DiscussMormonism.com

Did anyone read the Time Magazine article this month?

Haven't read the article.

Sure they are just as moral. I think its a pretty basic understanding among most people, that our communities function function best when individuals follow the golden rule. Granted this does not occur 24/7, but we feel good about extending kindness to others. Moral social behavior helps us interact with our peers. A belief in God does not start or stop this behavior.

Are atheists equally moral compared to whom? Other atheists? Some are some aren't. Believers? Same answer.

Maybe a link or summary could move this discussion along?

Sorry I was just trying to spark something beforehand.

The article spoke of empathy as the basis for morality. It said monkeys have been known to have empathy and that morality is pretty much an innate characteristic in humans. But it also said that a sense of right and wrong is useless until someone teaches you how to apply it.

To me that opened the door for the meaning of religion. Religion does in fact teach people this. The point is it doesn't all come naturally, even though the basic recipe is already there.

The article said that humans have a conflicted sense of when to help someone and when not to. It said the general rule was to help someone close to you, but humans are less likely to naturally want to help people on the other side of teh planet. This is because they do not relate to them. One generally has empathy only towards those close to them.

So, what is behind most charities that raise money to feed the starving in Africa? Religions generally speaking.

I'm trying to point out that religion can and does, help humans apply their innate sense of morality. Would there even be food sent to Africa, without theism? Even this scientific piece seemed to unwittingly admit the need for some outside guidance, although it doesn't come right out and say "Good thing we have religion." It did refer to the "Good Samaritan" principle however.

It also spoke of "shunning" as a powerful tool for enforcing group morality, but it was not limited to religion.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw some comments out on the table to pick your brains.

dartagnan wrote:Did anyone read the Time Magazine article this month?

No, my dog didn't see that one before it went in the burning pile.

dartagnan wrote:The article said that humans have a conflicted sense of when to help someone and when not to. It said the general rule was to help someone close to you, but humans are less likely to naturally want to help people on the other side of the planet. This is because they do not relate to them. One generally has empathy only towards those close to them.

So, what is behind most charities that raise money to feed the starving in Africa? Religions generally speaking.

I'm trying to point out that religion can and does, help humans apply their innate sense of morality. Would there even be food sent to Africa, without theism? Even this scientific piece seemed to unwittingly admit the need for some outside guidance, although it doesn't come right out and say "Good thing we have religion." It did refer to the "Good Samaritan" principle however.

Sounds like a very interesting article. Let's not forget Bob Geldorf, however, though I think he was an exception. What I'm wondering though is how many religious people would be knighted for a similar effort. It seems we take that for granted. Another one I can think of is Fred Hollows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hollows

Early in the 1970s, Hollows visited isolated New South Wales towns and stations and Aboriginal communities . He became especially concerned with the high number of Aborigines who had eye disorders, particularly trachoma. In 1971, with Mum (Shirl) Smith and others, he set up the Aboriginal Medical Service in suburban Redfern in Sydney, and was subsequently responsible for the establishment of medical services for Aboriginal People throughout Australia. Hollows himself spent three years visiting Aboriginal communities to provide eye care and carry out a survey of eye defects. More than 460 Aboriginal communities were visited, and 62,000 Aboriginal People were examined, leading to 27,000 being treated for trachoma and 1000 operations being carried out.

Hollows received an Advance Australia Award in 1981, but was appalled at what he called blatant government disinterest in eye care for Aboriginal people, so much so that he refused to accept the Order of Australia in 1985. Nonetheless, he became an Australian citizen in 1989.

His visits to Nepal in 1985, Eritrea in 1987, and Vietnam in 1991 resulted in training programs to train local technicians to perform eye surgery. Hollows organized intraocular lens (IOL) laboratories in Eritrea and Nepal to manufacture and provide lenses at cost (about $10 each). Both laboratories started production after his death, in 1993.

Hollows was an atheist.

"Are atheists equally moral?"

Compared individually to theists, I suppose they might be.

I don't think they have any particular reason to be, however. It's a case-by-case situation, I'd guess.

Enter Freakwater's "There is nothing so pure as the kindness of an atheist..." (cool band for me, by the way).

Insofar as religion writ large encourages the embracing of the other as a truly-religious vocation, regardless of proselyting concerns, I'd say that religion is a force for good in the world.

When it works, religion works as a communitarian enforcer of the duty to others. I don't think a distinction between religious duty and atheistic humanitarianism is relevant unless one can demonstrate that atheistic humanitarianism results in a greater diminishing of human suffering than theistic efforts.

CKS

I haven't seen the article yet.

Here's what has happened to me personally. When I was a believer I was very concerned about sin. Sexual sin mainly. I was worried about me sinning sexually, I was concerned with other people sinning sexually, I was concerned that being gay was a sin. I spent an enormous amount of time perfecting myself before the Lord. I prayed 2-5x/day, I read scriptures, I paid my tithing, I attended my meetings, I was a Seminary Graduate, I went to BYU, my main focus in life was to get to the temple.

When I left the church I found myself having to make up my own mind about certain topics. Some were easier than others. To me, now, sin is only hurting your fellow man. This includes the sin of omission which is not helping your fellow man. All that worrying about sexual sin is gone. For instance I'm not overly fond of cohabitation but at the same time I realize this is not hurting anyone. It's not hurting me if a committed couple is living together without being married. It's not hurting the world or society. Where I used to feel being gay was a sin I now feel that legislated prejudice against gay people is a sin. You are the one who brought up Africa - how much money has this administration put into passing the Marriage Amendment? How much time and effort have been put into making double-safe laws that these committed couples will never have the legal rights that other citizens have? How much good could we have done in Africa with those resourses? No, no, gay couples MUST be stopped at whatever cost. Society as we know it will be destroyed if we don't.

