The corruptive force of religion

[Jester]

This question came up in another thread, in which it was pointed out that religious people often do good things for selfish reasons (such as getting into heaven). To this, I added the thought that Christ accuses the religious elite of his time of being less ethical than the least religious.
On the other side of the coin, every sociological study I've run across has placed religious groups mostly even with the non-religious in terms of altruism. (Personally, I tend to believe that the religious group is probably more polarized in terms of good and bad persons than the non-religious, but averaging to about the same.)

In any case which is it, and why?

[Goat]

This question came up in another thread, in which it was pointed out that religious people often do good things for selfish reasons (such as getting into heaven). To this, I added the thought that Christ accuses the religious elite of his time of being less ethical than the least religious.
On the other side of the coin, every sociological study I've run across has placed religious groups mostly even with the non-religious in terms of altruism. (Personally, I tend to believe that the religious group is probably more polarized in terms of good and bad persons than the non-religious, but averaging to about the same.)

In any case which is it, and why?

Because there are good people, and there are bad people, regardless of religion. Both the good people and the bad people who are religious will justify their behavior with their religion.

[Jester]

That would mean that they all acknowledge the others as at least partially right; they simply view their own as most right. I suppose the same goes for non-religious philosophies as well.

Or kill eachother
... quotation about killing non-believers from Deuteronomy...

I'll agree that there is a great deal of hostility between religions. My comment was directed at the idea that all have at least some shared beliefs, and did not mean to imply that this led to some sense of comradery (apologies there). Moreover, I agree with the notion that such differences are significant, and not to be brushed aside (though I do not, in any way, support violence as a solution to the problem).

Or from the mouth of DRS:

I'm going to have to admit to ignorance here. Who is DRS?

LORD JESUS CHRIST is the only way to GOD and all other ways are false.

Personally, I agree with this one, and don't really see that anyone should have a problem with others believing that their religion alone is true. Unless, of course, the speaker is attaching a judgmental attitude to the statement. The fact is that all people believe our way of explaining life is the correct one and, therefore, that others are incorrect. That is simply part of the definition of believing something.
When this issue is presented, I usually comment that belief that someone else is wrong is hardly negative in and of itself. Rather, I would say that tolerance is not refusing to disagree, but being empathetic toward those with whom you disagree.

I'll thoroughly agree with the notion that many religious people are intolerant of others (and, frankly, shame on us when we are that way). On the other hand, I'm equally upset by those who refuse to make a decision about life because someone may disagree with their position. Neither of these options are roads to enlightenment.

Yeah, I'm really not sure how much religions depend on eachother.

Personally, I don't think they do much at all. I merely meant to say that some of the things said are true of all religions.

[Jester]

Because there are good people, and there are bad people, regardless of religion. Both the good people and the bad people who are religious will justify their behavior with their religion.

I'd agree with that - with the stipulation, of course, that religion does have some real effect on behavior. Which sort of effect would depend on the person and his/her understanding of the religion in question.

But, basically, I agree.

[Nilloc James]

I'd agree with that - with the stipulation, of course, that religion does have some real effect on behavior. Which sort of effect would depend on the person and his/her understanding of the religion in question.

But, basically, I agree.

Or how liberal their view of the religion but besides that I agree completely.

[Negative Proof]

This question came up in another thread, in which it was pointed out that religious people often do good things for selfish reasons (such as getting into heaven). To this, I added the thought that Christ accuses the religious elite of his time of being less ethical than the least religious.
On the other side of the coin, every sociological study I've run across has placed religious groups mostly even with the non-religious in terms of altruism. (Personally, I tend to believe that the religious group is probably more polarized in terms of good and bad persons than the non-religious, but averaging to about the same.)

In any case which is it, and why?

Hey Jester. Sorry I'm a little late getting here, haven't been around much.

For the sake of discussion, I think it would help to agree upon a definition for altruism or altruistic. The definition I've always used reads something like "with complete disregard for onesself; selfless". Let's see what Dictionary.com has to say...

al·tru·ism (�l'tr��-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
Zoology Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives.

Pretty close. I think we can agree that they key term is "unselfish".

It always bothered me a little that people think they can accurately identify altruism, when any action imaginable has a selfish aspect or explanation. I had a very involved discussion with a good friend one night, and we came to the conclusion thatthe most altruistic thing we were capable of doing was to lay down our lives for a loved one. However, even this has a selfish explanation.

