Morality only comes from religion?

[Who]

Apparently not, it appears to be hardwired into our brains... http://health.msn.com/centers/depression/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100167285&GT1=10305 ...though no doubt it is hardwired into others' brains that doing bad deeds gives them just as much pleasure. So, depending on how one looks at it, some people are just born either innately good or bad, or the split is part of evolution, where those with "good" brains survive by helping eachother and working as a group, and those with "bad" brains survive through deceit and playing dirty and whichever is better suited will live on. Then again, it could all be one's environment growing up. Then does this mean people are raised to be bad or good? But nevermind that, for I digress. The point of the thread was questioning where morality actually comes from.

[Wibbler]

It's pretty obvious that religion isn't the only source of morality.

[Ummon]

Worse than this though, to have common morals a society must have a common ground between its moral systems. Without religion(s) as moral system(s), history tells us that societies tend to fragment and have no moral system at all (before they collapse).

For as much as atheists may not like this, this is what is happening today: along with a barbarization of culture and general decline of society.

This doesn't occur because "good old tradition" loses ground, but because once the common frame of reference is eliminated, very few individuals have the capacity to construct their own in a manner which is compatible with civilized life. Add to this that in information society, for each truthful data passed by the media, at least 99 false statements accompany it, and you have the recipe for self-destruction.

[rathelios]

Please read Christopher Hitchens 'God is not Great'. Here he is in action:

Morality is not derived from religion. Morality is an emergent property of evolution.
There is no 'good' and moral act that could not have been performed by a non-religious person. Therefore religion is not necessary for morality.
There are many bad and immoral acts that have been performed in the name of religion – look at Iraq for several hundred examples a day.
How can morality be derived from religion if religion often produces the opposite of morality?

[Shaun]

Worse than this though, to have common morals a society must have a common ground between its moral systems. Without religion(s) as moral system(s), history tells us that societies tend to fragment and have no moral system at all (before they collapse).

For as much as atheists may not like this, this is what is happening today: along with a barbarization of culture and general decline of society.

This doesn't occur because "good old tradition" loses ground, but because once the common frame of reference is eliminated, very few individuals have the capacity to construct their own in a manner which is compatible with civilized life. Add to this that in information society, for each truthful data passed by the media, at least 99 false statements accompany it, and you have the recipe for self-destruction.

Well, can you please prove that "society is in a general state of decline'? I would love for you to explain this to me, given that my society is experiencing declines in racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism and others are all on the decline. Is that what you think was good for society - the above the be common?

Maybe you and I have totally different and contradicting view's on what is good for society, but the society that I currently see as the most barbaric and dangerous is that of extremist Islam, and the Middle East. They are highly religious societies, and have things like stoning a woman to death if they sleeps with someone else, hanging homosexuals, persecution of non Muslims to name just a few evils.

No wonder any half sensible Muslims wants to immigrate to the secular West.

[Justice and Mercy]

Nah, religion comes from (a flawed perception of) morality (unless there's a libertarian religion I haven't heard of...).

[Denny Crane!]

Society in decline? Thats a arguement without merit. Crime rates falling, abuse rates falling, racism no longer propagated like it once was as sexism recently as well.

Lets go back to the good old days of fragmented society eh? When a protestant in a catholic area can't get a job, where racism is accepted and black people can be denied a job based on their colour. World wars, huge amounts of ethnic cleansing.

Thats right because society is going down the drain, sigh.

[Who]

I have never seen Hitchens smile.

[Ummon]

Society is in a general state of decline, because the amount of control exerted by democratic powers is diminishing, as people do not have any more access to an adequate level of education, one capable of giving them the basic instruments to cope with an overcomplex society such as this is.

Crime rates are falling is a nonsensical assertion which you will hear in sociology courses, followed by a small, small footnote asserting that such interpretation is dubious. Though you see, there is no need of high crime rates for a society to be in decline.

Please read Christopher Hitchens 'God is not Great'. Here he is in action:
Morality is not derived from religion. Morality is an emergent property of evolution.
There is no 'good' and moral act that could not have been performed by a non-religious person. Therefore religion is not necessary for morality.
There are many bad and immoral acts that have been performed in the name of religion – look at Iraq for several hundred examples a day.
How can morality be derived from religion if religion often produces the opposite of morality?

We also see that society is in decline because people answer points which are not present in their debate opponents statements: I have asserted that religion is a custodian of morals, not their origin.

Though the argument above is unbelievably specious. I don't know who this hitchens is, but I sincerely do not envy those who do. Ah, I see, the guy behind the term Islamofascism. Clever term, rest not good.

