Religion and Morality
-
I hope you are all feeling very peaceful as you read this... )
Some people are under the false impression that religion defines morality.
That is not true. Morality is completely independent. A non-religious society can be perfectly moral.
I was writing some more explaining more of this but I think most people agree with this.
Salaam
Religion does not define morality but God installed in every human being a chip of morality in their brains and that is what makes them humans. No one can say they did not get a reminder when they are about to do something which feels wrong or feeling of regret or haunt later, often defined as ?guilty conscious?
Recall that your Lord summoned all the descendants of Adam, and had them bear witness for themselves "Am I not your Lord?" They all said, "Yes. We bear witness." Thus, you cannot say on the Day of Resurrection, "We were not aware of this."A portion of our brain did not submit to this chip and a whisper from that side (Satan) does all it can to overtake and kill the voice of conscious tempting that this is how humans could become carefree.
peace -
Society defines morality. Religion is just a set of moral codes to follow. These moral codes are defined by the person or diety who creates whatever religion, and some may contradict some of what what's accepted in society, some may agree with everything. For example, if you're not a religious person, gambling and intoxicating yourself responsibility isn't a big deal - as long as you don't hurt anyone...and they'd be right. For those who believe in God, that stuff is off-limits.
Personally, I make a distinction between general morality and religion. Religion exists to answer questions like "why're we here?", "what's the meaning of life", etc. When God says to refrain from gambling and intoxicating your mind, I would listen. Not because I automatically consider it evil, but because God said don't do it. When God says jump, you ask "how high", and that's how life is. -\
My two cents.
-
if you're not a religious person, gambling and intoxicating yourself responsibility isn't a big deal - as long as you don't hurt anyone...and they'd be right. For those who believe in God, that stuff is off-limits.
Yes these are big problematic issues. Have you heard of the problems associated with alcoholism and binge drinking as well as addiction to gambling which could result in total loss of control resulting is huge losses, eventually one not only hurts himself but others around too become innocent victim of these curses. peace
-
Peace
I sort of lean with Nietzsche when it comes to morality. haha, check this, it is interesting, but you should probably get the book
"That lambs dislike great birds of prey does not seem strange only it gives no ground for reproaching these birds of prey from bearing off little lambs. And if the lambs say among themselves 'these birds of prey are evil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey, but rather its opposite, a lamb - would he not be good?' there is no reason to find fault with this institution of an ideal, except perhaps that the birds of prey might view it a little ironically and say 'we don't dislike them at all, these good little lambs; we even love them nothing is more tasty then a tender lamb.'
"To demand of strength that it should not express itself as strength, that it should not be a desire to overcome, a desire to throw down, a desrie to become master, a thirst for enemies and resistances and triumphs, is just as upsurd as the demand of weakness that it should express itself as strength." - Friedrich Nietzsche; On the Geneology of Morals
-
Ah Nietzsche. Come to this thread http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597510.0 for more quotes by Nietzsche. Also before reading On the Geneology of Morals read Beyond Good and Evil. Because On the Geneology of Morals is a seqel to Beyond Good and Evil. You can read them on there own if you desire. But you will have a better understanding of what Nietzsche is trying to say by reading both of his books.
-
Yes these are big problematic issues. Have you heard of the problems associated with alcoholism and binge drinking as well as addiction to gambling which could result in total loss of control resulting is huge losses, eventually one not only hurts himself but others around too become innocent victim of these curses.
Lol, that's why I said "responsibly". I know plenty of people that drink occasionally (and I mean once every few months) in a safe setting and people who gamble small amounts every now and then. Some who do both.
I don't see how that's immoral. I can see how it's pointless, but immoral? Nah. -
-
Salaam
Religion does not define morality but God installed in every human being a chip of morality in their brains and that is what makes them humans. No one can say they did not get a reminder when they are about to do something which feels wrong or feeling of regret or haunt later, often defined as ?guilty conscious?
