Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Oisif]

Is believing in the bible and it's interpretation by the pope different from believing in "Mein Kampf" and it's interpretation by Hitler? (Yes, I am exaggerating, but still, religions are as man made as anything else).

There's really no exaggeration. Mein Kampf was partly the work of a Catholic priest, who could easily have been given that job by the Vatican; its official author, who never denied his Catholicism, came to political power with the assistance of the Catholic Centre Party, said that he modelled the Third Reich on the hierarchy of the Vatican, believed that he was to finish the task of medieval Catholicism, and made a pact with the Vatican in return for its silence.

Those who, at the Reformation, read the Bible without any other interpretation, described the Vatican as the seat of antichrist, and suffered from its violence. Modern readers still believe that the Vatican is an antichrist, as it neatly fulfils apostolic prophecy in respect of antichrists.

[Belinda]

OTavern wrote:
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the religious person. If the universe is merely a material phenomenon, then deriving oughts from what "is" falls under the naturalistic fallacy, which means there is no universal moral principle to guide behaviour. After all, matter "just don't care" whether you is a rock, an ape or a dismembered, maggot infested lump of flesh.

But humans are none of those inanimate, irrational, unfeeling, non-social things. Apes are in fact, social beings with moral codes which , even although the codes are not crystallised in language , nevertheless are in place and for good evolutionary reasons.Even dogs have 'moral codes' of a sort.Humans are animate, rational,social,feeling agents who can and do work out ways and means to make the world a better place. There is no naturalistic fallacy, the natural fact is that humans are social beings and can and do aspire to better themselves either individually or socially, with or without the additional belief that some God is ordering them to do so.

[Antone]

Every now and then, when someone learns of my atheism, the reaction is to question my morality.

The response usually goes like this:

"You're an atheist? Than, if you don't believe that "God" is watching over you, then there's nothing to stop you from stealing, raping, and murdering all the time?"

If the universe is merely a material phenomenon, then deriving oughts from what "is" falls under the naturalistic fallacy, which means there is no universal moral principle to guide behavior.

I agree, but I also think you missed one of the most important points.

It isn't so much that a particular atheists can't be a moral person--perhaps even morally superior to a person who claims to believe in God. Rather, we we see the "advantage" of religion when it comes to statistical trends. Take 2 hundred people 1/2 atheists and 1/2 devout true believers in Christ. Which group will have more people who are willing to violate laws dealing with rape and murder?

To see how this works, lets consider the sacred cow in India.

First, what is the origin of this strange belief? In India, food was in severe shortage--even the sacred cows themselves are commonly skinny. So killing a cow would obviously provide valuable meat for anyone who wanted to do so. This gives each individual a strong incentive to kill any cow that may exist. But the cows provide milk, which is a much more valuable commodity than the meat--since a single cow can provide life-giving milk for a large number of people year after year. This means that for any given individual it is in their short-term advantage to kill and eat a cow. But for society as a whole, it is in their long-term advantage to prevent cows from being killed.

If there were no social/religious prohibition against killing and eating cows, those who were near starvation would have exceptionally strong motivation to kill the cows to satisfy their short-term needs--at the expense of the society's long term needs.

Second, how does this belief aid the society? Clearly, not all "atheists" would do such a socially destructive thing, but which group of 100 would you think more likely to have members willing to secretly kill cows for their own personal advantage? The 100 atheists or the 100 devout 'sacred cow' worshipers who believe they will go to hell if they do. The problem, of course, is that it only takes 1% of either group to significantly decimate the cow population and negatively impact the long-term well-being for the entire community.

While this may be an extreme example, I believe it demonstrates all the principles at work in most of the less extreme examples.


Why Religion is Good.
Along with LAWS and other social TRADITIONS, religious beliefs are one of the social forces that create stability and social unity. And in most cases, these laws, traditions and religious beliefs were the result of SOCIAL NEEDS, very similar to the need for cow's milk in India.

Often, as the needs of the society change, we are left with ODD remnants of laws, traditions and religious beliefs that no longer make sense. This occurs because the value of these forces is largely in their STABILITY and the slow rate at which they change. But laws and religious beliefs invariably do respond to the society's needs--as we can see in the changing religious attitudes about abortion, for instance.

A good example of this is shown in an Epistle of Paul where he admonishes the (Thessalonian?)women to not go out in public without wearing a hat. At the time Paul wrote the letter, women who were prostitutes were denoted by their absence of a hat--so the command to wear a hat had a particular meaning and purpose that it does not have in our modern world (or in other cities during Paul's own time).

At one time, the size of a community was directly related to its prosperity. A community had to be large enough to defend itself from the raids or wars by neighboring communities. Thus, a Universal Religious law is to Multiply and Replenish--and anything that interferes with that goal was considered evil--while anything that helped achieve that goal was condoned and encouraged.

