Religion's obsolescenence as moral guide

[SeattleUte]

Recently Cardiac posted an NY Times piece arguing for religion's necessity because fear of divine retribution and religion's restrictions purportedly make humans better people. I can't think of a more desperate or impoverished rationalization for religion. Also, what a dire, nihilistic view of human nature.

On the contrary, actually, there are so many ways in which religion fails us as members of twenty-first century society. One reason our U.S. religions are interesting is that in so may ways they live in a time capsule. They are relics of the past from the magic world view to the actual ceremonies to the values, including some ugly ones like paternalism.

I'll start with this NY Times blog piece as an example of how in our twenty-first century society we must look outside religion for moral guidance.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-you-breed/?hp

This does not mean we should not all be students of religion's vital role in making our current world for the better as well as for worse, much like adult children continue to honor their parents even as they make life choices and develop value systems that differ from those of their parents.

[CardiacCoug]

Recently Cardiac posted an NY Times piece arguing for religion's necessity because fear of divine retribution and religion's restrictions purportedly make humans better people. I can't think of a more desperate or impoverished rationalization for religion. Also, what a dire, nihilistic view of human nature.

On the contrary, actually, there are so many ways in which religion fails us as members of twenty-first century society. One reason our U.S. religions are interesting is that in so may ways they live in a time capsule. They are relics of the past from the magic world view to the actual ceremonies to the values, including some ugly ones like paternalism.

I'll start with this NY Times blog piece as an example of how in our twenty-first century society we must look outside religion for moral guidance.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-you-breed/?hp

This does not mean we should not all be students of religion's vital role in making our current world for the better as well as for worse, much like adult children continue to honor their parents even as they make life choices and develop value systems that differ from those of their parents.

Is that what you meant to link? Can I have those 5 minutes of my life back please?

What kind of selfish weirdo doesn't want to have at least one child?

[YOhio]

Good thread, SU. To move the discussion along, I think it would be helpful to take a look at look at those nations where religion has been banned at some point in the past couple of centuries and see how much better off they were without religion as a moral guide. Here's a helpful list from wikipedia:

French Revolution
Mexico under Plutarco Elías Calles
People's Socialist Republic of Albania
Czechoslovakia
The Soviet Union
The People's Republic of China
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
Mongolian People's Republic
Cuba
North Korea
Poland

[CardiacCoug]

Recently Cardiac posted an NY Times piece arguing for religion's necessity because fear of divine retribution and religion's restrictions purportedly make humans better people. I can't think of a more desperate or impoverished rationalization for religion. Also, what a dire, nihilistic view of human nature.

I have to correct this, too. All Brooks argued for was an external religious morality with which an individual compares moral/ethical decisions, because on our own we are prone to rationalization and moral drift. He didn't say anything about superstition or divine retribution.

And he's arguing that an approach where we try not to sin at all is superior to the approach where we only cheat/lie when we have to because overall we're still more good than bad. I think he's right.

[SeattleUte]

Good thread, SU. To move the discussion along, I think it would be helpful to take a look at look at those nations where religion has been banned at some point in the past couple of centuries and see how much better off they were without religion as a moral guide. Here's a helpful list from wikipedia:

French Revolution
Mexico under Plutarco Elías Calles
People's Socialist Republic of Albania
Czechoslovakia
The Soviet Union
The People's Republic of China
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
Mongolian People's Republic
Cuba
North Korea
Poland

It was banned because they effectively had their own state religions. You know better than that. Stop trolling.

[SeattleUte]

I have to correct this, too. All Brooks argued for was an external religious morality with which an individual compares moral/ethical decisions, because on our own we are prone to rationalization and moral drift. He didn't say anything about superstition or divine retribution.

And he's arguing that an approach where we try not to sin at all is superior to the approach where we only cheat/lie when we have to because overall we're still more good than bad. I think he's right.

The assertion that non-religious people "cheat/lie when they have to because overall we're still more good than bad" is offensive.

This is no better than the Mormon lore that people leave the faith so they can drink or believe that Mormonism has some special franchise for family values. There is no evidence that this nonsense is true. I wonder how many times Brooks has walked off when a single mom checker hands him too much change. Probably a lot given the content of his article; his ethics are in the toilet from the content of his aricle.

Every day I see people who live lives of complete integrity and never cross the threshold of a church. You may not be able to call it a desire not to sin but for many living with integrity is a discipline that comes naturally. I think you've been blinkered by your lifelong association with a religion you whose beliefes you regard as mostly silly.

The whole atavistic concept of sin arises from the medival belief in divine retribution and hell.

[SeattleUte]

Is that what you meant to link? Can I have those 5 minutes of my life back please?

What kind of selfish weirdo doesn't want to have at least one child?

I don't think you read the article. She didn't advocate against having children. She did, however, admonish people like you who automatically jump to the conclusion that those who don't have children are "selfish wierdos".

You have led a suprisingly insular life for a heart surgeon educated at a top med school. I guess one really does get a great deal of perspective or not from the college experience. One more reason to avoid BYU.

[ERCougar]

I don't think you read the article. She didn't advocate against having children. She did, however, admonish people like you who automatically jump to the conclusion that those who don't have children are "selfish wierdos".

You have led a suprisingly insular life for a heart surgeon educated at a top med school. I guess one really does get a great deal of perspective or not from the college experience. One more reason to avoid BYU.