Recall that your Lord summoned all the descendants of Adam, and had them bear witness for themselves "Am I not your Lord?" They all said, "Yes. We bear witness." Thus, you cannot say on the Day of Resurrection, "We were not aware of this."A portion of our brain did not submit to this chip and a whisper from that side (Satan) does all it can to overtake and kill the voice of conscious tempting that this is how humans could become carefree.
peaceI agree. But here's the flaw with that thinking a lot of people who do the wrong thing don't think that they are doing anything wrong at all. We always try to justify our actions no matter what we do, and more often than not we convince ourselves. And sometimes we just don't think we are capable of doing any harm.
An extreme example of this would be suicide bombers. To them, they are doing a noble thing, dying to defend their religion. But we know they are doing something wrong.So our instincts are not reliable in this case. We have to rely on reasoning.
-
Society defines morality. Religion is just a set of moral codes to follow. These moral codes are defined by the person or diety who creates whatever religion, and some may contradict some of what what's accepted in society, some may agree with everything. For example, if you're not a religious person, gambling and intoxicating yourself responsibility isn't a big deal - as long as you don't hurt anyone...and they'd be right. For those who believe in God, that stuff is off-limits.
Personally, I make a distinction between general morality and religion. Religion exists to answer questions like "why're we here?", "what's the meaning of life", etc. When God says to refrain from gambling and intoxicating your mind, I would listen. Not because I automatically consider it evil, but because God said don't do it. When God says jump, you ask "how high", and that's how life is. -\
My two cents.
It's not true that to people who are not religious gambling and drinking is not a big deal. I know people who are not religious at all and they do not drink (at least not regularly) and they do not gamble, because they realize the harm on those things.
And that's what I'm saying. We don't need religion to make rules for us because we can arrive at them through reason. We always do, if our minds are open.
And society does not define morality. A society's definition of right and wrong can be flawed. Which means there has to be another independent standard that we judge these flaws by. Same with religion. If religion defines morality, then which religion is right? Is eating pork really wrong if Christianity doesn't forbid it? But we judge these religions - and the independent standard of morality is what we use. There would be know real way of knowing right and wrong if this didn't exist.
Religion doesn't create morality, but it attempts to guide us to it. Unfortunately I do not agree at all with the means with which it guides people.
So you avoid doing certain things, or do certain things, because god told you to do them. You don't think they have anything to do with right and wrong? Or do you think that because god commands it, it is right?
-
Peace
I sort of lean with Nietzsche when it comes to morality. haha, check this, it is interesting, but you should probably get the book
"That lambs dislike great birds of prey does not seem strange only it gives no ground for reproaching these birds of prey from bearing off little lambs. And if the lambs say among themselves 'these birds of prey are evil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey, but rather its opposite, a lamb - would he not be good?' there is no reason to find fault with this institution of an ideal, except perhaps that the birds of prey might view it a little ironically and say 'we don't dislike them at all, these good little lambs; we even love them nothing is more tasty then a tender lamb.'
"To demand of strength that it should not express itself as strength, that it should not be a desire to overcome, a desire to throw down, a desrie to become master, a thirst for enemies and resistances and triumphs, is just as upsurd as the demand of weakness that it should express itself as strength." - Friedrich Nietzsche; On the Geneology of Morals
I might be wrong here, but wasn't Neitzche an Egoist? He claimed that the right thing is what benefits one's own self? If that's true, then he was terribly wrong.
But I like his analogies...make you think.
-
Morality is coded in our genes and even in the genes of smart animals. The god also tells us that morality is intrinsic to human nature (554 and 1529).
Read my reply to Farida's post and tell me what you think. Cause I htink you're saying the same thing. Way to be original. P
-
And society does not define morality. A society's definition of right and wrong can be flawed.
That's my point. What's right and what's wrong is never universal. It's always defined by society. What's accepted in western nations is rejected in so-called Islamic nations. <-- just an example. Another one
"I agree. But here's the flaw with that thinking a lot of people who do the wrong thing don't think that they are doing anything wrong at all. We always try to justify our actions no matter what we do, and more often than not we convince ourselves. And sometimes we just don't think we are capable of doing any harm.
