5 replies to this topic

[redlion]

I was thinking about how the idea of morals advocates of religion (in general) say that a main philosophical argument for religion is its general promotion of good values.

One thing I think could dissuade people from this view is the sheer number of morals that have been introduced by science. Things that everyone takes for granted now, like washing your hands, providing for mental health patients as people (as opposed to the involuntary sterilization practices of many localities), are moral behaviors imposed by science. Even psychiatric variants like passive, aggressive, and attentive learning styles, proper birth control (whether through abstinence, prophylactics, adoption or abortion for the betterment of all parties) are psychologically sound moral behaviors. In fact, many things that are now common moral behaviors were once discovered by science and implemented when positive social and medical results occurred.

Perhaps this could change the way people view morality as a sole factor of religion.

[Mr. Hobo]

Let's take christianity for example. Tons of people ignore some parts of of the bible as it contains tainted morals saying it's a metaphor+hyperbole instead (Noah, Sodom and Dohmorrah, that part where angels go to Lot and an angry mob wants to kill them and Lot asks them to rape his daughters instead, the crazy amount of things that result in your death and I'm sure there's others I don't know of.) Obviously people aren't as crazy/jealous/vindicitve/genocidal as the abrahamic god so they ignore the parts in the bible they think of as 'bad'. Ignoring some of what the bible teaches would require a basic pre-existing knowledge of morals as without them they wouldn't see anything wrong with what crazy ol' yahweh did/wants them to do so morals aren't completely derived from christianity. Christianity only promotes good morals because people only chose to look at the good morals it promotes. Religion is far from the only source of morality

Meh will have to re-word that later but I gotta go

[Waser Lave]

Before religion people didn't just run around raping and pillaging, there is a natural knowledge of right and wrong. Empathy means that when we cause pain we also feel that pain and therefore avoid it where possible. Obviously there are exceptions (which mostly aren't taken into account in religion) such as killing to protect yourself because that's a natural instinct. You don't need a priest to tell you what to do...

[-Darkforce-]

I was thinking about how the idea of morals advocates of religion (in general) say that a main philosophical argument for religion is its general promotion of good values.

One thing I think could dissuade people from this view is the sheer number of morals that have been introduced by science. Things that everyone takes for granted now, like washing your hands, providing for mental health patients as people (as opposed to the involuntary sterilization practices of many localities), are moral behaviors imposed by science. Even psychiatric variants like passive, aggressive, and attentive learning styles, proper birth control (whether through abstinence, prophylactics, adoption or abortion for the betterment of all parties) are psychologically sound moral behaviors. In fact, many things that are now common moral behaviors were once discovered by science and implemented when positive social and medical results occurred.

Perhaps this could change the way people view morality as a sole factor of religion.

Well actually providing for mental health patients was brought about by a ultilitarian view of the world or kantism more likely. Same can be said for almost everything you posted here you can't attribute everything to science... Science tells you the why something is not the how we should react to that something

I could go into a large explaination of how to evaluate a moral life according to numerous philosophers but i will leave it at this: you are touching on a subject that has had millennia to be thought about discussed and argued over and very rarely has it dealt with religion entirely. From Plato to Kant everyone has a differing view and in most cases it has not stemmed directly from the sciences.

Long before we walked on the moon there was the Categorical imperative

[Amagius]

Yeah, I was about to say that our term "moral" has different meanings, one of them being philosophical. Either way, the moral argument just a clutch (which brings me to: can crutches have crutches?)--morality is defined by so many different social entities working off each other, that for someone to say that one (religion, spirituality) is the sole factor of morals is silly.

[Ives]

Morality is a development of evolution in itself. There is an instinct for morality within human genes. They might vary, but any sense of injustice is not mere psychological babble. Morality is so wired into science that theres no argument. Religion may promote morality, sure, but moral sense still remains whether you're the fucking pope or you're a crack addict. Obviously some morals are more predisposed than others. The one that seems most prominent, especially in the market system we have, is that hunter-gatherer idea of splitting your shit 50/50 if you make a hunt with someone. That morality in itself is the building block, the scale which actions are weighed upon more than often.

Taking care of yourself has little to do with 'morality.' It has more to do with self-interest. If you wash your hands at regular intervals, there are benefits to that well beyond feeling 'good.' If you have dirty hands the chances you'll be fucking is pretty god damn slim.