Does religion make people more moral?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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...

No doubt the author thinks it's okay. It's obviously how he understands atheism. I could easily take it as an ad hominem.

Atheism for me is freedom from all the hangups, anxiety, negativity and juvenile thinking he mentions. It couldn't be more natural or more satisfying or rewarding or mature when it comes to appreciating being alive. He comes across to me as a nine-year-old talking about having sex, or a lifelong slave telling me about freedom. He sounds misinformed or uninformed or maybe it's just his particular understanding.

People outgrow religion for the same reason they outgrow ghosts and Santa and Tooth Fairies. People who haven't outgrown these things cannot understand outgrowing religion. It's really just that simple.

But if it keeps them from committing mass murder I'll buy them all bibles so they can have their fill of magic stories that teach them how to be good for fear of punishment.

Like I said, not a very deep life they live.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think the author is an atheist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think the author is an atheist.

I figured that. I've never met a religious person who wasn't largely atheist.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think he's completely atheist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think he's completely atheist.

Are you atheist? If you don't mind my asking. And if so why or why not? Might help me understand.

 

[abaddon]

The question is if Julian Baggini is an atheist?

Yeah. He's the author of Atheism: A Very Short Introduction.

And is known to be an atheist.

http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2018/02/julian-baggini-concerning-philosophy-of.html

That's by John Loftus (and, yeah, he's atheist too). It's a bit of disagreement between atheists. Which doesn't make any of them into theists, you know.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think he's completely atheist.

Are you atheist? If you don't mind my asking. And if so why or why not? Might help me understand.

I'm an atheist.

 

[OLDMAN]

I think (maybe wrongly) that morals can be replaced by apathy. If you are apathetic to others then you more or less will not do harm or treat them badly. This is of course the golden rule that Christians claim is theirs. But if that is the corner stone of that religion, then it does make people more moral.

Of course there is a lot of actions that fall into the area of what we call "The human condition." There are people who are not and cannot feel apathy or sympathy towards others, this is not evil, but severe personality disorders. Dysfunctional humans.

On the smaller scale is lying and stealing and cheating, which everyone does at some point in their life. This is a simple matter of justifying your actions. Once you tell yourself that the bank makes billions and won't miss it, the pen is easy to take. We condition ourselves to think this way and the objects (eg: paying income tax) get bigger. At some point we draw the line, but not everyone...but this is still not evil. Evil is just a matter of perspective.

Even the child rapist tries to justify his actions to himself, is overcome by lust, and usually has little or no apathy for his victim. But still not evil.. maybe it is a loaded word that needs to be used a lot less?

 

[Vork]

Various sources claim mental health benefits for religious believers; although it may be claimed that social connections are key, which is something different to the worldview itself being a practical help.

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.

I was thinking of evidence for the worldview side of things, and apparently there is recent evidence from giving psilocybin to cancer patients facing death, that worldview does in that case make a significant difference to depression or the despair being faced. Well I'm assuming it's a worldview thing anyway-- mystical experience changing a person's worldview (may not be exactly to theism) resulting in practical benefit to them.

 

[Vork]

People outgrow religion for the same reason they outgrow ghosts and Santa and Tooth Fairies. People who haven't outgrown these things cannot understand outgrowing religion. It's really just that simple.

People claim to "outgrow" their atheism you know. Maybe you can't understand that if you haven't been though it yourself.

e.g. Paul C. Vitz:

"because of my social needs to assimilate, because of my professional needs to be accepted as part of academic psychology, and because of my personal needs for a convenient lifestyle-for all these needs atheism was simply the best policy. Looking back on these motives, I can honestly say that a return to atheism has all the appeal of a return to adolescence."

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html

But if it keeps them from committing mass murder I'll buy them all bibles so they can have their fill of magic stories that teach them how to be good for fear of punishment.

Like I said, not a very deep life they live.

You are picking on one detail of theism, and I think it really means little. Sure we can imagine a theist that acts good out of fear of divine punishment; and acting good just out of fear of punishment isn't really a sign of a genuinely moral character. But actually, even that detail of theism--divine justice--would be a good thing compared to atheistic naturalism where horrific injustice will often just go unresolved, and evil men prosper. Or actually, it's not clear under atheistic naturalism that there is really any "crime" taking place at all. It may just be the tragedy of massive amounts of evil and suffering being thrown out for no good purpose, in a more or less deterministic way, with no one really morally responsible for it at all. Just a machine spewing out misery. Yes some happiness and good things with it also; but spewing out large amounts of misery for no purpose.

Theism is a much more beautiful picture of the world, (ignoring things like calvinism), compared to the bleakness of that sort of worldview. And if it's a little easier perhaps to be moral with a theistic worldview, well that's kind of a good thing about it.

