religion and morality

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet
Descriptive Ethnocentrism

If moral psychology is to contribute to the psychology of religion, it will have to describe a moral domain as expansive as that of the Gods.
—Graham and Haidt
On the other hand, given a particular moral conflict relating to a particular set of circumstances, where exactly does moral psychology end and the psychology of religion begin. Human psychology in a free will world clearly revolves around trying to figure out what any specific thing means in the context of grappling with what everything intertwined into the "human condition" means.

And, even given our own tiny slice of that, the relationship between them is going to be murky at times to say the least.

In fact, how do you make that distinction yourself given a situation in which your own moral convictions were challenged?
When a newspaper headline reads “bishop attacks declining moral standards,” we expect to read yet again about promiscuity, homosexuality, pornography, and so on, and not about the puny amounts we give as overseas aid to poorer nations, or our reckless indifference to the natural environment of our planet.
—Singer
The bishop of course is the very embodiment of the psychology of religion: a God, the God, my God. But where does his moral psychology fit into my own assumption regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? In other words, "politics" is but one more contributing factor to our collective "failure to communicate". Maybe God should have thought that part through more when He created us.

And here's how far that "failure to communicate" can go:
In a recent interview, the Hon. Rev. Fr. Simon Lokodo, Ugandan Minister of Ethics and Integrity, indicated that he viewed the heterosexual rape of young girls as preferable to consensual homosexuality:
Lokodo: I say, let them do it but the right way.
Interviewer: Oh let them do it the right way? Let them rape children the right way? What are you talking about?
Lokodo: No I am saying, at least it is [the] natural way of desiring sex.
What objective moral truths would you impart to him in order to change his mind? After all, are there or are there not those among us who argue that rape is, in fact, perfectly "natural"? And God has been used to rationalize everything from slavery to genocide.

Consider:

https://emergencenj.org/blog/2019/01/04 ... ne-slavery
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family ... -holy-war/

So, where exactly does one draw the line between moral psychology and the psychology of religion here?
From a contemporary Western liberal perspective, there is a chilling irony to the fact that Lokodo’s ministerial portfolio involves upholding moral values and principles. What could be more immoral than the rape of a child, a manifestly harmful act? Is it conceivable that Lokodo’s opposition to homosexuality is morally motivated?
You tell me.



FYI

Here is a thread from ILP that explores my own views on religion: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: religion and morality

Post by Nick_A »

Hello iambiguous

As I see it you are leaving out one important option. You discuss religion and moral psychology as subjective influences. But what about objective conscience? Does Man have the potential to experience universal objective truths or the cosmic religious feelings Einstein refers to rather than being limited to subjective man made social truths?
The development from a religion of fear to a moral religion is a great step in peoples lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based purely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on guard. the truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he want to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

-- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, NY Times, November 9, 1930.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:58 pm Hello iambiguous

As I see it you are leaving out one important option. You discuss religion and moral psychology as subjective influences. But what about objective conscience? Does Man have the potential to experience universal objective truths or the cosmic religious feelings Einstein refers to rather than being limited to subjective man made social truths?
Well, from my frame of mind, we all come into the world hard-wired to embody a conscience. What Freud called the "super-ego".

But, historically, culturally and experientially -- interpersonally out in a particular world understood in a particular way -- that revolves around what I call "conflicting goods". What William Barrett called "rival goods" embedded less in objective/deontological philosophical arguments and more subjectively/intersubjectively given the trajectory of our personal lives.

More to the point [mine], what is of particular interest is how we reconfigure generally abstract assessments of morality and religion intertwined "out in the world", and zero in on actual sets of circumstances in which we explore the extent to which the "psychology of religion" and "moral psychology" is understood by particular individuals.

Here, I often focus the beam on such things as the morality of abortion. The role that religion can play in providing someone with a foundation deemed by them to ground their own moral convictions in a "transcending font". Even Kant rooted deontology in God.

And moral psychology revolves around how each of us acquire subjective perspectives on the morality of abortion but then some come to insist that others are obligated to think as they do because their frame of mind is thought by them to be the optimal or the only rational manner in which to view the morality of abortion.

