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?

[Jester]

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.

Okay, I think I'm understanding better, then.

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).

That it does. Personally, it bothers me how often things in life seem to come down to judgment calls.

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.

I can't speak for anyone else, but can say that I wasn't offended in the slightest. It was an honest question, and I think that we all accept that we're dealing with touchy issues. So, no apologies necessary.

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.

This is a fair suggestion. I believe that there are more noble motivations as well, but see nothing wrong with pointing this out - it's definitely relevant.

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".

Ah, that does make sense. Well, disregard that last, in that case.

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.

Indeed.
this does make me wonder a bit about my own understanding of altruism.
As it stands, I believe that the most noble motivator is best called gratitude:
I don't actually have the right word, but I mean to say appreciation for a thing outside of it's use for some other end of our own. Essentially, finding it beautiful or inspiring. I believe that it is possible to enjoy something (or someone) in that sense, and instinctively treat it kindly/carefully without even unconscious awareness of receiving some special reward for doing so.
I do not believe that any act of a human is ever perfectly moral, but I do believe that some acts are primarily motivated thusly.

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.

I would actually claim the opposite myself. I believe that it is the choosing between a "good" instinct and a "bad"one that is the act of moral virtue/depravity. The instincts themselves, by my understanding are neither moral nor immoral.

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.

Glad for whatever help I was there - and thanks for the same to me. I'm having to sort out many of my thoughts as well here.

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.

That is an excellent point. I've been revisiting the idea that it is not the instinct that is moral or immoral, but our choice of how to react to the various instinctive drives in a given situation. Perhaps I ought to take that more seriously.

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.

The more I learn, the more I believe this to be the case for all of my opinions (*sigh*). In any case, I think I understand your position better at this point. Thanks.