Pretty good argument for organized religion

[CardiacCoug]

I thought the last David Brooks essay was a pretty good, common sense argument for why organized religion is a good thing. He points out how easy it is to drift morally when we just balance our good acts against our bad acts rather than trying to stick to some external standard. Good stuff.

Ariely points out that we are driven by morality much more than standard economic models allow. But I was struck by what you might call the Good Person Construct and the moral calculus it implies. For the past several centuries, most Westerners would have identified themselves fundamentally as Depraved Sinners. In this construct, sin is something you fight like a recurring cancer — part of a daily battle against evil.

But these days, people are more likely to believe in their essential goodness. People who live by the Good Person Construct try to balance their virtuous self-image with their selfish desires. They try to manage the moral plusses and minuses and keep their overall record in positive territory. In this construct, moral life is more like dieting: I give myself permission to have a few cookies because I had salads for lunch and dinner. I give myself permission to cheat a little because, when I look at my overall life, I see that I’m still a good person.

....

The key job in the Good Person Construct is to manage your rationalizations and self-deceptions to keep them from getting egregious. Ariely suggests you reset your moral gauge from time to time. Your moral standards will gradually slip as you become more and more comfortable with your own rationalizations. So step back. Break your patterns and begin anew. This is what Yom Kippur and confessionals are for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/op...oral-diet.html

[ERCougar]

Maybe I don't know enough about Yom Kippur (or confessionals), but I don't understand his argument. If this rationalization and laxity with ourselves really does happen (this sounds an awful lot like paranoid anti-intellectual warnings against rationalization that we hear at church a lot), how does organized religion prevent it? Is participation in services necessary or could one just work at it individually? Is the ideal really everyone viewing themselves as depraved sinners?

The book sounds very interesting.

[CardiacCoug]

Maybe I don't know enough about Yom Kippur (or confessionals), but I don't understand his argument. If this rationalization and laxity with ourselves really does happen (this sounds an awful lot like paranoid anti-intellectual warnings against rationalization that we hear at church a lot), how does organized religion prevent it? Is participation in services necessary or could one just work at it individually? Is the ideal really everyone viewing themselves as depraved sinners?

The book sounds very interesting.

Sure, I don't know that seeing oneself as a "depraved sinner" is important or even helpful so yeah that part is confusing and would put readers off.

To me it just makes sense that people tend to rationalize and drift morally, and that's probably how people who aren't that different from the rest of us end up doing morally reprehensible things in a lot of cases.

And I think a lot of people (maybe most of us?) feel like we don't really need an external moral compass. We know what is right and wrong. But maybe we really are better if we refer ourselves back to an external moral standard of some sort (not necessarily attending Church, but at least reading and thinking about ethics/morality on some regular basis).

During the Penn State/Paterno scandal I remember that David Brooks talked in a similar manner about how we need to have moral "scripts" that we rehearse in our minds where we know exactly what we would do in a given situation. We need to know automatically that we will do the right thing. When people just wing it morally without having firm principles is when probably basically good people like Paterno end up making huge moral/ethical mistakes.

[doctorcoug]

During the Penn State/Paterno scandal I remember that David Brooks talked in a similar manner about how we need to have moral "scripts" that we rehearse in our minds where we know exactly what we would do in a given situation. We need to know automatically that we will do the right thing. When people just wing it morally without having firm principles is when probably basically good people like Paterno end up making huge moral/ethical mistakes.

When we rehearse situations we are best prepared when that situation presents itself.

[RobinFinderson]

I think Brooks' point goes both ways. On the one hand, adopting a third-party moral platform provides a community of watchers to informally (and sometimes formally) hold one responsible. I tend to agree that social accountability would tend to keep one closer to that moral code than others.

On the other hand, I think that individuals who are in a religion are LESS likely to morally evolve beyond the code of that religion. I personally think that the attitudes of many American Christians toward their homosexual brothers and sisters is a good example of where religion has stood as an obstacle to moral development.

