WHY do religions teach morals?

[charles brough]

Its either a moral code or a moral doctrine, but all religions propose some moral system.

Is it necessary or not? Are we innately moral because we evolved as social beings? Do women teach and protect their children because of religion? Do men protect the group because of religion? This is the normal way we humans behave.

Even so, moral teachings of religion are important because they define and shape our moral nature so we better agree on what is right and wrong.

Marriage, for example . . . we evolved as polygamous creatures but we establish monogamy to build a more functional society. When society breaks down, so does monogamy and people become more polygamous. . .

[charles brough]

it's flat out wrong to assert that religion is absolutely required as a source or continuation of morals, something a lot of theists tend to overlook, but in comes basic understanding of sociology to fix this little oversight.

I think the issue would be clearer if we use the term "ideological system" instead of "religion." What binds us together so we feel secure and a sense of community is common beliefs. If they are old, we call them "religions" but they serve the same function as newer ones---such as Secular Humanism and East Asian Marxism (although the later has no real moral system and has had to adopt the Western Secular legal system just in order to survive). The moral system of our Secular beliefs is a mix of Biblical Christian lore and "freedom," "human rights," "tolerance," etc.

[Choir Loft]

Religions are basically organized structures for people to belong to. People need rules. Seems no big surprise really as to why these religions teach confining/controlling ideas such as morals.

seems to me that is what I wrote but in less detail. Other primate social groups don't need ideological based rules, but we do because we don't live in small hunting/gathering size groups any more like they do. What is important is that the rules are ideological and the ideology is shaped to our social instincts. We are innately moral. Moral systems only clearify and codify our moral nature.

All animal groups have inherited social behavior that is rigidly adhered to. From the ant to the antelope, from the zebra to the chimpanzee. They all have social rules and regulations. They may not be written down on paper, but as any anthropologist will tell you, they are there.

Not so with man. The human animal has no such internal mechanism to create or break a social norm. Most species, for example, have a mating period. Humans do not, its being an open season 365 days a year. Anyone who has ever raised a child knows that no two year old has morals. A child has to be taught.

With regard to morality or social rules, the pattern of development seems to indicate that one with greater power dictates the rules to those in society with lesser power. Those rules are often completely subjective as determined by the group or the group leader.

Religion enters the equation and states that the rules are set by an authority higher than man and his collective community. Further, religion states that the higher authority has the ability to enforce those rules.

[charles brough]

The human animal has no such internal mechanism to create or break a social norm. Most species, for example, have a mating period. Humans do not, its being an open season 365 days a year. Anyone who has ever raised a child knows that no two year old has morals. A child has to be taught.

With regard to morality or social rules, the pattern of development seems to indicate that one with greater power dictates the rules to those in society with lesser power. Those rules are often completely subjective as determined by the group or the group leader.

Religion enters the equation and states that the rules are set by an authority higher than man and his collective community. Further, religion states that the higher authority has the ability to enforce those rules.

I basically agree, but the above implies that religion is the basis for social/moral behavior. I claim, instead, that religion's main function is to unite people into groups larger than they evolved to live in. Yes, men do not have rut, women do not present, and mothers do not kill deformed or albino children. But it is also true that most higher social mammals also teach their young. We are not different in that respect. In the hunting gathering groups before speech enabled us to develop group-binding ideologies, people still did behave socially. Some such groups still survive in remote areas of the Earth.

But when the groups became to large, members begin to develop alliances, the group becomes mbalanced and frought with inner conflict. They finally always broke up into two or more less unwieldy sized groups, the size which evolved to be more or less optimal to us. It still works that way. When our ideological systems become increasingly divided, stress increases. Internal conflict, hostility, stress all increase. The leadership system becomes gridlocked as is happening. All this is normal for us as with all other small-group primates.

While the Decalogue of the Three Religions of the Book was a valuable refinement, moral codes were not common to earlier such mainstream religions. Even the brazenly defective Marxist ideology of East Asia has managed to function without one.

[Choir Loft]

The human animal has no such internal mechanism to create or break a social norm. Most species, for example, have a mating period. Humans do not, its being an open season 365 days a year. Anyone who has ever raised a child knows that no two year old has morals. A child has to be taught.

With regard to morality or social rules, the pattern of development seems to indicate that one with greater power dictates the rules to those in society with lesser power. Those rules are often completely subjective as determined by the group or the group leader.

Religion enters the equation and states that the rules are set by an authority higher than man and his collective community. Further, religion states that the higher authority has the ability to enforce those rules.

I basically agree, but the above implies that religion is the basis for social/moral behavior. I claim, instead, that religion's main function is to unite people into groups larger than they evolved to live in. Yes, men do not have rut, women do not present, and mothers do not kill deformed or albino children. But it is also true that most higher social mammals also teach their young. We are not different in that respect. In the hunting gathering groups before speech enabled us to develop group-binding ideologies, people still did behave socially. Some such groups still survive in remote areas of the Earth.

