Agree or Disagree: Religion is needed to be a morally just person [or act as one].

MJGunner wrote:Another interesting question is if our morals did not come from a higher being? Where did they come from?

The question seems to indicate that morals are actually an ingrained part of us as human beings. While this is true to a certain extent, it's not the absolute truth. "Morals" are guidelines (or values) of behavior that differ from every individual to every culture and because of that they are not only product of nature but also nurture.

On the side of nature we have a thing called empathy, which - as far as I know - is located in the temporal lobe of our brains. Empathy is basically the reason why we abstain from doing certain things. It's the ability to put ourselves in the place of others and from that draw a conclusion on how we should behave. We can imagine the suffering of others and because of that we don't like to inflict it upon others - unless there are logical reasons to override this. That "logical" part of the brain is located elsewhere, though.

Empathy is something that healthy humans in general share and only those with brain damages or disorders, like psychopaths, don't. There's only an exception with children because it's believed they don't fully develop empathy until they reach a certain age. That's why morals are partially a product of nature and, most likely, evolution.

Nurture's influence on morals can be explained by the very fact that morals differ across cultures (as I kinda already summarized). It's the product of the environment individuals live in. For example, it's immoral (or sinful) to not wear Burkas/Niqabs in many Islamic countries while other places in the world it's a totally different story. That's a very short example but I think it clearly illustrates the influence of nurture on our behavioral conduct (morals).

Some evolutionists say they are survival tactics but I disagree because think of it this way. Why would we find it wrong to rape an old woman? Where is the line, how does this help our survival?

It's not just "survival": That's an oversimplification of the human psyche. It's probably a part of it, though.

I think part of the truth to the "rape" argument can be found in my explanation above. We find it wrong because empathy is what drives us as human beings. We know that raping someone is terrible, because we can imagine how horrible it must feel to be the victim of sexual assault. Rapists, on the other hand, probably don't have the same level of empathy as most of us do and therefor don't care about their victims in the same way. Some of them actually may have a healthy level of empathy but when it comes to rape there's something else that overrides it and makes them do it.

In fact, you could argue that by refraining from emotionally and physically hurting others, it's a way of survival. Human beings are a social specie and when we keep each other healthy we have a higher probability of survival.

Senor Penguin wrote:

In fact, you could argue that by refraining from emotionally and physically hurting others, it's a way of survival. Human beings are a social specie and when we keep each other healthy we have a higher probability of survival.

that's directly related to evolution imho... people evolved in social circles that i imagine had certain unwritten rules of behaviour that benefited the group... if caveman A tried stealing something from caveman B or raping his woman i imagine caveman B would beat him up or kill him along with his immoral genes

Ill leave dawkins to answer this

Senor Penguin wrote:
On the side of nature we have a thing called empathy, which - as far as I know - is located in the temporal lobe of our brains. Empathy is basically the reason why we abstain from doing certain things. It's the ability to put ourselves in the place of others and from that draw a conclusion on how we should behave. We can imagine the suffering of others and because of that we don't like to inflict it upon others - unless there are logical reasons to override this. That "logical" part of the brain is located elsewhere, though.

My question isn't whether empathy is present in us or not. It's what purpose it serves. I don't think it's what Che said with the cavemen theory. And you don't have to take something human like raping an old woman. Or even if you do, imagine an old woman with no family or anyone who would be able to take revenge against you for raping her. Why would we feel guilty in raping her? How come animals don't feel empathy the way we do? In what way does it aid us? You can take something like stomping on a puppy. These things won't help us survive as we're doing things that are without repercussion or actuallly not doing them. Why would we care how it makes others feel?

MJGunner wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:
On the side of nature we have a thing called empathy, which - as far as I know - is located in the temporal lobe of our brains. Empathy is basically the reason why we abstain from doing certain things. It's the ability to put ourselves in the place of others and from that draw a conclusion on how we should behave. We can imagine the suffering of others and because of that we don't like to inflict it upon others - unless there are logical reasons to override this. That "logical" part of the brain is located elsewhere, though.

