Intuitive religious morality

[rousseau]

Religion is fantastic. Just look at this crap (even searchable on Wikipedia):

Christianity

Seven Heavenly Virtues

• Chastity
• Temperance
• Charity
• Diligence
• Patience
• Kindness
• Humility

Ten Commandments

• Honour thy father and mother
• Thou shalt not kill
• Thou shalt not commit adultery
• Thou shalt not steal
• Thou shalt not covet...

Buddhism

Eightfold Path

• Right view
• Right intention
• Right speech
• Right action
• Right livelihood
• Right effort
• Right mindfulness
• Right concentration

Jainism

• Non-violence
• Non-absolutism
• Non-possessiveness

Of course I'm likely just stating the obvious, but I'm always amazed at how closely many religions point to the human psyche. Of course morality and values change over time, but one could look at the logic that's arisen over and over again in different religions and write a pretty damn good guide to success in life.

 

[abaddon]

Religion is fantastic. Just look at this crap …. Of course I'm likely just stating the obvious…

Crap? It’s not clear to me what you’re stating.

… but I'm always amazed at how closely many religions point to the human psyche.

In what way do they do anything else? However literally some people take the stories in religious texts, those tales still reveal the human mind which makes them important information, and maybe even wise. I’m always amazed when irreligious folk focus on examples of religion’s failure to be contemporary physics or biology as the proof that “religion is false”.

Of course morality and values change over time, but one could look at the logic that's arisen over and over again in different religions and write a pretty damn good guide to success in life.

People are more the same than different across the eons, so what works to make us happy won’t change much across time or place. If “happy” is what you mean by “success in life”.

 

[Valjean]

"Intuitive religious morality?" Sounds like an oxymoron. There's natural, intuitive morality, then there's religious morality.

Religion supports the status quo. It inflexibly prescribes whatever rules of conduct are considered proper for an ideal man of a particular community at a particular time. The rules remain carved in stone. That's religious morality.

Natural morality, on the other hand, does tend to be more cross-culturally homogenous, with no need to resort to religious prescriptions.

 

[Bronzeage]

Morality has always had the purpose of defining how a group of people can live in close proximity and cooperate, so that life is easier. After that, it's a matter of defining the terms, and that depends upon the living environment.

The most basic of all moral rules is, do not kill other group members. This requires us to determine who is a group member and thus protected by the code.

The second rule is, do not steal stuff from other group members. This gets more complicated, because now we must define property and ownership.

After that, the moral code determines what to do with people within the group who violate the first two rules.

Morality can be said to come from some divine source, or some innate human quality, but it doesn't matter. The goal and the results are always the same.

We've been doing this for thousands upon thousands of years, so it's expected to find parts of our code have become obsolete or contradictory. This makes life harder, which is contrary to the original goals. When that happens, we become enlightened and rewrite the definitions, but never change the first basic rules.

 

[rousseau]

Crap? It’s not clear to me what you’re stating.

… but I'm always amazed at how closely many religions point to the human psyche.

In what way do they do anything else? However literally some people take the stories in religious texts, those tales still reveal the human mind which makes them important information, and maybe even wise. I’m always amazed when irreligious folk focus on examples of religion’s failure to be contemporary physics or biology as the proof that “religion is false”.

Using the word crap was just a stab at humour.

Even more than revealing the human mind, what remains today from the evolution of different religions represents a distillation of the human mind into many of it's most pure tenets. Only items that have a good amount of truth in them in some context survive.

Of course morality and values change over time, but one could look at the logic that's arisen over and over again in different religions and write a pretty damn good guide to success in life.

People are more the same than different across the eons, so what works to make us happy won’t change much across time or place. If “happy” is what you mean by “success in life”.

Happiness is a good way of putting it, but many of these ideas lend themselves to living effectively in general. Being kind, modest, focused.. etc.. will help you in an almost unlimited variety of contexts. The result of that could be happiness, but the cause is harmony with one's environment due to embodying specific attributes.

I didn't mean to centre out life success, just the fact that religious principles are very often very good guiding principles in general.

 

[rousseau]

"Intuitive religious morality?" Sounds like an oxymoron. There's natural, intuitive morality, then there's religious morality.

Religion supports the status quo. It inflexibly prescribes whatever rules of conduct are considered proper for an ideal man of a particular community at a particular time. The rules remain carved in stone. That's religious morality.

Natural morality, on the other hand, does tend to be more cross-culturally homogenous, with no need to resort to religious prescriptions.

I'm using the word intuition because a lot of this religious stuff didn't arrive via logic. The mind intuitively comes to the same objective morals over and over again.

 

[Juma]

i didn't mean to centre out life success, just the fact that religious principles are very often very good guiding principles in general.

Religious principles are often very bad guiding principles.

The fact is: religious guiding rules are often not any better than what ever shit you can think out yourself when having some seconds free...

