Is Religion or God The Basis of Morals 2nd Edition?

[JoeyKnothead]

My other thread got jacked, so let's try it again.

I've seen it claimed by several theists that God or maybe religion is the basis of morals. When confronted on these claims, the subject never gets addressed, and like my other thread, theists at least seem to want to go off topic, and not address their claims.

So I present to y'all:
Is God or religion the basis of morals?

I say morals are the result of tribes coming in closer and closer contact with one another. Over the course of time, morals such as not stealing became important because of the potential of social disruption. Of course I will expand on this, but let's see what those who have made the original claim have to say.

[Bennettresearch]

As no other theist has yet provided an answer, I will take the bait then

If you define "God" as the creator of the universe, then yes, he is the source of all morals since he created them together with everything else. If you reject this definition, then not.

I would argue against religion being the source of all morals, since some animals do indeed also have morals and AFAIK they aren't religious.

But I would say that religion is a source of morals, just like parental upbringing, education, culture and inner conscience, all of these things overlapping and intimately connected of course.

Hi Sjoerd,

I find it fascinating that you would acknowledge moral behavior in animals. There are still some who argue against animals having emotions, which we observe all of the time. It was even considered a scientific breakthrough when the theory was proposed that Velocoraptors nurtured their young. It does, however, discredit religion with being the basis of morals.

True, a system of laws has been developed from our earliest societies, but who wrote the laws and where did that come from? I would argue that it was a matter of making a final decision, at whatever time, as to just which moral practices would be enforced. The morals were already in existence. It is the same with religion.

I will concede one point here and that is the necessity of teaching morals. Why people can get so out of hand when left to their own devices is truly baffling at times.

Craig

[JoeyKnothead]

True, a system of laws has been developed from our earliest societies, but who wrote the laws and where did that come from?

Briefly, in order to keep a growing society peaceful, laws against murder are merely an attempt to keep the peace. Where previous tribes would kill others, combining tribes into larger cultures, retribution would be meted out by councils, judges, or etc. If murder is avenged by individuals, then you get a Hatfield/McCoy thing going.
Prohibitions against murder have not always existed, nor are they universal to this day.

[Bennettresearch]

I think your problem, bud, is that they know this is, to borrow from your metaphor, a heavily baited question. You're asking with the intent of contradicting anyone who says 'yes' with the mountains of evidence that supports the fact, and I say fact knowing full well it is an actual fact, and not one of those things theists would pass off as a fact ("God sees everything!") that they're (very) wrong.

I would go so far as to say that religion is maybe the #1 historical justification for immorality. It's ok to do something bad if you think God wants you to.

I'll be back later to Jack this thread, I'm thinking the Religious meaning of Seinfeld.

Sorry C-Nub, you are wrong.

The #1 reason for immorality is an unrestrained ego. Our morality is taught more by training the ego than trying to inject the knowledge of right and wrong into our brains. Morals exist inside of us from birth, I won't argue whether this is evolutionary in origin or from God, they are just there. The problem is teaching the ego to step aside and allowing the inner mind to work.

Maybe you didn't intend to say it that way, but you seemed to imply that relgion was more of a source of immorality than anything else. This is not true. We seem to be struggling with moral relativism in our society and this is ubiquitous as no single group can claim the high ground.

I will support one idea I think you have brought up. Being religious doesn't make one moral necessarily and all kinds of actions can be rationalized behind religion. I would argue however, that spiritualism does bring out moral behavior and is readily observable even though it is sometimes a little overly moral.


Craig

[Bennettresearch]

True, a system of laws has been developed from our earliest societies, but who wrote the laws and where did that come from?

Briefly, in order to keep a growing society peaceful, laws against murder are merely an attempt to keep the peace. Where previous tribes would kill others, combining tribes into larger cultures, retribution would be meted out by councils, judges, or etc. If murder is avenged by individuals, then you get a Hatfield/McCoy thing going.
Prohibitions against murder have not always existed, nor are they universal to this day.

Hey Joey,

Sorry, I just don't accept that it can be reduced that far. To view it as merely pragmatic is to dismiss those more refined laws that decide the outcome of disputes from a moral basis. Like, who had the right to keep what, as they were the original owner, and things like that.