I also think that a persuasive argument can be made that one's behavior isn't really moral unless the impetus for the behavior is a rational extension of the individual's beliefs about right and wrong. If I am told by God to pull a lever, and as a result the machine teaches a child how to ride a bike, do I deserve the karma bonus for teaching the kid to ride a bike? I don't think so. And likewise, if that same machine was attached to a baby grinder, I wouldn't bear the moral burden of having ground up a baby. Following religious dogma just isn't a moral plus, imo.

[CardiacCoug]

I think Brooks' point goes both ways. On the one hand, adopting a third-party moral platform provides a community of watchers to informally (and sometimes formally) hold one responsible. I tend to agree that social accountability would tend to keep one closer to that moral code than others.

On the other hand, I think that individuals who are in a religion are LESS likely to morally evolve beyond the code of that religion. I personally think that the attitudes of many American Christians toward their homosexual brothers and sisters is a good example of where religion has stood as an obstacle to moral development.

I also think that a persuasive argument can be made that one's behavior isn't really moral unless the impetus for the behavior is a rational extension of the individual's beliefs about right and wrong. If I am told by God to pull a lever, and as a result the machine teaches a child how to ride a bike, do I deserve the karma bonus for teaching the kid to ride a bike? I don't think so. And likewise, if that same machine was attached to a baby grinder, I wouldn't bear the moral burden of having ground up a baby. Following religious dogma just isn't a moral plus, imo.

Sure, I agree that organized religion has its downsides and has been and will continue to be on the wrong side of history on things like race and homosexuality. And ideally of course people would not just accept "religious dogma" at face value but use it more as a reference point.

Although I really like the main point of that essay: that Christianity and Judaism properly applied create a higher standard, it seems to me -- not just "Well I did more good things than bad things today" but "I need to fight the temptation to sin wherever it is encountered."

I think about all these white collar criminals in Utah who steal millions from "investors", but generously help the scouts, needy ward members, Haitian refugees, etc. If they even subconsciously subscribe to this "Moral Diet" type of thinking as Brooks describes it, then you can understand how they can feel they are OK even when they are evil.

[ERCougar]

Sure, I agree that organized religion has its downsides and has been and will continue to be on the wrong side of history on things like race and homosexuality. And ideally of course people would not just accept "religious dogma" at face value but use it more as a reference point.

Although I really like the main point of that essay: that Christianity and Judaism properly applied create a higher standard, it seems to me -- not just "Well I did more good things than bad things today" but "I need to fight the temptation to sin wherever it is encountered."

I think about all these white collar criminals in Utah who steal millions from "investors", but generously help the scouts, needy ward members, Haitian refugees, etc. If they even subconsciously subscribe to this "Moral Diet" type of thinking as Brooks describes it, then you can understand how they can feel they are OK even when they are evil.

But don't these white collar criminals counter the argument Brooks is making? They belong to an organized religion.

He seems to be making two points:
1) People naturally slip towards moral degeneracy because of personal laxity
2) Organized religion prevents this

I'm not sure that I agree with either, but I think the book may be an interesting treatment of 1). I'm curious to read it. As to 2), this is a huge leap, and one he seems to take as assumed. Robin breaks this down nicely--religion will get people to a certain decent place, but in so doing can make them comfortable enough with their morality that they don't seek anything further, and in some cases, justify real evil in the name of their chosen religion/dogma.

I see organized religion as analagous to formal education. A school can never really create a learned individual. It can provide an outlet for the curiosity--even stimulate it--but a student who isn't curious will never really learn. Likewise, a person who isn't introspective will never really become moral, whether he belongs to a religion or not.

I'm very curious what happens during Yom Kippur or "confessionals", as he calls them. Maybe he's saying the same thing.

[UtahDan]

He seems to be making two points:
1) People naturally slip towards moral degeneracy because of personal laxity
2) Organized religion prevents this

These strike me as the opposite of reality unless one defines moral degeneracy as drinking coffee, failing say the rosary prayer or eating pork. I suppose if you do then 2 is true. I agree with Robin's point as well.

