Quote:

---

Sephia said:
I am not saying religion is necessary for "moral" behavior, only that very often, it is the stimulus for such behavior. Not only religion, but the morés of society are what stimulate people to be "Good" or "Moral".
Without such stimulation, the amount of random selfless good acts would decrease.

---

Religion is one motivation mechanism, and as I mentioned, it's an artificial layer constructed upon a natural mechanism. Certainly those who were raised in religious households and communities will measure themselves against their religion's moral codes, but to suggest that without this artificial layer in place there would be less charity, less so-called "selfless" acts, less "morality" in society completely overlooks the more natural mechanisms that lie underneath.

Consider that every species on this planet goes to great lengths to avoid unnecessary conflict. Animals will avoid fighting with one another (apart from hunter/prey interactions), because they know that an injury could be debilitating--it could make them less effective hunters, more vulnerable prey, or lead to disease, starvation, and ultimately death. Instead, animals develop other mechanisms for working out their conflicts--dominance pheromones, pack orders, and social contracts that are only broken under extreme circumstances (and usually with loss of life).

The human animal has taken this to new levels, but the same desire to avoid conflict is there in all of us. We'll go to tremendous lengths to avoid physically beating each other up (which would risk injury or death). We use language as a first recourse to air our grievances--angry, violent language perhaps, but still words and not fists. When that's not enough, we've developed an elaborate compact called "civil law", which gives us recourse to a mediator (counsellors, judges) and a non-violent means of settlement (money). All this, just to avoid risking our precious necks.

And that's the key, really--we get to ask ourselves "what is worth risking injury/death for?" Consequently, there's a natural instinct for self-preservation inherent in natural morality. We do "Good" not to impress a higher power or conform to the secular laws of the land, but because it increases our chances of seeing another sunrise. We make friends by being helpful, we earn the goodwill of others, and by supporting worthy causes with our time and/or money we improve the lives of others, reducing the number of people desperate enough to have to commit crimes against us for their survival.

Conversely, when we act against the better interests of our neighbors, we make enemies. They may not come after us with pitchforks, but they may attack us in more subtle ways, trying to get us evicted, passing us up for promotions, and making our lives miserable in many other ways. The more time we have to spend defending ourselves, the less time we can spend living a productive life and getting ahead. We get "injured" or "killed" in a social fashion when we behave in ways that piss off our neighbors and co-workers.

It's in our interests, then, to keep our neighbors happy. If they like us, they'll be inclined to help us when we need it, and at the very least they won't go out of their way to make our lives miserable. By taking the time to do a few things for others around us, we effectively create a positive environment for ourselves that lets us get the most out of our lives.

None of this is particularly new--it's been the natural underpinning of humanistic morality since the dawn of civilization. These very natural mechanisms encourage us to behave in ways that ultimately enhance the quality of our own lives--a very "selfish" principle--even if it means having to do things for others to achieve what's best for ourselves. In that sense, then, there's really no such thing as a "selfless" act--there's always a benefit to the doer. And that's not at all a "bad" thing!

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

AAnnAArchy said:
In fact, I think religious beliefs have more basis for evil than good. Almost every organized genocide is based on religious beliefs.

---

In the words of Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Voltaire put it another way: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Nothing divides us quite like belief. When it comes down to a clash of beliefs, each unprovable in any objective sense, it's just "my god is better than your god", and there's no recourse but genocide to resolve the matter. Tolerance for other religions is not a hallmark of many faiths--Buddhism and Islam are notable for insisting that the gods of other faiths should be respected, but the Judaeo-Christian god is notorious for his "thou shalt have no other gods before me" stance, from which many of the world's conflicts seem to stem.

Religion has certainly been used as a convenient excuse, too, by the controlling powers of the world at various times, to justify horrors like the Crusades, or the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, or the "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia and parts of Africa. Whatever the real motive (usually political power or wealth), invoking the will of God ("Deus veult!") has proven time and again to be an effective way to call upon an army of zombies to do your bidding, no matter the level of atrocity. After all, the people are off the hook, responsibility-wise, right? They're just doing God's will, and they'll be rewarded in the end for their service--be it in Heaven or the Elysian Fields, with or without seventy-two virgins.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Sephia said:
That is not the reslt of morality, however, but survival instincts.

---

You're still working with the religious definition of "morality", though. It's not the result of religious morality, but of natural morality. Both, ultimately, are based on our instincts for survival, it's just that the religious version tries to deny that fact, implying instead that morality is something that requires conscious choice and artificial rules. Religious morality consciously ignores instances of moral behaviour in the rest of the animal kingdom, telling us that man is the only animal capable of moral behaviour. This ennobles man as the "moral animal", and supports the agendas of those who want to see humans as a separate creation (as opposed to an evolved primate).

To be "moral" (in a more general sense) is to act in ways that contribute to the greater good of society (or at least don't cause it any harm). Religious morality tells us that we can do this only by following certain codes of conduct. Natural morality demonstrates instead that our survival instincts--our very natural selfishness--motivate us to be beneficial to society just the same. Many "lesser beasts" are capable of demonstrating concern and compassion for one another, and performing services for others in their social circles--all without the benefit of anyone devising explicit rules for them to consciously follow.

Natural morality (sometimes referred to as "humanistic" morality) argues that our natural instincts for survival motivate the necessary behaviours for survival in a social context. Without a god, even without a legal system, there are very basic and practical reasons to be good to one another.

Where religious morality does serve a useful purpose, though, is in its function as a tool for aligning your moral compass to some standard. While our natural instincts would guide us just fine if we let them, humans have developed the capacity to override our instincts with conscious effort. We can train ourselves to ignore certain impulses and act consciously in a different manner than originally intended--we can "rewire" ourselves on the fly, so to speak. Consequently, we can learn behaviour patterns that are antithetical to society (and therefore "immoral" in both natural and religious senses). Religious morality sets a standard, a benchmark against which we can calibrate our moral compasses, to keep ourselves from going too far astray.

Note that any artificial set of standards, code of ethics, etc. will serve this purpose, without need of religion specifically. Our secular legal systems do precisely that, by defining a standard for what a given society feels is "wrong". Anything that isn't explicitly "wrong" is left for our natural (or religious) morality to handle, on the presumption that it isn't detrimental to society.

Post Extras: