Religion is Personal

[SoonerCoug]

How do you prove it is innate rather than being influenced by the "Light of Christ" or by some interstellar radio broadcast that stimulates the appropriate areas in the brain that govern moral development and judgment?

P.S. Just because something hasn't been discovered yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'd say that you could just look at animals for a start.

Chimpanzees share food with chimps that have done good things for them, and they don't share with chimps that have done them wrong. They punish. They expect certain behavior. You can see a video and description in this paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964537/#pone.0000886.s001

Vampire bats are more likely to share blood with bats that have shared with them, but they are also more likely to share blood with bats that are starving to death (Nature 1984).

There is a huge benefit to having a good reputation. That's how communities are built, and it's an advantage for the species. It's not hard to see how it could be an advantage to kill a competitor. But it's a huge disadvantage to get caught and be ostracized by society. And it's an even greater advantage to be known as a person of great morality because it causes people to trust and give gifts in hope of receiving as well. Then even more complex relationships develop. It's easy to explain "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine." It's a little harder to explain: "I'll scratch your back, you'll scratch someone else's, and a third unrelated individual will scratch mine." That's where reputation comes in.


Here is a good newspaper article about chimps and morality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/sc...ll&oref=slogin

There are all kinds of analogies within the Church and society. The Church helps people that are doing their part and paying their tithing. If you play by the rules, you benefit more. If you break rules (generate dissent, complain, do criminal things, or have affairs), then you are ostracized and can be excommunicated. If you generate dissent or undermine the Church's authority, they'll kick you out or reprimand you. But they'll let you back in once you start playing by the rules again.

This is our biology. This is the way things were 150,000 years ago, and although things are more sophisticated and complex now, the fundamental rules are the same. This could be said for any organization, society, or religion. The smaller rules vary a bit, but the major rules stay the same.

[HauteCoug]

Can Mormons dish it out but not take it?

Here's what I mean:

I recently had a conversation with a Mormon about proselytizing. He told me how offensive he thought it was that I flaunt my agnosticism.

I responded: "I'm not trying to convert anyone to agnosticism. I'm just admitting my personal agnosticism. You are constantly trying to get me to go to Church, but when have I ever asked you NOT to go to Church? When have I ever invited you to become an agnostic like me?"

He said: "Well then you should avoid talking about religion altogether. People find it offensive."

I said: "I was sent by the LDS Church to Russia for two years in order to talk about religion with people. Are you telling me that it was OK for me to talk about religion and even try to convert people when I was promoting LDS theology, but now that I'm openly agnostic, it's not OK for me to share my beliefs with people anymore?"

He said: "Yes, that's what I'm telling you. Religion is personal, and people find your beliefs to be offensive. And what you did on your mission was different. On your mission, you were inviting people to a better life."

I'm a little perplexed by this, and I think there is a huge double standard within Mormonism. If religion is so personal that I should not talk about it, then why was I sent on a mission? I think this is primarily a reflection of the fact that many Mormons fear discussion, and also that they refuse to accept a diversity of viewpoints.

Sounds to me like you just spoke to an idiot.

[Jacob]

How can you be Christlike if you don't have someone to model after? I think some people fool themselves (and try to fool others) into thinking there is some universal morality that everyone would believe in and subscribe to if somehow the world had evolved sans any religious interference or influence.

Your statement seems to assume that ANY religious interference is good enough to create some universal morality. This seems like an odd assumption to make for someone who believe that there is only one God. Surely ethics and morality existed prior to Christ, so the general point stands that a living Christ is not a necessary prerequisite to a Christ-like ethic. Perhaps--you say--it is not Christ, but religious interference that creates the ethic. But how does this explain Greek and Roman ethicists? They knew virtually nothing of judeo-christian religion. Their paganism is not similar to our idea of religion. They cannot be said to believe in or have derived their ethics from our concept of God. Yet they were able to come up with ethics and laws that reflected them.

[Ma'ake]

Sooner - I think you've nailed this one. Christ-like behavior predated Jesus, exists in other species, including dolphins. (Dolphins can also be quite vicious, so we're more alike than maybe we'd like to admit.)

It seems to me that "certainty" is what separates the agnostics from both religionists and atheists.

It's also what allows the double-standard to be rationalized. In my case, having the surrounding neighbors "recruit" my son to Mormonism is justified in their minds, because Mormonism is considered superior, the ends justify the means. (For Southern Baptists trying to "save" Mormons, the same is true.)

But I'm sure my LDS neighbors would be really bent out of shape if the same thing happened to them. If they lived in Oklahoma and had to repel well-meaning attempts to "save" their children, they'd probably see things differently.

Tribalism. We're the good guys, those *other* people are lesser.

[creekster]

Sooner - I think you've nailed this one. Christ-like behavior predated Jesus, exists in other species, including dolphins. (Dolphins can also be quite vicious, so we're more alike than maybe we'd like to admit.)

It seems to me that "certainty" is what separates the agnostics from both religionists and atheists.

