Disrespecting Your Religion. Part One – Where Your Morals come from?
First time when I heard the Carl Marx famous quote “Religion is the opium of the masses”, it makes me awfully angry. For my excuse, I was a teenager back then and just like any teenager, it didn’t take much to make me angry. I thought “if there is no religion, then where our moral come from? How arrogant Carl Marxx was”. I was actually felt insulted he (and his followers, including JVP back then) not believing in the same values that I have brought up with. My Religion is the ultimate good of all things.
But later I came across the question, are we good because of our religion?
When every time we talk about Sri Lanka, majority of people who happened to be Buddhist, bring up the impotency of Buddhist Culture we been having for past couple of thousand years and how that make Sri Lanka the wonderful country it is today and how terrible it used to be before Buddhism was introduced.
This is a common argument every religion make. Without their religion, the world will be immoral terrible place. And immediately after that statement, they claim the exclusive copyright of my morals. That is where fun starts. Some religions start to sell their moral value with discount prices while some give it away with numerous financial incentives. Some take more radical approach and fly planes in to buildings and that sort of things. While We Sri Lankans take kind of deferent approach; and typically use identity and cultural blackmailing, with occasional vandalism.
The story says when the son of Emperor Ashoka, Mahinda, introduced religion to Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan king, Tissa was chasing after a deer like a hungry dog. It is quite possible the king was engaged in recreational hunting that day, taking the advantage of moon light. But I don’t think the king was running after a deer quite desperately like the story tries to paint it out. I’m absolutely sure Tissa knew no humans able to outrun a deer and no hunter can shoot while running. So when next time a monk say this story, just before he go and have lunch with rice and curry chicken, I want to tell the monk, “no, it is not terribly immoral thing for a king to engage in recreational hunting”. After all King Tissa must be very athletic, with extra time on his hand and quite safe country for him to run around, which is the kind of moral I would desperately like to see in our current leaders.
The story does not mention anything immoral like killing first born babies, raping virgins, or killing children. So I assume, Sri Lankans were very intelligent and moral people even in the absence of Buddhism, and Buddhism have nothing to do with you not killing your neighbor or not raping your sister today.
Next comes the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments. After Jews follows Moses, his long difficult journey, Lord gave Moses the Ten human moral guidelines, at the Mount Sinai. Jew’s book was not good enough for Christians, so later they wrote down a deferent book, but regardless of the book, they all consider without those Lord’s guidelines; the whole world will be immoral terrible place. If that is the case, before Ten Commandments was given by the Lord, in the absent of religious moral guidelines, those followers of Moss’s should have been some sort of rapist, raping each other's daughters, killing their neighbors while performing adultery. But I do not believe possibly that is the case. If they were immoral in the absent of religious guidelines, none will be able to make that long difficult journey.
So it is impossible to buy the argument judaeo-christians are some sort of immoral group of people that we all have to be extremely careful of, because in the absence of their religious guidelines, they all may burst in to some sort of murders.
Not only Judaism, and Christianity, Islam also comes with good set of moral values. Respect your parents, do not kill your children, do not commit adultery, be honest, etc.. I do agree they are extremely good morals we all would like to seen in a person. I’m willing to bet my house on, in an absent of Quran, none of my Muslim friends will not turn in to some sort of immoral, child killing, dishonest adulteress. Because I know for sure they are not that sort of people. They all have sense of morality and responsibility by nature.
It is not only humorous, but also humiliating, when those religious leaders suggest our morals come from religions and in the absence of it, we all will turn in to immoral bunch. In reality, even those most extreme religious leaders, careful enough to pick most suitable teachings from their books and even after that, interpret according to current situation. As an example, no religious leader with a bit of a commonsense will not say anything remotely appealing to slavery or raping virgins, no matter how much of those are encouraged by their religions, because we are the society have better sense of morality than the one in those old religious books. There is nothing wrong with they pick and choose from their books and ignore large some of text in that process.. Matter of fact, I’m quite happy they do that.
Then where does moral come from?