My question isn't whether empathy is present in us or not. It's what purpose it serves. I don't think it's what Che said with the cavemen theory. And you don't have to take something human like raping an old woman. Or even if you do, imagine an old woman with no family or anyone who would be able to take revenge against you for raping her. Why would we feel guilty in raping her?

Because we can imagine how it must feel to be sexually assaulted against our will? The pain, the shock, the... Anger? Which could be turned against us (assuming we are the assailants) and put our lives at risk? Empathy is, amongst other things, a defense mechanism for socially sophisticated beings.

How come animals don't feel empathy the way we do?

Perhaps they do? Some research suggests that they have a form of empathy just like we do. Of course it won't be identical because their lives are very different.

In what way does it aid us?

As a defense mechanism and as a way to ensure a better survival rate for humans? Our emotions are the product of thousands of years spent with other humans. We're social beings.

You can take something like stomping on a puppy. These things won't help us survive as we're doing things that are without repercussion or actuallly not doing them. Why would we care how it makes others feel?

Human emotions are obviously not perfect. If we acted entirely based on our emotions, we'd probably kill people just because of petty things that happen to us. Anger can be that strong. Luckily we've got a rational center of the brain which also works against the primitive and simple parts of our brains.

Wow this is a brilliant thread. Every single idea i read was well thought out and supported by good arguments. Now back to the OPs question:

I do not think that we need religion to teach us morality. Infact in certain cases i think it can be a problem for eg when i see discrimination against people from other religions.

Now as senor penguin put it, evolution maybe has something to do with our so called empathy but i have never thought about the fact that maybe our so called conscience actually comes from a higher being.

MJ Gunner - good thought provoking point about the origin of our conscience/empathy

I disagree.
/thread

MJGunner wrote:How come animals don't feel empathy the way we do?

You mean like when we slaughter them? I'm sure they would have some interesting opinions on that lol

MJGunner wrote:How come animals don't feel empathy the way we do?

I will go philosophical on you and use Aristotle's reasoning in saying that the ability to reason is distinctively a feature of human beings, and rather, it is their function. Animals cannot reason and thus they are not able to see why something is wrong, or what the repercussions of their actions are. For example, we know that killing another human being is wrong because we can be empathetic and use reason and intellect to extrapolate and say "This is wrong, I would not like it if I had to go through this pain," or something along those lines.

Besides, using Darwin, survival of the fittest comes into play here. Human beings, when they were not developed, that is, socially and culturally, relied on this, but once again, this was in a time where human beings were not civilized in the same way. Eventually, we have learned that a society functions more harmoniously when we are not salvage animals, but rather, when we are engaging in reason, as you and I are doing right now. If we were animals, I would have killed your or vice-versa depending on who would be the strongest, and this is what I feel reason has to do with it. They cannot reason that the repercussions of killing or living like that is harmful in any way, shape, or form, so they continue to do it because they live well...like animals, uncivilized and untamed in nature.

My take.

P.S. Very pleased with the responses of this thread. Some very intellectual individuals on this forum. Lets keep it going lads.

why would you need religion to be a "good" person? just because you dont believe in god or a particular religion doesnt mena you dont believe in the same basic ethics and morals that are embodied by a religion, at the end of the day it all really comes down to an individuals upbringing

JuvenelCuore wrote:Personally, I agreed in some sense in that religion, almost universally, gives you a reason to act morally just, promising something like eternal salvation [Christianity], being reborn into a different Caste [Hinduism], and probably something different in Islamic and Buddhist religions, one that I forget but have learned about in school.

but is a religous person doing the right thing out of fear of a God or knowing that theres a reward in the after life equivalant to an agnostic person doing the right thing because its the right thing to do?
imo they're not and i cant speak for all religions but its argable Islam would agree with me because in the Qu'ran it says "only intentions are juged in the afterlife" which really means someone doing the right thing out of fear of a God or because they want some sort of reward would be looked upon unfavourably

