Just posted my most direct attack on religion in general on FB, which will surprise and anger many people - an article about whether we believe in God because we're moral or if we're moral because we believe in God. I'm totally nonreligious, but the article makes a good point. Now preparing for some unfriending and hateful comments while, at the same time, comtinuing to see a steady stream of posts about how uplifting G.C. is and how marvelous all the speakers are. :/

Post it here as well :).

+1

Not one of the deeper articles, but I felt it would work for solid Mo's who don't do a lot of reading and thinking.

http://news.yahoo.com/god-moral-093606607--abc-news-tech.html

If you believe in the wrong god are you still moral ?

If you believe in no god are you still moral?

You can be. I'm flat-out atheist now, though I NEVER saw THAT coming when I was younger, and I feel I'm far more moral than most church members. I make decisions based on societal, cultural, and familial good rather than fear of divine punishment or hope of an eternal reward. My Mo friends don't see it that way, of course.

Exactly. Added bonus to having my OWN set of morals which are based on how I want to be treated and what impact I want to have on this world---- I also don't hate myself 1000 time a day for minor sins of omission that caused a "god" to bleed for me. I'm much happier now.

Well articulated, Cathy. I believe in deity though ill admit there is some real searching going on in me at this point in my spiritual awakening.

I had once written Dawkins off as a complete idiot. His characterization of the God of the OT is pretty hard to shoot down.

I don't know where the moral feelings of good/right/wrong come from. My theory had always been that it comes from a higher entity but if that is so, then why does the psychopath serial killer not have it? God forgot to give it?

So the I evolved my thinking to something that seemed to be more plausible. That those ideals are something even above God. God himself can't make them up but has to abide them himself. That would answer the dilema regarding how can God enforce upon us a moral code we don't clearly understand or haven't consciously agreed to. But is that too delusional?

Do others out there grapple with the same concept? If so, how are you working through it? Any suggested reading or sources?

How about- it comes from inside us... our genetic code.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/03/20/monkey-morality/

Animals also show moral tendencies. Why does it have to come from a higher life form? Natural Selection doesn't always favor the selfish and the strong, sometimes it favors the cunning and the caring. Those attributes were retained in our genetic code as we evolved. Others who are more naturally aggressive, could simply have genes that were left "on or off" (whichever direction you lean) in the evolutionary process.

Or they could just be jerks, with no impulse control. Which could also be genetic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2013 02:51PM by intjsegry.

Thanks for that link - I've bookmarked it to read here shortly. I never allowed myself to even think about material like this when I was in the church, much less read about it. Life is so much more beautiful, joyous, and enlightening without the human-constructed constraints of religion!!

Richard Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" points out that
"survival of the fittest" does not mean the "fittest
organism." But that it means the fittest gene. From an
evolutionary approach the organism is a vehicle for promoting
replication of the gene. Therefore, altruistic behavior where,
for example, a parent sacrifices him or herself for the
survival of his/her offspring, would be selected for.

I once read an article in SCIENCE about how cameras had been
set up to study the behavior of a village of prairie dogs or
some such species, and it was found that the incidences of
altruistic behavior--risking one's life to help save another,
had a strong tendency to be along genetic lines. They risked
to save those who carried the same genes.

I read another article by a minister who, evidently, had little
understanding of how evolution works. He told of watching a
hen with her chicks and how when a hawk appeared she ran right
out into the farmyard to gather her chicks to safety, putting
herself at great risk. The author marveled that even a chicken
could do such high-level moral reasoning.

How about the creation of religion? Is that a survival gene thing? This is interesting.

Hadn't thought about that angle. Hmmmm...need to mull that over. This is exactly why I love these types of discussions - they stretch me a bit and force me to think more. :)

Creation of religion as a survival gene...not sure on that. I see religion (with due respect to those who are still religious) as human constructs designed to maximize power and control for the few while manipulating and profiting off the masses. Therefore, it only benefits the "elite" while hurting the masses. But if those masses feel more secure while banded together perhaps there is a slight advantage for them - they might tend to live longer or somewhat healthier, depending on the religious requirements. I might be way off base here - thoughts?

I bet there are lots of elements to this survival gene thing. Both things we perceive as bad AND good. Maybe they strike a balance to strengthen us as a human species? Or destroy us eventually? Don't know. But this could be taken into taboo and un-PC areas to explore, definately.

