A World without Religion?

[Charlemagne_III]

Imho the world would definitely be much better off without religious fanatics.

Love not hate.

It would seem that anyone to the right of you is a religious fanatic.

How is that not hateful?

And I don’t believe for a moment that you have a humble opinion about conservatives.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Everything points to the conclusion that maintaining your religion is no guarantee of social well being and losing it is no guarantee of social ills.

Typical atheist propaganda.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, so much for piety. It doesn’t seem to be working, does it, Charles. Do you have a Plan B?

You think those are difficult?

1. Where is the atheist’s moral system without God?
   We read, discuss, argue, debate, evaluate, cogitate, ponder, test, learn. We doubt. We listen to all sides of any given argument. We learn from those who suggest ways to make the world a better place and also from those who have already made mistakes from which we can learn. We use the wisdom of those who have gone before us, including great religious figures, to build on. We reject cant, hypocrisy, affected piety and likewise appeals to authority. We discount the supernatural. We believe that not everyone is born equal, but each deserves to be treated equally. We agree to change our views when presented with a better argument.

This is your Plan A?

Who decides morality if not God? You personally? How’s that going to work for the world?

But you can’t use the wisdom of religious figures who have gone before you, since you believe religion is foolish to begin with. Where did these religious people get their wisdom if not from their God?

You could bone up on your basic logic skills.

In a world without religion, every man gets to invent his own moral wheel.

A recipe for moral anarchy. Prove otherwise?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Who decides morality if not God?

People make decisions on morality. Note that statement is not dependent on the existence or non-existence of Yahweh.

But you can’t use the wisdom of religious figures who have gone before you,

What we know of people that came before us can be a consideration. Whether the person was of one of the religions or not doesn’t necessarily exclude recordings of the person’s experience from consideration. Knowing that someone was religious isn’t an indicator that the person is a moral role model. Knowing a person was non-religious doesn’t indicate that a person had egregious moral failings. You might find religious people with which you have moral disagreements or non-religious people with which you have moral agreement.

Where did these religious people get their wisdom if not from their God?

Humans are social. For all of us part of what we know and how we make decisions is influenced by the people that touch our lives both directly or indirectly. We have success and we have failures. We notice patterns. Any of these and more may play a role in how some given figure (religious or not) makes decisions and comes up with rules for various situations.

 

[tonyrey]

…but if I give a specific quote from a linked article simply to highlight the inanity of Tony’s post, then you are up in arms complaining about something I hadn’t even suggested.

It is sheer idiocy to imply that the existence of a million one-parent families has nothing whatsoever to do with people’s (dis)belief in the sanctity of life and marriage. Is it an absolute coincidence that the breakdown of marriage and the increase in the number of suicides (and abortions in particular) have accompanied the decline in religious belief and church attendance? If it is we are justified in believing millions of miracles occur in our secular society!

What is this mysterious factor that has led to such a drastic change in so many people’s habits in such a short period of time? The influence of the media is, of course, negligible with programmes like those of David Attenborough gloating over the fact that a little boy sitting on the banks of a river in west Africa has a worm boring through his eyeball turning him blind before he’s five years old. Gloating? Yes, because he regards it as a trump card for the atheist…

 

[Latias]

What is this mysterious factor that has led to such a drastic change in so many people’s habits in such a short period of time? The influence of the media is, of course, negligible with programmes like those of David Attenborough gloating over the fact that a little boy sitting on the banks of a river in west Africa has a worm boring through his eyeball turning him blind before he’s five years old. Gloating? Yes, because he regards it as a trump card for the atheist…

People indeed have concepts of merit and justice, of which are often reasonable and practical in the realm of human interaction, in addition to one’s natural aversion to suffering and disability. David Attenborough’s example is one of the many examples prevalent in the human condition where one can provide a vivid and disconcerting impression that is rather incongruous with the notion that a benevolent and justice God while evoking sentiments of sympathy for the child. Certainly, one cannot argue that the child has done anything to merit such a condition, although Christians do argue that the child has been affected by original sin. But the notion of “original sin” is derived from religious inculcation (from cultural influence), not from philosophical reasoning that is detached and independent of that culture. One’s dispassionate reasoning would lead one to believe that child is merely the hapless victim of natural processes, and it is difficult to discern any divine providence in that occurrence.

