Are religious people more moral than athiests?

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, Not Sure said:

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? 

It's important to distinguish reality from existence. There is a view that says the only real things are things that exist (typically exist materially). Anything else that is real must be reducible to actual things and their states. That is called nominalism. Since nominalism is such a dominant position a lot of people assume it's the only position.

A helpful way of thinking about realism is just to define it as what is true independent of what any finite group thinks about it.

To adopt an ethical realist position is thus just to say that there are ethical truths independent of what any particular community thinks about ethical claims.

Utilitarianism is one of many different formulations of ethical grounds. It just claims that what is good is what maximizes happiness. There's lots of reasons to distrust Utilitarianism but it was a very popular way of thinking about ethics - arguably the main way people thought about ethics in politics up until the 1970's. At that point there was a rebirth of interest in the type of ethics popularized by Kant. That was largely due to a hugely influential book by John Rawls. Rawls theory is not a moral realist conception of ethics since it depends upon a thought experiment tied to a veil of ignorance. It's generally considered a social-contract theory of justice. That is what is good to do depends upon how individual communities think about it.

13 hours ago, Not Sure said:

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.

Yes up to a point. There are limits as to how well we know what God wants. (Our ability to feel, recognize and understand the testifying of the Holy Ghost) Further commands given by God through prophets are usually general. That is they don't deal with every particular case which is why it's important to ask God about particular situations.

13 hours ago, Not Sure said:

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.

The main problems with Utilitarianism all end up being about it's calculus. That is you have to "sum up" the happiness of each individual. The problem is whether that even makes any sense. It's not like happiness is some natural property that can be easily measured. Second there's the problem of time. Do we maximize the happiness in 5 minutes, in 5 days, in 20 years? That's a non-trivial problem. Finally it's not hard to come up with thought experiments where someone is happy but not flourishing. Say some drug that maximizes happiness in the brain but keeps you unmotivated on the couch. Many people would say that's not good and therefore Utilitarianism is suspect.

One can turn to other forms of consequentialism (the idea that the meaning of the good is wrapped up in consequences of actions - Utilitarianism is one form of consequentialism) In that case rather than say maximizing happiness you maximize flourishing. The problem of time and measurement remain though.

The subjectivity problem is much more wrapped up in the problem of measurement. The subjective element is whether someone thinks they are happy. But thinking you are happy and being happy are different. This is a traditional problem in the social sciences where self-reported states are taken as indicating state. However there's often quite good reasons to distrust people's judgments about themselves. This is particularly a problem with happiness studies which is actually a significant field in economics and social science.

I think that the classic Utilitarians just assumed happiness was an actual objective state of people. I should also note that they didn't necessarily think we had to be able to conduct the calculus to learn about morality. Rather that by thinking through what likely makes people happy we'd get a better idea of what we should do. Thus thinking through Utilitarian questions led to claims about racial equality and equal rights for women. (To take two famous examples where Utilitarianism made a huge impact politically) Whether or not Utilitarianism was right, I think thinking seriously about it's implications was very useful.

13 hours ago, Not Sure said:

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. 

To a degree, although I will fully admit to being a moral skeptic. That is I find most of what philosophers write about morality to be rather dubious. To the degree I'm attracted to any moral theory it'd probably be some form of virtue ethics. That is I'm somewhat skeptical we can talk about good acts in isolation. Rather we can talk about good people.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour 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.

By separation I assume you just mean God believes the good is the good. But that doesn't really help us in understanding what makes the good the good. Put an other way are these independent laws fully independent? Or are they laws as merely a description of what good people do? That's not a minor point but is actually a crucial issue. 

While Mormons often assume there are some independent laws of the ultimate universe that are independent of God and everything else, I'm a bit skeptical. For one it seems to be sneaking in platonism of a sort which seems a problematic move. For an other it could well be that laws just emerge out of the way free individuals behave. There are parallels to this in thermodynamics where given material objects and a few properties you can derive the laws of thermodynamics. A long philosophical question about physics is whether there are a set of laws independent of existing things or if the laws emerge from existing things. Effectively the same question pops up in ethics for Mormons.