[CardiacCoug]

These strike me as the opposite of reality unless one defines moral degeneracy as drinking coffee, failing say the rosary prayer or eating pork. I suppose if you do then 2 is true. I agree with Robin's point as well.

You sound like Bill Maher. Who cares about coffee or pork? You're saying that churches don't help their members live by true and worthwhile moral/ethical principles?

[byu71]

These strike me as the opposite of reality unless one defines moral degeneracy as drinking coffee, failing say the rosary prayer or eating pork. I suppose if you do then 2 is true. I agree with Robin's point as well.

Really??

I believe if you have a strong religous foundations you are more likely.

1) Not to get hooked on drugs

2) Not to get involved in theft

3) Get involved in charitable type giving

4) Not to participate in a multitude of casual sexual partners

5) Regard dishonesty as a faulty character trait.

I could go on. I am not saying a person without a strong religious foundation can't have those traits. However, I think it would be hard to deny a person with a strong religious foundations is likely to have those traits.

[RobinFinderson]

Really??

I believe if you have a strong religous foundations you are more likely.

1) Not to get hooked on drugs

2) Not to get involved in theft

3) Get involved in charitable type giving

4) Not to participate in a multitude of casual sexual partners

5) Regard dishonesty as a faulty character trait.

I could go on. I am not saying a person without a strong religious foundation can't have those traits. However, I think it would be hard to deny a person with a strong religious foundations is likely to have those traits.

This post is an interesting example of church's define 'morality' to include things that are really only tangentially moral issues. Going down the list:

1) Neither using drugs nor being addicted are morally offensive. The moral tangent is that addicted people will often do immoral things in order to serve the addiction. I think religions blur this distinction.

2) I agree that theft is immoral, but I doubt that church activity curbs it all that much.

3) Charitable giving is a moral good, though not a particularly significant one if we are talking about cutting checks.

4) The number of a person's sexual partners is only a moral issue within the confines of religion. There might be tangential moral issues attached to one's sexual activity, such as lying to one's spouse, or lying to seduce, and there are secondary health risks associated with sexual activity, but from a moral standpoint, sexual activity is non-issue.

5) There are different schools of thought on this, but I personally subscribe to the view that different lies carry different moral burdens, and that the sliding scale of moral burden correlates closely to third-party harm caused by dishonesty. I would tend to agree with that church-activity would probably increase personal sensitivity to some kinds of dishonesty.

It is unfortunate, from my perspective, that we are talking about church activity, rather than belief vs. unbelief. I would pit the general moral rectitude of atheists, as a group, against that of religionists, any day of the week. But my own anecdotal experience with believers who don't go to church would not want me to lump atheists in with that lot when it comes to fighting the good fight.

[UtahDan]

You sound like Bill Maher. Who cares about coffee or pork? You're saying that churches don't help their members live by true and worthwhile moral/ethical principles?

People do care about those kinds of things. If it was not clear, my point is that religions define what is moral and are good at getting people to do things that absent religion no one would put under the heading of right and wrong. When you stop and think about it, that is actually a huge part of what religion does. The truly profound teachings that religion offers (the golden rule, parts of the ten commandments, etc.) are not religious insights, but are at a minimum social adaptations and probably biological ones too. Ants are also adapted to cooperate and even self sacrifice without being individually conscious.

To me, the claim that a religious person does a better job living in tune with the basic human morality that is found in most religions, philosophies and communities is to me a big claim that needs to be supported by some evidence for me to believe it. I am very sympathetic to the argument that for a long time, maybe thousands of years, religion was so universal that it is hard to separate it from morality. But what is the evidence that good morality at this point in human evolution (societal and biological) doesn't exists just as well without religion? When you also lay on the balance the point that old moralities, prejudices and ideas get codified in religions which actually makes it harder for them to let go of bad ideas I think it is not at all clear that a person is better off with them. I think there is at least some evidence (which varies from religion to religion) that they do harm.

