Does religion make people more moral?

[ruby sparks]

...but it's likely that worldview is key.

Sure. Why not.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

How does religion measure moral success?

 

[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?

 

[ruby sparks]

I would have said that religion (and atheism) measures moral success by comparing to a set of rules.

The only difference being that the rules are thought to be not man-made in the former case, or in the case of some forms of non-religious idealism.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

 

[Vork]

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.

He doesn't say that it applies to "all other atheists". He says:

"I do not wish to offend the many distinguished philosophers-both believers and nonbelievers-in this audience, but I am quite convinced that for every person strongly swayed by rational argument there are many, many more affected by nonrational psychological factors."

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

So he thinks that nonrational factors are having a large influence, but he doesn't deny that philosophical arguments are also relevant, depending on the individual in question. I don't read him as saying that *every atheist* has been taken down that path in the same way as himself.

Remember that this is a psychologist writing (understandably) on the subject of psychology. How much he ever worried about the philosophical side of things, I don't know for sure. But of course, former atheists with a background in philosophy that have "grown out of atheism", will probably focus more on their changing view of the arguments, and the rational grounds for theism.

Point being, people can claim to have "grown out of" atheism, just the same as someone can claim to have "grown out of" theism. It doesn't seem to mean much.

Note that his early motivation for becoming an atheist could easily have involved "the acceptance of materialist philosophy". There can be philosophical viewpoint stuff going on, at the same time as there are nonrational psychological factors going on. In fact you would kind of expect it. Are the nonrational psychological factors going to work in a vacuum disconnected from any philosophical theorizing?

Genuine atheists find gods in general--not just the Christian god--to be implausible beings.

Right, and he presumably did at the time. But later recognized that his beliefs weren't well founded.

To convert back to religious faith, one would have to find a way to make them plausible again.

Part of that could be thinking that your previous beliefs were never well grounded in the first place.

It isn't about "socialization" or going along with non-theists in order to get along.

Again, it doesn't have to be pure "socialization". The nonrational factors can be working along with what you *think* to be a rational philosophical viewpoint. He wasn't thinking "socialization" at the time. He was--likely--thinking the same sort of things as other atheists-- "My viewpoint is based on such and such rational grounds", "Religious belief is an error likely produced in such and such ways" etc.

If my analysis of Vitz is correct, then I would say that he just mistook a crisis of faith for atheism.

But he wasn't involved in religion at all as far as I know. For 20 years. That's not a "crisis of faith" to me. There was no struggle with it!

Is this like some Christians that say if anyone leaves Christianity, "Well they were never a real Christian in the first place"?

I'm sure you would say you have reasons for denying that Vitz was an atheist: but calling a 20 year period of atheism a "crisis of faith" sounds like a stretch...

And Vitz says he had a "rather weak, wishy-washy Christian upbringing". Does that sound like someone that would go through a "crisis of faith" at that time?

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.

Theism does risk particular religious believers doing bad things in the name of God. I guess atheism also risks some atheists carrying out terrible deeds because of moral nihilism. And although they are logically distinct, you can't totally separate atheism from the kind of oppressive secularism that mass murders religious believers. Or at least, I don't see why I can't mention that, if you want to bring up the atrocities of Islamic and Christian believers. Athough those religions are examples of theist religion, they aren't the same thing as theism itself. Theism isn't strictly tied to any of that. You can say about theism generally that there are risks that it causes bad behaviour, just as it may encourage plenty of good behaviour. Also, an atheist/naturalist view kind of also includes religious violence, as you must think that the natural world has created all these religious delusions including those that lead to violence. Religious violence is somewhat linked to either system.

And anyway, some people acting badly, is only one detail of theism. I would say it's a small detail in the bigger picture.

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.

This looks like an off topic diversion. The issue was whether you can dismiss theist morality as "not a very deep life they live". Theism provides a better basis for morality. (And not just because of the idea of divine justice.) Be honest about that, even if atheists obviously think that theism is wrong.

 

[ruby sparks]

Theism provides a better basis for morality.

