Are religious people more moral than athiests?

[clarkgoble]

On 10/26/2017 at 9:15 PM, mrmarklin said:

You don’t need to define him. Historical consensus by his biographers is that he was an atheist. 

His political base was in southern Germany which is Catholic and conservative.  He made a lot of statements in his speeches pandering to this base. But he didn’t believe a word of it. 

Sounds like a certain someone else who talks Evangelical Christianity despite not showing much belief in it and is a major leader.

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

But our morals are in a constant flux.  And much of that flux comes from people attributing their morals to God.  50 years ago people thought it was moral to discriminate against blacks and deny them the priesthood. 10 years ago people thought it was moral to deny gays their civl rights.  Some even attributed those very actions to what God wanted.  Now you ask that very same group and not all would agree that either of those actions came from God.

This actually proves that morals do not come from God but often come from those that believe they know the will of God.  They use that belief to try to persuade society to adopt those morals.  The Aztec did not claim to sacrifice human life on their own morals.  They claimed to sacrifice on their belief in God.  Attributing morality to god has not always been a good reliable source of what is good morals.

No, true morality is what God says is good.  True immorality is what God says is bad.  Mortal inaccuracy in determining which is which doesn't change the absolute.

[Not Sure]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because without God as the source our morals are meaningless.  They are in constant flux due to those experiences you mention.  What is moral becomes whatever society will accept and teaches us is moral.

You are putting words in my mouth.  Those are classical observations that other people have told you that I should believe (obviously you didn't come up with this on your own).  This is what you call a straw-man.  You and they are wrong.  I do not believe that "whatever society accepts and teaches as moral is what I should accept as moral"  (I rearranged the statement to reflect what I think you meant to say).  That is way too authoritarian for me.  I believe actions have consequences for me and the people around me.  Generalized actions that have consequences that increase well being ones self and others (that are influenced by the action) are moral.  The converse is also. The goal would of reaching a stable Nash equilibrium (of the movie "A Beautiful Mind" fame).  Actions often have both positive and negative consequences at the same time.  Note: you don't have to do an action to estimate its consequence.  Actions that have complex consequences are much harder to determine well being but that is why we have debate.  

Also, my morality constantly in flux - although I have definitely had a couple of big paradigm shifts at key moments of my life, just as you have!  In college, you probably illegally downloaded music and videos (and probably had a justification for why it was OK at the time) but once you started to make enough money you probably stopped doing that - you have stopped doing that right  - and now you tell your kids (if you have them) that stealing music is wrong (right, right?...or you are giving a justification for why it is wrong when they do it but you have your reasons for stealing which make it ok).

"Because without God as the source our morals are meaningless" - Well that is very nihilistic.  Why would you expect me to nihilistic?  

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To the ancient Aztec it is moral to sacrifice people.  To the cannibal it is moral to eat your enemy.  To the Egyptian pharaoh marrying a sibling is the best.  Society and experience do teach us morals, but they can be right or wrong.

The bible has human sacrifice sanctioned by God such as the daughter of Jephthah.  The bible they stoned someone for picking sticks on the Sabbath.  Yes, I have arguments by Christian apologists that both of the these were actually moral actions.  I don't remember ever hearing an LDS argument (official or non-official) on why the human sacrifice of daughter of Jephthah.  Do you have one?

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Only God can be the source of an absolute moral good.

Yeah, absolutes are actually very problematic as will always lead to contradictions.   For example what would God do in the Trolley problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)?  

It would have been a lot easier to believe that God is maximally moral (i.e. a Nash equilibrium).

[california boy]

57 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, true morality is what God says is good.  True immorality is what God says is bad.  Mortal inaccuracy in determining which is which doesn't change the absolute.

Well I can see how religious people that think God dictates how to live their lives think this.  But I don't think there is any proof of this.  It is just a paradigm that some people live.  Did God really say that stoning people to death is morally right?  Or marrying other mens wives?  Or human sacrifice?  What you think of God determines your answer to a litany of moral questions which may or not be considered moral.  In the end, it is usually society that determines the morality of a belief.  Those that don't follow the same belief as the society that they live in usually abandon their beliefs that they once thought had God's support for.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well I can see how religious people that think God dictates how to live their lives think this.  But I don't think there is any proof of this.  It is just a paradigm that some people live.  Did God really say that stoning people to death is morally right?  Or marrying other mens wives?  Or human sacrifice?  What you think of God determines your answer to a litany of moral questions which may or not be considered moral.  In the end, it is usually society that determines the morality of a belief.  Those that don't follow the same belief as the society that they live in usually abandon their beliefs that they once thought had God's support for.

