General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMorals are based on empathy not religion
I'm sick and tired of hearing religious people say that religion is the reason for morality in our world, and without it, people can do whatever they to whoever they want. That's why after school shootings, people like Mike Huckabee blame taking God out of the classroom.
I find this argument ridiculous. We've seen devoutly religious people commit all manner of horrific acts from child rape to beheadings. Religion does not create morality, empathy does.
When you care about the physical, emotional, health, and well-being of other people, then you have the basis of being a moral person. If you empathize and feel sorry for someone who was robbed, then you're not likely to rob someone else.
Am I wrong here?
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)via Lazurus Long, of course.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)I specifically don't include Yahweh, because he doesn't play well with others. I don't know how his son turned out so well.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Brilliant.
Archae
(46,327 posts)Delmette
(522 posts)It's as simple as how you stated it.
calimary
(81,238 posts)Glad you're here! Sure seems logical to me. It's another word for walking-a-mile-in-the-other-guy's-shoes. You can sympathize, and that helps, but that's more passive, uninvolved personally, at a distance (sometimes close, sometimes not so much), and basically disconnected. When you empathize, it's strictly active-mode. Up-close-'n'-personal. Because you've lived it, breathed it, walked it, struggled with it personally, and seen it from the inside, not the outside.
elleng
(130,895 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,515 posts)lunasun
(21,646 posts)Moral also
merrily
(45,251 posts)who profess to be very religious behave well and some who profess to be religious behave very badly. And the same is true of people who profess to be agnostics or atheists.
Conclusion. Religion is not the be all and end all either of behaving well or of behaving badly.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)you obviously don't believe in a god that gives you self-determination. But wait, isn't determination giving you the choice between Heaven or Hell? Or does it mean an open mind about others. Sorry, I'm confusing myself.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)pick and choose those that suit them, or justify their actions. They may choose good ones or bad ones, it really is up to the person.
Atheists and agnostics on the other hand don't have as many choices, they can go with what is lawful and common sense for good morals, but for the bad morals it gets more complicated. For bad morals they have to drop their drawers, bend over, reach behind themselves and pull.
Warpy
(111,255 posts)People who lack empathy are the bullies and other psychopaths and their numbers are increasing because nobody's around to teach them empathy when they're kiddies.
littlemissmartypants
(22,655 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Morals are based on the Golden Rule. Religions often are based on selfishness (not always.)
djean111
(14,255 posts)For those who would have no moral compass without religion telling them what is right and what is wrong, then I guess religion is a good thing.
As an atheist, I cannot imagine anyone at all really needing those ten commandments.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)making graven images?
What would the world come to?
djean111
(14,255 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Full title: Richard Dawkins on babies with Down Syndrome: 'Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world'
Budding atheists wondering whether Richard Dawkins is in need of a little time away from Twitter to reflect on the past few weeks are about to have their (lack of) prayers answered.
The philosopher has managed to go one step further than his controversial comments on date rape versus stranger rape to voice his opinions on what it would be ethical for a mother who is informed that her unborn child has Down Syndrome to do.
He started off his conversation with followers ethically enough, highlighting the plight of women in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, in light of the recent reports of the countrys refusal to provide a safe abortion to a suicidal rape victim. She was forced to give birth.
Ireland is a civilised country except in this 1 area, he tweeted, adding You'd think the Roman Church would have lost all influence, to caption a link to a similar article.
full: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html
UGH. this is why people associate secular thought with lack of morality.
I was reply #86:
"this is why people associate secular thought with lack of morality" -- give me a fucking break!
