Originally posted by lucifershammerA purely atheistic morality could just as easily lead to Taoism or Zen.
I think the answer to this is - no. A purely atheistic morality that does not draw on existing social norms and mores would be something like that of Nietzsche - a form of morality that depends on the "survival of the fitte ...[text shortened]... om morals originally provided as part of some religious system.
.
There are social morals and social mores; the latter are often what revolutionaries object to.
It's debatable whether morals proceed from religions.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSorry, I should also have clarified that I do not believe in 'love' if defined as containing any element of spirituality. The 'love' I believe in is an synonym for 'care'. So the differentiation I was making was based on the term defined by those of a spiritual nature and embued with a sense of the spiritual. My definition of love is just an evolved form of caring and carries no spiritual side.
[b]I was intoning that it was a human concept created by those of a spiritual/religious nature, who raised it to have a spiritual meaning. Is this clearer?
Not really. You are differentiating "caring" and "love" based on whether there is a "spiritual" component. So, of course, if love must have a "spiritual" component, sure, it would ...[text shortened]... ng there should be more to the definitions of good and evil than pain and pleasure. Am I right?[/b]
So when I talked about loving your family, I was saying that while most people would use the definition of love which contained a sense of the spiritual, I do not believe this sort of love exists. Instead I would say that it is a highly evolved form of care which people misconstrue as that spiritually definied love.
Pulling back from a fire is a learnt or taught instinct, whereas I would claim the instinct to parent correctly is inbuilt and not taught. In this way I am saying that the analogy Halitose used about the parent feeding the child to equate good/evil to pain/pleasure, is limiting. I agree we are now way off topic though.
Originally posted by HalitoseSurely it has to be the first. " ....man inherently good, but has been gnarled and warped by societies, cultures and religions to do evil things?"
Is man inherently good, but has been gnarled and warped by societies, cultures and religions to do evil things?
OR
Is man inherently evil and been gnarled and warped by societies, cultures and religions to do good things?
OR
Is man neutral and been gnarled and blah blah blah to do either good or evil?
Originally posted by TheSphinxThen how do you explain the existance of evil if societies, cultures and religions are also human constructs. This seems like a closed system to me. It needs an injection of evil somewhere... 😕
Surely it has to be the first. " ....man inherently good, but has been gnarled and warped by societies, cultures and religions to do evil things?"
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHistorically, no.
A purely atheistic morality could just as easily lead to Taoism or Zen.
Both Taoism and Buddhism (of which Zen is one variant) arose as reactions to existing theistic religions. I don't know enough about Taoism to say more, but Buddhism certainly draws its spiritual/philosophical precepts (e.g. reincarnation of souls - which was Buddha's primary focus) from the existing Hindu religion.
Originally posted by Palynka
I think the question here resembles the egg and the chicken. You believe society's moral standards were set by religion, I believe religion's moral standards were set by society. The moral codes of religions can change with time, what is the greater reason for it, God or society?
I never argued that all moral norms in society have a religious origin (though I suspect they might very well do). At least some do, however, and if the atheist is to include it in his moral theory, he cannot include it on a purely empirical basis; i.e. because society accepts it as moral.
In terms of institutional religions, one often sees a dialectical process, with religious teachings changing societal norms and vice versa.
The origin or morality itself, however, is a completely different matter.
Societies need notions of good and evil in order to be self-perpetuating. The fact that this needs religion is a fallacy, religion is merely the simplest way to make these notions widespread among the individuals that compose it.
Not necessarily. A code of laws would be simpler.
Societies with dominant religions were stronger due to that same point. In case of conflict, the good would always be on the side of that society for the individuals and the evil would be on the side of the infidels.
This argument is anachronistic. Virtually every human society has some form of religion - even when they have no history of conflicts with other societies. The Indus Valley Civilisation is a case in point. Indeed, there is evidence that even prehistoric man practised some form of religion. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, thinking of religion as a survival trait does not explain why it should be common before a threat to the survival of the society/community/civilisation arose. We like to think of prehistoric man as being in a state of continuous warfare. The reality is that prehistoric communities would've been so far from each other geographically that they would probably not encounter another society in several generations.
Religion is a survival mechanism in times of conflict and an agglutinating force in societies.
See above. Near ubiquity of a survival trait does not make sense if found before the threat.
