Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you think perhaps that those who are moral without religion are just part of a minority who are able to be moral without religion, and that most people actually do require religious structure to be moral? I've been afraid that this might be true for a while.DireStraitsFTW said:I think the morals installed through religion in general are more than helpful to society as a whole, not that those without religion are immoral, but raised in such an environment I think we have more reason to act moral. Whether it be out of fear of a vengeful God, or respect for a loving one.
Do you think perhaps that those who are moral without religion are just part of a minority who are able to be moral without religion, and that most people actually do require religious structure to be moral? I've been afraid that this might be true for a while.[/quote]GoodKat said:I think the morals installed through religion in general are more than helpful to society as a whole, not that those without religion are immoral, but raised in such an environment I think we have more reason to act moral. Whether it be out of fear of a vengeful God, or respect for a loving one.
You come very close to realising the answer in your own post.DireStraitsFTW said:I honestly don't see why it matters to anyone else whether a person believes in God or not.
I've highlighted the important word. Beliefs inform actions, that's where the problems start.DireStraitsFTW said:I think we have more reason to act moral.
Fairness is a matter of opinion.Aught3 said:I think that it is probably possible to construct a religion that overall improves people's behaviour and even makes them happier. It's certainly been tried before and the result has been quite successful in terms of spreading the idea. However, that doesn't make it true.
I also think this is a dangerous way of enforcing rules. If everyone agrees that 'sinners' will be punished after they die, it is no longer fair to punish them while they are here. If believers start to lose faith (and why wouldn't they since there would be no evidence) there would be no laws by which to punish their law breaking. The problem with (most) 'modern' religions e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam is that the rules do not update to reflect current society. To take the dog pooping example, if we invented a God who frowned on leaving your dog's mess around, people would start picking it up and the parks would be cleaner. Great, everybody wins. However, if it turned out that dog poop was necessary for fertilising the environment (say) would the believers be able to adjust, or would they stand in parks with signs condemning dog walkers to hell?
Most people obey the law and follow rules not because they are afraid of God but because they have a conscience. A conscience, it has been said, is the feeling that someone, somewhere, might be watching. And that is enough for me.
Personally, I don't like the idea of false conciliation. I don't think it's healthy to put off experiencing your feelings or to refer them upwards to someone who will take care of everything. I wouldn't offer it to anyone and I don't want it offered to me. It seems to me this is what religion is all about.
I don't think I fully understand your point.Aught3 said:You come very close to realising the answer in your own post.
I've highlighted the important word. Beliefs inform actions, that's where the problems start.
Well ok, in my view it's not fair to punish somebody for the same thing twice. Does anybody disagree with this?DireStraitsFTW said:Fairness is a matter of opinion.
That's precisely the problem I was identifying. Many christians look in the bible see a verse about homosexuals being condemned and apply it to the real world. Do you not agree that the struggle for equal gay/lesbian rights would be much further along if it wasn't for the opposition of the church? I don't know what your position on the matter is but it's my understanding that the catholic church is opposed to equal rights.DireStraitsFTW said:And there are such strict doctrinists that keep the literal meaning of the laws passed down by religion
I agree with you for the most part here. To be fair though, I did explicitly say it was my opinion that burying your feelings isn't healthy. I don't think that's a very controversial statement, though. My preference is for a healthy society and if, in general, it is unhealthy to bury feelings, then I think people should not, in general, engage in activities or thought patterns that allow them to do it.DireStraitsFTW said:Each individual has their own interpretation of their religion aside from the generally accepted doctrine. What isn't fair is to assume all religious people "put off experiencing their feelings". And if an individual does and that is what works for him, then so be it. What is it to you if he does?
This is why I said you came close to answering the question. I didn't highlight the word 'moral' I highlighted the word 'act'. Again I don't know your position but I often hear people agree that there is no evidence for God and that they believe on faith. The problems start when people begin acting on these beliefs, I'm sure we can all think of examples where the outcomes of this were bad in general.DireStraitsFTW said:I don't think I fully understand your point.
There is a problem with acting moral because of ones' religion?
First, I completely disagree that the term 'reason' implies in any way a necessity of evidence.Saul said:The first point to raise i think is to make sure we understand the term 'reason'. Reason is the thought process used to determine causal linkage between two propositions.
Therefore when one claims a 'reason' to believe in god, they must be specifically referring to the idea that there is evidence for god. That some state of the world inescapably leads to the conclusion that there is a god.
