Does religion promote higher morals?

[rivrrat]

Ah I see so in order to be considered an American or even human you must have religion and not just religion, Christianity. :bs

Actually... it says "Moral" and "religious". There are plenty of "religious" but the "moral" qualifier would eliminate a crapload of those religious people from being an American.

 

[Iriemon]

....George Washington stated, "What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." ...

Do you have a reliable sourcefor that quote that is not a christian- based site?

I took a quick look for it and found it only quoted on a handfull of (so-called) Christian based sites.

So many times pro-religion supposed quotes from founding fathers have turned out to be fabricated bullshit by people pushing their agenda.

Kind of sad when people who call themselves "Christians" are so willing to violate one of the ten commandments simply to promote their political agenda. Some might say hypocritical.

 

[bhkad]

:laughat:

Am I supposed to care what some guy said way back then? That's simply his opinion, and It really makes little difference to the here and now.

:2rofll:

 

[bhkad]

Am I supposed to care what some guy said way back then? That's simply his opinion, and It really makes little difference to the here and now.

Uh, as one of the founding fathers and signers of our founding documents and the 2nd POTUS, I'd say his opinion is as close at it comes, for those who berate Christians and Christianity, to being a message from 'on high.' That is, unless you'd admit to worshiping at the altar of unrestrained hedonism and debauchery. Then your divinity would more look like Caligula, Nero and the Marquis De Sade.

 

[bhkad]

Great here's also what Adam's said

Cherry picking quotes is quite dumb when what Adam's actually said was

Note Adam's did not say that one must have a religion of any sort in order to be moral - the topic of the thread.

I could not find any source other than sites with an obvious agenda stating that Washington said such or the entirety of the quote rather than the already cherry picking example just shown here. However I did find this interesting quote.


Not to mention, even if the quote of washington you gave were not out of context, unfortunately it still does not address the issue at hand.

Looks like I touched a nerve. No cherry picking involved. I simply ran across the page and the quote was there so I posted it without any further thought. Thanks for doing my fact checking, though. I'll get around to checking your checking later.

Upon glancing at your interpretation of the text that you unearthed, I think your interpretation is off. But the careful and intelligent reader will know which is true.

 

[bhkad]

Ah I see so in order to be considered an American or even human you must have religion and not just religion, Christianity. :bs

Is that how you interpreted his quote? :shock:

 

[bhkad]

Actually... it says "Moral" and "religious". There are plenty of "religious" but the "moral" qualifier would eliminate a crapload of those religious people from being an American.

Judging Christians (and maybe those who follow other religions, too) is like trying to judge the perfect swimsuit model. None of the models are perfect. All of them constantly try, to one degree or another, to achieve greater perfection.

And it's easiest to point out the ones who most obviously fall shortest of the ideal, while giving little credit to those who are really trying hard, or struggling to meet the challenge.

 

[bhkad]

Do you have a reliable sourcefor that quote that is not a christian- based site?

I took a quick look for it and found it only quoted on a handfull of (so-called) Christian based sites.

So many times pro-religion supposed quotes from founding fathers have turned out to be fabricated bullshit by people pushing their agenda.

Kind of sad when people who call themselves "Christians" are so willing to violate one of the ten commandments simply to promote their political agenda. Some might say hypocritical.

Again, Christians aren't perfect. Merely forgiven.

 

[Iriemon]

Again, Christians aren't perfect. Merely forgiven.

The constitution must be inadequate to govern such immoral people, eh?

 

[jfuh]

Uh, as one of the founding fathers and signers of our founding documents and the 2nd POTUS, I'd say his opinion is as close at it comes, for those who berate Christians and Christianity, to being a message from 'on high.' That is, unless you'd admit to worshiping at the altar of unrestrained hedonism and debauchery. Then your divinity would more look like Caligula, Nero and the Marquis De Sade.

Yet his opinion states nothing of the topic at hand, nor is the opinion you've cited of or any relationship to the constitution nor declaration of independence. Hence his personal religious viewpoints - which you took out of context - are quite irrelevant.

 

[jfuh]

Looks like I touched a nerve. No cherry picking involved. I simply ran across the page and the quote was there so I posted it without any further thought. Thanks for doing my fact checking, though. I'll get around to checking your checking later.

Now you're appealing to a higher authority as well as ignorance. Invalidating your own premise.