Say my wife was crossing the street, and was oblivious to the fact that a bus was speeding her way. I would attempt to get her to safety, even if it meant that I could lose my life in the process. On the surface, this seems like a truly selfless action. However, when you take into account that it is ME who wants to keep her safe, it becomes a selfish action. Even though I would be dead and would no longer benefit from the safety I preserved, the mind doesn't make decisions in such a way. Our minds are programmed to believe that we will continue to exist in some form or another, hence our difficulty grasping death and nothingness.

Also, in contrast to her safety being my wish, I'm sure if asked afterward, my wife would say that she would gladly have traded places with me (for her to die and me to have lived). This not only calls into question the selflessness of the action, but also of my desire for her safety.

Why would I want to keep her safe in the first place? This also sounds selfless on the surface, but given my emotional involvement, and love being a give-and-take, I get something out of our relationship, and obviously want it to continue. I don't want to lose the happiness that she provides me with. Sincere, but still selfish.

Many people say that they would dive in front of a bus for a stranger. I would suggest that most of these are religious people, and that they would view this as a "free" ticket to heaven. That, or they have an uncommon (unique?) love and trust in humanity. I'd like a chance to pick the brain of someone who would do this and believes in no salvation or afterlife.

I think this illustrates the point I was trying to make before. I maintain that any action can be shown to have a selfish motive behind it, and that we can not be certain which motive drives any seemingly selfless action.

Oh, and I (perhaps erroneously) assumed that this definition of altruism would be acceptible. Let me know if you've got another suggestion and I'd be glad to consider it.

[JoeyKnothead]

I don't think any particular group has a lock on morality. Folks is folks, plain as that.

Are theists less ethical than non-theists?

Yes and no. In my opinion, where a theist declares their religion as a superior ethical guide, and then act in opposition, I find this especially egregious. As before though, I don't think any one group, generally, is more or less ethical or moral than another. Now we can bust me here by counting criminals as a group, but I hope folks would see through such tactics.

On the other side of the coin, every sociological study I've run across has placed religious groups mostly even with the non-religious in terms of altruism.

I see no reason to discount this. Of course some religious groups are and must be above average, and so we could narrow the scope down to make an argument that such particular groups are more ethical. I don't think this would apply though when we stick strictly to religious vs nonreligious as our only groups.

This OP points me to the notion that we, as members of a particular group, must be on our best behavior if we are to convince another of the merits of our ethical/moral philosophies.

[Jester]

Hey Jester. Sorry I'm a little late getting here, haven't been around much.

No rush. I'm a big believer in the idea that internet debating should take a back seat to real life.

For the sake of discussion, I think it would help to agree upon a definition for altruism or altruistic.

I think your definition is very workable for this topic, I'm in favor of using it.

But, getting to the heart of your comments:

On the surface, this seems like a truly selfless action. However, when you take into account that it is ME who wants to keep her safe, it becomes a selfish action. Even though I would be dead and would no longer benefit from the safety I preserved, the mind doesn't make decisions in such a way. Our minds are programmed to believe that we will continue to exist in some form or another, hence our difficulty grasping death and nothingness.

This idea has great merit, but I would argue that I also have great difficulty grasping the idea that my wife could die. All of the deaths and near deaths I've faced have left me far more shocked than I had thought I'd be.

But, to the bigger question of unselfishness:

Why would I want to keep her safe in the first place? This also sounds selfless on the surface, but given my emotional involvement, and love being a give-and-take, I get something out of our relationship, and obviously want it to continue. I don't want to lose the happiness that she provides me with. Sincere, but still selfish.

I will agree with the idea that it is possible to propose a selfish action for all behaviors. I even believe that some selfish motivation exists behind all actions. I'm not convinced, however, that such motivations are therefore the only in existence - or even always primary.
Yes, we believe that we ought to help others, and being pleased with this could be called a selfish motivation, but this seems to be based on the paradigm that someone wouldn't be motivated to do something unless it somehow benefits him/her personally:
Basically, we seek to explain all motivation based on how it benefits the actor. Using such reasoning to prove that no behavior is unselfish would be circular reasoning. Thus far, both proposals can adequately explain the data. In order to establish one as more reasonable, we would have to select a behavior, which is both physically possible and altruistic, that humans have never practiced.

Of course, you do make such a suggestion:

Many people say that they would dive in front of a bus for a stranger. I would suggest that most of these are religious people, and that they would view this as a "free" ticket to heaven. That, or they have an uncommon (unique?) love and trust in humanity. I'd like a chance to pick the brain of someone who would do this and believes in no salvation or afterlife.

As would I.
However, I do have a bit of disagreement with this here. I'd like to point out that such actions are not considered to be a way of getting to heaven according to many theists (including myself). As such, this would not be a motivator. One could argue that theists do not believe that they are sacrificing as much, which would certainly be true, but is also not a motivator.

I think this illustrates the point I was trying to make before. I maintain that any action can be shown to have a selfish motive behind it, and that we can not be certain which motive drives any seemingly selfless action.

That is a fair enough point, but unfortunately defeats both suggestions equally. If it is simply physically impossible for us to take an action that cannot be explained in terms of selfish motivation, we have not established that this as a sole motivation. In general (drifting a bit off-topic, apologies), I take a soap-box about similar situations. The argument "this explains the data, therefore no other is needed" has been presented many times on this forum, and I, not finding it compelling, try to keep discussions from relying on it whenever possible.
So, that seems a bit too inconclusive, let me at least present my opinion before going:
I believe that humans, being social creatures, have both altruistic and selfish motivations for nearly every action we take. In general, I believe that our selfish motivations are more potent, but not pure. In fact, I would propose that some of what we call "selfish" motivation is actually altruistic. One would say that many people only give to the poor for selfish reasons (feeling like a good person, escaping guilt about being better off, etc.). While there is clearly a certain amount of truth here, we wouldn't have a problem with guilt, or exalt the concept of a "good person" if humans didn't have this inescapable belief in right and wrong. The very act of feeling guilty or like a good person seems to establish that we are willing to give up valuable things simply to do the right thing. This can be, and often is, twisted for selfish purposes (such as giving to the poor to impress others), but the basic fact that this motivation exists in humanity does nothing for the individual.

[Jester]

I don't think any particular group has a lock on morality. Folks is folks, plain as that.

Yeah, I think that's the bottom line here.

On the other side of the coin, every sociological study I've run across has placed religious groups mostly even with the non-religious in terms of altruism.

I see no reason to discount this. Of course some religious groups are and must be above average, and so we could narrow the scope down to make an argument that such particular groups are more ethical. I don't think this would apply though when we stick strictly to religious vs nonreligious as our only groups.

I'm heading back to this as my personal position here. One interesting fact is that there seems to be a huge gulf between what is known as "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" religion (the former being the more ethical of the two). Perhaps I should make more of a point that I only defend that sort of Christianity.

This OP points me to the notion that we, as members of a particular group, must be on our best behavior if we are to convince another of the merits of our ethical/moral philosophies.

This is really why I wanted to comment on your post. This point deserves a great deal more attention. We do seem to make the mistake that "being really good" should convince people of the truth of what we claim. More than that, we probably do tend to view people to much in terms of groups, rather than each person as unique.
So, no real debate (sorry). Just wanted to bounce off of your thoughts here.

[Negative Proof]

I think your definition is very workable for this topic, I'm in favor of using it.

Excellent.

I will agree with the idea that it is possible to propose a selfish action for all behaviors. I even believe that some selfish motivation exists behind all actions. I'm not convinced, however, that such motivations are therefore the only in existence - or even always primary.

I didn't mean to argue that selfish motivations were the only motivations, and if I came across that way, i do apologize. My point was that because these selfish motivations exist, there can be no positive claim of pure altruism.

Yes, we believe that we ought to help others, and being pleased with this could be called a selfish motivation, but this seems to be based on the paradigm that someone wouldn't be motivated to do something unless it somehow benefits him/her personally: Basically, we seek to explain all motivation based on how it benefits the actor. Using such reasoning to prove that no behavior is unselfish would be circular reasoning. Thus far, both proposals can adequately explain the data. In order to establish one as more reasonable, we would have to select a behavior, which is both physically possible and altruistic, that humans have never practiced.

Fair enough. I take this to mean that it can't be proven that any behavior is completely selfish, and it can't be proven that any behavior is altruistic (boy, this paradox sounds really familiar).

I do thank you for pointing this out to me. The rational position to take on the subject would be to say "I don't believe that any action is purely unselfish or altruistic" rather than "No altruistic action can be taken because there are selfish motivators, and we can't know which is the primary reason for the action." I even used the words "can't know" in my original position, so it should have been glaringly obvious to me that to make a positive claim would be irrational.