Really?

All through your post I was nodding. Little did I realise where you were going to end up.

The term, 'non-sequitur' has just popped into my brain.

 

[ruby sparks]

I was, by the way, ok with this:

"The issue was whether you can dismiss theist morality as "not a very deep life they live"."

I would not say that theist morality is 'not a very deep life they live'.

Then came the apparent non-sequitur.

(I might, by the way, think that theism does uncomplicate morality somewhat, simply by seeming to provide guidance 'from a higher source').

But anyways.....the apparent non-sequitur....

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Theism provides a better basis for morality.

Really?

All through your post I was nodding. Little did I realise where you were going to end up.

The term, 'non-sequitur' has just popped into my brain.

The question is "How?" If it can't be quantified it's just a spurious claim.

 

[ruby sparks]

The question is "How?" If it can't be quantified it's just a spurious claim.

I would have said that religion (and atheism) measures moral success by comparing to a set of rules.

The only difference being that the rules are thought to be not man-made in the former case, or in the case of some forms of non-religious idealism.

 

[Wiploc]

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.

I don't think that that position can be defended.

But I'd like to see you try.

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".

I think our morality is at least as logical and inspiring as yours.

If I misguessed your point, please fill me in on what it is about your morality that makes it better than ours.

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...

But it is the claim of theists (not all theists, obviously), made over and over again, that that without god-based morality, they would have no reason to be moral.

William Lane Craig said he has nothing against rape. Then he corrected himself to say that he personally doesn't see the appeal of it--or something like that. Then he went on to insist that, aside from his god's forbidding of rape, he doesn't know of any moral reason to avoid it. He doesn't have any way to say, "You shouldn't do that because ..." As far as he's concerned, absent the commands of an invisible eccentric, rape is as good as any other behavior.

I give him the benefit of the doubt: I assume he's lying. But that doesn't mean you should accuse us of ad hom for citing theist arguments.

 

[Wiploc]

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.

He was on stage, before an audience. That was his situation. Many other times other Christians have made similar arguments on bulletin boards such as this one.

As for motivation, his was, I believe, the same as yours. He was trying to persuade us that theist morality is superior. He was trying to make us want to be like him. And he was doing that by pretending to be a moral cretin.

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...

Right. "Hey, the moment I snap out of this delusion, I'll become a homicidal maniac. Be moral like me! I'm a role model!"

Some how I don't feel like that is even slightly supportive.

 

[Wiploc]

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.

I agree.

Out of curiosity, what does make for moral behavior? Is it something we atheists can't do as well as theists? Is this motivation where you get an advantage over atheist morality? Or is it something else?

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.

According to Christian theology--correct me if I'm wrong--there is no justice. If you live a terrible life, and suck up to Jesus at the end, you go to paradise. If you live a wonderful life but neglect to suck up, your lot is eternal torment. So Hitler may be in Heaven, and Mother Teresa may be in Hell. (Substitute your own exemplars of bad and good behavior if those don't work for you.) All descendants of Eve are Hellbound unless they suck up. And no behavior--no matter how good or bad--can affect that. The only thing that matters is whether you suck up.

There is no justice there. Evil goes unresolved for sure. I can't imagine an atheist worldview having less justice.

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.

At the beginning, god knew everything that would ever happen in every possible world. He could have created a good world, but he chose one with all this suffering. It is theism that makes all this for nothing.

Theism is a much more beautiful picture of the world, (ignoring things like calvinism), compared to the bleakness of that sort of worldview.

I don't see the bleakness that you try to impute to atheism. I certainly don't see how positing a powerful vicious guy who could eliminate all of the suffering--but who doesn't--makes it any better.

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.

How would it be easier? It seems to me that it would be harder, what with being told to burn witches and such.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

How would it be easier? It seems to me that it would be harder, what with being told to burn witches and such.

It's a little easier, I think, because you have a set of rules which you believe are from a higher/superior/reliable source. Ok there may be ways in which it is not easier also, but I'd think that 'easier on balance' might be it.