Not surprising for one schooled only in the liberal arts to mistake a cardiologist for a heart surgeon. A bit provincial, but I guess one more reason to avoid the U.

[SeattleUte]

I have to correct this, too. All Brooks argued for was an external religious morality with which an individual compares moral/ethical decisions, because on our own we are prone to rationalization and moral drift. He didn't say anything about superstition or divine retribution.

And he's arguing that an approach where we try not to sin at all is superior to the approach where we only cheat/lie when we have to because overall we're still more good than bad. I think he's right.

Moreover, my whole point is that in our 21st century society we have sources of guidance against which to judge our conduct that are more robust than religion with its ancient texts filled with racism, authoritiarianism, misogyny, etc.

The assertion that absent religion there must be moral drift because religion provides the sine qua non of moral guidance does not respond to my point; it's just circular reasoning.

[SeattleUte]

Not surprising for one schooled only in the liberal arts to mistake a cardiologist for a heart surgeon. A bit provincial, but I guess one more reason to avoid the U.

He's only a cardiologist? Well, that explains a lot.

[ERCougar]

He's only a cardiologist? Well, that explains a lot.

Assuming that cardio thoracic surgeons are somehow more intelligent or on a higher rung than cardiologists...another expected pop culture type error. Do you also think rocket scientists are the smartest people in the world?

[LA Ute]

I think this thread has confused obsolescenence with adolescenence.

[SeattleUte]

I think this thread has confused obsolescenence with adolescenence.

I invite you actually to read Brooks' article. He starts by summarizing a social scientist's experiment tending to show that most people in our society resist doing terrible things, but will rationalize their way into minor moral transgressions. His primary example is that kids in a college dorm will not take money lying around but will walk off with a coke left in the kitchen.

From this he makes the leap that this is because society is less religious today. But the study didn't identify whether or not the people being studied are religious, or whether outcomes were or would have been different in a past, more universally religious age. The study doesn't purport to show whether people tend to be more honest in Salt Lake City or Seattle.

The part about religion making a difference is just Brooks' flight of fancy. It's not a good argument for organized religion. It's not even an argument. It's made up.

And, more to my point, his assertion that absent religion there is no metric for moral behavior available is nothing but circular reasoning and belied by the immense and diverse array of literature available to us today addressing morality. Ultimately, Brooks is just asserting that fear of hell makes us better. As I said, a nihilistic view of human nature, and not supported or attempted to be supported by the studies he cites.

I stopped much reading op ed pages a long time ago. They are filled with so much crap. It must be hard to say something totally original every week. I know I'd struggle with that.

[LA Ute]

I invite you actually to read Brooks' article. He starts by summarizing a social scientist's experiment tending to show that most people in our society resist doing terrible things, but will rationalize their way into minor moral transgressions. His primary example is that kids in a college dorm will not take money lying around but will walk off with a coke left in the kitchen.

From this he makes the leap that this is because society is less religious today. But the study didn't identify whether or not the people being studied are religious, or whether outcomes were or would have been different in a past, more universally religious age. The study doesn't purport to show whether people tend to be more honest in Salt Lake City or Seattle.

The part about religion making a difference is just Brooks' flight of fancy. It's not a good argument for organized religion. It's not even an argument. It's made up.

And, more to my point, his assertion that absent religion there is no metric for moral behavior available is nothing but circular reasoning and belied by the immense and diverse array of literature available to us today addressing morality. Ultimately, Brooks is just asserting that fear of hell makes us better. As I said, a nihilistic view of human nature, and not supported or attempted to be supported by the studies he cites.

I stopped much reading op ed pages a long time ago. They are filled with so much crap. It must be hard to say something totally original every week. I know I'd struggle with that.

I agree with this. But I must add that I see evidence of senescenenence in your post.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I agree with this. But I must add that I see evidence of senescenenence in your post.

Now get offa my lawn, you yella-bellied whipperiersnappererer!

Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden are countries* with some of the highest percentage of agnostic/atheistic people in the world, yet they are very moral societies. Sure, they have deep roots in Christianity and before that they believed in the more naturalistic religions (Pagan). (And by 'moral', I don't mean 'LDS moral' i.e. strictly follow the WOW and mentally torture their teenagers over 'self abuse', etc. I mean moral in the sense that they have a very low crime rate**, all people are treated with great respect without regard to race/gender/attraction/religion, the countries choose not to be belligerent to other nations, etc)

One of the most piously religious American presidents in recent history was George W. Bush, who sometimes seemed to have little compunction about having a "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" approach to foreign policy. His was a very religious position, but is in many ways highly immoral as the number of 'collaterally damaged' (dead) Iraqis and Afghanis will attest.

I believe our 'moral values' are derived from society in general. Religions simply echo and reinforce these morals, and for this reason religion can be a benefit to society in general.

But to claim that society is moral SOLELY due to the coercive power of religion should be offensive to any sentient being. This is effectively saying, "You are only moral because you fear God and what happens in the life to come. You are not smart enough to choose to live a moral life without religous influence."


*~80% belong to the state Evangelical and Lutheran churches, but only ~29% claim a belief in God vice 26% who claim atheism/agnosticism and ~45% who are not sure but believe there may be a Great Spirit or Life Force (a Blind Watchmaker who established the Cosmos and then effectively disappeared).

** This is one of the reasons why the shooting at the Jewish school was so shocking because it is absolutely out of place in an otherwise polite society.