[Denny Crane!]

Society is in a general state of decline, because the amount of control exerted by democratic powers is diminising,

Diminishing?

Whats the basis for this claim?

because people do not have any more access to an adequate level of education, one capable of giving them the basic instruments to cope with an overcomplex society such as this is.

But education is better now than 50 years ago.

Crime rates are falling is a nonsensical assertion which you will hear in sociology courses, followed by a small, small footnote asserting that such interpretation is dubious. Though you see, there is no need of high crime rates for a society to be in decline.

So what is needed to judge whether a society is in decline?

[Ummon]

Diminishing?

Whats the basis for this claim?

Has Bush resigned, after leading an unconstitutional, against-international-law war? What control does a citizen have over the political life of a western democratic country, as of today? How can a citizen possibly have access to a coherent interpretation of reality in information age? What postmoderns call the decline of "great narratives" is in truth the decline of each person's ability to analyze and understand reality.

But education is better now than 50 years ago.

And the need of education is much greater than 50 years ago. Remember Malthusian theory of food need vs food production?

So what is needed to judge whether a society is in decline?

It is possible to analyze it mathematically, complexity-wise. I can do this with a neural network, yet I don't know the exact permutations in formulas required to do it with a social network. Approximately though, my guess is that we are going towards a long time of troubles.

[Denny Crane!]

Has Bush resigned, after leading an unconstitutional, against-international-law war? What control does a citizen have over the political life of a western democratic country, as of today? How can a citizen possibly have access to a coherent interpretation of reality in information age? What postmoderns call the decline of "great narratives" is in truth the decline of each person's ability to analyze and understand reality.

More than ever with entire populations being franchised, you saying this means you have little or no understanding of the two major western countries I am familiar with most pointedly british political history of the last 200 years.

People today have more access to information than ever before which is much better than before the information age where they had access to little or no information and no education to speak of.

And the need of education is much greater than 50 years ago. Remember Malthusian theory of food need vs food production?

Fortunatly education now compared to a century ago is massively increased. Western society has taken this to unprecedented heights.

It is possible to analyze it mathematically, complexity-wise. I can do this with a neural network, yet I don't know the exact permutations in formulas required to do it with a social network. Approximately though, my guess is that we are going towards a long time of troubles.

In another words you guess, based on well no theory or conjecture at all besides some fancily worded sentences. I say that not aggressively but merely pointing out that the reasoning is hot air hidden by obfuscation which is abundantly clear in this last paragraph.

[Irishman]

It is possible to analyze it mathematically, complexity-wise. I can do this with a neural network, yet I don't know the exact permutations in formulas required to do it with a social network. Approximately though, my guess is that we are going towards a long time of troubles.

I love when people say this. There are ALWAYS troubles coming! How can you say we are in a decline? You cite one example of a negative ruler and then make the assertion "I think that bad things will happen in the future."

Please.

Another point that I would like to make, is that in America, the places at which the bennefits of the advancement of society are least felt, are also the most religious.

You have basic skills test scores in the bible belt which are graded as proficient, which would fail misserably in the educated, more secular north.


Again, other than you generic prediction of "bad times" and a bad ruler, you don't have much to stand on. The overall standard of living and public education in the west is rising.

[Who]

People have always thought civilization was in decline. Until we can look back, it is difficult to know such things because random and unforseen events can always change things. It is widely believed that the US would not have invaded Iraq if 9/11 never happened. Just look at the government today because of one event; Bush is now greatly despised world wide and in this country. For all we know, were some other event to happen instead, he would be seen as greatly loved by many.

[rathelios]

We also see that society is in decline because people answer points which are not present in their debate opponents statements: I have asserted that religion is a custodian of morals, not their origin.

Couldn't care less, Um. I'm just talking not debating. Didn't seem much point as your claims appear to be largely based on misanthropy and cynicism. These are personally derived qualities and thus beyond refutation. Cheer up chum.

Morality is an emergent property of evolution. This is a specious argument?
See 'The Selfish gene' (Dawkins); 'Why Good is Good' (Robert Hinde); 'The Science of Good and Evil' (Michael Shermer); 'Can we be good without God?' (Robert Buckman) amongst others.
How easy it must be to be able to blithely ignore any reasoned intellectual argument with which one does not agree on the grounds that it is specious.

It is specious to point out that religion is not a prerequisite for morality and is in fact directly responsible for much of the evil in the world?
What kind of moral custodian murders, maims, rapes and tortures? A really bad custodian.
Perhaps we can agree that ONE of us is making superficial arguments.