This I think results in at least a somewhat or slightly (depending on the individual) lighter cognitive-moral load, on balance (without this meaning that it would be fair to say that the theistic moral life is shallow because human morality, or more precisely the thinking and behaviour, is complicated and tricky no matter what).

But it doesn't say anything much about 'what moral is' since it's very debatable that (a) the set of theistic rules does actually come from on high and (b) whether the rules are any better than secular ones.

Basically, I don't think either 'group' can objectively lay claim to being more moral. Even if one doesn't believe in god, there are still human rules, and police.

 

[Wiploc]

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.

How would it be easier? It seems to me that it would be harder, what with being told to burn witches and such.

It's a little easier, I think, because you have a set of rules which you believe are from a higher/superior/reliable source. Ok there may be ways in which it is not easier also, but I'd think that 'easier on balance' might be it.

Note that I've corrected your quote tag above, so Vork's quote is no longer attributed to me.

Christians believe their god does terrible things, and then they have to rationalize those things as somehow "good." That's a lot more work.

Plus they are taught to hate while preaching love. Cognitive dissonance is work.

 

[ruby sparks]

Thx. Sorry about the misquote.

Points taken though I tend to disagree that on the whole, plusses and minuses allowed for, that it's overall not easier when the rules are thought to be set by a perfect being. That's just my personal opinion. I also honestly don't think cognitive dissonance is as much of a problem for theists as atheists sometimes think it is.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Out of curiosity, what does make for moral behavior? Is it something we atheists can't do as well as theists? Is this motivation where you get an advantage over atheist morality? Or is it something else?

I'm more than curious. I want to know how he arrives at this conclusion. This claim is oftentimes the last redoubt of someone claiming to have a god.

I wonder if someone is confusing fear and obedience with morality.

 

[Learner]

It's a little easier, I think, because you have a set of rules which you believe are from a higher/superior/reliable source. Ok there may be ways in which it is not easier also, but I'd think that 'easier on balance' might be it.

Note that I've corrected your quote tag above, so Vork's quote is no longer attributed to me.

Christians believe their god does terrible things, and then they have to rationalize those things as somehow "good." That's a lot more work.

Not quite (imo) the Christian perception or the image as you''re portraying. e.g. a picture of a morally uncaring evil entity.

"they have to rationalize those things as somehow "good."" I would agree that its true for some Chrisitans but as believers of a Righteous God. Explanations of fearful and terrifying things sounding scary can have all sorts of contextual ideas (from outside the biblical pov).

Plus they are taught to hate while preaching love. Cognitive dissonance is work.

Using those two words, I see it as: Hate evil ... love Righteousness or Good. Its written there somewhere in the bible.

 

[Learner]

Out of curiosity, what does make for moral behavior? Is it something we atheists can't do as well as theists? Is this motivation where you get an advantage over atheist morality? Or is it something else?

I'm more than curious. I want to know how he arrives at this conclusion. This claim is oftentimes the last redoubt of someone claiming to have a god.

I wonder if someone is confusing fear and obedience with morality.

We can all have morality but not neccessarily all in the same way, as Vork previously posted:

Quote Originally Posted by Vork View Post
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.

Objective and subjective morality.

With "objective" morality ; ALL people by the theists ideology should abide by those (higher power) rules that is 'fixed in place' and is 'never' altered.

"Subjective" morality ; Individual people (secular ideology) should ideally abide by common rules that would comply and favour all. But unfortunately the draw back with this notion of morality is its subjective nature to be variant among individuals or different groups.

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.

 

[Juma]

We can all have morality but not neccessarily all in the same way, as Vork previously posted:

Quote Originally Posted by Vork View Post
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.

Objective and subjective morality.

With "objective" morality ; ALL people by the theists ideology should abide by those (higher power) rules that is 'fixed in place' and is 'never' altered.

"Subjective" morality ; Individual people (secular ideology) should ideally abide by common rules that would comply and favour all. But unfortunately the draw back with this notion of morality is its subjective nature to be variant among individuals or different groups.

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.

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.