So what if I pointed to the RCC's massive child rape/coverup, its Magdalene laundries and its fight against birth control and gay marriage, organized Christianity's suppression of women and gays, Islam's pushing of misogyny and jihad, the Crusades, and a thousand other religious-instituted horrors and religious wars over stupid superstition, as well as the religious suppression of scientific research that could save and improve countless lives and said "UGH. this is why people associate religious thought with lack of morality" ? Because that would be a FAR MORE justified sentiment. Religion thought has brought ignorance, suppression and idiocy to the planet for centuries and humanity would be far better off without its nonsense.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)It's just that it has nothing to do with his being an atheist.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Thankfully, most atheists are much nicer people than Dawkins.
bvf
(6,604 posts)"Compassionate--if irritatingly matter-of-fact" would strike me as closer to the mark.
Bracing for the flame. . .
defacto7
(13,485 posts)and honesty is not something people like to hear let alone utter. Yeah, he's added a bit too much information at times and he is easily taken out of context, but I respect someone who says what he thinks.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, Yavin.
dangin
(148 posts)Beheading journalist.
Flying plane into buildings.
IEDs
Female circumcision
Snake handling
Refusing blood transfusions that would save your life.
Picketing funerals
Believing in demons
And on and on.
The stoopid is with them...
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Yavin4
(35,438 posts)We find that portion of the brain that controls empathy, and we create a drug that makes people feel empathy towards others.
What impact do you think that would have on the world?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)We just need to find a way to get everyone to take it.
Pubmed: MDMA enhances emotional empathy and prosocial behavior
defacto7
(13,485 posts)wouldn't sheer empathy be relative? Should someone have pure unbridled empathy? E.g. IS? Should we have empathy for ISIS? Should we empathize with and have pro-social behavior with murderers?
I would think if someone was brought up in a certain culture, their capacity for empathy would be programmed by that culture and if that culture had what most of us call anti-social behavior, would that not be their empathy?
Maybe I'm missing something.... I've done that before.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Thing is, the people who most need such a drug are the least likely to take it. And if you force them to take it, you're getting into Clockwork Orange territory.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)and conversely, atheists who treat everyone well.
So yup, no correlation at all.
azureblue
(2,146 posts)have in common a total suspension of reality and a blind belief in ideology, that has detached them from reality and humanity. They see the world through the dogma of their faith, rather than see it world as it is.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." -- Albert Einstein
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
cer7711
(502 posts)As Kurt Vonnegut said: "The only religion a man needs is kindness."
http://www.avclub.com/article/15-things-kurt-vonnegut-said-better-than-anyone-el-1858
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)He was an Adjunct (real job was a Homicide Detective), the class was "Homicide", the quote was......
"Law in and of itself is moral, however individual morality cannot and must not constitute law".
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)There is interesting material that suggests morals are evolutionary. Many say they come from their faith in a God(s) as the teachings on how to be a good person. Curious still...
It always feels odd to hear that people think we cant figure out how to treat others without an ancient book which regulates slavery, cheerfully uses a rainbow as a promise that we're free from any genocidal floods, and that a human sacrifice absolves us of any guilt. Sorry for the run on sentence but I'm on a phone
Iron Man
(183 posts)Things labeled as moral are considered moral because our society says they are.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)its a big part of how we relate to others. One might as well say "society is socially constructed".
Iron Man
(183 posts)Someone somewhere during the early years of human evolution decided upon what was good and what was bad in order to control early humans. It probably set up the first religion.
They are socially constructed. What our culture may find immoral is moral in another culture.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)and, therefore, in every culture. It doesn't matter that one culture has a list of behaviors that are "right" and a list of behaviors that are "wrong", while another culture will have a substantially different list; what matters is that every culture and every person has a list.
That's what is meant by innate - we're born with a sense of right and wrong, it just makes sense to us, and its built in to how we think.
Iron Man
(183 posts)If a child is born and taken away and raised by itself in a room, she/he will not have morals. They're only taught what is morally right/wrong by parents, grandparents, and teachers from an early age.
Morals are not innate.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)its problematic to look at damage and say that's the natural state.
With social interaction, without exception, morality manifests as a normal human element.
We aren't blank slates at any point; every attempt at social engineering that began with that notion, that humans can be somehow cured of human nature and "improved", has failed with either a bang or a wimper. Understanding people is essential.
