Does religion make people more moral?

[ruby sparks]

But unfortunately the draw back with this notion of morality is its subjective nature to be variant among individuals or different groups.

There are literally many thousands upon thousands of different varieties of religion (and many gods and types of gods) and more if we include those no longer being practiced or believed in (Greek gods for example, or ancient African or South American deities/religions). Then we might consider superstitions (which religions are sophisticated versions of, imo*) and the moralities behind those more informal beliefs (involving folk tales, fairy stories, etc). Things get even more interesting if we consider things like occultism, demonology and druidism, or what more established or dominant religions prefer to call cults.

Add to all that the fact that any particular person or subgroup of people in any particular religion can during any given time or era or set of circumstances selectively choose which rules to highlight and which to de-emphasise (or ignore) and the fact that many religions evolve and/or change over time, and/or involve apparent contradictions, and you end up with a scenario where it can't reasonably be said with any confidence or accuracy that religious morality is any more invariant than secular.

Note that I am not claiming superiority of secular morality over religious morality. There are and have been too many versions of either (and possibly several hybrids of both) to make an easy comparison in any case, with adherents of any of them generally tending to believe that theirs is the best, and/or the 'right' one. But all moralities, imo, have plusses and minuses, even if we only choose to consider the interests of and outcomes for our own species.

I might be tempted to opine that if one happens to believe that one's adopted or favoured moral rules are in fact set by a higher or perfect being of some sort rather than being human-created and inspired, that it might make it harder for one to consider the validity or the pros and cons of alternatives (see for example: 'heresies') or to change one's mind, but in principle I think we are all capable of change and of appreciating a wider perspective, and in any case one doesn't have to be religious to adhere strongly (often arguably too strongly) to this or that worldview or set of beliefs or opinions. In any case, if such inflexibility or confirmation bias were to exist in those scenarios (religious or otherwise) even that would likely have benefits too (a greater sense of certainty perhaps).

Most of us seem, generally, to be in search of (at least more) certainly. Though oddly, rational skepticism (of which I am a fan) often goes about it by seeking and embracing a lack of certainty in the first instance, and throughout. I'm not suggesting that religions or religious individuals don't encounter and attempt to deal with uncertainty too. It's part of the human condition.


* that's not meant to be a snide dig at any particular religion, it's just my honest appraisal.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Note that I am not claiming superiority of secular morality over religious morality.

What am I missing? What I am asking is to please show me the difference.

I have oftentimes claimed that without humanism any religion is morally bankrupt. Can one of the believers here please tell me how I am wrong, how a religion can be moral while devoid of humanism?

That's why I asked for that moral metric some posts back, how one measures. If religious people are more moral as vork claims please tell me how.

I'm not religious and primarily because of that fact I find myself less likely to be nihilistic, which I would equate with being less moral.

 

[Wiploc]

I'm not religious and primarily because of that fact I find myself less likely to be nihilistic, which I would equate with being less moral.

There we go, Vork, a claim that atheism reduces nihilism. It's time for you to put up. Show us why we should believe your claim that atheism makes nihilism more likely.

 

[ruby sparks]

We should, imo, at least distinguish between types of nihilism, because we might otherwise be meaning different things when we use the term.

Imo, both moral and existential nihilism (to mention two types) might readily ensue from atheism.

But moral nihilism can be just not believing that there are any objective morals and/or that no act is necessarily good or bad (right or wrong) of itself, but depends on many factors and circumstances. For example, killing another human, which can be justified in terms of ending suffering. Similarly, existential nihilism can be believing that life has no intrinsic value, but this does not rule out it being subjectively valuable.

ETA: Some studies do suggest that religiosity is a bulwark against (ie a preventative for) suicide. It must be noted however that it's often prohibited by religion, so this would likely be a factor, so if X% of atheists felt suicidal and X% of theists felt suicidal, you might get a higher % of suicides in the former group because it's more 'allowable' (eg not considered a sin).

 

[Wiploc]

We should, imo, at least distinguish between types of nihilism, because we might otherwise be meaning different things when we use the term.

If someone should do that, it would be Vork. Vork is the one claiming that atheism entails or encourages nihilism. If somebody else fields a definition, Vork could properly brush it aside as not being what he intended by the word. The definition that matters is Vork's.

Imo, both moral and existential nihilism (to mention two types) might readily ensue from atheism.