What is always most crucial for me is not what someone believes "in their head" about the morality of anything...given a God or a No God world...but how they go about demonstrating that what they believe is what all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe.

It's the difference between doctors demonstrating medical procedures said to provide safer abortions, and ethicists attempting to demonstrate that their own moral prescriptions are superior.

Both can provide any number of facts to back themselves up, but in a No God world, how is it determined which is the most rational assessment of all?


The development from a religion of fear to a moral religion is a great step in peoples lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based purely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on guard. the truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he want to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

-- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, NY Times, November 9, 1930.
Okay, in regard to the morality of abortion, given these assumptions about religion, how do we get any closer as philosophers to pinning down the definitive moral argument?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: religion and morality

Post by Nick_A »

Iambiguous

Okay, in regard to the morality of abortion, given these assumptions about religion, how do we get any closer as philosophers to pinning down the definitive moral argument?

I understand morality and conscience differently. Morality is a subjective concept decided by societies while conscience is an objective universal quality. Where morality is learned or indoctrinated, conscience as plato describes, is remembered as intuitive knowledge.

https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-differen ... eal%20self.
Conclusion
Conscience is identified as an integral part of the superego by Freud. However, there is a distinct difference between conscience and superego with regard to their nature and their operation. The main difference between conscience and superego is that conscience pays emphasis on the personal identification of moral actions while superego is heavily influenced by external influences.
My one difference is my belief in the source of universal conscience or what plato called the GOOD,

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html
Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation

Profession of Faith

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.

That reality is the unique source of all the good that can exist in this world: that is to say, all beauty, all truth, all justice, all legitimacy, all order, and all human behaviour that is mindful of obligations.

Those minds whose attention and love are turned towards that reality are the sole intermediary through which good can descend from there and come among men...........................
Conscience can be remembered by some and their influence is essential in a world governed by temporary subjective beliefs. As much as they are scorned by the world, what is their obligation to the world which must perish because of the lawful hypocrisy of the human condition?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

Okay, in regard to the morality of abortion, given these assumptions about religion, how do we get any closer as philosophers to pinning down the definitive moral argument?
Nick_A wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:44 pmI understand morality and conscience differently. Morality is a subjective concept decided by societies while conscience is an objective universal quality. Where morality is learned or indoctrinated, conscience as plato describes, is remembered as intuitive knowledge.
Again, though, in regard to discussions such as this, I prefer to take the "theoretical/conceptual/technical" conclusions we come to using the tools of philosophy and bring them "down to Earth".

And here I often come around to an issue like the morality of abortion. In part because...

1] it literally revolves around life and death
2] it is an issue almost all are familiar with [if only from "the news"]
3] it is the moral conflict that resulted in my abandoning objective morality myself and becoming a "moral nihilist"

And the manner in which I differentiate morality from conscience here revolves first and foremost around how moral narratives are rooted in historical and cultural contexts...human interactions experienced by particular human beings in particular communities. Communities that evolve over time in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change. In particular our modern/postmodern world. While a conscience, on the the other hand, seems [to me] basically derived from the manner in which we come into the world biologically equipped to make distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil. Given that human wants and needs often come into conflict.

That's the nature part. But given all of the vastly different lives that any of us as individuals might live, what our particular conscience tells us is okay or not okay to do seems rooted more in nurture. And it is in how the two become intertwined existentially in our "egos" that largely determine what our own moral narratives and political agendas will be.

So, where would what those like Plato called the Good fit into that?

Given a particular context.
Nick_A wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:44 pmConscience can be remembered by some and their influence is essential in a world governed by temporary subjective beliefs. As much as they are scorned by the world, what is their obligation to the world which must perish because of the lawful hypocrisy of the human condition?
Again, how would an assessment of this sort be made applicable to a discussion that revolved around morality and conscience relating to, say, an article in the newspaper pertaining to one or another set of "conflicting goods": abortion, gun ownership, animal rights, homosexuality, the role of government, social justice, capitalism/socialism etc.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet
One obstacle to a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between religion and morality is the tendency of researchers to privilege their own cultural perspective on what counts as a “moral concern.” Opposing such ethnocentrism is not the same as advocating cultural or moral relativism: We need take no stand here on whether absolute moral standards exist, or whether it is appropriate for citizens of one society to judge the moral standards of another. Our concern is with descriptive rather than prescriptive ethnocentrism.
We need take no stand until those who oppose our own "moral concerns" put us in a position whereby, in challenging particular behaviors of ours, there are actual consequences. Think clitorectomies and sharia law and those who refuse to allow their children to be seen by medical professionals. Any number of moral objectivists [God or No God] are adamant in going beyond description to proscription.

