Religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for morality

[Hans Blaster]

It wouldn't hurt. Though the point of doing such isn't anti technological in of itself and we are not bound to give up everything.

I just realized I could get banned for the greatest blasphemy of all: Trying to destroy CF's business model.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It seems like the Christians modern interpretation of Christianity, if not the theological fundamental itself, lends them to be content with being cultural losers, but hey, at least they still get to be with Jesus for eternity.

Good theology means a theology of the cross, recognizing God in the weakness, humility, and suffering of Jesus. Its antithesis, theologies of glory, try to find God in power, in our own works, in trying to attain "glory"--which is always theologically bankrupt. Theologies that promote being a "winner" will always result in emptiness and despair, because such glory is empty. It is in weakness, not in power, that the Christian finds their identity as a disciple of Jesus. It's in being a loser that we find how God Himself has identified with the losers. God in Jesus did not identify with the powerful, with the conquerors, with the lords and princes and powers of this present age; but with the weak, the oppressed, the slaves, and poor. Demonstrating His power in weakness, His wisdom in foolishness. And thus it is in dying that we live, it is in foolishness that we are wise, it is in weakness that we are strong. In God's kingdom the greatest is the slave. In God's kingdom it is the beggar, the prostitute, the leper, the sinner, and the tax collector who are the guests of honor at God's table.

A "Christianity" that insists on being a "cultural winner" isn't a Christianity at all. It is merely the pretense of religion, lacking in substance. All dressed up in fine clothes but with no where to go. Such religion is worthless, salt that has become flavorless. A burned out light bulb in a dark room. It is meaningless.

It is only in the weakness and suffering of Christ, in the foolishness of that cross of His, that Christianity is Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[stevevw]

This is simply not true. Anybody familiar with anthropology or comparative religion would be able to tell you otherwise.

Not sure what you are disagreeing with. That we are born believers or that all religions have a similar basis for their beliefs.

 

[stevevw]

Blah diddy blah

"Will fail "
And "0nly way" are things you made up, unless
of course you copied from someone else
who made it up for you.

Of course one can choose to breach Ethical codes and Human rights but if one does so they will be breaking those laws and Codes and will be disciplined.

For example if you discriminate against someone because you have the opinion or view that its OK to discriminate against certain people then you have breached the law or code. So in that sense these law or codes are the only way to avoid getting into trouble and suffering consequences.

 

[Astrid]

Not sure what you are disagreeing with. That we are born believers or that all religions have a similar basis for their beliefs.

Both are disagreeable.

 

[Astrid]

Of course one can choose to breach Ethical codes and Human rights but if one does so they will be breaking those laws and Codes and will be disciplined.

For example if you discriminate against someone because you have the opinion or view that its OK to discriminate against certain people then you have breached the law or code. So in that sense these law or codes are the only way to avoid getting into trouble and suffering consequences.

Over explained but irrelevant.

 

[stevevw]

Humans have an natural inclination for empathy; but as far as this empathy coming from your concept of God, not even the link you provided was willing to make that much of a leap.

But I am not making that leap, you are. I am simply pointing out that belief and a sense of right and wrong are innate and that its not indoctrinated. At least the foundation of morals.

Culture comes along and interprets and applies their version of things later to that foundation. But that is just refining the same basic foundation that babies innately have. Basically morality is about how we treat others and all other morals stem from this.

Within the same culture, we find different variations of morality. It’s a lot more than culture.

Yes that's a good point that people often miss. Its not just about culture which is more obvious but varying beliefs within the same culture. But even so the they still base morals on the same core idea of empathy and justice.

But what I can't understand is how the dominant culture gets to implement their version of what is right and wrong and override all other versions. If morality is relative then all cultural versions of morality should stand as equal competing systems. But it seems we don't.

For example in most western nations like the US, Britain, Australia and most of Europe we don't allow Indigenous versions of morality. The western systems over ride this.

Not all cultures, but for those that do, this supreme agent differs from culture to culture.

Yes but it has the same idea being supernatural and creator. Some beliefs make the supernatural creator Mind or consciousness itself. But this is still in line with western ideas such as Christianity when you consider that the idea of the 'Logos' the 'Word' being before all things and creating all things.

 

[stevevw]

Both are disagreeable.

You can disagree if you like.

 

[stevevw]

Over explained but irrelevant.

OK no worries. I still don't know what your point is.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not sure what you are disagreeing with. That we are born believers or that all religions have a similar basis for their beliefs.

I disagree that all religions have a similar basis for their beliefs. Buddhism and Confucianism are not based on revelation from a higher power, much less the Mesopotamian deity portrayed in the Bible.

 

[Astrid]

OK no worries. I still don't know what your point is.

And you don't know that you make things
up and state them as if they were facts.

 

[Astrid]

I disagree that all religions have a similar basis for their beliefs. Buddhism and Confucianism are not based on revelation from a higher power, much less the Mesopotamian deity portrayed in the Bible.

"Similar", in appearance, would include the current Ms Universe
and the common wombat. They are similar.
Just not, you know, real similar. Not enough for sane
comparison.

 

[stevevw]

I disagree that all religions have a similar basis for their beliefs. Buddhism and Confucianism are not based on revelation from a higher power, much less the Mesopotamian deity portrayed in the Bible.

As far as I understand there are similar divine concepts such as Nirvana being like heaven as its a sort of after life in that once achieved there is no more rebirth and one has attained perfection in another realm.

Also though there is no God there are supernatural entities within some realms though they are still mortal. But the concept of an entity with powers beyond humans is the same.

But nevertheless as far as morals are concerned they are pretty similar in that like heaven to achieve Nirvana you have to live a good life.

