Original Post
Is religion a moral necessity?
Let's get something straight.
This is NOT going to be about the existence of a God, Atheism vs. Creationism, etc...
-Any reply that argues the existence or non-existence of a God is going to be ignored. I don't care what your opinion is, non of it can be realistically debated.
Many people argue that a world without religion would be catastrophic. Without religion who would teach moral guidance? Right from wrong? Offer opinions, suggestions, and reasons for why or why not religion is necessary for moral guidance.
----------
It is my belief that morals should be taught from a child's parent. Religion is not necessary for kids to learn right from wrong. If a parent is unable to teach their kid good from evil then that parent is not fit to be a parent.
This is NOT going to be about the existence of a God, Atheism vs. Creationism, etc...
-Any reply that argues the existence or non-existence of a God is going to be ignored. I don't care what your opinion is, non of it can be realistically debated.
Many people argue that a world without religion would be catastrophic. Without religion who would teach moral guidance? Right from wrong? Offer opinions, suggestions, and reasons for why or why not religion is necessary for moral guidance.
----------
It is my belief that morals should be taught from a child's parent. Religion is not necessary for kids to learn right from wrong. If a parent is unable to teach their kid good from evil then that parent is not fit to be a parent.
Last edited by JayStar; May 21, 2013 at 03:53 AM.
I'm probably not going to contribute to the discussion outside of this. But the correct statement of this common argument is that without religion there would be no justification for the existence of morals. Not that there would be no morals in existence.
There's a key difference between the two. One implies a philosophical nihilism. The other, common misinterpretation, implies the "chaos and disorder" to which you refer. Modern day theists active in this debate argue the first point, and typically agree that even without religion the world would exist under relative order with subjective morals.
Also my information was obtained by conferences in real life. Hence, I have no source to link for further reading or validation. However, my claims are shared by the third paragraph of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism. Which has it's own sources.
There's a key difference between the two. One implies a philosophical nihilism. The other, common misinterpretation, implies the "chaos and disorder" to which you refer. Modern day theists active in this debate argue the first point, and typically agree that even without religion the world would exist under relative order with subjective morals.
Also my information was obtained by conferences in real life. Hence, I have no source to link for further reading or validation. However, my claims are shared by the third paragraph of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism. Which has it's own sources.
(>^_^)>
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
Source
We learn how we need to be in order to be accepted by society the same way a monkey learns it.
If religion takes part in that process or not is irrelevant unless you want to talk about the quality of morals tought with/without religion.
Source
We learn how we need to be in order to be accepted by society the same way a monkey learns it.
If religion takes part in that process or not is irrelevant unless you want to talk about the quality of morals tought with/without religion.
nigerian PM
Originally Posted by GoodBox
I'm probably not going to contribute to the discussion outside of this. But the correct statement of this common argument is that without religion there would be no justification for the existence of morals. Not that there would be no morals in existence.
There's a key difference between the two. One implies a philosophical nihilism. The other, common misinterpretation, implies the "chaos and disorder" to which you refer. Modern day theists active in this debate argue the first point, and typically agree that even without religion the world would exist under relative order with subjective morals.
Also my information was obtained by conferences in real life. Hence, I have no source to link for further reading or validation. However, my claims are shared by the third paragraph of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism. Which has it's own sources.
That's true, but we're assuming this is a scenario where a standard moral foundation has been established by religion. Basically, if religion today, were to disappear entirely, would people be able to understand right from wrong? If so, would they be able to carry those morals from generation to generation?
I agree, morals are technically subjective but the majority of humans would settle on a common moral base, the "10 commandments" of society if you will.
Originally Posted by Sacrafan
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
Source
We learn how we need to be in order to be accepted by society the same way a monkey learns it.
If religion takes part in that process or not is irrelevant unless you want to talk about the quality of morals tought with/without religion.
Those are very interesting stats. However, your conclusion seems to contradict them. If people learn morals from their environment wouldn't the people brought up around religion be less likely to commit crime, obtain STD's, etc? Considering these are all things that most religions would find immoral.
We are talking about quality not the existence. Morals already exist, the question is whether or not they will remain without religion. Or wheter or not their standard of morality will lower or change.
Originally Posted by Juntalis
Personally, I tend to identify as a deist when prompted, not because of any need for a higher power to validate the meaning of my existence, but because of my rejection that time is infinite. I reject the notion due to the fact that it's one of those theories that has the advantage of "proven true only if it happens to be true". Humans have a natural expiration date, and as a result, there is nothing that we could ever observe as having "existed forever": without a start or end. This is significant to the topic of religion, because without the assumption that time is infinite, a start to existence becomes a requirement. Based on the fact that existence itself is too complex for humans to ever fully grasp, the only plausible assumption I can really make is that a force outside of our grasp of understanding was the motivating factor. Whether or not you want to take that to mean, "a higher being" or "God" is up to you, but I thought I should let you in on the fact that my belief in something greater is completely based in my own personal logic.
Now, given that my beliefs subsequently reject any divine intervention, or afterlife, it'd probably be pretty accurate to say that my views fall a bit closer to atheism than theism. Even so, I find it a bit silly that you have this retarded notion of superiority against a group people who believe in something you don't based upon their own life experiences and personal logic. Given your apparent authority on the realm of logic, I thought that you might like to explain how your stance is somehow more logical than theirs. That said, please logically explain to me how your belief in atheism (and subsequently, in time being infinite) isn't based in complete faith in the theories established by a group of physicists who's understanding of some of the more minute details of time somehow gave them unwarranted authority in the subject.
Well, it seems like you have made quite a mistaken assumption!
There is no consensus that time is finite or infinite, there are several theories that make various assumptions (for example the big bang theory assumes finiteness) but there are various issues to resolve. "Time is finite" is by no means a scientific fact.
I think it is counterproductive to plainly ignore science without good reason. My own personal experiences have done nothing to prove that time is either finite or infinite. If I had reason to disagree with a scientific theory, I would do so in the correct course, instead of outright saying "nah it's wrong because I think so".
It is logical to accept science for various reasons;
- Scientific theories are vetted and checked many times, peer reviewed and experiments reproduced and recalculated. These results are published in journals and articles. If I wanted I could personally check the results, or I can accept that many other qualified people have reproduced the results and reached consensus.
- Science is built on logic, and argument is allowed and encouraged. Organised religion merely accepts that God exists, or that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden without allowing any questions or attempts go challenge these 'facts'.
As above, I believe I can finish by answering your question: my agnosticism in the nature of time is aligned with science's agnosticism in the nature of time because I have found no compelling proof or chain of logic that gives me reason to believe otherwise.
Furthermore I think that you accepting that time is infinite just because you don't see any reason for it to be finite is illogical. And I find it absurd that you conclude that there must be "force outside of our grasp of understanding" must exist. Agnosticism towards the nature of time is the stance you should take.