This natural law manifested in different ways in different societies. In some, Monogamy was adopted, and men and women were expected to be loyal to one another for the rest of their lives. Anything that interrupted this social pattern was religiously abhorrent--such as birth control, abortion, pre-marital sex, prostitution and so forth. The first two were obvious no-nos because they killed potential members of the society. The second two were prohibited because they tended to produce children who were not sheltered within the more favorable environment of the family unit.

Since the industrial revolution, more 'civilized' attitudes about war, less life-intensive means of waging war, and so forth... these attitudes have begun to change, to the point that killing future human beings has now not only become acceptable but is publicly funded by the government. The attitudes of religions have been slower to change--but even here we see a strong lessening of the religious intensity with which such things as birth control are held to be 'wrong'. Thus, within a generation or two, we can already begin to see the transformation of religious belief to suit society's needs.

My Problem with atheists who denigrate religion , is not that they shouldn't have the right to express their belief... I am arguably agnostic myself... but I don't think it makes any logical sense to try to tear down the belief structures that support and stabilize a society. A society without such structures is total anarchy--which is one of the two possible routes that political evil can take. (the other being the totalitarian/communistic slavery of the people to the whims of big government.)

[Oisif]

A good example of this is shown in an Epistle of Paul where he admonishes the (Thessalonian?)women to not go out in public without wearing a hat. At the time Paul wrote the letter, women who were prostitutes were denoted by their absence of a hat--so the command to wear a hat had a particular meaning and purpose that it does not have in our modern world (or in other cities during Paul's own time).

'Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head-- it is just as though her head were shaved.' 1 Cor 11:5 NIV

Anything that interrupted this social pattern was religiously abhorrent--such as birth control, abortion, pre-marital sex, prostitution and so forth. The first two were obvious no-nos because they killed potential members of the society.

Birth control is not prohibited by Christianity, and never has been. Abortion is not prohibited by Christianity per se, but many people, religious and not, think that it is murder.

The second two were prohibited because they tended to produce children who were not sheltered within the more favorable environment of the family unit.

Which is still true, and both are still treated as anti-social by secular societies if and when offspring are produced.

[Antone]

Birth control is not prohibited by Christianity, and never has been. Abortion is not prohibited by Christianity per se, but many people, religious and not, think that it is murder.

Yes and No...
There is probably nothing in the bible that explicitly condemns birth control. But I think a majority of Christian sects have held it to be wrong. Certainly the Catholic church has, and so has the Mormon church. In particular, the catholic church was the one I had in mind when I suggested that we can see the attitudes changing... this is particularly true among members--as opposed to the leadership of the church.

The second two were prohibited because they tended to produce children who were not sheltered within the more favorable environment of the family unit.

Which is still true, and both are still treated as anti-social by secular societies if and when offspring are produced.

While this is still mildly true, it is nowhere near as true today as it was years ago. Not even marginally close.

Today, Hollywood commonly holds Single Motherhood up as the pinnacle of heroism. Take, for example, the movie "Jerry McQuire"... Jerry becomes involved with a single mother, and he asks for advice from his sports client friend. And his friend says something along the lines of... you have to be serious and commit or you have to leave her alone because she's a single mother and that's like a sacred trust. You don't mess with single mothers.

I realize I'm paraphrasing, and the reference is fairly subtle--but this sort of thing is actually fairly common in movies: lionizing the single mother, and extolling her virtues and courage. You also have much the same thing that goes on in our schools, where teachers seem to be trying to indoctrinate our children to a similar mindset.

Other areas where we see similar trends: include school indoctrination towards homosexual-life styles. And the greater ease of obtaining a divorce.

Although I recently read that marriage longevity seems to be up, as (I think it was) 75% of those married since 1990 are still married. Which is a strong statistic improvement, I believe from previous studies. Which would seem to indicate that despite liberal efforts to the contrary, the social importance of marriage seems to be reaffirmed by social trends, which have begun to rebound from those anti-social forces that were trying to lead them away from traditional values.

[Cronos988]

My Problem with atheists who denigrate religion , is not that they shouldn't have the right to express their belief... I am arguably agnostic myself... but I don't think it makes any logical sense to try to tear down the belief structures that support and stabilize a society. A society without such structures is total anarchy--which is one of the two possible routes that political evil can take. (the other being the totalitarian/communistic slavery of the people to the whims of big government.)

I agree with most of your post, Religion can be a source of important moral values and stability. However, I also consider it a very powerful weapon. Religion is frequently distorted, Islam currently being a prime example.