"Readily ensue." Thanks for stepping up. Now your definition matters, and you should offer a definition.

But moral nihilism can be just not believing that there are any objective morals

Objective is so often a squirrel word, a vehicle of equivocation, that I mostly ignore it. In my ears, objective morals is the same thing as morals.

and/or that no act is necessarily good or bad (right or wrong) of itself, but depends on many factors and circumstances.

Like, genocide is sinful when people do it but excellent when gods do it?

For example, killing another human, which can be justified in terms of ending suffering. Similarly, existential nihilism can be believing that life has no intrinsic value, but this does not rule out it being subjectively valuable.

You can't have value without a valuer. The value of anything lies in someone valuing it. Intrinsic value (having value even without being valuable to anyone or for anything) is oxymoronic.

 

[Bronzeage]

How does religion measure moral success?

Who said it does? How does any group measure moral success?

Suppose there was a Utopian Atheist enclave, large enough to contain a varied population. These people live in close proximity to each other and must interact on a daily basis.

Do they have a morality, and if so, how do they measure success?

Most people equate religion with morality more than they equate secularism with morality. Why is that? Can it be quantified?

I think it's just a bias that religion makes better people.

That's not an answer to my question. Are you saying secular people have no morals? How does that work?

 

[Jobar]

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.

Interesting. Never thought of it that way. A serious hermit wants to be left alone, and as long as he leaves others alone, he lives up to the Golden Rule to the letter.

But that seems a most limited definition of moral behavior; I would define morals as the best ways to interact with other human beings, in society. If you go and live alone on a desert island, I don't think you can be either moral or immoral.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Most people equate religion with morality more than they equate secularism with morality. Why is that? Can it be quantified?

I think it's just a bias that religion makes better people.

That's not an answer to my question. Are you saying secular people have no morals? How does that work?

I was agreeing with you. Secular folks and secular institutions are certainly moral.

What I want vork to explain is how religious institutions and religious people are more moral.

 

[Learner]

Various differing thresholds and degrees of what is morally acceptable. Fine with some ...disgusting with others which means rules can vary or be altered from time to time.

Eh. Wether morality is objective or subjective isnt option you simply can select between.

It's influence and being taught mainly. If one is serious about 'how' to be moral by the Christian theology then you'd have to follow as according to the faith. You can't (or shouldn't ) alter,adapt,add or take away God's "moral rules" just to fit around each individuals personal taste - so to speak - as you would with secular subjective moral rules - which in this regard does suggest that you can in fact select and accept almost anything as moral.

If you care about how humans feel then maybe you can build a moralilty around that. That doesnt mean that this morality is objective. A different species may feel very different from us and that would generate a different morality.

Using the example: the different species (assuming you mean variant of man), a different morality IS then subjective. If that species thinks its morally ok and acceptable to put children to work at 5 years of age and the elderly to be put-to-sleep for the good of the younger society and resources, then by this morality being subjective is then not wrong.

 

[ruby sparks]

Thanks for stepping up. Now your definition matters, and you should offer a definition.

I did offer possible definitions, of both moral nihilism and existential nihilism.

In a general sense, using the word nihilism colloquially, it might be also defined as a viewpoint that involves the denial of one or more meaningful aspects of life. I'd guess we could think of a scale going from weak nihilism to strong nihilism.

Personally, I really don't know if that sort of nihilism is correlated with atheism. I've googled a bit, but couldn't find any data, just a variety of opinions and anecdotes. On a related note, I couldn't find any data which suggested that either atheists or theists are overall any more or less 'happy'. I recall reading such data in the past, and if memory serves there is not much difference which can be attributed to either worldview, that it's mainly other factors.

That said, I would not at all be surprised if it were the case that atheism was correlated with a slight increase in nihilism (colloquial, moral and/or existential), because it does, almost de facto, remove at least some ultimate or objective meaning (and purpose) from life.

I'm not sure how much of a problem it is, for, say, a society, given that an increase in atheism does not seem to make a society worse. Therefore, if Vork is saying that we need religion in order to be moral, I don't think it pans out that way. I'll be honest and say that I'm not sure exactly what Vork is saying. At this point, I agree with some of what he says, but not, perhaps, his conclusions, especially if they include, as they seem to, saying that "theism provides a better basis for morality".

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

Interesting. Never thought of it that way. A serious hermit wants to be left alone, and as long as he leaves others alone, he lives up to the Golden Rule to the letter.

