People use their moral sense to define religion rather than religion to define what's moral.

[BurtWorm]

"If that's the case," said the physicist Steven Weinberg to Jonathan Miller on the BBC's The Atheism Tapes, "then what's the point of the religion?"

Weinberg had just been talking about George W. Bush's claim that the 9/11 terrorists and other Islamists had taken a great religion and used it for evil purposes. Weinberg's point was that Bush was able to use a perfectly fine moral sense (for Bush) to judge what in Islam was "religion" and what wasn't. What is Islam for Bush is what Bush views as "good" about Islam. What Bush views as bad, he decides, is not Islam.

I see a lot of this same use of moral code to define religion going on among liberal Christians and non-Christians (including many atheists) when they talk about who is a Christian and who isn't. George W. Bush, for one, liberals say again and again, is not a "real" Christian. Why? Because he offends their moral sense. Liberal Christians use a perfectly fine moral sense to define Christianity; oddly enough, many liberal non-Christians--including, I repeat and emphasize, many non-believers--using their own moral sense, come to the same conclusions about Christianity.

Doesn't this seem to validate Weinberg's suspicion that it's the moral sense, independent of religion, that is useful to us as human beings, not religion? So why do so many insist on holding religion in high esteem?


The portion of the conversation I'm referring begins in the video linked to below at about 2:40 (the whole interview is worth listening to, all three parts available on YouTube):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTbeHTgr_TQ

[The Magistrate]

1. A Very Sound Observation, Sir

[BurtWorm]

2. Thank you, sir.

:toast:

[whoneedstickets]

3. Is a moral sense hardwired in us?

My sense is that the imperative for cooperative action in early homo sapien groups resulted in the selection of individuals (and 'tribes') with the stronger pro-social behavior. I also think that there is probably an upper-limit for the level of altruism, morality or selflessness in a community and that some degree of selfishness probably has some evolutionary advantage (this is based on a kind of genetic diversity model, where seemingly disadvantageous alleles sometimes are the ones that turn out to be the ones to have when disaster strikes -- disease? famine? etc..). This would explain why most people are moral and compassionate and why others are 'conservatives'.

[BurtWorm]

5. It's been very useful for the survival of the species.

I just finished reading a book that will be published in January called The Hidden Mind (by Shankar Vedantam), in which he shows how ruled humans are, especially in moments of extreme crisis, by groupthink. When the planes hit the first tower on 9/11, virtually all of the people on the 88th floor in the second tower got up and got out before the second plane struck at precisely the 88th and 89th floors. Virtuallly everyone on the 89th floor stayed and was killed. Why these two different results? Because, if you think about it, when disaster strikes, we rarely act alone--the vaunted impulse to save yourself is highly overrated. There is an unconscious bias to see what people around you are doing and become as one with them, sink or swim. This seems to violate the proposition I put in the subject line, because it looks like groupthink's effectiveness as a lifesaver is a toss-up. In fact, it usually protects and preserves us or it wouldn't have survived so strongly. It doesn't guarantee that we'll survive, but we're not interested in that in those moments. We're interested in melding with the groupmind. That dedication to the social is what a lot of our morality is about. And it is rooted, it seems to me, pretty clearly, in the evolution of the brain.

[charlie]

4. You hear people say often enough

"I couldn't worship a God who...", which is an admission they have a moral sense that even God, the supposed source of morality, cannot be allowed to violate.

[BurtWorm]

12. And yet if there is a god, he violates it all the time.

Thank goodness there is no god!

[Mojambo]

6. That Atheism Tapes series is really terrific stuff.

I enjoyed it very much.

[DeSwiss]

7. I agree totally. Someone wrote this to me the other day:

"Look at the reforms in religion. We no longer support slavery, the subjugation of women and battlefield atrocities. That's because our natural, human, morality has overruled religious morality. Not only is human morality more solid than religious morality, it dictates what we accept as religiously worthy. It determines what IS religious. If human morality determines what is religious, why do we need religion in the first place?"

- K&R

[BurtWorm]

13. An idea whose time has come, apparently.

:applause:

[Jim__]

8. I accept that people have a moral sense.

However, exactly how strong that moral sense is, is somewhat questionable.