 

[Copernicus]

People outgrow religion for the same reason they outgrow ghosts and Santa and Tooth Fairies. People who haven't outgrown these things cannot understand outgrowing religion. It's really just that simple.

People claim to "outgrow" their atheism you know. Maybe you can't understand that if you haven't been though it yourself.

e.g. Paul C. Vitz:

"because of my social needs to assimilate, because of my professional needs to be accepted as part of academic psychology, and because of my personal needs for a convenient lifestyle-for all these needs atheism was simply the best policy. Looking back on these motives, I can honestly say that a return to atheism has all the appeal of a return to adolescence."

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html

I read Paul Vitz's essay on his personal deconversion, and it sounded very familiar to me. He goes into his early motivation for becoming an "atheist", but it had nothing to do with the acceptance of materialist philosophy that seems to have led most of us to deconvert. For him, it was all about socialization--that he was influenced by others and wanted to be accepted. That is, he had serious difficulties in reconciling some of the cognitive dissonance that challenges people to maintain faith, but he managed to overcome those difficulties. He looks back critically on the attitude that led him astray, and he projects those same attitudes on all other atheists.

Genuine atheists find gods in general--not just the Christian god--to be implausible beings. To convert back to religious faith, one would have to find a way to make them plausible again. It isn't about "socialization" or going along with non-theists in order to get along. If my analysis of Vitz is correct, then I would say that he just mistook a crisis of faith for atheism. It enhances his position as a believer to be able to say that he totally lost his faith in adolescence and came back to it stronger as an adult. IOW, I am in basic agreement with joedad's point, and I don't think that Vitz stands as a genuine example of someone "growing out of atheism" in quite the way you think it does.

But if it keeps them from committing mass murder I'll buy them all bibles so they can have their fill of magic stories that teach them how to be good for fear of punishment.

Like I said, not a very deep life they live.

You are picking on one detail of theism, and I think it really means little. Sure we can imagine a theist that acts good out of fear of divine punishment; and acting good just out of fear of punishment isn't really a sign of a genuinely moral character. But actually, even that detail of theism--divine justice--would be a good thing compared to atheistic naturalism where horrific injustice will often just go unresolved, and evil men prosper. Or actually, it's not clear under atheistic naturalism that there is really any "crime" taking place at all. It may just be the tragedy of massive amounts of evil and suffering being thrown out for no good purpose, in a more or less deterministic way, with no one really morally responsible for it at all. Just a machine spewing out misery. Yes some happiness and good things with it also; but spewing out large amounts of misery for no purpose.

Theism is a much more beautiful picture of the world, (ignoring things like calvinism), compared to the bleakness of that sort of worldview. And if it's a little easier perhaps to be moral with a theistic worldview, well that's kind of a good thing about it.

I strongly disagree. You know full well that people who profess deep religious faith have been known to commit horrific atrocities in the name of God. Obviously, the media is focused on Islamic extremism as the most egregious example of religious fanaticism metastasized into pure evil, but we have plenty of examples from the history of Christianity, not to mention modern murders of abortion doctors and bombings of abortion clinics.

Your argument seems premised on the fact that injustice in an atheistic reality can ultimately go unpunished and unresolved. There is no deity to ultimately sort things out in the way that you would like. Belief in God resolves that horrible prospect in your mind. The idea that God exists comforts you. I understand your wish, but that's all it is--a conclusion driven by wishful thinking. For me, it isn't enough to explain away the failure of Cartesian dualism (belief in a fundamental separation between physical and spiritual planes of existence). It doesn't help with the baggage of cognitive dissonance that is built into belief in gods.

 

[ruby sparks]

Various sources claim mental health benefits for religious believers; although it may be claimed that social connections are key, which is something different to the worldview itself being a practical help.

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.

I was thinking of evidence for the worldview side of things, and apparently there is recent evidence from giving psilocybin to cancer patients facing death, that worldview does in that case make a significant difference to depression or the despair being faced. Well I'm assuming it's a worldview thing anyway-- mystical experience changing a person's worldview (may not be exactly to theism) resulting in practical benefit to them.

Oh I'd say the worldview might have both mental and physical health benefits. I'm not saying it necessarily would, but I wouldn't be surprised if it often did, to at least some extent (my guess would be slight, generally speaking). My guess is that by and large there's a comfort factor. Something akin to something seeming to be resolved, or understood, or explained, or justified, not least that one matters, or that something matters (most likely usually oneself or close family would be my guess).

Also, if someone takes psilocybin, I wouldn't be averse to agreeing that it would change their worldview, at least while they're on it. Or do you mean something else? Do you mean that atheists and theists react differently to psilocybin administered for cancer patients facing death?

