Keep in mind that I do not believe all theists are moral and all atheists are immoral. Being taught morality doesn't guarantee moral behavior anymore than a lack of teaching guarantees immorality. I am simply following the logic expressed on this forum in the past, and following up on an article I just read in TIME that seems to argue along the same lines as beastie and others have in the past (I.e. we are just moral animals who have progressed further than our monkey cousins). RM: Seems you agree, but want to stir additional thinking that looks as if it confirms "Time"? As for Seth's other tread, i attempted to point out the obvious, that is once again being pointed to: "goods & bads" in both camps...
Quote: Comparing the level of morality of atheists and theists might be too complex to be within our grasp, but to assert that atheism coming out on top (presumably because one needs religion to be moral) is nonsensical betrays some serious misunderstanding of human behavior.
I don't believe religion is required for morality. I am simply noting that religion serves a good purpose in providing the means by which moral conduct and ethical standards are taught and enforced. Without some kind of vehicle like this, the article suggested that our innate sense of morality becomes essentially worthless. So my main point is that religion is not all bad. It is difficult to say the world would be more advanced right now without religion because we have no atheistic societies to compare to. It is just bald assertion.
RM: I respectfully suggest, it might be more germane to look at individuals within "societies" to see who to subscibe "world advances" to. I like that you think in terms of "world advances" positively effecting the qualities of life--i think you do? Then, going back through time, what "advances" came from which arena--religious or sceintific--and, at the hands of whom, and through which "vehicle"--Religious revelation, or the Sceintific process, generally speaking? Please don't think i believe in exclusive franchise rights for either camp.
So, would you describe yourself as "Pro," or "Semi-Pro" in this game? On which team? Wonders Roger
dartagnan wrote: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 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.
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.
First, I see no reason ex ante to assume that religious believers are more moral than non-believers. The answer also depends on how one operationalizes the word "moral."
Second, your statement that religions, generally speaking, are behind most charities raising money to feed the starving in Africa is dead wrong. There are literally thousands of NGOs and other humanitarian organizations working in Africa combating poverty. Relgiously-based organizations are by no means the majority of them.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."