War Horse
(931 posts)Lex
(34,108 posts)They subvert it for their own gain, usually power or money.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)religion." He was asked why he didn't attend church. He responded that if you were to show him a church that only taught the Golden Rule and followed it, he would attend.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Do you remember where you read that about Lincoln or have a link for that? I would love to read more...
JEB
(4,748 posts)some people need it.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Be nice or spend the afterlife in a lake of fire.
Don't seek justice in this life and you'll get a mansion on streets of gold after you die. That's right, there's no need to rise up against unfair kings. God put them there and if you work hard and bow your head at night, you'll get a pass into heaven. It's God's plan that your life sucks, so bend over, take it, and pray that you'll get your golden mansion in the sky after you die.
Trust me and give me 10% of your money.
And the suckers are still falling for it.
raccoon
(31,110 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)The grand poohbahs of the major religions have long used threat and fear to keep the wimminfolks in line and to enrich their own coffers. The Big Hats of the RCC sitting on their piles of gold are a salient example of this, as are the Islamic imams who are hell bent (pun intended) on making sure women are treated like dirt at all times.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You do have to wonder. Old people could be dangerous, realizing they have nothing to lose by paying off old scores. As it is, people who want to die do sometimes take others out with them, knowing there is now nothing to lose.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)get it from my empathy for other living beings and from common sense values of what is good and instinct about what is bad.
Some of the religious ones look at me like I grew horns and a forked tongue right before their eyes.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)rogerashton
(3,920 posts)Theory of Moral Sentiments
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)because empathy is not a strong suit of the species and religion has no observable "market dominance" in this area and is the excuse for much that is the polar opposite of moral.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)My parents took me to (Protestant) church on and off when I was pre-school and early elementary. They sent me to "Bible School" for a summer or two. Then they turned me loose. I occasionally went to various churches on and off with friends, just out of curiosity. I never did take up a religion, but was raised with very humanistic moral and sane values. My daughter has been raised the same way, but is technically Catholic. When she started school, she felt left out, not having a religion. When she expressed an interest, her father, a very lapsed Catholic, expressed an interest in putting her through the Catholic process. I had no objection. Now in her thirties, she loves Catholic ceremony on holidays, but her very good instincts about others aren't due to the Church. In retrospect, I think many kids in more agnostic homes are influenced by the fact that classmates in early school have more definite religion. Very understandable. Too many religions, however, do promote various harmful smugness against others who disagree with their particular prejudices. The open minds of Atheists and Agnostics are more beneficial to society, although some "Christians" complain that they are being persecuted by the former. I often think that such "Christians"equate disagreement with persecution.
sinkingfeeling
(51,454 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Because they profess their belief in another person, they are absolved of any and all wrongdoing, past, present and future.
No invisible savior is going to save you from your "sins", only you alone can do that.
bigtonka
(28 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)albino65
(484 posts)Then the perps got remorse and said "god" made us do it. Then they made up a story up to justify it (plagiarizing older religions significantly), wrote some down, picked the stuff they eventually liked, and called it a religion. They found it was an economic goldmine and have been using it as an excuse to enslave, persecute, and kill ever since. There is nothing moral about it.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)You are correct.
I'm a Christian who has friends of many differing faiths, as well as friends that do not have a belief at all. We all have morals that we live by and it has nothing to do with our religious faith, but rather the idea that we treat people as we'd like to be treated. More the "golden rule" type of thing than anything else.
Morality is certainly NOT limited to Christian belief.
Tikki
(14,557 posts)demands that the followers be good and kind and yet they are not good and kind, at all.
Tikki
ymetca
(1,182 posts)... while religion appears more connected to "the Word"; or the mystery of how humans began using laryngeal-muscular sounds to associate, mapping neurological experiences, thus codifying them into something that can be passed onto another, without the other actually having experienced the same neurological events.
