Religion is good because it gives the believer an objective and absolute standard of morality

[Vivacia]

(This idea was introduced in another thread, but it felt like an unfair tangent for that thread to be taking in my humble opinion, but one I'd be interested in discussing).

Firstly, I absolutely disagree with the statement.

Secondly, I feel as an atheist I have an objective morality, if not an absolute one.

laurie I was referring to the Christian god just described as being Good/yummy.

I was also struck by the comparison with Islam. Much more absolutist than Christianity.

I had a dog that exhibited plenty of pre-moral behaviour. He was very solicitous of me when I was sad. I don’t think he had ever read a book of moral instruction.

I have to get out to work but I'd be interested to find out where Vivacia thinks that an objective morality comes from? Utilitarianism, virtue theory, natural law, rights and duties? A lot of what people think is objective is about social norms or arises from a vaguely remembered set of rules based on the Judeo Christian tradition. It doesn't mean that atheists can't be moral, it means they have a different set of tools in their ethical tool kit but naming those tools if you haven't studied philosophy or ethics can be tricky.

A lot of what people think is objective is about social norms or arises from a vaguely remembered set of rules based on the Judeo Christian tradition

Such as?

I have to get out to work but I'd be interested to find out where Vivacia thinks that an objective morality comes from?

Well, on the other thread somebody said that religion give her morality, she enjoyed not having to decide upon right and wrong for herself.

I claim that my morality is objective in that it is considered, thought-out and based upon evidence. I totally accept the claim that my morality is strongly influenced by the culture and society I grew up in, including attending a CofE primary school.

I think you are confusing two things Vivacia. Ethics isn't about evidence. Evidence and how we know what is in the world is another branch of philosophy which is epistemology. Ethics is about why I don't kill my grandmother who is costing my family a fortune in care home fees (theoretical example as my grandmother is long dead) rather than debating how I know my grandmother exists.

As a Christian I could say that I don't kill me grandmother because scripture in the ten commandments says that killing is wrong or that loving my neighbour as Jesus commands goes against the idea that bumping off granny for financial gain is a good and moral thing to do.

An atheist can not appeal to either of those reasons. So what grounds would you give for not killing granny?

thegreen I'm not the one talking about ethics!! I didn't introduce that to the thread on morality!

Ethics are the principals that underpin morality. So to talk about objective morality means you have to talk about the principals that are involved. Otherwise to say that you are a moral person is subjective.

Well, I'm not sure it's worth either of us continuing to debate this, because I think we disagree on definitions. I understood ethics to be rules, provided by an external source. I understood morality to be intrinsic, one's personal position.

This is why it interested me when someone said a benefit of being religious is that you don't have to make your own mind up. I disagree with the premise - I think as many religious people struggle with morality as the rest of us. Secondly, I don't think that the Bible does offer an absolute standard of Good.

Both ethics and morality are obviously both very closely related to each other and the concept of right and wrong, so I think it's understandable that we are perhaps talking at cross-purposes

I'm atheist and my view is that morality is absolute - i.e. right and wrong is right and wrong. Religion chooses to adopt rules and interpret as it sees fit but from a religion-free and objective perspective it is morality that is fixed and religion that chooses to change the 'rules'.

thegreen the example you gave is about morals! It's morally wrong to kill for financial gain/personal gain. I don't need stories from an old book to help me interpret and understand that - though years ago that is how the uneducated masses were aided in their moral development.

thegreenheartofmanyroundabouts

A Hindu/ buddhist won't bump off granny because they worry about karma and that they might be reincardated as a slug or punhised in the next life.

The interesting ethical question is that if Granny has dementia and is in obvious pain should we enthanise her? Or should we kill Granny to die when she is ridded with cancer and wants to die? Christianity, Islam and judasim are very anti suicide or enthansia under any circumstances. Is it right to turn off a life support machine. Israel has hundreds of chronically ventilated people

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29132303

An atheist might have less of an issue with enthansia than a religious person. An atheist is less likely to worry that they are playing at being god because they do not believe in God.

There are atheists who oppose abortion and enthansia. There are some (supposely) christian people who support abortion and enthansia.

Are ethics and morals decided for our own convience. The moral framework of 2000 years ago does not always work in the 21st century. Issues like IVF or organ transplants did not exist 2000 years ago.

Issues like IVF or organ transplants did not exist 2000 years ago.

Pity one of the gods (not fussed which) didn't include guidance on issues yet to arise.

lol... vivacia as if any holy book could pretend to give guidence in every ethical situation. Life has never been black and white. We have a mind so we can think for ourselves. If you are religious then you will believe that god gave you a brain and expects you to use it. Sadly many fundermentalist do not use their brain to look at the difference in their circumstance from someone hundreds of years ago.

Christians only have to keep to two rules "love God" and "love your neighbour". Every single other rule from the prophets follows from these two commands. If christians apply these two rules then they can make up their minds about modern day ethical issues. Ofcourse its not that easy and that is why there is much disagreement on emotive issues like abortion or enthansia.

