|
Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil? (religion) (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Research on the development of morality point to a biological predisposition and social influence (like any other human behavior). Religion is not the backbone of morality. It is just another social influence on the development of morality. Look at countries like the netherland. They are not very religious people yet the rates of crimes or 'amoral' behavior is not any higher than in more 'religious' countries. On the contrary, if you look at 'deeply religious' countries such as the US, Latin America, Israel and many Arab countries, those countries have higher incidences of 'amoral' acts. Higher crime rates, abuse against women and minorities, less freedoms and less consideration and help directed towards others. If this is the case, we don't need to answer the question you pose, but more how can we support religion as the backbone of morality. In my opinion if you did a correlational study between an operational definition of morality (say crime rates, respect for human rights, help provided to struggling people, etc), im pretty sure the relationship would be strong and negative.
|
I'de like to see these statistics you cite.
| quote: | | As for your second question, you can not argue that we humans are of higher intellect and then attribute a behavior completely to animalistic instincts. Murder is not a simple behavior. Circumstances and internal predispositions and the actions of others all affect wether it happens or not. Your oversimplifying the event. |
Misunderstood. Starting from the assumption that religion is not the backbone of a moral society, but of a "natural" society, why shouldn't murder be classified as simply "survival of the fittest"? It isn't oversimplified.
| quote: | | Edit: Im officially returning the question to religious folk here. How does religion enhance moral behavior, and if so, how do you explain the (apparent) inverse relationship between religious belief and moral behavior? |
1. Assumption: Religion is the back-bone of a moral society.
Religion is no different in stopping criminal or "sinful" behavior than the laws that governments rule by. You can have a theocracy and still have crime. No religion or government can totally take control of peoples hearts. There is no enhancement of morality. You either are or are not. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I'de like to see these statistics you cite.
|
Common, lets be realistic, who's gonna fund research on these topics? Reread my paragraph, the only assertions I make relying on research is the development of morality. You want research on that, I'll be more than happy to share those with you. The rest is my personal opinion based on observation. On the subject of crimes and the.
edit: Thanks for the challenge, I found exactly a study like I had assumed.
edit2: I notice the bias in the above statement. I couldn't find a study disconfirming my initial assumption though.
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Interesting Discussion on Paper
| quote: |
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.
|
| quote: |
Misunderstood. Starting from the assumption that religion is not the backbone of a moral society, but of a "natural" society, why shouldn't murder be classified as simply "survival of the fittest"? It isn't oversimplified.
|
It's the same argument for me. You are assuming that religion IS the backbone of a moral society. There is no evidence for your argument. A more logical choice is to assume that morality developed as a cost efficent way to maintain relative aggression free primitive societies. Obviously with the perpetual increase in our cognitive abilities morality has been molded into our current systems. The assumption that morality and religion are inexorably linked is a modern creation and has absolutely no historical or even logical basis.
| quote: |
Religion is no different in stopping criminal or "sinful" behavior than the laws that governments rule by. You can have a theocracy and still have crime. No religion or government can totally take control of peoples hearts. There is no enhancement of morality. You either are or are not.
|
So if you agree that morality was not created by religion, how can you argue religion is the backbone of morality. If you claim that morality develops because religion delineates certain guidelines for behavior, than any other system that does the same thing could be considered the 'backbone' of morality. |
|
|
| Taranis |
| quote: |
Research on the development of morality point to a biological predisposition and social influence (like any other human behavior). Religion is not the backbone of morality. It is just another social influence on the development of morality. Look at countries like the netherland. They are not very religious people yet the rates of crimes or 'amoral' behavior is not any higher than in more 'religious' countries. On the contrary, if you look at 'deeply religious' countries such as the US, Latin America, Israel and many Arab countries, those countries have higher incidences of 'amoral' acts. Higher crime rates, abuse against women and minorities, less freedoms and less consideration and help directed towards others. If this is the case, we don't need to answer the question you pose, but more how can we support religion as the backbone of morality. In my opinion if you did a correlational study between an operational definition of morality (say crime rates, respect for human rights, help provided to struggling people, etc), im pretty sure the relationship would be strong and negative.
As for your second question, you can not argue that we humans are of higher intellect and then attribute a behavior completely to animalistic instincts. Murder is not a simple behavior. Circumstances and internal predispositions and the actions of others all affect wether it happens or not. Your oversimplifying the event.
