- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can you teach a child morality without religion?
Posted on 11/1/18 at 7:39 am to WaWaWeeWa
Posted on 11/1/18 at 7:39 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
you all are so confident with very little evidence and the privilege of living in the least violent most moral society THAT WAS FOUNDED ON CORE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES!
the fact that material wealth has increased (Due to 2 things: capitalism and oil refining), causing an insanely high standard of living is irrelevant to the historical context of the development of morality and legal codes (which used to basically be intertwined)
ancient China developing the same basic laws/morality that sub-Saharan African tribes did, which are similar to proto-Germanic tribes, which are similar to Greeks, and Indians, etc, show that basic morality cannot be based in a single religious philosophy. the development of similar morality was too similar across too many cultures that had no connection with each other and little/no overlap in religions
there is evidence. you're ignoring it
1
Posted on 11/1/18 at 7:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the basics of society really hasn't changed since society was adopted 10-12k years ago
You have to be kidding me?
Y’all are a scary bunch that is on a path with moral relativism and communist socialism. Again, this has been done before. You think y’all are the first people to think of this?
Posted on 11/1/18 at 7:48 am to LandPhil
Short and honest answer - Yes.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 7:49 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
You have to be kidding me?
the only real change is the liberty of the masses, which is Western and only 500 years old or so
humans living in society is 10-12k years old, so 500 years is a blink in terms of the total
refining oil was a game changer, and that's like 125-ish years old
otherwise, society isn't that different (and for sure wasn't different before these 2 concepts). you had your rich upper class. you had your ruling class. you had your workers. people got married. people had kids. people died. etc.
we're very arrogant to think that we have evolved so much more than these people when, outside of some material growth the last century, we're not THAT different.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 7:52 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
For most people, the law.
So if the laws change so that all Jews should wear a star, that is the new moral code? Do you see the issue with that statement?
quote:
Others, some philosophical belief.
Religion is philosophy. No one is just arbitrarily altruistic and moral.
Religion is not philosophy. Religion and philosophy are related, but they are not one and the same. Philosophy is rooted in the study of logic.
You say no one is arbitrary altruistic and moral... where did you get that idea? How do you know that to be true? And what absolute standard are you using to measure that idea? Who gave you that standard?
quote:
No matter what philosophy, the overriding and common thread seems to be what we know as the golden rule.
The golden rule of Christianity is much different than the golden rule of other religions. As taught in most other religions it is the concept of repaying others for the good or wrong they have done to you. The golden rule of Christianity could not be further from that idea.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 7:55 am to jim712
Link some of your works
Posted on 11/1/18 at 7:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
ancient China developing the same basic laws/morality that sub-Saharan African tribes did, which are similar to proto-Germanic tribes, which are similar to Greeks, and Indians, etc, show that basic morality cannot be based in a single religious philosophy. the development of similar morality was too similar across too many cultures that had no connection with each other and little/no overlap in religions
That does not address the central question. It only attempts to answer the question on whether morality is innate, which could be for a variety of reasons, such as a social construct or as part of a higher power's design. The fact that morality seems to be innate for most people actually reinforces the idea of absolute morality. If we are spinning cosmic accidents with no real design, then morality is a happy accident and absolute morality a mirage.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
we're very arrogant to think that we have evolved so much more than these people when, outside of some material growth the last century, we're not THAT different.
This is likely just as good a point to those who think we’d be so much better as a civilization if we could one day simply and casually cast out all religious thought/ideals.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:04 am to CivilTiger83
quote:
It only attempts to answer the question on whether morality is innate,
no it doesn't. nothing about my statement deals with innate qualities. i'm talking about learned, socialized concepts (like religion)
quote:
The fact that morality seems to be innate for most people actually reinforces the idea of absolute morality
i'm not arguing morality is innate. i'm arguing these concepts are the opposite
quote:
If we are spinning cosmic accidents with no real design, then morality is a happy accident
no. it's not. nothing in my statements argues this
"morality" is a learned thing that is socialized to populations through the state (and religion, which used to be part of the state until very recently)
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:07 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
This is likely just as good a point to those who think we’d be so much better as a civilization if we could one day simply and casually cast out all religious thought/ideals.