I think the benefit of attending church is that it gives you an extended friendship group to gain support from during hard times. I imagine that adherents of other religions gain similar benefit if the attend synagogue, mosque or temple. Even if you don't believe, having a network of people from different backgrounds, ages and class can help you through life.

So long as you not an unmarried woman, gay or have dwarfism (delete according to decade).

So according to your description of yourself Vivacia you are a proponent of deontological ethics ie rules based. There are problems with this theory as it does not allow exceptions to the rule - so I should always tell the truth even if in so doing I tell the abusive husband where his wife is and he then goes on to kill her.

If you haven't looked at this sort of thing before the BBC site is a good place to start' www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml

Is this what you mean when you talk about a rule based morality?

ReallyTired is quite right and that some Christians oppose physician assisted suicide for deontological reasons but much of the debate last year in response to the Lord's bill was based around the consequentialist argument. This is that is that if we say it is ok to kill granny because she is in pain, is terminal ill and in her right mind then the consequence is that as a society we become used to the idea of killing the old and ill. As Christianity is concerned with the marginalised (sermon on the mount) then people like the Archbishop of Canterbury came out against assisted dying.

I find this stuff really interesting but I really should be writing an essay on it rather than distracting myself on MN.

The words of musemum about intrinsic morality resonate with me. To expand on the idea, I would say that morality is an innate human propensity but requires us to be socialised appropriately amongst other people for it to develop – rather like human speech.

Religion evolved out of morality rather than vice versa. Religion reinforced pre-existing morality in the form of co-operative social behaviours weaving them into stories and traditions that could be passed from generation to generation.

The quintessence of morality is being considerate of the well-being of others – or loving thy neighbour as Christianity puts it. This one timeless principle transcends religions, laws and the social conventions of the day. Why not hold fast to that one principle rather than hitch your wagon to any more complicated religious or political ideology that might date?

Otherwise just be a compassionate free thinker and don’t buy into any system of ideas wholesale – even the system belonging to the 'tribe' you identify with.

And as ReallyTired said, new – and heretofore undreamed of - moral dilemmas will come into the frame for each generation anyway and we will all have to consider afresh the wisest and most humane way forward in those cases.

Christians only have to keep to two rules

Are you basing that statement on what Jesus said? Isn't he one of the prophets you refer to though?

Christians consider Jesus to be God and not a prophet. Obviously you are entitled to your opinon that Jesus was just an ordinary man. In fact most the world do not consider Jesus to be in any way special.

People have all kinds of ideas of how religion evolved. Some see religion as a way of primative man trying to make sense of his world. Marx considers religion to the be opium of the people. Certainly lots of religions are about power and controlling the masses. However that is not true of all religions. Many religions like buddhism are more of a philosophy than a method of control.

Take what is useful to do you and discard the mental clutter of outdated ideas.

I'm not sure why you're explaining all of that to me, but anyway, why do the two commandments of Jesus trump the ten commandments of the Old Testament god? Not to mention all of the other endless rules.

the 2 new testament commandments do not 'trump' the 10 commandments.They summarize them. The first 4 commandments are about love and respect for God and the last 6 are about love and respect for others.There is absolutely no conflict. And God/Jesus is God, there is not a different being in the Old Testament. In the beginning was the Word(Jesus) and the Word was with God and the Word was God(John 1v1)

Thank you, that's a neat way of thinking about it .

What about all of the other rules? You know, wearing mixed fibres, working on a sabbath.

One of the reasons I struggled with being a christian (so I guess one of the reasons I am now an atheist) is that the god in the old testament does not act in what I instinctively felt was a moral way. So apparently even when I was religious I had an objective morality separate from my religion.

I think as an atheist a lot of my morals are based on empathy - how will the other people feel? Which is in tune with new testament christianity, but even outside of religion I find it hard to see how society can function pleasantly without it.

I think having a 'day of rest' is still crucial for peoples wellbeing,whether you choose that it's a holy day for you or not. I am in Healthcare and sometimes have to work on Sundays(my sabbath) but will always have another day where I chill ! Even Jesus said that Sabbath was made for man,not man for the Sabbath, in other words,this day of rest is commanded for your benefit and health,not just as a random rule that must be obeyed in all circumstances for no good reason......it was the religious leaders who were laying down the law without thinking which was why Jesus broke a few of the laws occasionally,to make the point that they were general rules for mans benefit but common sense also had to prevail.If a man needed healing,or an ox fell in a ditch, you would not seriously just ignore them because it was the Sabbath! The religious leaders hated him for breaking the rules.
re the mixed wool and linen mixed threads...there are often funny rules like this and if you do some research there are often reasons suggested,one such is this....
Although this precept, like the other two with which it is associated, was in all probability designed to root out some superstition, it seems to have had a further meaning. The law, it is to be observed, did not prohibit the Israelites wearing many different kinds of cloths together, but only the two specified; and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that "wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off the electricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister" . (See Eze 44:17, 18).