Did Religion Give Birth to Morals?

contradiction. humans are animals. thus, by your own argument, we have no morals.Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates, Hominidae, Homo, sapiensthat is our, almost complete (leaving out the sub categories), classification. Notice the first one? We are animals. really? it doesn't control my life. sure, it influences it, from people like you constantly getting in my way. but that's hardly control.Dr.Jones* answered the last part of your OP.i'll counter your argument. religion is the creation of society. or rather, the creation of those who would like to either control society or make it function. thing is, today we don't need organized religion to run society.

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

this is basically the continuation thread for "is science a religion". the topic here is what we ended with on the last thread (and was off-topic there). that's my best guess.but yeah, not exactly the magnum opus of OPs.

actually, the person who came up with the modern classification system, Linnaeus, was appalled by the fact that he could not put chimps into a separate genus from humans. even Linnaeus, a stout creationist, recognized humans as animals. and it has nothing to do with the fact that we all evolved. why are we mammals? let's see, hair and mammary glands are the big two. put let's go further up--we have a backbone, which puts us in the same group with every other animal that has one--from sharks to whales to cats and dogs. further on up, we all have this thing called a phyrengal slit (spelling wrong), which every animal has to have in order to be, well, an animal.and why the hitler card? religion has squat to do with morality except as a way to explain why we have them. let's see, is it easier to explain to a kid that god gave them to us or that as we evolved, we ended up being social animals, and doing things that harm society has been weeded out to a large extent.better yet, how do you explain morality's origins before science?

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

prisoner's dilemma:two people are caught by the cops. their only evidence rests on the people ratting the other person out. here's the set-up:you rat: 5 years
you don't rat: 10 years if the other person rats on you
you don't rat: 0 years if neither rat's the other outyou can't rely on the other person to keep quiet, so your best option is to rat the other out. do you feel lucky? I prefer to stay safe.however, in the real world, you don't stop all interaction with this person after this event. in other words, you two will end up in this situation again. it's in this situation that tit-for-tat is the best strategy. Do unto others as they have done unto you. In the next iteration, if you ratted me out, I will rat you out. And then you'll rat me out. not exactly a happy picture, but then, in the real world in diplomacy, you can generally talk to your prisonmate.(oh, and I quite possibly screwed up the numbers in the game, but the outcome is unaffected)ABE:
just remembered this, but if you know that the game will have multiple iterations, the best opening strategy is to co-op--in this case, not ratting the other person out. you can get royally screwed in the short run (serving 10 versus 5 years), but in the long run, you'll win by then following with tit-for-tat. also, it doesn't hurt to establish a reputation for having blind trust in the other (and them knowing that you'll repeat their action in the next round)Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.