Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

Consider some of our ethical standards in modern, industrialized societies; we believe slavery is wrong, we believe in being kind to animals, and in protecting the environment, among many other examples.

These are moral values which have arisen only recently, within the last few hundred years. These are not religious morals -- certainly not Judeo-Christian ones. In fact, some of those morals go directly against Biblical scripture, like the abolition of slavery.

These are, instead, modern morals, arrived at through reason, or (if you'd prefer) through areligious means.

 

[Cyan]

Consider some of our ethical standards in modern, industrialized societies; we believe slavery is wrong, we believe in being kind to animals, and protecting the environment.

These are not religious morals -- certainly not Judeo-Christian ones. In fact, some of those morals go directly against Biblical scripture, like the abolition of slavery.

These are, instead, modern morals, arrived at through reason, not religion.

Well, our knowledge and skill in applying knowledge in every other field has advanced since the days of Jesus. Why would morals be any different?

 

[magicstop]

Consider some of our ethical standards in modern, industrialized societies; we believe slavery is wrong, we believe in being kind to animals, and in protecting the environment, among many other examples.

These are moral values which have arisen only recently, within the last few hundred years. These are not religious morals -- certainly not Judeo-Christian ones. In fact, some of those morals go directly against Biblical scripture, like the abolition of slavery.

These are, instead, modern morals, arrived at through reason, or (if you'd prefer) areligious means.

I'd point out that while those may be modern morals, they are not widely practiced. We've largely done away with slavery in the "first world" by exporting it to the "third world," where people serve as both wage slaves and more traditional chattel slaves, still for the benefit of the "first world" masters. We believe in being kind to animals except when it comes to almost any corporate or industrial decision, at which point we then wipe out massive habitats, test drugs and cosmetics on animals, take part in nasty stuff like vivisection, shove thousands of animals in on top of each other standing in their own shit and piss and contracting terrible disease so we can have a plentiful supply of meat, etc. And of course protecting the environment is a joke, as our government and corporations (I know, I know, what's the difference), continue to say one thing and do exactly another, leveling mountains and poisoning entire regions for easy coal, dozing old growth forests and rich habitats for paper towels and chairs, and trawling the oceans for fish, resulting in the extermination and extinction of 90% of the ocean's large fish.

I'd agree with your actual point, that morals are not necessarily derived from religions (and in my mind are better off without religion, when they can stand on their own merit, not the leavings of some god or another), but that a lot of those morals are just as empty and just as much of a lie as anything else.

In fact I should add it to our "list of biggest lies" thread:
Almost any time a politician talks about animals rights, the environment, slavery, or any humanitarian concern.

Just some happy real-talk about morals, religious or not

 

[JGS]

Consider some of our ethical standards in modern, industrialized societies; we believe slavery is wrong, we believe in being kind to animals, and in protecting the environment, among many other examples.

These are moral values which have arisen only recently, within the last few hundred years. These are not religious morals -- certainly not Judeo-Christian ones. In fact, some of those morals go directly against Biblical scripture, like the abolition of slavery.

These are, instead, modern morals, arrived at through reason, or (if you'd prefer) through areligious means.

Agreed, except slavery wasn't mandated, so the abolition of it wasn't something that went against Bible teaching. Slavery's only issue Biblically was in treatment of the slaves and whether God's people at any point in time were allowed to be slaves to someone else.

Basically slavery became a moral issue as labor/technology options grew (It made less sense too) and their treatment became crueler.

 

[Mario]

Thought this might be an interesting and relevant video for the topic - a brief interview of Dawkins on his new book, "The Magic of Reality". He briefly explains his position that reality is more compelling than myth. The book may also explore the broader implications of fiction conditioning the human mind for the suspension of disbelief but I'm not really sure (haven't heard of it before seeing this).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-TFIxW1d10&feature=feedf

Richard Dawkins kills Santa Claus!

 

[elrechazado]

Consider some of our ethical standards in modern, industrialized societies; we believe slavery is wrong, we believe in being kind to animals, and in protecting the environment, among many other examples.

These are moral values which have arisen only recently, within the last few hundred years. These are not religious morals -- certainly not Judeo-Christian ones. In fact, some of those morals go directly against Biblical scripture, like the abolition of slavery.

These are, instead, modern morals, arrived at through reason, or (if you'd prefer) through areligious means.

The religious roots of american abolitionism are clearly established by the historical record, so I would give some credit where due.

 

[Mgoblue201]

The religious roots of american abolitionism are clearly established by the historical record, so I would give some credit where due.