However, I do have a bit of disagreement with this here. I'd like to point out that such actions are not considered to be a way of getting to heaven according to many theists (including myself). As such, this would not be a motivator. One could argue that theists do not believe that they are sacrificing as much, which would certainly be true, but is also not a motivator.

I apologize if I have offended anyone, as that was not my intent. I suppose the way it's presented can come across that way, but I was merely musing on what would cause someone to take such an action, and was unable to come up with any reason that would be rational to me. It seemed to me that to lay one's life down for another (especially a stranger) would, for lack of a better term, "score major points" with a loving diety, and this was the only suggestion I could come up with as to why someone would do that. Now that I've thought it through, though, it does come across as a bit pejorative. Rest assured, it was simply my mind grasping for straws. My apologies once again, I meant no offense.

I think this illustrates the point I was trying to make before. I maintain that any action can be shown to have a selfish motive behind it, and that we can not be certain which motive drives any seemingly selfless action.

That is a fair enough point, but unfortunately defeats both suggestions equally. If it is simply physically impossible for us to take an action that cannot be explained in terms of selfish motivation, we have not established that this as a sole motivation. In general (drifting a bit off-topic, apologies), I take a soap-box about similar situations. The argument "this explains the data, therefore no other is needed" has been presented many times on this forum, and I, not finding it compelling, try to keep discussions from relying on it whenever possible.

I completely agree, and didn't intend any attempt to conclude the discussion based on the presentation on my ideas. I merely meant to relate my examples back to my original opinion, to "tie it all together".

So, that seems a bit too inconclusive, let me at least present my opinion before going:
I believe that humans, being social creatures, have both altruistic and selfish motivations for nearly every action we take. In general, I believe that our selfish motivations are more potent, but not pure.

Agree.

In fact, I would propose that some of what we call "selfish" motivation is actually altruistic. One would say that many people only give to the poor for selfish reasons (feeling like a good person, escaping guilt about being better off, etc.). While there is clearly a certain amount of truth here, we wouldn't have a problem with guilt, or exalt the concept of a "good person" if humans didn't have this inescapable belief in right and wrong. The very act of feeling guilty or like a good person seems to establish that we are willing to give up valuable things simply to do the right thing. This can be, and often is, twisted for selfish purposes (such as giving to the poor to impress others), but the basic fact that this motivation exists in humanity does nothing for the individual.

Very good point. My one disagreement, however, is that while the pangs and rewards of the conscience do promote altruistic behavior, another immediate motivation as applied to the individual (as opposed to just right or wrong) would be "to feel good" or "to not feel bad", which are both selfish. Also, humans have comparitively advanced minds and can choose to ignore or yield to these feelings. Since this is the case, I believe that true altruism is possible in zoology through evolved social instict, but whether or not it is possible in humanity cannot be certain.

Again, thank you for helping me to refine my position. My point the entire time was that an action can't be proven to be 100% altruistic, but I took that extra step and made a positive claim, which was a fallacy.

My opinion on motivation is that people most often act according to the selfish motivations behind any given action, even to the point of making primarily unselfish actions an incredible rarity. I wouldn't venture to say that this is necessarily a bad thing, nor that the opposite (selflessness) is necessarily a good thing. Sometimes being selfish can be unethical, and sometimes being selfless can be foolish.

If asked what this opinion is based on, I can only offer personal opinion and interpersonal observation, with emphasis on the inherently limited scope of my observation skills.

[JoeyKnothead]

This OP points me to the notion that we, as members of a particular group, must be on our best behavior if we are to convince another of the merits of our ethical/moral philosophies.

This is really why I wanted to comment on your post. This point deserves a great deal more attention. We do seem to make the mistake that "being really good" should convince people of the truth of what we claim. More than that, we probably do tend to view people to much in terms of groups, rather than each person as unique.
So, no real debate (sorry). Just wanted to bounce off of your thoughts here.

Just for clarificating, here I meant only the ethical/moral, and not the A/Theist debate. In the A/Theist realm I would hope evidence would rule the day.

Kinduva side note: I think it is a product of humans being social creatures that creates this tendancy to place one another in groups. Of course each individual should be considered as such, but I don't think there is any real way to avoid folks getting put in this or that corral. And it quits being a side note as it indicates folks should try to set a good example as individuals who know some knucklehead is gonna come along and try to label them as this or that group.

(edit for tags)