Think this "clash of cultures" from Michael Novak's The Experience Of Nothingness

"Jules Henry:

"Boris had trouble reducing 12/16 to the lowest terms and could only get as far as 6/8. The teacher asked him quietly if that was as far as he could reduce it. She suggested he 'think'. Much heaving up and down and waving of hands by the other children, all frantic to correct him. Boris pretty unhappy, probably mentally paralyzed. The teacher quiet, patient, ignores the others and concentrates with look and voice on Boris. After a minute or two she turns to the class and says, 'Well, who can tell Boris what the number is?' A forest of hands appears, and the teacher calls on Peggy. Peggy says that four may be divided into the numerator and the denominator."

"Henry remarks:

"Boris's failure made it possible for Peggy to succeed; his misery is the occasion for her rejoicing. This is a standard condition of the contemporary American elementary school. To a Zuni, Hopi or Dakota Indian, Peggy's performance would seem cruel beyond belief, for competition, the wringing of success from somebody's failure, is a form of torture foreign to those non-competitive cultures."


"Stands" will either be taken given contexts of this sort or they won't. Describing human interactions given conflicting cultural approaches to religion and morality doesn't make Boris's misery go away. Only efforts to actually change the culture to one less competitive will.

Same with God, morality and sex...
There are those who consider appropriate sexual behavior to be of paramount moral importance, and those, like Peter Singer, who think there are more pressing moral concerns. Whatever our ethical evaluations, however, a cross-cultural enquiry into the relationship between religion and morality must expand the moral domain beyond the typical concerns of individuals in Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies, and must consider the effect of religion on any domain that is accorded at least local moral significance. For our purposes, therefore, a moral behavior is not necessarily a behavior that we advocate, but a behavior that is undertaken on putative moral grounds.
Clearly, in any number of nations where "appropriate sexual behavior" is a major moral concern, religion plays a fundamental role in sexual politics. The theocracies for example. And even in the West any number of ultra-orthodox and evangelical communities impose religious strictures in the form of sexual taboos.

Only with God, religion and morality comes Judgment Day. Immortality, salvation...Heaven and Hell.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet
Sanitized Conceptions of Morality and Prosociality

Ingroup generosity and outgroup derogation actually represent two sides of the same coin.
—Shariff, Piazza, and Kramer
The "one of us"/"one of them" coin. And these coins have always been around throughout the entirety of human history. At times when different communities made contact with each other, and at times when, from within a particular community, conflicts arose over what exactly the "rules of behavior" ought to be even among our own.

Then it came down to the extent to which Gods and religious denominations were involved.
A frequent consequence of Western liberal ethnocentrism is a sanitized, “family friendly” conception of morality. If Simon Lokodo’s ministerial portfolio seems ironic, this may be because of a Western liberal tendency to equate morality with “warm, fuzzy” virtues like kindness, gentleness, and nurturance, in short, with “niceness.”
Yes, all of these things and more. But then the part where even within "our community" as a whole, these things were made applicable only to those we recognized as "one of us". In regard to, among other things, race, ethnicity, gender roles, sexual orientation, religion. And of course class.

