|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 9, 2018 19:39:09 GMT
Just curious, but if one assumed that theists were indeed more moral people than atheists on average, then so what? Would it matter that theists average more moral than atheists? And if so, why would it matter? Based on this assumption, we could conclude that religious training is a better way to inculcate moral behavior than non-religious training (like comparing the health of a group of people given vaccine A with another group given vaccine B). And that would affect debate on how best to run our society.
Again, that completely gets wrong what morality is, though. Morality is preferential judgments about behavior. Morality is not a set of particular judgments to the exclusion of other possible judgments. And everyone makes those judgments. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 19:49:25 GMT
Just curious, but if one assumed that theists were indeed more moral people than atheists on average, then so what? Would it matter that theists average more moral than atheists? And if so, why would it matter? Based on this assumption, we could conclude that religious training is a better way to inculcate moral behavior than non-religious training (like comparing the health of a group of people given vaccine A with another group given vaccine B). And that would affect debate on how best to run our society.
Would it? In what way? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 19:49:25 GMT
I'm more interested in the foundation of where our morality comes from. The theist believes that basic morality is "baked" into the fabric of reality. It's objective truth (e.g. it's OBJECTIVELY wrong to murder someone). The atheist believes... what, exactly? What does morality/ethics come down to? How you personally feel about something? How the majority of people feel about something? What is it based on? Is there ANY objectivity to it? If so, how?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 9, 2018 19:52:52 GMT
Seems like this was posted here before, but it's just another in the long line of studies that have all essentially showed the same thing: that there's no correlation between religiosity and morality. What's interesting is how this study seems to suggest that while there's no correlation between religiosity and people's moral actions, there IS a correlation between people's religiosity and how moral they perceive themselves (and others) to be. So there's something to the "holier than thou" stereotype. This article was only published on 17October 2017 so I apologise if it has been posted before. I must have missed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 9, 2018 19:58:14 GMT
Based on this assumption, we could conclude that religious training is a better way to inculcate moral behavior than non-religious training (like comparing the health of a group of people given vaccine A with another group given vaccine B). And that would affect debate on how best to run our society.
Again, that completely gets wrong what morality is, though. Morality is preferential judgments about behavior. Morality is not a set of particular judgments to the exclusion of other possible judgments. And everyone makes those judgments. Accepting that, we could just substitute a phrase like "majority preferential judgments about behavior" for "morality", but it wouldn't affect a discussion of whether those behaviors are more commonly found in theists than atheists. (You'll at least agree with that , I hope).
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 9, 2018 20:00:45 GMT
... So there's something to the "holier than thou" stereotype. Every time I watch The Godfather, I think of the scene where Michael is exiting the church while his henchmen are killing half-a-dozen of his competitors. I wonder how many hit-men go to church each week. It doesn't matter since the moral standard remains the same. The moral standard doesn't change for a religious group just because it's followers don't obey it...Although going to church may not be a moral issue anyway. So Corleone and his cronies being bad guys and Catholic doesn;t change the rules of being a good Catholic, just like any other law/lawbreaker scenario. They weren't good Americans either. The law is just another, much larger moral code to adhere to or break. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 9, 2018 20:08:52 GMT
Just curious, but if one assumed that theists were indeed more moral people than atheists on average, then so what? Would it matter that theists average more moral than atheists? And if so, why would it matter? Essentially it doesn't. Studies like this are done, and people like me post them ( although you will note I have not commented widely on this topic ) largely in response to claims by theists of an objective morality, as Winter has claimed recently, with the Bible as its guidebook, as the Christian example, and other religions similarly. Hence it is to refute the assumption that those who don't adhere to some objective morality, manufactured by some religion, are either devoid, or lesser, in what has been this traditional version of 'morality'. Someone else said it quite succinctly, 'the holier than thou' syndrome. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 20:09:26 GMT
I'm more interested in the foundation where where our morality comes from. The theist believes that there is a being (God/Creator/Whatever) that is GREATER than our physical reality, and that that being has "baked" morality into the fabric of said reality. It's objective truth (it's OBJECTIVELY wrong to murder someone). That really makes no sense to me on any level. For one, that's not "being moral" in my way of thinking. It's just... doing what you are told. And even if true, there's really no way to determine what these objective moral principles actually are. The best you can do is refer to a book, but that doesn't prove that "thou shalt not kill" is an objective moral fact, at best it just proves that a book says it is. And even if one could ignore all that... the rules come from a god/creator? Okay... what if I disagree with him? If he coded "it's moral to abuse children for fun" into the fabric of reality, then to my mind that doesn't mean it actually is moral to abuse children for fun, it means that god is evil. It varies from atheist to atheist. Should there be? What is the benefit of "objectivity"? |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 9, 2018 20:15:10 GMT
Based on this assumption, we could conclude that religious training is a better way to inculcate moral behavior than non-religious training (like comparing the health of a group of people given vaccine A with another group given vaccine B). And that would affect debate on how best to run our society.
