Are morals derived from religion/God??

[ranma1/2]

Like I have said before this situation comes back at whether God exists or not and we will not agree in that. This much we agree upon. Also we do agree that men are in need of morals. To take this matter further we will definitely dissagree. I think we agree on this as well. So I gues each to his own opinion and when we reach the inevitable (death) we will come to find out who was wrong. Shall we leave it at that?

Lets say a god does exists. I have shown that even if a god does exists we dont need it for us to be moral. If a god gave us morals internally we dont need a religion to tell us what moral is. Of course I personally think the word morality is pretty useless and blurs the issue. I think if we just say right and wrong its easier to explain.

Such as what is a right action and what is a wrong action.

So once again please define for us what you think is moral?
What is the purpose of morality?

Thanks

 

[aamirsaab]

Such as what is a right action and what is a wrong action

So once again please define for us what you think is moral?

We know instinctively what is morally wrong.

What is the purpose of morality?

It reminds us that there are limits/barriers to our actions and that by transgressing those barriers, we/others get hurt.

 

[Sunnih]

Lets say a god does exists. I have shown that even if a god does exists we dont need it for us to be moral. If a god gave us morals internally we dont need a religion to tell us what moral is. Of course I personally think the word morality is pretty useless and blurs the issue. I think if we just say right and wrong its easier to explain.

Such as what is a right action and what is a wrong action.

So once again please define for us what you think is moral?
What is the purpose of morality?

Thanks

Since you want to continue talking about this thread, then ok lets continue. I will give you my deffinition of morals but since you are the one who is asking to continue talking about this matter, you must be fair to me and allow me to start asking the questions first.

Now, since you believe that man came from monkeys (in rough words), can you please tell me: Did they take with them in their change any morals or did they take nothing. If they took some morals, what kind of morals did they take. If they did not, when did these morals surfice or come into being?

Thanks

 

[Trumble]

If they did not, when did these morals surfice or come into being?

They came into being as the result of mankind starting to live in societies. It was beneficial to do so as co-operation enhanced the chance of survival, offered security and (later) the preservation of property; principally the land necessary to grow crops and herd livestock, and the result of such labours. For a society to function smoothly - or indeed at all - morals, rules, are necessary. Some personal 'freedom' (that to do whatever you like, including the 'immoral') is given up so that society be maintained, and with it the protection and assurance that it offers. The more complex the society, the more complex the 'rules' and the more complex the moral code. No God required.

Rather than 'morals', I think a far more interesting question is where our capacity for compassion came from. The good side of mankind without the rule-book. If you are looking for God, He is there, not writing out lists of rules - they come from people, however they may be dressed up with religious trappings.

 

[ranma1/2]

Since you want to continue talking about this thread, then ok lets continue. I will give you my deffinition of morals but since you are the one who is asking to continue talking about this matter, you must be fair to me and allow me to start asking the questions first.

Now, since you believe that man came from monkeys (in rough words), can you please tell me: Did they take with them in their change any morals or did they take nothing. If they took some morals, what kind of morals did they take. If they did not, when did these morals surfice or come into being?

Thanks

Fair? This thread is about morals and where they came from.
PLease answer my question.

 

[ranma1/2]

We know instinctively what is morally wrong.


It reminds us that there are limits/barriers to our actions and that by transgressing those barriers, we/others get hurt.

So it should be easy to tell us what morals are. It should be easy to show the purpose fo morals "i know you gave a bit on it but couldyou expand more."

Personally i think its pretty much a useless word used by people to give justifcation for their points of view. Now good actions and bad actions thats a little more clearer.

 

[borboski]

1. Good morning - I haven't had time to read your replies, but they look like good ones. Just a quick one to say that I'm not under the impression that you believe that Mohammed "invented" morals - my impression is that you believe in absolutes - things like "telling the truth" as being fundamentally good. Like Plato's belief in "essentials" - to some degree you believe that "good" and "evil" actually exist, like a spanner exists. Where as I believe that good and evil exist as concepts in the same way maths and language exists.

2. Just to make absolutely clear, I'm not arguing we should have sex with the animals! Even if they like it!

3. My main point is 'if absolute morals do exist - what use are they? How do we know what they are, and how do we apply them to specific actions?

Now let me ask you a question if you do not mind. Do you believe that man was created by God or do you believe that man is the result of the evolution of a monkey ancestor?