For instance, our moral sense will (usually) prevent us from stealing food from an old woman struggling to survive. But, I don't believe our moral sense will (usually) prevent us from stealing, say $5,000 from a millionaire. In general, I believe it is fear that stops us from stealing from millionaires, fear of punishment, either civil or divine - else, we not only wouldn't need religion, we wouldn't need police to enforce civil laws.

Now, religion can play a role in enforcing morality. A role as both an enforcer of morality and as a promise of ultimate justice for any inequities. Community plays a similar role to religion. They both enforce the snese of morality by threatening a form of retribution.

[Meshuga]

9. Bullying people to achieve good behavior brings bad consequences

And it doesn't always influences the person to be moral. Instead, it teaches the person to be fearful and to impose on others because of it. And it produces nasty guilt. It is a nasty cycle.

I could see religion setting principles that a person agrees with and it is there as a guide and reminder to keep the person on track. The same applies to other non-religious/secular ways. But to impose morality defeats the purpose since it is harmful to the individual.

[Jim__]

11. I'm not talking about bullying.

Basically I'm saying that a part (and I'd argue a large part) of our sense of morality is based on a fear of retribution, e.g. ostracism. Again, I don't believe that it's a sense of morality that prevents us from stealing from a millionaire.

There is a huge difference between social sanctions for bad behavior and bullying. If there were no social sanctions for bad behavior that would bring bad consequences too. Of course a part of morality is imposed. Morality forces people to forego some of their own desires. Some of that happens through empathy. Much of it happens through fear of consequences.

[Meshuga]

14. I see what you are saying

And I agree with "If there were no social sanctions for bad behavior that would bring bad consequences." But in religious terms, I see the harmful to impose good behavior with fear of retribution. The same with reward for good behavior. Empathy is something you can teach your kids by making them feel good when they do good to others. Researchers say that empathy, like other emotions, is not something that develops on its own. It has to be taught. Adding an invisible judge, as opposed to teaching empathy, seems to be the wrong approach in my opinion.

I agree that we may act good in fear of retribution but I don't think that the fear of retribution in religion is useful.

[BurtWorm]

15. Our moral sense is not just a guide for good behavior. It informs our sense of justice.

That is, it informs how we view other people's behavior in relation to each other.

We know that all stealing is wrong, but we also sense that stealing from a poor person is somehow "worse" than stealing from a wealthy person. It offends most people's sense of fairness to steal from a poor person, or to hurt a weak person. If we find ourselves in the position of thief and we have a conscience, we feel less bad about stealing from, say, a corporation than from an individual, and this is not just because a corporation is, for most of us, not a person with feelings, but because we make the calculation that corporations can afford theft better than individuals. Religion--and legislation--can't strengthen or weaken this sense without corrupting it. It's native to us and strengthened mainly by living in the world and observing our fellow humans in cooperation or conflict with us and each other.

[Jim__]

26. "Religion--and legislation--can't strengthen or weaken this sense without corrupting it"

And that statement is based on?

Yes a moral sense is native, but a part of it is based on fear. You can see it among primates in the wild. There is a group morality and it is enforced by the "big primates". Humans seem to act the same way. We know what's right, and that knowledge is enforced by the group.

[BurtWorm]

28. It stands to reason that if we have a natural sense of right and wrong

and we get an external command to alter it--by giving different weights to crimes than we would ourselves, e.g., imposing heavier fines for stealing from the wealthy than for stealing from the poor--our unadulterated moral sense becomes adulterated.

We all have different moral senses owing to our different perspectives. We may agree, more or less, on certain not too fine points, like, murdering people at random is wrong. But a lot of morality revolves around finer points than that. Anarchists view private property as theft; Libertarians think of tax on private property as theft. They agree that theft is wrong, but they disagree about which kind of "theft" is worse.

Along comes a religion or a legislature to instruct or adjudge that neither property *nor* tax is theft. Are religion and government correct? Is their morality superior to that of the anarchist or Libertarian? Or do they merely offer a mechanics for compromising to enable society to function? If you give it just a little thought, it's very difficult not to conclude that, as you suggest, the bigger apes win. But this doesn't mean that the bigger apes have a better morality. Their morality is just as contingent as anyone else's. This goes for religious morality as well as legislated morality.