I think most religious people would say "of course religion makes anyone a better person." I'm just saying I have not seen the evidence for it and my personal belief is that one can have all the best things religion has to offer (most or all of which are human things) without that harmful baggage of religion. The doesn't even address the question of whether the belief that one's natural state is depravity coupled with threat of eternal punishment is the most productive motivator available to modern societies and individuals.

[ERCougar]

I think Brooks' point (although I still don't think that it's very clear) is that organized religion offers you a codified set of morals to refer back to during your introspection. I doubt that he would advise anyone to swallow them all without any sort of examination, but that these codes are the outcomes of thousands of years (or in our case, 180 years) of refinement, whereas our individual codes are much more likely to be influenced by what happened last week (and he would argue, tend to be self-serving--not sure I agree with this).

The other big advantage that an organized religion offers you, at least one where thought is encouraged, is that many of the great theological and moral questions have been addressed by centuries of great minds, in a way that you and I are simply incapable of on an individual basis, both due to time constraints (ha) and intellectual abilities. Why not stand on the shoulders of giants?

Sure, an atheist or a non-denominational believer can draw from this, but organized religion simply expedites things, through weekly meetings, organized classes, and published literature. How many atheists/non-attenders spend three hours a week focusing on their moral lives? They could, and I'm certain that some of them do, but in reality, how many?

[byu71]

This post is an interesting example of church's define 'morality' to include things that are really only tangentially moral issues. Going down the list:

1) Neither using drugs nor being addicted are morally offensive. The moral tangent is that addicted people will often do immoral things in order to serve the addiction. I think religions blur this distinction.

2) I agree that theft is immoral, but I doubt that church activity curbs it all that much.

3) Charitable giving is a moral good, though not a particularly significant one if we are talking about cutting checks.

4) The number of a person's sexual partners is only a moral issue within the confines of religion. There might be tangential moral issues attached to one's sexual activity, such as lying to one's spouse, or lying to seduce, and there are secondary health risks associated with sexual activity, but from a moral standpoint, sexual activity is non-issue.

5) There are different schools of thought on this, but I personally subscribe to the view that different lies carry different moral burdens, and that the sliding scale of moral burden correlates closely to third-party harm caused by dishonesty. I would tend to agree with that church-activity would probably increase personal sensitivity to some kinds of dishonesty.

It is unfortunate, from my perspective, that we are talking about church activity, rather than belief vs. unbelief. I would pit the general moral rectitude of atheists, as a group, against that of religionists, any day of the week. But my own anecdotal experience with believers who don't go to church would not want me to lump atheists in with that lot when it comes to fighting the good fight.

1) Really, you don't think being hooked on drugs is bad for a person? Moral or not, I think being hooked on drugs is bad for a person. It really takes away their free agency.

Since I said drugs, you can't say oh yea, you can be hooked on marijauna and not have problems. While I might agree with you, you would be ignoring cocaine, meth, and others I can't think of but maybe you can.

2) We have a difference of opinion.

3) Again, difference of opinion.

4) Bull shit. Sleeping around brings about a lot of problems regardless of whether it is moral or not. It can wreck families and spread diseases.

5) We probably agree.


I wouldn't automatically judge an atheist immoral or judge a church goer as moral. I am talking about generalities.

[RobinFinderson]

The other big advantage that an organized religion offers you, at least one where thought is encouraged, is that many of the great theological and moral questions have been addressed by centuries of great minds, in a way that you and I are simply incapable of on an individual basis, both due to time constraints (ha) and intellectual abilities. Why not stand on the shoulders of giants?

I doubt that religious folks are reading Aquinas and Bonhoeffer in greater proportion than their atheist counterparts. I think that holds especially true of Mormons, who suffer the legacy of Packer's anti-intellectual crusade + heavily correlated study materials.