Comic Genesis Forums

This has been on my mind for quite a while now: Are morals and religion inseperable, or are they perfectly capable of existing independantly of one another?

It is my opinion that the two are completely different, and are found apart just as often as they are together. I'm an agnostic, mainly because I'm fed up with organized religion (Islam and Catholicism being the two worst examples), and I still consider myself to be a somewhat moral person, and I know that religious matters have caused a great deal of hurt in history, but I also know that a lot of religious people really do have kind hearts.

Any thoughts?

IMHO, I think that religion through the ages, despite the negative things throughout history has given most people a basis for their morals. I think it is possibable for someone to live by what they believe are morals but not believe in any one particular religion.

I also think that weather any particular person is 'moral' or not is based on that person's point of view which complicates the issue.

I think it was Socretes that said it...

'Ethics is doing things that are right because they are right, not from fear of the law."

Or something like that. But definatly along the lines that there's two reasons for doing whats right - Because you know that its the right thing is one. The other is for fear of being punished if you do otherwise.

Civil law deals with how people live in life. Religious law deals with what happens afterward, to the 'immortal soul', but since that's decided when you're alive...

Yes, they are seperate, morals and religion. My morals, while may share the same source and be similar to many Christian morals (In theory, at least.), do not derive directly from Christianity. I do what I feel is right not because I fear breaking civil or religious law, but because it is considered the right thing to do. And nobody can seriously argue that at the very least, Christianity has played a major part in making the 'Wests' morals.

At the same time, I'm weird. I see things differently. I don't need a reason beyond 'Its right.' I may wonder why its right, or who says its right, but unless I'm activly questioning something, I don't care why or how its right. It just is.

Alot of people need a justification, a reason. So they turn to someone who claims that he isn't the source of whats right, but he knows Someone who is. That Person, Being a perfect Being, is unassailable, and His word is Law and Truth.

That's my viewpoint anyhow, and since I'm not a perfect being (I am not female), I could be wrong.

Now, change the question a bit, and it becomes alot murkier for me to discern even a truth, not the Truth.

'Are Morals and Belief seperate, or do they come hand in hand?'

Ideally, I think religions should/are intended to say "this is an acceptable set of morals; following them will more or less do you well." Most religions have started out as someone preaching a certain set of values, but develop over time away from just "reccommended reading" to what we currently think of as "organized religion."

I think truly intelligent people should not need a religion to tell them what their morals should be. This is not to say that all who currently follow some religion are morons, because "organized religions" nowadays provide more than just your basic "hey... these are good things to live by," but I believe everyone should decide for themselves what their moral values are, and if they find a religion that agrees, good for them.

Clearly, morals and religion are separable, or every atheist would be antisocial. They're not, obviously. Most religions, as I said, started out as someone trying to spread what they thought at the time were good moral values. Why should people bother to adhere to them though? God said so, and a religious dogma got tacked on to the moral message.

I most of the deeply religious people throughout history that I respect and/or are generally thought of as "good/great people," were not this way because they followed a particular religion, because there are many more people of those religions doing immoral, evil, antisocial things. I think it was that those people latched on to the messages of faith AND morality in their respective religions, and discarded most of the dogma. That, I think, is why Hindu Ghandi was starving himself in pursuit of Indian independence while Hindus violently clashed with Muslims in Pakistan/Bangladesh... Ghandi took morality and faith from Hinduism, and discarded, for the most part, the techincalities of its dogma, while those commiting violence, though they may have taken some morals or faith, didn't realize that morals not only can, but should be separated from religion.

Obviously, there are more examples than Ghandi, but it's late, I like Ghandi, and I'm going to bed.

Edit: Morals are beliefs about ethics. If you refuse to believe anything, you will not be able to justify havingmorals, and will be a hypocrite if you do.

Beliefs can be beliefs about anything. (Killing innocents is wrong / men are hot) Morals we usually try to justify (Why is it wrong to kill innocents?). Beliefs, depending on what you believe (men are hot/ in God) may or may not be up for attempts to justify.

All humanity shares a certain basic set of morals. We all know some things are wrong, though we all try to invent exceptions to the rules to fit our own desires. That we make up reasons why we commit certain acts is evidence that we know we should not have.

Where did this universal human moral template originate? I personally believe God coded it into us along with smiling when we are happy and crying when we are sad, but you are perfectly free to dismiss that as "religion".

UncleMonty wrote:All humanity shares a certain basic set of morals. We all know some things are wrong, though we all try to invent exceptions to the rules to fit our own desires. That we make up reasons why we commit certain acts is evidence that we know we should not have.