"I hunted deer" becomes a tale, a song, a cave drawing, which then is used to teach the next generation how you hunted deer. Then it all becomes a belief system. The map becomes the territory.
We live inside our language about reality. Language appears, in essence, to be our collective "religion".
But a mother bear can show empathy...
Tribalceltic
(1,000 posts)... not that you have won the internets?
clap: :
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)Doing the right thing out of recognition of a fellow human being, as opposed to doing it because your omnipotent invisible friend will hurt you if you don't, seems to be the way to go.
Kablooie
(18,632 posts)They are afraid of God punishing them for transgressions so they behave.
These are the people who say religion is needed for moral behavior because they feel that if they were left to their own devices they wouldn't be moral. Essentially selfishness, the fear of something bad happening to yourself, is the only thing that makes them act morally.
For these people, perhaps religion is necessary because at core they are immoral and need the external fear of religion to make them behave.
bvf
(6,604 posts)of belief. More's the pity. What religion maintains that you can be a good person of equal standing without it? My guess is zero.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)My view of the world is through the lens of Rousseau, specifically his dichotomy of the natural and social orders of things.
Our species is not cursed with original sin, as Christian doctrine holds, but there is certainly no evidence of the opposite, perhaps we should call it original virtue, which seems good for selling overpriced paperbacks in a new age bookstore, but little else. Since I've mention Ayn Rand, an overrated hack novelist and quack philosopher, her ideas about human nature are closer to the Christian doctrine of original sin, except that she thinks that the emotions and behavior Christians enumerate as sins are virtues.
To give that lady her due, however, greed and selfishness do fill a positive role, along with some of our more aggressive traits that get out of hand too often. If we were created by a god, then it created us, like it created every other species, to survive for at least for time on this planet while it is still inhabitable.
Nevertheless, Ms Rand's view of human nature is at best a half truth. Her heroes are "born without the ability to feel others." Such a person usually ends up committing criminal acts, like a serial killer. If her novels don't ring true to most of us, that is the reason: her heroes aren't like most of us, and we don't hold them up as people to be admired. That ability to feel others is as much a natural part of us as greed, selfishness and aggressive behavior. Primitive humans live in groups and hunt in packs. A human with no ability to feel others would not survive very long in a state of nature. He would be a lone hunter. No one would do his hunting for him or look after his health if he were laid up for a while with the flu or if he catches a cold that digresses into pneumonia. He might pass on his genes if he can find a mate who's as sick as he is, as happens in Ms Rand's novels such as, for instance, with Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged.
While it is true that we can be characterized as being greedy and selfish, there is a reason we don't often think that those are part of our better nature. Humans are also, by nature, a social animal. By nature, we reach out to our fellow humans. One can call that empathy. It's a good word for it, although I think empathy means something more, something less clinical or academic, but something warmer. If we didn't do that, we would have become extinct long ago. A slow runner (compared to a hungry leopard) and poor tree climber (compared to a frightened monkey) had to have something else going for it in order to have been as successful as we have been. A good part of this might have been that magnificent brain of ours.
Do I hear the Objectivists chortling? Do they really think a lone human hunter could have survived in a state of nature more than a winter or two by himself and his brain? No, he would not have. He would not have lived long enough to become a hunter. Most of human cerebral development takes place outside the womb, after birth. Our childhood comprises about the first 20% of our life span. It is necessary for our survival to the age of puberty that we be nurtured by other, older humans. Again, it is natural for humans to live in groups. If it were not, few of us would survive childhood and the likelihood we would be extinct by now would be rather high. Therefore, we have the family, the village, the tribe, the community, or if one wishes to use some more general term, society. Human society cannot be separated from our nature. It is part of us.
