Did Religion Give Birth to Morals?

Dear Open Mind,This topic has indeed been done to death. I want to offer you my encouragement in your views. Folks will tell you that the issue is closed, that it has been proven that morality is not from God, but from evolution.Morality at its most basic level is a BELIEF that what you choose to do will be for the benefit of you, of your neighbor, of your society, or of your soul. Whether we evolved the ability to behave morally, or whether God is behind evolution, it is still a BELIEF.It does not matter if there is a natural purpose to morality, or something more important than survival of the body. What matters is that we as human beings have a choice, and we will always for all time make decisions based on what we BELIEVE is right. Animals are irrelevent, as no one can prove that they have choice.The opinions of people who claim to have a religion which has no more usefulness than the color of the shirt they put on today, should not perturb you. I will give you a link which talks about the difference in a philosophic morality and an evolved one. The burden of proof is very much on the evolutionist who needs to discover a useful explanation for a morality which is undeniable. They say you can reconcile evolution and belief, which I am beginning to doubt, but at any rate in this link you can clearly see the bias of the author, the competition between science and philosophy, and how it was so important for people to find an explanation for morality that could exclude all religious ideas.http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/mccabe02.htm#IEdited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Sorry, maybe it would have been more to your liking if I had said 'was' on the evolutionists, instead of 'is'.

I didn't mention it, no, I gave the whole link. It is still a useful link for an over-view of some of the major schools of thought on moral origins. I am entirely and extremely sure that for animals who have been given choice, having some form of moral system would be necessary and vital. With the Prisoner's Dilemma, there is only the issue that in religion, there often is no 'dilemma'. Let me speculate that a player must play solitaire; his altruistic behaviour gains him 'victory' every time, (unless its a selfish bluff ) His cooperation with another player gains him victory even if the other player 'defects'.If there is a game, there must be an object. Mutual strategic cooperation requires mutual goal. It is evident that a religion which promotes altruism would seek to spread its ideas as motivations. However, the ideals can spread while the motive shifts from true physical necessity of cooperation, to a more spiritual 'love thy neighbor' which is based not on survival, but on the belief in God-given equality and mutual benefit of 'souls'. I think now, there is a sort of reverse process; an ackowledgement of man's equality whether God is 'in' us or not (although it is interesting to pinpoint what that equality is based on), and then, we have this information that morality is a subconscious selection for survival and entirely similar to that of our ancestors long ago before religion came about.I have no big problem with this explanation. It is not a matter of doubting facts or evidence, making morality natural, etc. There is mainly a difference in the goals of religious people and non, although cooperation is still often the best strategy. Non-religious people seem to be leaning toward a survival of the species answer for their 'goal' in morality. Religious people have a survival of the soul 'goal'. It is basically a game that you can win using only altruism while survival tactics in real life are very contingent on the actions of the opponent. For example, opponent attacks in battle, you must choose between defence, which could help the species, or allowing yourself to be destroyed, which would again possibly help the species, if your tribe is weaker. In real life, also, extreme pacifists like the Quakers, faired poorly in defense situations, and could not have survived without stronger 'protectors' in society. So, survival of a species does not seem to be particularly useful as a goal when the individual is forced to choose between himself and someone else. Altruism does not truly equal survival, unless the other side is cooperating.

Yes, but 'best' depends on what your goal is. If your goal is ambitious, the best decision may not be the most moral one, but you could actually reach your goal by making the most moral decision for selfish reasons. You may achieve fame for your philanthropy or integrity, for example.The issues in the morality threads seem to revolve more around motives, i.e., who are you looking to serve in your morality ? The two main options are; serve yourself or your species by serving your fellow neighbor, or; serve yourself and God, by serving your fellow neighbor. I would say the 'God' part is useful for getting people to concentrate on serving others without expectation of reciprocation. People are a bit resistant to serving other people when they are not being met with equal treatment. My big thing is that survival by cooperation only works if there actually is cooperation...so there are of course many plots to unite mankind in purpose, like we discussed in the NWO thread.I do not think squirrels are indecisive btw, but using a tactic of confusing their pursuants like skunks and many other little guys do.

No, in religion based morality, the PD would be a solitary game. If I understand the game properly, the premise is that both players, if they choose to cooperate, achieve success at a higher ratio than if one chooses to defect. If there is a defector, a 'tit for tat' strategy may work better.In religion, a cooperation WILL work, but success is possible for one player regardless of how the other plays.Simply, I do good to you, you screw me, I still win. Instead of 'tit for tat' there is a 'turn the other cheek'. It is a win-win. It is of course based on the idea that you don't know how the other player is going to play. Our salvation should not be contingent on someone else's actions.And yes, you don't know what the other player will choose, but the success of this game in proving a point is in the studies with 'fixed', pre-planned strategies, and the results which were found. Sorry if I am thinking too fast. I think that it might be hard to follow when this dilemma is applied to relgion. I will try to be better in future. Yes, but in other ways altruism will not equal survival without cooperation.If the continuation of the species came down to one man and one woman, respect for the woman would have to come secondary if she did not cooperate willingly with sex. I am quite sure in this scenerio, that many people would violate the code of survival in order to uphold a moral code. In religion, they still 'win'.

