Are morals derived from religion/God??

[جوري]

evidence?

let's put it this way---Where is your evidence of animal morality?... and pls bring me a research article from something other than wikpedia -- I'll make your life easier
you can start with the following

http://uptodate.com/ << all the latest research and even a section for visitors, so you don't have to incur the hefty $200 charge the rest of us pay

http://content.nejm.org/

http://jama.ama-assn.org/

http://www.thelancet.com/

All have the hugest data base of research in every field up to and including psychology... if you care to offer something of substance.. I'd start there, and I'll gladly bow out gracefully to undisputed research! otherwise stop wasting my time with the usual drivel!

peace!

 

[Sunnih]

You called animal behaviour instinctual. What other than thought based would you call it if it isn't instinctual?...

Hi. I do not intend to turn this topic into a debate but allow me to highlight just one point in this.

You say: "What other than thought based would you call it if it isn't instinctual?"

I say: How about accidents? It is amazing that those who do not believe in God ascribe acidents to the creation of the universe and acept the idea that things just happen to be like that by acident and without a real purpose yet when they talk about the behaviour of even animals this notion disapears! Here we discuss the division of these occurrences into rational thought and insticts and we devide them into cathegories and subcathegories and all of a sudden we seem to forget the "great theory of the accidents".

 

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam,

i have not read thru the whole posts but here is my 2cents.

Read about story of how a merchant went about his business and encoutnred a scruffy boy in the mnountains.
He looked poor and wore ill fitting clothes.
when the merchant spoke to him,he asked why dont you take a sheep for your own.

Aghast the boy replied,i cna never do that i cna never steal.

so even an illiterate,untutored and un dignified human being of any background are born with intrinsic rights and wrongs.

 

[Gator]

Just something i read recently. Maybe some of the work of the people quoted could be of interest.

Almost Human, and Sometimes Smarter


By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: April 17, 2007
Observed in the wild and tested in captivity, chimpanzees invite comparison with humans, their close relatives. They bear a family resemblance that fascinates people, and scientists see increasing evidence of similarities in chimp behavior and skills, making some of them think on the vagaries of evolution.

For some time, paleontologists and evolutionary biologists have known that chimp ancestors were the last line of today's apes to diverge from the branch that led to humans, probably six million, maybe four million years ago. More recent examination shows that despite profound differences in the two species, just a 1.23 percent difference in their genes separates Homo sapiens from chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes.

And certain similarities between the two species, scientists say, go beyond expressive faces and opposable thumbs.

Chimps display a remarkable range of behavior and talent. They make and use simple tools, hunt in groups and engage in aggressive, violent acts. They are social creatures that appear to be capable of empathy, altruism, self-awareness, cooperation in problem solving and learning through example and experience. Chimps even outperform humans in some memory tasks.

''Fifty years ago, we knew next to nothing about chimpanzees,'' said Andrew Whiten, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. ''You could not have predicted the richness and complexity of chimp culture that we know now.''

Jane Goodall, a young English woman working in Africa in the 1960s, began changing perceptions. At first, experts disputed her reports of chimps' using tools and social behavior. The experts especially objected to her references to chimp culture. Just humans, they insisted, had ''culture.''

''Jane suffered early rejection by the establishment,'' Richard Wrangham, a Harvard anthropologist, said. ''Now, the people who say chimpanzees don't have emotions and culture are the ones rejected.''

Link if you are a member - http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60715FB3A5B0C748DDDAD0894DF404482

 

[جوري]

Again what do emotions, range of behavior and talent have to do with a highly developed moral system?

MadSci Network: Zoology Query:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/879717418.Zo.r.html

Do some animals have a sense of morality?
Area: Zoology
Posted By: Dave Williams, faculty
Date: Thu Nov 13 17:44:28 1997
Area of science: Zoology
ID: 878633041.Zo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
First of all, there are some characteristically anthropomorphic assumptions in your question. For example, that monogamy is good and that morality is a universal. That right and wrong exist apart from a concept in the human mind and that all things must be judged on the basis of human practice. As a behavioral zoologist, I would assert that intelligence and monogamy are not related.
With that out of the way, the topic of animal intelligence is a complex one. Generally, it depends on what measure of intelligence you use. Obviously, if you use a human I.Q. test animals will not fare well.

