Morality can survive without religion

[simplybill]

How? Do you have any links to those who have proven that and shown how this is the case?

Stubbly -

I enjoy reading about World History, maybe more than I should (I've read four books on the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, which is probably excessive by anyone's standards). I'm currently reading "Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present", as well as "House of Rain: Tracking a Vanished Civilization Across the American Southwest." I'm fascinated by totalitarianism, both in government and religion. I've come to the conclusion that most atrocities come about by an imbalance between Church and State. When the Church becomes more than "salt" (Jesus referred to His followers as "The salt of the Earth), or the government becomes more than a servant, then Religious and/or State totalitarianism becomes the norm.

It's my personal belief that society needs both Government and Religion in order to thrive, but excessive meddling by either leads to corruption. Hitler and Stalin, as well as the religious leaders that sanctioned the Inquisition were enabled by societies that failed to hold their leaders accountable to proper standards.

The conclusion I came to after studying various regimes and religions is that a balance of Judeo/Christian ethics and Magna Carta/Constitution-style government offer the best combination of Church and State, but only when both are held accountable to their own standards.

On the other hand, weak Government and weak Theology lead to social chaos. I'm old enough to have seen the beginning and the end of social change, one example being society's acceptance of the unbridled morality and the "new" psychology of the 60's, which resulted in pedophile priests and "Rape Culture on Campus".

My mention of "For God and Country" was just to emphasize that Western Civilization no longer has a solid, viable identity. Our enemies, on the other hand, (ISIS in particular) have enough strength in their beliefs that they may bulldoze right through our weakened and disorderly foundation.

Edited January 16, 2016 by simplybill

[+Sherapy]

Of course morality can survive without religion, and there will be approximately seven billion moralities to choose from as each person does what is right in their own eyes.

Society, on the other hand, becomes increasingly unstable without a unifying ethos. Up to this point in world history, the Judeo/Christian ethic, when held accountable to its own principles, has proven to be the one most likely to achieve a broad, stable foundation of justice. As Richard Dawkins said, “I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”

The mistake we've made is in pretending that humanity will eventually achieve a common secular ethos that's free of religion and ideology. It's not going to happen, because human nature isn't wired that way.

Simplybill, I don't see this ( at this point) the Christian unifying ethic to date shunned and tried to legally ostracize our gay community from equality (DOMA) and stood on the bible to uphold it, few of its members countered it as unethical and wrong or took the position it was immoral and fought to reverse it.

Now, I will say that the Christian community is coming around though, finally.

They unify in a common goal, not for the common good.

They have some work to do.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Sherapy

[simplybill]

To add to my post above, I should mention that the proper balance of Judeo/Christian ethics and Magna Carta/Constitution-style government may also (paradoxically) lead to greater cooperation between faiths. While I don't recommend that it be shown in Sunday School (lots of street language), the documentary "The Interrupters" is an example of people from different faiths and beliefs joining together to intervene in gang wars in the Chicago area. Fascinating stories that had me in tears!

[simplybill]

Simplybill, I don't see this ( at this point)

Sherapy,

As I've mentioned in other topics, the Internet Age has tremendously accelerated the speed of societal change, though it may take a few years before the results of the recent Supreme Court decisions can be observed.

I do have a lengthier response to your post, but I think that conversation would be better under a new Topic.

Edited January 16, 2016 by simplybill

[Astral Hillbilly]

From where I'm sitting, morality hasn't been able to survive WITH religion. The moral fabric in this country has been disappearing for my entire 59 years on this rock.

[XenoFish]

There is no morality. Only those who seek to not get into or cause trouble. We call it morality but it's just another personal/social construct.

[Doug1029]

Doug,

That's what I was addressing. Right now in the Middle East, the ISIS Caliphate is killing off the least violent people. They're literally changing the gene pool, and a few years from now a generation of military-age ISIS babies will be ready for war.

The cultural confrontation is already here, right now. We're in the midst of it. Look at a map of the world and see it through the eyes of a jihadist that expects the Mahdi show up any day: in their eyes, there are no borders, there is only a global Caliphate.

And what's our answer to that? "For God and Country" has been replaced with a tepid, multi-culture substitute with nothing to defend.

It takes about 40,000 generations to produce a new species (usually). ISIS is a flash in the pan. What I said about violent individuals applies to violent societies, too. Those that become too violent provoke their neighbors into destroying them. Nazi Germany is the best example. ISIS is about to provide us with another.

Doug

[+Sherapy]

Sherapy,

As I've mentioned in other topics, the Internet Age has tremendously accelerated the speed of societal change, though it may take a few years before the results of the recent Supreme Court decisions can be observed.

I do have a lengthier response to your post, but I think that conversation would be better under a new Topic.

Sherapy,

As I've mentioned in other topics, the Internet Age has tremendously accelerated the speed of societal change, though it may take a few years before the results of the recent Supreme Court decisions can be observed.

I do have a lengthier response to your post, but I think that conversation would be better under a new Topic.

Simplybill, it seems to be that the common unifying factor is diversity ( democracy) and the embracing of it, not Christianity.

I do think we are moving in a direction that Christianity is no longer needed, that we may outgrow it as a species.