I believe this made sense when conflict was the main source of dominance in the world, but nowadays economic power is beginning to be as important as military power and religion loses it's agglutinating force when individuals are more educated*.
Uneducated people are not less smart than educated people! Also, conflict between human societies is a relatively recent (in the complete history of the human race) phenomenon.
So if power can also be gained by cooperation instead of merely conflict, then everything that draws a strong line between "us" and "them" can be harmful and that's why tolerancy (accompanied by a military defence, obviously) can become a trait of the fittest societies.
Even today, it is not clear that the "fittest" societies are the tolerant ones. Who are the dominant nations in the world today? How "tolerant" are they?
Again, religions change with society, so it is society that is dominating the moral codes within religions, not merely a refining of these interpretations. Notice how it is society who usually forces religious institutions to change their dogmas, not the other way around (unless the institutions themselves are replaced, which can be seen again as society changing the moral code).
That's a cop-out. If the widespread adoption of a religion (e.g. Christianity in Rome or Islam in several nations) causes the change of societal norms, then the religion precedes the change ontologically.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn terms of institutional religions, one often sees a dialectical process, with religious teachings changing societal norms and vice versa.
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]I think the question here resembles the egg and the chicken. You believe society's moral standards were set by religion, I believe religion's moral standards were set by society. The moral co ...[text shortened]... orms, then the religion precedes the change ontologically.[/i][/b]
I disagree, whenever religious teachings change societal norms is when society, or it's ruler, change its dominant religion. If it's the first, it is society changing the norms, if it's the second it's the ruler imposing new moral standards via religion. Religion is but a tool.
I don't think it's dialectical at all. Has a religion ever changed one of it's dogmas without the pressure of society (without change of religion)? I think not, religious institutions have an interest in preserving dogma, thus preserving power.
Not necessarily. A code of laws would be simpler.
Is there any code of laws that is not based on notions of good and evil? How do they determine each law, if not by writing what they believe to be right (good) and wrong (evil)?
Virtually every human society has some form of religion - even when they have no history of conflicts with other societies.
This is unprovable, especially considering that the value of religion in the strength of societies. In prehistoric man, there is evidence that some societies had some form of religion, there is no proof that they all had, which is what you are claiming.
I'm merely claiming that the the possibility (which is also unprovable) that the ones that became dominant were the religious ones. This makes a lot of sense to me, due to the arguments I've provided regarding the agglutination of society.
This is a personal view, that I have no intention of claiming it is the truth, what I claim is that other views of these origins are also personal and must be presented with an explanation. God is your explanation, one that I do not accept, much as you do not accept mine.
Near ubiquity of a survival trait does not make sense if found before the threat.
Again, can you prove this ubiquity was found before the threat? No and neither can I, so it makes more sense to me to believe both were possible at some point and after the threat, one became dominant (for the reasons I've exposed).
Uneducated people are not less smart than educated people!
That's demagogic and an emotional appeal for political correctness. For the same individual, education helps in his perception of the society around him. Do you dispute that?
Even today, it is not clear that the "fittest" societies are the tolerant ones. Who are the dominant nations in the world today? How "tolerant" are they?
I did not claim they were, I claimed that tolerancy has now more advantages than before. History is too slow to claim anything at the moment, I just said it's a possibility.
If the widespread adoption of a religion (e.g. Christianity in Rome or Islam in several nations) causes the change of societal norms, then the religion precedes the change ontologically.
The rejection of a religion is a special case. See my first paragraph.
Originally posted by KellyJayif belief in god is the moral compass to which you refer, then you have defined the moral compass out of the atheist's hand.
I agree atheists have morals, but how do you think you can say
that an atheist can claim a moral compass? I'm not saying that
atheists do not have morals, just a moral compass. A compass
points in one direction being guided by something outside of
themselves that does not change, without something outside of
the atheist to guide them, are they not simply just floating and
taking in what ever sounds good at the time?