This is actually pretty pertinent for a post I'm writing for T&S on materialism about a chapter of Adam Miller's book Future Mormon. Adam notes that many Mormons who say they are materialists actually sneak idealism in by appealing to "laws of the universe." (His particular target is Terryl Givens)

Edited November 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While Mormons often assume there are some independent laws of the ultimate universe that are independent of God and everything else, I'm a bit skeptical. For one it seems to be sneaking in platonism of a sort which seems a problematic move.

 

 

Why is Platonic influence in Mormonism problematic?

[gmormon]

Without reading all the comments, (just the 1st page so far,) I just wanted to say our values come from many sources. Morality starts with our family values, to our extended family values, to our local community values, to our larger community ie state values here in the USA, to our national values, and  possibly global values. However those who have a belief in a higher purpose to this life, as a belief in God have a overriding morality compass in their lives that can have major effective driving influence that can overcome other sources of morality. This is not to say some of our moral values could possibly come from one or more of the sources, but some values are definitely driven by a belief in a higher soure.

[clarkgoble]

42 minutes ago, Gray said:

Why is Platonic influence in Mormonism problematic?

It's not necessarily inherently problematic but it's incompatible with the materialism many think they need to espouse. I don't have a problem with some variant of platonism as the foundation of reality, although I'm certainly skeptical of it.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

 

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.

Again you are attributing to me the exact opposite of what I have been saying here, thus entirely missing the point. Both of us take a realistic view that religions often adapt to the mores of the larger society, and both Mormons and Jews have done some of that.  It has been called "accommodation" by professional historians.  However, you went too far in saying that  

Quote

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.

This is only true to a limited degree, rather than wholesale, and several of the examples you gave were false.  Basic Mormon beliefs remain unchanged across the board, and the same applies to Judaism, and to the Amish.  Each in its own way has maintained a separate internal mode, while appearing to be "normal" in an outward manner.  In fact, that is one of the primary reasons why they have been held in such disrepute for so long.  Mitt Romney (whom I did not support) attracted an extraordinary amount of hate just because he was a Mormon.  If Mormons had so fully adapted, as you suggest, that could not happen.  You need to look more deeply.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Valentinus said:

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

What does that mean in practice?  Are you at war with anti-disestablishmentarians?

[thesometimesaint]

Show me what you do, and I'll know what you believe.

[Thinking]

Sometimes a religious person's morality is negatively affected by a feeling of superiority. A lot of killing, discrimination, and other not nice things have been done in the name of God/religion.

[bluebell]

I haven't read any of the thread and I know i'm getting at this late so i'm sorry if this has already been said, but I don't think that atheists are more or less moral, in general, than religious people because both groups usually get their morals from the judaeo/Christian ethic that has shaped many if not most of the world's cultures.

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What does that mean in practice?  Are you at war with anti-disestablishmentarians?

I no longer hold to the ideals and fantasies of a governed people. My former Communist beliefs included. I politically commune with theists and atheists in our distaste for the never ending injustices enacted by the state. In any hierarchy, money is the rule of law. The placating of authority to the public merely furthers the agenda of those who holds the power and attempt to distract us from the dirt and blood on their hands.

[Gray]

48 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Sometimes a religious person's morality is negatively affected by a feeling of superiority. A lot of killing, discrimination, and other not nice things have been done in the name of God/religion.

Yes, and the same holds true for secular/political ideologies that also feed on in-group superiority. 

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't read any of the thread and I know i'm getting at this late so i'm sorry if this has already been said, but I don't think that atheists are more or less moral, in general, than religious people because both groups usually get their morals from the judaeo/Christian ethic that has shaped many if not most of the world's cultures.

I think you are basically right about this. Although if you were to ask a very religious Chirstian to list the criteria of what describes a "moral" person; the list might be much longer or at least a little different than that of an atheist's list.  However, in the eyes of the general public both could easily be called a moral person, based on their actions rather than on what they believe. 
"Beauty is as beauty does". 