Indeed, one can say that Catholicism (as Protestants do not emphasize this), for better or for worse, perverts one natural inclination to avoid suffering, see it has having extraordinary redemptory qualities, such as purifying one’s soul and allow one to experience the Passion, and it is something to be embraced for getting closer to Jesus. I still find this to be absurd, but I hope that I may eventually have the fortitude to want to be crucified with Christ.

Even as Blue and Red agnostic (and Catholic), I dislike the callous ambition and self-interest of Black as Black is the color of amorality (rather than explicit immorality), and the rigidity, moralism, and sanctimoniousness of White. My point is that non-theists are not necessarily amoral or immoral (myself being an example) and one does not need to embrace the strictures of White (in this case a religious morality) to behave ethically and have compassion towards one’s fellow human beings.

Imho the world would definitely be much better off without religious fanatics.

As Voltaire stated:

It looks, therefore, that Bayle should have examined rather which is the more dangerous, fanaticism or atheism. Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion, whereas fanaticism does: atheism is not opposed to crime, but fanaticism causes crimes to be committed. Fanatics committed the massacres of St. Bartholomew. Hobbes passed for an atheist; he led a tranquil and innocent life. The fanatics of his time deluged England, Scotland and Ireland with blood. Spinoza was not only atheist, but he taught atheism; it was not he assuredly who took part in the judicial assassination of Barneveldt; it was not he who tore the brothers De Wit in pieces, and who ate them grilled.

“Atheism is not opposed to crime” because it does not inherently carry a moral code; it is just a belief in the proposition that there is no supernatural entity (or at least one possessing the attributes ascribed to Him by orthodox theists). But this should also invite one to study the origins of religious morality. A question that should arise is whether religious morality is truly transcendent and sublime or rather reflects the mores, customs, and interest of the society and culture it serves.

I would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince, who would find it to his interest to have me ground to powder in a mortar: I should be quite sure of being ground to powder. If I were a sovereign, I would not wish to have to deal with atheist courtiers, whose interest it would be to poison me: I should have to be taking antidotes every day. It is therefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the idea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be deeply engraved in people’s minds.

I am more afraid of dealing with psychopaths who are bereft of “natural honesty and benevolence” and compassion, those possessing “vaulting ambition” like Macbeth, and religious fanatics than atheists. The former two embody the negative traits of Black.

 

[tonyrey]

I have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever.

Highly convenient!

OK, guys. Time out. I think we need you, Tony and Charles, to give us an example of a Christian society. If you are going to use the term secular to indicate a country where the minority of people identify as being religious, then, call me stupid, but it would seem that a country where the vast majority of people class themselves as Christian could reasonably be classed as ‘a Christian country’.

You underestimate the number of incompatible versions.

It seems that you guys will shout it from the rooftops to defend your point of view where that epithet supports your view but will actively deny it when something is pointed out that causes you a problem.

How about you have the cojones to call it as you see it and stick to that view and not flip, flop, slide and slink around whether you are indeed a Christian Nation or not depending on which way the debating wind is blowing.

A simplistic view of human nature - at odds with a fellow atheist’s verdict:

“In truth, there was only one christian and he died on the cross.”

An exaggeration, of course, because others have followed their Master’s example and died for their faith but it is far closer to the truth. Unlike atheism, which admits of no moderation, there is a wide range of degrees of fidelity to the teaching of Christ even among those who profess to follow the same version.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What we know of people that came before us can be a consideration. Whether the person was of one of the religions or not doesn’t necessarily exclude recordings of the person’s experience from consideration. Knowing that someone was religious isn’t an indicator that the person is a moral role model. Knowing a person was non-religious doesn’t indicate that a person had egregious moral failings. You might find religious people with which you have moral disagreements or non-religious people with which you have moral agreement.

The question is whether, in a world without religion, you can craft a moral system without reference to religious leaders and founders of religion who represent themselves as messengers of God.