True, it comes at a cost, such as limitations on individual freedom. Part of that limitation is what we call morality, that is, the rules by which we agree to live in a particular group. Believers in the Abrahamic god assert that morality comes from their god. I don't agree with them. People who have never heard of that particular god still live in groups that have rules by which they live. A society could not function well if we allowed any individual to resolve a dispute with another by killing him. Nobody needs a god to furnish a prophet with a stone tablet saying so in order to know this. Even Pharaoh, who most certainly did not believe in the Abrahamic god, enforced laws prohibiting murder and theft.
Morality, in my view, grows out of a social pragmatism growing, in turn, from our natural need to live in groups. I don't think that need is the same thing as empathy, but it is related to it. Empathy is something like an elaboration on that need. We don't really need empathy for survival, but it makes the world a more pleasant place.
Yavin4
(35,438 posts)In fact, socialist societies are more common than any other form of society in human history.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Industrial or post-industrial socialism would be a lot more complicated.
Nevertheless, another part of my as yet unwritten dissertation holds that there is no natural right to own private property; that's because there is no private property in a state of nature. All "property" in a natural society is personal property, such as the shirt on your back. Owning a shirt is a little different than owning a steam engine.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Iggo
(47,552 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....explains their similarities,...don't it....
flying rabbit
(4,632 posts)LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)on other humans. We're no more than out-of-the-womb fetuses then. That holds true throughout out lifetimes. Sustained cooperation can't occur without empathy. Even psychopaths fake empathy to adapt to the cooperative requirement. We see where fake empathy takes us by witnessing big biz CEO behavior. It's killing our species. Only genuine empathy can save our species.
Religion is a tool of the ruling class to manipulate the masses. It has nothing to do with empathy.
Cha
(297,196 posts)EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Our prisons are filled with the devout, and there's plenty of evidence that non-believers are good people. Dickholes like Mike Huckabee get off on the religious power-trip. It provides the illusion of control over things of which he's scared shitless. It's all about the fear with the true believers.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)People interfere with this morality, while it is still potential.
Well meaning adults instruct the children wrongly -- so that
instead of looking inward for right and wrong, they are taught
to mistrust themselves, and follow external experts or
authorities, who may or may not be immoral; more often
than not, they are.
But the true morality -- it is innate! Not constrained by
rules, definitions, or even language. It is a living part of
us, alive and spontaneous as each moment requires.
And I think, real empathy is part of it, that part of us
which is able to feel. The heart leans toward compassion,
patience, peace, and fun. Morality is all in there.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)and they are a largely Buddhist nation. And 75% of the prisoners in the US are Christian yet only 1 out of 5000 are atheist.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)is comparing apples to oranges. Japan is one of the most xenophobic countries. Monocultures tend to have strong social cohesion and low crime rates.
vanlassie
(5,670 posts)or doesn't as a result if the way the child is treated in the first few years if life. If his needs are met, promptly and lovingly, then his brain connects pathways that allow feelings and eventually empathic behaviors. Neglect at this critical time can mean hormones like cortisol and adrenalin interfere with this healthy brain development.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)quietly accept that their suffering and exploitation in this life is necessary to obtain the reward awaiting them in the next.
flvegan
(64,407 posts)You might be uncomfortable to find out it's not just about people.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)from which religion derives, not the other way around. Religion has its uses, but too many forms can stifle natural morality, rather than inform it.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Every religion has something like what Rabbi Hillel said:
"What you find hateful, do not do unto your neighbor. That is the whole of the Torah; all the rest is commentary."
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Yahweh himself promises to smote all the enemies of Jews, when he remains mute on stoning, promotes war, nationalism, etc etc.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)As I learned as a lad in Hebrew school, so much is in the interpretation of scripture. One can interpret scripture to promote bad ends, but this isn't "real" religion, in my book anyway.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)as comprising of people whom he likes (Jews) and whom he will support. What is there to interprete? In the Old Testament Yahweh doesn't show any empathy at all for those who aren't his chosen people.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Everything!