It's also becoming more and more evident that religious morality is losing its power to legislated morality, by virtue of the fact that relgion no longer controls the means of punishment. Thank goodness, I hasten to add!

[Jim__]

31. Yes, we have a natural sense of right and wrong.

That sense is refined by the society we live in. Religious, cultural, and civil rules all factor into our ultimate reality. We also, apparently, have an inherent sense of language and grammar, but the language we wind up speaking is determined by the society we live in.

[Why Syzygy]

32. Humanity has

a deep dark side too.

[DeSwiss]

24. The problem with your scenario.....

...is that based upon it's history, religion has shown that it doesn't know when nor where to stop. That's why we ended up with all those Crusades and The Inquisition. And I'd also say that your point on the relative effectiveness of our moral sensibility versus the church's is unwarranted given that we've never had a chance to try it out as a replacement for their obviously warped and insufficient system. I think that they've already been allowed to killed enough people trying to impose their vision of peace and morality.

The Spanish Inquisition lasted from 1478 until 1834 and caused the deaths of millions.
The Crusades lasted nearly 200 years and caused the deaths of millions, both Christians and Muslims.
The First Crusade : 1096 to 1099
The Second Crusade : 1147 to 1149
The Third Crusade : 1189 to 1192
The Fourth Crusade : 1201 to 1204
The Fifth Crusade : 1218 to 1221
The Sixth Crusade : 1228 to 1229
The Seventh Crusade : 1248 to 1254
The Eighth Crusade : 1270
In 1212 what became known as the Children’s Crusade also occurred
And the bible itself is replete with mass killings by Yahweh and his cohorts and authorized Hit-Angels.

And where's the morality of imposing its religious views inside a woman's doctor's office, where its views interfere with her doctor's medical skill and recommendations to her for the betterment of her health? Where's the morality of telling people in Africa not to use condoms because having sex with a condom on is a sin. And then those people contract AIDS. How's that for moral? And what of the morality of sticking their religious noses inside of people's bedrooms, telling them not only how but whether to? And then there's the case where they recently excommunicated a nine-year old girl because she was raped by her step-father and had an abortion. And this you call moral?

Oh, and let's not forget all of those raped little boys and girls held in their care for all these decades -- maybe centuries. Probably centuries. Yeah, religion is really moral.

No, I'm not for giving religion any more power, but less. A lot less. Almost none.

- Okay, none.

on edit: spelling

[Jim__]

27. And the problem with your scenario is that you're talking about war.

War is a human problem - it also appears to be a problem with some primates, e.g. chimps. It's also not a moral problem, per se, because morality mostly deals with living within a group. Civilization should help us expand the boundaries of our group, and thus morality comes to apply to more and more people. But, our recent bombing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan clearly demonstrate that we are not quite that civilized yet.

As to the other moral problems, I'm not arguing that religion is necessarily correct in its moral judgement. Most cultures adhere to certain moral rules, those that didn't adhere to these rules, didn't survive. But, most cultures also have rules that are extrinsic to the survival function of morality. Religions have these rules too. Religion is generally a part of culture and tends to enforce cultural rules.

I didn't say anything about giving religion more power. I'm also not trying to justify any religious stance. I'm talking about a function of religion. I'm not talking about what should be, I'm talking about what is. And religion definitely factors into moral behavior.

[DeSwiss]

29. Apparently you didn't read my post. It's not just about WAR. n/t

[Jim__]

30. I also responded to the other parts of your post - n/t

[DeSwiss]

33. Ah, but The Church's wars are not just any wars though.

And the problem with your scenario is that you're talking about war. War is a human problem - it also appears to be a problem with some primates, e.g. chimps. It's also not a moral problem, per se, because morality mostly deals with living within a group. Civilization should help us expand the boundaries of our group, and thus morality comes to apply to more and more people. But, our recent bombing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan clearly demonstrate that we are not quite that civilized yet.

The kind of war(s) that you're referring here, are those of conquest for "things." Gold, silver, jewels, silks, fertile lands, sources of water and other forms of wealth. And it is true that humans have always fought each other over these things. The Church meanwhile has instigated wars for ideas. Their ideas. They've sanctioned killing in god's name. They've sanctioned torture in god's name. And I have no doubt that they'd still be doing this TODAY -- if we let them. And that, I contend, is much more dangerous.