I do good for others because it makes me happy. Because I realize that I'm better off than 80% of the world's population. Because I'm a nice person. Because I want the world to be a beautiful place for our children and our grandchildren. Because I want peace in the world. Not, and I repeat NOT because I'm expecting some eternal reward. My only reward is to know that I lightened my fellow humans burden, no matter how temporary. No matter if they ever know it or not.

I think there is MORE morals outside of religion. To bring up the gay situation again - there is no legal reason to deny these citizens marriage. None. Every single argument I've heard has been religious. Religion makes it impossible to sit down and discuss things rationally and decide to change the rules if necessary. Religion is very ingrained and flies in the face of reason. Have you noticed what happened this week with the English teacher who allowed her student to name a teddy bear Mohammad? She's lucky she's alive. Over a freaking teady bear.

The article came across as the usual run-of-the-mill "we're just evolved monkeys" article. I mean let's face it, Christianity has essentially stated that humans are the image of God, and what makes us different from the animals is our spirituality and morality.

Of course athiestic scientists will seek for natural answer to why human have a sense of morality. They are trying to say monkeys have it too, but I think the empathy connection hardly makes their case. Just because a monkey shows empathy doesn't necessarily equate to morality.

What struck me about the article was its non-agressive stance on religion. It said we all have morality naturally imbedded in us, but then it said this means nothing without some sense of guidance in how to use it. Well, if Religion doesn't provide this, then what does? The only other example it provide was a state law in France, which requires pedestrians to provide help to those they come across in dire need.

It seems to suggest that giving money to starving people on the other side of the planet wasn't a natural part of human nature. But humans do this anyway. Why?

Even though the social laws as delineated by sociologists, say humans will only help those within their tribe, and will not help anyone who appears to be an "other", the fact is humans who are guided by the religious principles of love your enemy and doing good to all, and doing this kind of thing all the time.

So in light of sethbag's recent "what's wrong with religion" thread, I hereby propose a "what's right with religion" thread of my own.

When I was a believer I was very concerned about sin.

Yes...

Sexual sin mainly.

Why?

I was worried about me sinning sexually,

Why?

I was concerned with other people sinning sexually,

Why?

I was concerned that being gay was a sin.

Why?

I spent an enormous amount of time perfecting myself before the Lord.

Uh huh...

I prayed 2-5x/day, I read scriptures, I paid my tithing, I attended my meetings, I was a Seminary Graduate, I went to BYU, my main focus in life was to get to the temple.

Yes...

When I left the church I found myself having to make up my own mind about certain topics. Some were easier than others. To me, now, sin is only hurting your fellow man.

Yes...

This includes the sin of omission which is not helping your fellow man.

Yes...

All that worrying about sexual sin is gone.

How convenient...

For instance I'm not overly fond of cohabitation but at the same time I realize this is not hurting anyone.

So you say...

It's not hurting me if a committed couple is living together without being married.

Oh?

It's not hurting the world or society.

Oh really?

Where I used to feel being gay was a sin I now feel that legislated prejudice against gay people is a sin.

Unless homosexuality is a sin, in which case, any prejudice for it is a sin.

You are the one who brought up Africa - how much money has this administration put into passing the Marriage Amendment? How much time and effort have been put into making double-safe laws that these committed couples will never have the legal rights that other citizens have? How much good could we have done in Africa with those recourses? No, no, gay couples MUST be stopped at whatever cost. Society as we know it will be destroyed if we don't.

Since "gay" couples who have either any intention or, historically, any ability to form lasting unions is a vanishingly small subset of the whole, what is your point? Gay "marriage" is an artifact of the gay rights movement of the nineties. Before that, one never heard of such a thing because it wasn't a part of the gay subculture at all.

I do good for others because it makes me happy. Because I realize that I'm better off than 80% of the world's population. Because I'm a nice person. Because I want the world to be a beautiful place for our children and our grandchildren. Because I want peace in the world. Not, and I repeat NOT because I'm expecting some eternal reward. My only reward is to know that I lightened my fellow humans burden, no matter how temporary. No matter if they ever know it or not.

Mishmagnet is a nice person...on the next Oprah...

I think there is MORE morals outside of religion. To bring up the gay situation again - there is no legal reason to deny these citizens marriage. None.

There are both legal, moral, philosophical, and theological reasons to deny them precisely this.

Every single argument I've heard has been religious. Religion makes it impossible to sit down and discuss things rationally and decide to change the rules if necessary.

Nonsense. It is fanatical political ideology that makes it impossible to discuss anything rationally. All religion is not created equal, and the patterns inherent in the core of the great religions are, in fact, the only things that make rational discourse possible at all. To the extent that that religion qua religion is fused with politics, to that extent is it corrupted. The fact of the matter is that there is no substantive intellectual argument for homosexuality that is not anti-religious, and the reason for this is that only in the absence of moral and metaphysical standards does homosexuality stand a chance; only in a relativistic and arbitrary epistemic world can such a mode of life hold its own.

Religion is very ingrained and flies in the face of reason. Have you noticed what happened this week with the English teacher who allowed her student to name a teddy bear Mohammad? She's lucky she's alive. Over a freaking teady bear.

Did you notice what the atheistic Nazis did to Jews, what communists did to poets, journalists, philosophers, theologians, entrepreneurs, and middle class farmers, and what the ACLU is has been doing to Christians for the last 40 years?

This level of analysis begs for mercy. Let there be none.