Are you saying that agnostic/atheist righteousness is better than religious righteousness?

beatrixasdfghjk. wrote:Are you saying that agnostic/atheist righteousness is better than religious righteousness?

depending on intention of course
agnostic /athiest doing the right thing because its the right thing to do >>>>>>>>>> religous person doing the right thing because theyre scared of their god or they want some sort of reward in the afterlife

agnostic /athiest doing the right thing because its the right thing to do=religous person doing the right thing because its the right thing to do

religous person doing the right thing because theyre scared of their god or they want some sort of reward in the afterlife >>>>> agnostic/athiest doing the wrong thing

Where's the religious person doing the wrong thing option?

any two people doing the same wrong thing is equally wrong, regardess of their beliefs, or lack there of

MJGunner wrote:
How come animals don't feel empathy the way we do?

how do you know they don't?

Empathy is a form of intelligence the human brain is tailor-made for. Animals do have empathy, they just can't grasp abstract forms of it, and it's more limited, but they do have it.

My view is that Religion is what instilled Morals in us to begin with. It's not necessarily the origin of morals, but Religion is what unified our view on morals.
It's little wonder all the religions (to my limited knowledge) agree on the fundamentals. All "good" qualities that man can have in one religion are mostly, if not completely, the same "good" qualities that man can have in most of the other religions. The same goes for "bad" qualities as well.
Now, our definition of what's "good" and what's "bad" has been present before Religion has been. For example, look at the laws that Hammurabi laid down. It was obvious that killing others was considered as wrong, as was doing a poor job (constructing a bad house), for example.

So Religion did not define what's good and what's bad. Well, not entirely anyway. This was present from beforehand. Religion simply unified our views more, and made it very clear as to which acts are moral and which acts aren't.

With regards to the OP: Must one be a religious person in order to be morally "just" ? No, it's not necessary.

So if Morals were present before Religions, why is it your view that Religion instilled those Morals? I just don't quite follow your logic there.

Especially since your example sort of underlines how Religion really isn't needed to tell right from wrong - especially when you consider that there's such a thing as secular moral philosophy that can answer questions of Morals and Ethics with reason, and sound arguments, instead of faith.

I don't mind if Religion keeps a couple of savages from murdering each other, I just think we can move past that and evolve our Morals and Ethics to better suit the world we live in. Like not condemning everyone who deviates from what is considered "normal". Why condemn homosexuals for example? They don't hurt anyone.

In fact, as a heterosexual male I greatly endorse other men being gay, as not to compete with me about desirable females. Go gay, and go gay hard, mates. You make delicious deserts, clean up the neighbourhoods and don't take my chicks. Bravo, bravo!
And Lesbians? Hooooooot if lipstick lesbians, wouldn't have hit that anyway if not.

All for it.

So suck it, old testament.

At least Protestantism shows you that Religion can evolve as well, but on a whole it tends to lack behind the actual social changes, as seen in the US where the Republicans are crippled by fundamentalist nutjobs, or the entire Middle East which was far ahead of the West scientifically until maybe up to the Renaissance, when a couple of hardliners plunged the entire region into some kind of Middle Ages caricature.

I don't necessarily think Religion is always bad, I just think that we have better tools to answer lifes questions nowadays. And they're enlightenment, science, reason and secular philosophy. Power to people and nature, not your imaginary big brother.

VivaStPauli wrote:So if Morals were present before Religions, why is it your view that Religion instilled those Morals? I just don't quite follow your logic there.

Especially since your example sort of underlines how Religion really isn't needed to tell right from wrong - especially when you consider that there's such a thing as secular moral philosophy that can answer questions of Morals and Ethics with reason, and sound arguments, instead of faith.