Right now HBO is airing the series, The Gilded Age. Lots of "warm fuzzy" virtues shared among those who are just like us. Old money vs. new money. And ever and always race and gender. God not so much. At least not so far.
Thus, many scholars who write about the relationship between religion and morality frame the key question as “Are religious people nice people?” or “Does religion make you nice?”. In many situations, however, what seems the “right” course of action may not be particularly “nice” (e.g., is it nice to punish criminals?); moreover, in certain cultures (e.g., Nazi Germany), “niceness” may even be cast as a vice rather than a virtue. To identify morality with “niceness” is thus to ignore a plethora of moral concerns, motivations, and behaviors.
Yes, that's basically always been my point. There has never been a "one size fits all" niceness such that those like anthropologists or historians discovered that in community after community down through the ages certain behaviors were always deemed to be nice and there was no distinction made between "one of us" and "one of them".

I just go beyond the historical and cultural differences and focus more on how even our individual lives with their individual sets of experiences can result in assessments of "nice" that vary considerably.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: religion and morality

Post by attofishpi »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 02, 2022 2:43 am Only with God, religion and morality comes Judgment Day. Immortality, salvation...Heaven and Hell.
When you think a bit deeper, you understand that everyday is "Judgment Day"
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

attofishpi wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:43 am
iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 02, 2022 2:43 am Only with God, religion and morality comes Judgment Day. Immortality, salvation...Heaven and Hell.
When you think a bit deeper, you understand that everyday is "Judgment Day"

Existentially, as it were. In other words, in any particular community, whenever we choose to interact with others socially, politically and economically, our behaviors will be judged. They have to be. Otherwise, there would be no "rules of behavior" establishing "for all practical purposes" which behaviors would be either prescribed [rewarded] or proscribed [punished].

Only with God and religion, such judgments are very, very different. In two ways...

1] With God there is a Scripture. And the Scripture is said reflect God's moral Commandments. That then becomes the transcending font for establishing "objective morality" on this side of the grave.

2] With God's judgments the consequences shift to immortality and salvation

With most secular Humanisms, on the other hand, there is no immortality and salvation on the other side. And in regard to morality on this side there are countless [conflicting] ideological and deontological assessments which never get resolved. Why? Because, in the absence of a transcending font, who do the contending parties turn to?

It's not for nothing that those like Plato and Descartes and Kant posited one or another rendition of a God, the God, my God with respect to their moral philosophies.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet
To illustrate why such sanitizing is problematic scientifically, we note that the most prominent contemporary hypothesis in the literature on religion and morality is the “religious prosociality” hypothesis. Although many papers on “religious prosociality” appear to equate the notions of morality and “prosociality”, some imply that morality is a subcategory of prosociality, whereas others indicate that prosociality is a subcategory of morality.
'Prosocial behavior, or intent to benefit others, is a social behavior that "benefit[s] other people or society as a whole", "such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering". Obeying the rules and conforming to socially accepted behaviors are also regarded as prosocial behaviors.' Wikipedia


"What is religious Prosociality?
'...a religious principle associated with the protection of the religious group, and a supernatural principle associated with the belief in God, or other supernatural agents.'"
https://psycnet.apa.org

Again, as always, we need actual social contexts to make these distinctions clearer. Also, prosocial behavior would seem to be just as applicable in Humanist communities as religious ones.

And while many would argue that scientifically one is not able to differentiate moral from immoral behavior socially, politically and economically, how about philosophically? What would constitute the philosophical equivalent of the "scientific method" in establishing something like this?
The problem is that behavior that benefits certain others (and so is “prosocial” in this standard sense) may be detrimental to the wider social group. And conversely, behavior that benefits the group may be harmful to at least some of its members. For example, torture is a powerful mechanism for enforcing and stabilizing social norms, yet torture is often unambiguously detrimental to the recipient. The irony is that behaviors that are literally “prosocial” insofar as they further the interests of a particular social group may be “antisocial” in the standard social psychological usage (e.g., by harming the norm violator).
Though again with God in the Script there is a transcending font supposedly able to provide the flocks with the spiritual equivalent of "the final answer". Though even as it pertains to the same God, there can be conflicting interpretations of what constitutes being either "prosocial" or "antisocial". And even within the Christian tradition alone there are many denominations -- https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/youth/b ... 7545.shtml -- such that what might constitute being "prosocial" and "antisocial" might be different among them.

Then any possible squabbles among them as to how connect the dots between “religious prosociality” and morality. With respect to "the protection of the religious group, and a supernatural principle associated with the belief in God, or other supernatural agents".