For the reason, it fails at unifying for the common good, we are global now.

You are correct with the Internet change is much faster and things are different.

So our needs are different.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Sherapy

[simplybill]

It takes about 40,000 generations to produce a new species (usually). ISIS is a flash in the pan. What I said about violent individuals applies to violent societies, too. Those that become too violent provoke their neighbors into destroying them. Nazi Germany is the best example. ISIS is about to provide us with another.

Doug -

I should have said "social norms" rather than "gene pool". ISIS is replacing an altruistic, "moderate" population with sociopaths, by way of immediate execution. An army of hand-picked, dedicated sociopaths may be difficult to eliminate.

I'm not sure Nazi Germany can be compared to our present situation, where the combatants are being invited into our countries through unvetted immigration. I'm all for immigration, but it would be wise to ensure that the relocation of enemy combatants is kept to a minimum.

[+Sherapy]

Doug -

I should have said "social norms" rather than "gene pool". ISIS is replacing an altruistic, "moderate" population with sociopaths, by way of immediate execution. An army of hand-picked, dedicated sociopaths may be difficult to eliminate.

I'm not sure Nazi Germany can be compared to our present situation, where the combatants are being invited into our countries through unvetted immigration. I'm all for immigration, but it would be wise to ensure that the relocation of enemy combatants is kept to a minimum.

The social norm that would be of concern here is the powerful social control that religion strong arms ( Isis) and pushes by forcing a conformity to these norms. With Isis this is what we see as the inherent flaw in these practices, people believe the bible gives a divine purpose to social conformity. What happens is it inhibits innovation, freedom of thought, and social reform, obedience to a religion is the crux of the problem, because it inhibits freedom of thought thus, prevents change.

This is what needs to be addressed.

[simplybill]

...it seems to be that the common unifying factor is diversity ( democracy) and the embracing of it, not Christianity.

I do think we are moving in a direction that Christianity is no longer needed, that we may outgrow it as a species...

I have to disagree, Sherapy. To expect someone to "embrace" something leads to less diversity, not more. I make no secret about being a born-again Christian, and I live and work side-by-side with Muslims without embracing their religion, and I'll have dinner with a gay couple without embracing their lifestyle. That's the life I live. I expect the same in return, whether it be declining an invitation to attend Mosque, or declining to attend a wedding ceremony for a gay couple. However, In our current society I'm labeled a "Hater" because of it. Why should I change my beliefs for the sake of an increasingly totalitarian "diversity"?

Edited to add: I have to leave for now, but I'm enjoying the conversation and I may return later. Cheers.

Edited January 16, 2016 by simplybill

[Davros of Skaro]

"Nice use of quote mining." Davros

I'm not one to brag, but that was a 3-pointer from midcourt. Lol

In the context that Christianity is the lesser of two evils is what Dawkins is talking about.

Airball for your intended purpose.

Btw: Humans are not wired for Religion. We are wired for gathering resources to reproduce. It's our higher cognition that gives meaning, and purpose to things wether they are beneficial, or backwards.

[+Sherapy]

I have to disagree, Sherapy. To expect someone to "embrace" something leads to less diversity, not more. I make no secret about being a born-again Christian, and I live and work side-by-side with Muslims without embracing their religion, and I'll have dinner with a gay couple without embracing their lifestyle. That's the life I live. I expect the same in return, whether it be declining an invitation to attend Mosque, or declining to attend a wedding ceremony for a gay couple. However, In our current society I'm labeled a "Hater" because of it. Why should I change my beliefs for the sake of an increasingly totalitarian "diversity"?

Edited to add: I have to leave for now, but I'm enjoying the conversation and I may return later. Cheers.

Bill there is nothing to disagree with in our conversation (about democracy), you just described and defined democracy in the living of your life. What we embrace in Democracy is a common vision and espouse things like freedom in specific the freedom of religion.

You are practicing your religion undergirding it with democratic ideals this my friend is the direction we are moving towards, we are moving away from obedience to and embracing ( opening our arms to each other regardless of religious beliefs). It's beginning not to matter if I am an Athiest and your a born again Christian. The line is beginning to disappear. All my friends are other than atheist, in fact I have few atheist friends and we have no problem getting on we added the words "for me" to the conversation and this brings us together and it is the democratic way.

Look up American values.

As I said democracy by its very nature is designed to embrace diversity.

[XenoFish]

I feel there is a line between diversity and conformity that sometimes get's muddled. Someone who is diverse may share many perspectives. Those who conform fit into a nice box with a fancy label.

[+Sherapy]

I feel there is a line between diversity and conformity that sometimes get's muddled. Someone who is diverse may share many perspectives. Those who conform fit into a nice box with a fancy label.

Indeed, this is a great pull X, it is in "making" this distinction that matters.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

There is no morality. Only those who seek to not get into or cause trouble. We call it morality but it's just another personal/social construct.