ABOUT ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE IN GENERAL: Various tests, mostly related to problem solving, have shown that animals vary in their level of intelligence. The most intelligent animals are elephants, dolphins and perhaps whales, and the great apes (including chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Chimpanzees are considered the closest to humans in their level of intelligence but far below the average human adult. The truth is, dolphins may be even more intelligent but it is difficult to test them because they don't have hands. Chimpanzees solve problems by making tools. Porpoises can't compete in this arena.

Little is known about the intelligence of whales (except for the killer whale which is, like dolphins, apparently very intelligent) because the big ones are very hard to study. They do seem to have a complex system of vocal communication, another criterion for intelligence. Chimpanzees don't have a complex mode of vocal communication but can master a large number of symbolic representations, when given the opportunity, and can also combine symbols to form new meanings. A famous experimental chimp, upon first seeing a duck swimming in a pond, was said to immediately use the signs for water and bird in rapid conjunction.

INTELLIGENCE AND MORALITY: Generally, humans are thought to be the only animals with a sense of morality. Apparently, it takes a very complex intellectual component to extrapolate concepts such as truth, justice, honor, loyalty, etc., as well as the idea of spiritual life. However, that does not mean that intelligent animals (like chimps) don't feel the emotions which may engender the development of these concepts. Chimpanzees have long-term close relationships, especially between mothers and daughters. Their actions have, in many cases, all the earmarks of human behaviors and are easily described in human behavioral terms, such as, brave, loyal, kind, etc. There is no assurance that the behavior has any correlation to similar human behaviors but the similarities are profound. Chimpanzees, for example, murder and abuse one another, apparently without remorse. There is also no such thing as monogamy among chimps. The social unit is the group.

A BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE TO A SINGLE MATE? First, lets make it clear that not everything has a biological advantage. Some things, structures, functions, and behaviors, are serendipitous. They just happen. If you subscribe to the concept of evolution by means of natural selection (and I presume you do or you wouldn't question the biological advantage of a single mate) you must remember that the process is completely random. And such a process depends on high numbers of individuals. With low numbers, anything goes. Some things persist in populations of organisms by chance, not because they convey an advantage.

The single mate phenomenon may be correlated to some other condition, such as low population levels, limited resources, limited home ranges, etc. Species that develop a single-mate pattern under these circumstances may retain it without harm when the conditions change.

Humans have been on Earth for at least one million years. For about 100,000 of those years they have been, for practical purposes, physically indistinguishable from humans living now. There is neither good evidence that the level of average intelligence has varied during this time nor that they were monogamous for most of it. It could well be that monogamy is recent in humans and culturally (as opposed to biologically) based. Evidence for this is that as soon as the societal inhibitions to divorce were lifted (earlier this century) divorce became the rule rather than the exception. It could well be argued that modern humans are not biologically monogamous. So much for morality, monogamy, and intelligence.

As for predators that will not eat their own kind -- again, this activity varies with the species, with the age and size of the potential food item, and with the state of hunger of the individual in question. Rest assured, if a male lion refuses to eat the remains of a lion cub (the offspring of a defeated male) which he has just killed, morality has nothing to do with it.

Bear in mind that some snakes refuse to eat rodents which they have not personally captured and killed. The refusal of an animal to eat any specific item is not likely based in any form of reason.

In a social group, one might assume, the cannibal tendency would be anathema. But some chimps, for no discernible outward reason, will violently take babies from mothers in their own group and eat them.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Current Queue | Current Queue for Zoology | Zoology archives
Try the links in the MadSci Library for more information on Zoology.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MadSci Home | Information | Search | Random Knowledge Generator | MadSci Archives | Mad Library | MAD Labs | MAD FAQs | Ask a ? | Join Us! | Help Support MadSci


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MadSci Network
© 1997, Washington University Medical School
[email protected]

 

[Pygoscelis]

Again what do emotions, range of behavior and talent have to do with a highly developed moral system?

Everything. Or nothing. Depending on how you define morality.

Morality is such a poorly defined term that you will find zoologists who boldly claim that animals don't have it, and others who claim they do. Your article points ot the former. Here's another who agrees and another who disagrees with that. http://www.wpr.org/book/960407b.htm#segment 2 (I just typed animal morality into google and this along with a bunch of other stuff popped up, with scientists on both sides - and none claiming to actually know).

Until you can operationalize morality, the discussion is pointless. By speaking of behaviours (doing what is right), empathy, socialization, guilt, etc, we attempt to operationalize. If you don't accept that, this will simply not go anywhere.

humans are thought to be the only animals with a sense of morality.

Bold unsported claim. And one the zoologist is careful (and wise) not to make his own.