People like to misuse religion to inhibit free thought, sometimes in the name or morals, sometimes because they think it is the best. I know families who consider a religious upbringing appropriate and see nothing wrong in instilling belief in their children. Yet those children often end up imprisoned by their parent's belief. Maybe that experience (I was not brought up that way, but a good friends were) has made me significantly more "anti-religious" than I was before.

I think Oisif's point quite accurately displays how religious teachings can be a great source of wisdom, if you can look behind the pure text. Not everybody does though, some because they cannot intellectually, some because they have never learnt to think outside their rules. That is why I consider religion a very dangerous weapon, and I do not know if it is better to have it in the world or not, despite its values. It feels kind of like atomic energy. It is great to have it, but misused it is such a terrible weapon that banning it almost seems justified. Not that I actually want to ban either, but I think that example shows how I feel about it.

[Oisif]

Birth control is not prohibited by Christianity, and never has been. Abortion is not prohibited by Christianity per se, but many people, religious and not, think that it is murder.

Yes and No...
There is probably nothing in the bible that explicitly condemns birth control.

Then prohibition must be anti-christ.

Which is still true, and both are still treated as anti-social by secular societies if and when offspring are produced.

While this is still mildly true

It's still true that births outside families present problems, practical, financial problems, and those who have to pay the bills and arrange for care do not usually say that the problems are mild! Nothing has gone except the censorious hypocrisy of secular society.

Other areas where we see similar trends: include school indoctrination towards homosexual-life styles.

Religions (and that goes for just about all of them) are just as opposed to homosexuality as they ever were. Just because some people who profess Christianity (which faith seems to have the most importance, for some reason) say that homosexuality is ok, doesn't change anything, because in practice few if any believe that they are worth attention.

And the greater ease of obtaining a divorce.

Again, what others do does not affect what religionists do. Religion is not a function of society; it exists independently of whatever society is, or does.

[Belinda]

Antone (May22) wrote that sacred cows are(were?) sacred for a practical and socially advantageous reason.I never heard of this explanation and I can well believe it, as I believe that much of the small details of religious ethical codes are rooted in the necessities and structures of their societies.
Societies must change their cultures as other factors change, such as environmental enhancement or environmental degradation,or threats from foreign powers or the removal of those threats. I say 'must change' because if societies dont change their prevailing cultures as the needs arise they will cease to flourish.This why I am against authoritarian religious rules and regulations which those in authority and power claim originate with Eternal God and are, like Eternal God, unchangeable.

To get back to sacred cows, when Indians who hold cows to be sacred for the reason Antone gives, understand that eating cows destroys the habitat of much more sustainable food crops there will be no longer be any need for cows to be sacred objects.

However societies' needs for religious precepts is not the same as all individuals' need to express religious feelings, feelings of awe, mainly when we are almost overcome by beauty or goodness or great fear.
I think that , psychologically, we humans will always need religious means of expressing ourselves.Whether we personify that of which we feel awe, and call it 'God' or whether we call it 'human goodness' , or whatever does not matter in the religious consciousness of the future. By its fruits we will know when it is right. But those political and religious despots and madmen who kill and oppress will be known too, by their fruits.

[Withoutpeers]

The principal reason for all religions without exception is to control a man's sexual desire.

[Wooden shoe]

Being interested to see if there was any statistical data which might give weight to religion developing better morals I went to Wikipedia to find crime statistics.
I found figures by country, both for all crime and murder separately
It is improper to look at crimes as a whole as countries differ in crime law.
However I think that murder is the ultimate immorality and is also quite standard around the world
The stats show a very high rate for the US, which is surprising seeing how often I have heard from prominent US citizen how christian that country is.
England is also high but lower than the US with Canada being lower than England.
It was surprising to see the very low figures for India and Japan, with Japan including attempts in their stats.
One additional item I remember but cannot prove, was that at that time the divorce rate was higher in the conservative states than the liberal ones in the US. This was 5 or 6 years ago.
I spent a month in Japan 4 years ago and I found it a much more moral society than Canada or the US. Yes there is crime but petty crime is almost unknown, very young children walk to school without adults, you can go to public places and leave your pocessions out of sight and know they will still be there when you return.
Do I know what all this means? I am not sure but I do know that christianity is almost unknown in India and Japan.
So maybe the extreme penalty of hell is not a great deterrent as these Asian countries do not have this as part of their main religions

[Belinda]

Wooden shoe, what your experience of crime and morality in Japan means to me is that Christianity is not the only means of moral coercion. And also that other means of moral coercion might be better. By means of moral coercion other than Christianity, I mean , for instance, old traditions rooted in tribal, pagan religious, developed religious, or even in biological needs for cooperation within certain habitats.