Not really, although there is some truth in this. . As a child i was taught to use logic and philosophical thought to establish values. Those values, when placed along a line from strong to weak, and most basic to most negotiable, could then inform my ethical and moral positions on any issue. Thus i could know from childhood how and why to behave in any circumstance when it arose, over my life Not only did i have a code to live by which nudged me into the most optimal behaviour in any scenario, but also a rational and explainable purpose for every part of that code which underpinned and reinforced it as an intellectual driver for my behaviour.

Basically, to me, correct behaviour is that which produces the greatest measurable constructive outcomes, while incorrect behaviour is that which promotes the most measurable destructive outcomes. Action/behaviours with neutral outcomes are tolerable but not optimal. Tied to this is a value position that individual rights are subject to those of a family, community, or larger group, which provides for the existence of the individual, and thus has a prior claim on rights.

True morality is not about avoiding trouble. It goes to the basic philosophical reason for an individual's existence, as established by that individual, and how an individual can become all it can be, and what it can do and offer to further the evolution of humanity. Morality is the cornerstone of every thing a person believes, and every action a person takes, or refuses to take.

[Mr Walker]

I feel there is a line between diversity and conformity that sometimes get's muddled. Someone who is diverse may share many perspectives. Those who conform fit into a nice box with a fancy label.

To a degree diversity is a good thing, but any entity which steps outside its society's accepted parameters will meet with disapproval or worse . eg today a person who marries a 14 year old. Or someone who cooks and eats their pet cat in a western society. Where diversity threatens social cohesion and order, it is a real threat to public and individual safety, and the authorities will deal with it, but lesser differences are dealt with by public reaction. .

[docyabut2]

I agree morality wouldn't have come about with out religions, but the religions some how got all distorted with what the rules there should be. Your basis laws are do not kill , steal, cheat or lie of the Ten Commandments is the bases and a code of all religions.

Edited January 17, 2016 by docyabut2

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Stubbly -

I enjoy reading about World History, maybe more than I should (I've read four books on the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, which is probably excessive by anyone's standards). I'm currently reading "Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present", as well as "House of Rain: Tracking a Vanished Civilization Across the American Southwest." I'm fascinated by totalitarianism, both in government and religion. I've come to the conclusion that most atrocities come about by an imbalance between Church and State. When the Church becomes more than "salt" (Jesus referred to His followers as "The salt of the Earth), or the government becomes more than a servant, then Religious and/or State totalitarianism becomes the norm.

Ah, I see. (thanks for responding. ) Well, I can tell you definitely have your research and your information from your reading of things.

You may have more information, than from me, from what you read, so I see what you mean. ( I did ask you and you should me titles, which as a bookseller, I can check these books out .)

It's my personal belief that society needs both Government and Religion in order to thrive, but excessive meddling by either leads to corruption. Hitler and Stalin, as well as the religious leaders that sanctioned the Inquisition were enabled by societies that failed to hold their leaders accountable to proper standards.

Well, mine feels differently, but I know understand where you get it from.

The conclusion I came to after studying various regimes and religions is that a balance of Judeo/Christian ethics and Magna Carta/Constitution-style government offer the best combination of Church and State, but only when both are held accountable to their own standards.

Well, I like to think, in a perfect world, this might be something to strive for. I just think though, there are any variations of religions, and there are a lot of differences in them. My thought, and question on this is, would it be just as preferable in personal thinking, if it's Temple and State, or Mosque or State or the like that can also be the same way?

On the other hand, weak Government and weak Theology lead to social chaos. I'm old enough to have seen the beginning and the end of social change, one example being society's acceptance of the unbridled morality and the "new" psychology of the 60's, which resulted in pedophile priests and "Rape Culture on Campus".

Well, I wonder how that era of thinking lead to the pedophile priests and "Rape Culture on Campus" ? I think other things led to that, more so of women attending, or more women attending campuses, or that the rape culture was just beginning to be found out, considering the birth of the media.

My mention of "For God and Country" was just to emphasize that Western Civilization no longer has a solid, viable identity. Our enemies, on the other hand, (ISIS in particular) have enough strength in their beliefs that they may bulldoze right through our weakened and disorderly foundation.

Well, I see, ok.

But, I always think, solidarity comes from understanding and accepting all beliefs or lack of them, will probably strengthen our foundation.

But, I appreciate your grace and consistency in answering.

I have to disagree, Sherapy. To expect someone to "embrace" something leads to less diversity, not more. I make no secret about being a born-again Christian, and I live and work side-by-side with Muslims without embracing their religion, and I'll have dinner with a gay couple without embracing their lifestyle. That's the life I live. I expect the same in return, whether it be declining an invitation to attend Mosque, or declining to attend a wedding ceremony for a gay couple. However, In our current society I'm labeled a "Hater" because of it. Why should I change my beliefs for the sake of an increasingly totalitarian "diversity"?

Edited to add: I have to leave for now, but I'm enjoying the conversation and I may return later. Cheers.

I wonder, if there are different point of views of what embracing it means. I may not know. I think to reflect on.

[Davros of Skaro]

I agree morality wouldn't have come about with out religions, but the religions some how got all distorted with what the rules there should be. Your basis laws are do not kill , steal, cheat or lie of the Ten Commandments is the bases and a code of all religions.

Do not forget that the Universe is only 6,000 years old too.

[XenoFish]