Religion versus human dignity.

Ah, but according to the laws this is misconduct, and since you commit the crime, you have to pay the price. While the kids most certainly are an alleviating circumstance, they can never be a complete excuse. You commit the crime, you pay the penalty. A penalty lessened to a significant extent due to circumstances, but a penalty nevertheless. A penalty because you are a bad person because you broke a law.
Most religions bring a set of laws with them as well, in order to help the believers to follow an upstanding life. So a good person, as judged by his own religious standards, is one who upholds the standards and ethics as put forth in the holy book the god (s)he believes in has provided. In that way, such a person could not commit bad acts, because, we have just confirmed (s)he lives by the religious laws set forth.
Nevertheless, those outside of this religion could very well label this behavior as bad, because they do not share those laws and customs, but others with which those of the religion could collide.

0 Replies

Sometimes crime, ethics and morality are in contradiction and one must excercise his freedom to choose between imperfect alternatives--and pay the price, of course.

0 Replies

fresco so are you saying that you believe to an extent that society, events in a persons life or religion can be blamed for what people do? and if you do believe this, do you feel that we should be more lenient on those that fall into one of these categories?

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

Ah, but according to the laws this is misconduct, and since you commit the crime, you have to pay the price. While the kids most certainly are an alleviating circumstance, they can never be a complete excuse. You commit the crime, you pay the penalty. A penalty lessened to a significant extent due to circumstances, but a penalty nevertheless. A penalty because you are a bad person because you broke a law.
Most religions bring a set of laws with them as well, in order to help the believers to follow an upstanding life. So a good person, as judged by his own religious standards, is one who upholds the standards and ethics as put forth in the holy book the god (s)he believes in has provided. In that way, such a person could not commit bad acts, because, we have just confirmed (s)he lives by the religious laws set forth.
Nevertheless, those outside of this religion could very well label this behavior as bad, because they do not share those laws and customs, but others with which those of the religion could collide.

Naj, I am not sure if you are being serious or not, but I will take what you said at face value.

You are equating following the law with morality. You appear saying that breaking the law means a person deserves a penalty and that this makes a person "a bad person".

This is clearly not the case.

Take for example the people who hid Jewish people during the reign of the Nazi's. Would you say that these people were "bad people" because they broke the law in order to save innocent lives?

The people caught hiding Jewish people during this time were executed or sent to the Concentration campes themselves. This was what the law said. Would you say that deserved this penalty?

I don't think the position you are taking is supportable.

0 Replies

What a lot of blather and drivel has been slung around here. Confusianism, which is thousands of years old, represents a very elaborately complex system of moral stricture and exhortation to socially responsible behavior. It has not reference to and no reliance upon any religious doctrine, or appeal to a deity.

Religionists like to claim a moral superiority which their behavior so often and tragically belies. But even the mere existence of a system as complete and detailed as Confusianism gives the lie to any contention that religion is necessary to a system of "moral" behavior.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

The point I am making is that this is a clear example where people of faith used their faith as inspiration to do something heroic. Whether these specific people would have had the same inspration or strenght without their faith is question that is impossible to answer... but from what they did, said and wrote... their religious faith was a key part to what they did.

Agreed.

ebrown_p wrote:

I am not making the statement that only the religious do these things. This is a false argument and you are purposely setting up a debate that is impossible to lose, and I am not making a claim that religion is exclusively able to do anything.

Agreed.

ebrown_p wrote:

I am saying is that religion has the ability to inspire and to motivate... often for good. Many people have found courage and motivation and the call to heroism from religion.

And I don't disagree when you say it that way.

Your original comment:

ebrown_p wrote:

Religion is an important part of human culture and history. Religion has played a key role in some of the greatest (as well as some of the worst) parts of the human experience.

Says that religion is an important part of... but in that sense, literally everything, has been an important part of... so why single out religion at all. You seem to be saying we could replace the word "religion" with anything, "politics", "literature", "mythology", etc. So what was your original point?

Your latest post seems to be skirting around the obvious implication of your original comment.

