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.

Popalot, if we are naturally compassionate, then how do you account for the fact that we all have the capacity to be cruel to others? It's not just the sociopaths who lack compassion -- we all do at times. All those people who become torturers, who hit their children, who get old ladies to trust them and then walk off with their savings ... they all started out as innocent children.

Are people who do bad things genetically different from the rest of us, or is there are continuum? How different are you and I from the torturer who comes home from his day job, kisses his wife and plays with his children?

But even if you're using a construct in order to understand a truth, pop, there still exists the truth that the construct helps you understand.

It is my that view imaginative constructs are another form of language. One which we use on a partially subconscious level, in that the meaning behind them is not always immediately apparent.

If you look at how the terms spirit, and spiritual are used in the phenomenon such as Zeitgeist (spirit of the people) then you can see how collective and individual imaginations (including collective constructs) can be viewed in terms of having a spiritual element to them.

The big question is, is whether the truth behind the construct is an absolute truth or something that humans have invented for themselves.

But if you viewed morality as entirely learned head what hope have those people who find learning very difficult (for a variety of reasons) or those who have not had the optimum socialisation? Can they ever rise above their circumstances?

Vivacia just wanted to respond to your comment up-thread:

Outwith I'm not convinced that your dog and rat examples are evidence of morality or altruism. They could just be evolutionary successful behaviours.

My feeling is that morality and altruism are evolutionary successful behaviours for us too - it's part of being a sufficiently-complex social animal for us and the other animals that exhibit the behaviour.

rise above their circumstances

Rehabilitation. Some people clearly do show a distinct inability to want to mimic norms. In terms of sociopaths and people who kill their own children, it would be along the same lines as any mutation that randomly happens from time to time although again we see other predisposing factors most of the time.

It's an interesting set of ideas Outwith makes me wonder how scientists decide either way.

It's not just the sociopaths who lack compassion -- we all do at times

Absolutely! It's not black/white, at any point there are a number of factors influencing us such as societal expectations, physical wants and desires, emotions, circumstance which is why yesterday you were all kind and lovely and today you are thinking horrid horrid things about me ;)

The problem I can see with the view that morality is innate is that it means essentially that people are trapped by their biology. If this were true it would mean free will does not exist. If something is wrong with a person's biological capacity for morality, there would be no hope for rectifying this situation.

there is no contradiction between something being innate and people having free will. We frequently rebel against some of our deepest instincts because of our free will.

Rehabilitation is very dependent on State provision though head. Frustrating with our Government and the resources at hand! I want hope for people (since we all have flaws) now! - which is what my Christian belief gives. Nanny States / Police Stares scare me.

Regarding the genetic mutation comment - so you do accept there seems to be a hereditary aspect. Which takes us again to the limiting nature of genes and some seeing a need by governments and health services to manage risks of the genetic kind...again scary!

States ^. Typo.

keep interesting. What does this biological dissonance feel like? How do you know which is instinctive and which is rebellion?

It's true that many of us aren't as adequately socialised as others, our best hope is through education and support for families that are at risk of the factors that we know predispose criminality/anti-social behaviours in adults. I work in early years and PSHE is a key element of our learning. Even by 4 you can see those children who have had a set of values instilled in them that will likely lower their chances of the most successful life outcome. Obviously there are also children who find it difficult to adopt the values for other reasons such as pervasive developmental disorders and what not regardless and inspite of supportive family relationships. It's just such a complicated issue but we all do what we can, where we are.

I want hope too caps but I see that hope coming from us through education, learning what works etc. I have no reason to believe any supernatural force is going to actually make a difference to those who for whatever reason find it more difficult to adapt to societal expectations most of the time.

Well you will appreciate then head, that I, by having a DC who has had some SENs, need to have hope over my DC's future. The state of our education system and state 'support' does not provide me with that hope. Thankfully my Christian Faith does and thankfully my DC has gone from having a Statement detailing quite severe level of SEN to progression where the Statement has ceased and my DC is achieving above what is expected for his agegroup. If left to schools (who often jump through hoops just to hang onto funding) this type of occurrence would not happen.

How do you know which is instinctive and which is rebellion?

surely, you have reached for a bag a crisps knowing it's not that great for you? We are hard wired to seek fat and carbs (I know this because I feel this, but medical research also tells us this isn't a flaw with only me, but everyone), but we know that these things in great quantity are terrible for us. so we make choices against our biological urges.

There are numerous moral examples that I am sure you can think of.

keep ah. By knowledge then? What about the stuff that we collectively have no knowledge or immediate experience of? Do different societies have a differing version of morality because of their differing knowledge and collective experiences? Is morality then subjective? Relative?

