All due respect, I just posted a few throwaway posts in this thread to pass the time. I'm not really interested in this topic, or having extended conversation about it.
-
Features
Does religion make people more moral?
- Thread starter Underseer
- Start date
All due respect, I just posted a few throwaway posts in this thread to pass the time. I'm not really interested in this topic, or having extended conversation about it.
couch_sloth
Member
Having been very religious in my teens, I would say that my beliefs back then made me more reflective about my behavior.
On the whole: I was probably more generous at a personal level (e.g. Giving money to strangers), I was more judgmental towards groups of people, I stressed out about things that didn’t really matter (e.g. Masturbation, Letting an ‘off-color’ word slip into a conversation.)
On the whole: I was probably more generous at a personal level (e.g. Giving money to strangers), I was more judgmental towards groups of people, I stressed out about things that didn’t really matter (e.g. Masturbation, Letting an ‘off-color’ word slip into a conversation.)
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
Interesting. I don't think I changed in the above areas much. Though I didn't walk away from faith in a god until my mid 30's...
Ditto.
couch_sloth
Member
Yeah, age can make a big difference.
For me, it might have been part of the common change in views that happens to people as they get older, i.e. Being less gullible. Being a little more cynical about people's actions and motivations. Not worrying so much about the things I can't change.
But then how much account do you give to volunteer service to a church, or charitable giving to a church? That's a form of philanthropy. But you could reasonably argue that believers shouldn't be given full credit just for giving money to their own particular brand of religion. Of course some churches are also doing unquestionably charitable things in addition to their religious promotion.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Well, if you're going to track that, then also track similar philanthropy that's not church-based.
I give several hours of uncompensated effort to the school at each year's high school science fair, for example.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Yes. Churches are very much like country clubs. All the volunteering done within and for the benefit of these institutions is only that.
I'm thinking that religion can likely encourage people to do good things at times, just as it can encourage people to do bad things at times. There would be something suspect, I think, in saying that we will blame religion for all these evils in the world, (as atheists like to do), but when it comes to people doing good, then suddenly religion doesn't have any power to influence people. It only gets credit for bad things, and not good things?
Of course you could ask, "Does religion make people more moral?" in the context of also asking, "Does humanism make people equally moral as religion?", "Does humanism avoid various evils of religion at the same time?", but, "Would humanism 'work on' as many people as religion does?".
Quote:
...Atheists should point out that life without God can be meaningful, moral and happy. But that's "can" not "is" or even "should usually be". And that means it can just as easily be meaningless, nihilistic and miserable.
Atheists have to live with the knowledge that there is no salvation, no redemption, no second chances. Lives can go terribly wrong in ways that can never be put right. Can you really tell the parents who lost their child to a suicide after years of depression that they should stop worrying and enjoy life? Doesn't the appropriate response to 4,000 children dying everyday as a direct result of poor sanitation involve despair at the relentless misery of the world as well as some effort to improve things? Sometimes life is shit and that's all there is to it. Not much bright about that fact.
Stressing the jolly side of atheism not only glosses over its harsher truths, it also disguises its unique selling point. The reason to be an atheist is not that it makes us feel better or gives us a more rewarding life. The reason to be an atheist is simply that there is no God and we would prefer to live in full recognition of that, accepting the consequences, even if it makes us less happy. The more brutal facts of life are harsher for us than they are for those who have a story to tell in which it all works out right in the end and even the most horrible suffering is part of a mystifying divine plan. If we don't freely admit this, then we've betrayed the commitment to the naked truth that atheism has traditionally embraced....
Even more disturbing, perhaps, is the threat of moral nihilism. Atheists are quite rightly keen to counter the accusation that life without God cannot be moral. The British Humanist Association, for instance, claims that "Right and wrong can be explained by human nature alone and do not require religious teaching". But, just as with happiness, there is a need to distinguish the possibility of atheist morality from its inevitable actuality. Anyone who thinks it's easy to ground ethics either hasn't done much moral philosophy or wasn't concentrating when they did. Although morality is arguably just as murky for the religious, at least there is some bedrock belief that gives a reason to believe that morality is real and will prevail. In an atheist universe, morality can be rejected without external sanction at any point, and without a clear, compelling reason to believe in its reality, that's exactly what will sometimes happen.