This seems like a bit of a detour from asking if religion makes people more moral onto whether it makes them happier or healthier.

Are happier, healthier people more moral.......I wonder, tangentally?

 

[ruby sparks]

On the topic of morality......

Interesting study once cited by Daniel Dennett which suggested that if people's belief in free will is experimentally weakened (by suggestion) that they will tend to cheat a bit more. This is only somewhat related, since it's about belief in free will and not in god. Except that it is related to the latter, because although Dennett may not have realised, all the subjects were practicing Mormons.

My guess (doing a lot of guessing this evening) is that yes, a belief in a sky-judge would likely have a behavioural effect of some sort, though it might be mixed. Sometimes it might be permission from sky-judge to do horrible things to other people.

As Mencken once said, when people say that we need religion what they really mean is that we need the police.

 

[ruby sparks]

My general impression is that while religion is generally good for in-group (moral) behaviour, it's not so good for out-group (moral) behaviour. And with over 40,000 denominations of Christianity alone (seriously, which one is the right one!)..........

It makes me wonder....if in-group effects are more important (to an individual), and if so I wonder if that's where the health benefits derive? Which would make it neither worldview or social but a combo, I think.

I've occasionally thought of doing a Paul C. Vitz just for the spin-offs, perhaps particularly as I get older and closer to you know what. Either that or a deathbed conversion (assuming I get the chance). To which religion though? Grr. Dilemma!

 

[Bronzeage]

My general impression is that while religion is generally good for in-group (moral) behaviour, it's not so good for out-group (moral) behaviour. And with over 40,000 denominations of Christianity alone (seriously, which one is the right one!)..........

It makes me wonder....if in-group effects are more important (to an individual), and if so I wonder if that's where the health benefits derive? Which would make it neither worldview or social but a combo, I think.

I've occasionally thought of doing a Paul C. Vitz just for the spin-offs, perhaps particularly as I get older and closer to you know what. Either that or a deathbed conversion (assuming I get the chance). To which religion though? Grr. Dilemma!

Moral behavior only applies to in-group. Out of group actions are not covered. David, later King David, the guy who killed Goliath, was bound by the Ten Commandments and God punished him for violating them. He committed adultery and murder. One will note, he caught grief fucking Uriah's wife and then for the death of Uriah, only one man. In previous years, the people sang, "Saul has killed thousands, but David has killed tens of thousands," as a tribute to their battle record with other nations.

Boundaries were easier to discern in those days and there was less ambiguity about who you could kill or rob, without sanction. These days, someone comes out and says, "We are all children of God." Now, everybody in the world is off limits.

 

[bilby]

My general impression is that while religion is generally good for in-group (moral) behaviour, it's not so good for out-group (moral) behaviour. And with over 40,000 denominations of Christianity alone (seriously, which one is the right one!)..........

It makes me wonder....if in-group effects are more important (to an individual), and if so I wonder if that's where the health benefits derive? Which would make it neither worldview or social but a combo, I think.

I've occasionally thought of doing a Paul C. Vitz just for the spin-offs, perhaps particularly as I get older and closer to you know what. Either that or a deathbed conversion (assuming I get the chance). To which religion though? Grr. Dilemma!

Moral behavior only applies to in-group. Out of group actions are not covered. David, later King David, the guy who killed Goliath, was bound by the Ten Commandments and God punished him for violating them. He committed adultery and murder. One will note, he caught grief fucking Uriah's wife and then for the death of Uriah, only one man. In previous years, the people sang, "Saul has killed thousands, but David has killed tens of thousands," as a tribute to their battle record with other nations.

Boundaries were easier to discern in those days and there was less ambiguity about who you could kill or rob, without sanction. These days, someone comes out and says, "We are all children of God." Now, everybody in the world is off limits.

Nope. Just everybody who qualifies as a part of 'we'.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I read Paul Vitz's essay on his personal deconversion, and it sounded very familiar to me. He goes into his early motivation for becoming an "atheist", but it had nothing to do with the acceptance of materialist philosophy that seems to have led most of us to deconvert. For him, it was all about socialization--that he was influenced by others and wanted to be accepted. That is, he had serious difficulties in reconciling some of the cognitive dissonance that challenges people to maintain faith, but he managed to overcome those difficulties. He looks back critically on the attitude that led him astray, and he projects those same attitudes on all other atheists.

Genuine atheists find gods in general--not just the Christian god--to be implausible beings. To convert back to religious faith, one would have to find a way to make them plausible again. It isn't about "socialization" or going along with non-theists in order to get along. If my analysis of Vitz is correct, then I would say that he just mistook a crisis of faith for atheism. It enhances his position as a believer to be able to say that he totally lost his faith in adolescence and came back to it stronger as an adult. IOW, I am in basic agreement with joedad's point, and I don't think that Vitz stands as a genuine example of someone "growing out of atheism" in quite the way you think it does.