0 Replies

Kate,

In reply to your question on leniency, I feel a Jury system remains a logical and practical solution. But the thrust of this argument is not about how we deal with "criminals" after the fact, it is about preventing the predisposing conditions from which such sociopathy is fuelled. The basic argument is that moral codes based on celestial rewards (and punishments) are dangerous because for some they devalue "this life".

Believers are obviously unwilling to accept the atheistic proposition that religion is an opiate. Indeed their "self-identity" is bound up with their shared belief systems. They are mesmerized by the concept of "will"...free will....God's will......without realizing that "limited control" may be merely a sub-property of the general cognitive process peculiar to homo sapiens....or if they do they have the convenient rejoinder that "God made us in his image". What is self-evidently circular reasoning to atheists, is the comforting blanket under which believers hide their heads.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Naj, I am not sure if you are being serious or not, but I will take what you said at face value.

I was being serious, ebrown. Trust me, it will readily be apparent when I'm not.

ebrown_p wrote:

You are equating following the law with morality. You appear saying that breaking the law means a person deserves a penalty and that this makes a person "a bad person".

Without a yardstick to discern between 'good' and 'bad' people, as they are brought forward in the opening post, I figured the law should be used in that respect. Clearly, troubles arise the moment morality and the law are at odds, but since there is no clear and well defined list of morals and values everyone agrees on and tries to follow, the law will have to do.
So, once I took that position, and applied the law in its strictest sense as a yardstick, then, yes, a person becomes a 'bad person' when (s)he breaks the law, and therefore (s)he deserves a penalty.

ebrown_p wrote:

This is clearly not the case.

Take for example the people who hid Jewish people during the reign of the Nazi's. Would you say that these people were "bad people" because they broke the law in order to save innocent lives?

Yes. They were bad people because they broke the law. Not in a moral sense of course, but nevertheless. Let's just divulge in a little bit of 'what if' history here, and look at the situation today if the Nazi's had won, instead of lost. You would probably never use this example, and if you did, many would indeed claim that those were 'bad people' indeed, for hiding those 'despicable jews'.
Of course all I did was address your otherwise fine example without elaborating on my own point. In order to differentiate between good people and bad people, you need a yardstick to measure them against. Since the point is made that religion is the cause of good people doing bad things, clearly those yardsticks are not accepted. Then, from an atheists point of view, what remains? Our own moral code is not a proper yardstick, since my morals could differ wildly from my neighbors. So the law remains. And applying that law as a yardstick to differentiate between good and bad people makes those that hid the jews, and went against the laws issued by Nazi Germany, bad people indeed. Do you understand what I'm saying? I know I make little sense sometimes.

Oh, btw, before you all think this is my 'personal opinion' , then no, according to my sense of right and wrong and corresponding moral code and ethics, those that hid jews and fought against the fascist regime of the Nazi's were heroes.

ebrown_p wrote:

The people caught hiding Jewish people during this time were executed or sent to the Concentration campes themselves. This was what the law said. Would you say that deserved this penalty?

Knowing the law, and its consequences, you know what will happen should you break it. If you know it and commit the 'crime' regardless, then, according to the law you indeed deserve the penalty. Of course,
those that applied the law are ultimately the ones who decide what kind of punishment is deserved, and the Nazi's were quite harsh in that respect.

ebrown_p wrote:

I don't think the position you are taking is supportable.

Well, I gave it a try anyways.

Just remember, I entered the topic by saying that the opening post is 'faulty' because it doesn't provide a yardstick to seperate the right from the wrong. Now, apparently, the law doesn't suffice as well. So give me another clear, unambiguous and universally accepted set of moral codes I can adhere to, if you will, and I will gladly use that to make this separation, rather then the law.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What a lot of blather and drivel has been slung around here. Confusianism, which is thousands of years old, represents a very elaborately complex system of moral stricture and exhortation to socially responsible behavior. It has not reference to and no reliance upon any religious doctrine, or appeal to a deity.

Religionists like to claim a moral superiority which their behavior so often and tragically belies. But even the mere existence of a system as complete and detailed as Confusianism gives the lie to any contention that religion is necessary to a system of "moral" behavior.