Edit: Im officially returning the question to religious folk here. How does religion enhance moral behavior, and if so, how do you explain the (apparent) inverse relationship between religious belief and moral behavior?
|
At this point yes, it's the case that non-religious people generally act by a moral guideline, but that moral guideline is heavily influenced by judeo-christian values, usually come down to that person in some manner from a religious source. What happens when that source is removed, or society otherwise becomes seperated from it. I'm not arguing for the present, but for the only course I can see for a future with no religion. The existance of religion within society maintains the existance of those morals, although there isn't a strictly necessary link between belief in the divine and adherance to a moral code.
| quote: |
It's the same argument for me. You are assuming that religion IS the backbone of a moral society. There is no evidence for your argument. A more logical choice is to assume that morality developed as a cost efficent way to maintain relative aggression free primitive societies. Obviously with the perpetual increase in our cognitive abilities morality has been molded into our current systems. The assumption that morality and religion are inexorably linked is a modern creation and has absolutely no historical or even logical basis.
|
Yes, but we're not arguing over how morals developed, thats already been covered. We've arguing about what maintains morals. What happens when people realise that morals are merely, as you put it, 'a cost efficent way to maintain relative aggression free primitive societies.' We're no longer a stone age tribal society, people will realise that they don't 'need' to act in a moral manner, because as I said, people don't usually care about how society as a whole fairs in comparison to their own welfare and personal pleasure. Of course you won't see any huge direct impact, because even if belief in the divine fades, moral behaviour is much more deeply imbedded. But give it 2, 3, 5 generations, and what are you going to tell people when they say 'but WHY can't I rape and murder and steal?'
'oh, don't do it because society as a whole suffers?' Good luck with that. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Taranis
At this point yes, it's the case that non-religious people generally act by a moral guideline, but that moral guideline is heavily influenced by judeo-christian values, usually come down to that person in some manner from a religious source. What happens when that source is removed, or society otherwise becomes seperated from it. I'm not arguing for the present, but for the only course I can see for a future with no religion. The existance of religion within society maintains the existance of those morals, although there isn't a strictly necessary link between belief in the divine and adherance to a moral code.
Yes, but we're not arguing over how morals developed, thats already been covered. We've arguing about what maintains morals. What happens when people realise that morals are merely, as you put it, 'a cost efficent way to maintain relative aggression free primitive societies.' We're no longer a stone age tribal society, people will realise that they don't 'need' to act in a moral manner, because as I said, people don't usually care about how society as a whole fairs in comparison to their own welfare and personal pleasure. Of course you won't see any huge direct impact, because even if belief in the divine fades, moral behaviour is much more deeply imbedded. But give it 2, 3, 5 generations, and what are you going to tell people when they say 'but WHY can't I rape and murder and steal?'
'oh, don't do it because society as a whole suffers?' Good luck with that. |
you can't rape and murder and steal because it harms society, if you do so, society will harm you back. and while you may be the fittest in a contest between you and another man (e.g. murder), society is 'fitter' than you (e.g. prison).
from a different perspective, neither rape, nor murder, nor theft prove that the criminal is fitter than the victim, rather, they prove weaknesses in the criminal, he is weaker than the victim because he is unable to attain that which he desires in a way which is conductive to society; in effect reasons to rid of him. |
|
|
| Taranis |
| quote: |
you can't rape and murder and steal because it harms society, if you do so, society will harm you back. and while you may be the fittest in a contest between you and another man (e.g. murder), society is 'fitter' than you (e.g. prison).
from a different perspective, neither rape, nor murder, nor theft prove that the criminal is fitter than the victim, rather, they prove weaknesses in the criminal, he is weaker than the victim because he is unable to attain that which he desires in a way which is conductive to society; in effect reasons to rid of him.
|
So what you're saying is that it would be a society where the only reason people don't do something is because the law tells them to?
The effectiveness of the law notwithstanding, is that really the kind of society you'd want to live in? |
|
|
| Psy-T |
q. why would most people remain moral in an entirely not religious society?
a. aside from legislated morality (fear of going to jail/etc), people who know this life is all they have - that there is no afterlife at least from their own prespective will want to live on in some way: in memory, they will behave in particular ways in order to be remembered in particular ways. they will do moral things to be remembered as moral persons, they will do amoral things to be remembered as amoral persons.
that (likely subconscious) consideration would guide them and 'keep them in check' as it already does now, except that now, that consideration only takes a prominent role late in a person's life. i'd venture to say it takes prominance even over religious beliefs, exactly because it is usually subconscious. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Taranis
So what you're saying is that it would be a society where the only reason people don't do something is because the law tells them to? |
in as much as in our current society, the 'only' reason people don't do something is because religious dogma tells them to... |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
in as much as in our current society, the 'only' reason people don't do something is because religious dogma tells them to... |
There's a quaint irony there that the very same dogma causes them not to act when they perhaps should and do things which are for the betterment of themselves and society.