So I think it's time we atheists 'fessed up and admitted that life without God can sometimes be pretty grim....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/09/life-without-god-bleak-atheism
Of course you could ask, "Does religion make people more moral?" in the context of also asking, "Does humanism make people equally moral as religion?", "Does humanism avoid various evils of religion at the same time?", but, "Would humanism 'work on' as many people as religion does?".
Quote:
...Atheists should point out that life without God can be meaningful, moral and happy. But that's "can" not "is" or even "should usually be". And that means it can just as easily be meaningless, nihilistic and miserable.
Atheists have to live with the knowledge that there is no salvation, no redemption, no second chances. Lives can go terribly wrong in ways that can never be put right. Can you really tell the parents who lost their child to a suicide after years of depression that they should stop worrying and enjoy life? Doesn't the appropriate response to 4,000 children dying everyday as a direct result of poor sanitation involve despair at the relentless misery of the world as well as some effort to improve things? Sometimes life is shit and that's all there is to it. Not much bright about that fact.
Stressing the jolly side of atheism not only glosses over its harsher truths, it also disguises its unique selling point. The reason to be an atheist is not that it makes us feel better or gives us a more rewarding life. The reason to be an atheist is simply that there is no God and we would prefer to live in full recognition of that, accepting the consequences, even if it makes us less happy. The more brutal facts of life are harsher for us than they are for those who have a story to tell in which it all works out right in the end and even the most horrible suffering is part of a mystifying divine plan. If we don't freely admit this, then we've betrayed the commitment to the naked truth that atheism has traditionally embraced....
Even more disturbing, perhaps, is the threat of moral nihilism. Atheists are quite rightly keen to counter the accusation that life without God cannot be moral. The British Humanist Association, for instance, claims that "Right and wrong can be explained by human nature alone and do not require religious teaching". But, just as with happiness, there is a need to distinguish the possibility of atheist morality from its inevitable actuality. Anyone who thinks it's easy to ground ethics either hasn't done much moral philosophy or wasn't concentrating when they did. Although morality is arguably just as murky for the religious, at least there is some bedrock belief that gives a reason to believe that morality is real and will prevail. In an atheist universe, morality can be rejected without external sanction at any point, and without a clear, compelling reason to believe in its reality, that's exactly what will sometimes happen.
So I think it's time we atheists 'fessed up and admitted that life without God can sometimes be pretty grim....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/09/life-without-god-bleak-atheism
Jason the Rationalist
Member
I would say that the good that religion does is not somehow intrinsically "better" (than good done by non-religious folk) on the basis of quantity or on the basis of the beliefs of the fundraisers. I would say that the evils that atheists do are not somehow intrinsically "worse" (than evil done by religious folk) on the basis of the beliefs or lack of beliefs of the perpetrators.
What does concern me is how the charity aspect can sometimes be used to give a sheen of respectability or normality when the beliefs and tenets being promoted are not what I would regard as meeting the definition of being normal. This isn't to say that their charitable aims are not laudable but that I think that if its good that is being done it could somehow stand as just that without the religious commentary.
What does concern me is how the charity aspect can sometimes be used to give a sheen of respectability or normality when the beliefs and tenets being promoted are not what I would regard as meeting the definition of being normal. This isn't to say that their charitable aims are not laudable but that I think that if its good that is being done it could somehow stand as just that without the religious commentary.
Ya, it can be, but there's a reason that theists tend to have higher levels of depression than atheists. That reason is that the questions about our place in the universe and what happens after we die aren't questions which impact most people's lives in many ways. Believing that God exists and loves you isn't a whole lot of consolation if you're sitting at home alone on Saturday night wondering why nobody else does.
For this thread, I was more concerned with the risk of moral nihilism side of things.
But linking religious believers to higher levels of depression is interesting in itself. Where are you getting the idea that a theistic worldview isn't actually much of a practical advantage to life's concerns? From evidence you think shows higher levels of depression or something else?
But linking religious believers to higher levels of depression is interesting in itself. Where are you getting the idea that a theistic worldview isn't actually much of a practical advantage to life's concerns? From evidence you think shows higher levels of depression or something else?
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
There's so much of that quote that I disagree with I wouldn't know where to start. God belief must be something akin to relief from fears and phobias. Obviously if you don't suffer from the fears and phobias you don't need the prescription.
If god belief makes a person moral, said person must be amoral or immoral to start. Okay, good for that person if they can't bring themselves to act morally by any other means. Seems kinda sad really. Must live in an awfully small, stark world.
