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

Perhaps I did not explain myself well enough. I was not intending to turn this into a "Left vs Right" debate, my attack against "economic dogmatists" was aimed at those on both sides. I was attempting to show (perhaps rather poorly), how moral judgement has a tendency to shift in light of different circumstance, and point out that the prevailing moral spirit of "the West" is one that is based in "wealth accumulation". I see this as being the result of a capitalist CULTURE, rather than capitalism itself, and the idea that a society exists for the sake of the economy system, not the other way around.

Look at language as it is today. Words like "hustler", "shark", and "pimp", that were once considered as derogatory are now accolades. Is it any wonder? When one grows up in a society that holds "monetary wealth" as it's highest value, that equates the "pursuit of happiness" with "the pursuit of money", like that poisonous and completely inferior "philosopher" Ayn Rand, what are we to expect? The capitalist CULTURE promotes nothing so much as predatory instinct and mediocrity. Great works are accomplished through determination and a will to create, not some nihilistic and gluttonous "will for money".

On a final note, no, the anecdotal examples you cite, even we were to accept them, would do nothing to counter my argument. You have pretty much agreed that a fundamental shift in general attitudes towards China have occured, however you have offered no other explanation for this shift. The only real difference with the China of today, and the China of twenty years ago, is that THIS China is far wealthier.

ETWolverine

I don't know that I agree with your position. But I appreciate it nonetheless. You do make some points worth considering.

Elliot

firmbeliever

You mean today's China is wealthier? How do we determine a countries wealth? Isn't the people themselves supposed to be more above poverty level than below?
Epoch Times | China's Rural Poverty Line Far Below International Standard

And yes, so many of the Chinese poor are working in factories with almost no income, and what do they make? Brand wear for the rich of the world.


About morality and religion, why do we assume that religion or faith or belief came after paganism? As per the the judeo-christian faiths as you mentioned, wasn't the first man Adam a believer of the Almighty except that he got waylaid by Satan (lets not get into that topic right now)? Does not that mean that morality came with the first man who was a religion follower?

Regarding if morality will exist without religion,I dont think it would. I am not saying that religion followers are all moral, but the religion lays the foundation to be good, to do good, and to be moral.
Religion lays the foundation for what is considered right not in the eyes of humans but in the eyes of a Higher being,which I believe to be of a much higher standard than humans.

As Elliot mentioned, each culture brings with them different standards, what they hold as high morals change,which is what happens when humans decide the standard.

If we look at the basic of the Abrahamic religions, the ten commandments are the very basis of each belief.
I talk about the Abrahamic religions because I always believe religion came with the first man, morality came with religion and the Abrahamic faiths are as far as I believe revealed religions.

just a few thoughts.

NeedKarma

If that were the case how do you explain people like myself and my children and my parents etc who have no bible, no church attendance and still exibit the same "foundation to be good, to do good, and to be moral"? I strongly believe that parenting has a lot to do with it. Those who have lost their way may need a guide in religion I can concede that, but it's not a requirement for all.

sndbay

According to Wikipedia, morals are arbitrarily created and subjectively defined by society, philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience.

I found it interesting that RickJ said that Quote:



From where I stand, morality is absence in the law of abortion. The termination of a pregnancy, or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo is the killing or death of life. It is physical injury that degrades the appearance of the fetus life, and does steal the rights, and life of a baby. So morality by itself is flawed as is man.

What seems to be more apparent to life is, what comes to us instinctively from beginning. Why does an infant cries to be fed, in their instinctive behaviour? Where does instinct, or intuitive perception come from? The instinct of fear, and emotional intuitive behavior came first.

Without the added support of religion and God, that can come to us by our instinctive nature, we would lack religion that brought answers, and distinguishes our conscience (fear) of whether one's actions are right or wrong. We would be as the animals that walk the earth. And so we relate killing, maim someone, and stealing as animal like in nature.

Man's morals are arbitrarily created. And the instinctive nature, the intuitive thoughts of the heart, and mind can continue to balance man in a religious and moral path working together for the better of all mankind.

(Note: men and women have different instinctive natures, as do each of us different individually)

firmbeliever

Difference in perspective Need.

I believe that it is inherent in each human to be a believer in the Almighty,and that a baby is born pure in belief of a Higher being,with awareness of what is right and wrong.

And yes I do agree a lot has to do with parenting, we take a pure baby and feed it with messed up values and he/she will grow up to be messed up with a distorted view of what is right and wrong. And yes this can happen with religious following parents too.

But what I said is that the basics of religion is good,and I believe to be the basis of morality since the beginning of human life on earth.

NeedKarma

Yea, it is a difference in perspective. To me my kids are not aware of what is right and wrong unless I teach them or lead by example.

firmbeliever

I am aware of that too, I don't let mine do as she feels is right all the time;
that's a whole other topic I think.

Another difference in perspective;
I believe humans have a conflict of doing what the soul( I know you don't believe in souls) needs and what we want, which is where I believe the morality standards come in.

inthebox

Interesting post ET


I see religion as a set of commomnly shared beliefs regarding god. : For example, there is a god vs there is no god. Both religions. I see morality as a set of beliefs as to what is "right" and "wrong." So people of different faiths or no faith at all may share alot of the same "morality," or they may not.

A particular religion tells their believers what their god says is right and wrong, so morality is determined by the religion. Those who don't believe in god, can determine their own right and wrong. So this morality varies from person to person and perhaps depending on the circumstance. It may be determined by the time they live in and the society or the country they live in. THe difference I think is a sense of guilt - doing something wrong that bothers one's conscience. Religion may impose this guilt or others want to live guilt free and don't subscribe to any religious morality Still others may not have religion but guilt comes when they violate their own sense of right and wrong, and worse yet, others may have religion but doing wrong [ by their religious standard ] does not bring guilt.

In Stalin's USSR, he wanted to eliminate religion. It was his will that determined what is right and wrong, and perhaps power was his "right" and anything that threatened it was "wrong," thus millions were eliminated. Same thing in Mao's China. Were these countries under these despots civilized?




G&P

ETWolverine

You make a good point, NK.

But let me ask this:

If your family had lived in the Nordic countries during the 1st and 2nd Centuries, when everyone around believed in the Nordic gods, do you think that your family would have the same moral standards that they have living in Canada in the 21st Century?

I am not saying that people who are not religious are immoral people. That is NOT my argument. I do not believe that to be true. Some of the most moral people I know are not religiously affiliated in any way. And Bernie Madoff, one of the most IMMORAL people of the modern age, is a Jew and went to Synagogue on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.

My argument is that the morality that we believe in today was created by (or at least highly influenced by) the Judeo-Christian religions. And if the Judeo-Christian religions had not existed... if for some reason the worship of Odin and his sons had become the dominant religion of our society... our moral values would be very different ones from the ones that we have today.

If that statement is true (and I have no way of proving it, so this is all supposition), then it can be argued that morality, as defined today, could ONLY have existed due to the judeo-christian religions. Because if ANOTHER religion had been in its place or if there had been no religion at all, the result would have been a different set of morals.

Which means that religion is the basis of morality.

That does NOT mean that irreligious people can't be moral people. I would never make that argument, because I do not believe it to be true.

Elliot