Religion as evolution of empirical model of morals

[trout007]

I think there is a danger with many atheists that think all that religion teaches are lies. But from an evolutionary stand point it seems that the morals that religions profess are mostly correct. I happen to believe that there is a Natural Law similar to laws of economics. If your societies laws align with these laws your society will be healthy and if you go against them you will decline. Evolution does not only act on a personal level but on societies.

 

 

I consider it similar to empirical models. There are models used in engineering that may or may not express the true phenomenon but they predict the results close enough to be used for engineering purposed. The same with most religious morals. While there may not be a scientific reason discovered yet the empirical evidence that these rules have caused these societies to survive and prosper give them weight. These should not be tossed away lightly as relics.

 

[Matt D]

I think there is a danger with many atheists that think all that religion teaches are lies. But from an evolutionary stand point it seems that the morals that religions profess are mostly correct. I happen to believe that there is a Natural Law similar to laws of economics. If your societies laws align with these laws your society will be healthy and if you go against them you will decline. Evolution does not only act on a personal level but on societies.

 

 

I consider it similar to empirical models. There are models used in engineering that may or may not express the true phenomenon but they predict the results close enough to be used for engineering purposed. The same with most religious morals. While there may not be a scientific reason discovered yet the empirical evidence that these rules have caused these societies to survive and prosper give them weight. These should not be tossed away lightly as relics.

 

I couldn't agree more. I'm finding this book, The Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark, to be very educational on the ways Christianity in particular paved the way for science, capitalism, and freedom in the West. Highly recommended reading. The "dark ages" were actually a time of great innovation and necessary experimentation centered largely around Christian monastic traditions. Unlike other religions, Christianity fostered scholarly research. The attempt was to discover the divine laws of nature in order to get closer to God. Christianity produces the first universities similar to what we still have today. 

 

What do you think, trout007 - Would the world benefit from a 'godless religion'? If so, how would it be any different than philosophy?

[DCLugi]

It's the unnecessary side effects that come with religious morals that need deleting so that the same morally healthy societies can function without the superstition.

[shirgall]

One of the most wanting skills in any society is critical evaluation of claims, especially from master manipulators like politicians.

[GuzzyBone]

Do those "side effects" exist as a result of religious morals, or in fact explicitly violate and contradict those morals.

When you see such moral hypocrisy it is entirely possible that their is an opposing corrupting influence.

I would argue that it is observable and evident that this corrupting influence has been State from the very get go.

Religion has never started a War. State, people, and groups have exploited Religion to justify War and misdeeds.

It is the value and weight of the morality contained within certain religious teachings (particularly Abrahamic) that appeals to State and Sociopaths to use as a tool to morally sanction and justify the immoral and unjustifiable.

Then State turns around and has you blame Religion, so that you never look at the gun-in-the-room and the true "Opiate of the Masses".

[Thomasio]

Are you serious?

 

Religion is the opposite of morality, has ever been, will ever be.

In old times it was topics like slavery and wars like the crusades, nowadays it's a pope that finds the use of condoms worse than spreading AIDS.

In virtually ALL cases society had to force religion into moral behavior, in all cases religion has always fought to the very last moment against it and only after religion was completely outnumbered by an overwhelming majority of moral people, religion has adopted morality.

 

The claim that morality originates in religion is one of the biggest lies I know of.

Morality exists today, despite heavy resistance from religion.

[AynRand]

I take Thomasio's side on this. I wouldn't go so far as to say in every instance religion has been on the wrong side of morality, but I will say the majority of what should be the most basic uncontroversial morals have had to been fought tooth and nail against religion. I find it incredibly hilarious when religious people claim we get morality from their respective holy books.

 

The claim that morality originates in religion is one of the biggest lies I know of.

Morality exists today, despite heavy resistance from religion.

I think that is a great line. I am curious is that from a speech or something, or did you just think of that. Either way I applaud you for most of your comment.

[Thomasio]

I think that is a great line. I am curious is that from a speech or something, or did you just think of that. Either way I applaud you for most of your comment.

 

It's not a precise quote and I don't remember exactly who said it, but I've heard something similar in a public debate between some religious people and some atheists and I liked it so much right away, I shortened it to this and never forgot it again.

Without guarantee, I believe it's either from Christopher Hitchens or from Richard Dawkins.

[hannahbanana]

Sure, many religions get certain points right, like not killing, things like that....that's not the issue that at least I have with many religions. The issue is HOW that moral conclusion is presented - that it is moral/immoral because some divine authority said so. Why is this an issue? Because it does nothing to teach people how to evaluate moral situations on their own, when they are in a situation that hasn't been specifically dictated by the religion.

Also, the fact that many religions get some things wrong - take all the controversy over homosexuality, for example - which can be very damaging to both sides. So, if given a choice, it would make more sense to me to choose a philosophy that helps me learn the same good things that religions teach like "murder is bad" WITHOUT the mistakes like "homosexuality is bad", or ideas like hell and original sin (yes, I know I'm focusing mainly on Christianity, it's just what I know the most about).

[WasatchMan]

Whether or not religious behavioral dictates have good or bad outcomes, they should not be considered morality, because:

 

1) They are not derived using a valid ethical framework (i.e. they are not logical)
2) They are enforced through threats of physical force or exclusion from eternal life (or some other bribery mechanism)

 

 

I have a thread that goes into this in more detail https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43567-can-we-create-moral-choice-through-lies-about-ethics/

 

As far as this goes:

 

But from an evolutionary stand point it seems that the morals that religions profess are mostly correct.

 

Lets look at the 10 commandments:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

To be generous, 4 of these commandments do happen to be moral propositions.

 

Two are neutral propositions based on aesthetic preferences.

 

The other 4 are bat shit crazy propositions, and for some reason are also the first four.

 

So this makes the 10 commandments 40% correct, 20% neutral, and 40 bat shit crazy.  I can hardly see how we could make the case that the "morals that religions profess are mostly correct" because just this simple analysis shows that they are as much correct as they are crazy.

 

And for this claim:

 

I consider it similar to empirical models. There are models used in engineering that may or may not express the true phenomenon but they predict the results close enough to be used for engineering purposed. The same with most religious morals. While there may not be a scientific reason discovered yet the empirical evidence that these rules have caused these societies to survive and prosper give them weight. These should not be tossed away lightly as relics.

 

Yes, engineers use models that are approximations and are not always fundamental representations of reality.  However, they are not even close to the same as religious "morals".  Physical models that engineers use are based on reality.  They take ideas found to be true (like gravity accelerates on object at 9.81 meters per second per second towards the earth given a somewhat close proximity to sea level no matter what its mass) through empirical observation and represents them in mathematical relationships to get a answer that is found close enough for something designed to actually work in reality.  Religious "morals" take what someone claims to be the word of god and threatens people with hell (or some equivalent) if they do not obey.  If religious "morals" were analogous to engineering models it wouldn't be called religion, it would be called utilitarianism.