Another charming entry, Set. Confusianism is a great substitute indeed, if not for the fact that many debate whether it is a religion or not. As long as that issue is not resolved, Confucianism cannot be applied as an alternative to religion, right?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

I agree with the above, that "the afterlife" is at best a palliative, and at worst pernicious.

The problem remains as to how we might counter those religionists who argue tautologically that religion is the essence of "morality", such that "good" and "evil" are meaningless without it.

Here is one answer, based on childrens' natural empathy for others.
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/morality.htm

I partly agree with the arguments of the author in the article you provided, but it seems that the author knew very little about the Bible and the meaning of original sin, though it doesn't matter. The problem here is that I am even more confused after reading it. If you don't mind, I'd like to raise two questions on morality:

1. There is a hypothesis in this artcle: If methods are right, morale parents can bring up morale children, and the author presumed that the parents' behavior and mind are moral because he know how to reason.
So here is my question, what is the basis of this reasoning. How can one make sure that results from the reasoning are moral?

2."I think that children can be taught right and wrong without any reference to religion, and with very little reference to authoritarian rules."
In a sense of good and bad behaviour, I agree with this one, because I am the one that's raised up in a family of atheism. But you can do the good thing doesn't mean you are good inside. The knowledge of right and wrong does not make one a moral person. As for empathy and conscience, is this enough for one to stay in morality? If he live in a world of exteme violent, what make sure he would still have that conscience and empathy in himself?

Thanks in advance.

0 Replies

wwlcj1982

You ask difficult questions which might best be tackled by sociolinguistic analysis.

E.g....I personally believe that "morality" is based on "social expediency" and this has been reinforced genetically by selective breeding (e.g for the "altuism gene in males" which benefits extended child rearing.) The problem is that intra-group cohesion often implies inter group rivalry (as observed in primates). The moral codes of religion are secondary rationalization of such expediency but are thought of by believers as the a priori source, thereby giving "divine authority" to to intra- and inter- group dynamics. From this viewpoint "goodness" equates with "conformity", but in as much that all humans share the evolutionary need for group cohesiveness there will be a multicultural consensus as to what constitutes "goodness". The danger of religion is its parochial details can obscure this consensus and promote particular groups to the status of "guardians of the truth".

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

wwlcj1982

You ask difficult questions which might best be tackled by sociolinguistic analysis.

E.g....I personally believe that "morality" is based on "social expediency" and this has been reinforced genetically by selective breeding (e.g for the "altuism gene in males" which benefits extended child rearing.) The problem is that intra-group cohesion often implies inter group rivalry (as observed in primates). The moral codes of religion are secondary rationalization of such expediency but are thought of by believers as the a priori source, thereby giving "divine authority" to to intra- and inter- group dynamics. From this viewpoint "goodness" equates with "conformity", but in as much that all humans share the evolutionary need for group cohesiveness there will be a multicultural consensus as to what constitutes "goodness". The danger of religion is its parochial details can obscure this consensus and promote particular groups to the status of "guardians of the truth".

"goodness" equates with "conformity"

According to this point, a person is good becasue what he knows and has done confirms to most of people. There is a great danger in it. If one would think he's a bad person and accept what he is, and that he has the ability to escape from the punishment, there would be a great chance that he would do it. After all, doing bad things is more beneficial to him(by his standard). A person doesn't have to confirm to the most if benefits lie in the opposite side. Why should one chose to be the "good one" if "badness" is more tempting?

"I personally believe that "morality" is based on "social expediency" and this has been reinforced genetically by selective breeding (e.g for the "altuism gene in males" which benefits extended child rearing.) "

I know a lot persons that has a moral family and good education. They are "good men" at first, but in the middle years of their life they all turned "bad". If a person has "altuism gene" and well environment for them to fully develop the gene's potential, then why would they become "bad men"?

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

JLNobody wrote
Quote:
What I find most egregious in most religions is their other-worldly emphasis, an emphasis that removes any sense of the divine in this world. I prefer a this-worldly piety, one that builds people, not churches.

in christianity an emphasis is put on afterlife bc we believe that this world is temporal while the next life whether its heaven or hell is eternal........So i have to disagree with your statement......I dont think its outrageous that we put more in stock on what is forever over what is fleeting.......

