Can we be moral without religion?

[Chackrabbit]

I'm new on this board and I've spent a few minutes reading posts in this section.

It occurs to me that most of the members here (*right or *wrong) are less than theistic in their religious feelings. Most supposedly sophisticated people nowadays don't want to be seen as believing overtly and acting openly as "God-people", yet won't go so far as to advocate any removal of religious influence within our society.

There is a secular "tolerance" (read patronage) of religious thought without much true committment there. And need I remind everyone here how much energy is taken up (on this board alone) arguing about the limits of religion in our society? Perhaps we should get on with some real work?

So, my question is: Either s**t or get off the pot - what should we as a society do? Cater to theists of whatever stripe because they supposedly hold keys to some moral epistimology and authority; or design a truly secular, atheist morality that doesn't require a belief in God to exist?

Could we have some thoughts on the relative value of either option? And what would it mean for our society to truly embrace all religions?

[Tawasakm]

You might find this thread to be of interest.

[PocketRocket]

Can we be moral without religion?

Yes

Is religion necessary for civilisation?

No

[August1991]

You might find this thread to be of interest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I flipped through that thread, Tawak, and I came away with the impression that some smart people who have little experience with life were building castles in the sky.

So, my question is: Either s**t or get off the pot - what should we as a society do? Cater to theists of whatever stripe because they supposedly hold keys to some moral epistimology and authority; or design a truly secular, atheist morality that doesn't require a belief in God to exist?

Why should "society" decide this issue? Why can't we let individuals and families decide on their own what moral or religious beliefs to hold?

----

As a matter of practical significance, life provides an indirect answer to your question. People who adopt "secular, atheist morality" tend not to have children. It's fine to imagine a secular society but there'll be nobody around to inhabit it. Since religious people do have children, you can draw your own conclusions.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Since religious people do have children, you can draw your own conclusions.

Having children, and raising them in a particular religion, is 99% of how they get new members. We live in a new age where people aren't having children because they needed 'help on the farm'.

[Guest eureka]

Can their be a "secular, atheistic morality without religion as a benchmark? Without religion, would the concept of morality ever have arisen?

Wothout religion, is it not likely that there would have been nothing but an armed truce between all?

[August1991]

Farm help?

No, I meant that this question will be resolved in the way many other problems are resolved. Life itself provides an answer.

Today there is a strong correlation between religious conviction and high fertility. In the United States, for example, fully 47 percent of people who attend church weekly say that the ideal family size is three or more children, as compared to only 27 percent of those who seldom attend church.

Philip Longman, Foreign Affairs

[Phillip Longman is Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and author of the forthcoming The Empty Cradle (Basic Books, 2004), from which this article is adapted.]

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

Without religion, would the concept of morality ever have arisen?

Absolutely, morality pre-dates religion. (at least, organized religion). "Do unto others" is the foundation of society, back to the days of the cave-man.

[Guest eureka]

But did that "do unto others" have something to do with clubs and cannibalism? What is morality then?

Before organized religion, was there not religion in the sense that many think of it now as deference to superstition and the supernatural? Would "morality" not have been limited to the regulation of relations within the family unit, possibly the clan when that developed?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

I would say that the 'clan' could not have developed unless the basic moral guideline of 'don't club others (with no reason) lest they club you' was followed by the majority, by choice. We have come so far as to make it 'law', but it still often gets ignored.

was there not religion in the sense that many think of it now as deference to superstition and the supernatural?

Not really 'supernatural', even the 'natural' was incomprehensible, so the 'supernatural' (gods, witches, etc) were a quick and easy substitute for the previously 'unexplained'.

[!!!]

Today there is a strong correlation between religious conviction and high fertility. In the United States, for example, fully 47 percent of people who attend church weekly say that the ideal family size is three or more children, as compared to only 27 percent of those who seldom attend church.

Score another one for secularism, then.

[BHS]

Today there is a strong correlation between religious conviction and high fertility. In the United States, for example, fully 47 percent of people who attend church weekly say that the ideal family size is three or more children, as compared to only 27 percent of those who seldom attend church.

Score another one for secularism, then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the point is, that a hundred years from now it'll be the secularists who's views will be underrepresented.

James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal has been writing periodically about a similar demographic theory he's conceived of that he terms "The Row Effect": People who are pro-choice will tend to have fewer children that people who abstain from abortion. Since parents are the primary conduit for learning a system of values, the views of the pro-choice movement will be instilled in an increasingly smaller segment of future generations. Essentially, the abortion issue will be solved by attrition.

[PocketRocket]

Essentially, the abortion issue will be solved by attrition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If personal belief systems were genetic in origin, I would agree with this, but history is chock-full of people who rebelled against their families wishes, beliefs, etcetera.