But when the groups became to large, members begin to develop alliances, the group becomes mbalanced and frought with inner conflict. They finally always broke up into two or more less unwieldy sized groups, the size which evolved to be more or less optimal to us. It still works that way. When our ideological systems become increasingly divided, stress increases. Internal conflict, hostility, stress all increase. The leadership system becomes gridlocked as is happening. All this is normal for us as with all other small-group primates.

While the Decalogue of the Three Religions of the Book was a valuable refinement, moral codes were not common to earlier such mainstream religions. Even the brazenly defective Marxist ideology of East Asia has managed to function without one.

Your argument is all over the place, laced with inaccuracies and illogic.
You begin well enough with a statement about primitive society and go backwards to ancestral primates. That's a stretch, really. If you want to prove developing social norms you need to go forward along the developmental line, not in reverse.

There is no primate group or any animal group for that matter that attempts to explain their own existence. Man does.

Why?

Religion is but a tool to attempt to explain who we are, why we are and what our place is in the cosmos. Animals, be they primates, salamanders or cannibalistic plants do not ask such questions. They simply live in the moment. Man asks questions.

Since you're on a rant against religion (why am I not surprised), try philosophy which predates modern Christianity by centuries. Philosophy also attempts to resolve these questions and it does so without asking donations, performing ceremonies or establishing a priesthood. Same questions - and until the industrial age remarkably similar answers.

Jump to science as another tool to answer questions. Early religion spawned science. Astronomy and mathematics are still basic to scientific inquiry. These started with ancient religion and seek to answer somewhat the same questions; who are we, what is our place in the cosmos, and who else is out there.

If religion is your hang up, then lose it. There is still man - asking questions since before history was written down on paper and stone. Asking the same basic questions that he's always asked. Philosophy of the industrial age has given up trying to answer the questions and instead assigned man to the place of machinery. Man, they say, is nothing more than a cog in the wheels of mechanized society, but the real questions down deep inside remain to be answered and beg to be answered.

The big question is 'who am I'? To ask such a question is to ask about a relationship. Who am I - in relation to what or who? The question demands an answer from something greater than he who asks. Philosophy science religion and machinery attempt to answer but the words are hollow because they don't satisfy. They don't satisfy because they don't meet the questioner where he lives - inside.

Someone must answer the question. Someone who can have a relationship with the asker where he lives. Inside.

That someone is God. The answer is His only to grant.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[charles brough]

richardP:

Your argument is all over the place, laced with inaccuracies and illogic. You begin well enough with a statement about primitive society and go backwards to ancestral primates. That's a stretch, really. If you want to prove developing social norms you need to go forward along the developmental line, not in reverse.

There is no primate group or any animal group for that matter that attempts to explain their own existence. Man does. Why?

Religion is but a tool to attempt to explain who we are, why we are and what our place is in the cosmos. Animals, be they primates, salamanders or cannibalistic plants do not ask such questions. They simply live in the moment. Man asks questions.

Since you're on a rant against religion (why am I not surprised), try philosophy which predates modern Christianity by centuries. Philosophy also attempts to resolve these questions and it does so without asking donations, performing ceremonies or establishing a priesthood. Same questions - and until the industrial age remarkably similar answers. If religion is your hang up, then lose it.

It would appear that my being non-theistic has so offended your belief in God that you are resorting to offensive, even insulting, language in referring to my "being on a rant," my "hang up," and that my "argument is all over the place, laced with inaccuracies and illogic." Why be rude? You are not now a philosophy professor lecturing a class.

Of course, other animals do not ask questions! They have not evolved to where they have speech and need to ask questions. And I do agree with your elemental explanation below of why we ask questions.

Jump to science as another tool to answer questions. Early religion spawned science. Astronomy and mathematics are still basic to scientific inquiry. These started with ancient religion and seek to answer somewhat the same questions; who are we, what is our place in the cosmos, and who else is out there. There is still man - asking questions since before history was written down on paper and stone. Asking the same basic questions that he's always asked. Philosophy of the industrial age has given up trying to answer the questions and instead assigned man to the place of machinery. Man, they say, is nothing more than a cog in the wheels of mechanized society, but the real questions down deep inside remain to be answered and beg to be answered.

The big question is 'who am I'? To ask such a question is to ask about a relationship. Who am I - in relation to what or who? The question demands an answer from something greater than he who asks. Philosophy science religion and machinery attempt to answer but the words are hollow because they don't satisfy. They don't satisfy because they don't meet the questioner where he lives - inside.