There are certainly some existential questions the answers to which can determine likelihood of survival.  Some cultures have adopted behaviors which led to their demise, others have bucked the majority system and prospered.  Whether atheism, God, or a religion like Buddhism figures into it is always a matter of personal opinion.  In a mixed society such as the USA, we depend upon a secular democratic constitutional system to reach decisions on how govt will deal with existential questions -- the wrong decision leading to disaster or extinction.  See, for example, Alexander C. Kaufman, “Psychiatrist Studied Major 20th Century Atrocities, Now Turns To Climate Change,” HuffPost, Nov 27, 2017, online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/11/26/psychiatrist-studied-major-20th-century-atrocities-now-turns-to-climate-change_a_23288573/ .  re Dr. Robert J. Lifton

It is not true that "Those that don't follow the same belief as the society that they live in usually abandon their beliefs that they once thought had God's support for." The Jews, Amish, Hutterites, Mormons, and many others simply do not fall into that pattern.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Not Sure]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

No, true morality is what God says is good

The same is true about what is claimed about Allah - that Allah is the source of true morality.

Is stealing sometime moral?  Is killing someone (such as in capital punishment) moral?  

Any action were you not aware of the consequences can never be a moral action credited for that person.  

What action can not be justified with "God says this is OK".  It reminds of a kid saying to a babysitter that my parents said it was OK to have ice cream for breakfast.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because without God as the surcoe our morals are meaningless.  They are in constant flux due to those experiences you mention.  What is moral becomes whatever society will accept and teaches us is moral.

That seems a false dichotomy. At least I reject both choices you present. I think we can trust what God says is moral. But that doesn't mean morality comes from God. In a Mormon context of the King Follet Discourse that makes little sense as God went through what we have. 'So he couldn't be the source of morality. Morality might be real in the sense of not relative to what someone thinks about it yet also not arise from God. Rather God does the good because he understands it as good.

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Only God can be the source of an absolute moral good.

I don't see how this could be for the reasons listed above. But let's take a version of ethics that is realist (i.e. doesn't depend upon what any individual thinks about it) like Utilitarianism. I don't ultimately buy Utilitarianism but it's a type of ethic that is knowable, realistic (non-subjective) and not tied to God. Even if I disagree ultimately with Utilitarianism most people following Utilitarianism will be good people most of the time. No God required.

[Calm]

"rearranged the statement to reflect what I think you meant to say"

Putting words in people's mouth, telling them 'what they really mean' is against board rules.  You should ask them what they mean, ask for clarification instead.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

The same is true about what is claimed about Allah - that Allah is the source of true morality.

Is stealing sometime moral?  Is killing someone (such as in capital punishment) moral?  

Any action were you not aware of the consequences can never be a moral action credited for that person.  

What action can not be justified with "God says this is OK".  It reminds of a kid saying to a babysitter that my parents said it was OK to have ice cream for breakfast.

Allah is God.

[Not Sure]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That seems a false dichotomy. At least I reject both choices you present. I think we can trust what God says is moral. But that doesn't mean morality comes from God. In a Mormon context of the King Follet Discourse that makes little sense as God went through what we have. 'So he couldn't be the source of morality. Morality might be real in the sense of not relative to what someone thinks about it yet also not arise from God. Rather God does the good because he understands it as good.

What does it mean for morality to be real?  Are you activating that abstract concepts actually exist?  Or are you just saying that two people can come to same conclusion based on observing the consequences of their actions and thus there is a higher likelihood that that if repeated the action will have the same consequence and thus the shared observation has a likelihood that it represents reality?  Are you ignoring the fact that actions (or inaction) can have both positive and negative consequences.  The actions that God (or hypothetical God) can only be maximally good (or minimally bad).  I mentioned the trolley problem a couple of times recently.  What would God do in that situation?  

Also I think you mean that you can trust what other people have said that God says is moral - and that trust that those people are recording what God actually said accurately.  Also you can add "what people have said that other people have said many years after".  Sorry to pick on you but "God says" is being thrown out there a lot on this thread.

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't see how this could be for the reasons listed above. But let's take a version of ethics that is realist (i.e. doesn't depend upon what any individual thinks about it) like Utilitarianism. I don't ultimately buy Utilitarianism but it's a type of ethic that is knowable, realistic (non-subjective) and not tied to God. Even if I disagree ultimately with Utilitarianism most people following Utilitarianism will be good people most of the time. No God required.