 

[dystopian]

Religion is fantastic. Just look at this crap (even searchable on Wikipedia):

Ten Commandments

• Honour thy father and mother
• Thou shalt not kill
• Thou shalt not commit adultery
• Thou shalt not steal
• Thou shalt not covet...

Why do people *never* actually list all of them? Whatever happened to deciding some random day of the week needs to be remembered; as if you'd forget? Whatever happened to not making graven images; because god hates figurines? What ever happened to not having any other gods before yahweh; because fuck those other guys?

Oh right, it's because people realize that these rules are completely idiotic and not worth engraving in stone.

Jainism

• Non-violence

Sounds good, until you realize they actually mean that you can't even step on an ant by accident.

 

[rousseau]

i didn't mean to centre out life success, just the fact that religious principles are very often very good guiding principles in general.

Religious principles are often very bad guiding principles.

The fact is: religious guiding rules are often not any better than what ever shit you can think out yourself when having some seconds free...

Let's just pretend Christianity isn't the aborted offspring of Ancient shepherds for a second and look at religion from an anthropological perspective, can we?

This, for instance, is a great post:

Morality has always had the purpose of defining how a group of people can live in close proximity and cooperate, so that life is easier. After that, it's a matter of defining the terms, and that depends upon the living environment.

The most basic of all moral rules is, do not kill other group members. This requires us to determine who is a group member and thus protected by the code.

The second rule is, do not steal stuff from other group members. This gets more complicated, because now we must define property and ownership.

After that, the moral code determines what to do with people within the group who violate the first two rules.

Morality can be said to come from some divine source, or some innate human quality, but it doesn't matter. The goal and the results are always the same.

We've been doing this for thousands upon thousands of years, so it's expected to find parts of our code have become obsolete or contradictory. This makes life harder, which is contrary to the original goals. When that happens, we become enlightened and rewrite the definitions, but never change the first basic rules.

I'm not so much interested in arguing that religion is valid 100% of the time, but rather in the ways it's taught people to live a good life, and as was mentioned how to live cooperatively with others.

You could extend the discussion to anybody or any mechanism that's been used to moralize groups of people, but religion itself makes a good case study because moralizing is almost always it's intent. I think if you had a good, thorough study of religion with a critical eye you'd learn almost everything you needed to know about human psychology.

 

[Juma]

I'm not so much interested in arguing that religion is valid 100% of the time, but rather in the ways it's taught people to live a good life, and as was mentioned how to live cooperatively with others..

But this is evidently wrong as religions has created so many defunct cultures. Cultures where people have been discriminated, where women has been seen as a lower version than men. Cultures where free thought is punished.

People are moral by birth. These rules are built into our genes. They are not due to religion.

You could extend the discussion to anybody or any mechanism that's been used to moralize groups of people, but religion itself makes a good case study because moralizing is almost always it's intent. I think if you had a good, thorough study of religion with a critical eye you'd learn almost everything you needed to know about human psychology.

Definitely not. You would learn some aspects of the psychology of religion but the psychology of humans is so much more than religion and morals.

 

[fromderinside]

Of course I'm likely just stating the obvious, but I'm always amazed at how closely many religions point to the human psyche. Of course morality and values change over time, but one could look at the logic that's arisen over and over again in different religions and write a pretty damn good guide to success in life.

I disagree. Just how man-centric does one have to be to make such a statement? Successful, my arse. Dominating. Exactly.

People are moral by birth. These rules are built into our genes. They are not due to religion.

Ooof. How can anything that is arbitrary, random, and 'just enough', trend to anything other than some, for the want of a better phrase thermodynamic minimum conserving point or rate if one looks over species. Good and bad has nothing to do with anything other than a here and now under this and that conditions. Universal? Not a chance.

I mean here we are a species genetically designed to work best in the stone age (latest restore point) that due to increases in resource availability among many tribes have reduced production of offspring from nine down to one or two. Please find a morality there that explains both.

We can't keep going back to Wilde's era to set our modern moral clock can we.

No. I'm not trying to blow up the discussion. I'm just inserting stuff for one to consider that might not be in-the-box for some. After all humanism can only go so far.

 

[rousseau]

I disagree. Just how man-centric does one have to be to make such a statement? Successful, my arse. Dominating. Exactly.

People are moral by birth. These rules are built into our genes. They are not due to religion.

Ooof. How can anything that is arbitrary, random, and 'just enough', trend to anything other than some, for the want of a better phrase thermodynamic minimum conserving point or rate if one looks over species. Good and bad has nothing to do with anything other than a here and now under this and that conditions. Universal? Not a chance.

I mean here we are a species genetically designed to work best in the stone age (latest restore point) that due to increases in resource availability among many tribes have reduced production of offspring from nine down to one or two. Please find a morality there that explains both.

We can't keep going back to Wilde's era to set our modern moral clock can we.

No. I'm not trying to blow up the discussion. I'm just inserting stuff for one to consider that might not be in-the-box for some. After all humanism can only go so far.

