Religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for morality

[RDKirk]

None of that differentiates between Christians and non-Christians.

I think I will pass for now on definitions of those two crimes. I think there is broad agreement about what they are. (The definition of 'person' takes us straight to the abortion debate in USA, and I don't go there.)

"Person" applies in many ways, not just abortion. We saw during WWII that the Japanese did not consider non-Japanese to be "persons" (and in some ways, that's still true).

Human beings cease to be "persons" when the culture determines that those human beings no longer have any rights that the "persons" of that culture are obligated to observe.

No culture applies "murder" and "theft" to those it does not observe as "persons."

 

[o_mlly]

Is it theft if a soldier takes an enemy aircraft and flies it back to his country during war?

Is the soldier fighting a just or unjust war?

When does a fertilized egg become a person?

When is it not a person? In ignorance, may we commit a lethal act against another?

 

[RDKirk]

Is the soldier fighting a just or unjust war?

If he's fighting a war, his own culture has most likely deemed it just.

When is it not a person?

When the culture has determined that it has no rights that anyone is obligated to observe.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

"I think therefore I am." It wasn't a Christian who determined that.

Where do you think Descartes got that from? It is the dominant view in the world for a reason. That reason is religion which goes all the way back to Plato and his supernaturalism. Yes, Descartes said that but religions have been saying it for thousands of years before he was ever born. They said it a little differently. They said gods think and therefore we are. But it's the same principle at the root. The primacy of consciousness over reality. That's the lethal tenent. That's what has to be changed. We need a new renaissance, one in philosophy. We need aristotelianism. We need Objectivism as the dominant philosophy in the world, i.e., the absolute recognition of the primacy of existence. We need the widespread recognition that reality is an absolute. We need to start saying I exist therefore I'll think.

 

[o_mlly]

If he's fighting a war, his own culture has most likely deemed it just.

So, therefore, the virtue of justice is subjective? I think not.

When the culture has determined that it has no rights that anyone is obligated to observe.

"When" being an accident of time, and "culture" being an accident of place are not useful in determining essences. The being is essentially a human person or it is not.

 

[RDKirk]

Where do you think Descartes got that from? It is the dominant view in the world for a reason. That reason is religion which goes all the way back to Plato and his supernaturalism. Yes, Descartes said that but religions have been saying it for thousands of years before he was ever born. They said it a little differently. They said gods think and therefore we are. But it's the same principle at the root.

Well, that is certainly a classic example of moving the goalpost!

The primacy of consciousness over reality. That's the lethal tenent. That's what has to be changed. We need a new renaissance, one in philosophy. We need aristotelianism. We need Objectivism as the dominant philosophy in the world, i.e., the absolute recognition of the primacy of existence. We need the widespread recognition that reality is an absolute. We need to start saying I exist therefore I'll think.

What is the benefit of the "primacy" of an existence that is unknowable? Is a rock better off than a human being for existing without the consciousness to know that it exists?

 

[RDKirk]

So, therefore, the virtue of justice is subjective? I think not.

Of course, justice is subjective. You know of the Old Testament word problem of Solomon and the two prostitutes, one with a dead baby and the other with a living baby.

He was faced with a challenge to social order in which there was no clear reason to choose one or the other. The word problem sets up a situation in which the facts were unresolvedly in dispute and neither party was of any discernible social distinction. Solomon decided to kill the living baby.

What a lot of modern readers do not grasp is that if the story had ended right there, Solomon's decision to kill the living baby would have been considered brilliant "justice" in his time. Solomon could not bring the dead baby back to life, but he could kill the living baby...thus equalizing the situation for the two women: Each would have a dead baby.

In his time, "justice" was not the "winner take all" concept we have today, or even the "punish all sinners" concept. Justice was "what action resolves social discord?" Look again at the Mosaic Law's systems of crime and punishment from the viewpoint of "what action resolves social discord?" and you'll see it.

"When" being an accident of time, and "culture" being an accident of place are not useful in determining essences. The being is essentially a human person or it is not.

What is the authoritative source for that? What makes a human being a person and, say, a dog not a person? And why should anyone agree?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Where is atheism more prevalent historically, in rising culture or in decaying cultures?

What does that have to do with anything? The vast majority of atheists hold the same moral view as religionists. They just replace gods with the state. The state is their god. Both religionists and leftists, which the vast, vast majority of atheists are, are totalitarian authoritarians. Leftists have their gulags, Religionists their inquisition. They're just two sides of the same coin.

Compare Hitler or stalin to religionists in terms of basic ideas:

In metaphysics: Unreality. The Nazis preached polylogism which means that they affirmed the primacy of consciousness. Religions affirm the primacy of consciousness as their starting point.