When you say that disagree with Utilitarianism, can you be specific?  Which form(s) are you referring to?  What criticisms do you find the most compelling?  

I would argue that Utilitarianism is realistic, relative with attempted subjectivity.  To claim that it is non-subjective would be to ignore one of its biggest criticisms against it with is the ability to quantify human well being.

 

What I find most disappointing about the easy answers like "God say so" is the way it disengaging from the conversation about what actually makes moral system moral.  

 

[Not Sure]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

"rearranged the statement to reflect what I think you meant to say"

Putting words in people's mouth, telling them 'what they really mean' is against board rules.  You should ask them what they mean, ask for clarification instead.

I was explicitly asking is this what they meant!!!  This was asking for clarification. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Not Sure said:

I was explicitly asking is this what they meant!!!  This was asking for clarification. 

Yeah...you might want to throw in a couple of question marks next time.

[Not Sure]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah...you might want to throw in a couple of question marks next time.

Wouldn't that make it look like a direct quotation which it is not?  Your feedback seems more reasonable to say "rearranged the statement to reflect what I think you meant to say - does this accurately reflect your opinion"?  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are certainly some existential questions the answers to which can determine likelihood of survival.  Some cultures have adopted behaviors which led to their demise, others have bucked the majority system and prospered.  Whether atheism, God, or a religion like Buddhism figures into it is always a matter of personal opinion.  In a mixed society such as the USA, we depend upon a secular democratic constitutional system to reach decisions on how govt will deal with existential questions -- the wrong decision leading to disaster or extinction.  See, for example, Alexander C. Kaufman, “Psychiatrist Studied Major 20th Century Atrocities, Now Turns To Climate Change,” HuffPost, Nov 27, 2017, online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/11/26/psychiatrist-studied-major-20th-century-atrocities-now-turns-to-climate-change_a_23288573/ .  re Dr. Robert J. Lifton

It is not true that "Those that don't follow the same belief as the society that they live in usually abandon their beliefs that they once thought had God's support for." The Jews, Amish, Hutterites, Mormons, and many others simply do not fall into that pattern.

Certainly Mormons have changed their beliefs based on societal views.  Mormonism quickly dropped the idea of marrying other women husbands and later dropped polygamy all together. At one time polygamy was so fundamental to Mormonism that one could not enter the Celestial Kingdom without it.  Now the church is perhaps the most condemning of that practice they once embraced.  They also felt the real need to drop their racist attitude towards blacks.  At least that is how society viewed their practice.  If society still embraced racism, I doubt President Kimball would have felt the overpowering need to plead for the ban to be lifted.  Other doctrines have also disappeared or practically disappeared.  Adam-God and As man is, God once was are two examples.  

Jews have also dropped a host of beliefs they once proclaimed were commanded by God.  Animal sacrifice, stoning, requirement to marry brothers wife if he dies, etc. 

Certainly in all of these cases, society dropped the morality of those beliefs long before the religion did.  This really disproves your theory.  

 

[Not Sure]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Jews have also dropped a host of beliefs they once proclaimed were commanded by God.  Animal sacrifice, stoning, requirement to marry brothers wife if he dies, etc. 

Also animal sacrifice ended in Judaism independent of Christianity in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed.

Another interesting question is whether there was any animal sacrifice going on in early Christianity (first hundred years)?  The answer is yes, it was called Kourbania and was practiced in Greece.

Another fun fact is that animal sacrifice was practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)

A little unclear if stoning was used as capital punishment in early Christianity.  Does anybody have any sources on that?  Is there very much said on what was a capital offence and how it is executed in early Christianity?

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

Certainly Mormons have changed their beliefs based on societal views.  Mormonism quickly dropped the idea of marrying other women husbands and later dropped polygamy all together. At one time polygamy was so fundamental to Mormonism that one could not enter the Celestial Kingdom without it.  Now the church is perhaps the most condemning of that practice they once embraced.  They also felt the real need to drop their racist attitude towards blacks.  At least that is how society viewed their practice.  If society still embraced racism, I doubt President Kimball would have felt the overpowering need to plead for the ban to be lifted.

As both Jan Shipps and LeGrand Richards correctly observed at the time (1978), the LDS Church had no choice but to grant priesthood to Black People.  Why?  Because a new temple in Brazil would not be able to separate out Black and White members -- they were so thoroughly mixed.  A practical reality made use of that temple impossible under the old policy -- and best efforts could find no revelation banning Black priesthood. As usual, revelation came under pressure and as needed, as it had always been done.

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

 Other doctrines have also disappeared or practically disappeared.  Adam-God and As man is, God once was are two examples.  