I'd like to support kate on this afterlife thing.
Without afterlife, our life in this world is merely a joke. And with so many people died in pain and poverty, I always count myself lucky to get away with that. I always wonder that the life span of humans is so short compared to that of universe or that beyond universe. It can't be true that I was born in this world as a man(why not woman) by coincidence just for grasping a glimpse of it before disappearing into nothing and forgetting everthing that I'v experienced. Afterlife must be a real thing, otherwise the life of humans is meaningless no matter how great achievements you'v made and how happy you live your whole life.

0 Replies

wwlcj1982 wrote:

"goodness" equates with "conformity"

According to this point, a person is good becasue what he knows and has done confirms to most of people. There is a great danger in it. If one would think he's a bad person and accept what he is, and that he has the ability to escape from the punishment, there would be a great chance that he would do it. After all, doing bad things is more beneficial to him(by his standard). A person doesn't have to confirm to the most if benefits lie in the opposite side. Why should one chose to be the "good one" if "badness" is more tempting?

And what do you think religion is? It's a brand of conformity. The fact that people believe God mandated it and that the rules are laid down in a text that's supposed to be holy is no different.

The difference between those that are religious and those that aren't, is that those without religion don't have a holy text to fall back on. That means they have to think about what is right or wrong and decide for themselves.

Religious people can also do the same, but they have a book that they can fall back on if they're too lazy to think for themselves.

Quote:

PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:13 am Post subject:
kate4christ03 wrote:
JLNobody wrote
Quote:
What I find most egregious in most religions is their other-worldly emphasis, an emphasis that removes any sense of the divine in this world. I prefer a this-worldly piety, one that builds people, not churches.

in christianity an emphasis is put on afterlife bc we believe that this world is temporal while the next life whether its heaven or hell is eternal........So i have to disagree with your statement......I dont think its outrageous that we put more in stock on what is forever over what is fleeting.......

Quote:
Without afterlife, our life in this world is merely a joke.

Even with an afterlife, our life in this world can still be a joke. An afterlife does not give your life anymore purpose than it would initially. If anything, the afterlife makes the life more of a joke.

Think of a child. You want your child to behave a certain way, so you state, "I will give you a piece of candy if you do your homework." It doesn't matter that they did the homework in the end. They're not doing it for the right reasons, for the right purpose. They're not doing it because they have to and it would eventually help them out in life. They're doing it for the candy.

So it is with the afterlife. The prospect of an afterlife makes the life a joke, because they're doing it to get the reward, not because it was the right thing to do.

Some people, however, do it because it is the right thing to do. The afterlife being a reward is merely an unimportant bonus they don't really care about. But what about the others?

Quote:
And with so many people died in pain and poverty, I always count myself lucky to get away with that. I always wonder that the life span of humans is so short compared to that of universe or that beyond universe. It can't be true that I was born in this world as a man(why not woman) by coincidence just for grasping a glimpse of it before disappearing into nothing and forgetting everthing that I'v experienced.

This is a fallacious argument that eventually boils down to "I cannot believe this is so, so therefore it mustn't be."

Quote:
Afterlife must be a real thing, otherwise the life of humans is meaningless no matter how great achievements you'v made and how happy you live your whole life.

As I've stated before the afterlife does not have to be real to give a life meaning.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Quote:
Without afterlife, our life in this world is merely a joke.

Even with an afterlife, our life in this world can still be a joke. An afterlife does not give your life anymore purpose than it would initially. If anything, the afterlife makes the life more of a joke.

Think of a child. You want your child to behave a certain way, so you state, "I will give you a piece of candy if you do your homework." It doesn't matter that they did the homework in the end. They're not doing it for the right reasons, for the right purpose. They're not doing it because they have to and it would eventually help them out in life. They're doing it for the candy.

So it is with the afterlife. The prospect of an afterlife makes the life a joke, because they're doing it to get the reward, not because it was the right thing to do.

