36 replies to this topic

[qrasy]

The Theory of Evolution is nothing people should agree to. It's a fact, that's why it's called "theory" instead of "hypothesis". In Science a "theory" is the result of empirical data, not of empty deductions, so not believing in the Theory of Evolution is as nuts as believing that the Earth is flat.

Result of empirical data can also be simply "hypothesis".
To make a theory, it has to be tested further in, for example, (among other ways) whether it can predict something outside the data.
Many people confuse the 2 words, though (some people seem to define theory simply as "something that can explain the things observed"), so I won't take anything for granted unless it's a theorem in Mathematics.

The notion that earth is more or less flat comes from observations, too (daily experience), unlike some "imaginary" deductions (like the elephant or turtle beneath some flat-earth models).
Earth is locally almost flat, but globally is very much curved. We have tested and made applications of the round earth notion, so it stands as a "verified theory".

Individuals who are not altruist are naturally eliminated from the "evolutionary equation" -they may have no couple, or may be rejected by other members of the community, so their "memes", their behaviour, won't pass down to other generations.

In genetic algorithm, bad samples always seem to keep appearing. We only can expect that number of these are somehow decreasing compared to the far past.

He said: "they were Christians, so they could not lie"...

That expectation is really high, even with any religion around.

Btw, related with the topic: some Christian scholars believe that Confucianism, like Plato's Theory of Ideas and Aristotle Ethics, are some kind of preface to Christ. That's their "ad hoc" way to explain how societies with a non-theistic ethic can exist -God gave them to the sages, but didn't reveal himself until Christ-.

Unlike some people might expect because of the term "the chosen people", there's an instance where old testament God was recorded to "raise" (興起) non-Hebrews into glory, e.g. in Habakkuk 1:6.

I also vaguely remember a Christian that mentioned about "righteous men outside Israel's coverage", not sure if it's really there in the bible.

I would reform my previous argument making a more general statement Let's say we have different kinds of morality, and that helping someone just for the sake of the family or group is one of them (duty towards your group or different groups), while a more conscious morality, based on knowledge, is more particular of human beings (and maybe other animals). Also, human beings seem to be the only ones able to dispose of morals and make someone else, alien to them (God), to behold them.

Agreed.
"Morality but only towards your immediate family" is different from "morality towards all human beings" or "compassion that includes non-human animals".
Generally, care towards closer beings are easier to achieve as they live among each other. (Afterall the evolution of beings into being "social" arose from living together)

Btw, given the possible differences in defining "morality", the answer might be different.
If one only accepts "perfect/strict morality among humans", maybe I would say it's no (whether God exists or not is not relevant to this conclusion).
But if "partial" is accepted as well, it gives a "yes".
If the context is not defined clearly... I would choose maybe "neither yes nor no" or "both yes and no".

Edited by qrasy, 08 June 2010 - 02:43 AM.

[Honam]

Earth is locally almost flat, but globally is very much curved. We have tested and made applications of the round earth notion, so it stands as a "verified theory".

Are you implying evolution is not a "verified theory"?

[TheAznValedictorian]

Is treating the "losers" poorly considered good moral? - perhaps both moral and immoral?
Is defending your own belongings from others that want to take/destroy it considered moral? - I think this one is neither moral nor immoral.
How about protecting your own community while harming another species' community?

As what I have already implied, I think I should word some of my posts better. What these animals have demonstrated is a definite example of altruism and group conduct. If you accept that morality can also be instinctual - where there can be no thoughts behind it whatsoever - then we might also accept that animals exhibit some form of morality.

How about protecting your own community while harming another species' community?

It definitely is, because humans have also displayed this behavior while thinking that it is the right, moral thing to do. What some people do not seem to understand is that moral standards vary from culture to culture, from society to society. You might say that the above quote contains lesser morals, but it is still morality.

Earth is locally almost flat, but globally is very much curved. We have tested and made applications of the round earth notion, so it stands as a "verified theory".