Guess it's a part trade-off of having given up one's sense of survival for spiritual well being and replacing the real with an ideal. |
|
|
| Taranis |
| quote: | a. aside from legislated morality (fear of going to jail/etc), people who know this life is all they have - that there is no afterlife at least from their own prespective will want to live on in some way: in memory, they will behave in particular ways in order to be remembered in particular ways. they will do moral things to be remembered as moral persons, they will do amoral things to be remembered as amoral persons.
that (likely subconscious) consideration would guide them and 'keep them in check' as it already does now, except that now, that consideration only takes a prominent role late in a person's life. i'd venture to say it takes prominance even over religious beliefs, exactly because it is usually subconscious. |
Except does that really come into play in a society with no external moral guidance beyond the government? If people don't believe that X is innately wrong, then why would they care about being remembered for doing X. I also believe this is less of a factor than you state, my gut feeling is that as soon as people came to believe that only oblivion awaits after death, they'd be far less likely to care what people think or how they'll be remembered. I've hardly made a study of psychology or the like though, so I couldn't say for sure.
| quote: | | in as much as in our current society, the 'only' reason people don't do something is because religious dogma tells them to... |
No, but the majority of societies moral guidance comes down in some form from a religious source, if perhaps indirectly. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
There are many cases where 'morality' of religious people is used as a way to pass off personal responsibility to someone/thing else.
A couple of primitive yet related examples:
"I don't cheat on my wife because God says its a sin" is a way of saying that one doesn't want to be held responsible for hurting the feelings of ones spouse if they did do what they could very well be thinking of doing at the time. By invoking the term 'sin' you automatically throw the towel of responsibility for an action into the confines of "spiritual forces".
Which leads into the "sin" defense argument of:
"Forgive me, Father, I have cheated on my wife. Satan has gained influence on me and caused me to sin." This is what I like to call the "Swaggart" defense. You both skirt the responsibility of asking forgivness from the entity directly effected by your actions, and blame the action itself on someone/thing else.
There are countless ways in which religion gives people a way to shed personal responsibility off on some other entity who will never be held accountable, cannot defend said actions, and (if they do in fact exist) is probably not happy with being given the responsibilty for every action people don't want to take responsibility for themselves.
I am not a fan of organized religion as a whole, but I don't begrudge people who feel they need the comfort of faith. What I do have a problem with is people who ignore what is clearly observable in the world and resort to irrational explanations solely to show others it is ok to continue to follow their "word of god" instead of using their own capacity for reason to process the information.
MrS |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Taranis
Except does that really come into play in a society with no external moral guidance beyond the government? |
the government isn't our moral guide in this context, it's our morality enforcer. the consensus of the people is what decides morality, not that of the government. hence that question is fallacious.
| quote: | Originally posted by Taranis
If people don't believe that X is innately wrong, then why would they care about being remembered for doing X. |
because it'd be a unique way to be remembered? :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Taranis
I also believe this is less of a factor than you state, my gut feeling is that as soon as people came to believe that only oblivion awaits after death, they'd be far less likely to care what people think or how they'll be remembered. I've hardly made a study of psychology or the like though, so I couldn't say for sure. |
it's a basic extension of our desire to live forever, just like procreation. |
|
|
| venomX |
There's research that shows that humans of capable of empathy (i.e. helping someone at a cost without expecting to recieve any benefit). I don't remember the name of the study, but it was quite clever. Basically they separated people that were only helping if it benefit them from people that were willing to help without any type of reward, be it monetary, social or egoistic. There wasn't any relationship between religiousness and empathy in that study.
One study I like is one they conducted at a religious seminar. What they did is that they would give a group of seminarists a lecture on the good samaratin parabole. They also measured how 'religious' the semarists were. Then they would tell them they had to give a lecture on this subject at another part of the seminar as part of their project. They were either told they had plenty of time to get there (i.e. 30mins when it takes 10 to get there) or that they were already late and needed to hurry. On the way to the lecture place (there was only one possible route) a person that looked like he was in deep pain and sick was sitting on the floor, wailing. They found that the only predictor of helping behavior was time, not religiousness! Mind you, this is at a seminar! This people are supposed to be uber religious, and yet even the most religious one would only help if enough time was available.
I think many of you are just scared of an uncertain future, and are just falling back on religion as a safeguard. Remember, boats weren't made to stay sitting at the port, they were meant to weather storms. |
|
|
|
|