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again you are attributing to me the exact opposite of what I have been saying here, thus entirely missing the point. Both of us take a realistic view that religions often adapt to the mores of the larger society, and both Mormons and Jews have done some of that.  It has been called "accommodation" by professional historians.  However, you went too far in saying that  

This is only true to a limited degree, rather than wholesale, and several of the examples you gave were false.  Basic Mormon beliefs remain unchanged across the board, and the same applies to Judaism, and to the Amish.  Each in its own way has maintained a separate internal mode, while appearing to be "normal" in an outward manner.  In fact, that is one of the primary reasons why they have been held in such disrepute for so long.  Mitt Romney (whom I did not support) attracted an extraordinary amount of hate just because he was a Mormon.  If Mormons had so fully adapted, as you suggest, that could not happen.  You need to look more deeply.

There is some truth to what you write.  But I think the truth is somewhere between us.  While Mormons have publicly changed their position on both blacks and polygamy as well as other issues, people don't forget that easily.  And I think there is also a lot of animosity towards Mormons on how they treat gays.  Combine all of these issues together, throw in a few other beliefs, and there is bound to be at least one issue that people strongly object to.  The church may try to fit in to a more mainstream image, but honestly it has too much baggage for it to ever be fully accepted.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is some truth to what you write.  But I think the truth is somewhere between us.  While Mormons have publicly changed their position on both blacks and polygamy as well as other issues, people don't forget that easily.  And I think there is also a lot of animosity towards Mormons on how they treat gays.  Combine all of these issues together, throw in a few other beliefs, and there is bound to be at least one issue that people strongly object to.  The church may try to fit in to a more mainstream image, but honestly it has too much baggage for it to ever be fully accepted.

How true.  However, the RLDS did fully adapt and people will likely forget about their weird distinctives.  They even changed their name, and fully admitted that Joseph Smith introduced polygyny.  The problem though is that, having done that, they may finally disappear along with all the rest of mainstream Protestantism.

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

There is some truth to what you write.  But I think the truth is somewhere between us.  While Mormons have publicly changed their position on both blacks and polygamy as well as other issues, people don't forget that easily.  And I think there is also a lot of animosity towards Mormons on how they treat gays.  Combine all of these issues together, throw in a few other beliefs, and there is bound to be at least one issue that people strongly object to.  The church may try to fit in to a more mainstream image, but honestly it has too much baggage for it to ever be fully accepted.

Any LDS who mistreats Gays doesn't deserve the title of LDS.

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Any LDS who mistreats Gays doesn't deserve the title of LDS.

And in keeping with the topic at hand they are less moral.

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

And in keeping with the topic at hand they are less moral.

True.

[Gray]

On 11/27/2017 at 5:23 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

How true.  However, the RLDS did fully adapt and people will likely forget about their weird distinctives.  They even changed their name, and fully admitted that Joseph Smith introduced polygyny.  The problem though is that, having done that, they may finally disappear along with all the rest of mainstream Protestantism.

I'd be cautious about counting any religious group out just because of current trends. Current trends aren't so positive for the LDS Church either, but the future isn't written.

[Robert F. Smith]

52 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'd be cautious about counting any religious group out just because of current trends. Current trends aren't so positive for the LDS Church either, but the future isn't written.

While it is true that history is oscillatory, rather than linear, there have been powerful secularizing trends in Western society in recent generations which bring with them the hollowing out and disappearance of religious membership and activity nearly across the board.  In most cases, I see no likelihood of a "Great Awakening" in the offing, but a continuation of that decline. A few religious organizations will, of course, resist that trend, and we can analyze the reasons for their success, but the overall direction of change is clear.

The modern history of this factor in the West goes back at least to the time of John Locke, when he was able to provide a modern rationale for religious belief.  However, that rationale has now run its course, and little else remains to grab onto.