Upon glancing at your interpretation of the text that you unearthed, I think your interpretation is off. But the careful and intelligent reader will know which is true.

I'm not interpreting anything - I simply wrote out the entirety of what Adam's said as well as asked you to show when and where Washington made that statement as opposed to simply Washington said so.

 

[Alex]

Religion does promote morals, but I do not believe in "higher" morals, so I say religion does not promote them. It is far too subjective to an individual's way of life, so all morals seem equal to me. A given religion does however believe that they are "higher" morally than others. But that may not be true outside of the individual's own mind.

 

[Alex]

I tend to stay away from using quotes that are apparently from so long ago. Who was responsible for the integrity of these quotes?

Anyone living today who believes that they know what someone believed who lived 200 years ago is very arrogant. Quotes from that long ago are useless to prove anything.

 

[rivrrat]

Judging Christians (and maybe those who follow other religions, too) is like trying to judge the perfect swimsuit model. None of the models are perfect. All of them constantly try, to one degree or another, to achieve greater perfection.

And it's easiest to point out the ones who most obviously fall shortest of the ideal, while giving little credit to those who are really trying hard, or struggling to meet the challenge.

It is also relative. What you consider moral, and what I consider moral are two vastly different things.

 

[nkgupta80]

No, each religion promotes a set of moral principles that may or may not coincide with your own.

Plus, being moral because you fear someone punishing you is not really being moral.

but almost all "moral" actions whether religious or not can be construed as selfish actions right?

 

[Thelost1]

but almost all "moral" actions whether religious or not can be construed as selfish actions right?

Could you explain?

 

[kamehameha34]

"Higher morals" is an oxymoron. There's no such thing as an objectively "high" moral.

 

[black wolf]

but almost all "moral" actions whether religious or not can be construed as selfish actions right?

Almost, yes. Donating considerable money to anonymous people on the other side of the globe isn't a selfish action at all, but it does result from selfish disposition. Altruism is a product of gene-pool-conserving-and-improving direction. In my opinion, religion is a misguided by-product of early moral philosophy.

 

[nkgupta80]

Almost, yes. Donating considerable money to anonymous people on the other side of the globe isn't a selfish action at all, but it does result from selfish disposition. Altruism is a product of gene-pool-conserving-and-improving direction. In my opinion, religion is a misguided by-product of early moral philosophy.

i totally agree. I believe everyone puts themselves first in almost all cases. However there are some deeply rooted altruistic feelings that do put others before oneself. Think of the mother and her children. The care for the children is deeply rooted in the biology of human beings, such that a caring mother could sacrifice her own life for her children. Such altruistic feelings can be seen in other relationships as well.

And i never thought being selfish is bad , its just human. But when being selfish gets in the way of you're social interactions with other humans then it can be a problem for you and others.

 

[1069]

Think of the mother and her children. The care for the children is deeply rooted in the biology of human beings, such that a caring mother could sacrifice her own life for her children. Such altruistic feelings can be seen in other relationships as well.

But we are genetically programmed to do that.
It only makes sense, from an evolutionary standpoint: mothers sacrificing their lives for their children.
The whole point is perpetuation of the species.

The really interesting thing is that humanity has now evolved to the point that the vast majority of people are now capable of overriding their instincts with their conscious will.
In fact, just about everything now is a conscious choice, because humanity has basically lost all touch with its instincts.
Mind you, I'm not saying this is a bad thing.
It means that we are the captains of our destinies, no longer slaves to biology.
It means that when somebody does something altruistic, it is truly generous, truly selfless... because they chose to do it.
There is no longer any biological imperative to put others- procreators, children, the good of the tribe- ahead of one's own best interests.
So when one chooses to, they are truly behaving in a manner that is heroic.

 

[Thinker]

But we are genetically programmed to do that.
It only makes sense, from an evolutionary standpoint: mothers sacrificing their lives for their children. The whole point is perpetuation of the species.

So you are agreeing that there is an evolutionary force that would
favour helping kin. Such a thing would also help in maintaining groups of
non-related humans, who otherwise would be alone and easy-picking for
predators. It seems likely that this inbuilt behaviour could easily spill over into
situations where there is no kinship or group advantage; a sort of default
way of behaving to others. The obvious example is people's general protective
reaction to children, even those that are no relation.