Kelly
if god himself is due north in your analogy, then i think you would have to admit that a moral compass is within reach of the atheist. after all, you yourself were atheist until you became christian, correct? if you were not drawn to god systematically, then i would conclude that your adoption of christianity was spurious and arbitrary.
putting those academic points aside, i am not bothered when you say that the atheist has no 'moral compass' when your idea of proper moral compass functionality entails an unchanging external source, such as an existent god. in my opinion, neither does the theist have a moral compass by that definition (though he may think he does). even if god exists, he cannot reasonably dictate morality simply through fiat. more plausible is simply the fact that each man possesses an internal mechanism to distinguish right from wrong based on at least two factors (the latter of which may be externally imposed at least to a degree): 1. his capacity for rational thought. 2. the influence of his cultural surroundings.
are (atheists) not simply just floating and taking in what ever sounds good at the time?
no. this does not follow. i am not a feather, simply floating around wherever the fair winds blow. i often willingly trudge against the winds of myopic hedonistic pleasure.
Originally posted by HalitoseLet's say you hear a man screaming for help.
Is man inherently good, but has been gnarled and warped by societies, cultures and religions to do evil things?
OR
Is man inherently evil and been gnarled and warped by societies, cultures and religions to do good things?
OR
Is man neutral and been gnarled and blah blah blah to do either good or evil?
You want to help AND you want to run away.
We might say that the desire to help is some kind of herd instinct, and the desire to run away is from the instinct for self-preservation.
But then there is that third voice! This is the voice that tells us you SHOULD risk your life to go and help the man in danger.
When you give in to that voice, knowing it is the 'right' thing to do, you are manifesting the image of God embodied within. When you reject that 'should' voice, and opt in the selfish direction of self preservation, you are demonstrating the 'inherent badness' we can only overcome with God's help.
Originally posted by StarrmanOk, I am confused. Can you elaborate on what you meant when you said
Sorry, I should also have clarified that I do not believe in 'love' if defined as containing any element of spirituality. The 'love' I believe in is an synonym for 'care'. So the differentiation I was making was based on the term defined by those of a spiritual nature and embued with a sense of the spiritual. My definition of love is just an evolve ...[text shortened]... ild to equate good/evil to pain/pleasure, is limiting. I agree we are now way off topic though.
I'd hazard a guess that the origins of the notion of love are founded within the spiritual/religious realm. I cannot imagine that love existed before humans developed the ideas of higher/holy realms/beings. I cannot see a need for it.
Pulling back from a fire is a learnt or taught instinct
I am referring to the reflex in which you involuntarily pull your hand away once you feel the pain from the fire. Do you really believe this is learned? Regardless of whether this particular case is a learned response, there are some responses which are unconcious. Dilation of the eye, change in rate of heartbeat, etc. Going hungry so your child will be fed is certainly not one of these sorts of things.
In this way I am saying that the analogy Halitose used about the parent feeding the child to equate good/evil to pain/pleasure, is limiting.
The thing is, I disagree with your conclusion. I think this is very relevant to the discussion. If something is instinctive and unconcious, then there's no choice involved, and good and evil are irrelevant unless defined in terms of the outside consequences of the act.
Originally posted by Palynka
I disagree, whenever religious teachings change societal norms is when society, or it's ruler, change its dominant religion. If it's the first, it is society changing the norms, if it's the second it's the ruler imposing new moral standards via religion. Religion is but a tool.
Once again, why would society change its dominant religion unless there were something about the religion itself that causes them to convert? The same with the ruler (I imagine you're thinking of Constantine).
Is there any code of laws that is not based on notions of good and evil? How do they determine each law, if not by writing what they believe to be right (good) and wrong (evil)?
But that's not the same as a religion. A religion is a model of spirituality and theology from which moral norms follow.
This is unprovable, especially considering that the value of religion in the strength of societies.
That religion is of value in strengthening societies does not prove that is how religion came about.
In prehistoric man, there is evidence that [b]some societies had some form of religion, there is no proof that they all had, which is what you are claiming.[/b]
Of course, if we had detailed information on prehistoric man, we wouldn't call him "prehistoric", would we? 🙂
I'm merely claiming that the the possibility (which is also unprovable) that the ones that became dominant were the religious ones. This makes a lot of sense to me, due to the arguments I've provided regarding the agglutination of society.
With respect to prehistoric man, it does not make sense to talk of "dominant societies" (and we must use the term "society" loosely in this context) because that presupposes a conflict between societies. As I pointed out earlier, the geographic dispersion of prehistoric societies would've rendered inter-societal conflicts highly improbable.