The Talmud is probably the second most important book in Judaism, after the Torah. It's basically a giant discussion/argument among important rabbis over how the law should be interpreted. Everything is up for grabs. From Wikipedia:
The whole Talmud consists of 63 tractates, and in standard print is over 6,200 pages long. It is written in Tannaitic Hebrew and Aramaic. The Talmud contains the teachings and opinions of thousands of rabbis on a variety of subjects, including Halakha (law), Jewish ethics, philosophy, customs, history, lore and many other topics. The Talmud is the basis for all codes of Jewish law and is much quoted in rabbinic literature.
These are not subtle differences of opinion - they are often huge differences. While I'm not personally religious, I think it's really cool that Judaism has a giant book of arguments as a key tract: it sends the message that nobody has a monopoly on truth and interpretation, and even as a tyke in Hebrew school I was encouraged to push back at our teachers and rabbis if we didn't buy what they were saying.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)placed on argument within Judaism but the fact remains that Yahweh is a militaristic Deity that promoted tribalism and female subservience. Yahweh shows no empathy for those outside the tribe of Israel, no empathy towards women.
Gnostic's many of whom were disaffected Jews got it right when they asserted the Yahweh was a demiurge, a craftsman who after creating the Earth became arrogant and saw himself as the ultimate Godhead. The fact that he wasn't the ultimate godhead was the reason according to Gnostic's that Yahweh speaks of himself as an an angry and jealous god.
(A interesting tidbit about gnosticism is that they regarded the serpent in the Garden of Eden as a manifestation of Christ who wanted Adam and Eve to acquire knowledge and not remain in a state of ignorance under the thumb of a capricious demiurge.)
An interesting note about the misogny way back when is found in the Gospel of Mary which is one of the Gnostics gospels found at Nag Hamadi; Mary says to Jesus that she finds it hard to express herself to Jesus when Peter is close at hand because of Peter's hatred of women. I don't know about you but I was shocked to read that a female back in the 1st or 2nd century when that gospel was written would be aware of misogny and comment on it. Clearly misogny was acknowledged but why then no comment from all those learned rabbis.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)The Big 3 desert-originated monotheisms largely stomped down many female-centric goddess religions and also turned their back on nature.
If they had stuck to the "do unto others" and that was the basic theme, it would have been fine. But they are all loaded down with harmful crap that has brought untold misery to the planet for centuries.
azureblue
(2,146 posts)religion is the politics of spirituality. What a religion tries to convince people of is that they don't know how to be "good" unless they believe in their god and belong to their religion. IOW are "lost" so you can't be "good" without religious guidance. Hogwash. Almost all religions fear the self guided, self enlightened person, individual seeker, because they challenge this system. A lot of religions also do not want critical thinkers, also, for they tend to see the dogma as BS thrown at them to try to keep them in the flock..
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Well said and I agree.
barbtries
(28,789 posts)the biggest problem i have with religion is how much evil shit gets done in its name.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)ChristianSocialist
(11 posts)But what's up with all these pro-religious/anti-religious camps?
"Live and let live" for God's sake!
valerief
(53,235 posts)on abortion or gay marriage. Cuz religion always stays in its own back yard.
malthaussen
(17,193 posts)Religion can be seen, as with other forms of law, as an attempt to enforce certain actions on people who would otherwise be out of control. The fact that, as with other forms of law, it can be corrupted and used to justify nearly any sort of activity, is not the fault of religion itself but of human nature.
-- Mal
Yavin4
(35,438 posts)If religion is corrupted by people, then those people lack empathy, or morals. IOW, it isn't religion that makes them moral, it's their level of empathy for their fellow human beings.
Religion may be a way of forcing empathy (or morals) onto people.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and so many have been saying it loudly in recent times - Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Hitchens. And for whatever good religion has ever done in the word, it has done more evil.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg (emphasis added)
Festivito
(13,452 posts)For those lacking empathy, the writ is needed to ascribe them.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Festivito
(13,452 posts)Religion has long been where our morals are honed.