As to the other moral problems, I'm not arguing that religion is necessarily correct in its moral judgement. Most cultures adhere to certain moral rules, those that didn't adhere to these rules, didn't survive. But, most cultures also have rules that are extrinsic to the survival function of morality. Religions have these rules too. Religion is generally a part of culture and tends to enforce cultural rules.

There might have been a time when the Church served a useful purpose in helping to civilize humanity -- in some ways (and made them much worse and uncivil in others). But those days are long since past. Once The Church began to intimately involved itself in people's lives at the level that it has (and in some cases still does), in determining the degree of societal approval an individual will be granted based their adherence to The Church's laws and dictates, then those "other moral problems" pale into insignificance by contrast.

I didn't say anything about giving religion more power. I'm also not trying to justify any religious stance. I'm talking about a function of religion. I'm not talking about what should be, I'm talking about what is. And religion definitely factors into moral behavior.

Your point initially seemed to suggest that you're not convinced or at least doubt that a human institution or secular-based morality would be sufficient, as opposed to what The Church has developed over these many years. And yet religion's purpose today seems little more than to continue to darken the stark lines of humanity's divisions. So I take the exact opposite view. However, if that was not what you meant, then please forgive my misinterpretation of your meaning. Personally I can't see how a secular-derived morality can be any worse than what we have now.

I contend that all The Church has become now, is an anachronism. And they've been stuck at anachronism for a long, long time. And I think that it does much more harm than good. It's involvement in the world of poverty comes with the implicit understanding to the recipients of its largess, that they should become a believer in their particular brand of religious fairy tale. Its desire to help educate, also means indoctrination into a belief system that runs counter to the laws of physics and reality. And its "concern for children," must be measured along side their "acts against children." This is a true way to measure The Church's morality.

And I think that it's long past the time that it should be made to pay it's own way. They need to get the off the welfare we are all made to pay them, in the form of tax-exemptions. People have been tolerant of religion because it has been with the understanding that it was to remain separate from our secular lives. And while lip-service to this idea has been given by The Church in the past, not any more. Now they blatantly stick their religious noses into people's civil lives. And that needs to stop. But we can't expect them to stop of their own accords. Can we?

- It's my position that The Church serves few if any useful purpose(s) that cannot otherwise be duplicated by the secular world. And please forgive my strident tone, because I'm usually a lot better in control. But The Church needs to be put into its proper place (outside of any impact upon my life), and I find myself tending toward the hyperbolic whenever the word "CHURCH" is mentioned in the same sentence with the word: "MORALITY."

[Jim__]

35. Actually, religious wars are just any wars.

Religious wars are generally fought for the same reasons any wars are fought: power and the control of resources. Most wars have justifications other than a power grab by the powerful; but accruing more power for, say the king, is not particularly inspirational to the people who have to fight the war, so there is usually some idealistic justification. But dig a little, and there's a grab for power and/or resources involved.

Whether or not religion is an anachronism is of little interest to me. The acceptance of religion is so widespread that it is hard to believe that it is not fulfilling some human need. If we get rid of religion, it will be replaced by something, something quite similar.

[Towlie]

10. Wrong! They use whatever they need an excuse to do to define the moral stance of their religion.

"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." - Steven Weinberg

[Meshuga]

16. I guess it depends on what is meant by "holding religion in high esteem"

I would not hold religion to high esteem as to assume that a religious person or institution is automatically moral because of religious teachings. But I would personally hold my religion in enough high esteem when using as a way to stay on track as far as being a good person otherwise I would not choose it as a guide. I am aware that there are other religious and secular ways of achieving the same but I choose this approach as a guide since I feel that it works for me. And I am also aware that my guide should not be automatically held in high esteem by others as people have their own approaches. My religion is useful to me and I am sure that there are things out there that are not useful to me but useful to others.

Religion is a tool and it has many uses for good and for evil. Whether it is useful or not also depends on how people use it. As far as Christianity, I am not a Christian but as an outsider I perceive different "Christianities" existing as opposed to one. On one side there is a Christianity where Christians accept Christ in order to be forgiven for the attrocities they commit (so they don't care how moral they are as long as they accept Jesus for salvation) and on the other side there is the Christianity as a system of values a Christian lives by with the intention of becoming a better person. And I am sure there are other uses of Christianity for Christians in between those two.