In epistemology: Both the Nazis and stalin were anti-reason. They both preached faith. Have faith in the plan. Have faith in the volk. Don't dare rely on your own thinking. Listen to your leaders and obey. They were polylogists which means they affirmed the primacy of consciousness. Reality is different for the jews then it is for the arian. Religions also preach faith and the subordination of the mind to authority. For the Nazis and the communists, it was the state, the people, or the collective. For religionists it's gods. For Plato, it was the supernatural world of forms. It's all the same idea, just different packaging. Religion of course explicitly affirms the primacy of consciousness. What is faith? Faith is wishful thinking. It says so right in the bible. Faith is the supstance of that which is hoped for. What is the substance of hope but a wish?

In ethics: Self-sacrifice as a virtue. The Nazis and the communists preached self-sacrifice to the state. They preached that the individual must set aside his own plans and goals and desires for the desires of the state or the people or the collective. Religionist preach self-sacrifice as a virtue and not just self=sacrifice but the sacrifice of the good to the evil, the ideal for the non-ideal. Where do you think the whole notion of progressive taxation comes from?

In politics: Collectivism, which is the political expression of the morality of self-sacrifice. In religion the individual serves god. In Naziism and Communism, the individual serves the collective. Both hold individuals as sacrificial animals.

There is no difference between the two, religion and most atheists, in terms of fundamental ideas. Always look to the fundamental ideas of any society.

Contrast both with Objectivism:

In metaphysics: Objecive reality. There is only one reality and everything is what it is and does what it does independent of conscious intentions. The primacy of existence.

In epistemology: Reason. Reason is the faculty of individuals which perceives identifies and integrates the things in reality. It doesn't create them. It is man's only means of knowledge and man's basic means of survival. Consequently, faith has no place in human life. Faith is not a reliable means of obtaining knowledge of reality.

In ethics: Rational self-interest. The rational part is kind of redundant since it is never in anyone's interest to act irrationally. Sacrifice of any kind is evil.

In politics: Capitalism. Complete, uncompromised free trade. An absolute separtation between the state and economics. Individualism. The recognition of individual rights as an absolute, not to be infringed.

 

[o_mlly]

Solomon decided to kill the living baby.

I do not think that interpretation is correct. Solomon decided to test the will of the true mother, not to kill an innocent child. Solomon knew the story of God's test to Abraham, rescinding His order to sacrifice Isaac. The story supports that justice is objective.

Look again at the Mosaic Law's systems of crime and punishment from the viewpoint of "what action resolves social discord?" and you'll see it.

Do you have an example of the Mosaic Law to discuss that in a moral sense unjustly resolved "social discord" (mala in se)?

What is the authoritative source for that?

Authoritative source: Reason. If you are a human person today will you not be a human person tomorrow? If you are a human person where you are physically now will you not be a person if you move? No.

What makes a human being a person and, say, a dog not a person?

Authoritative source: Again, reason. If left alone, will the being be anything else than a human being? In ignorance, may one commit a lethal act against another who is innocent?

And why should anyone agree?

Authoritative source: Again, Reason

 

[Estrid]

As I said, if there is a Holy Spirit providing supernatural guidance and exerting supernatural pressure on Christians to adhere to Christian moral standards, then Christians ought to be observed adhering to our own moral standards more tightly than other cultures adhere to theirs.

Too much hypothetical if/ then, too little practice.

 

[Whyayeman]

Nothing in this since my last look to support the OP's assertion.

I am a moral person. I am not religious; it is not necessary to have a religion to be a moral person.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Well, that is certainly a classic example of moving the goalpost!

How so?

What is the benefit of the "primacy" of an existence that is unknowable? Is a rock better off than a human being for existing without the consciousness to know that it exists?

Who says it's unkowable? How do you know that? Are you a kantian? And by the way, the phrase "better off" doesn't apply to rocks. Is it better off for a rock to be on a mountain or at the bottom of the ocean?

It's not about benefit. What is the benefit of a reality that is subordinate to conscious intentions? It would be chaos. That is a reality that is unknowable because as soon as you thought you knew something some ruling consciousness could just change it.

The benefit of the axioms (existence, consciousness, identity) and the primacy of existence is that they are what makes knowledge possible. Or rather they identify the facts which make knowledge possible and ground it in reality. Whew! I almost made the mistake of affirming subjectivism myself there. Religion and the vast, vast majority of atheists reject the axioms and the primacy of existence. They reject reality.

I forgot to say in my previous response that Objectivism is atheistic in that it rejects supernaturalism. So you can't lump all atheists together and say that they are the cause of the downfall of society. No dictator or tyrant could ever succeed on the basis of Objecitist ideas. Image some dictator saying in a speech that he wants everyone to live for their own sake and think for themselves and respect the individual rights of others. Go read their speeches and see how many times the words self-sacrifice and duty appear.