" That's the problem I have with naturalistic explanations right there: if empathy and altruism are genetically determined and innate then why is there a 'spread of personalities'?*

See, people can have different traits that are the successful strategies in different conditions. And they can have different inate leanings towards displaying different types of traits which will be encouraged and modified depending upon environmental inputs and circumstances. And chance.

Also, don't forget that a person will be successful or not (in evolutionary sense) based on all of their traits combined, not just one. So, a group that had 'evil' tendencies could happen to pass on those evil tendencies because they happened to be in a package with other successful traits.

I'm not saying that was the case by any means, but its not as simple as is being described.

It's an interesting question, but I don't think we need to invoke God to answer it.

I also agree with a previous poster that I view the moral compass that religious people (mainly Christian as that's what I've observed most) use as being flexible and changeable, and not absolute. Which is a good thing to my mind.

Ps it's a long time since I studied behavioural ecology and evolution and I am rusty and not an expert. Hopefully someone who knows more about it than me will join to help inform the debate from this angle.

The state of our education system and state 'support' does not provide me with that hope

The support we are trained to offer children is all about moving them on and developing their skills, it's never about keeping them where they are it's about 'how can we support this child to reach the next step in fulfilling their potential' and we are mindful of how we can limit their potential. I'm really glad your ds has gone on to outstrip expectation as some do, something I have had the pleasure of witnessing myself as an EYFS practitioner, I think the commonality between us is that we both have hope and look for ways to help children thrive to the best of their ability. We both know that children have a huge capacity to learn with the right support, which is great!

if left to schools [...] this type of occurrence would not happen

I've seen it happen, it's usually a combination of a good relationship between the school and the care givers. Studies show that children whose care givers are engaged in their education have the best outcomes.

What do you feel was responsible for your child's success? It can't just be hope, are you suggesting that none of the teachers/support staff he came into contact with during his time at school supported him to exceed his prognosis? That none wanted him to fulfill his potential and just wanted to keep him 'where he was'?

A good thing to have in common head. Its a pity that many educational professionals are tempted to maximise what they see as a child's limitations, albeit in order to gain and retain funding, as it distorts a child's actual level of need and their very real achievements IMO. I'm pleased you acknowledge how potential can be limited by others.

reached for a bag of crisps knowing it's not that great for you

Even the act of having children could be considered selfish. How many of us have mortgages, how many of us deliberately live in the smallest house we can so we can give as much money away as possible. It's all about balance isn't it. The HT at my school is a christian and drives a luxury car as many Christians do, how does this match up with Christians having superior altruism? Don't get me wrong I'd love a luxury car! But If I maintain that I am following a superior moral code than another group wouldn't you expect notable differences between the two, especially if the moral code is from god and that his spirit is in me helping me follow it? Otherwise what is the point. If we as humans can work it out outside of religion why complicate things with one? I dunno, just waffling now, really don't wanna do housework.

What do you feel was responsible for your child's success? It can't just be hope, are you suggesting that none of the teachers/support staff he came into contact with during his time at school supported him to exceed his prognosis? That none wanted him to fulfill his potential and just wanted to keep him 'where he was'?

Some did attempt to hinder. Attempts were made to shut my communications down, limit my input in reporting progress. My DC's difficulties were exaggerated / magnified - a very bleak profile painted. My DC also did not receive all the support detailed on the Statement. Thankfully the funding reform requires more accountability from schools regarding how additional individual SEN funding is spent in that they cannot receive a certain level of additional funding without costed provision mapping.

potential can be limited by others

It's something we have to be aware of all the time, because we all bring our own set of stereotypes and beliefs into work with us. My own hobby seems to be pulling others up on any sexism such as 'dinosaurs for boys' etc, not just the adults, I've been told by a three year old that girls don't use tools. But I know that even though I think I am adequately aware of my learnt values so as not to limit others, I am aware that the affects of my socialisation is so ingrained that they are never far from the surface. We can all learn though, of that I am sure.

Agree with you there, headinhands - there is far too much gap between what Christians profess and what they practise (including myself in this) - we are human, we fail to live up to the standard required by God, as we see it. Personally I'd feel extremely uncomfortable driving around in a 'superior car' (have a 10 year old Astra which keeps going wrong grrrrr) because that would feel to me like it wasn't putting faith into practise, but others would see that as fine and no doubt have reasons why. I can see why you look at us and don't see any difference, really, because there isn't enough.

However, I don't think I live by a 'superior moral code' to you, for example. You strike me as a person living by a very similar code to me (empathy for others, caring about the vulnerable, promoting education etc etc). You live up to a moral code because you believe it's the right thing. I do too, and in addition believe that the ultimate right thing is grounded in who God is, so am responsible in myself to live in certain ways which reflect that - that doesn't mean I hold myself better, merely accountable I suppose.