Still my point was that humans have the fundamental knowledge of right and wrong from birth or at least a very early age (3 months or less) which cannot have been indoctrinated. Likewise with divine concepts come easy to infants and they have a pretty sophisticated belief which are not based on human made ideas.

Nor based on the beliefs or non-beliefs of their parents or culture. Not sure if any research has been done on the Asian religions but it would be interesting. I would say that these children would also have some sophisticated idea of divine concepts as well.

 

[stevevw]

And you don't know that you make things
up and state them as if they were facts.

Fair enough

 

[Ken-1122]

But I am not making that leap, you are.

Aren’t you the one who said your God’s morals are imprinted in our hearts? How is that different than saying all morals come from your God?

I am simply pointing out that belief and a sense of right and wrong are innate and that its not indoctrinated. At least the foundation of morals.

Culture comes along and interprets and applies their version of things later to that foundation. But that is just refining the same basic foundation that babies innately have. Basically morality is about how we treat others and all other morals stem from this.

I understand we all have a sense of right vs wrong, I just don’t agree this comes from your God.

But what I can't understand is how the dominant culture gets to implement their version of what is right and wrong and override all other versions. If morality is relative then all cultural versions of morality should stand as equal competing systems. But it seems we don't.

Relative does not mean everybody agrees all views are equal, it means relative to individual views.
Example; let’s say you have person A, and person B, and they are both judging action X. Person A thinks action X is good based on his personal views, and person B thinks it is bad based on his personal views. This means action X is good relative to person A’s view, yet bad relative to person B’s views. But this does not mean both people will respect the other’s view on this issue, they both think they are right so whoever is stronger will be the one to impose his view on the other.

Yes but it has the same idea being supernatural and creator. Some beliefs make the supernatural creator Mind or consciousness itself. But this is still in line with western ideas such as Christianity when you consider that the idea of the 'Logos' the 'Word' being before all things and creating all things.

I agree theism is very popular in the world today, but popularity has never been an adequate indicator of truth.

 

[stevevw]

Aren’t you the one who said your God’s morals are imprinted in our hearts? How is that different than saying all morals come from your God?

I was talking about a natural inclination to believe in divine concepts not about any specific god.

I understand we all have a sense of right vs wrong, I just don’t agree this comes from your God.

That's not my argument at this stage. I am talking about the idea of right and wrong being innate in humans from birth.

Relative does not mean everybody agrees all views are equal, it means relative to individual views.
Example; let’s say you have person A, and person B, and they are both judging action X. Person A thinks action X is good based on his personal views, and person B thinks it is bad based on his personal views. This means action X is good relative to person A’s view, yet bad relative to person B’s views. But this does not mean both people will respect the other’s view on this issue, they both think they are right so whoever is stronger will be the one to impose his view on the other.

That's subjective morality not relative morality. Nevertheless the rational or lack of it is the same. So what do you mean by "whoever is stronger will be the one to impose his view on the other". Are you saying what is determined to be morally right is based on whoever is the strongest to impose or force their view on others.

I thought there was no determination of right and wrong under subjective/relative morality. At least no objective determination. They are just two differing views like there are two differing views on what flavor ice-cream is best or is preferred. No one can be morally wrong for liking ice-cream or not.

So if this is the case then as I mentioned with relative morality. If there are cultures within a dominant culture then the minority views about what is right and wrong are subsumed into the dominant culture.

In that sense you are right that the dominant culture forces the minority cultures to take on their moral views but that is immoral in itself isn't it because it discriminates against the minority cultures right to live out their cultural beliefs.

I agree theism is very popular in the world today, but popularity has never been an adequate indicator of truth.

That's ironic because it seems subjective/relative morality is determined by popularity ie whichever moral determination is mostly agreed upon.

But my point wasn't about the popularity of theism or the concept of right and wrong. It was that scientific research shows that theism and knowledge of right and wrong are innate and a normal cognition in humans.

 

[FireDragon76]

As far as I understand there are similar divine concepts such as Nirvana being like heaven

Nirvana is not a place, it's the absence of greed, hatred, and ignorance.

Also though there is no God there are supernatural entities within some realms though they are still mortal. But the concept of an entity with powers beyond humans is the same.

It's not analogous because Buddhism is a religion based on Dharma or natural law rather than arbitrary edicts of deities.

Still my point was that humans have the fundamental knowledge of right and wrong from birth or at least a very early age (3 months or less) which cannot have been indoctrinated. Likewise with divine concepts come easy to infants and they have a pretty sophisticated belief which are not based on human made ideas.

Just because something might be due to an innate predisposition doesn't make it true.

 

[FireDragon76]

"Similar", in appearance, would include the current Ms Universe
and the common wombat. They are similar.
Just not, you know, real similar. Not enough for sane
comparison.

Exactly.

The moon resembles cheese. Therefore the moon must have had a divine Cheesemaker.

 

[o_mlly]

But I am not making that leap, you are.

Religion, defined as belief in things not demonstrated, renders scientism to be just another religion.

Knowledge of mathematics, of the first principles of natural science, and of metaphysics, is both a priori and a synthetic form of knowledge.

The atheists are as "religious" as Christians; they merely do not wish to admit that they also have faith in things not seen.

 

[stevevw]

Religion, defined as belief in things not demonstrated, renders scientism to be just another religion.

Knowledge of mathematics, of the first principles of natural science, and of metaphysics, is both a priori and a synthetic form of knowledge.

The atheists are as "religious" as Christians; they merely do not wish to admit that they also have faith in things not seen.

Could not agree more.