Well you can probably guess my response. It is clear that life evolves (and to say specifically from a monkey kind of reduces the incredible journey). However, it's possible to believe that life evolves, AND that man was created and designed by God, given a "helping hand" as it were. But - to believe solely that man created God, and didn't evolve, requires a form of petulant solipsism, you have to close your eyes and go "lalalalala", "I simply do not care what evidence points towards, I will never change my mind, I am fundamentally close-minded and irrational."

Ok, that's a quick response, I'll admit I haven't read the whole of Sunnih's post, but will tonight, although I must say on scanning it, it seems very critical, claiming that I didn't make myself at all clear. If you read my quoted passages every paragraph can be summarised in one succinct statement, which is as clear writing should be. But I admit I didn't read pages 3 through 9 of this debate.

Cheers!

 

[aamirsaab]

So it should be easy to tell us what morals are. It should be easy to show the purpose fo morals "i know you gave a bit on it but couldyou expand more."

It's difficult for me to explain it to the extent I myself know it, but I'll give it a shot.

Personally i think its pretty much a useless word used by people to give justifcation for their points of view. Now good actions and bad actions thats a little more clearer.

Good and bad is relative to the individual e.g it is good for the police to capture thieves, but it is bad for thieves to be caught.

Not only that but these actions are redefined through time, which actually means that there is no good and there is no bad, there is only perception.

Innate Morality i.e what you actually feel when a particular event happens is always stationary; you will always feel uncomfortable at the sight of someone starving or dying or getting killed etc. Though I will admit that one can reduce the intensity of this innate morality due to repression and supression techniques. On the whole however, morality is not perceptive.

Now, here comes the major problem. Certain laws or actions that are called morals are not actually morally based e.g; the selling of cannabis or spitting in public. If anything those laws are based more on ethics rather than morals. (though I do readily accept that spitting in public is not neccessarily seen as a moral issue) Unfortunately, by the time anyone has distinguished this difference it is far too late since people as a society have already accepted it. This links back to the perception of good/bad as mentioned above.

Relating more to the topic: Religions do put emphasis on morals - actual innate morals such as death etc. So morals do not actually come from religions. However, religions do work well with morals and are probably the foundationary levels of certain religions.

 

[Pygoscelis]

It's difficult for me to explain it to the extent I myself know it, but I'll give it a shot.


Good and bad is relative to the individual e.g it is good for the police to capture thieves, but it is bad for thieves to be caught.

Not only that but these actions are redefined through time, which actually means that there is no good and there is no bad, there is only perception.

Innate Morality i.e what you actually feel when a particular event happens is always stationary; you will always feel uncomfortable at the sight of someone starving or dying or getting killed etc. Though I will admit that one can reduce the intensity of this innate morality due to repression and supression techniques. On the whole however, morality is not perceptive.

Now, here comes the major problem. Certain laws or actions that are called morals are not actually morally based e.g; the selling of cannabis or spitting in public. If anything those laws are based more on ethics rather than morals. (though I do readily accept that spitting in public is not neccessarily seen as a moral issue) Unfortunately, by the time anyone has distinguished this difference it is far too late since people as a society have already accepted it. This links back to the perception of good/bad as mentioned above.

Relating more to the topic: Religions do put emphasis on morals - actual innate morals such as death etc. So morals do not actually come from religions. However, religions do work well with morals and are probably the foundationary levels of certain religions.

Poking my head back into this thread. Felt compelled to, because this is a rare opportunity indeed, to completely agree with something one of our muslim members has written On morality no less.

I would only add that religions, while putting emphasis on some morals, also override or work against others. You've got your basic moral sense, and then you've got religion's modification of it (usually good, sometimes bad).

 

[Pygoscelis]

Re: What happens to Muslims who leave Islam?

I don't want to get involved in the meat of the thread, but the underlined statement caught my eye.

I will thus ask, why should Muslims do the same?

Um... because its killing an innocent person. Even if you disagree with their innocence, I'd think it was obvious why others who do see them as innocent find the view repugnant. You've used religion to justify homocide. :skeleton:

The reason I ask is that, if Islam is the right religion then they should go by it, if it teaches the death of apostates then it's logical that they should go by that on the same hand if another religion is right then the followers should go by what they are commanded. That is how I understand it, so the above statement would indicate to me that you think Muslims should do what the Christians done because if Islam teaches death to apostates it's wrong?