I don't understand your question?
We had the ability to tell right from wrong, and there were laws present to enforce this way of thinking onto everyone; however, Religion instilled it in us. In other words, Religion made everything set in stone: "This is definitely right, this is definitely wrong and your punishment for all of this shall be later". Instead of instant punishment (Which the laws provided), Religion provided some sort of punishment as well, but it is based on one's lifetime.
By instill, I mean that Religion engraved it in us. The more we would fear punishment, the more we would be "good" and, thus, the more our children will also be "good" because they would have been raised by the principles of whatever Religion it is that we believed in.

We can tell right from wrong, but whether we act upon it is a different matter. Religion made sure that we do so, thus making these morals live on.
Imagine if we had nothing to tie us down to everything that is "good". Little by little, we might end up drifting towards doing the "bad" things. Religion ensured that we don't go down that path. It instilled the morals in us.

Iceman wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:So if Morals were present before Religions, why is it your view that Religion instilled those Morals? I just don't quite follow your logic there.

Especially since your example sort of underlines how Religion really isn't needed to tell right from wrong - especially when you consider that there's such a thing as secular moral philosophy that can answer questions of Morals and Ethics with reason, and sound arguments, instead of faith.

I don't understand your question?
We had the ability to tell right from wrong, and there were laws present to enforce this way of thinking onto everyone; however, Religion instilled it in us. In other words, Religion made everything set in stone: "This is definitely right, this is definitely wrong and your punishment for all of this shall be later". Instead of instant punishment (Which the laws provided), Religion provided some sort of punishment as well, but it is based on one's lifetime.
By instill, I mean that Religion engraved it in us. The more we would fear punishment, the more we would be "good" and, thus, the more our children will also be "good" because they would have been raised by the principles of whatever Religion it is that we believed in.

We can tell right from wrong, but whether we act upon it is a different matter. Religion made sure that we do so, thus making these morals live on.
Imagine if we had nothing to tie us down to everything that is "good". Little by little, we might end up drifting towards doing the "bad" things. Religion ensured that we don't go down that path. It instilled the morals in us.

Your post is confusing. If morals are "instilled", "engraved" or hard-coded into us due to religion as you seemingly claim, why are batsh*t lunatics murdering in the name of religion? Why do they possess this paradoxical ability to override the morals that religion - according to you - instilled into them? And why - if I've understood you correctly - is religion a better method of instilling morals than laws when they both essentially use fear as a method to regulate behavior? Apropos fear; you actually conclude yourself (perhaps unknowingly) that fear is the actual factor which makes people abide to religious morals - even though your post seems to suggest that religion posses a better-than-law ability to control people's behavior.

Senor Penguin wrote:
Your post is confusing. If morals are "instilled", "engraved" or hard-coded into us due to religion as you seemingly claim, why are batsh*t lunatics murdering in the name of religion? Why do they possess this paradoxical ability to override the morals that religion - according to you - instilled into them?

Religion is not only about Morals though. While books such as the Bible talk of good things, if they are taken to extremes, then they will have a reverse effect, just like if you take anything to extremes.
The books had a lot of room for uncertainty as well, and a lot of things in the Qur'an (for example) are still being debated about till this day, with each Sheikh saying something different. So If I were to believe in every single thing that was written in the Qur'an and started being an extremist, then all of these discrepancies might end up leading me down a wrong path; A path that is against some, if not all, of the morals in the book simply because I believe that everyone who isn't doing the same thing that I am deserves to die. Here in Egypt, we have two types extreme of Muslims: Salafis and Ekhwan. The Salafis believe that every single woman should wear the Niqab, and that the ones that don't do so, deserve to die. This is a prime example of completely misinterpreting the Qur'an, as it does not even state that the Niqab is mandatory or even preferable. At the same time, the Ekhwan think that women should wear El Hijab and that's good enough, but the ones that don't should be punished. Again, in nowhere in the Qur'an does it say that the Hijab is mandatory; it states it as a choice, not a must.
Then you have countries like Iran, who take the words of the Qur'an in their political state. They believe that Iran is going to be the leader of all of the Muslim world and fight against the jews (I'm not exactly sure, but it's something along these lines). In Religion, you basically believe in a book. Whatever the book says is divine and cannot be challenged; thus, any misinterpretations of the writings in the book will yield adverse outcomes. Just because the books instill morals doesn't mean that taking them to extremes will result in a reverse effect. If you take everything literally, then you're bound to have lunatics. It's safe to say that the majority of the moderately-religious people are sane though, no?