Humans have very delicate physical body without any sort of inbuilt protection mechanism. We have no venom, no long teeth, and no long nails or no camouflage. But we do have advantage in large collective numbers with strong connection. We care for each other. We feel extremely uncomfortable in absence of other humans around us. We have empathy. We help others in danger. We try not to break away from our social pack. We know without the protection of the pack, we cannot survive in this world or any other. We do understand that. Also we understand for us to receive that protection and accept in to the pack, we have to follow set of social responsibilities, call morals.
As technology advances, our pack expands beyond families, countries and continent and we help and protect each other. Not only humans, now we know, we must care about environment too, for us to survive. That makes our moral values expand beyond human species, to other species and even in to every bit of nature.
Bottom line is, you did not jump over to your neighbor’s house today and kill the whole family not because your religion told you not to do so, because you are by nature a good human being.
In a future post, I will try to write, how religion (no matter what religon it is) could make you jump over to your neighbor’s house and kill the whole family tomorrow. Unitl then, be a good.
But later I came across the question, are we good because of our religion?
When every time we talk about Sri Lanka, majority of people who happened to be Buddhist, bring up the impotency of Buddhist Culture we been having for past couple of thousand years and how that make Sri Lanka the wonderful country it is today and how terrible it used to be before Buddhism was introduced.
This is a common argument every religion make. Without their religion, the world will be immoral terrible place. And immediately after that statement, they claim the exclusive copyright of my morals. That is where fun starts. Some religions start to sell their moral value with discount prices while some give it away with numerous financial incentives. Some take more radical approach and fly planes in to buildings and that sort of things. While We Sri Lankans take kind of deferent approach; and typically use identity and cultural blackmailing, with occasional vandalism.
The story says when the son of Emperor Ashoka, Mahinda, introduced religion to Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan king, Tissa was chasing after a deer like a hungry dog. It is quite possible the king was engaged in recreational hunting that day, taking the advantage of moon light. But I don’t think the king was running after a deer quite desperately like the story tries to paint it out. I’m absolutely sure Tissa knew no humans able to outrun a deer and no hunter can shoot while running. So when next time a monk say this story, just before he go and have lunch with rice and curry chicken, I want to tell the monk, “no, it is not terribly immoral thing for a king to engage in recreational hunting”. After all King Tissa must be very athletic, with extra time on his hand and quite safe country for him to run around, which is the kind of moral I would desperately like to see in our current leaders.
The story does not mention anything immoral like killing first born babies, raping virgins, or killing children. So I assume, Sri Lankans were very intelligent and moral people even in the absence of Buddhism, and Buddhism have nothing to do with you not killing your neighbor or not raping your sister today.
Next comes the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments. After Jews follows Moses, his long difficult journey, Lord gave Moses the Ten human moral guidelines, at the Mount Sinai. Jew’s book was not good enough for Christians, so later they wrote down a deferent book, but regardless of the book, they all consider without those Lord’s guidelines; the whole world will be immoral terrible place. If that is the case, before Ten Commandments was given by the Lord, in the absent of religious moral guidelines, those followers of Moss’s should have been some sort of rapist, raping each other's daughters, killing their neighbors while performing adultery. But I do not believe possibly that is the case. If they were immoral in the absent of religious guidelines, none will be able to make that long difficult journey.
So it is impossible to buy the argument judaeo-christians are some sort of immoral group of people that we all have to be extremely careful of, because in the absence of their religious guidelines, they all may burst in to some sort of murders.
Not only Judaism, and Christianity, Islam also comes with good set of moral values. Respect your parents, do not kill your children, do not commit adultery, be honest, etc.. I do agree they are extremely good morals we all would like to seen in a person. I’m willing to bet my house on, in an absent of Quran, none of my Muslim friends will not turn in to some sort of immoral, child killing, dishonest adulteress. Because I know for sure they are not that sort of people. They all have sense of morality and responsibility by nature.
It is not only humorous, but also humiliating, when those religious leaders suggest our morals come from religions and in the absence of it, we all will turn in to immoral bunch. In reality, even those most extreme religious leaders, careful enough to pick most suitable teachings from their books and even after that, interpret according to current situation. As an example, no religious leader with a bit of a commonsense will not say anything remotely appealing to slavery or raping virgins, no matter how much of those are encouraged by their religions, because we are the society have better sense of morality than the one in those old religious books. There is nothing wrong with they pick and choose from their books and ignore large some of text in that process.. Matter of fact, I’m quite happy they do that.