We have long needed a forum, not just a forum, but a forum with teeth.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I do not need religion -- never have, never will. I don't murder, rape, pillage, try to stomp down others' rights, or dupe rubes into giving me money, unlike many religious people.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)The idea is that you have already benefited, You played the game, understand the rules and now you don't need to read the instruction manual- by your way of thinking.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Have you ever read the Bible? What a fucked-up, twisted piece of fiction. Yahweh is a mass-murdering asshole.
I reject your premise entirely.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)Morals make for a messy business. The revelation of such is messy.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Festivito
(13,452 posts)Example: modern prosperity gospel.
Maineman
(854 posts)The two biggest problems on planet earth are greed and religion. Religion has been the underlying factor in numerous acts of hate, brutality, and war -- "Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching off to War..." Muslims kill Muslims, Catholics versus Protestants (Northern Ireland), the list goes on and on.
And just listen to the crazy, off-the-wall comments of today's politicians. If a politician says something crazy, you can bet it is based on some religious belief, or greed. One of my favorites is "God gave us coal" as a way of defending the use of planet damaging fuel and ridiculing science. Too bad God did not give him a brain.
And, morality? Call it what it is: Religious dogma.
Yavin4
(35,438 posts)See the slavery abolitionists in the US. My point is that we think that it's religion itself that makes people moral, when in relaity, it's the level of empathy in the human being.
Religion alone does not make people moral. It's the level of empathy in the human that makes them moral.
Marr
(20,317 posts)working on Saturday, or for wearing certain combinations of cloth.
They'll tell you, in some way, that they themselves can discern which parts of that flawless book are reasonable and which are not. That pretty much settles the question of whether or not morality comes from religion, I'd say.
DesertFaux
(15 posts)if you are missing this function of investment, you instead rely on the tactic of manipulation. Those missing the investment gene look normal, walk normal, have two eyes, but they just don't understand the language of human investment, and will even contradict it. Those who believe in religion and have 'faith' are very easy to manipulate by these people.
hue
(4,949 posts)LW1977
(1,234 posts)As a liberal Christian, this thread is insulting!
Richard Dawkins/Pat Robertson same sh!t/different viewpoints.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)So obviously religion didn't "work" to impose morality on him, because he is a giant asshole who dupes people out of their needed cash. Religion is just mythology and dogma and has nothing to do with morality.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)It appears most religions try to teach people empathy by telling them to put themselves in the other person's shoes and treat that person like they would like to be treated. Sadly, it seems most religious people fail to follow that rule. It seems you either have the capacity for empathy or you don't. Religion does not seem to make you have empathy. Indeed, if anything, religion is often the excuse people use to mistreat their fellow humans, particularly those who happen to not believe in the same imaginary friend up in the sky.
The CCC
(463 posts)Ideally our religion informs our morals and our morals informs our religion. As a wise man once told me: "What you are doing shouts so loudly that I can't hear a word you're saying".
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)And many of the self-proclaimed Christians I have met are most distinguished by lacking an emphatic bone in their bodies.
geretogo
(1,281 posts)do unto you " . If that isn't empathy I don't know what is . It is " Organized Religion " and the addiction
to it that is so destructive in the world .
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)That said, religion can provide some "fine-tuning" (for lack of a better term) of that empathy. Which is not to say that atheists lack morality, before someone thinks I'm saying that. I think religion just gives you license for whatevers inside you. If you have a spiteful, petty, judgemental prick a Bible, you get Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson. Give a Bible to a thoroughly good man with a deep interest in social justice and you get Martin Luther King. I was raised by my grandmother, who was devoutly (albeit quietly) Christian and she spent her entire life caring for disabled and disturbed children. I know that she drew a lot of strength and inspiration from her faith but I think it just gave support to who she was inside.
Unlike most of DU, I am a man of faith (who frequently gets tired of the OTT hatred of religion here) and I don't think religion is automatically evil but there's no doubt that it can be and is turned to evil ends.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I was born with too much empathy and it causes sadness....