fact is that this version of "morality" is not the only one to have existed in history.

In the judeo-christian moral system, the highest calling of man is to be good and kind to his fellow man. Call it the "golden rule", if you will.

But other moral compasses have existed in the past.

The followers of the Norse gods (Odin, Thor, Frey, Baldr, etc.), who in the USA are know as "Asatru", have a very different "highest calling". Their highest calling is to die in battle against evil... and for the very best fighters, to become the Berserker of legend... the unstoppable warrior. Their morality is based on becoming the best, most honorable, most effective, most deadly soldier/fighter/warrior they can become.

Definitely a very different form of morality. And that is just one form of morality of many that have existed in history.

The Mongols are another really great moral study... they were BRUTAL warriors that completely decimated their enemies, including destroying women and children. But they did so with the intent of bringing peace, law and justice to the lands they conquered. Their highest calling was to brutally conquer the world to make it a better place. They placed a moral value on being as brutal as possible to accomplish it.

Again, a very different moral system than we know today.

There was a particular Aztec cult that believed that the highest calling was to suffer pain willingly as a form of sacrifice to the gods. Their morality revolved around becoming able to willingly accept more and more pain. The more pain you could suffer, the closer you were to god. becoming a human sacrifice in the most painful way possible was the highest calling in that cult.

Definitely not our morality.

If not for the existence of Judaism and Christianity to form the judeo-christian morality that we accept as commonplace today, what moral compasses would we have developed?

My point is that when those who support the idea that religion is NOT the source of morality and say that morality would have developed on its own absent religion, what do they mean? Would it have been the same (or similar) moral system we live in today? Or would it have been something completely different?

And if it would have been completely different, doesn't that mean that religion and morality ARE connected, and can't be separated as some would like to believe? Wouldn't it mean that morality cannot develop without a religious background to act as a petrie dish in which to grow?

I don't know if this is a good argument. I'm just exploring a thought. I'd like your comments on this.

Elliot

Tokugawa

This thread is progressing quite nicely, TUT317 in particular has offered some great contributions, which are actually on topic. This is more than can be said for my own, however I shall forgo the opportunity to address the points he has raised at this time in order to proceed with the point I was rather ineptly trying to make last week.

Altenweg writes...

No. Neither the belief in God, nor the "legalistic" aspect, are for me the defining essence of the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, which is perhaps the greatest literary achievement in the history of man. It is a grappling with existence, an effort to "define" what it is to be human. To suffer, to inflict suffering, to love, hate, above all, to FEEL! There is great wisdom in the Judaic tradition of not "naming" God, as you cannot define the indefinable, and it is with this indefinable that humanity grapples now, as then. Humanism would sweep this profound struggle, which is the very HEART of humanity, under a carpet of insipid "reason", which is in itself synthetic, and therefore also a fiction, albeit a very useful one.

How do you know that what you are doing is "holding something dear", or "loving"? This presupposes that you have compared the state of "loving" to something different, "hating" perhaps? Certainly it cannot be compared to "indifference", which is what "humanist reason" offers, as then you would not know whether it was one or the other, love or hate. No, to see that hate is a necessary part of love, that you cannot have one without the other, that it is in fact INHUMAN to view life through the "objective lense" of humanism, that is to impugn on the "Brave New World" of secularism in a most seditious manner, and one need not subscribe to ANY religion in order to take up this PURELY human position.

And of the people you love, what is it about them that makes them loveable? The logical form in which they are presented? The chemical processes that make them function? Or if I were to list all the "objective facts" as they pertain to these people, every single one, would that describe what you love? Pfft... "man as chemical process", "love as indifference", THIS is the form in which modern humanism presents itself to us, and I reject it entirely. That you know "how" to live, does not mean you know "what it is" to live, and THAT is what religion has hitherto attempted. The fact that it has failed in large part should not be derided by those who are too weak to even ATTEMPT such a noble and vast undertaking.

Science is in no way an "explanation" of reality, only an "exposition" of how it functions. Even then, we can only make sense of it by imposing synthetic structures such as logic and math over the top of it. Science is considered as more because it deals with objects of sense, it can be heard, seen, touched. It resembles religion in that it seeks out immutable and unchanging "laws", much in the same way that some religions have sought out an immutable and unchanging "God". Both were "invented", not "discovered", to help us make sense of life. Science to help us find out "how" it is, religion to help us find out "what" it is. Science has progressed magnificently, religion looks pale by comparison. However the question to which religion has presented itself is FAR more profound, and it is one that "humanism" would have us ignore completely.