Humans want to see patterns, we want to makes sense of things we don't understand, and we want to congregate in social groups to feel love and be protected. A lot of people also don't want to take responsibility for their actions or have to make decisions.

Religion is very ritualistic and has many patterns to follow.

Superstition answered a lot of unanswerable question of the time "God did it" "Allah commanded it", "Yehweh made it"... etc.

Religions are incredibly social. Not always positive, and very often hate or guilt driven, but they are social.

Belief in a god can often give one the illusion of less responsibility "God will help me find a job", "God will forgive me for hurting that person" etc. Also, as many of you know, attachment to a fundamentalist religion gave you a cookie cutter design for life's path...

If you've got empathy, the golden rule is all the morality you need.

Not the topic of this post but empathy isn't always the right place to hang your hat. Empathy in and of its self, is an attempt preserve self defined morality. It is one of the reasons why LDS inc fails so horribly on a human rights front. They profess and possibly even feel a great deal of empathy for people that are different than them, but empathy isn't enough to act as an agent of change.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2013 03:45PM by jacob.

This reminds me of the Louis CK joke where he THINKS about giving up his 1st class seat to a soldier.. and just the thought of it makes him proud of himself. Of course, he never does it... but he enjoys how wonderful he is, just to think of it.

You're spot-on in your thinking - that's where I am as well. I mean no offense in talking about my atheism, but the point remains - moral behavior can not and should not be codified and enforced by a divine figure. We are creatures of our circumstances and must learn to make appropriate choices based on the larger good. Biology is a major factor, but environment plays a larger role.

I've decided I love Richard Dawkins, though I don't agree with all his premises. All the Four Horsemen are my new heroes and I'm finding more wonderful authors and speakers all the time. I'd also like to hear more suggestions for reading and video clips - I think I've literally seen just about everything by Hitch, Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, and I've read a mountain of books about various subjects, but I'm always up for more.

BTW, so far...total silence on the FB post. I'm strangely disappointed.

Thanks Cathy. Really! Not to sound sappy but this thread really has been good for me.

I too think Dawkins is way off on some things. But he absolutely hits it out of the park on so much else. He articulates quite beautifully some pretty 'a-ha' things.

I find Dawkins a bit slow to rebuttal some of the idiotic claims of some of the people he debates. But then again, I fell in intellectual love with Hitchens first... that's hard to match.

Dawkins is clearly brilliant and articulates beyond anything I could ever hope (at this point) to do. However, he's flawed like all of us. I mean, he's not perfect like some people, like good ol' Joe Smith but... he can try.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2013 02:50PM by intjsegry.

So glad, shadoe! It's been good for me too. I love interesting, intelligent discussion - something I NEVER got in the church. EVER.

I kind of love Hitch too - can I have a stunningly amazing marriage and kind of love another guy too? :) He's the first Horseman I discovered - it rocked my world in a huge way and I've never looked back.

Sigh... he does that. He gripped my heart and showed me what it means to really care about causes and people. He rattled my brain and forced me to really look at what I was thinking, studying, becoming. Since the day I heard Hitch speak- Some YouTube Clip after a friend gave me "God is not Great"--- my life has never been the same, and never will be, and will always be immensely better because of his commanding influence.

Such a loss to the world.

Have you read "Letters to a Young Contrarian" ? Awesome.

Just bought it a short time ago and am starting in on this week. Funny you bring that up! Yes, god is not great rattled my cage in a big way and I sort of fell in love with the guy on the spot. I had never seen or heard anyone so passionate, articulate, and educated about these issues. I couldn't believe what I was reading - I was so knocked out by it that I did something I almost never, ever do - went back and read the whole thing again, then actually started in on it a third time. I've read books by all the Horsemen and many others (Kenneth Daniels' book Why I Believed is a great read, along with Dan Barker's book), but for some reason that one just really got to me. I also read Mortality by Hitch - it is beautiful on every level.

From the article:

"The moral law is not imposed from above or derived from well-reasoned principles; rather it arises from ingrained values that have been there since the beginning of time."

Except for my nonreligion daughter making wonderful comments on the original article on FB I still have silence. What a marvelous and refreshing change it is to enjoy intelligent, interesting conversation on here that makes me think and helps me look at things from different angles. I cannot get enough of it!