I agree with Honam here. Let's just hope that you do not think that the Theory of Evolution is not a "verified theory". And for those who simply refuse to believe that evoluion is very much verified, keep in mind that the medicinal and agricultural industry rely very much on the fact that evolution exists. Also keep in mind that evolution is the overarching theme and the unifying theory of the entirety of biology. And just in case you want to go by that route, here is a statement: macroevolution has been demonstrated.

Edited by TheAznValedictorian, 08 June 2010 - 11:58 AM.

[mohistManiac]

I thought Daoist philosophy or religion has much to do with morales. The whole principle of letting things go freely as they please and without intervention is actually something that isn't natural and yet such a thing must be taught like: "Stop scratching your wound, it won't heal that way" or "Why don't we all calm down and discuss this later after the break." These are counseling principles that are meant to promote trust and faith in things and not having to commit every responsibility onto your own plate.

[Honam]

I thought Daoist philosophy or religion has much to do with morales. The whole principle of letting things go freely as they please and without intervention is actually something that isn't natural and yet such a thing must be taught like: "Stop scratching your wound, it won't heal that way" or "Why don't we all calm down and discuss this later after the break." These are counseling principles that are meant to promote trust and faith in things and not having to commit every responsibility onto your own plate.

But such morals exist without any relation to any god or supernatural being. If you try to derive a moral system from the Daode Jing, whether it´s from the more Confucian Guodian or the more Huang-Lao Mawangdui, there is nothing supernatural behind its ethics. The main point of the Yahoo post was, I think, RELIGION = GODS = MORALS. But Gods doesn´t seem to be very related to morals, but in Abrahamic religions...

[mohistManiac]

But such morals exist without any relation to any god or supernatural being. If you try to derive a moral system from the Daode Jing, whether it´s from the more Confucian Guodian or the more Huang-Lao Mawangdui, there is nothing supernatural behind its ethics. The main point of the Yahoo post was, I think, RELIGION = GODS = MORALS. But Gods doesn´t seem to be very related to morals, but in Abrahamic religions...

You are right about how the way morals which seem to be universal do not lend themselves considerably attached to any great religion or God or gods etc but my feeling is that Chinese religions are far from doing just that simply because a lot of times they do rely on the supernatural and the derived morals become attached to the godhead that is the new religion.
Any religion I imagine including Daoism can be explained through supernatural concepts whether it is the right or wrong way to be doing things in conjunction with that religion. I have heard that anything derived from the Dao such as analysis and ethics would only amount to interpretations of the force itself and be ultimately useless. Also its morals aren't naturally deriving but must be philosophically waxed. Why is it that people come to memorize and believe in things which aren't basic morals to begin with along with the whole notion that understanding Dao supposedly relieves burdens in life and society? It is even more strange when we consider that its successes and true workings are supposed to be hidden from view or suppressed in awareness. It offers strange advice like "The good traveler does not intend to arrive." Also veneration of ancestors leads them to possess supernatural powers or a sense of greatness. Therefore morals become derived from mythical figures like Huangdi who was a supreme leader and he was a generous person etc. Sacrifices for the dead also point to the supernatural as the main concept and the morals derived encompass hard work and obtaining enough wealth for security even into the afterlife. The Dao may prove to be nothing more that words from an experienced old wise man who had trouble getting interpreted correctly and so his thoughts keep falling into religious and supernatural domains. Those who are religious will tend not to agree.

[Honam]

Also veneration of ancestors leads them to possess supernatural powers or a sense of greatness. Therefore morals become derived from mythical figures like Huangdi who was a supreme leader and he was a generous person etc. Sacrifices for the dead also point to the supernatural as the main concept and the morals derived encompass hard work and obtaining enough wealth for security even into the afterlife.

It is true that concepts like "de" 德 go back to Shang Dynasty and HAD a supernatural interpretation at that time, but the "de" from Confucianism and Daoism has already emancipated itself form that idea (maybe because the Zhou conquerors had a different system; it is true that it was generally believed that men had a 德-power that may affect other people's behaviour, specially sages). However, concepts like "xiao" 孝 or "ren" 仁 are from men to men. You don't worship your ancestor because you really believe they are there receiving your prays, but because you respect them, and will respect them no matter they are alive or dead. Actually, their existence or inexistence is not important: otherwise your moral action will lack power.

