Do the religious have higher morals than the non-religious?

by digderidoo 30 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  BreakingAway

  No, I personally do NOT agree that they have higher morals.What they DO have is a large list of "loopholes" and ways they can be excused, or "forgiven", for what they shouldn't have done in the first place.Instead of working on being a better person and taking responsibility for their actions, they just pull out the "get out of jail" free card, and say that Christ died for their sins and thats the end of it.Those who aren't Christians also find a way to justify their crimes......just look at the Taliban.Now, I'm not saying that some religious people don't try to be better people but let's face the facts that the most heinous of all crimes have had some sort of religious connection , inlcuding the fact that the offenders have had a belief in God.As one example...Whether people want to admit it or not Hitler did believe in God and many ideas were based on his interpretation on Bible passages.People think he was an atheist because the various other avenues he pursued, such as the occult, but in reality he just wasn't going to be limited by anything that could potentially help his "cause", even if those things seemed to contradict Christianity.

  “The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.”

  ( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 562.

  The belt buckle of the Hitler's army uniforms read: Gott Mit Uns ( "God With Us")

  So while it might seem like a good idea for people to live by a code that is religiously based, I personally find as a secular humanist, that doing good to others, simply because it is the right thing to do, without thought of reward or fear of eternal punishment, is the best way to live.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  It's easy to mistaken a "moral" person for a person that doesn't engage in certain conduct due to lack of opportunity or fear of consequences.
• 

  Layla33

  At the end of the day it is still an individual decision, atheists still have the consequence of legal authority for a lot of so-called "immoral activities" as a deterent. I believe that you have people good and bad no matter their title in all realms, at the end of the day it is the individual who makes their choice on life. I don't think higher morals exist, it's all an illusion.
• 

  HB

  I visited the USSR in 1973 when not only was it a secular state, but all religions were heavily suppressed. 'Morality' was taught to children by parents and schools and was based on innate human instincts and traditions passed down over generations rather than on written laws or religious teachings. I found the standard of morality there to be no different than in countries where religion is integrated into the fabric of society. Russia was supposed to be classless but of course it was not, and I did find that, as in the UK and I guess elsewhere, the working classes were in many ways more moral then the upper classes.

  I met lots of lovely people (I was studying the Russain language) and in Odessa I was invited to attend a meeting of an underground Christian 'church' that met secretly in someone's house. It was a group of about 20 mainly young students who were studying English. It was quite amazing as they did not even have a Bible, just a few type-written sheets of information and Bible texts sent to them from the West. The main reason they invited me was because they were desperate for more information about Christianity and they begged me to send them a Bible and any other literature I could when I got home. They based their whole attitude to morality on the text "Love thy neighbour as thyself" which I felt was a great way to live and they were very sincere about putting it into practice. Although I did eventually send out some Bibles (disguised as classic novels), I was rather diffident about it as I think they had probably already found an ideal basis for simple and pure morality without reading too much further and spoiling it with layers of dogma!
• 

  Gopher

  I wonder if "the non-religious" claim "the religious" only stay moral because they want a reward to make themselves feel superior?

  No we don't. It's just a push-back against the ridiculous notion of religionists that "because we have a deity and a book with rules, that makes us more righteous than others". That kind of thinking is at the base of many religious conflicts, some of which have turned very bloody.

  As a non-religious person, I am appalled at the evil that has been done in the name of religion down through the centuries, and continues to be done. And then to hear that somehow religious people have higher morals because of their membership in or belief in a religion??? Give me a break.

  People are people, and in the end they individually choose whether to be good or rotten.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  People are people, [products of where, when, and to whom they were born,] and in the end they individually choose[, based on their genetics and environment,] whether to be [what another may arbitrarily define] to be ["]good["] or ["]rotten["].

  Just my agreement with you, Gopher, with some tweaking.
• 

  Zico

  Gopher,
  
  I get annoyed when people from either group act is if their belief or non-belief somehow makes them better than the other, and I think both can be just as guilty as the other. You haven't come across this way to me, quite the opposite in fact. I have a lot of respect for you.
• 

  Gopher

  I get annoyed when people from either group act is if their belief or non-belief somehow makes them better than the other, and I think both can be just as guilty as the other.

  That's a great answer to the question raised in the OP.
• 

  What-A-Coincidence

  morals are basically behaviors...

  behaviors ... why we do what we do ...

  which is based on the pain/pleasure principle

  Religious people interpret pain/pleasure around teachings ... avoiding "pain" even "pleasure" because of fear of "God" ... total lunacy!

  http://changingminds.org/disciplines/psychoanalysis/concepts/pleasure_pain.htm

  Pleasure-pain principle Explanations > Psychoanalysis > Concepts > Pleasure-pain principle Description | Discussion | See also Description We are born with a pleasure principle, that we will seek immediate gratification of needs, for which our bodies reward us with feelings of pleasure. The reverse is also true, and the pain principle says that, whilst seeking pleasure people will also seek to avoid pain. Discussion The pleasure-pain principle was originated by Sigmund Freud in modern psychoanalysis, although Aristotle noted their significance in his 'Rhetoric', more than 300 years BC. 'We may lay it down that Pleasure is a movement, a movement by which the soul as a whole is consciously brought into its normal state of being; and that Pain is the opposite.' The pleasure principle is at the base on hedonism, the idea that life is to be lived to the full and pleasure sought as a primary goal. Hedonists in the extreme will be self-destructive in their use of sex, drugs, rock and roll and other methods of gratification. Pleasure is also related to Jeremy Benham's notions in Utilitarianism, where the 'felcific calculus' is used to calculate the maximum utilitarian gain in happiness. Pleasure and pain are basic principles in Conditioning, where you get more of what you reward and less of what you punish. Pain can be more immediate than pleasure, leading us to become more concerned with avoidance of pain and hence paying more attention to it. This can develop into a general preference in life towards avoidance. Pleasure and pain are at the root of the principles of Pull and Push. When pleasure and pain occur together, a certain amount of confusion may occur, which itself may be pleasant or painful and hence determine what happens. Simultaneous pain and pleasure is a basis for masochism.
• 

  hamsterbait

  By "HIGHER MORALS" I can only assume you mean living by the purportedly God-given law codes followed by the believer.

  Hence:

  If you believe your God says it is evil to have sex without marriage, then if you follow that, you will see yourself as more moral than somebody whose moral code does not forbid this.

  If you are a Christian and accept the words of St Paul, then you will see yourself as more moral by avoiding homosexual behavior, or if you are a woman by letting persons with a penis take the lead in worship. THAN

  say Hindus, who consider homosexuals as the "third sex" and part of natural creation, or Hellenists who accept both homosexuality and priestesses.

  Higher morals than whose? People of other religions who don't accept the same laws and codes?

  Religious people have perpetrated such evil I cannot see how they can believe they are more moral except insofar as they are obeying their God and that is always sooo moral, even if it means butchering old women mothers and babies, or saying "amen" that their god will torture everybody who does not share their own chosen religious viewpoint, or read the same Holy Book.

  Morality does not depend on whether you think there is an invisible supernatural being in the sky smiling and giving you the thumbs up when you do what you think he wants you to do - whether that is stoning homosexuals, massacring Canaanites, or blowing up the World Trade Center.

  Morality is about doing what you believe is right, even if it means going against the religious codes everybody else is following. That can make you more moral than a believer.

  HB