Then where does moral come from?
Humans have very delicate physical body without any sort of inbuilt protection mechanism. We have no venom, no long teeth, and no long nails or no camouflage. But we do have advantage in large collective numbers with strong connection. We care for each other. We feel extremely uncomfortable in absence of other humans around us. We have empathy. We help others in danger. We try not to break away from our social pack. We know without the protection of the pack, we cannot survive in this world or any other. We do understand that. Also we understand for us to receive that protection and accept in to the pack, we have to follow set of social responsibilities, call morals.
As technology advances, our pack expands beyond families, countries and continent and we help and protect each other. Not only humans, now we know, we must care about environment too, for us to survive. That makes our moral values expand beyond human species, to other species and even in to every bit of nature.
Bottom line is, you did not jump over to your neighbor’s house today and kill the whole family not because your religion told you not to do so, because you are by nature a good human being.
In a future post, I will try to write, how religion (no matter what religon it is) could make you jump over to your neighbor’s house and kill the whole family tomorrow. Unitl then, be a good.
Labels: Religion
posted by Sam at
1:02 AM
13 Comments:
That was an interesting post. However, I have a few responses since this is one of my pet subjects.
Have a look at this article if you have the time.
1. You assume that manifestation of immorality will occur in the extreme. i.e. child molesting, raping, pillaging etc
This hardly needs to be the case. A move away from religious fundamentals can merely result in less altruistic behaviour and a breakdown in blanket morality (the need to be good all the time) over time.
2. Even if we are to look at extremes, a simple example of the Roman ethic will solve your problem
Prior to Judaeo-Christian influences, the Roman system of ethics was notoriously brutal. Raping, pillaging and murdering non-citizens was considered to be acceptable because these people were essentially regarded as non-human.
It was the Judaeo-Christian sense of morality that changed all that and eventually, centuries later, led to the abolition of slavery.
3. The nexus between morality and survival
There are serious questions being asked as to what the true connection between morality and survival is. If behaving in a predominantly good manner is due to our inherently good nature, why does anarchy ensue immediately after the break down of law and order. People loot, rape and murder the moment law enforcement ceases to operate or is not effective enough to detect crime. E.g. - riots, disasters, armed forces in enemy territory.
Human beings are obviously not entirely good and the very diverse moral responses of each individual bears testament to this fact.
In fact, if being good enhances your chances of survival in the collective, then our evolutionary response should be to become increasingly good (or better) as time goes by. This clearly does not happen.
However, human beings do engage in obvious immoral behaviour to enhance their chances of survival. E.g. - stealing a loaf of bread, war with neighbouring regions, isolated incidents of cannibalism.
So in reality, it is the combination of both morally good and bad behaviour that makes us incredibly apt at surviving. Altruism alone will get us nowhere.
Thus being good is not necessarily a survival tactic, nor is it an inherent quality. So blanket morality i.e. striving to be good all the time, is very much a concept founded on religion.
TYFR
problem with self interest =groups interest =morality argument is that this is not true in all circumstances ( though it is true to vast majority of ppl perhaps even 99%) .
there will be ppl who will find that their interest differs from society' interest.
individual interests are relative to each person and situation . no objective, absolute and universal moral values will ever be constructed out of relative interests .hence religions construct codes pretending to be such using supernatural claims ( from god to karmic cycle)
it is bad for the society if ppl start killing others to get their possessions . but if a person thinks he can get away with murder to get rich and has no other moral reference other than the sort you describe nothing should (rationally) prevent his murdering.
that we have non rational curbs( not perfect ones but real) against that is due to religions. that is why religions exist and societies invent and respect them.