Confucius makes it clear how morality is independent of the spiritual world:

"To give one's self earnestly to the duties due to men, and, while respecting spiritual beings, to keep aloof from them, may be called wisdom." 6.22

And also,

"He sacrificed to the dead, as if they were present. He sacrificed to the spirits, as if the spirits were present." 3.12

which show some scepticism towards the realm of the dead.

Also, mythical figures, like Huangdi, Shun, Yu, King Zhou, are unlike to be understood as supernatural beings (actually, Chinese souls are basically material and earth-worldly). Such figures are EXAMPLES of good moral behaviour, but not the source of it, in the same way as Greek gods are usually the example of bad behaviour, but not the source of it.

The Dao may prove to be nothing more that words from an experienced old wise man who had trouble getting interpreted correctly and so his thoughts keep falling into religious and supernatural domains. Those who are religious will tend not to agree.

I don't think most Daoist will have a problem discusing the authorship, date and tradition of the Daode Jing. We know that it's a composite work (with different sayings easy to memorize and sometimes self-contradictory, like all popular sayings); we are almost sure that there was no Laozi, and that the original form of the book was pretty different from it's present form. Does that invalidate Daoist philosophy? I don't think so, because its foundations are not "the word of God": it doesn't matter if it was Laozi or someone else who wrote it, cos Laozi was not a divine figure when he wrote it. What matter is what it says. In the same way, whether the Analects are the exact words of Confucius, his follower words, or later additions, does not invalidate what we call "Confucianism". In both cases morals are independent from God/gods.

And for Huang-Lao Daoism, which relied widely upon mythical sageness (Huangdi and later Laozi), it is true the words of the DDJ may become "divine", but the morals are still "created" naturally after the Dao (which is not a God) previous to any sage/divinity. Morality, then, appears before any sage, whose duty is to bring them down to earth.

Edited by Honam, 08 June 2010 - 10:11 PM.

[qrasy]

Are you implying evolution is not a "verified theory"?

Nope. That's not what I was going to say.
Perhaps I should be clearer. It was more like, simply pointing that the argument "because it is called theory not hypothesis" is often not "satisfactory" way of deduction. (i.e. more concerned about the deduction rather than the conclusion itself)

It definitely is, because humans have also displayed this behavior while thinking that it is the right, moral thing to do. What some people do not seem to understand is that moral standards vary from culture to culture, from society to society. You might say that the above quote contains lesser morals, but it is still morality.

Indeed, it's what some people often forget, what might be considered "lesser morality" is there even without knowledge of God; "totally no morality" is in contrary to "being social beings".
Though I wonder what you would think about those who really sacrificed humans (from their own community) for their rituals, like Aztecs.

Edited by qrasy, 09 June 2010 - 07:32 AM.

[Lu Su]

Although morality without religion is based more on logical definition of progression and societal need, it most certainly can, and has existed. Rules and ideas of various restraint (morally centered) serve a fundamental principle. By treating others with respect and consideration, as well as working together for a common goal, we can do much more and preserve the sanctity of our communities far better. Obviously, with the rise of corporatism and wall street senses of ethics, or rather more accurately, lack thereof, the more common depiction is one of constant competition and opposition, which is actually by all reasonable definition counterproductive and unfair for any society, as the results of such methods have shown. In recent years more than ever, perhaps. The precepts of the commonly widely accepted ideals of fundamental morality, is logically beneficial for any community or group.

So yes, I think by basic reason, logic, and even basic need, that morality could exist without a mythological or religious basis. Even in terms of basic interaction between two people in private, most people are always effected as study shows, when forced to see atrocities or inhumane acts (as we call them) against others, as opposed to simply hear about them. Others with such similar experiences will naturally empathize and be affected anyways, and demand action. These acts of unscrupulous behavior also deteriorates trust and community strength, and causes fear - once again providing a fundamental logical reasoning to avoid such things whenever possible.

