Thread: Do we need religion to have morals?

No.

Originally Posted by StephenT

No.

Please explain.

Are you of the view that 'morals' are hardwired into your DNA like some sort of instinct, or you make them up as you see fit?

Underlined and bolded make everything authoritarian.

Do you need a set of instructions to use a toothpick?

No, morality is something that is an evolutionary by-product that happened to be advantageous for social creatures like ourselves. We are all born with a capacity to learn morality, just in the same way we are born with the capacity to learn language. Religion is not needed for either.

Morality is a completely subjective concept though, one which relies on the perceptions of the individual and the society/community/group/etc that individual interacts with. Objectively though, there is nothing stopping us from doing anything we want, whether it is acts of altruism, or acts of wanton destruction. However, we act upon what is profitable for the community/group and ourselves, and avoid what is not, using morality to justify such actions and to promote social cohesion.

Do we need religion? I think it's impossible to base your morals on religion, given the stupidity and hypocrisy of most religious texts. Nobody bases their morals on religion. Some try, but they still end up ignoring certain parts.

Originally Posted by Good as Gold

Not specifically practice religion, anyways, but base them on it? I don't like murder, theft, or any of that bother. It is straight out of the Ten Commandments, yet I'm not a Christian or Jew.

Do you think you need religion to have morals?

Do not murder, do not steal, etc. are straight out of the Bible. They're also straight out of the religious beliefs of ancient pagan peoples who worshipped entire pantheons of gods, and primitive animistic religions that saw God in every plant and rock. They're also in the belief systems of people who have no religion and don't believe in God at all.

For some people, morality is merely a matter of common sense. Be kind to others because it's the sensible thing to do, to make friends and allies, to prevent oneself from making enemies, to ensure survival and to just socialize properly. People learn that if they go killing others and stealing things, etc., it won't be good for their social development and well being, hence they learn not to do it. Religion doesn't have to be involved in the least.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Do you need a set of instructions to use a toothpick?

Do you consciously try to be stupid or does it come natural?

Originally Posted by tehuti88

Do not murder, do not steal, etc. are straight out of the Bible. They're also straight out of the religious beliefs of ancient pagan peoples who worshipped entire pantheons of gods, and primitive animistic religions that saw God in every plant and rock. They're also in the belief systems of people who have no religion and don't believe in God at all.

For some people, morality is merely a matter of common sense. Be kind to others because it's the sensible thing to do, to make friends and allies, to prevent oneself from making enemies, to ensure survival and to just socialize properly. People learn that if they go killing others and stealing things, etc., it won't be good for their social development and well being, hence they learn not to do it. Religion doesn't have to be involved in the least.

That's interesting. I read somewhere -can't recall where, sorry- that morals are hardwired in some animals brains, including ours, but others mostly only have a pack mentality as part of their instincts. Perhaps this is what inspired the ancient peoples to do so, which led others to copy and et. al...

Originally Posted by Good as Gold

Do you consciously try to be stupid or does it come natural?

What the hell?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

What the hell?

i agree with Seis, i don't see what was wrong with his comparison really...

Well i certainly wouldn't say religious people are more moral as their are many religious criminals and i believe statistically, even when you take into the account the fact their are many more religious people then Atheists in America their are still more religious prisoners then Atheist ones.

Religious base themselves on morals but morals must have existed before them. Although this is not a perfect example if you look at pack animals, when one of the pack is injured, the others often do supply them with food. This doesn't happen with all species but some do look out for each other at least a little, an elephant appears to mourn it's dead child and other elephants lead it away, that my be simplistic but it show you how morals can develop even in non-sentient beings.

Originally Posted by Good as Gold

Not specifically practice religion, anyways, but base them on it? I don't like murder, theft, or any of that bother. It is straight out of the Ten Commandments, yet I'm not a Christian or Jew.

Do you think you need religion to have morals?

Ever considered that maybe the ten commandments are ripped off from principles of basic decency, and not the other way around?

Yes, we need an external moral code, as there is no innate morality. Whether this come from religion or not I am unsure.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Yes, we need an external moral code, as there is no innate morality. Whether this come from religion or not I am unsure.

We need an external moral code? Since when?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

We need an external moral code? Since when?

Since we were human.