Where do Roman Catholics and Evangelicals and Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses etc., overlap and where are they at odds...given particular sets of circumstances.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: religion and morality

Post by popeye1945 »

Psychology of religion, seeing as it is thought about the supernatural, it is necessarily abnormal psychology. A minister is one who has a degree in that which does not exist. Religion is thought about by believers as something handed down from above when nothing could be further from the truth. The only sane foundation for morality is our common biology. Religion itself is a biological extension, geographic isolation has been the culprit in the creation of moral relativism. Religions history is bathed in blood and the source of much kaos in the contemporary world. The global village makes it necessary to consider unity, moral relativism is boiling over at present with the supposed clash of cultures. Religion was formed in the past on a subconscious level, mindless biological extension needs to be re-worked consciously, a consciously directed creation base on what is stable, real, and immediately available to all, our common biology. It should not today be difficult to understand that religion is not the source of morality for just as religion itself is a product of the extension into the world of our psyche, our natures at the given time of the creation of said religions. Enlightenment has come along way, the superstitions of the ancient past nolonger serve the modern world and are infact deprimental to it. Let us create a system of morality on a conscious level and shed the darkness of the subconscious structures of the past. As Albert Einstein stated once, " It is time for humanity to grow up!"
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: religion and morality

Post by DPMartin »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:37 pm Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet
Descriptive Ethnocentrism

If moral psychology is to contribute to the psychology of religion, it will have to describe a moral domain as expansive as that of the Gods.
—Graham and Haidt
On the other hand, given a particular moral conflict relating to a particular set of circumstances, where exactly does moral psychology end and the psychology of religion begin. Human psychology in a free will world clearly revolves around trying to figure out what any specific thing means in the context of grappling with what everything intertwined into the "human condition" means.

And, even given our own tiny slice of that, the relationship between them is going to be murky at times to say the least.

In fact, how do you make that distinction yourself given a situation in which your own moral convictions were challenged?
When a newspaper headline reads “bishop attacks declining moral standards,” we expect to read yet again about promiscuity, homosexuality, pornography, and so on, and not about the puny amounts we give as overseas aid to poorer nations, or our reckless indifference to the natural environment of our planet.
—Singer
The bishop of course is the very embodiment of the psychology of religion: a God, the God, my God. But where does his moral psychology fit into my own assumption regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? In other words, "politics" is but one more contributing factor to our collective "failure to communicate". Maybe God should have thought that part through more when He created us.

And here's how far that "failure to communicate" can go:
In a recent interview, the Hon. Rev. Fr. Simon Lokodo, Ugandan Minister of Ethics and Integrity, indicated that he viewed the heterosexual rape of young girls as preferable to consensual homosexuality:
Lokodo: I say, let them do it but the right way.
Interviewer: Oh let them do it the right way? Let them rape children the right way? What are you talking about?
Lokodo: No I am saying, at least it is [the] natural way of desiring sex.
What objective moral truths would you impart to him in order to change his mind? After all, are there or are there not those among us who argue that rape is, in fact, perfectly "natural"? And God has been used to rationalize everything from slavery to genocide.

Consider:

https://emergencenj.org/blog/2019/01/04 ... ne-slavery
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family ... -holy-war/

So, where exactly does one draw the line between moral psychology and the psychology of religion here?
From a contemporary Western liberal perspective, there is a chilling irony to the fact that Lokodo’s ministerial portfolio involves upholding moral values and principles. What could be more immoral than the rape of a child, a manifestly harmful act? Is it conceivable that Lokodo’s opposition to homosexuality is morally motivated?
You tell me.
Religion is a social and political control before there was press media now just media. People used to trust and believe what religious leaders said about world leaders. It was the religious leaders that convinced the crowed to shout crucify Him (for example). They had the, who is the good guys and bad guys manipulation with their agendas to accomplish. Even if it was just to hold their position between the general population and world leaders. Now its media that is believed and trusted and religion is cast to the wayside in the interest of manipulating society according to media's agendas holding their position between the world leaders and the general public.