Someone must answer the question. Someone who can have a relationship with the asker where he lives. Inside. That someone is God. The answer is His only to grant.
but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

I simply claim that what binds us humans into larger groups than we evolved in is that speech enabled us to develop ideological systems that proposed to answer those very questions. If you examine the many mainstream religions, you can see that they all propose to tell us "what is our origin?" "what are our goals or to achieve?" "how do we proceed to achieve it (the moral system)?" and "what obstacles stand in our way?" With Christianity, the answers are "creation," "Heaven/The Kingdom of God," "the Ten Commandments," and "satan."
All religions tend to first appear based on the prevailing technology but soon lag behind it as it is necessary for them to keep relatively rigid/stable in order to maintain the unity and sense of community needed for their society to survive.

[Choir Loft]

I simply claim that what binds us humans into larger groups than we evolved in is that speech enabled us to develop ideological systems that proposed to answer those very questions. If you examine the many mainstream religions, you can see that they all propose to tell us "what is our origin?" "what are our goals or to achieve?" "how do we proceed to achieve it (the moral system)?" and "what obstacles stand in our way?" With Christianity, the answers are "creation," "Heaven/The Kingdom of God," "the Ten Commandments," and "satan."
All religions tend to first appear based on the prevailing technology but soon lag behind it as it is necessary for them to keep relatively rigid/stable in order to maintain the unity and sense of community needed for their society to survive.

Your definition of religion is that which is accepted by the secular community, albeit a bit distorted in context.

The purpose of religion goes deeper than that of 'thought police'. It serves to accommodate that sense of guilt before the spiritual and a desire for peace with it. Without listing names, the ultimate spiritual presence may be nebulous or precise, the performance of tasks to eradicate guilt as numerous as the cultures of humanity.

When the industrial age commenced, much of the outward thought and action of human groups began to collapse in the face of the power of the work of man's own hands. From the mid-nineteenth century to the present day, man has been slave to his own machinery and to the mental acrobatics necessary to keep society running the wheels. When all a man sees day and night is the grease and the smoke and the pollution of the machinery he needs to keep his society going, he will of necessity forget God. Live or spend a year in a major city like New York and you'll see what I mean. Weeks can go by without sighting so much as a tree a flower a blade of grass or even the sun. Modern man has become trapped by his own gods. Religion has no footing in such an environment, at least little than can be associated with the greater creation that we have separated ourselves from

Have you not read of movement to return to the earth and awareness of our place in it? The loss of a sense of our place in things is at the root of a loss of religious importance .... and God.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[charles brough]

Have you not read of movement to return to the earth and awareness of our place in it? The loss of a sense of our place in things is at the root of a loss of religious importance .... and God. but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

It would seem to me that you have as much genuine concern for the future of the human race as I do even if thought we both think very differently. To me, "spiritual" is a meaningless word. Instead of respecting gods, I respect principles that others just attribute to the gods.

[Choir Loft]

Have you not read of movement to return to the earth and awareness of our place in it? The loss of a sense of our place in things is at the root of a loss of religious importance .... and God. but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

It would seem to me that you have as much genuine concern for the future of the human race as I do even if thought we both think very differently. To me, "spiritual" is a meaningless word. Instead of respecting gods, I respect principles that others just attribute to the gods.

Now you're preaching to the choir

[PREEST]

Its either a moral code or a moral doctrine, but all religions propose some moral system.

Is it necessary or not? Are we innately moral because we evolved as social beings? Do women teach and protect their children because of religion? Do men protect the group because of religion? This is the normal way we humans behave.

Even so, moral teachings of religion are important because they define and shape our moral nature so we better agree on what is right and wrong.

Marriage, for example . . . we evolved as polygamous creatures but we establish monogamy to build a more functional society. When society breaks down, so does monogamy and people become more polygamous. . .

Religion tries to teach morals as a way in which to coerce people into a certain way of behaving. People who actually believed they were going to burn in hell forever if they didn't believe the shoddy evidence for god, would take the moral teaching of religion seriously as to avoid such condemnation and torture.

You only need to look at the IMMORALITY of religion (human sacrifice, vicarious redemption, loving your enemies etc) to see that religion should never be the basis for a persons morals.

Morals are innate. Religion tries to teach morals to validate itself.

[cnorman18]

It has always puzzled me, even long before I became a Jew, that anyone thinks that religion is about anything OTHER than ethics and morals.

The Jewish religion teaches that humans should be ethical, that there is nothing more important than that. Note that those teachings are without reference to divine reward or punishment after death; there is no formal Jewish teaching on that subject. The specific nature of God and the Creation and all that usual "spiritual" hoohah is entirely optional in Judaism and left up to the individual. What you DO is important; what you BELIEVE is not, except insofar as it affects what you DO.

I am speaking of modern liberal Judaism, of course, and not of rigid Orthodoxy. Like modern Christian fundamentalism, "Orthodox" Judaism is a relatively new invention. Before the modern period, Judaism had always been pluralistic in its approaches to belief and practice. Outside the Orthodox community, it still is.