But if it keeps them from committing mass murder I'll buy them all bibles so they can have their fill of magic stories that teach them how to be good for fear of punishment.

Like I said, not a very deep life they live.

You are picking on one detail of theism, and I think it really means little. Sure we can imagine a theist that acts good out of fear of divine punishment; and acting good just out of fear of punishment isn't really a sign of a genuinely moral character. But actually, even that detail of theism--divine justice--would be a good thing compared to atheistic naturalism where horrific injustice will often just go unresolved, and evil men prosper. Or actually, it's not clear under atheistic naturalism that there is really any "crime" taking place at all. It may just be the tragedy of massive amounts of evil and suffering being thrown out for no good purpose, in a more or less deterministic way, with no one really morally responsible for it at all. Just a machine spewing out misery. Yes some happiness and good things with it also; but spewing out large amounts of misery for no purpose.

Theism is a much more beautiful picture of the world, (ignoring things like calvinism), compared to the bleakness of that sort of worldview. And if it's a little easier perhaps to be moral with a theistic worldview, well that's kind of a good thing about it.

I strongly disagree. You know full well that people who profess deep religious faith have been known to commit horrific atrocities in the name of God. Obviously, the media is focused on Islamic extremism as the most egregious example of religious fanaticism metastasized into pure evil, but we have plenty of examples from the history of Christianity, not to mention modern murders of abortion doctors and bombings of abortion clinics.

Your argument seems premised on the fact that injustice in an atheistic reality can ultimately go unpunished and unresolved. There is no deity to ultimately sort things out in the way that you would like. Belief in God resolves that horrible prospect in your mind. The idea that God exists comforts you. I understand your wish, but that's all it is--a conclusion driven by wishful thinking. For me, it isn't enough to explain away the failure of Cartesian dualism (belief in a fundamental separation between physical and spiritual planes of existence). It doesn't help with the baggage of cognitive dissonance that is built into belief in gods.

Christian Europe. Those loving christians bludgeoned and murdered and invaded and exterminated each other after they found their lord. Fuck, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Stalinist Russia all sprang from wonderful christian roots.

People outgrow their santas, fairies and gods because they experience an intellectual journey. I suppose if that intellectual journey is stunted people will continue to cling to their comfort ghosts. But it isn't really important. What's important is their behavior, ghost claims and all.

 

[ruby sparks]

Nope. Just everybody who qualifies as a part of 'we'.

Yes, that's the basic us and them model, which permeates human thinking and behaviour, because we're a social/tribe/pack species.

That said, the other side of the religious coin tries to counter that (with 'love thy neighbour', 'love thine enemy and pray for those who persecute you' or 'turn the other cheek', not to mention adopting and canvassing for the golden rule) so there is a side to religion which emphasises cooperation. Which is not really surprising because cooperation is a facet of human thinking and behaviour too. It's a mixed bag. Sometimes I wonder if religion just amplifies things which are already there. If hate, it articulates another reason to hate. If love, ditto. That said, my guess is that the ingroup/outgroup distinction is still valid, just not a binary distinction, and moral behaviour 'rules' apply to both. So some outgroup behaviour will be (is) benign, just not as much as ingroup. Priorities priorities. Game Theory. Etc.

 

[Vork]

Also, if someone takes psilocybin, I wouldn't be averse to agreeing that it would change their worldview, at least while they're on it.

It has to be more than "while they're on it", or it will not really help them.

Or do you mean something else? Do you mean that atheists and theists react differently to psilocybin administered for cancer patients facing death?

No, nothing like that.

I mentioned it, because it's one type of study that seems to isolate worldview as a factor. i.e. you can't say that the benefits are coming from a religious social network. Maybe you could appeal to some sort of longer term biochemical change to the brain; but it's likely that worldview is key.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Also, if someone takes psilocybin, I wouldn't be averse to agreeing that it would change their worldview, at least while they're on it.

It has to be more than "while they're on it", or it will not really help them.

Or do you mean something else? Do you mean that atheists and theists react differently to psilocybin administered for cancer patients facing death?

No, nothing like that.

I mentioned it, because it's one type of study that seems to isolate worldview as a factor. i.e. you can't say that the benefits are coming from a religious social network. Maybe you could appeal to some sort of longer term biochemical change to the brain; but it's likely that worldview is key.

If enacting religious belief and practice enables a person to become calm, relieve stress, focus, etc., that is definitely a survival advantage. But to me religion is just a popular vehicle. The same effects can be achieved by taking a walk, hooking up with friends, having a drink, dancing or taking in a good movie.

I think Ruby's post was right on, re: 'religion just amplifies things that are already there.'