Would it? In what way? Oh, we might start seeing more op-ed pieces arguing for a greater role for religion in public life, in seeing that religion is proven to encourage better behavior in people, which is good for all of society. Let your imagination go from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 9, 2018 20:15:49 GMT
Wow... and I thought you were better than this. I better than putting faith in a study to measure morality for sure. it's not a competition and cannot be quantified into one. ...except that for some theists it is due to the prosthelytising nature of their religion and their belief that there is an objective morality which leads to the 'holier than thou' attitude against those who don't have a similar belief. Also, when challenged they become defensive. ( as you are doing here ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 20:17:24 GMT
I'm more interested in the foundation where where our morality comes from. The theist believes that there is a being (God/Creator/Whatever) that is GREATER than our physical reality, and that that being has "baked" morality into the fabric of said reality. It's objective truth (it's OBJECTIVELY wrong to murder someone). That really makes no sense to me on any level. For one, that's not "being moral" in my way of thinking. It's just... doing what you are told. And even if true, there's really no way to determine what these objective moral principles actually are. The best you can do is refer to a book, but that doesn't prove that "thou shalt not kill" is an objective moral fact, at best it just proves that a book says it is. And even if one could ignore all that... the rules come from a god/creator? Okay... what if I disagree with him? If he coded "it's moral to abuse children for fun" into the fabric of reality, then to my mind that doesn't mean it actually is moral to abuse children for fun, it means that god is evil. It varies from atheist to atheist. Should there be? What is the benefit of "objectivity"? It's a useless hypothetical for this discussion. And your question presupposes an objective morality. Why would it be "evil" if there was no universal truth regarding it? The only morality we know is the one that we know. So that would be the one that God/The Creator/Whatever baked into our reality. And every sane person understands that it's NOT okay to abuse children. But what is the basis for that belief? That's what I'm curious about (as it relates to WHY atheists believe what they believe, morally speaking). Was there anything OBJECTIVELY wrong with what Hitler did? Or is it only "wrong" on the level that we don't like how it "feels" when we think about it? And why would we have evolved into beings that feel that way? Empathy? That's not exactly a survival benefit. The "benefit of objectivity" is that it would ALWAYS be wrong to mass murder a group of people, no matter how anyone felt about it at any particular moment. The reason sane people have a moral compass is because morality is baked into the fabric of reality. There's a "universal truth" to it. And that would only make sense if the universe had a specific design (rather than just being totally random). Random isn't concerned with "right." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 20:23:28 GMT
Oh, we might start seeing more op-ed pieces arguing for a greater role for religion in public life, in seeing that religion is proven to encourage better behavior in people, which is good for all of society. Let your imagination go from there.
We see that anyway, regardless of the actual facts of the matter. In the end, I'd say the only relevant question when it comes to whether to believe in a religion is whether there's reason to believe it's actually it's true or not. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 9, 2018 20:25:10 GMT
Oh, we might start seeing more op-ed pieces arguing for a greater role for religion in public life, in seeing that religion is proven to encourage better behavior in people, which is good for all of society. Let your imagination go from there.
Actually, I have just been re-thinking my reply to Graham, about why or why not it is important to have research and discussion on this topic and I have changed my mind when I said that it was not essentially important, and you have just hit on what I was about to post about. What you refer to is exactly what I was thinking. When the theists are so convinced that they HAVE a moral superiority, especially in a society like America ( butt it is generally applicable) you see things like laws being affected by religious morality and a lessening of the separation of church and state. All the to-ing and fro-ing about the cake baking and marriage licences and bigotry against homosexuals is an excellent example of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 9, 2018 20:29:02 GMT
Oh, we might start seeing more op-ed pieces arguing for a greater role for religion in public life, in seeing that religion is proven to encourage better behavior in people, which is good for all of society. Let your imagination go from there.
We see that anyway, regardless of the actual facts of the matter. We'd see much more of it, especially with regard to public schools, if there were actual facts to support it. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 9, 2018 20:36:14 GMT
I better than putting faith in a study to measure morality for sure. it's not a competition and cannot be quantified into one. ...except that for some theists it is due to the prosthelytising nature of their religion and their belief that there is an objective morality which leads to the 'holier than thou' attitude against those who don't have a similar belief. Also, when challenged they become defensive. ( as you are doing here ) Proselytizing is not a holier than thou attitude. It is doing what is required of their beliefs and it's dishonest to pretend that atheists don;t also suffer from delusions of grandeur. The ones who waste time thinking about this stuff often think they are smarter simply on the basis of not being brainwashed, indoctrinated, coerced, or whatever silly word they want to use to describe the notion of belief and faith. When someone is trying to promote something to me that i have no interest in, I either willingly accept the fact it's a topic to debate or I dismiss it. Anyone who follows a particular moral standard, and there are obviously many of them, can't help but think the one they follow is the superior one and it requires no judgement of others to adhere to it anyway. However, there are plenty of religion haters that make judgement calls all the time based on whatever their own moral fiber is made up of that is contrary to any particular religious religious one. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 9, 2018 20:43:30 GMT
...except that for some theists it is due to the prosthelytising nature of their religion and their belief that there is an objective morality which leads to the 'holier than thou' attitude against those who don't have a similar belief. Also, when challenged they become defensive. ( as you are doing here ) Proselytizing is not a holier than thou attitude. It is doing what is required of their beliefs and it's dishonest to pretend that atheists don;t also suffer from delusions of grandeur. The ones who waste time thinking about this stuff often think they are smarter simply on the basis of not being brainwashed, indoctrinated, coerced, or whatever silly word they want to use to describe the notion of belief and faith. When someone is trying to promote something to me that i have no interest in, I either willingly accept the fact it's a topic to debate or I dismiss it. Anyone who follows a particular moral standard, and there are obviously many of them, can't help but think the one they follow is the superior one and it requires no judgement of others to adhere to it anyway. However, there are plenty of religion haters that make judgement calls all the time based on whatever their own moral fiber is made up of that is contrary to any particular religious religious one. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL .....WOW just wow! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 20:47:16 GMT
It's a useless hypothetical for this discussion. That particular example might be, but it's a factual real life principle for many religious morals. For example, many claim that god thinks homosexuality to be immoral. If so, I think that makes god immoral, not homosexuality. No, it doesn't. It presupposes a subjective one. Because I regard it as such; thus it is my subjective belief. I don't grant that claim, but for the purpose of the discussion let's move to the more real-world examples. The only morality I know says that homosexuality is perfectly moral. So is abortion. Whereas slavery is immoral, and if you own a slave, beating the slave is also immoral. If the creator of the universe disagrees with me on that, then I say that makes him evil, not those things.
I think it depends on what you mean by "objective". And "morality" for that matter. For me, societal morality is a set of rules for general behaviour in order to promote the welfare of society. They are objective, to some extent, because the results make differences to the society that are objectively measurable. So if we enact the moral rule "it is a moral imperative to kill every person you meet", then it's clear that this would harm society - it would in fact destroy society in short order. And that is an objective fact, yes? But most moral questions are not so clear-cut, and there is going to be all kinds of shades of grey, differing opinions, benefit to some accompanying harm to others, and so on. There's a TON of value judgments involved. So for example some might argue that capital punishment is a moral benefit to society; I argue the opposite. And whilst we can both refer to objective facts, it's also going to largely depend on what our core morals are. Not sure I see why that is that a benefit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 20:47:45 GMT
We see that anyway, regardless of the actual facts of the matter. We'd see much more of it, especially with regard to public schools, if there were actual facts to support it. No, I don't think we would. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 9, 2018 20:54:27 GMT
Again, that completely gets wrong what morality is, though. Morality is preferential judgments about behavior. Morality is not a set of particular judgments to the exclusion of other possible judgments. And everyone makes those judgments. Accepting that, we could just substitute a phrase like "majority preferential judgments about behavior" for "morality", but it wouldn't affect a discussion of whether those behaviors are more commonly found in theists than atheists. (You'll at least agree with that , I hope).
Why would you insert the word "majority" there? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 9, 2018 21:03:16 GMT
Proselytizing is not a holier than thou attitude. It is doing what is required of their beliefs and it's dishonest to pretend that atheists don;t also suffer from delusions of grandeur. The ones who waste time thinking about this stuff often think they are smarter simply on the basis of not being brainwashed, indoctrinated, coerced, or whatever silly word they want to use to describe the notion of belief and faith. When someone is trying to promote something to me that i have no interest in, I either willingly accept the fact it's a topic to debate or I dismiss it. Anyone who follows a particular moral standard, and there are obviously many of them, can't help but think the one they follow is the superior one and it requires no judgement of others to adhere to it anyway. However, there are plenty of religion haters that make judgement calls all the time based on whatever their own moral fiber is made up of that is contrary to any particular religious religious one. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL .....WOW just wow! It makes sense you would think that funny since you are taking it seriously. |
|