[BurtWorm]

17. Judaism is an interesting case, as far as religions go.

Weinberg talks about the difference between Judaism and Hinduism, which stress rules for living on this earth, and Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, which, he says, primarily posit theories about the universe. He says he has no argument with religions that concern themselves mostly with behavior and ethics, even though his own standards for behavior are different in many ways. It's the ones that purport to be the final word about all that is that he has an argument with because his work is all about getting at the truth.

You're quite right to talk about different Christianities. Wouldn't you say there are different Judaisms, as well? Just yesterday I saw a trailer on 125th Street and 5th Avenue in Harlem with the Lubavitcher Rebbe's face on it and the phrase "Mobile Sukkat Shelter" (or something to that effect) in English and (I presume) Hebrew on the side. It was across the street from Solomon's Temple, which I believe is an African-American congregation that sees itself as Jewish--maybe even as "real" Jewish. On Rosh Hashanah, I saw a young man going to the temple carrying a shofar. I wondered if the Lubavitchers were parking themselves near the temple because they believe the Rebbe is the Messiah and they want to convince the Solomonites (if they can be called that) to believe that as well. Granted, I'm speculating from afar. I could be totally wrong on all counts. But if true, it's a fascinating development.

[Meshuga]

20. You are right

There different Judaisms and that was always the case through history.

And yes, chabad is our version of the evangelicals. Some of these guys see the Rebbe as the messiah and attribute miracles to him and all. It is interesting to watch the propaganda effort towards raising the rebbe to that level. You can see how it all begins for a divine person to come to life.

Their willingness to proselytize depends on whether they consider the person Jewish. If they have their mitzvah mobile going to an African American congregation that means they consider the members of that congregation Jewish. Which is interesting since they have a hard time considering some of the Jewish members of non-orthodox congregations as being authentically Jewish.

Their approach to Judaism is different than what I have been taught and it is interesting (and painful at the same time) to learn how an ultra-orthodox kid is raised. There is an excellent book by Shalom Auslander called "Foreskin's Lament: A Memoir" about his life growing up in a Jewish Orthodox community. It is a funny book but very dark comedy given the fact that he had to live through that and that he is still affected by the way he was raised.

[BurtWorm]

21. I actually read Foreskin's Lament last summer, It is indeed hilarious and horrifying at once.

"Good one, God."

;-)

[Meshuga]

22. I loved that book

Anything negative that happens to me now I say to my wife, "That was so God!" :-)

I wonder how many people stick a "Fuck you!" note to God in the Western Wall and then fight with the guard when trying to get it back after having some regrets. :rofl:

Now I don't remember if God kills his grandma because of that or kept her alive just to mess with him. But yes, hilarious and horrifying at once

[BurtWorm]

23. The poor guy!

God fucked him up but good!

It's very kind of him to let us laugh at his misfortunes. :rofl:

[laconicsax]

18. When something has been billed as the source of morality for centuries,

people start believing it. Since most things we view as moral can still be supported through scripture, people keep believing it. That, and religion is given an automatic respect for no good reason.

[ZombieHorde]

19. K&R Thanks for posting. nt

[Why Syzygy]

25. That sounds like

a rational conclusion. Never thought about it just that way.

[iris27]

34. That is absolutely my personal experience, which eventually led me to the same

conclusion as Weinberg.

When my personal sense of right and wrong conflicted with Biblical morality as I'd been taught it (I didn't believe women should be subject to men, and didn't think homosexuality was wrong), I started in-depth Bible study, trying to find some sort of consistent line of morality that I could follow. Most Christians believe that specific directions given in the Old Testament don't have to be followed, only those that are repeated in the New Testament. But the stuff about women is all in the New Testament, along with condemnations of homosexuality. There are denominations of Christianity who read the Bible different ways to end up with the same moral code that I have, mostly by placing the passages within their historical context and saying they don't apply to the present day, but this seemed too wishy-washy for me. How did they decide when something in the NT applied to us today and when it didn't? It was the beginning of the end for me, as I studied more and more, and my faith slipped further and further away, until all I was left with was the moral code I had begun with, and no religious beliefs to either support or oppose it.