Well obviously you can’t because then you do not have a world without religion, nor a morality without reference to God.

Start from scratch. What are the philosophical foundations for a morality without God?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

An exaggeration, of course, because others have followed their Master’s example and died for their faith but it is closer to the truth. Unlike atheism, which admits of no moderation, there is a wide range of degrees of fidelity to the teaching of Christ.

No equivocating there. You are either an atheist or you are not.

 

[Rhubarb]

Forgive me if I’m retreading something from earlier. 25 pages of posts is hard to get through.

There are plenty of foundation moral theories that philosophers have put forth that do not depend on an appeal to a divinity. I guess we could fight about what grounds the theories themselves - but I don’t really see how, for instance, Bentham’s style of utilitarianism depends on religion. Of course, there are problems with Bentham’s utilitarianism. But we can pigeonhole any philosophical theory.

 

[tonyrey]

People indeed have concepts of merit and justice, of which are often reasonable and practical in the realm of human interaction, in addition to one’s natural aversion to suffering and disability. David Attenborough’s example is one of the many examples prevalent in the human condition where one can provide a vivid and disconcerting impression that is rather incongruous with the notion that a benevolent and justice God while evoking sentiments of sympathy for the child. Certainly, one cannot argue that the child has done anything to merit such a condition, although Christians do argue that the child has been affected by original sin. But the notion of “original sin” is derived from religious inculcation (from cultural influence), not from philosophical reasoning that is detached and independent of that culture. One’s dispassionate reasoning would lead one to believe that child is merely the hapless victim of natural processes, and it is difficult to discern any divine providence in that occurrence.

Indeed and that is the case. Only Calvinists and their ilk believe every drop of rain is expressly sent by God but it is simplistic to go to the other extreme of rejecting Providence lock, stock and barrel.

Indeed, one can say that Catholicism (as Protestants do not emphasize this), for better or for worse, perverts one natural inclination to avoid suffering, see it has having extraordinary redemptory qualities, such as purifying one’s soul and allow one to experience the Passion, and it is something to be embraced for getting closer to Jesus. I still find this to be absurd, but I hope that I may eventually have the fortitude to want to be crucified with Christ.

There seems to be a contradiction there! But the Cross is folly to the vast majority…

Even as Blue and Red agnostic (and Catholic), I dislike the callous ambition and self-interest of Black as Black is the color of amorality (rather than explicit immorality), and the rigidity, moralism, and sanctimoniousness of White. My point is that non-theists are not necessarily amoral or immoral (myself being an example) and one does not need to embrace the strictures of White (in this case a religious morality) to behave ethically and have compassion towards one’s fellow human beings.

Most people, thank God, are inconsistent with regard to what they believe and how they behave!

As Voltaire stated:

“Atheism is not opposed to crime” because it does not inherently carry a moral code; it is just a belief in the proposition that there is no supernatural entity (or at least one possessing the attributes ascribed to Him by orthodox theists). But this should also invite one to study the origins of religious morality. A question that should arise is whether religious morality is truly transcendent and sublime or rather reflects the mores, customs, and interest of the society and culture it serves.

If morality is no more than an expression of a particular geographical sample of human activity it ceases to be moral! It has no rational foundation and amounts to expediency. Follow the herd lest you be ostracised!

I am more afraid of dealing with psychopaths who are bereft of “natural honesty and benevolence” and compassion, those possessing “vaulting ambition” like Macbeth, and religious fanatics than atheists. The former two embody the negative traits of Black.

There have been and still are atheist fanatics who imprison and slaughter dissidents. They do not embody White!

 

[Bradski]

Typical atheist propaganda.

If I were trying to persuade somebody that there is a direct link between between the religiosity of a country and the apparent well being of it’s citizens then you may have a point.

But it’s not me that is doing it. It is you. And Tony. It seems all to easy to pull a ‘fact’ out of the air (and try to back it up with a link to a fundamentalist web page) when it is patently obvious that the same problems, to a greater degree, occur in Christian societies as opposed to any one of the more secular countries you think might prove your point.