The act of deciding what was right or wrong in even the earliest tribes was based upon something that had already existed and wasn't "invented" to solve situations. I think you are confusing the rationalization process for the standard of morals in a given society. Murder could be justified for a given rationalization. A society might accept that where another wouldn't. You can take my woman but I'll kill you if you steal my horse!!!!!

Craig

[JoeyKnothead]

Hey BR, this topic got shifted over to another thread:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9263

Grab yer gear, they're biting in that pond.

[McCulloch]

Prohibitions against murder have not always existed, nor are they universal to this day.

I beg to differ. Since murder is by definition the unlawful killing of another human, then the prohibition against it would be universal. What changes from society to society and age to age is which forms of homicide are unlawful and which forms are not.

[Cathar1950]

Prohibitions against murder have not always existed, nor are they universal to this day.

I beg to differ. Since murder is by definition the unlawful killing of another human, then the prohibition against it would be universal. What changes from society to society and age to age is which forms of homicide are unlawful and which forms are not.

That looks like a legal definition of murder.
It seems to me that there has to be a social organization that looks at the taking of another life. I am not disagreeing with you as much as I am wondering where law or morality are centered if the organization was a family or a tribe.
Granted they overlap but morality, law and ethics are not the same at all types of social organization.
I am just thinking out loud.

[McCulloch]

Prohibitions against murder have not always existed, nor are they universal to this day.

I beg to differ. Since murder is by definition the unlawful killing of another human, then the prohibition against it would be universal. What changes from society to society and age to age is which forms of homicide are unlawful and which forms are not.

That looks like a legal definition of murder.
It seems to me that there has to be a social organization that looks at the taking of another life. I am not disagreeing with you as much as I am wondering where law or morality are centered if the organization was a family or a tribe.
Granted they overlap but morality, law and ethics are not the same at all types of social organization.

The claim is that murder has not always been considered wrong. But homicide, the killing of one human by another is not always considered wrong in any society. There are a number of different homicides. One significant difference is whether the killing was justified by the rules of the society. Self-defense, state sanctioned executions and death in battle are all forms of homicide that are usually considered within society's rules. Killing of slaves, death in a duel, killing to protect the family honor and sacrifices to the gods have all at one time or another also been allowed under the rules of society and therefor not considered murder.

I guess that the conclusion is that there is no evidence that murder can be used as an example of an objective moral value.

[Cathar1950]

Prohibitions against murder have not always existed, nor are they universal to this day.

I beg to differ. Since murder is by definition the unlawful killing of another human, then the prohibition against it would be universal. What changes from society to society and age to age is which forms of homicide are unlawful and which forms are not.

That looks like a legal definition of murder.
It seems to me that there has to be a social organization that looks at the taking of another life. I am not disagreeing with you as much as I am wondering where law or morality are centered if the organization was a family or a tribe.
Granted they overlap but morality, law and ethics are not the same at all types of social organization.

The claim is that murder has not always been considered wrong. But homicide, the killing of one human by another is not always considered wrong in any society. There are a number of different homicides. One significant difference is whether the killing was justified by the rules of the society. Self-defense, state sanctioned executions and death in battle are all forms of homicide that are usually considered within society's rules. Killing of slaves, death in a duel, killing to protect the family honor and sacrifices to the gods have all at one time or another also been allowed under the rules of society and therefor not considered murder.

I guess that the conclusion is that there is no evidence that murder can be used as an example of an objective moral value.

I don't see where there is any indication of an objective morality, including murder.
There are social bonds that could very well be inherited traits such as displayed by other soicial animals.
I do think morals and laws become objectified but they seem to be rather flexible and relative.
It would seem that if murder was really some universal law then they would not have to make it a law or even codify it.
Murder seems to come with so-called more complex social orders.

[Bennettresearch]

Checkin' my hook. Nope, not even a nibble. Worm's dead, puttin' another'n on.

Hey Joey,

Instead of using worms, why don't you anchor your pole to the dock and take a big hook and jam it up your rear end real deep, and then jump in. You'll probably catch something then.

Just trying to help


Craig