[CA Steve]

55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

While it is true that history is oscillatory, rather than linear, there have been powerful secularizing trends in Western society in recent generations which bring with them the hollowing out and disappearance of religious membership and activity nearly across the board.  In most cases, I see no likelihood of a "Great Awakening" in the offing, but a continuation of that decline. A few religious organizations will, of course, resist that trend, and we can analyze the reasons for their success, but the overall direction of change is clear.

The modern history of this factor in the West goes back at least to the time of John Locke, when he was able to provide a modern rationale for religious belief.  However, that rationale has now run its course, and little else remains to grab onto.

I fully agree with this and I think that those trends extend far beyond Western society and back further than Locke. I believe it started with the printing press and its ability to facilitate cheap mass communication. From the late 19th century on this ability was  magnified by electronic communication via the telegraph and then later the telephone and TV. Now we have the internet which allows almost anyone to communicate with anyone or everyone else. There is no longer any  institutional control over communication nor over what is being communicated. We have never seen such a society and have no idea where it will lead but I think general  comparisons to past history no longer apply. This is an entirely different world. I also think the negative effects on religious institutions are irreversible, baring a worldwide war or catastrophe.

Edited November 29, 2017 by CA Steve

[Not Sure]

8 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I fully agree with this and I think that those trends extend far beyond Western society and back further than Locke. I believe it started with the printing press and its ability to facilitate cheap mass communication. From the late 19th century on this ability was  magnified by electronic communication via the telegraph and then later the telephone and TV. Now we have the internet which allows almost anyone to communicate with anyone or everyone else. There is no longer any  institutional control over communication nor over what is being communicated. We have never seen such a society and have no idea where it will lead but I think general  comparisons to past history no longer apply. This is an entirely different world. I also think the negative effects on religious institutions are irreversible, baring a worldwide war or catastrophe.

There's no longer any institutional control over what is communicated?  I am pretty sure that propaganda is alive and strong.  That said the amount of free an open communication is also alive and strong at least for the moment (could always be better).  I would agree that it is a lot harder to completely hide negative information about an institution today such as the LDS Church from its members as compared to in the past.  That said humans have an amazing ability to compartmentalize information.  However, hopefully it is getting a lot harder to just "doubt your doubts" maybe one day it will be "embrace and celebrate your doubts".  Here's wishing?

[thesometimesaint]

Misinformation is half way around the world while truth is just putting on its shoes.

[Raymond Ellis]

Are religious people more moral than atheists?

Atheists worship power instead of the precision of the Holy Ghost. All humans divide their attention between the power and precision of their actions, so there are only two choices: you either worship power or you worship precision.

Many Christians worship, try to worship, both power and precision, both the spirit of power or might and the spirit of the holy spirit. Zech. 4:6: Not by might nor by power but by my spirit says the Lord.

It is very difficult to worship only the holy spirit, and hence be more moral than an atheist. -- in Matthew: the narrow path of the Holy Spirit's precision and the broad highway of power worship.

We are called to worship God first and only then to love our fellow man -- the first and second commandments.

A true Christian has the 10 spirits of God in their hearts -- this is the coded meaning in Daniel 1: ten days and ten times better. A true Christian is given the ten spirits and then has to learn how to live in the top seven most-intelligent spirits.

1Peter 2:5: "living stones" and Zech. 3:9: seven eyes on one stone. Abraham 3: 18-19 -- about the eternal spirits of God with the Holy spirit being the most intelligent: its like this in the heart of a true disciple.

We must humble ourselves and be like a little child or we cannot [experience] the kingdom of God within. Within: Luke17:21. It also helps to try and find a path with heart, a path which gives great peace and pleasure to the one who travels it.

A path with heart is found by finding a talent bestowed by parents. A path with heart has all of one's thought-actions in harmony -- like the eternal spirit's of God are in harmony from least intelligent to most intelligent.

Power isn't a sin but the worship of power is the sin.

See also Hebrews 4:12 about the precision of God.

[Calm]

On 2017-11-29 at 11:45 PM, thesometimesaint said:

Misinformation is half way around the world while truth is just putting on its shoes.

Wow, TSS hasn't been around for awhile.  Hope he is okay.