Senor Penguin wrote:And why - if I've understood you correctly - is religion a better method of instilling morals than laws when they both essentially use fear as a method to regulate behavior? Apropos fear; you actually conclude yourself (perhaps unknowingly) that fear is the actual factor which makes people abide to religious morals - even though your post seems to suggest that religion posses a better-than-law ability to control people's behavior.

Maybe my post was a bit incomplete then.

Religion provides a few things that laws don't: Firstly, if you act in a "correct" manner, then you shall be rewarded in heaven or the afterlife or whatever. The point is that you get rewarded for acting well. If you act correctly, the law does not reward you; it just doesn't punish you. So, in Religion there is a benefit to acting well, making people more willing to do so. Think of someone extremely extremely poor. They need to eat to survive, and so might think about stealing. If they don't steal, they might die without having any benefit. If they steal, they survive. The law wouldn't be as effective with them as Religion. If said poor person were religious, then they would not steal because they now have something good to look forward to. A power that is greater than theirs that they believe will make everything better without having to go down the road of stealing. There is little surprise that religion thrives when poverty is around (Example : Egypt). Religion gives hope of something better, while Laws don't provide that.
Secondly, there is the omnipotent figure in all Religions. Be it any deity, they are all regarded as extremely powerful making us fear their punishment even more. God, for example, is omnipotent but he is also a bit mysterious. You don't know how he looks like and you don't know anything else except that his powers are limitless. This makes you fear him even more than anything that can take place on Earth.
So the fear factor is stronger in Religion (if you believe in that Religion) and there is also a reward. That's what differs it from the laws. Religious people don't break the laws, because they don't want to break the religious laws. They care little about the ones that have been placed by man.

Religions basically say that to be a "good" person, you have to be "bla, bla bla and bla" and being a "good" person is obviously depicted as being thousands of times better than being a "bad" one. So Religion attempts to make all believers to be good people. Eventually being "good" was regarded as the ideal state, so everyone would try to abide by the morals because that is what we are "supposed" to be. At some point, fear stopped being as big a factor as it was.

Great thread.

I see religion as something that ties down our innate empathy and ethics more strongly to our personality. The fear factor, mentioned in previous posts, definitely exists, but it is there for a good reason.

Instead of taking religion as a base on which human behavior and actions are determined, I see religion as an advanced process in a human's life, which helps him/her to regulate their sense of doing/being good.

Imagine a situation in which a person is ethical, and thrives on doing good for others. If that person is presented with an opportunity of a lifetime, example a really big promotion at the cost of sending a few people down along the way, it is safe to say that that person, no matter who he is, will be tempted. And it is natural to be tempted, it's part of human nature to advance, develop and grow, even if it's at the expense of others.

That's where religion really comes into play. It reminds that person that there is an entity which is watching his actions and there are religious commandments that explicitly tell him not to do such a thing.

Therefore, in response to the OP, I would say that religion cements ethical and moral values in people who are 'weak', in a sense. Not everyone is the same, and not everyone has the same personality, upbringing, exposure etc, and religion, in context, helps eradicate these differences and provides a general direction to mankind, although this is not to say that atheists/agnostics are directionless or somehow inferior. I hold a greater level of respect for an atheist who is ethical than a religious man who is ethical.

being selfless because you think you'll be rewarded for it has nothing to do with morals...

Yes, but to think anyone's actions are purely altruistic is a misleading line of thought.