Yes, and it was primarily the great philosophies which established this, before science, as you will see from the similarities between Eastern and Western thought regarding 'love of neighbor'. This is why I specifically do not discredit Eastern philosophies, because this enlightenment was possible through use of human reason alone. Jesus was perhaps a guide and a standard in times of doubt or of loss of reason. I think we are going thru a time now where the ideas of Jesus and the great philosophers are being challenged, and the same result of 'altrusim' is being found scientifically. I agree, Archer, that this would be the case. In religious terms, it is provided for. Think about the parable of the sheep and the goats; Lord, when did I do this for you? Whenever you did it for the least of my brothers, you did it for me. This implies that altruism, based on a belief of its value, is a very good thing even when the motivation is not 'god'. BUT, it can not be based on hypocrisy, as in loving others to gain reward for yourself...it is clear that people can 'bluff' love of men, to gain prestige. Very funny to me, that sometimes the more people look for things in nature, the more they over-look the obvious. If you walk up to a skunk, there is an immediate tactic of confusion, which culmunates in 'spraying' if it is not successful. Many animals which do not have enough intelligence to change survival tactics with new threats, are easy victims. I think squirrels are a tiny bit different in that they will always try to climb a tree, and if they don't find one in one direction they will turn in the other. The point is, we DO have the intelligence to adapt out survival skills to varying situations. I find a morality based on survival unfulfilling because it is primitive in a sense. We are very readily altruistic when there is mutual gain, as in a business deal. Most cooperative behaviours, such as learning a new language, developing the Euro, etc. are not viewed as moral or immoral.

But that is the point, Crash. Again, in religion, you win. It is not a question about whether YOU believe in religion, but of what religions teach. Without a religion, the motives for altruism are much harder to pinpoint on an individual level. But you DO, you get to turn the other cheek even if the outcome is negative. There are SO MANY issues. Indeed, it does. The issue is not whether you can accept science, but whether you can accept science alone. Our minds are capable of so much more. I understand, but the point is that morality is not the same as a chance at survival. That is so the whole point! There is no justification for immoral behaviour even if it means survival. Altruism would have to win in the face of even a chance at it. There is nothing about raping a woman which is a 'win', I actually said the opposite. Not raping her would be a 'win' in morality, but a positive loss in survival.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

There are probably many possible answers to this. Let us think of the alternative between performing for God and performing for a man; if you believe that God is the Critic most worthy of impressing, your performance will be better, or at least it will revolve more around what you believe he expects, and to hell with what men expect.If you think of performing with God watching and no one else, your performance will be the same. If you think about no one watching, it will be sloppy, at least, after repetition, without a thorough enjoyment of performing. The thing is, you will be your only critic, and thus unable to tell if your performance was good or not. If you think about men alone watching, you will be as good as you think the best man expects, and even if you have great talent, you could be lazy if the critics are not discriminating. It may be that you will cease 'performing' altruism at all when you are off-stage, so to speak. That is actually the hardest time to be 'good'; when no one is watching. I think however that you are emphasizing 'performance'. Here, again, the Bible sort of has this covered. The idea is that the performance must not be entertainment, but that life itself is the stage. The answer still comes down to whether you perform/live, for yourself, for others, or for God. In the Bible, you will see that Jesus has little tolerence for people who claim to perform for God, but are really performing for men. He despises those who keep the letter of the law without the spirit, the Pharisees, the Philistines, the hypocrites of any name.In our time, without the notion of living for God, their seems to be a toss-up between hedonistic pleasure and living for oneself, or a less selfish motive of living for others to further our own immortality through survival of the species or of our own legend. I think that living for God can further both of these and also a real immortality.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I have only showed you some idea of why the iterated PD is not useful for understanding morality based on God.Jesus was aware of the 'tit for tat', the 'an eye for an eye' of conventional morality.He emphasized the importance of cooperation, and then, abolished the dilemma and all question of strategy in the face of possible outcome, with the revolutionary idea of 'turning the other cheek'.

And this is all that is asked from God, of all of us; that we do our very best, no matter what we think it means, or where we think it takes us. Life is really not so complicated. I enjoy discussing these things with you very much. You are an unusually perceptive person, a rarity.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

If you choose to ice that half of the cake, so be it. I am looking for the whole cake.

double post error while editingEdited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Well, we don't want to be too ageeable, and lose the opportunity for debate. Just nice to have someone around who doesn't insist that I choose one half of the cake or the other.Science may have an answer, religion may have an answer, they can be harmonious.It is more challenging to play 'both/and' instead of 'either/or'. I guess there is always a possibility of a Supreme Neither/Nor.

I agree with this jar, although I am sure you know that I allow morality to be more than ONLY a social contract. I think you do as well, but yes, when you express one thing, people will jump on you and say; 'well, if your religion isn't about morality, what is it?'What I do want to say, in regards to the OP, is that morality could very quickly become religious.Men could trade something for something. Good for survival.
Men could look at the sun, and say, I will sacrifice something to the sun in order to gain something physical. Not so good for survival. but religion is born.
Then, I will sacrifice something to the sun in order to gain something invisible, like immortality.
I will sacrifice something physical to something invisible (a god) in order to gain something invisible or physical.
I will sacrifice something invisible to something invisible to gain something invisible.Things with obvious benefits, like trades, are not so much thought of as moral. They are simply intelligent choices. Things where the benefit is based on faith in the productivity of the action, are moral. The idea now is that sacrificing anything to something invisible is pointless without real productivity.