The really interesting thing is that humanity has now evolved to the point that the vast majority of people are now capable of overriding their instincts with their conscious will.

Hardly, just look at group behaviour where morality can quickly disappear.

In fact, just about everything now is a conscious choice, because humanity has basically lost all touch with its instincts....It means that we are the captains of our destinies, no longer slaves to biology.

How do you know? I doubt if our cruder pasts are that deep beneath the
surface.

It means that when somebody does something altruistic, it is truly generous, truly selfless... because they chose to do it.
There is no longer any biological imperative to put others- procreators, children, the good of the tribe- ahead of one's own best interests.
So when one chooses to, they are truly behaving in a manner that is heroic.

For that to be true you would have to demonstrate that our genetic makeup
has zero influence on our choices, something that seems, at least, dubious.

 

[nkgupta80]

But we are genetically programmed to do that.
It only makes sense, from an evolutionary standpoint: mothers sacrificing their lives for their children.
The whole point is perpetuation of the species.

The really interesting thing is that humanity has now evolved to the point that the vast majority of people are now capable of overriding their instincts with their conscious will.
In fact, just about everything now is a conscious choice, because humanity has basically lost all touch with its instincts.
Mind you, I'm not saying this is a bad thing.
It means that we are the captains of our destinies, no longer slaves to biology.
It means that when somebody does something altruistic, it is truly generous, truly selfless... because they chose to do it.
There is no longer any biological imperative to put others- procreators, children, the good of the tribe- ahead of one's own best interests.
So when one chooses to, they are truly behaving in a manner that is heroic.

You're separating biology, instincts and society. Conscious choice is an illusion. Everyone feels these biological instincts, but their reactions to them are vastly different due to vastly different external stimuli and environments. Society has placed a big pressure on humans psychologically, and consequently biologically, to act in a certain way. So being altruistic is not some choice apart from our biology or physical nature. It is an action due to our brain taking in all the stimuli: our innate biological instincts, social pressures, our other desires, etc. and acting on them.

And I have a question, what is so special about being selfless. I am not saying that helping people is bad or stupid or something, by why must it be purely selfless. Whats wrong with me helping people for reasons other than just helping them. I think everyone has ulterior reasons that benefit themselves in someways. Whether it be seeking friendship, relationship, enjoyment from seeing those people happy, reputation, or whatever. Whats wrong with admitting that to yourself. Isn't it just human.

 

[black wolf]

...
And I have a question, what is so special about being selfless. I am not saying that helping people is bad or stupid or something, by why must it be purely selfless. Whats wrong with me helping people for reasons other than just helping them. I think everyone has ulterior reasons that benefit themselves in someways. Whether it be seeking friendship, relationship, enjoyment from seeing those people happy, reputation, or whatever. Whats wrong with admitting that to yourself. Isn't it just human.

Exactly. Apparently the founders of today's large religions realized the fact that we are rarely, perhaps purely coincidentally, truly selfless. That's why they put all the loving-god and heavenly-rewards stuff into their scripture along with all the punishment. They knew humanity wasn't mature enough to appreciate altruism without supernatural incentive, and too keen on moving and shaking to develop rational humanism instead. Instead of advancing rationalism, they framed instinctual behavior and dualistic thinking into 'absolute' rules, thereby making territorial warfare, incest, genocide, rape and pillaging an approved choice by supernatural decree. They didn't take into account the changing moral Zeitgeist, which lead directly to the mind-twists of modern theology.

 

[nkgupta80]

Exactly. Apparently the founders of today's large religions realized the fact that we are rarely, perhaps purely coincidentally, truly selfless. That's why they put all the loving-god and heavenly-rewards stuff into their scripture along with all the punishment. They knew humanity wasn't mature enough to appreciate altruism without supernatural incentive, and too keen on moving and shaking to develop rational humanism instead. Instead of advancing rationalism, they framed instinctual behavior and dualistic thinking into 'absolute' rules, thereby making territorial warfare, incest, genocide, rape and pillaging an approved choice by supernatural decree. They didn't take into account the changing moral Zeitgeist, which lead directly to the mind-twists of modern theology.

i agree, but i dont think making humans into pure altruists should necessarily be a goal of soceity... (of course the capitalist system doesn't allow for much altruism haha)