 

[fromderinside]

I disagree. Just how man-centric does one have to be to make such a statement? Successful, my arse. Dominating. Exactly.




Ooof. How can anything that is arbitrary, random, and 'just enough', trend to anything other than some, for the want of a better phrase thermodynamic minimum conserving point or rate if one looks over species. Good and bad has nothing to do with anything other than a here and now under this and that conditions. Universal? Not a chance.

I mean here we are a species genetically designed to work best in the stone age (latest restore point) that due to increases in resource availability among many tribes have reduced production of offspring from nine down to one or two. Please find a morality there that explains both.

We can't keep going back to Wilde's era to set our modern moral clock can we.

No. I'm not trying to blow up the discussion. I'm just inserting stuff for one to consider that might not be in-the-box for some. After all humanism can only go so far.

We're with you/

 

[Bronzeage]

After having raised several children, I can assure everyone that no one is moral by birth and their is no morality in anyone's genes. Moral behavior is a learned behavior. The young human brain is very malleable and the lessons learned by observation create the foundation of human intellect and sensibility. Without the proper socialization, a person cannot function in their culture. We have enough examples of malfunctions of this process to deny it is a very real thing.

 

[fromderinside]

After having raised several children, I can assure everyone that no one is moral by birth and their is no morality in anyone's genes. Moral behavior is a learned behavior. The young human brain is very malleable and the lessons learned by observation create the foundation of human intellect and sensibility. Without the proper socialization, a person cannot function in their culture. We have enough examples of malfunctions of this process to deny it is a very real thing.

Yeah. I misworte. The parameters for social cooperation are genetic in nature, but, learning needs to take place for them, like language, to develop appropriately for whatever situation the child finds itself. Good and bad is a socio-cultural construct where yeah-no parameters are acted out by their little decision calculators.

 

[rousseau]

• Non-absolutism

This is a good one.

 

[rousseau]

But this is evidently wrong as religions has created so many defunct cultures. Cultures where people have been discriminated, where women has been seen as a lower version than men. Cultures where free thought is punished.

People are moral by birth. These rules are built into our genes. They are not due to religion.

You could extend the discussion to anybody or any mechanism that's been used to moralize groups of people, but religion itself makes a good case study because moralizing is almost always it's intent. I think if you had a good, thorough study of religion with a critical eye you'd learn almost everything you needed to know about human psychology.

Definitely not. You would learn some aspects of the psychology of religion but the psychology of humans is so much more than religion and morals.

Once again I'm not claiming that every religion in history has been perfect, I'm claiming that religions are moralizers which tend to point to objective aspects of the human psyche. Of course a moral code arising in the year 50 AD is not going to be completely relevant or useful in the year 2050, but that's not the point.

 

[Juma]

But this is evidently wrong as religions has created so many defunct cultures. Cultures where people have been discriminated, where women has been seen as a lower version than men. Cultures where free thought is punished.

People are moral by birth. These rules are built into our genes. They are not due to religion.



Definitely not. You would learn some aspects of the psychology of religion but the psychology of humans is so much more than religion and morals.

Once again I'm not claiming that every religion in history has been perfect, I'm claiming that religions are moralizers which tend to point to objective aspects of the human psyche. Of course a moral code arising in the year 50 AD is not going to be completely relevant or useful in the year 2050, but that's not the point.

Religions are moralizers because that is whst religion is: powerstructures. By time the worst shit has been abandoned and only the small parts thst actually was good remains.
This is not due to religions but more in spite of them.

Think of all shit in the bible. How much is actually good morals? A tiny, tiny bit. So tiny that the entire bible can be completely ignored

 

[J842P]

After having raised several children, I can assure everyone that no one is moral by birth and their is no morality in anyone's genes. Moral behavior is a learned behavior. The young human brain is very malleable and the lessons learned by observation create the foundation of human intellect and sensibility. Without the proper socialization, a person cannot function in their culture. We have enough examples of malfunctions of this process to deny it is a very real thing.

Nature-nurture is a false dichotomy. That moral behavior is learned behavior does not imply that moral behavior isn't genetic.

 

[Bronzeage]

After having raised several children, I can assure everyone that no one is moral by birth and their is no morality in anyone's genes. Moral behavior is a learned behavior. The young human brain is very malleable and the lessons learned by observation create the foundation of human intellect and sensibility. Without the proper socialization, a person cannot function in their culture. We have enough examples of malfunctions of this process to deny it is a very real thing.

Nature-nurture is a false dichotomy. That moral behavior is learned behavior does not imply that moral behavior isn't genetic.

A fledgling bird is not taught to fly by it's parents, because flying is an instinctive behavior, as dictated by its genetics. . Once the young bird is physically capable of flight, it is put in an situation where it must fly or fall. While the human mind may have the reasoning capability to understand complex personal relationships and predict the consequences of its own behavior, which of course are in its genetics, there is no genetic basis for not killing another human or not stealing from another human.