He means we need some way to tell right from wrong.

No, we need religion to have wars.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

He means we need some way to tell right from wrong.

I know, but was still emphasising on the point of external moral codes.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Since we were human.

Okay... care to explain? Other social animals such as elephants and chimpanzees have social structures and behavioural patterns that resembles forms of what we know as morals, so if they are doing fine without an external moral code, why should it apply to humans?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I know, but was still emphasising on the point of external moral codes.


Okay... care to explain? Other social animals such as elephants and chimpanzees have social structures and behavioural patterns that resembles forms of what we know as morals, so if they are doing fine without an external moral code, why should it apply to humans?

Yes, but they remain very simplistic. The social structures of monkeys work on an aggression basis. Although I acknowledge that they do exist, on a simplistic level. How would humans use this genetic level of morality to determine the right age of sexual consent, to rightly invest in and protect the environment, the right number of weeks to rule that abortions cannot be conducted, after conception? Complex questions of morality.

Originally Posted by Good as Gold

Not specifically practice religion, anyways, but base them on it? I don't like murder, theft, or any of that bother. It is straight out of the Ten Commandments, yet I'm not a Christian or Jew.

Do you think you need religion to have morals?

Absolutely not. Morals come from social contract agreement resulting from a collective will to survive and the autonomic nervous system principle of conscience. The fact that zebras and apes have codes of morals shatters the idea that religion is necessary for morals.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Yes, but they remain very simplistic. The social structures of monkeys work on an aggression basis. Although I acknowledge that they do exist, on a simplistic level. How would humans use this genetic level of morality to determine the right age of sexual consent, to rightly invest in and protect the environment, the right number of weeks to rule that abortions cannot be conducted, after conception? Complex questions of morality.

lolwut?

First of all chimpanzee =/= monkeys (They are apes). Also, Bonobos (another ape, more closely related to humans) have a very sexually orientated society, as opposed to the more aggressive and male-dominant societal structures of chimpanzee, and as a consequence have much less aggressive tendencies.

Plus, genes do not determine the things you have quoted, that is what society sets. Humans are born with the capacity for social cognition, and it is how we are brought up which causes our in-built mental framework to develop further (like how language develops). However, the morals themselves are set by interactions the individual has with a community or society. Note, community/society/GROUPS of people. Humans, being social creatures, interact in certain ways and have certain instinct hard-wired into them which facilitate social interation and cohesion. We strive for language to express ourselves, morality to promote acceptable behaviour, and all of this does not require external influences. People naturally regulate themselves when present in groups.

Many morals can be derived from treating others as you want to be treated. Do you want to be murdered or have your property stolen? No? Well gosh, I better not go around doing that to other people.

The fact that many people reject specific parts of various religious morality is surely proof that religion is not needed for morality? If you reject the idea of stoning blasphemers to death (Leviticus 24:16), you don't get that sense of morality from Christianity/The Bible, you get it from society at large, and also probably from rationalising that the punishment (an extremely barbaric and painful death) doesn't fit the 'crime'. At least I would hope people would come to that conclusion.

well the main reason for morals in my view originally would have been that, in a group of pack animals/early humans, if you want your pack to look out for you you must in turn look out for them. You must all share responsibilities and work as a unit to hunt and survive. If you do not share the kill with others, if you attack your own etc then they will likely turn on you or at least kick you out of the pack.

An example of a Biblical quote on this is: "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the Law of the prophets." ( think it's in Matthew). Anyway the point is it makes sense to treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated, if your nice to your fellow pack mates/humans they should in theory be nice to you, if you piss them off they will ignore you or turn on you.

Obviously there are some who are lone wolves and have no empathy for fellow humans, but there's always going to be some bad eggs.

The problem with some religions is that, since they teach their scripture is the only true scripture, they create divides between people and some people will only consider Christians as fellow humans or some Muslims would hold other Muslims in higher regard then everyone else.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Ever considered that maybe the ten commandments are ripped off from principles of basic decency, and not the other way around?

Of course. Have you ever considered that I was asking questions to see what you thought on the values and morals of both religious and non-religious peoples?

All you need is love for morals! But most people lack love, or lack the understanding why you would need love, or lack the understanding why you need morals, so yeah, theres where the story of God the punisher comes in =P