But that seems a most limited definition of moral behavior; I would define morals as the best ways to interact with other human beings, in society. If you go and live alone on a desert island, I don't think you can be either moral or immoral.

Strictly speaking, I think that not doing harm to others would be the 'Silver Rule'. The Golden one goes a step further and advocates doing good (or specifically treating others as you would like them to treat you). So the latter is less passive. Apathy, therefore, might satisfy the Silver Rule but not the Golden Rule.

A hermit might satisfy both by being a hermit, I think.

 

[ruby sparks]

To add (@ Vork, in particular, if you're reading this)...

Is it a bummer that I am likely, as I see it, to be completely annihilated at death, or is it sad that people are likely, imo, not to ever see their loved ones again, or that there isn't a loving god? Yes, imo, it is, for all three of those. Possibly also that there's (imo) no objective morality, since this might mean I may (assuming I'm not completely apathetic, which I'm not) have to think about it slightly more and take more (as in unassisted by outside/higher guidance) responsibility in relation to contributing to societal moral issues.

But, to stick to the general OP theme, does this make me any more or less likely to do harm to others? I don't think so, and I don't think it's borne out in general. Which is to say, you (and perhaps some other theists, or just some others in general) may, not entirely unreasonably but still mistakenly, intuitively think there's a risk to worry about, but it may not in fact be the case. I would probably, in general, say the same thing in reverse, about theism. Generalising in both cases, obviously.

To some extent, I can understand a theist saying that they think theism is the better basis for morality as a riposte to atheists who might say it's a worse basis. Beyond that, I don't think either of the bare statements is justifiable of itself, and the truth is likely to be that it's a mixed bag of outcomes.

Perhaps (emphasis on part) of the reason that I don't (I hope) do any more harm to others because of my atheism is because there is in any case another set of rules, loosely called law and order, which (fortunately, in my country) pertain. There might be other factors, such as my natural disposition, my circumstances (BIG one, imo, 'were I in another person's shoes', etc) and my upbringing might be among them.

Added to which, and this is not unimportant, the above is arguably sort of a side or secondary issue in any case, or at best it would be a form of utilitarianism or consequentialism to explore and weigh the outcomes. Arguably the bigger question is whether or not it's true in the first instance that god either exists or doesn't. That I don't believe god does exist is basically the primary reason for my atheism. The rest, as a famous rabbi apparently once said (about the so-called Silver Rule in that case as it happens) is commentary. I guess we all want to float our boats as best we can in either case.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Do children become nihilistic when they realize that Santa is not real? Does this cause them to become incorrigible and poorly behaved because now there isn't a jolly gift-giver magically flying through the sky bringing them presents? Does their nihilism increase in any degree when they realize that it was Mom and Dad putting money under their pillows in exchange for a tooth?

Religion may in fact have evolved as an antidote to nihilism among people who tend toward nihilism, among its other uses. Certainly I have witnessed this in my own family where members have stated that without a god to make everything right, fair and just in the end they would be out murdering and robbing.

Suggesting that a lack of religion makes a person nihilistic may be the opposite of what actually occurs. My observations lead me to believe that religious people choose to engage in religious behavior primarily because they are nihilistic. For them religion is a therapeutic delusion that allows them to function despite their nihilism. For someone like myself, I don't need it because I'm not inherently nihilistic.

 

[Bronzeage]

Most people equate religion with morality more than they equate secularism with morality. Why is that? Can it be quantified?

I think it's just a bias that religion makes better people.

That's not an answer to my question. Are you saying secular people have no morals? How does that work?

I was agreeing with you. Secular folks and secular institutions are certainly moral.

What I want vork to explain is how religious institutions and religious people are more moral.

The problem here is that moral codes of different people cannot be more or less moral. It's not as if we can measure morality like temperature. The best we can do is judge how well a person conforms to their group's morality. There is an irresistible temptation to judge someone by our own moral code and not theirs.

In ancient times, when adulterer was dragged outside the city gates and stoned to death, it was the stone throwers who were behaving morally.

As I have repeated over and over, the details of a particular groups morality are determined by the harshness of their environment and the challenges of survival. The strictures which helped a group survive in a desert can easily outlive their utility when life becomes less stressful.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I was agreeing with you. Secular folks and secular institutions are certainly moral.

What I want vork to explain is how religious institutions and religious people are more moral.

