Study finds moral equality between religious and nonreligious

woodpecker said:

Who determines what is good or bad, what is moral or not

Moral - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior

: based on what you think is right and good

: considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior
....
Where does this conscious of right and wrong come from...God

Click to expand...

Then why does this god approve of slavery and the genocide of religious opponents, while most humans consider them abhorrent?

Euler said:

Then why does this god approve of slavery and the genocide of religious opponents, while most humans consider them abhorrent?

Click to expand...

You mean why did God approve of these things in the past, don't you?

OldWiseGuy said:

You mean why did God approve of these things in the past, don't you?

Click to expand...

Unless you have a copy of Bible v2.0 to show me, He still apparently does. This is one of the major stumbling blocks with not only the Christian religion, but all religions. They rely on holy books which have never moved with the evolution of human morality and are always left in the position of having to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to become more humane.

Euler said:

Unless you have a copy of Bible v2.0 to show me, He still apparently does. This is one of the major stumbling blocks with not only the Christian religion, but all religions. They rely on holy books which have never moved with the evolution of human morality and are always left in the position of having to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to become more humane.

Click to expand...

We cannot rewrite those books. We can only seek to understand them better.

OldWiseGuy said:

We cannot rewrite those books. We can only seek to understand them better.

Click to expand...

Or fit a square peg in a circular opening, more like.

Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"

Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 27 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.


Read more: Obey the Laws of the Land? - Printer Friendly

double post

poolerboy0077 said:

Or fit a square peg in a circular opening, more like.

Click to expand...

I still find new meanings in scripture. It's not something you can read just once and understand fully. One condition of understanding is doing, not just hearing God's word. Western man is impatient, not willing to give God's word time to prove itself. Understanding comes slowly and often painfully over time.

woodpecker said:

What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race.

Click to expand...

I don't see how that makes things any better. That's like saying, "Well, sure, that incident that occurred in the news was a gang rape, but look on the bright side! At least it wasn't a homosexual gang rape like they tried in Sodom!" What the slavery is based on seems of little importance. You're still allowing people to own other people...and treat them as such (including allowing violence).

woodpecker said:

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

Click to expand...

And now juxtapose that with:

woodpecker said:

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society.

Click to expand...

Then why, for instance, was Yahweh so preoccupied with creating many laws against people who did such things as worship other "false" Gods, and such? You would think being all-knowing he would be sensitive to people's lack of knowledge (especially since many were illiterate and depended on others to read Scripture to them) but nope! He has a zero tolerance policy on that and the punishments are quite severe. But slavery? Well, now, we can't be bothered by such trivialities as owning another person and allowing the owners to beat them...so long as they don't knock out their eyes or teeth (Exodus 21:26) -- is he not merciful!

woodpecker said:

Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"

Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 27 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.


Read more: Obey the Laws of the Land? - Printer Friendly

Click to expand...

So you'd be OK with being my slave, as long as I followed Biblical rules about how to treat you?

I think that there may be a case for moral enlightenment in certain forms of modern atheism, like "rational self interest" of the individual or speciesm, or "well being" especially in relation to beain states. This style of ethical system can be seen as an adaptation to our basic psychological condition, which "likes stuff like that" and is designed to (or rather this system has been selected by evolutionary processes, or if you like theistic evolution - or even creationism - then go there).

This doesnt mean we have to abandon religion at all, just the secular perspective can help with interpretation of the religious texts. This in the koran Allah destroys sinning communities, and this need not be seens as irrationalistic, but just that they were not "hitting the mark" of a healthy individual and community lifestyle. Likewise theres similar themes in the Bible. So religious morality doesnt utterly transcend the world we live in as in NOMA (religion is one thing science is another) - but rather the two can be fused intelligently..

Hopefully this is right and we can begin to shrugg off arrogance and work together.

Euler said:

Unless you have a copy of Bible v2.0 to show me, He still apparently does. This is one of the major stumbling blocks with not only the Christian religion, but all religions. They rely on holy books which have never moved with the evolution of human morality and are always left in the position of having to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to become more humane.

Click to expand...

This is an oversimplified view of religion. There are a great many religious groups that just don't work that way.

Euler said:

Unless you have a copy of Bible v2.0 to show me, He still apparently does. This is one of the major stumbling blocks with not only the Christian religion, but all religions. They rely on holy books which have never moved with the evolution of human morality and are always left in the position of having to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to become more humane.

Click to expand...

You don't think the change from letter to spirit is evolutionary?

Eudaimonist said:

Study finds moral equality between religious, nonreligious | UIC News Center

The study found that religious and nonreligious people differed in only one way: how moral and immoral deeds made them feel. Religious people responded with stronger emotions – more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds.

What are the implications?