This is the perfect example of religion twisting morality. The muslims are saying it is ok to kill somebody because God has commanded them to kill somebody. I find that sickening, and it should be obvious why. This isn't because I'm anti-muslim. I find story of Abraham and Isaac in the bible sickening for the same reason (God ordering Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham obeying).

This demonstrates that religion does not teach morality. It teaches obedience to power. It is not suprising that religious regimes are so often dictatorships. All I have to do is convince the extreme fundamentalist believer that heaven awaits if he does my bidding and hell awaits if he does not. This is what leads people to fly planes into buildings, burn people at the stake, and murder apostates.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Re: What happens to Muslims who leave Islam?

Salaam/peace

I find it incredibly disturbing that people who leave Islam must fear for their lives.
.

it has been discussed in the forum many times......no death penalty if the ex Muslim does not do any harm to other Muslim or speak nasty things against God.

BTW , Bible tells u to kill the person who mocks God.......( in Lev chapter , most probably ) i heard it from Dr. Zakir Naik & also read about
in Duet that if all citizens worship idols , the whole city should be destryed totally & people must be killed.....

do u find this ''incredibly disturbing'' ?

 

[- Qatada -]

Re: What happens to Muslims who leave Islam?

Hey Pygoscelis.


And similarly, with a system that can change their rules at anytime anyway - then they're even more of a threat, since no-one knows when the next law will change and they can easily be killed for that.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Re: What happens to Muslims who leave Islam?

Salaam/peace

.. I find story of Abraham and Isaac in the bible sickening for the same reason (God ordering Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham obeying).

how come u did not notice a wonderful matter in the story ?? The father did not lie to the son & the son agreed happily & assured dad that , God Willing , u will find me among those who have patience .

What a wonderful teaching....Subhan Allah. The young boy is not afraid of death , he is willing to obey God. How come , u find that sickening ?

This is what leads people to fly planes into buildings, burn people at the stake, and murder apostates.

LOL , u interpret everything so negatively. God says in Quran , if u save one innocent life , it is as if u saved the whole mankind. So , a true believer will never kill any innocent person.

 

[Umar001]

Um... because its killing an innocent person. Even if you disagree with their innocence, I'd think it was obvious why others who do see them as innocent find the view repugnant. You've used religion to justify homocide. :skeleton:

Well I was asking specifically August, since she spoke on the matter, I normally would have expected your answer and I don't mind your answer, but as I try not to assume, I was asking August for clarification, plus since August if I understand correctly believes in a religion then I thought she would logically take her moral code from there, where as you do not have a religion with a stone cut moral code, I'd expect you to give me the above answer, thank you for your input though

This is the perfect example of religion twisting morality. The muslims are saying it is ok to kill somebody because God has commanded them to kill somebody. I find that sickening, and it should be obvious why. This isn't because I'm anti-muslim. I find story of Abraham and Isaac in the bible sickening for the same reason (God ordering Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham obeying).

Well to be honest, just as you find it sickening, which is understandable since you don't believe in Islam, I am sure some others in the world would find some of your moral standards sickening.

I would like to ask something though, since you have brought this up, do you think, logically speaking, if there was a God, The Creator and He chose to communicate with us and gave us laws, do you think it would be logical to take our moral standards from there?

This demonstrates that religion does not teach morality. It teaches obedience to power.

Religion can teach that there is a higher being, logic neccesitates that if He is the Creator and All knower who is Good that then we follow Him and turn to Him for our Morals.

And on the same note, someone who might not be in a 'traditional' religion, or who claims not to follow a religion, can be taught obedience to his desires, tot he extent that he can indoctrinate himself to believe that this life is our only life so I should live it up at the cost of others, or he could himself come with a belief that mankind survives only if it fights thus he needs to be the fittest. And what we do find is that morals change from society to society, from people who dont mind sharing their spouses to cannibals in african jungles.

It is not suprising that religious regimes are so often dictatorships. All I have to do is convince the extreme fundamentalist believer that heaven awaits if he does my bidding and hell awaits if he does not. This is what leads people to fly planes into buildings, burn people at the stake, and murder apostates.

Or you could teach them also that this life is the only life, and that we have to fight to survive in order not to be wiped out by the other race.