In this day and age, such rebellion is more common, to the point of being fashionable.

Sorry, but I am not so optomistic, if that's the right word.

[crazymf]

People who adopt "secular, atheist morality" tend not to have children.

August, you rarely make statements without backing them up. What's with this one?

[BHS]

Essentially, the abortion issue will be solved by attrition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If personal belief systems were genetic in origin, I would agree with this, but history is chock-full of people who rebelled against their families wishes, beliefs, etcetera.

In this day and age, such rebellion is more common, to the point of being fashionable.

Sorry, but I am not so optomistic, if that's the right word.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If getting an abortion were as simple an ethical choice as getting an extra earring, I'd agree with you. I don't know that I've ever heard of someone going so far as getting an abortion to rebel against their parents.

[!!!]

James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal has been writing periodically about a similar demographic theory he's conceived of that he terms "The Row Effect": People who are pro-choice will tend to have fewer children that people who abstain from abortion. Since parents are the primary conduit for learning a system of values, the views of the pro-choice movement will be instilled in an increasingly smaller segment of future generations. Essentially, the abortion issue will be solved by attrition.

If this was true, then surely we'd see some indication of a downward trend in abortion support. Yet (using the U.S. as a example) support for abortion has remained stable since the 1970's. The fact is, attitudes and values change. Very few people have attitudes that march in lockstep with those of their parents. Coming from a pro-life background deoesn't guarantee soemone will be pro-life. Indeed, the kind of pangenerational idealogical rigidity he talks about would only be a factor in a very small segment of the population. I think its wishful thinking.

[August1991]

People who adopt "secular, atheist morality" tend not to have children.

August, you rarely make statements without backing them up. What's with this one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was referring to the Foreign Affairs cite above, repeated here.

This is an interesting question: Who has kids? I think it's true that religious people have more kids but I'd like to see an explanation and I'd want more evidence. (For example, I suspect women whose skills have market value are less inclined to have children. Now, why would such women be more likely to be secular?)

IMV, PocketRocket touches a key question:

If personal belief systems were genetic in origin, I would agree with this, but history is chock-full of people who rebelled against their families wishes, beliefs, etcetera. In this day and age, such rebellion is more common, to the point of being fashionable.

It is one thing for religious parents to have more children, it is quite another for those children to be religious themselves. (As they say, in the future, there'll be no gays because gays don't have kids... )

----

We live in an analytical age where everything supposedly has an explanation. A Noam Chomsky is there to provide an insight into any socio-political phenomenon. Since the thread's title is "Can we be moral without religion?", I thought I would take a broad view of the question.

Rather than analyze morality and religion, I thought I'd just consider what happens in life. It happens that religious people have more children than non-religious people. In fact, non-religious people often don't have any children at all. (IME, some have been vehement in their desire not to have children. I don't think I have ever met a religious person who stated a desire not to have children.)

----

If this was true, then surely we'd see some indication of a downward trend in abortion support. Yet (using the U.S. as a example) support for abortion has remained stable since the 1970's. The fact is, attitudes and values change. Very few people have attitudes that march in lockstep with those of their parents. Coming from a pro-life background deoesn't guarantee soemone will be pro-life. Indeed, the kind of pangenerational idealogical rigidity he talks about would only be a factor in a very small segment of the population. I think its wishful thinking.

I fear the error here is to equate religious belief with opinions on abortion (or attitudes to gays, for example). That is, religious means pro-life, pro-marriage whereas non-religious (agnostic? atheistic?) means pro-choice, pro-SSM. (Did I get all the nuances?)

IME, the preferred choice of the non-religious is analysis. The non-religious are quick to draw parallels, co-relate, determine causation. For them, ultimately, there is always an explanation - a reason.

IME, religious people have a different view of life. They think, and analyse, but they also accept things as they are, believing that some things defy explanation.

!!!, I hope I am not avoiding your analysis. I just think that modern agnostics/atheists are fighting wars that ended four hundred years ago. (Galileo won.) At the same time, North American/European/modern religious people have no similarity to religious people elsewhere in the world, or in history.

Religion is politics by another name; but religion is also belief, it is hope, it is life. The current variant of the Left doesn't get this. The future children of religious parents might get it.

[newbie]

IME, religious people have a different view of life.  They think, and analyse, but they also accept things as they are, believing that some things defy explanation.