Jews have also dropped a host of beliefs they once proclaimed were commanded by God.  Animal sacrifice, stoning, requirement to marry brothers wife if he dies, etc. 

Certainly in all of these cases, society dropped the morality of those beliefs long before the religion did.  This really disproves your theory.

It wasn't my theory.  It was one you falsely propounded.  You are now quibbling and adapting your theory to reality, just as the Mormons and Jews have adapted over time.  Instead of the disappearance you claimed, you have now accepted the position of professional historians on accommodation.  Why?  Because it explains the real world.

However, you failed to get it right on "As man is, God once was."  The imaginary scatter-gun approach doesn't work for Mormons or for Jews.  You have forgotten that "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."  Thomas Edward Lawrence spoke (in his Seven Pillars of Wisdom) of "the eternal miracle of the Jews."  Take a closer look, good buddy.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm a fan of anti-establishment anarchist atheists. I'm also a fan of anti-establishment anarchist theists.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Not Sure said:

Also animal sacrifice ended in Judaism independent of Christianity in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed.

Another interesting question is whether there was any animal sacrifice going on in early Christianity (first hundred years)?  The answer is yes, it was called Kourbania and was practiced in Greece.

Another fun fact is that animal sacrifice was practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)

A little unclear if stoning was used as capital punishment in early Christianity.  Does anybody have any sources on that?  Is there very much said on what was a capital offence and how it is executed in early Christianity?

at some point animal sacrifices have ended.  Did God ever give them a revelation to stop?  Or did society move on.

 

[california boy]

 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As both Jan Shipps and LeGrand Richards correctly observed at the time (1978), the LDS Church had no choice but to grant priesthood to Black People.  Why?  Because a new temple in Brazil would not be able to separate out Black and White members -- they were so thoroughly mixed.  A practical reality made use of that temple impossible under the old policy -- and best efforts could find no revelation banning Black priesthood. As usual, revelation came under pressure and as needed, as it had always been done.

It wasn't my theory.  It was one you falsely propounded.  You are now quibbling and adapting your theory to reality, just as the Mormons and Jews have adapted over time.  Instead of the disappearance you claimed, you have now accepted the position of professional historians on accommodation.  Why?  Because it explains the real world.

However, you failed to get it right on "As man is, God once was."  The imaginary scatter-gun approach doesn't work for Mormons or for Jews.  You have forgotten that "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."  Thomas Edwefintard Lawrence spoke (in his Seven Pillars of Wisdom) of "the eternal miracle of the Jews."  Take a closer look, good buddy.

I have no idea why you think this supports  your opinion that religion doesn't adapt to society definitions of morality.  I only see the reality of what has happened.  Change in practice when there is a shift in what is acceptable in society.

Edited November 27, 2017 by california boy

[Gray]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, true morality is what God says is good.  True immorality is what God says is bad.  Mortal inaccuracy in determining which is which doesn't change the absolute.

Can God say, "everyone must worship Satan now" and it would become a moral act?

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

Can God say, "everyone must worship Satan now" and it would become a moral act?

I suppose he could if God were subject to change without regard for eternal law and truth.  But that would cause him to cease to be God.  He cannot do anything he wants and remain God.

Even God isn't the origin of morality, the laws he follows, dispenses, enforces, and oversees are the definition of true morality. 

[Gray]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

I suppose he could if God were subject to change without regard for eternal law and truth.  But that would cause him to cease to be God.  He cannot do anything he wants and remain God.

Great, so that means that morality is not just whatever God says is good - good and evil exist independently of God's say so.

 

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Even God isn't the origin of morality, the laws he follows, dispenses, enforces, and oversees are the definition of true morality. 

Yes, I think that's the implication for LDS theology. God isn't magnetic north, but God is a reliable compass pointing that way.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Gray said:

Great, so that means that morality is not just whatever God says is good - good and evil exist independently of God's say so.

Yes, I think that's the implication for LDS theology. God isn't magnetic north, but God is a reliable compass pointing that way.

Yes, but I wouldn't consider there to be any disparity between God and these independent eternal laws.  He both follows and enforces them as God.  They make him God so there cannot be any separation between the two.

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, but I wouldn't consider there to be any disparity between God and these independent eternal laws.  He both follows and enforces them as God.  They make him God so there cannot be any separation between the two.

They are "aligned" but there is separation between the two. The eternal laws existed before God was God, right? They are metaphorically one like Jesus and the Father are one.

[Tacenda]

Absolutely not! I know of some religious people that do horrible things in the name of God.