-
religions btw did exist far before the current ones, the argument you use, that because ppl were not "immoral" before current religions prove that religions were not required for morality, is false that argument merely proves that current religions do not have an oligopoly on moral codes . current religions are so widespread bc they won the battle of moral codes ( with other codes, some time with violence ) as best suited to enforces the group interest for various societies .
for instance earlier religious codes would have said that a warrior/leader was entitled to control others bc he protects others and brings in the loot. this would have been bolstered by hero worship and heroic myths. such a religion will be the interest of that society even though it may not been in the interest of some member at the receiving end of "hero" but bc it was religion and not raw power that moral code was easier to enforce
but such codes will not be useful in modern society so they accept other religions based on mutual respect and love . and worship gods that preach that. but current religions may not be in the interest of some members either ( esp ppl who would have been "heros" in early society) but religion prevent most of such ppl from rationally acting on their interests.
--
what i am saying is
that societies need religions to enforce a moral codes in the interest of the society, that may not be in the rational interest of some individuals inside it. without religions and only rationalism we would have moral relativism.
that societies adapt and change the moral codes ( religions) as they change does not prove they are not needed. rather that one irrational moral code is preferred to another as requirements changes .
Sam, are you by any chance referring to something called biological altruism? (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/)
Rather soft/sentimental post by your standards :-).
Man! This going be long!
Archangel,
// You assume that manifestation of immorality will occur in the extreme. i.e. child molesting, raping, pillaging etc//
That occur in simple things like wearing makeup, girls going to school, publically showing the forehead, been a widower, shaving, using birth control, etc... too..
// Prior to Judaeo-Christian influences, the Roman system of ethics was notoriously brutal//
True. Roman morals are sometimes even as much brutal as in the medieval Christian Europe. Whenever there is a struggle for resources, we show very little empathy toward others outside the pack. These are the times religions start to have fieldtrip. Look at Iraq.
// It was the Judaeo-Christian sense of morality that changed all that and eventually, centuries later, led to the abolition of slavery.//
I’m extremely thankful to you for ignoring Leviticus 25, Exodus 21, and numerous other Judaeo-Christians teachings, when you falsely declare Judaeo-Christianity is to be credited for end of slavery.
From bottom of my heart I wish one day, you will ignore other numerous Judaeo-Christianity teachings like Leviticus 20 and stop the terrible discrimination against homosexuals too.
//People loot, rape and murder the moment law enforcement ceases to operate or is not effective enough to detect crime//
It is quite extreme and insulting to say, if policing stop, we all will bust in to some sort of rapists. There are some, indeed, always, even with policing. We saw that very well in the tragedy of tsunami. But I saw majority of humans helping other humans with tears coming out their eyes.
//Human beings are obviously not entirely good and the very diverse moral responses of each individual bears testament to this fact.//
Good is a relative concept. We cannot use the word “entirely” front of any relative concept and except to make sense at the same time. Saint Aquinas enthusiastically promotes burning non-believers. But he considers a Saint, while Bin Laden consider as a terrorist. Good is a relative concept.
// if being good enhances your chances of survival in the collective, then our evolutionary response should be to become increasingly good //
I will try to write a full post about evolution.
We define whatever helps us to survive as a species as good. We consider using condom as good, proving school education as good, gender equality as good, while all of those are consider as not good by religions. We are becoming increasingly good as a result of global communication, lack of religion and that sort of social interaction. But that have nothing to with evaluation.
// human beings do engage in obvious immoral behavior to enhance their chances of survival.//
Yes. Indeed we may steal when our pack needs those resources and also it is safe to do so. That is what make us live in a pack, in the first place. Not only for steal, also to protect. But only religion can make us engage in immoral behavior that has nothing to do with survival. I will write a detail post about that later on.
// it is the combination of both morally good and bad behavior that makes us incredibly apt at surviving//
Again, we do engage in immoral activity outside our pack and moral activity inside our pack. Whatever actions that make the pack strong, consider as moral, and whatever harm the pack as immoral.
// striving to be good all the time, is very much a concept founded on religion.//
I have nothing much to argue about the point.. That is one main characteristic of religion. But the part you intentionally forget to mention is religions wanted you to be “good”, according to their guidelines. Those religious “Good” does not always help the society. Hezbollah, FLDS are extremely religious people. But I would like to see my daughters going to school.
Me,
I’m sure your parents are extremely happy you have not done such things :)
Sittingnut,
I do accept, we all have and need a spiritual life. But spiritual life and Religious life is quite deferent from each other.
I guess I have answered most of your points too in above answer.