It may be the case that Christianity was the best means of social control for Europeans in the particular political, economic and ecological circumstances during which Christianity flourished in Europe. Why Christianity flourishes in the American Midwest is still under sociologiocal investigation.

[Oisif]

It may be the case that Christianity was the best means of social control for Europeans in the particular political, economic and ecological circumstances during which Christianity flourished in Europe.

That would of course be 'best' for a tiny minority of Europeans. Christianity has never flourished in the minds of secular rulers. On the contrary, the ways of the political world are much too full of compromise, intrigue, back-stabbing and hypocrisy for a faith whose fruits are honesty, reliability and peaceability. What the rulers of Europe chose as a religion for the masses went under the name of Christianity, but was actually opposed to it- and in what appears, to a theologian, to be a systematic way. When the Bible was uncovered at the Renaissance, it led to the Reformation, and the unanimous verdict of Reformers that the old religion was actually 'Antichrist'. This led to democratisation of belief that Western nations enjoy today. So, in a sense, the Bible caused totalitarianism, by reaction to it, but it equally, and by direct means, led to egalitarianism.

Why Christianity flourishes in the American Midwest is still under sociologiocal investigation.

The 'Christianity' of the USA is akin to the religion of medieval Europe. The problem in America is that the founding fathers were of the reformed faith, but, as their successors grew wealthy and more mired in politics, their instincts became like that of medieval rulers, wanting to suppress Christianity, not encourage its growth. This today results in the hypocrisy of American religion that has become infamous worldwide.

[Xris]

In historical terms the question must be asked, do morals drive religious reforms or can religion determine morals. For me the evidence was and is, we as individuals demand that religion reforms. From slavery , the attitude towards race , homosexuality, contaception, the women's position in sociey, they have all come from a secular moral perspective. Its not that long ago when not attending church in England lost you your job or segregation on religous grounds was the norm. When religion was the only guide to moral behaviour it was fine but not now in the 21century.

[Oisif]

In historical terms the question must be asked, do morals drive religious reforms or can religion determine morals. For me the evidence was and is, we as individuals demand that religion reforms. From slavery , the attitude towards race , homosexuality, contaception, the women's position in sociey, they have all come from a secular moral perspective.

The slave trade was famously opposed by people calling themselves Christians, particularly Bible-based evangelicals. Racism, likewise, often using Paul's well-known comment about the inclusivity of Christianity. Contraception was never opposed by Christians, and Christians may use contraceptives like everyone else. The position of women in secular society is not the business of Christians, and never has been. Homosexuality has always been opposed within the church, but, before a massive propaganda campaign began in the '60s, almost the whole of society opposed it, too. Many still disapprove, but do not say so. Christians may well approve of reform of law against homosexuality, however.

Christianity approves of everything that is good, i.e. conducive to human wellbeing and happiness, including maximum freedom to act, though without harm to others. Those who have historically opposed Christianity have usually been sociopathic- greedy, prurient, sly, mendacious, malicious, and often violent and coercive. This included many who called themselves Christians.

[Xris]

In historical terms the question must be asked, do morals drive religious reforms or can religion determine morals. For me the evidence was and is, we as individuals demand that religion reforms. From slavery , the attitude towards race , homosexuality, contaception, the women's position in sociey, they have all come from a secular moral perspective.

The slave trade was famously opposed by people calling themselves Christians, particularly Bible-based evangelicals. Racism, likewise, often using Paul's well-known comment about the inclusivity of Christianity. Contraception was never opposed by Christians, and Christians may use contraceptives like everyone else. The position of women in secular society is not the business of Christians, and never has been. Homosexuality has always been opposed within the church, but, before a massive propaganda campaign began in the '60s, almost the whole of society opposed it, too. Many still disapprove, but do not say so. Christians may well approve of reform of law against homosexuality, however.

Christianity approves of everything that is good, i.e. conducive to human wellbeing and happiness, including maximum freedom to act, though without harm to others. Those who have historically opposed Christianity have usually been sociopathic- greedy, prurient, sly, mendacious, malicious, and often violent and coercive. This included many who called themselves Christians.

I like it. So Paul never returned a fugitive slave to his owner nor did he command slaves to obey their masters? The old testament encourages it and the new test. writers never condemn it. The individual, christian or secular opposed it on moral grounds not on christian moral teaching.

No one denies womens rights should be written into secular law but christian teachings classify them as second class citizens.

Not everyone opposed homosexuality and it was the secular morals that insisted we change our views not the churches.

The RC church opposes contraceptives and causes thousands of Africans to die of aids. In ireland it was actually illegal to sell them until recently due to the church having political influence.

No atheist burnt a christian at the stake. No atheist excluded a christian from education or marriage. Get real, morals are adjusted by secular man not the dogmatic laws of a medieval church.