Some people, however, do it because it is the right thing to do. The afterlife being a reward is merely an unimportant bonus they don't really care about. But what about the others?

Quote:
And with so many people died in pain and poverty, I always count myself lucky to get away with that. I always wonder that the life span of humans is so short compared to that of universe or that beyond universe. It can't be true that I was born in this world as a man(why not woman) by coincidence just for grasping a glimpse of it before disappearing into nothing and forgetting everthing that I'v experienced.

This is a fallacious argument that eventually boils down to "I cannot believe this is so, so therefore it mustn't be."

Quote:
Afterlife must be a real thing, otherwise the life of humans is meaningless no matter how great achievements you'v made and how happy you live your whole life.

As I've stated before the afterlife does not have to be real to give a life meaning.

Very good wolf, I think that life has more meaning without an after life, b/c with one, you dont care a second on how you live here, as long as you believe your going to be taken up, it doesnt matter what is going on around you.

Without an after life, mortal life is precious. Now really think about this. most Bible banging christians are republicans, death sentancing- war alowing- republicans. Now look at the athiest, what do you see? Protest of war, protest of aninimal research, protest of death pentaly, lets talk it out rather than fight democrats! Mortal life is precious?

I know a number of christians friends from when i was in the "faith". And i asked most about why there in it, and those who i can find completely honest will say fear of hell. Christianity is religion of love, then why arent their ppl feeling it?

Finally i say a mortal life can give a eternal meaning. Weather for good or evil, we remember rome, we rember Jesus no matter christ or not, we rember hitler for evil, we rember..... See you can trully impact the world, so its not just the here and now its forever on earth.

0 Replies

EpiNirvana wrote:

Wolf_OD wrote:
... Think of a child. You want your child to behave a certain way, so you state, "I will give you a piece of candy if you do your homework." It doesn't matter that they did the homework in the end. They're not doing it for the right reasons, for the right purpose. They're not doing it because they have to and it would eventually help them out in life. They're doing it for the candy.

So it is with the afterlife. The prospect of an afterlife makes the life a joke, because they're doing it to get the reward, not because it was the right thing to do ...

... I know a number of christians friends from when i was in the "faith". And i asked most about why there in it, and those who i can find completely honest will say fear of hell ...

And there you have it - it is not the reward that is sought, but the basest of emotions, the avoidance of retribution and punishment; self-serving guilt and fear, plain and simple.

However,

EpiNirvana also wrote:

... most Bible banging christians are republicans, death sentancing- war alowing- republicans. Now look at the athiest, what do you see? Protest of war, protest of aninimal research, protest of death pentaly, lets talk it out rather than fight democrats! ...

Apparently ignoring, or at the very least failing to recognize, the "Us vs Them", unrealistically absolutist, dichotomous black/white, divisive, prejudiced, assumption-and-preference-based mindset requisite to any such proposition irrespective of POV or agenda. Should one wish to be a component of the solution, one first must cease contributing to the problem.

0 Replies

I was only trying to prove a point. In all honesty i think both sides have completely lost sight of anything real and are enthraled in the own self righteousness. Im an independant, for the main reason that i dont want to be asosiated with any psyscos on either end.

0 Replies

I am interested in contributors views on this word "dignity" as used in the original quotation which I repeat for convenience.

Quote:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

Weinberg

Timber perhaps raises the issue that those who see the world in dichotomies .right/wrong.us/them.are "lacking in dignity". Since religions tend to reify these dichotomies the quotation seems valid but only if we elevate the dichotomy good/bad to a transcendent or universal status. I argue above that this is the case based on "our common humanity" and I cite views on atheistic child rearing which refer to a child's "natural empathy". This seems to be what Weinberg implies by the word "human"

On the other hand I have also argued that divisive "tribalism" may also be "natural", and "religion" is merely an adjunct of this. It it the case therefore that "human dignity" is a nebulous or unatainable concept which respresents the dilemma of a "conscious animal" aware of his baser instincts ?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

wwlcj1982 wrote:
"goodness" equates with "conformity"

According to this point, a person is good becasue what he knows and has done confirms to most of people. There is a great danger in it. If one would think he's a bad person and accept what he is, and that he has the ability to escape from the punishment, there would be a great chance that he would do it. After all, doing bad things is more beneficial to him(by his standard). A person doesn't have to confirm to the most if benefits lie in the opposite side. Why should one chose to be the "good one" if "badness" is more tempting?