We are not proposing a link, we are refuting the one that you are making.

And you are constantly looking outwards to see why you have the problems. When they are in-house. It’s not millions of atheists who are having abortions or getting divorced or having sex outside marriage or using contraception. And it is not liberal propaganda or the media or homosexual fifth columnists infiltrating every medical organisation on the planet or some TV presenter pointing out some of the ugly aspects of the natural world that is causing this.

Because if it is, you must be some of the most gullible and easily led people since the invention of the wheel.

This is your Plan A?

I count 20 separate methods. Plan A? I’m nearly out of alphabet, Charles. I only stopped because it was my turn to make dinner. As I said, let me know if you want any more.

Who decides morality if not God? You personally? How’s that going to work for the world?

How can this not be working. You ask me where morality would come from without religion and I give you quite a comprehensive answer and you simply ignore it as if it was never written and ask the same question, worded slightly differently.

But you can’t use the wisdom of religious figures who have gone before you, since you believe religion is foolish to begin with. Where did these religious people get their wisdom if not from their God?

Are you saying that I am not allowed or it is physically impossible? Whether I regard any religion or any aspect of religion or any given religious figure as being foolish does not in any way disallow me from investigating what religions in general have to say about morality.

And this may surprise you, they almost always agree with each other on the important points. Don’t go around killing anyone for no reason, don’t steal things, respect each other etc. Now I don’t know about you, but I am pretty certain (no, I am ABSOLUTELY certain) that I would have reached these conclusion myself starting from scratch. The fact that you might say that ‘Do Not Kill’ is specifically a Christian commandment doesn’t interest me in the slightest. What does interest me is the undoubted fact that society would break down if we didn’t do our very best to follow that rule.

We would agree on almost every single aspect of morality you’d care to mention. That’s because we are all relatively reasonable people and would like to live in a society that has some order. Where we can feel relatively safe. I feel confident that the majority of people would reach decisions that would result in such a stable society with or without religion. However, if you personally feel that you need some guidance then I have no problem with that.

Incidentally, the aspects of morality that spring to mind on which we would disagree would be playing with your own genitals, sex before marriage, contraception and gay sex. Notice any link there?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The question is whether, in a world without religion, you can craft a moral system without reference to religious leaders and founders of religion who represent themselves as messengers of God.

Sure you could! (note: the question is subjunctive which is why I speak from the perspective of living in the world we have today).

Start from scratch. What are the philosophical foundations for a morality without God?

See my earlier reference to my contributions to the thread “Morality without God.” I think my other contributions in that thread might answer this question for you.

 

[Bradski]

Start from scratch. What are the philosophical foundations for a morality without God?

Bradski: OK, guys. I’ve got you all together because it seems there have been some problems on the island of late and we need to sort them out. We need some standards of behaviour to which we all agree.
Dave: Like, ummm, a set of morals?
Bradski: Exactly, Dave. Now, before we go on, can I just ask if anyone here believes in a deity?
Chorus: No.
Bradski: Fair enough. We’ll do this from first principles. Now Harry, if you can take the minutes?
Harry: Hang on, my stylus is missing…
Dave: Ah, yes. It’s a really nice stylus and as I needed one and they are such a pain to make, I took it.
Harry: But it’s mine.
Dave: Yeah, but I just wanted to have it.
Harry: But if we can just take things whenever we wanted to, then I can just take your lunch.
Dave: Well I don’t think so. I cooked this last night and it belongs to me.
Bradski: OK, settle down. Maybe this should be one of the rules: If something belongs to another person, you are not allowed to just take it from him. Otherwise it’s open slather and we’ll all end up taking whatever we want. That’s not really conducive to a stable society, is it…
Harry: But how are we going to enforce this?
Bradski: Well, we can have a punishment for those who are caught taking things.
Dave: But I could take something without anyone knowing it was me.
Bradski: True. But then others would be tempted to do the same. And that would result in all sorts of problems. So if you steal something you are risking the stability of society. Do you want to do that?
Dave: Well, of course not. We’re all reasonable people here.
Bradski: So are we all agreed on ‘Do Not Steal’ as the first commandment?
Chorus: Aye!
Harry: Excuse me, Dave. I need my stylus to minute that…
Bradski: OK, that was straightforward. Now on to the next subject. Masturbation…

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t agree that everyone is. We (as in specifically you and I) have had a discussion on this before about a year ago in the thread "Morality without God…

Yes. As I recall, you seemed to be offering apologia for why some sociopathic individuals might go against their conscience.