Where did this universal human moral template originate? I personally believe God coded it into us along with smiling when we are happy and crying when we are sad, but you are perfectly free to dismiss that as "religion".

There is no universally accept code of ethics. What some people think is evil, some think is needed.

It is human nature (We can call it the Babylonic Nature) that if you get three people in the room, you're going to have four or five opinions.

In my personal opinion....

I do not think one needs organised religion to be moral at all.

(Most things in life can and are often misused by people in horrible ways... religion being one of the worst.

(After all if you have Permission to do Anything from the Creator of the Universe then who can disagree ?)

Personally I tend to think (My having a christian background) that anything beyond the 10 commandments is window dressing added by people for their own purposes. (IE check out the number of hugely wealthy and politically powerfull Organised Religions in the world...collecting mansions and money while the poor starve)

But what is religion about, really? It's about spiritual salvation, not morality. Forgive my ignorance, but isn't it true that getting into heaven requires faith in Christ, not a clean conscience?

Doink wrote:But what is religion about, really? It's about spiritual salvation, not morality. Forgive my ignorance, but isn't it true that getting into heaven requires faith in Christ, not a clean conscience?

Actually, it kind of requires both. The Christian (or maybe it's just Catholic, I'm not sure) view point is that you must accept that Jesus is your salvation AND you must not have any sins on your soul before you die. Hence, you must confess your sins and be forgiven in order to get into heaven, no matter how strong your faith in Christ is. That's why one of the Sacriments is called Last Rites. It's basically a priest coming to your death bed so you can confess and be forgiven before you die. Wow, all those years of CCD actually did teach me something.

As to the topic at hand, morals and religion are separate, but not completely. No, you don't have to be religious to lead a moral life or have good morality to be religious. Just look at the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition for proof there. However, as stated before, most of our (meaning Western) morals do derive from the Jewish and Christian precepts set down in the Old and New Testiments. Basically, that sense of right and wrong is passed down from parents to children whether it is wrapped in the religious teachings or not. It's just how we were taught, is all.

- Mjolnir

Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but through me." He never said anything about which church one had to attend to get to him.

Even if Dante consigned the "virtuous heathens" to hell, I don't personally believe that a 14th-century Italian poet is the ultimate arbiter on the construction of the afterlife (personally, I think CS Lewis' vision from THE GREAT DIVORCE is much closer to the truth). No one who lived an upright life would be kept out of heaven.

I am reminded of an old Hindu tale, about an atheist who was determined to prove that the Gods were unnecessary propositions. He devoted his life both to doing good and charitable works and to debating the existence of the Gods; he intended to make himself living proof that a belief in Them was unnecessary for living a virtuous life. When he got to the afterlife, the Gods Themselves welcomed him, and explained that despite his nonbelief in Them, his charity and goodness meant that he had been doing Their work all along.

Or take the last book of Lewis's CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, with Aslan explaining the difference between him and the deity Tash: (forgive the paraphrase) "No service which is good is truly done in his name, even by those who claim to serve him, and every evil deed, even those done in my name, are accepted by him as offerings. And when the virtuous followers of Tash pray, it is Aslan who hears them."

You can't do an evil deed in the name of Good, nor can you do a good deed in the name of an evil cause. Whatever mysterious Forces run the universe, They know which side your heart is really on.

Religion, at least as far as Christianity is concerned, is about one single goal:

Reconciling the Human Race (or as much of it as possible) to God, the Creator.

From this one, singular goal, all the rest of it follows as derivative. The rules are to help everyone 'play together nicely' and keep social problems from arising.

And about the issue of organized religion used to puppeteer people, bear in mind that when that happens it is usually because the people don't bother to actually look at the source. If people had actually been able to read the Bible and took a critical eye toward the actions of their leaders in the dark ages, then things would likely have gone much better than they did.

What establishes a moral position as right or wrong? What gives it authority?

That is a question that cannot be universally answered.

For some it is God, for others logic, some gut feeling.

Narnian wrote:What establishes a moral position as right or wrong? What gives it authority?

The perceptions of those involved. There is no absolute, really.

- Mjolnir

Mjolnir wrote:

Narnian wrote:What establishes a moral position as right or wrong? What gives it authority?

The perceptions of those involved. There is no absolute, really.

Then how can we say it was wrong for the 9/11 attackers to do what they did?

Gengar003 wrote:That is a question that cannot be universally answered.

For some it is God, for others logic, some gut feeling.

OK, say I have a gut feeling child rape is right. Does that make it morally acceptable?