Chimpanzees, for example, murder and abuse one another, apparently without remorse.

Not often, but yes it happens. It happens with human beings too. Humans are just better at rationalizing it. War. Religion. What have you.

There is also no such thing as monogamy among chimps. The social unit is the group.

Cultural difference and a great example of "morality" being poorly defined. Who says monogamy is "moral"? Doesn't Islam itself allow polygamy in some cases? The bible has people with multiple wives too. Does that make these religions less moral than strictly monogamy pushing ones? I don't think so.

As for predators that will not eat their own kind -- again, this activity varies with the species, with the age and size of the potential food item, and with the state of hunger of the individual in question.

Makes sense. People will canibalize each other too, if they are desparate enough.

Rest assured, if a male lion refuses to eat the remains of a lion cub (the offspring of a defeated male) which he has just killed, morality has nothing to do with it.

Another bold and unsuported claim of the article.

The refusal of an animal to eat any specific item is not likely based in any form of reason.

And yet another.

In a social group, one might assume, the cannibal tendency would be anathema. But some chimps, for no discernible outward reason, will violently take babies from mothers in their own group and eat them.

Antisocial behaviour that is punished by the group. Very similar to human society and how we deal with similar antisocial behavior.

I maintain that it is a bold and unsuported claim that animals lack any sense of morality, which is the claim that was made. I believe the opposite is more likely, but I need not prove the opposite is true to note simply that your claim is impotent. The only way you could know one way or the other would be to become one of these nonhuman animals.

Perhaps those who believe in reincarnation can enlighten us.

 

[جوري]

I think the articles is very concise and is written by an expert in the field. It isn't a topic for refutation really, unless you want to take it with the author himself and believe he can be reached
Washington University Medical School
[email protected]____

I'll accept your other referenced source article of "with scientists on both sides" - purportedly claiming to not actually know for sure" Generally as better than a newspaper's shallow account which still doesn't address the topic at hand, or someone else's Reductio Ad Absurdum .
With that said I shall administer to self another ergotamine inhalation and call it a night.
peace!

peace!

 

[Pygoscelis]

Too many ten dollar words. Not enough coherency. Anybody care to decipher what was meant in the post above?

 

[جوري]

Too many ten dollar words. Not enough coherency. Anybody care to decipher what was meant in the post above?

Maybe if I changed my way of life to an "Atheist" we can get another "Amen to that" out of you and hopefully call it a night?!

 

[ranma1/2]

I agree with pretty much everythign Pygoscelis said.
We should define what we mean by Morals.

I find that in general the behavior one has as member of a social group is what is in genral called moral if it is the norm for that group.

 

[barney]

There is a tendancy to throw out some buzzwords like Athiesm is more responsible for mass murders, like Purest is doing.

The world has only recently accepted athiesm as the worlds fastest growing non-religion, and whilst Communism could be called athieist, it's whole foundation is on exactly the same grounds as religion. Mantra's ,Dogmas, Worship of "the party", benifits to beleivers , hell on earth for the proloteriat anti-revolutionary, a founding father who's idols are built in 50ft high bronze idols, his speeches quoted and a red book full of the "message" taught in schools. I could go on ad-infinitum, but you get the drift.

Religion is behind the vast majority of wars since bibalic times in either a Direct role (crusades) or indirect role, (Suppression of Native Americans). If Atheism has killed his tens of millions, Religion has killed his Billions.

 

[Keltoi]

Take any basic sociology course and it defines what morals are fairly well, which is simply social norms accepted by the majority, which are positively and negatively reinforced.

This is the reason some human cultures practice cannibalism, even though the majority of the world would find it repulsive. They don't find it repulsive because it is a part of their culture.

 

[Muezzin]

Religions don't kill people. People do.

If Atheism has killed his tens of millions, Religion has killed his Billions.

I guess that gives atheism the moral high ground. I mean, obviously, Jack the Ripper was not such a bad guy compared to Idi Amin, just based on sheer numbers.

What silly logic.

And before anyone misunderstands because they're tired and/or dim, I don't make any assertions in my posts about the superiority of any particular system in some petty passive aggressive way, I'm just showing that everybody is mucked up.

Also, morality does not derive from religion, but religion can and does encourage certain moral codes. Generally speaking, morality and ethics depend upon culture.

 

[barney]

Religions don't kill people. People do.


I guess that gives atheism the moral high ground. .