Humans do have individuality. But that do not mean in anyway, we don’t have common interests too. If given the choice, been rich and not belonging to a pack, or not been rich and stay inside a pack, people chose the second option. That has nothing to do with the religion. Human do need a pack to survive.
// religions btw did exist far before the current ones//
So you accept my argument. According to you, Ten Commandments have nothing to do with our morality? Am I correct?
// that is why religions exist and societies invent and respect them.//
I do not agree religions exist because of those sorts of Reasons. I was punished numerous times for not properly practicing daily religious activity in the school, that I was forced to do twice a day for 12 long years. That is in addition to the time I was force to engage in numerous other religious activities as a child, every Sunday, every evening and so may uncountable occasions. Not to mention extremely violent stories read to me since I was a baby, alone with bribes in religious events.
// current religions are so widespread bc they won the battle of moral codes//
I’m so much lucky to say they have not yet won. Hezbollah, FLDS, Taliban and all of them still have not gain any victory yet. Even Pope could not stop people using condoms. Fight still goes on. And I wish bottom of my heart, those religious people will not win the battle, because I want to see my daughters going to school.
//for instance earlier religious codes would have said that a warrior/leader was entitled to control others//
It is the warrior/leader who defines or creates the religion. Constantine defined the Christianity. Ashoka defined “Buddhist” religion. Caesar was turned in to a living God. Pharaoh turns in to living Gods. Piribaharan turn in to living reincarnation of God Vishnu.
// so they accept other religions based on mutual respect and love//
I’m eagerly waiting for till that day come.
// that societies need religions to enforce a moral codes in the interest of the society//
I have heard this line few times before. Let me recall.. hmm.. Yes. I remember. It was Taliban said this before.
Well, but in Sri Lanka and most of other societies, we have a system in name of Democracy. It is quite wonderful system.
L,
Thanks for the link. Didn’t even knew the term biological altruism. That explains why some times it makes us cry when watching movies, even though we know they are fiction.
“Whenever there is a struggle for resources, we show very little empathy toward others outside the pack. These are the times religions start to have fieldtrip. Look at Iraq.”
You are evading my point. The point being, compassion for others outside your own pack was virtually non-existent under the Roman system of ethics. It was the Judaeo-Christian sense of morality that changed all that.
“I’m extremely thankful to you for ignoring Leviticus 25, Exodus 21, and numerous other Judaeo-Christians teachings, when you falsely declare Judaeo-Christianity is to be credited for end of slavery.”
Christ’s teaching of love thy neighbour as thy self is a fundamental precept on which abolition of slavery was sought. To take a specific example, Lord William Wilberforce in Britain after many years succeeded in getting a Bill for the Abolition of Slavery passed in Parliament. His views were admittedly coloured by his faith in Christianity.
“It is quite extreme and insulting to say, if policing stop, we all will bust in to some sort of rapists. There are some, indeed, always, even with policing. We saw that very well in the tragedy of tsunami. But I saw majority of humans helping other humans with tears coming out their eyes.”
Looks like some of those tears you shed have blinded you from reality. People are essentially self-centred. The main reason people choose to be law abiding is the threat of punishment or disapproval of peers. The Tsunami is a classic example of how people commit crime with impunity when law and order breaks down. Again, you go into extremes. I am not accusing you of being a closet rapist. However, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that time and again, it has been documented that Army Personnel commit rape with impunity due to the fact that law enforcement is poor in those areas. This is certainly not an odd coincidence.
“Good is a relative concept. We cannot use the word “entirely” front of any relative concept and except to make sense at the same time. Saint Aquinas enthusiastically promotes burning non-believers. But he considers a Saint, while Bin Laden consider as a terrorist. Good is a relative concept.”
So what is your point? If you think there is hypocrisy in religious teachings, no one is prepared to refute that. But that is not what we are arguing about. My point is different. I simply argue that there is no way we can regard human beings as creatures naturally inclined to do only morally right acts and refrain from morally wrong ones. If we are to accept your absurd point on relative goodness, then there is certainly no basis for our criminal justice system.