An extreme example of this would be suicide bombers. To them, they are doing a noble thing, dying to defend their religion."They're doing the wrong thing in YOUR opinion, but who are you to judge? I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to prove a point. You think the way you do because of society, and so do they. Their society defined morality...and killing innocents in the name of God and dying in the process is a great honor to them.
It's not true that to people who are not religious gambling and drinking is not a big deal. I know people who are not religious at all and they do not drink (at least not regularly) and they do not gamble, because they realize the harm on those things.
Right, they realize it's stupid. They don't think it's "evil" or "immoral" though. BTW, I said "responsibly". That means "not in excess".
So you avoid doing certain things, or do certain things, because god told you to do them. You don't think they have anything to do with right and wrong? Or do you think that because god commands it, it is right?
Yeah, I'd avoid certain things and/or do certain things just because God, assuming He exists, told me to. I'd know nothing He tells me to do is wrong, but to say that it's all about right and wrong is a bit of a stretch to me. For example, praying. You can be morally sound (you mind your business, give to charity a little bit, take care of your family, drink only socially, etc), but never pray in your life. Or eating pork. You can't tell me eating pork is an evil act...because it's not. But since God said to stay away from it, I'd stay away from it.
Of course, I'd need a reason to believe in a diety. I just felt like pointing that out because I'm somewhat of a logical thinker and wouldn't believe in fairty tale things like religion without having a reason. I'm actually an agnostic, currently, but I'm looking into the work of Rashad Khalifa along with other stuff, and I have to say I'm almost bought.
-
Fuhrer, you are arguing for moral relativism and that is an inherently flawed theory. You're saying that what is right and wrong is just a matter of opinion; that if I THINK I'm right, then I AM right.
By your argument, suicide bombers are doing the right thing, and they should not be condemned.There is such a thing as right and wrong. I'm not saying we have concrete rules for right and wrong (its not always wrong to lie, for example, so it is unclear in that respect), but there is a right and wrong for most situations. It is decided by reality not by our perception of reality.
-
Fuhrer, you are arguing for moral relativism and that is an inherently flawed theory. You're saying that what is right and wrong is just a matter of opinion; that if I THINK I'm right, then I AM right.
By your argument, suicide bombers are doing the right thing, and they should not be condemned.Oh, true...you're right. I should probably change my position. xD
-
"I might be wrong here, but wasn't Neitzche an Egoist?"
It depends on how you see Nietzsche. I would not see him as a egoist. Because he himself said individualism is foolish. Instead a better look at Nietzsche's views on morality may be described this way. Nietzsche thought Christanity had been, for many centuries, a sufficient guide to morality. But it seemed to him that Christanity's days were over. He thought maybe people will follow Christanity for maybe two more centuries (Nietzsche lived in the 19th century and died in 1900). And even then it will never gain its previous respect. People will search for new religions and Christan values will lose their ability to control people. Western values will be scorned by westerners. Then it (Christanity) will die like other religions die. After this, terrible nihilism will take over. To Nietzsche nihilism was a thing to be feared. But he found Scienctism and secularism as worthless as Christanity was becoming. He thought these two views of morality will ruin the modern world. They, he said would be terrible replacments for Christanity. He predicted that Scienctism would bring savagery and bloodshed to the world. He was quite right. The violence of the 20th century was caused by Scienctism. This is one of the reasons why I like Nietzsche. All of his predictions come true. He was a very good prophet just like he was a good philosopher. And concerning Secularism he thought it will bring people into a world as illusionary as the Christan heaven and hell. So what then? Nietzsche thought the answer was simple. A ethics and morality centered on creativity and intellectual power. A ethics that said yes to life. A ethics that, instead of making us depressed animals trying to cope with life, makes us able to enjoy life, to affirm it. But loving life he said does not mean we become deaf to its ruthless cruelty. Also this new morality must not make itself holy. Nietzsche thought morality is not made by any holy being so it must never be holy. We must have the rare ability of intellectual power. By intellectual power he means the power to question ones assumptions, to say what if I am wrong, or what if all these rules that I follow are void of any genuine value. People who think critacally and challenge themselves are "superman". If you question yourself and are able to utilize your creative power, you have become a "superman". Superman is not something phyisical. It is mental. So a new ethics must strive for creativity, self critcism of ones views, an affirming of life or saying "yes" to life, and an acceptance of the brutal reality of life in which cruelty unfortunatly rules. But even though he stressed creativity Nietzsche was not individualist or modernist. He made fun of individualism, and found modern society terribly. He often demolished the niave beleif in progress, and said technology will bring many ills and terrors. Modern society will be pitiful and boring. Thats why a new ethics is needed. But his stressing on creativity is individualistic. But on and all theres much more to Nietzsche and he was not a egoist. -
"I might be wrong here, but wasn't Neitzche an Egoist?"