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Okay, let's see here:

Jacob Bar Joseph wrote:Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

And just making sure, that word "religion" used in Greek is "threskeia" = ceremonial observance, religion, worshipping

Confirming:

Dictionary.com wrote:religion - n.
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

In which atheism, agnosticism, and even communism (the State is everything) would also be considered religions.


Going back to what Jacob said on being "unspotted from the world", that relates to the shunning of evil. How do we know evil from good? By reading the instructions God left us in the Bible.

Christianity is much more than a religion, it's a relationship with God.


Now, what authority does a moral standard have in and of itself?

For that we look back and see the examples of going against that standard.

Let's look at a simple one:

YHWH wrote:Remember the Shabbath Day, to keep it set apart. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work, But the seventh day is the Shabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates, For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Shabbath day, and sanctified it.

This might sound strict and legalistic, but later on you'll see that this command allows for emergencies and other exceptions, such as the ministers, who, by definition, work on the 7th day.

The underlying order here is to work 6 days and rest on the 7th (not necessarily on Sunday, so if you work regularly on Sunday, you would have any 1 day of the rest of the week to rest.

The definition of "work" will very likely be debated now, but in the meantime, let's consider this:

Suppose you say, "Bah, I can make more money by working non-stop through the week," and you do so.

The atheists of the French Revolution, in an attempt to throw out from their lives anything that was a reminder of God, decided to eliminate the 7 day week and instituted a 10 day week, called "decade", in which you work 9 days and rest on the 10th. Sounded fine on paper, but a month or two later of this practice led to people and animals fainting on the streets.

You have a set biorrhythm which allows you to make a living and still take time to be in God's presence (that's one reason for the Shabbath). If you ignore this, then you are very much endangering your health, and if you still continue that way, then you are endangering your life.

God put all those guidelines in the Bible, not to annoy us or to stop us from having fun (he he, God likes parties, did you know that?), but to make sure we don't kill ourselves.



All this will very likely spark more discussion and debate, so remember, we're all intelligent people here, so we can do this logically and rationally.


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

Narnian wrote:

Mjolnir wrote:

Narnian wrote:What establishes a moral position as right or wrong? What gives it authority?

The perceptions of those involved. There is no absolute, really.

Then how can we say it was wrong for the 9/11 attackers to do what they did?

We can, because to us, killing (what we percieve as) innocent people over religious/cultural differences is absurd, selfish, and borderline, if not overly, evil.

Obviously, it wasn't wrong to those who did it, or they'd a.) not have done it, and b.) not have been cheered the world over.

Narnian wrote:

Gengar003 wrote:That is a question that cannot be universally answered.

For some it is God, for others logic, some gut feeling.

OK, say I have a gut feeling child rape is right. Does that make it morally acceptable?

To you, yes. To (most of) the rest of society, no.

There is no universally applicable set of moral standards by which to judge people. What repulses one person might be perfectly okay to another.

I think it is immoral to have to wait for more comics

I think the real difference is the goals of your actions. Many religions (but not all) concentrate on rewards or punishments of your life after death (heaven/hell or reincarnation or rank in some sort of soup of souls). "Non-religious" ways of thought like humanists go on about the good to society. Some people just convcentrate on the health of your soul and emotions and psycological health (doing good is healthy for your soul). Some view this world as just a bad situation we are all stuck in and we might as well make life as comfortable as possible while we are here.

I like to keep all options open so I am not surprised or disapointed when I find out the truth. Because of this, I refuse to establish what the afterlife will be or if it exists. There seems to be lots of proof that there is an afterlife but none of it is definative. The vaugue details of the afterlife in the various religious texts could be all analogy or mearly the thinking of the day when that part was written. Because of this, I do not use "heaven" as a goal or "hell" as potential punishment. Just about everyone will agree to "the golden rule" (do to others as you would like them to do to you) which works for me. Unlike most people, I make "others" to include more then just people but include organizations and companies and governments and nationalities and other lifeforms... and treat them as I think they would like me to treat them. The question seems to be "but why do you do that". Some of those reasons I mentioned in the top paragraph could apply (including be more likely to be accepted in the better forms of the afterlife as detailed in the various religions) but I think there is another reason that takes precidence... if I look in the mirror, I see a being that could be anyone else. If I love this being I have to love all those other beings who, like me, love themselves. I am not sure how to put it in a better way... maybe I could say that I only exist if there are others that exist and precieve me so I have to take care of those others to make sure I continue to exist... that still is not quite it... you cannot play chess with one game piece... no that analogy does not quite work