I would hope that any atheist or humanist would not deny the fact that religion is at times a force for good. The more "sophisticated" argument, and one that I think Opiate was trying to get it, is that religion has no moral eminence with which to tout over irreligion. For all of religion's abolitionist roots, you can find just as many individuals using religion as a reason to prop up the institution of slavery as something fundamentally ordained by god. If people use religion to excuse their pre-existing biases, then there must be something else outside of religion that ultimately changed things. I'm not sure how far I would go with this argument, but the emergence of humanist ideas certainly influenced the abolition of slavery.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I would hope that any atheist or humanist would not deny the fact that religion is at times a force for good. The more "sophisticated" argument, and one that I think Opiate was trying to get it, is that religion has no moral eminence with which to tout over irreligion. For all of religion's abolitionist roots, you can find just as many individuals using religion as a reason to prop up the institution of slavery as something fundamentally ordained by god. If people use religion to excuse their pre-existing biases, then there must be something else outside of religion that ultimately changed things. I'm not sure how far I would go with this argument, but the emergence of humanist ideas certainly influenced the abolition of slavery.

Well said. You can find similar contemporary examples of this with the Catholic Church in Africa.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Well said. You can find similar contemporary examples of this with the Catholic Church in Africa.

Which examples are those? I'm interested in hearing about them.

I should clarify that, in America specifically, there were many reasons, particularly economic, for keeping slaves. But if a plantation owner who needed slaves to keep his farm running could tell himself, with a clear conscience, that god ordained slavery (using the Bible to confirm this), then what good is religion as a source for morality? He has simply used religion as a tool to convince himself that god's will aligns with his own best interests. The moral wisdom of religion breaks down at that moment.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Which examples are those? I'm interested in hearing about them.

I should clarify that, in America specifically, there were many reasons, particularly economic, for keeping slaves. But if a plantation owner who needed slaves to keep his farm running could tell himself, with a clear conscience, that god ordained slavery (using the Bible to confirm this), then what good is religion as a source for morality? He has simply used religion as a tool to convince himself that god's will aligns with his own best interests. The moral wisdom of religion breaks down at that moment.

I didn't have anything specific in mind, but the condemnation of birth control/condoms, anti-homosexual propaganda, etc. At least as far as top-down promulgation of the Church's edicts is concerned (official stances). I don't know what the current view of these things might be, however. But they do still feed and help clothe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCdnh7G87m4

This debate covers a lot of where I am coming from pretty well.

 

[Arcblade]

Morals=social norms.

Just sayin'.

If we're going to be discussing what SHOULD be, then we ought to be dicussing ethics.

Ethics is concerned with proper behavior - justice, as it were, in the truest, [human]e sense.

Interestingly enough, justice is also the primary/principle concern of economics.

This doesn't get taught all that much in the American classroom these days, apparently.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I didn't have anything specific in mind, but the condemnation of birth control/condoms, anti-homosexual propaganda, etc. At least as far as top-down promulgation of the Church's edicts is concerned (official stances). I don't know what the current view of these things might be, however. But they do still feed and help clothe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCdnh7G87m4

This debate covers a lot of where I am coming from pretty well.

Religious morality has little to do with actual human well-being. And because it goes against much of what we know of human psychology, it can be dangerous at times.

Incidentally, I was reading in National Geographic today about how most Brazilians ignored the Catholic Church's edicts on birth control.

 

[msv]

Morals=social norms.

Just sayin'.

If we're going to be discussing what SHOULD be, then we ought to be dicussing ethics.

Ethics is concerned with proper behavior - justice, as it were, in the truest, [human]e sense.

Interestingly enough, justice is also the primary/principle concern of economics.

This doesn't get taught all that much in the American classroom these days, apparently.

What? Ethics is all-encompassing concerning morals. You're talking about descriptive morals. What 'ought to be' is normative or prescriptive.

 

[JGS]

Which examples are those? I'm interested in hearing about them.

I should clarify that, in America specifically, there were many reasons, particularly economic, for keeping slaves. But if a plantation owner who needed slaves to keep his farm running could tell himself, with a clear conscience, that god ordained slavery (using the Bible to confirm this), then what good is religion as a source for morality? He has simply used religion as a tool to convince himself that god's will aligns with his own best interests. The moral wisdom of religion breaks down at that moment.

Not really. Much of the American/Eiropean slave trade has little to do with Scripture which is why fellow Christians could spell out the immorality of it's practice. If anything, America muddied the waters by assuming God was on their side and thus blessing slavery. That's not Biblical. It's also not Biblical to kill your slave. It's not Biblical to injure them, etc... Most things discussed about slavery was in regards to their treatment, so one could not justify what the Bible says with how they owned them. They could only say that's what they heard.

Religious morality has little to do with actual human well-being. And because it goes against much of what we know of human psychology, it can be dangerous at times.

Incidentally, I was reading in National Geographic today about how most Brazilians ignored the Catholic Church's edicts on birth control.

This isn't entirely accurate. Religion fits fine in human psychology, just not as a universal message for all since it is specifically designed to discrimanate against teachings and views contrary to it's own. Religions factor a great deal of worship to providing for well-being. It's in our nature to have kids (Heck it's in nature's way to have kids). It's human nature to control our own baby making capabilities whether it's a religion that encourages more or a country that discourages it.

There's no particularly real danger from religion regarding what we like to do because it meshes fine with what our inclinations are and, as mentioned in NG, often ignored when it doesn't. Pre-marital sex is a better example of something totally contrary to Christianity that many Christians engage in.