America was founded on Objectivist ideas in part but it also mixed in some really bad, incompatible ideas that are leading to its destruction. Chief among these is the morality of self-sacrifice.

So it's not atheism that is the cause of the problems you bring up. Atheists share the same morality with theists at the root: Altruism. Do you know who came up with the term Altruism and what he meant by it? I do.

I highly recommend you read the Ominous Parallels and The DIM Hypothesis both by Leonard Peikoff. They are both groundbreaking achievements. I always laugh when I'm asked which would be better: A society built on atheism or theism? My answer is neither. There is only one set of ideas to build a society on and that's Objectivism. Reality, reason, rational self-interest, and individualism.

 

[Gottservant]

Those who are sealed of God, do not trouble themselves.

 

[Ken-1122]

What does that have to do with anything? The vast majority of atheists hold the same moral view as religionists. They just replace gods with the state. The state is their god. Both religionists and leftists, which the vast, vast majority of atheists are, are totalitarian authoritarians. Leftists have their gulags, Religionists their inquisition. They're just two sides of the same coin.

The religious are more likely to be conservative, atheists are more likely to be liberal. Conservatives are more likely to be the “law and order” type, more likely to pledge allegiance to “God and Country” liberals are more likely to be anarchists; the opposite of law and order, the opposite of God and Country, and the opposite of Totalitarian authoritarians.

Compare Hitler or stalin to religionists in terms of basic ideas:

In metaphysics: Unreality. The Nazis preached polylogism which means that they affirmed the primacy of consciousness. Religions affirm the primacy of consciousness as their starting point.

Hitler and the Nazis were religious, Stalin and the communist were an atheist state the direct opposite. An attempt to conflate the two this way does not work.

 

[ximmix]

What is 'religious morality'?

I would say morality solely based on religious dogma, regardless of whether it is beneficial to the common good or not. For example, in regards to same sex relationships.

 

[Desk trauma]

Hitler and the Nazis were religious, Stalin and the communist were an atheist state the direct opposite. An attempt to conflate the two this way does not work.

They both held to utopian ideology that justified the brutality and totalitarianism.

 

[fschmidt]

What does that have to do with anything? The vast majority of atheists hold the same moral view as religionists. They just replace gods with the state. The state is their god. Both religionists and leftists, which the vast, vast majority of atheists are, are totalitarian authoritarians. Leftists have their gulags, Religionists their inquisition. They're just two sides of the same coin.

As the title of this thread says - religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for [good] morality. You are correct that there is little difference between atheists and modern Christians, both are a disaster. But no successful society was ever built by atheists, while good religions of the past did build successful societies. If you believe in objective reality, this should be meaningful.

Contrast both with Objectivism:

I follow the Old Testament which is largely in agreement with your Objectivism as you described it. See my post God for Atheists. But replacing faith with reason is actually a bad idea for stupid people. This only works for intelligent people, and intelligent people are rapidly going extinct. This is the reason for my Arkian project. If a group of intelligent people could be formed then they wouldn't need faith.

 

[Whyayeman]

I would say morality solely based on religious dogma, regardless of whether it is beneficial to the common good or not. For example, in regards to same sex relationships.

I think the Original Poster wanted to suggest that. My view is that morality precedes religion. None of the Ten Commandments were a novelty. Murder was widely agreed to be a crime long before 'Moses came down from the mountain'.

 

[fschmidt]

Religion is necessary for religious morality, not for morality.

True for poodles but not people. By "morality" I mean "good morality" which means the type of morality which actually works in strengthening society. This is the function of morality. Religion locks in a functional morality by providing a variety of tools to support that morality. Without religion, morality is unstable and changes by fashion until it is no good.

 

[Whyayeman]

As the title of this thread says - religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for [good] morality. You are correct that there is little difference between atheists and modern Christians, both are a disaster. But no successful society was ever built by atheists, while good religions of the past did build successful societies. If you believe in objective reality, this should be meaningful.

I see you have slipped another word into the original statement. That changes your position. Now you are merely deprecating non-religious morality as inferior. While I agree that there is little difference morally between believers and non-believers nowadays, I think that has always been the case. I go further: there is no difference in morality between them. There is nothing disastrous about it.

I follow the Old Testament which is largely in agreement with your Objectivism as you described it. See my post God for Atheists. But replacing faith with reason is actually a bad idea for stupid people. This only works for intelligent people, and intelligent people are rapidly going extinct. This is the reason for my Arkian project. If a group of intelligent people could be formed then they wouldn't need faith.

This is just crass.