It's also what allows the double-standard to be rationalized. In my case, having the surrounding neighbors "recruit" my son to Mormonism is justified in their minds, because Mormonism is considered superior, the ends justify the means. (For Southern Baptists trying to "save" Mormons, the same is true.)

But I'm sure my LDS neighbors would be really bent out of shape if the same thing happened to them. If they lived in Oklahoma and had to repel well-meaning attempts to "save" their children, they'd probably see things differently.

Tribalism. We're the good guys, those *other* people are lesser.

I think this is incorrect. I have lived as a youth and an adult in commuinties where I was surrounded by well-meaning evangelists who all tried their damndest to convert me and get me to accept the real Jesus as my personal savior, despite my protestations that I had no interest. I was not offended and I didnt care much about it. I recognized that these people were sincere and that they meant very well.

I do not disagree with yout notion of tribalism, however, as I think that is correct. BUt the stereotype of mormons presneted here and by Sooner is just silly, IMNSHO.

[Ma'ake]

I think this is incorrect. I have lived as a youth and an adult in commuinties where I was surrounded by well-meaning evangelists who all tried their damndest to convert me and get me to accept the real Jesus as my personal savior, despite my protestations that I had no interest. I was not offended and I didnt care much about it. I recognized that these people were sincere and that they meant very well.

I do not disagree with yout notion of tribalism, however, as I think that is correct. BUt the stereotype of mormons presneted here and by Sooner is just silly, IMNSHO.

I think my Mormon neighbors are sincere and have only the best intentions. They're TBM. The plan was to convert my son, get me back into the fold and get the rest of the family baptized (even though they've already been baptized). To be honest, at this point I just hope my one LDS son doesn't think he's failed because the rest of his family hasn't joined.

Maybe they would not be deterred from trying the same thing on the next non-LDS family that moved in the neighborhood, but I suspect some of them would hesitate if they had one of their own kids "nabbed" by a different sect.

Now, I'd like to meet the Mormon who lives in the Bible Belt and has been able to convert multiple Baptist kids under their parents' noses (or conversely, the Bible Thumper who is converting Mormon kids in Utah to switch churches). That would be truly ballsy.

Being outnumbered and still having the courage and skill to sway other people's kids would earn my salute... I'm not sure exactly what for, but it denotes nads of titanium, if nothing else.

[mUUser]

I think this is incorrect. I have lived as a youth and an adult in commuinties where I was surrounded by well-meaning evangelists who all tried their damndest to convert me and get me to accept the real Jesus as my personal savior, despite my protestations that I had no interest. I was not offended and I didnt care much about it. I recognized that these people were sincere and that they meant very well.

I do not disagree with yout notion of tribalism, however, as I think that is correct. BUt the stereotype of mormons presneted here and by Sooner is just silly, IMNSHO.

I can't recall even a single time where this has happened. Not once. What am I doing wrong?

[SoonerCoug]

I can't recall even a single time where this has happened. Not once. What am I doing wrong?

I've been in Oklahoma/Missouri since 2002. No one ever tried to convert me either except for my home teachers.

[SloanHater]

Can Mormons dish it out but not take it?

Yawn.

Have you ever stopped to wonder if you're the problem? Perhaps it's YOUR personality that grates on people and not the message you bear?

[SoonerCoug]

Yawn.

Have you ever stopped to wonder if you're the problem? Perhaps it's YOUR personality that grates on people and not the message you bear?

Thanks for your contribution to the thread. We've been talking about all sorts of things including the origin of morality. Do you have any thoughts?

[creekster]

I can't recall even a single time where this has happened. Not once. What am I doing wrong?

When in high school I lived in a community with many evangelicals for a couple of years. I was constantly, and I mean almost every single day, encouraged to accept Jesus as my personal savior.

As a young adult, post mission, I lived in West Texas and was encouraged by a couple of families I got to know in the neighborhood to do the same thing.

It was pleasant enough, but it was not at all unlike what we LDS often try to do to non-members in our neighborhoods, except maybe the high school stuff was more aggressive, but that had as much to do with the fact that I was always hanging out with those kids because, well, Brenda B. was an evangelical and she was pretty hot and I almost converted just for her.

[SloanHater]

Thanks for your contribution to the thread. We've been talking about all sorts of things including the origin of morality. Do you have any thoughts?

Morality is a constant flux. It's hard to pinpoint the origin of something that is almost impossible to define.

[byu71]

Morality is a constant flux. It's hard to pinpoint the origin of something that is almost impossible to define.

Good one. You are right.

[Blueintheface]

Morality is a constant flux. It's hard to pinpoint the origin of something that is almost impossible to define.

When is your birthday?

[SoonerCoug]

Morality is a constant flux. It's hard to pinpoint the origin of something that is almost impossible to define.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.

Entire groups have been brainwashed to do immoral things at times, but fundamental human morals have remained the same.

Humans exhibit both moral and immoral behavior. Society and religion affect and refine aspects of morality, but they aren't the source of it.