The problem here is that moral codes of different people cannot be more or less moral. It's not as if we can measure morality like temperature. The best we can do is judge how well a person conforms to their group's morality. There is an irresistible temptation to judge someone by our own moral code and not theirs.

In ancient times, when adulterer was dragged outside the city gates and stoned to death, it was the stone throwers who were behaving morally.

As I have repeated over and over, the details of a particular groups morality are determined by the harshness of their environment and the challenges of survival. The strictures which helped a group survive in a desert can easily outlive their utility when life becomes less stressful.

I agree 100%. I didn't expect vork to successfully support his claim.

 

[ronburgundy]

The problem here is that moral codes of different people cannot be more or less moral. It's not as if we can measure morality like temperature. The best we can do is judge how well a person conforms to their group's morality. There is an irresistible temptation to judge someone by our own moral code and not theirs.

In ancient times, when adulterer was dragged outside the city gates and stoned to death, it was the stone throwers who were behaving morally.

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. Your approach defines "morality" based on coherence with the cultural majority and thus as synonymous with conformity. That makes it a largely useless concept. Every single individual exists within a unique set of constantly changing experiences. Thus, using contextual moral codes as the judging referent means using only that specific person's unique context at only that one moment in time. That would basically make every single possible action moral, since all acts are the product of that specific context in time.

If stoning a homosexual to death is not immoral a 10th century person or for the 21st century Muslim in a fundamentalist theocracy, then it also not immoral for 21st Century Texan raised by their homophobic father.

Judging actions against our own morality is exactly what we ought to do. It is the only approach the gives morality any functional purpose. It is the only approach that allows us to exert social influence to improve society and the approach that causes moral progress. Even when talking about the past or other cultures, it is useful to judge morality by our current standards because the whole point of morality is that moral judgments are what create the behavior shaping context for current and future actions, and thus allow us to shape society toward a desired state.

Where consideration of a person's particular context comes into play is in what infer about the core stable nature of the individual who engaged in the act, which is different than whether we deem the act moral. Conformity to prevailing norms can lead to immoral acts that are still immoral, yet their underlying psychological cause may be different than the same action that is done for pure personal enjoyment, without any external pressure to do so. What we infer about the cause of the moral transgressions determine what kind of response we have toward the person, such as whether we try to alter their environment to alter their future actions or assume just lock them away to prevent future harm that we have little chance of shaping.

 

[Wiploc]

That said, I would not at all be surprised if it were the case that atheism was correlated with a slight increase in nihilism (colloquial, moral and/or existential), because it does, almost de facto, remove at least some ultimate or objective meaning (and purpose) from life.

Please explain, defend, justify, or expand on this point.

 

[ruby sparks]

That said, I would not at all be surprised if it were the case that atheism was correlated with a slight increase in nihilism (colloquial, moral and/or existential), because it does, almost de facto, remove at least some ultimate or objective meaning (and purpose) from life.

Please explain, defend, justify, or expand on this point.

I'm not sure what part isn't clear. Atheism involves the absence of what I might call the 'comfort blanket' of certain religious beliefs and practices. As such, I would not be surprised if it were correlated with a slight increase in nihilism. For example, I note that most if not all of the existential nihilists were/are atheists.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That said, I would not at all be surprised if it were the case that atheism was correlated with a slight increase in nihilism (colloquial, moral and/or existential), because it does, almost de facto, remove at least some ultimate or objective meaning (and purpose) from life.

Please explain, defend, justify, or expand on this point.

I'm not sure what part isn't clear. Atheism involves the absence of what I might call the 'comfort blanket' of certain religious beliefs and practices. As such, I would not be surprised if it were correlated with a slight increase in nihilism. For example, I note that most if not all of the existential nihilists were/are atheists.

While it may be true that atheism leads to an increase in nihilism, the real question is whether that actually matters at all?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not sure what part isn't clear. Atheism involves the absence of what I might call the 'comfort blanket' of certain religious beliefs and practices. As such, I would not be surprised if it were correlated with a slight increase in nihilism. For example, I note that most if not all of the existential nihilists were/are atheists.

While it may be true that atheism leads to an increase in nihilism, the real question is whether that actually matters at all?

Well if I'm christian, I believe that my divine leader made everything ex nihilo, everything from nothing. Therefore I believe that everything is nothing.

Now who's the fucking nihilist around here?