So anyone who claims that 'because I can't imagine a world without a god' or 'because the idea of a god is consoling' is a 'reason' for believing in a god is making a mokery of the word reason.
In fact if you were to follow the scientific method, ones desire for a god to exist would in fact offer further doubt to the hypothesis since during investigation and experiment people would likely be biased towards one particular outcome. Greater scrutiny would therefore be put upon the hypothesis and process through which it was developed.
The belief in a 'god' by certain people may well be beneficial to our society, for instance those I have spoken to whome believe in god and claim that if they did not they would have no reason not to murder people. However this offers no REASON to believe that a god exists. It merely offers a pragmatic solution to some problem, be it real or imaginary.
I would disagree with DireStraitsFTW, though I do enjoy the music of your namesake.
When someone believes a proposition, it has a direct affect on their behaviours. Imagine you came to believe you had won the lottery. Your behaviour would change drastically.
If I told you that you had won the lottery, the likelyhood is that you wouldn't believe me. But if you were to take my word and actually internalise that 'belief', then your behaviour would reflect how you now view the world around you.
Alternatively imagine that you come to believe that death is an illusion, and that committing an act of suicidal violence will garauntee you a 'flock of dark eyed virgins' in some afterlife paradise.
If you do not believe this proposition, then there is likely little I could say to you in order to encourage you to commit suicidal violence, but once you believe this the behavioural consequences could well be devastating.
Now I'm well aware that this is not one of your beliefs, and I'm sure that you will come back to state that your beliefs are not so 'extreme.' However the difference between believing in god, and believing in martyrdom is not in the belief itself, but in the behavioural consequences of that belief. On the level of the brain there is no difference between the two beliefs.
Now you say you are a 'catholic' (I know a considerable amount about catholicism as I went to a catholic school where we were expected to attend mass, pray every morning in assembly, and were taught religious studies by priests) so if you are a catholic as you say you are then up until a few years ago you believed in the transubstanciation. Whether or not this is true, you believe that it is an appropriate way to worship 'god' by eating a wafer and drinking some wine. This is a belief and its behavioural consequence.
Now consider that your religion is the only one of thousands to have gotten it right. You likely have neighbours and friends who are not of that religion. If you really believe the tenents of your religion, then you are going to heaven (provided your good enough) but for believing in the wrong religion they are going to hell. If you do not believe this then you have either not read the new testement or have found some way to ignore the numerous passages to this effect.
Imagine now that you have children. They may well become friends with those of another religion. Your children are succeptable though, to the opinions and beliefs of others. It is possible that these neighbours or friends may convince your children to follow a different god (as this can and does happen in the world). If this is possible then your neighbours and friends of different religions are worse than child molestors, as they hold it within their power not just to destroy your childrens lives, but to in fact damn their souls for all eternity.
As soon as you grant these beliefs credence then you can no longer suffer this potential disaster for the souls of your children.
This kind of religious belief will affect your behaviour, and when truly believed it becomes anti-thetical to the notion of tolerence itself.
Saul
If someone did something bad enough as to not be forgiven by God (as Confession is designed to do for minor sins) then I do not care in the least that they be punished more than once.Aught3 said:Well ok, in my view it's not fair to punish somebody for the same thing twice. Does anybody disagree with this?
That's precisely the problem I was identifying. Many christians look in the bible see a verse about homosexuals being condemned and apply it to the real world. Do you not agree that the struggle for equal gay/lesbian rights would be much further along if it wasn't for the opposition of the church? I don't know what your position on the matter is but it's my understanding that the catholic church is opposed to equal rights.
Perhaps a perfect religion would punish you later only for things that you weren't sufficiently punished for in life, I would also think that the best entity to deliver this punishment would be a sort of force or natural law.Aught3 said:If everyone agrees that 'sinners' will be punished after they die, it is no longer fair to punish them while they are here.
How would a natural law or force know what had been designated as a law or rule?GoodKat said:Perhaps a perfect religion would punish you later only for things that you weren't sufficiently punished for in life, I would also think that the best entity to deliver this punishment would be a sort of force or natural law.
I don't think such a thing would deal with legality anyway, the force would have to have its own self-contained moral law.Aught3 said:How would a natural law or force know what had been designated as a law or rule?
I'm thinking of something like karma. Perhaps the rule should be, if you do something bad, you will be punished sufficiently for your action not to be worth taking.Aught3 said:^oh all right, we're talking about different things then.