I think the quote was largely fair, balanced and reasonable; although obviously the idea of atheism having the "unique selling point" that they are (supposedly) facing up to how things are, is question begging the issue. Actually that's one thing that I think may potentially bias atheists towards their atheism-- that they think they are "courageously" facing up to "harsh truths" may be appealing to some people.
I'm not saying it's as simple as "We theists have objective morality", "You atheists only have subjective morality"; but I do think that atheists--if they are honest--should be admitting that atheistic naturalism as a worldview could easily lead people to moral nihilism. It's not just a fake criticism of atheism, but a real problem with it. Of course the atheist can admit this and say, "but I think it's how it is", "the threat of moral nihilism doesn't invalidate the worldview".
As for the idea of theists being immoral people if they need God to be moral, I would say that looks suspiciously like an "ad hom" cheap piece of rhetoric. Even if theist X would indeed be out raping and killing without his religion, and does have a morally inferior character, it says very little about any argument he gives, so...
I'm not saying it's as simple as "We theists have objective morality", "You atheists only have subjective morality"; but I do think that atheists--if they are honest--should be admitting that atheistic naturalism as a worldview could easily lead people to moral nihilism. It's not just a fake criticism of atheism, but a real problem with it. Of course the atheist can admit this and say, "but I think it's how it is", "the threat of moral nihilism doesn't invalidate the worldview".
As for the idea of theists being immoral people if they need God to be moral, I would say that looks suspiciously like an "ad hom" cheap piece of rhetoric. Even if theist X would indeed be out raping and killing without his religion, and does have a morally inferior character, it says very little about any argument he gives, so...
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
But that's what THEY tell us.
"You atheists have no morals, I know this because if it weren't for my fear of god, I'd be out there, raping and killing and voting democrat and shit." So it's not 'ad hominem,' as much as 'listening.'
Of course, that doesn't make it any LESS cheap rhetoric. I suspect their claims of 'there but for the fear of god go I' immorality are just self-congratulatory bullshit.
For one thing, I am raping and killing now, without gods, just as much as I did when I still believed. Zero, in both cases.
Also, theists are wonderfully fluid about convincing themselves that god wants them to do whatever it is they want to do anyway. So while God is keeping them from raping and killing, which they don't want to do, God is okay with them getting a tattoo, for example, even though scripture says not to.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Right, right. No salvation.
Um...salvation from what? I don't feel a need for salvation from the original sin laid upon humanity by an invisible judge I don't believe in, either. That's like having to live with there NOT being a court of appeals for the sentence I didn't got for a crime I did not commit, in a court that doesn't exist. Not all that big of a burden, you know?
Yes, it can. However I don't see it as terribly comforting, the idea that it'll be put right in some intangible way post-mortem. If my mother's murderer is never caught, but will burn in hell, that's still not putting my life 'right.' I still don't have mother.
And that assumes her murderer doesn't confess his sins on his deathbed and get forgiven. That 'redemption' thing you mentioned up above. So even if I put a great deal of weight on revenge, there's no assurance mom's death will be avenged....
Well, what's the track record for telling them 'he's in a better place, stop worrying?' How effective is that?
Or more likely, if it was a suicide, the official policy of many of the Faithful is that he'll be in hell.
My grandfather died, and at the funeral, two or three people made a point of telling me he was a wonderful man, nice guy, pity he was going to Hell because he drank coffee. I gotta tell you, the phrase 'his pain is over' was a LOT more comforting than discussions of an imaginary afterlife.
Even if some theists actually say it, that doesn't preclude it being an ad hom point. That will depend on the motivation and context in saying it.
Hey, even if a theist is telling the truth that they would be out there raping without religion, that still doesn't really make much of a difference to any argument they gave. Or actually, if they were telling the truth, it might even be slightly supportive of a claim like theism provides a more solid basis for morality. (They could just be confused of course, so it wouldn't automatically mean anything.)
Hey, even if a theist is telling the truth that they would be out there raping without religion, that still doesn't really make much of a difference to any argument they gave. Or actually, if they were telling the truth, it might even be slightly supportive of a claim like theism provides a more solid basis for morality. (They could just be confused of course, so it wouldn't automatically mean anything.)
The name was just a random invention. Never used anything like it before.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Not just mental health benefits but physical health benefits. Though nothing significantly different to atheists, as far as I know.
My guess is that both the social connections and the worldview itself may play a part.