Either way bloodshed is on both 'religious' and 'non religious' hands, both of our history is not clean. But its ok you keep basing your morals around your sources and I'll base mine around mine, and since I believe there's a Just and Merciful Being who Knows All, who has Spoken to us in the Past, logic binds me to take my Morals from Him.

Regards,
Eesa

 

[Pygoscelis]

Re: What happens to Muslims who leave Islam?

how come u did not notice a wonderful matter in the story ?? The father did not lie to the son & the son agreed happily & assured dad that , God Willing , u will find me among those who have patience .

What a wonderful teaching....Subhan Allah. The young boy is not afraid of death , he is willing to obey God. How come , u find that sickening ?

Suicide bombers are not afraid of death and think they are obeying God too. Suicide bombers are essentially the Abraham and Isaac of this story wrapped into one. And yes, I find them sickening too.

LOL , u interpret everything so negatively. God says in Quran , if u save one innocent life , it is as if u saved the whole mankind. So , a true believer will never kill any innocent person.

Unless they are the head of an Islamic state? Or for other reasons their dogma tells them to kill people for. The bible tells you to not suffer witches to live, and stone pretty much everybody. A true believer in that would be truly frightening.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I would like to ask something though, since you have brought this up, do you think, logically speaking, if there was a God, The Creator and He chose to communicate with us and gave us laws, do you think it would be logical to take our moral standards from there?

No. That isn't morality. That is obedience. Taking your moral values from external commandment is bare obedience, and nothing else. Morality is more than just that. It also involves aspects of compassion and empathy. When you obey orders to kill or do other nasty things, you are blocking out compassion and empathy and are thus blocking out part of your moral sense.

Religion can teach that there is a higher being, logic neccesitates that if He is the Creator and All knower who is Good that then we follow Him and turn to Him for our Morals.

Logic doesn't neccesitate that at all. All there being a creator or all powerful being establishes is that there is a creator or all powerful being. It says nothing about the moral sense of that being. The being could even conceptually be imoral, or more likely, amoral.

to the extent that he can indoctrinate himself to believe that this life is our only life so I should live it up at the cost of others, or he could himself come with a belief that mankind survives only if it fights thus he needs to be the fittest. And what we do find is that morals change from society to society, from people who dont mind sharing their spouses to cannibals in african jungles.

This is true. There are other means of overcoming ones sense of morality for selfish gain. Sometimes it is done for misunderstandings or fear (your example of killing them because they are coming to get us). Other times it is done for pure selfishness, but in that case only a pure psychopath wouldn't need some sort of justification and rationalization - a painful process, made less so by religion.

You've got other indoctrinations, like racism, nationalism, etc, but religion is the best. It comes with a system to maintain adherence (fear of hell, even murder in some cases as here noted) that are lesser or absent in others. That isn't to downplay the dangers of racism and nationalism though.

 

[- Qatada -]

Re: What happens to Muslims who leave Islam?

Suicide bombers are not afraid of death and think they are obeying God too. Suicide bombers are essentially the Abraham and Isaac of this story wrapped into one. And yes, I find them sickening too.

Guess what the ending of the narrative was? He never got killed, and this was an order by God and simply a test on Abraham's sincerety - God wouldn't benefit at all if his son was sacrificed. Therefore the argument you put forward is weak.

Unless they are the head of an Islamic state? Or for other reasons their dogma tells them to kill people for. The bible tells you to not suffer witches to live, and stone pretty much everybody. A true believer in that would be truly frightening.

Again - if you had a system which was much better and perfect, your point would be worth some value, yet it's not. Therefore the same can be said about the system which you're trying to use as a criterion.



Regards.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Re: What happens to Muslims who leave Islam?

Guess what the ending of the narrative was? He never got killed. Therefore the argument you put forward is weak.

That he was spared in the end only shows that God wanted to test Abraham and Isaac to see if they'd go through with it rather than actually make them go through with it. The moral matter is not effected by that. It would be like a suicide bomber agreeing and preparing to do his thing, and then being told at the last minute not to.

Again - if you had a system which was much better and perfect, your point would be worth some value, yet it's not. Therefore the same can be said about the system which you're trying to use as a criterion.

Here is a system that is much better - the exact same system minus the killing people part.

 

[- Qatada -]

Re: What happens to Muslims who leave Islam?