I do think religion has contributed a number of aspects to people's views over the years on morality for sure, but morality can certainly stand alone without it.

[mohistManiac]

I think a modification of this question would be what has the domain of religion contributed to the formation of morals. Like many religions like Daoism make a distinct split of something this and other like the basic Ying and Yang concept. There is one side fighting against the other always the light versus the dark and so you can say religion has shaped morals by giving them distinctive polar opposites such that there are those morals which cater to a societal good while there are those morals which are kept forbidden and suppressed because of some societal harm. Of course you might say evolution plays a hand at all this setup and that there are no real distinctions between what is right and wrong save those ideas and memes that get passed down more frequently and those that get passed down less frequently but as you can see religion was often there to provide a story or fairy tale or somesuch so that these things can get easily passed down.

[mohistManiac]

I think a modification of this question would be what has the domain of religion contributed to the formation of morals. Like many religions like Daoism make a distinct split of something this and other like the basic Ying and Yang concept. There is one side fighting against the other always the light versus the dark and so you can say religion has shaped morals by giving them distinctive polar opposites such that there are those morals which cater to a societal good while there are those morals which are kept forbidden and suppressed because of some societal harm. Of course you might say evolution plays a hand at all this setup and that there are no real distinctions between what is right and wrong save those ideas and memes that get passed down more frequently and those that get passed down less frequently but as you can see religion was often there to provide a story or fairy tale or somesuch so that these things can get easily passed down.

I forgot to mention that in China emperors were often the ones who took religion seriously to heart. Certain astronomical or planetary phenomenon and interpretations of dragons and phoenixes were seen as fortuitous while others were seen as bad but this all reflects upon the integrity of the emperor and the time of his dynasty left on earth.

[Hannibal27]

"Can Morality Exists Without Religion/God?"

My answer to this question is yes. I believe morality came before religion, not the other way around.

To explain my answer, I’d like to speak from the evolutionary biology perspective. Natural selection doesn't operate on the group/species level - rather, it operates on the gene and individual level. This is why pure altuism is not an evolutionary stable strategy, so therefore can not exist by a majority for any great length of time. Altruism that actually exists in humans and other species has been linked to reciprocity and kinship, which accounts for the individual or selfish motive. Robert Axelrod and William Hamilton have discovered that in a complex adaptive system, cooperation based on reciprocation can be an evolutionary stable strategy under the right circumstances and it is this type of strategy that strengthens a group for the benefit of each individual.

In light of the above, I’m with TheAznValedictorian when he says that morals can be instinctual. If we consider reciprocal and kinship altruism as moral behaviour, then morality definitely can and does exist without religion among many different species.

I’d also like to put forward Robert Wright's definition of morality in his book "Moral Animal", which states, "thus a moral code is an informal compromise among competing spheres of genetic self-interest, each acting to mold the code to its own ends, using any levels at its disposal.". This basically implies that morality is, in Wright’s words and sentiment again, an “informal political process”. I think this is in line with evolutionary realities.

Not only do I think morality can exist without religion, I believe that religion and its different forms were born from this evolved behaviour for the same reason found in Wright’s quote. In fact, many religions apply morality in ways that are ineffective and harmful because they contradict the realities that natural selection dictates. An example of this is the common ideal of pure altruism that is connected and taught by many religions. It is not only an impractical ideal, for reasons previously covered in this post, but it consequentially leaves the individual who practices it in a position to be exploited. Another problem is when religions and morality promote contentious moral dualism such as the relationship between good and evil. To quote forensic psychiatrists James Knoll:

“It is argued that evil can never be scientifically defined because it is an illusory moral concept, it does not exist in nature, and its origins and connotations are inextricably linked to religion and mythology.”