i agree
i am not religious but i understand the value of religion. actually came to me while writing my tax policy paper in law school
South Park did a great job with this with their scientific otterverse
humans will form groups, group ID, and develop hatred/fear of those not in the group. we evolved in this way and religion is just one example of this in/out group identification. without religion, we'll do it some other way
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:10 am to WaWaWeeWa
Bottom line is that normal functioning humans pursue pleasure and avoid pain. We are wired to be social. Nobody likes to be alone. We help and lift our peers up to feel needed, liked, and important. Immoral behavior is born out of anger, greed, jealousy, envy, and hate. These are bad feelings and are painful to experience. Ergo religion is not needed to teach morality.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:11 am to LandPhil
quote:
You don’t need a higher power
You better hope you're right.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:12 am to colorchangintiger
The better question would be, can you teach mortality without religion?
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i'm not arguing morality is innate. i'm arguing these concepts are the opposite
You are saying that different cultures that have zero interaction coming up with some similar basic moral values is an argument against the innateness of morality? If the bedrock moral values (don't kill, don't steal) are the same, wouldn't different social constructs produce different basic moral values?
quote:
"morality" is a learned thing that is socialized to populations through the state (and religion, which used to be part of the state until very recently)
I will ask the same question I asked the other poster... Using this idea that morality is relative and learned, how do you address the morality of Nazi germany? I mean if they decide that is their value as a society and they are all about progress, who are you to say they are wrong? What do you base that idea on?
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:21 am to colorchangintiger
quote:
Bottom line is that normal functioning humans pursue pleasure and avoid pain. We are wired to be social. Nobody likes to be alone. We help and lift our peers up to feel needed, liked, and important. Immoral behavior is born out of anger, greed, jealousy, envy, and hate. These are bad feelings and are painful to experience. Ergo religion is not needed to teach morality.
How do you define immoral behavior? Are there absolute morals or is morality a mirage, a social construct?
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:22 am to whoisnickdoobs
quote:
The better question would be, can you teach mortality without religion?
yes, 100%
and that morality would overlap with almost all major religions
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:30 am to SlowFlowPro
you can teach morality with out religion
Faith is a totally separate and is helpful.
Right and wrong spans across cultural lines
Faith is a totally separate and is helpful.
Right and wrong spans across cultural lines
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:30 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
philosophy/morals created by religion is inherently more stable than morals created by man
I think most rational people realize that those are one and the same.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:30 am to CivilTiger83
quote:
You are saying that different cultures that have zero interaction coming up with some similar basic moral values is an argument against the innateness of morality?
yes
it's based on societal trial and error, trying to minimize the disruption and conflict within societies. the supernatural aspect is just a secondary reinforcement of the values
quote:
If the bedrock moral values (don't kill, don't steal) are the same, wouldn't different social constructs produce different basic moral values?
only if the rulers of that society wanted a society filled with conflict, chaos, and destruction...which they don't, b/c that puts their role as leader in danger. on the flip side, rulers face the same issues by being TOO strict and going past these basics. that's why the basic moralities were consistent and remain with us today.
it's like Goldilocks of societal construction/development. not too cruel. not too lenient. juuuuust right to allow people to feel like they can control these outcomes and avoid the annoyances of being over-policed by the state
quote:
how do you address the morality of Nazi germany?
how do you address the morality of the Catholic Church hiding the rape of innocent children?
we are human. Nazis were human. the raping Catholic priests are human. those in power above the priests who hid the crimes are human. power affects us. our group identification is stronger than almost anything in our genetic makeup. power and group ID can lead humans to do horrible things.
quote:
I mean if they decide that is their value as a society and they are all about progress, who are you to say they are wrong?
again, societal trial and error
it's pretty clear they were wrong, both in the present and historical context
however, on another dynamic, it becomes irrelevant because of the role of power. whether they were right or wrong becomes irrelevant in the face of losing to a more powerful group. plenty of moral, good groups have faced the same fate by immoral, evil groups over time. the only way we can analyze them is through the output and historical comparisons.
Page 10 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News