Edited to add:

CabVet found the original study.
Morality in everyday life


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

I have to question the validity of the results of this survey. I have seen many surveys that have been much larger and therefor more accurate show that religion does make a difference in how a person sees things morally and acts. Just common sense will tell you that religious people will be morally different. Take abortion for example. More religious people will believe that abortion is morally wrong than non believers. This is the same for many issues. The other point is we may see some things like helping others in a similar way but religious people will place more importance on this and act on it in more ways. In some ways it is an obligation of a Christian to help others and sacrifice time and money to do so. So the survey is a bit misleading in saying there is not much difference between non religious and religious people morally.
Without God there can be no good ? Opinion ? ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis
Are Religious People More Charitable than Non-Believers? | Mostly Rational

stevevw said:

I have to question the validity of the results of this survey. I have seen many surveys that have been much larger and therefor more accurate show that religion does make a difference in how a person sees things morally and acts. Just common sense will tell you that religious people will be morally different. Take abortion for example. More religious people will believe that abortion is morally wrong than non believers. This is the same for many issues. The other point is we may see some things like helping others in a similar way but religious people will place more importance on this and act on it in more ways. In some ways it is an obligation of a Christian to help others and sacrifice time and money to do so. So the survey is a bit misleading in saying there is not much difference between non religious and religious people morally.
Without God there can be no good ? Opinion ? ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis
Are Religious People More Charitable than Non-Believers? | Mostly Rational

Click to expand...

First, being much larger doesn't necessarily mean more accurate. Other aspects of methodology are also important, such as the size of the hypothesised effect. Second, as I noted previously, the study didn't compare ethical systems, but individuals in everyday life. Thus, individuals with diametrically opposed ethical positions may nonetheless have reported noticing the same moral phenomena in everyday life. Remember, this isn't about perspective ethics. The study didn't have someone with a particular ethical system observe the number of moral and immoral acts committed by the religious and the nonreligious.

FireDragon76 said:

This is an oversimplified view of religion. There are a great many religious groups that just don't work that way.

Click to expand...

Scientology for example.

stevevw said:

I have to question the validity of the results of this survey. I have seen many surveys that have been much larger and therefor more accurate show that religion does make a difference in how a person sees things morally and acts. Just common sense will tell you that religious people will be morally different. Take abortion for example. More religious people will believe that abortion is morally wrong than non believers. This is the same for many issues. The other point is we may see some things like helping others in a similar way but religious people will place more importance on this and act on it in more ways. In some ways it is an obligation of a Christian to help others and sacrifice time and money to do so. So the survey is a bit misleading in saying there is not much difference between non religious and religious people morally.
Without God there can be no good ? Opinion ? ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis
Are Religious People More Charitable than Non-Believers? | Mostly Rational

Click to expand...

Religious people have shown to be different from non-religious on issues specifically judged by their religion ie abortion, gay marriage. However, when you an issue that is unique and has not been specifically dealt with by their religion then the morality of religious vs non-religious is not materially different.

mathclub said:

Religious people have shown to be different from non-religious on issues specifically judged by their religion ie abortion, gay marriage. However, when you an issue that is unique and has not been specifically dealt with by their religion then the morality of religious vs non-religious is not materially different.

Click to expand...

Moral positions of believers don't always reflect the positions held formally by their churches. I was in lunch-after-church discussions with fellow church members for many years. We seldom all agreed on anything said in the sermons, or on many public positions of the church. People do think for themselves, and don't always agree with their own church's position on things.

mathclub said:

Religious people have shown to be different from non-religious on issues specifically judged by their religion ie abortion, gay marriage. However, when you an issue that is unique and has not been specifically dealt with by their religion then the morality of religious vs non-religious is not materially different.

Click to expand...

Well as far as I would understand most issues of right and wrong will have differences between religious people and non religious people. But then when you look at the different religions you will also get some difference there are well. But generally religious people being say Christians as having the largest representation should have different morals according to what they believe. Even if it is a new issue. The same filters that make them see things differently on abortion should also be at work on everything. So the morals that cause them to see abortion as wrong should have influences on all their morals on just about everything they deal with. The filter will be their belief and as a Christian that should be what the bible says and what Jesus taught.

Archaeopteryx said:

First, being much larger doesn't necessarily mean more accurate. Other aspects of methodology are also important, such as the size of the hypothesised effect. Second, as I noted previously, the study didn't compare ethical systems, but individuals in everyday life. Thus, individuals with diametrically opposed ethical positions may nonetheless have reported noticing the same moral phenomena in everyday life. Remember, this isn't about perspective ethics. The study didn't have someone with a particular ethical system observe the number of moral and immoral acts committed by the religious and the nonreligious.

Click to expand...

The studies that I used were actualy showing a couple of different aspects. One was that people that belonged to a religion were living in a situation where they were subject to the influences of that religion. As most religions taught that giving is good and a part of belief then more people gave because thats what they were taught and subjected to. So it wasn't necessarily because they were good people but because they were living under that particular influence all the time. The other aspect did show that this influence did have a good affect and showed genuine reasons for people helping and wanting to help their fellow humans. So the study wasnt just about size but it looked at quality as well.