And what do you think religion is? It's a brand of conformity. The fact that people believe God mandated it and that the rules are laid down in a text that's supposed to be holy is no different.

The difference between those that are religious and those that aren't, is that those without religion don't have a holy text to fall back on. That means they have to think about what is right or wrong and decide for themselves.

Religious people can also do the same, but they have a book that they can fall back on if they're too lazy to think for themselves.

I'm afraid you didn't get my point. Wolf_ODonnell.
I'm not quite sure the statement "goodness" equates with "conformity" is right or not. Because in my opinion "goodness" does not only mean the knowledge of goodness which one should abtain by reasoning, but also refer to the self-knowing of goodness which I believe does not come from the education or any reasoning. The fact is that the knowledge of goodness you get from reasoning will not ensure you to do the good thing. Actually they are not goodness at all. Without higher standards, Humans behavior would subject to the laws of benefing himself at whatever it costs. Actually, I don't give a d to any moral codes or any kind of book, but I think basing "goodness" on reasoning is just what reasoning itself doesn't allows, because reasoning means ration and logic and humans are self-centered animals, therefore, the statement of "goodness" equates with "conformity" would only mean that the morality of humans does not exist at all.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Quote:

PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:13 am Post subject:
kate4christ03 wrote:
JLNobody wrote
Quote:
What I find most egregious in most religions is their other-worldly emphasis, an emphasis that removes any sense of the divine in this world. I prefer a this-worldly piety, one that builds people, not churches.

in christianity an emphasis is put on afterlife bc we believe that this world is temporal while the next life whether its heaven or hell is eternal........So i have to disagree with your statement......I dont think its outrageous that we put more in stock on what is forever over what is fleeting.......

Quote:
Without afterlife, our life in this world is merely a joke.

Even with an afterlife, our life in this world can still be a joke. An afterlife does not give your life anymore purpose than it would initially. If anything, the afterlife makes the life more of a joke.

Think of a child. You want your child to behave a certain way, so you state, "I will give you a piece of candy if you do your homework." It doesn't matter that they did the homework in the end. They're not doing it for the right reasons, for the right purpose. They're not doing it because they have to and it would eventually help them out in life. They're doing it for the candy.

So it is with the afterlife. The prospect of an afterlife makes the life a joke, because they're doing it to get the reward, not because it was the right thing to do.

Some people, however, do it because it is the right thing to do. The afterlife being a reward is merely an unimportant bonus they don't really care about. But what about the others?

Quote:
And with so many people died in pain and poverty, I always count myself lucky to get away with that. I always wonder that the life span of humans is so short compared to that of universe or that beyond universe. It can't be true that I was born in this world as a man(why not woman) by coincidence just for grasping a glimpse of it before disappearing into nothing and forgetting everthing that I'v experienced.

This is a fallacious argument that eventually boils down to "I cannot believe this is so, so therefore it mustn't be."

Quote:
Afterlife must be a real thing, otherwise the life of humans is meaningless no matter how great achievements you'v made and how happy you live your whole life.

As I've stated before the afterlife does not have to be real to give a life meaning.

I'm afraid you miss the point again.

I don't know that you'v ever read the Bible or know anything about Christianity at all. According to the Bible, afterlife is not a reward, it's the real thing no matter that you are firm beliver or not(the believer will go to heaven and nobeliever will go to hell). And the reason that a Christian go to the heaven is not the reward that he do everything according to the Ten Commandments, just that he believe that God is real thing and he would like to live in Juses Christ(I'm not very sure about the original words). And Buddhist believes afterlife too, not because it's the reward given by whatever the God.

The reason why I said life is meaningless without afterlife is that you can't solve the problem where did you come from and where will you go after death. This is where nothingness begins. This is just my assumption that afterlife exist. At least I tend to believe in it.

0 Replies

Religion versus human dignity.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know