“We define whatever helps us to survive as a species as good. We consider using condom as good, proving school education as good, gender equality as good, while all of those are consider as not good by religions. We are becoming increasingly good as a result of global communication, lack of religion and that sort of social interaction. But that have nothing to with evaluation.”
Apart from a basic contradiction, this statement makes no sense at all. Behavioural patterns consistent with survival have everything to do with evolution. You obviously don’t understand how evolution works. That aside, from where did you obtain this argument that what is consistent with survival is what we regard as good? If you believe that morality is purely based on ones natural inclinations for survival, then there is no need for good and bad or right and wrong. We simply define things as consistent and inconsistent with survival. But sadly, we don’t do that. There is a moral code which requires us to behave in a certain manner regardless of its implications on survival. What prevents us from eating our young in order to survive? (This is a common occurrence in the wild during droughts) Well, there is obviously a concept called blanket morality. And this, I argue, is founded on religious doctrine.
“We do engage in immoral activity outside our pack and moral activity inside our pack. Whatever actions that make the pack strong, consider as moral, and whatever harm the pack as immoral.”
This argument is inherently flawed. Human beings first believe in the concept of self and it is in furthering the survival of oneself that an individual works for the survival of the pack. Do not mistake us for a swarm of bees because individual autonomy is a quintessential characteristic of human beings.
Also, there is a notion called “inner morality” which a lot of jurisprudential scholars talk about. This is the concept that permits individuals to fundamentally disagree with regimes such as the Nazi regime notwithstanding the fact that such disagreement amounts to opposing the pack. If your argument is accepted, then the anti-Semitic Nazi laws were moral.
“But the part you intentionally forget to mention is religions wanted you to be “good”, according to their guidelines. Those religious “Good” does not always help the society. Hezbollah, FLDS are extremely religious people. But I would like to see my daughters going to school.”
What possible relevance does that have? If your point is that religions are inconsistent and often contradict each other, then I agree with you and there is no debate. However, you asserted that our moral base cannot be attributed to religion. This is an entirely different point, and the only one I have chosen to address.
TYFR
I will try to keep it short this time – will write a detail post later.
//It was the Judaeo-Christian sense of morality that changed all that.//
Nothing had changed. We people still fight when there is a struggle for resources. Look at Iraq.
//Christ’s teaching of love thy neighbor/
Love expands all the way up to other Christians in the same pack. Isn’t Jesus enthusiastically told the followers to bring non-believers so he can slay them? We love each other inside the pack even before Christ; we kill each other outside the pack, even after the Christ.
Indeed politician use religion as the justification in good deeds and bad deeds. But it is the western philosophers who change the mentality of the westerners, risking of been executed by the church. People like Adam Smith make the way to give up slavery in financial perspective, which is the core front of slave ownership. Eventually churches also had to give up their slaves, even though some churches in Africa still continue to own them.
again, I’m extremely happy you have pick and choose form religious teaching – that show you do have social morals and you do understand some religious teachings are not suitable for current society.
I’m keenly waiting till the Christian love expand to homosexuals too.
// People are essentially self-centred.//
I never said we are not. Moral comes from part of been self-centered.
// The main reason people choose to be law abiding is the threat of punishment or disapproval of peers.//
It is always nice to see we both have common understanding where our morals come from.
// The Tsunami is a classic example of how people commit crime with impunity when law and order breaks down.//
Again you do agree it is not religion that makes us keeping not committing crimes.
Law and order needed in a extended pack. Typically we don’t need law and order to maintain good behaviors inside small packs, starting with so call family.
// it has been documented that Army Personnel commit rape with impunity due to the fact that law enforcement is poor in those areas//
Armed forces, do worst things than Rape. Religious armed forces are the worst of all. Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, few places you can look at today..
If you know anything about armed forces, those are specially created packs. Even though they will die for fellow soldiers, they have very little empathy for anything outside their packs.
// So what is your point? If you think there is hypocrisy in religious teachings, no one is prepared to refute that.//
My point is from the beginning, Good and Bad is defined by humans. We define Good as what is good for our society at this time. We consider helping widowers are good, even though we kill them in burning fire before.