It depends on how you see Nietzsche. I would not see him as a egoist. Because he himself said individualism is foolish. Instead a better look at Nietzsche's views on morality may be described this way. Nietzsche thought Christanity had been, for many centuries, a sufficient guide to morality. But it seemed to him that Christanity's days were over. He thought maybe people will follow Christanity for maybe two more centuries (Nietzsche lived in the 19th century and died in 1900). And even then it will never gain its previous respect. People will search for new religions and Christan values will lose their ability to control people. Western values will be scorned by westerners. Then it (Christanity) will die like other religions die. After this, terrible nihilism will take over. To Nietzsche nihilism was a thing to be feared. But he found Scienctism and secularism as worthless as Christanity was becoming. He thought these two views of morality will ruin the modern world. They, he said would be terrible replacments for Christanity. He predicted that Scienctism would bring savagery and bloodshed to the world. He was quite right. The violence of the 20th century was caused by Scienctism. This is one of the reasons why I like Nietzsche. All of his predictions come true. He was a very good prophet just like he was a good philosopher. And concerning Secularism he thought it will bring people into a world as illusionary as the Christan heaven and hell. So what then? Nietzsche thought the answer was simple. A ethics and morality centered on creativity and intellectual power. A ethics that said yes to life. A ethics that, instead of making us depressed animals trying to cope with life, makes us able to enjoy life, to affirm it. But loving life he said does not mean we become deaf to its ruthless cruelty. Also this new morality must not make itself holy. Nietzsche thought morality is not made by any holy being so it must never be holy. We must have the rare ability of intellectual power. By intellectual power he means the power to question ones assumptions, to say what if I am wrong, or what if all these rules that I follow are void of any genuine value. People who think critacally and challenge themselves are "superman". If you question yourself and are able to utilize your creative power, you have become a "superman". Superman is not something phyisical. It is mental. So a new ethics must strive for creativity, self critcism of ones views, an affirming of life or saying "yes" to life, and an acceptance of the brutal reality of life in which cruelty unfortunatly rules. But even though he stressed creativity Nietzsche was not individualist or modernist. He made fun of individualism, and found modern society terribly. He often demolished the niave beleif in progress, and said technology will bring many ills and terrors. Modern society will be pitiful and boring. Thats why a new ethics is needed. But his stressing on creativity is individualistic. But on and all theres much more to Nietzsche and he was not a egoist.Thanks for that explanation. I have read pretty much nothing of Neitzche's work, except some neat quotes here and there. And I've read very little about him.
I think using our creativity and intellectual power to re-think and re-invent is very important. That's the problem with religions I think (and I think that's why he thought christianity would fail) - they don't move forward. God has already revealed the truth in his final book, and nothing can change it. People no longer search for the truth or think critically because it's already been given to them.
The best way to learn is to learn from our experience, from our mistakes - and we can learn and become better if we think critically and question ourselves.I don't agree with his view on individualism. I think both individualism and collectivism are important. Both have their positives and negatives. I'm quite an individualist, as I'm sure the majority of people are on this forum. I think we tend to be more creative too, since we're willing to think outside the box. So I don't get his problem with us individualists.
I don't get the part about harsh realities of life. Is that talking about survival of the fittest?