So, if we are to take the above quote as true, this dualism contradicts nature as a whole. As well, from a Nietzschean perspective, this dualism encourages an individual to institute a hostile external world in which they must resist to uphold this morality. This can have many negative effects, one being that it can hamper a person’s ability to improve because the focus is external instead of internal.

Though morality has a focus of collective wellbeing, this doesn’t have to conflict with an individual’s ability to survive and thrive, and it can’t if it is to be practical in reality. So, where religion and morality goes right is when they are in line with our nature. To quote Nietzsche:

"All that is good is instinct" -Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, The Portable Nietzsche, translated by Walter Kaufmann

"Every naturalism in morality---that is, every healthy morality---is dominated by an instinct of life." -Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, The Portable Nietzsche, translated by Walter Kaufmann

I think this is in line with Laozi’s teachings, which promotes ziran(naturalnes) through wu wei(natural action/effortless action). Instead of condemning aspects of our world we take an impartial perspective that embraces our passions and instincts and spiritualizes them to improve our effectiveness in our reality.

I like this thread - just wanted to contribute some thoughts.

[TheAznValedictorian]

That was a very good post, Hannibal27

Edited by TheAznValedictorian, 19 March 2011 - 01:57 AM.

[Hannibal27]

Thank you very much.

[William O'Chee]

He is calling a petitio principii: that everyone shares the same definition of religion as he does. Not only paganism had different ideas regarding religion –those who identified a higher Idea, source of all the other Gods who were not real but representations of a transcendental reality, i.e. neoplatonists like Emperor Julian. Cicero also relates the word “religio” with the concept of “diligency,” a meaning still preserved today: “he does it religiously”=“he is meticulous”. However, the Christian writer Lactancius introduced a different interpretation, and so accepted Augustine later: that the word meant the bind between human beings and God.

We have two options here, and both lead to a dark corridor for the author If we accept that religion is something similar to the relation between men and God(s), and that morality cannot exist without religion, how can we explain Confucianism? It surely lacks an idea of “religion” in the Christian sense, even if it could be equaled, in some way, with the “religio” of Cicero (for example, the word “li” for “rituals” could be understood in a similar way); it has a “moral,” indeed, and no trace of the supernatural can be found in his traditions (and even if we can talk about Gods or demigods in Confucian traditions, moral does not actually depend on them).
On the contrary, if we accept that Confucianism has its morals, that there are a series of items here that mantain a community together, binded (call it “li” or call it “mores”), then we should reject the idea that religion is equal to “worshipping of x” and that it’s upon that worship that human beings can sustain a morality.

How did I miss this discussion?

I agree that morality can exist separate from religion, but for different reasons from my friend Honam.

Before addressing that, I should however, make some observations on the quote above.

From a Christian point of view, it is impossible to separate morality from God, since the Christian belief is that morality emanates from God. It is possible, however, to separate God from morality.

Honam is correct in identifying many different strands of religion, which differ fundamentally from each other. At the level of the somewhat trite but nonetheless true, Satanism is a religion, but its tenets do not involve morality. We could repeat this exercise for many religions, but it is not really necessary.

From my perspective, morality has its basis in natural law. It is therefore appropriate to make the same observation about morality as St Paul made of natural law when he wrote in Romans 2:14-15:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

Indeed, it was this passage which led to Christians forming the view that there was such a thing as the natural law, which was observed by many peoples regardless of their religion, and which was discernible by the application of natural reason to the human condition.

Of course, St Paul was originally from Greek Tarsus, and was well acquainted with Plato, and the other Greek philosophers. In fact, one of the criticisms of Paul is that he diluted Christianity with Greek philosophy, although this criticism is probably only maintainable if one ignores those aspects of the Gospels which illustrate Christ's espousal of a pan-human ideals of equality and forgiveness.

In any event I believe the natural law and morality can exist exclusively of religion, even if I as a Christian, believe that the gift of natural law comes from God.

Perhaps the more interesting question is where do we go if morality is separated not from God but from the law? For many positivists, for whom the law is "orders backed by threats" as Austin put it, the law need not incorporate morality. But where does that leave us?