Morality is completely different; morals are a set of rules you agree to obey. If that set of rules are according to your own judgment, then that set of rules is subject to change every time you perceive it keeps you from what you see is good for yourself or you desire.

But if that set of rules are written in stone, so to speak, then you can’t change what you’ve agreed to. To remain in the US of A you by default agree to the law of the land (set of rules). Or one agrees to a marriage contract or a business contract or even walking into a grocery store in that you by default agree to pay for items before you leave with them. The law, contracts, agreements, covenants, are the set of morals you agree to or don’t agree to. If one agrees to, say, a marriage contract then, are you faithful to the agreement? Do you believe in its principles? Or a contract to repair a roof are you faithful to fulfill the contract as agreed. One can also trust and or believe those one is in agreement with.

Now if you want to speak to Judaism or Christianity then according to their documented experience with their God, they have a covenant with their God. The Torah with Judaism, and Jesus Christ is the covenant between the Christians and their God.

But again, religion of its own such as pagan religions and the like or worshipers of inanimate objects how they can have an agreement other than with the group itself I don’t know or care.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website
Most religious people think their morality comes from their religion. And deeply religious people often wonder how atheists can have any morality at all.
It's all about God. In fact, I've never been able to really understand how No God religious paths are able to connect the dots between "I" on this side of the grave and "I" on the other side. If there is no God to judge your behaviors here and now what exactly is it that determines your fate there and then?

No, seriously...how does that work?

And God because most Gods are said to be omniscient and omnipotent. There is no getting away with behaving immorally because God sees all. And there is no question of not being punished for choosing to live off the righteous path.

And while Humanism can concoct secular renditions of objective morality there is no transcending font to turn to when these renditions themselves come into conflict. And whatever justice follows you to the grave, you are still only on your way back to star stuff for all the rest of eternity. "I" is at one only with oblivion without God. Or with how No God religious paths bring about immortality.

And salvation?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: religion and morality

Post by DPMartin »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 6:02 pm Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website
Most religious people think their morality comes from their religion. And deeply religious people often wonder how atheists can have any morality at all.
It's all about God. In fact, I've never been able to really understand how No God religious paths are able to connect the dots between "I" on this side of the grave and "I" on the other side. If there is no God to judge your behaviors here and now what exactly is it that determines your fate there and then?

No, seriously...how does that work?

And God because most Gods are said to be omniscient and omnipotent. There is no getting away with behaving immorally because God sees all. And there is no question of not being punished for choosing to live off the righteous path.

And while Humanism can concoct secular renditions of objective morality there is no transcending font to turn to when these renditions themselves come into conflict. And whatever justice follows you to the grave, you are still only on your way back to star stuff for all the rest of eternity. "I" is at one only with oblivion without God. Or with how No God religious paths bring about immortality.

And salvation?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929
what about salvation?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

DPMartin wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 4:17 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 6:02 pm Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website
Most religious people think their morality comes from their religion. And deeply religious people often wonder how atheists can have any morality at all.
It's all about God. In fact, I've never been able to really understand how No God religious paths are able to connect the dots between "I" on this side of the grave and "I" on the other side. If there is no God to judge your behaviors here and now what exactly is it that determines your fate there and then?

No, seriously...how does that work?

And God because most Gods are said to be omniscient and omnipotent. There is no getting away with behaving immorally because God sees all. And there is no question of not being punished for choosing to live off the righteous path.

And while Humanism can concoct secular renditions of objective morality there is no transcending font to turn to when these renditions themselves come into conflict. And whatever justice follows you to the grave, you are still only on your way back to star stuff for all the rest of eternity. "I" is at one only with oblivion without God. Or with how No God religious paths bring about immortality.

And salvation?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929
what about salvation?
Theological salvation...

"...deliverance from sin and its consequences, believed by Christians to be brought about by faith in Christ"

Going to Heaven in other words.

But, for the No God religious paths, what is the equivalent? Reincarnation? Nirvana?

As for the pantheist, is it all about "going back to star stuff"?

Of course, most atheists imagine it as "oblivion". "I" as, for all practical purposes, nothing at all for all the rest of eternity.
Post Reply