Hey Blue: Interesting and perhaps relevant, but these people need a job.

 

Reminds me of the old bromide, "An armed populace is a polite populace."

 

It's more complicated than that. I was baptized Catholic and went to Catholic schools for many years. But my dad is Baptist. And neither my dad or my mom are churchgoers.

I disagree that there is a particular critical age when "essential aspects of morality" are imprinted. Do you have a reference for that? Or is that an opinion you have formed from your experience?

I think the influences on our sense of morality are more like a cumulative average of our life experiences. When we are young things can shift it much more easily than when we are old. But it still can move around with new experiences, especially if the new experiences are particularly impressive.

 

So, your argument then is that morality is derived from any "major" religion... given that the 9/11 terrorists were acting on what they believed to be orders from their god (and thus they were acting morally), would you say their actions were moral or immoral?

 

^^ Thanks. Having been reared to age 12 without any exposure to formal religion, I was immediately and in a major way immersed into catholicism by my adoptive parents. I felt like an outsider; I couldn't absorb it; it generated resentment; I could not grasp the blind sense of faith; and I largely dismissed it as a young adult. I do, however, respect and accept religion as an institution and part of our culture.

No specific reference, but rather from decades of readings on subjects ranging from parenting, ciminology, psychology, and the social sciences and establishing one's values. Supposedly, it is a critical age period for CHARACTER development, and includes not only basics of morality but also traits like honesty, care and concern for others, self-reliance, fairness, elements of personal responsibility, self-confidence, hygiene habits, respect for others and institutions, aspects of conformance, self-evaluation, etc. Some are taught but mostly they are learned, with the ability to read being an important facilitator.

Surely, I believe that personna is shaped, refined, and redefined by one's life's experiences. But, I also think there are basic elements of morality derived largely via the historical influence of religion, and just because one might violate one of those it does not make him or her permanently immoral.

 

I would argue that religion is not responsible for shaping morality so much as Religion manages to prey on and codify morality for it's own gains (a la terrorist bombers, Catholics who "bought" their way into heaven, the crusades, the inquisition, etc).

Check the morality of the bible (read it again, there's god-ordered genocide and murder all over the old testament. Not exactly what we would consider a sound moral guide). Given that most Christians don't properly follow all of the morals found in the bible, isn't is more likely that morality is less influenced by religion than Religion would like the world to believe?

To quote a "friend" in another discussion elsewhere:

"Are you saying the Bible does not condone slavery, child rape, the murder of non believers and the killing of children? How then can that possibly the basis for morality? There is simply no way around that. The Bible as a moral document is despicable. It is beneath contempt and vile. If it is so moral, why then does it not say something to the effect of, 'stop keeping slaves, don't stone your children, selling your daughters as sex slaves is right out'...

There are to be sure plenty of Christians who lead moral lives but it can't be from following the Bible because to do so would be immoral. It would be accurate to say that there are Christians who lead moral lives in spite of the Bible."

 

Neutered: I am not qualified nor would I choose to debate or defend the merits of organized religion or more specifically the bible. Further, we try to avoid religion discussions here.
There is no evidence nor do I believe that the 9/11 terrorists received nor acted upon orders from their god. That they believed that Allah condones the slaying of infidels is pretty common knowledge.

You are free to believe what you want.

Your argument regarding the morality of the bible is should-I-say common among believers and nonbelievers alike. I was a boy scout of about age 14 the first time I heard those arguments, and I've heard them non-stop ever ssince. Nothing original there.

Hey, we all have opinions; I say let the readers decide for themselves.
For a believer, no proof is necessary; for a non-believer, no amount of proof is sufficient. To discuss the merits or farce of organized religion will get this thread closed; so let's not.

 

Schweitzer defined ethics as nothing more than a reverence for life.

Einstein said this about morality.

"There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. What the individual can do is to give a fine example, and to have the courage to uphold ethical values .. in a society of cynics."


fltsfshr

 

John, RC/Ryder is a smart man. He knows it's not good to discuss sex, politics and religion.....well around here we at least try to avoid the religion discussion, the politics discussion goes elsewhere, and as for the sex...................

 

So much boils down to "reverence for life". So simple. So concise. So difficult.

It is an overarching theme that is championed by many, and is frustratingly found on both sides of many arguments.