// If we are to accept your absurd point on relative goodness, then there is certainly no basis for our criminal justice system.//
There is a basis for justice system. That is call Democracy. We need that because Good is a relative concept and that change time to time. In democracy, we let people decide what is good and bad according to that time and we create or change laws. That is the base of our justice system.
// You obviously don’t understand how evolution works.//
I have to accuse you in that, I afraid. We are already developed species, just like all others around us. We already have our own behavior habits. Evaluation will not change our habits according the environment. Again, I will write more about this subject later.
// That aside, from where did you obtain this argument that what is consistent with survival is what we regard as good?//
We create words. We give meaning to them. We don’t say “good’ for Polygamy anymore, because that does not help our pack anymore. We call WWII is good a war, even though terrible it is, because it help us to survive. Tell me one single activity we consider as good, which do not help our survival.
Your argument is, “good” is something predefined by someone else than us, and definition of “good” has not and will not change.
// What prevents us from eating our young in order to survive?//
Have you ever had thoughts of eating your children when you hungry and stopped that because of your religion?
Or have you ever had feelings of having sex with your children when your partner is not around and stop that because of your religion? I dam wish not!
Reproduction is the primary goal of any animal or a plant or any other living thing. Everything, by nature designed to create and protect children.
// This is a common occurrence in the wild during droughts//
This is not true at all.
All animals do not use cannibalism as source of food, including humans.
But some animals (specially polygamists) kill their young for reduce future competition. That is a deferent story.
Still I somewhat do understand if one forces to kill a child, in order to save the rest, but I do not understand when one force to kill a child in order to prove faith.
// I argue, is founded on religious doctrine//
true. There are so many concepts in the world created by deferent people. But that don’t mean they all works.
// individual autonomy is a quintessential characteristic of human beings.//
I said before. Individuality and a pack do co-excises.
// Nazi//
Aha! Another religion. Anything you cannot question and you are force to accept predefined morals, is a religion. That including socialism. Just like how Christians slay the Muslims back then, Nazi’s kill Jews.
When a Nazi kill a Jew, he actually allow to be free in his afterlife at least. But when a Christian or Muslim or whoever kill a non-believer, they want him to burn in hell forever.
// What possible relevance does that have?//
This is a part I was actually planning to do next – “what if our morals come from religions”. If our morals come from FLDS, right now my teenage daughter married to old man. If my morals came from Hezbollah, I’m on the way to kill non-believers. If my morals come from Christianity, I’m on the way to kill homosexuals.
Religions do not contradict with each other. Only their stories do. They always have common facts, like continues surveillance, total surrender, eliminate competitors, absoluteness, etc..
I do understand your point. You are saying your mother bring you to this world as crying rapist murder, and you are not doing none of those things you inherit from your parents because you happened to find your religion in one point or another.
That you still do not convince me. So I believe, no matter how much you do not like to accept, actually your mother is credited for the fine man who you are today.
I have encountered dozens of your type. In essence, you don’t really have much to say other than “Religion is bad”. Well, to be perfectly honest, most of what you say about religion is true. But that’s not my concern. My concern is your basic lack of understanding on what purpose religion serves.
You confused convoluted cut and paste arguments with logical ones. None of your statements takes away from the fact that the only thing in existence which teaches us blanket morality is religion. Try to understand what that means. It does not mean religion is good or bad or even consistent. All it means is, human being would not find any legitimate basis to strive to be good all the time if it wasn’t for the existence of religion.
But I have another suggestion which would solve your problem once and for all.
Assume that religion is a fabrication. A hoax that is purely man-made. Now why would evolution permit us to make up something like religion? Here’s the answer:
Religion acts as a persuasive force that compels human beings to do things that are essentially consistent with survival. While human beings would probably be extinct by now if we had followed whatever religion to the dot, the fact that we have natural inclinations that drive us to do morally wrong acts (against most religious teachings) ensures that the counter-balancing force of religion brings us back towards some moral equilibrium.
i.e. to take a crude illustration, in a state of anarchy: (1) we would generally loot and steal; (2) but religion teaches us never to loot or steal; (3) so we end up looting and stealing less due to the threat of hell, a sordid reincarnation, bad karma etc; (4) and looting and stealing less in the greater scheme of things enhances the survival of the pack.