Humans kill, and only need their own bigotry for a reason.
Religion provided and provides a "justification" a doctrine and approval as much as Communism or Nationalism ever did.

I have never said that the above gives Athieism the moral high ground. However, human nature being what it is, yeah....killing less people is better than killing more people.
We are all mucked up...so lets try something that dosnt muck us up more.

 

[rania2820]

If so, I have 2 questions:

1.) How come there are different religions with different moral codes?
2.) How come atheists are moral beings?

Thanks

atheist have morals because of the influence of religion in society. if you look back before Allah revealed the books(torah,bible, quran) people were very animalistic. killing was the norm.raping was the norm.everything went. but when religion came about people learned from what's right and wrong.

and killing is done because because are people.even if religion wasn't around people would find another excuse to hide behind.

 

[Muezzin]

Humans kill, and only need their own bigotry for a reason.
Religion provided and provides a "justification" a doctrine and approval as much as Communism or Nationalism ever did.

Exactly. The fault lies with humans not with a specific doctrine. Everything is prone to abuse. Should we ban cars because of drunk drivers?

I have never said that the above gives Athieism the moral high ground. However, human nature being what it is, yeah....killing less people is better than killing more people.
We are all mucked up...so lets try something that dosnt muck us up more.

Not if it means somebody shoving their beliefs (or lack thereof) down my throat.

 

[ranma1/2]

atheist have morals because of the influence of religion in society. if you look back before Allah revealed the books(torah,bible, quran) people were very animalistic. killing was the norm.raping was the norm.everything went. but when religion came about people learned from what's right and wrong.

and killing is done because because are people.even if religion wasn't around people would find another excuse to hide behind.

So what evidence do you have of this? Humans are pretty much the same from then as now. Also as shown in many religious texts murder, rape were jsutififed by those gods. The bible itself constantly justifies murder and war.

Now lets say just for a moment that what you suggested were true it shows that atheists can decide for themselves what is moral.

 

[ranma1/2]

Exactly. The fault lies with humans not with a specific doctrine. Everything is prone to abuse. Should we ban cars because of drunk drivers?


Not if it means somebody shoving their beliefs (or lack thereof) down my throat.

Should we ban beer because peope get drunk? The point was that in the past religions have been used as justification for killing the next tribe or land or person you dont like. Now noone is suggesting banning religions but the thread was about where are morals derived from.

Ultimatley morals are made by humans. We have the ability to make choices. Even if god were to say this is moral. We would decide wether we agreed or not. We decide ultimately what is moral and not.

 

[Sunnih]

...Ultimatley morals are made by humans. We have the ability to make choices. Even if god were to say this is moral. We would decide wether we agreed or not. We decide ultimately what is moral and not.

This is wrong and no one can possibly agree with such as it is well nown that the minds and intelects of humans differ greatly and you will find that what constitutes morel for some does not constitute moral for someone ellse rather it might be that someones moral is considered as disgusting and humiliation of the intelect by someone else. Therefore how could morals be made by humans while they do not have the same understanding and common sharing intelectual abilitie? So how are humans to agree on the same principles while the wold is more and more divided in such issues. One prime example is the arguments that the vegetarians bring about the "imorality" of killing the animals for consumtion. Therefore the whole idea that we decide what morals are is in and of itself without grounds and fallacious.

 

[Sunnih]

Morality isn't the province of Judaism or Christianity or Islam. Whatever did we do before religion? How is it we are here despite, (as some would suggest), our ancestor’s total lack of moral compass?

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before there were religious beliefs. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

Your idea that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned fairly successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.

First of all, what makes you think that paganism preceded belief in God? How can you claim that while you do not have any proof for that? It si your mere assumtion to state that religion is something that came after the existance of men. This principle that you try to raise needs proof and your mere sugestion on this topic does not constitute proof. So this first part of your post is debatable and as it is not the thread for that I will not stop here.

If you want to open a thread regarding the existance of God then open it and there we discuss that matter. However, how can you fail to see that your arguments are a double sworded edge? Also to claim what you uphold as your position you too must prove first that there is no God?! How can you be so partial and selective in your principles?

The examples that you quote are against you and not in your favor as this proves totally the opposite of what you say. If for the sake of the argument I was to take the examples you take in the way you interpret them then it shows that morals are related to time and place and that there are no real morals as what you might take as a moral today it is shameful the next day. So if this is the case, then there is no criterion to accertain what constitutes morals. Therefore morals become something without a real meaning and without a real existance. However this assumtion is even more absurd than what you are trying to establish.