Religion is politics by another name; but religion is also belief, it is hope, it is life.  The current variant of the Left doesn't get this.  The future children of religious parents might get it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I also think that too many religious people use faith as an excuse to believe in something, (infallible leadership or assumption of absolute knowledge) which can lead to an abdication of science and the world around us. And, in some cases, cult dependency even within mainstream churches. Seems to me science is the one thing that can ferret through the belief systems and arrive at some specific conclusions and truth. But to answer the question, some of the most moral people I know are not religious.

[Tawasakm]

IME, religious people have a different view of life.  They think, and analyse, but they also accept things as they are, believing that some things defy explanation.

Accepting things as they are told they are. Accepting that some things 'defy explanation' I would think would stifle the accumulation of knowledge. Questioning what is 'known' is an important ingredient for progress. In my view (and this is just my own opinion) to be a person who accepts things as they are you would need to be accepting that there is no concrete answer to the origins of life or the existence of a supreme being(s) in whatever form. Looking at it that way religious people are already precluded from 'accepting things as they are' since they have a faith based belief system in something without empirical evidence. That may be more like accepting things as you'd like them to be.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I thought I'd just consider what happens in life. It happens that religious people have more children than non-religious people.

I think that you are overlooking a couple of important points relevant to this 'anomaly'. Firstly, most churches (and religions that hold marriage in high regard) have, for centuries (and some millenia) espoused (nay, beaten the idea into heads) the view that sex is evil, unless it is while married, and then only for the purpose of pro-creation. Contraceptives are 'against God', as is abortion (though many secular people oppose it for their own reasons).

Secondly, birth rates have always been higher amongst the 'poorer' classes. So, too, has been 'religious fervor'.

(For example, I suspect women whose skills have market value are less inclined to have children. Now, why would such women be more likely to be secular?)

Most religions would dictate that women should stay at home and become 'baby-factories'. Some recommend this more vehemently that others, mind you. Why would the church oppose gay marriage if it was of no concern whether both parents worked and produced no children? (Well, besides the literal translation of the Bible, and especially of St. Paul)) The 'church' has birthrates as the overwhelming source of 'new recruits', I would say at least 95% of Catholics were born that way. As Monty Python once sang...

"You don't have to be a six footer,

You don't have to have a great brain,

You don't have to have any clothes on,

You're a Catholic the moment Dad came..."

from the song "Every Sperm Is Sacred"

Crusades and forced conversions are things of the past.

[willy]

Questioning what is 'known' is an important ingredient for progress.

I heard it said that when you know enough to realize how much you don't know wisdom starts.

[willy]

Seems to me science is the one thing that can ferret through the belief systems and arrive at some specific conclusions and truth.

Science can test and discribe what is. It can not tell you why it is.

IME, the preferred choice of the non-religious is analysis. The non-religious are quick to draw parallels, co-relate, determine causation. For them, ultimately, there is always an explanation - a reason.

I must extend this category to include the non-religious who don't think about this at all. They drink, or work, or what ever to distraction of the fact we all die. The why are we here and how did that come to be is not a daily reflection. Many of my good friends resemble this category, and I wish only that they had the purpose in life God has given me.

Like one of my favorite movies says "Aint no atheists in a fox hole."

One of my favorite people is Preston Manning, and when he talks about his choice to be a believer in God he states it that way. At no point could he continue to ponder, at some point he decided. This is not in ignorance but in the realization that certainty is a relative thing and we don't have perfect information. We all deal with in a limited frame on how we see the world and have to choose a reality that best fits our experience. Turns out I think there is a God. From the sounds of much of the writing on this site many of you folks believe me to be a nutter because of it. Oh well I don’t need your validation to feel confident in my choice.

[newbie]

... I wish only that they had the purpose in life God has given me....we don't have perfect information. We all deal with in a limited frame on how we see the world and have to choose a reality that best fits our experience. Turns out I think there is a God. From the sounds of much of the writing on this site many of you folks believe me to be a nutter because of it. Oh well I don’t need your validation to feel confident in my choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you not think that science and God can co-exist?

[willy]

Do you not think that science and God can co-exist?

Yes of course. I think they can and do co-exist. Science is not a religion but a process by which we explore creation. How it works and what it is made of. If my religious beliefs do not reflect scientific belief I best have a second look.

At the same time much of science is based on theory that evolves with new information and my certainty in any one theory should be weighed by the amount of evidence that suggests it. We still have a choice to make in everything we believe. Our premises for belief may or may not be explicit but for a better understanding of our own beliefs, reflections on why we believe certain things is healthy for all of us I would think.

[newbie]

At the same time much of science is based on theory that evolves with new information and my certainty in any one theory should be weighed by the amount of evidence that suggests it. We still have a choice to make in everything we believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. But I have a little problem with some of the religious fanatics who refuse to believe in anything but a 2000+ year old document as their source of truth and moral conduct.