That he was spared in the end only shows that God wanted to test Abraham and Isaac to see if they'd go through with it rather than actually make them go through with it. The moral matter is not effected by that. It would be like a suicide bomber agreeing and preparing to do his thing, and then being told at the last minute not to.

Therefore he never killed himself (the suicide bomber or Abraham's son), which is the main thing we're discussing.

Here is a system that is much better - the exact same system minus the killing people part.

There's the problem, who decides when the death penalty should be applied within the US? And who's to say that it wont change at any time when the person isn't aware of it? Will they have the excuse to say that "i didn't know?"

I'll quote sister PurestAmbrosia:

in contrast to the thread... I thought I'd post what happens when you are caught spying as imposed by the laws of the civilized U.S ... Apparently "attempting to transmit govt secrets, is as bad as betraying your allegiance to G-D--- Gasp!


"The Rosenbergs were convicted on March 29, 1951, and on April 5 were sentenced to death by Judge Irving Kaufman under section 2 of the Espionage Act, 50 U.S. Code 32 (now 18 U.S. Code 794), which prohibits transmitting or attempting to transmit to a foreign government information "relating to the national defense."

The conviction helped to fuel Senator Joseph McCarthy's investigations into anti-American activities by U.S. citizens. While their devotion to the Communist cause was well documented, the Rosenbergs denied the espionage charges even as they faced the electric chair.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROSENB.HTM

Therefore it's not perfect at all, infact it's even more dangerous than religion. Since the person isn't given a second chance, whereas in Islaam the person has the right to mend their ways, repent and even ask for information to clear up their misunderstandings.

Whereas in the US, if you say i'm sorry, well that isn't enough. And even if you deny the fact that you did the act - you don't have a chance to turn back. Whereas in Islaam - the punishment is only applied if the person makes their apostasy public.


So in reality - Islaam is much more relaxed, safer and perfect.




Regards.

 

[Umar001]

No. That isn't morality. That is obedience. Taking your moral values from external commandment is bare obedience, and nothing else. Morality is more than just that. It also involves aspects of compassion and empathy. When you obey orders to kill or do other nasty things, you are blocking out compassion and empathy and are thus blocking out part of your moral sense.

Well from my understanding, which might be wrong thus hendering our whole conversation, morals are something which we only have due to, mainly, our outside influences, thus a baby who is brought up in cannibalism is able to find that morally ok, where as a person brought up in a conservative house would find it haunting to let's say partake in public nudity.

So it was from that understanding that I said what I said, that my morals are a product of my upbringing, my parents and family and society influencing them most. If that is the case then I see no problem in adapting morals.

Logic doesn't neccesitate that at all. All there being a creator or all powerful being establishes is that there is a creator or all powerful being. It says nothing about the moral sense of that being. The being could even conceptually be imoral, or more likely, amoral.

But if we take the example that this God is a Just God, All knowing, and Merciful, then Morality is to be expected, would you in that case then use His Teachings as a scale?

This is true. There are other means of overcoming ones sense of morality for selfish gain. Sometimes it is done for misunderstandings or fear (your example of killing them because they are coming to get us). Other times it is done for pure selfishness, but in that case only a pure psychopath wouldn't need some sort of justification and rationalization - a painful process, made less so by religion.

Well then Morals would be shifting constantly, thus, what you might percieve as someone trying to overcome his morals for selfish gain, might actually be someone who has been given those morals by those around him, thus a cannibal, is not being selfish but only acting on the level of morals he knows, to presume your morals are better than his or anyones is guesswork, unless you believe your morals come from a greater source.

You've got other indoctrinations, like racism, nationalism, etc, but religion is the best. It comes with a system to maintain adherence (fear of hell, even murder in some cases as here noted) that are lesser or absent in others. That isn't to downplay the dangers of racism and nationalism though.

I doubt religion is the best, because, well then again it differs from religion to religion, but ideologies can be just as bad, for example the belief that we are animals combined with this life being the only life combined that theres no true accountability combined with a survivalist mentality, would equal 'breeding restrictions' on the less inteligent, no compassion for killing 'lesser/weaker species' and would breed the opitomy of selfishness specially since theres no coming to account.

I think both can be as bad as each other. Religion can be a good one but also at the same time non conventional religion can be an amazing one too. Both have their supposed negative and positives.