But it seems to me that the examples you provided in that thread of people who were acting morally were actually…foll lowing their conscience (i.e.: the individual who steals to feed his family).

In the end, I think you do actually espouse the view that no moral person can act in violation of his conscience.

It is untenable for any thinking agent to believe that when we evaluate a person’s actions we conclude that a person may actually be acting morally when she disobeys her conscience.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes. As I recall, you seemed to be offering apologia for why some sociopathic individuals might go against their conscience.

No, R, not at all. My only use of the word “sociopath” in that thread was preceded by the word “ignoring.” I don’t have any interest in defending sociopaths.

But it seems to me that the examples you provided in that thread of people who were acting morally were actually…foll lowing their conscience …]

I gave examples of people that have made a moral judgement but make a decision that is incompatible with their judgement for various motivations. The other motivations included “paying for educational expenses, for personal advantage, or for entertainment and thrill.”

But it appears that you’ve filtered out the other motivations to support a subtle tautology. If I substitute the usage that you provided for “morality” you are saying "people who were acting morally were actually…foll lowing their intellect applied to morality "

So are you trying to make the assertion that “moral people act moral”? (assuming that a moral person is a person whose behaviour is moral)?

In the end, I think you do actually espouse the view that no moral person can act in violation of his conscience.

I have the view that any person can make a decision that violates her own moral judgement provided there is a motivation for doing so.Whether or not something is thought to be moral is not the only consideration that a person might make in coming to a decision. There are other anticipated consequences, outcomes, and “rewards” (among other possible motivations) that may be influencing factors in a decision.

 

[PRmerger]

No, R, not at all. My only use of the word “sociopath” in that thread was preceded by the word “ignoring.” I don’t have any interest in defending sociopaths.

Fair enough.

I gave examples of people that have made a moral judgement but make a decision that is incompatible with their judgement for various motivations.

Wait…what???

You gave examples of people who made moral judgements that are incompatible with their [moral] judgement?

That is a gaga, lala, nonsensical statement.

Even if you omit that which I have added in brackets, it still is an absurd statement. I simply added the word “moral” in brackets to emphasize that all judgement we make about issues dealing with morality are…er….moral judgements.

Remember, the universe of discourse here is morality. So when we talk about “judgements” what is understood is that we are talking about “moral judgements”.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

The question is whether, in a world without religion, you can craft a moral system without reference to religious leaders and founders of religion who represent themselves as messengers of God.

Well obviously you can’t because then you do not have a world without religion, nor a morality without reference to God.

Start from scratch. What are the philosophical foundations for a morality without God?

Can you craft one with a higher power? Let’s say the creator of the universe thinks it’s bad to eat cheese on Tuesdays. Why does that make it automatically bad? If you’re willing to assume that the creator of the universe exists and that his or her moral preferences are objectively valid, why can’t I assume (for example) that actions which reduce human welfare are bad?

 

[PRmerger]

If you’re willing to assume that the creator of the universe exists and that his or her moral preferences are objectively valid, why can’t I assume (for example) that actions which reduce human welfare are bad?

I would reject this creator, just like you would.

 

[Latias]

Fair enough.

Wait…what???

You gave examples of people who made moral judgements that are incompatible with their [moral] judgement?

That is a gaga, lala, nonsensical statement.

Even if you omit that which I have added in brackets, it still is an absurd statement. I simply added the word “moral” in brackets to emphasize that all judgement we make about issues dealing with morality are…er….moral judgements.

Remember, the universe of discourse here is morality. So when we talk about “judgements” what is understood is that we are talking about “moral judgements”.

Isn’t it possible one could hold a non-cognitivist view on a given moral proposition?