This moral equilibrium (acts that are both right and wrong) results in the perfect recipe for survival. So religion, which includes the threat of eternal damnation, wrath of the Gods etc, is in reality an evolutionary mechanism to trick us into doing morally right acts or to put it in your words, acts that contribute to the survival of the pack. That is why religion was invented (if it was in fact invented). And that is why religion is necessary.
Does this solve your problem?
TYFR
You know they are bad. But you don’t care they are bad. And you argue even though they are bad, they make moral guidelines and without those guidelines we are unable to be good to each other all the time. And you agree, those bad guys use blackmailing to do things they define as good. And you forget to mention they also occasionally chop off some heads and hands, I’m sure you not disagree with me. Let me contribute from my pocket too, while they do those sorts of things that I don’t want my kids to learn, they even help needed too. Fine. But isn’t Italian mafia illegal?
// It does not mean religion is good or bad or even consistent. All it means is, human being would not find any legitimate basis to strive to be good all the time if it wasn’t for the existence of religion.//
So you don’t say Don Corleone is bad or good. But you know he is bad. But what you say, without him, Sicilians will lose their interest in helping each other.
Religions do not make us good all the time. Religions make us surrender all the time. Once you surrender for one reason or another to religion or any other thing, they tell you what you should do, and you have to accept what you doing is good, because your master say so.. You who in Bondage; may enjoy doing what your master tells you to do (Or if you are the master, you enjoy your slaves do things you tell them to do.). That including not killing your children or flying plans in to buildings or blowing yourself up in a fruit market.
That don’t mean they make you good all the time, they only make you surrender all the time. that is deferent.
// Now why would evolution permit us to make up something like religion?//
Evolution is not a Master or some sort of a God. It does not permit anything. If evolution use religions as tool of survival, cockroaches should have an exceptional religion. And without religions, bedbugs should be extinct by now.
// While human beings would probably be extinct by now if we had followed whatever religion to the dot…//
You do agree, we have morals independent from religions, so we are able to filter religions (or any other) and select what most fit for us.
---
You mean, in the absent of law and order, Iraq could have been a bad place if they did not have religion? I’m afraid to say, in the absent of law and order, religion make Iraq the worst place it is today. Same in Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, Lebanon, so on and on. My friend, that argument is good on paper – but it is not what really happens in real life.
Not only can that, even with proper law and order, religions make worst out of any society. After so many years of struggle and development of democracy in UK, now archbishop wants to dismiss the democratic law and order and establish religious Sharia Law.
// That is why religion was invented (if it was in fact invented). And that is why religion is necessary.//
We invented religions for so many deferent reasons. Religions like Sun worship invented by farmers, while religions like Nazism, communism, Judaism invented by politicians for totally deferent reasons. Religions do indeed help the pack. Hizbullah do that in Lebanon, Hamas do that in Gaza strip, Taliban do that in Afghanistan and FLDS do that in Utah. But that do not mean it is a necessary, actually otherwise.
Very thoughtful (and thought provoking) post. Thank you very much for writing :-)
I'll be visiting again to see the next steps of this series.
most Sri Lankans are just Buddhist by birth not in morales
Anandawardhana,
I try not to “provoke” anyone by saying things like, “if you do not believe in what I tell you, you deserve capital punishment and after that you will go to hell and burn forever in dry heat”. If I ever say things like that, I will be very very terrible person. :)
Times Eye.
Institutes in Sri Lanka demand everyone to belong to a religion by birth and if not, or if belong to deferent sort of religion, government possibly refuses to provide services. For an example, none Buddhist 5 year old will be refuses to provide services for some government schools and none Muslim 5 year old will be refuses to provide services from some schools. So they were forced to do just that.
Archangel,
I make a mistake in one of above comments. “All animals do not use cannibalism as source of food, including humans.” Should be “Almost All animals do not use cannibalism as source of food, including humans.” – some animals, mainly fish, do eat anything.
In old times, in old religions hunting was an objective of religion and sometimes celebrated as a ritual. Actually the Poson Full moon was a hunting festival before Buddhism came. The Full moon has a religious significance in many old religions. In those times when farm animals are not breed hunting was necessary to nourish the tribe.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home