Does religion give people better morality?

[Reaver]

In one area of the world a religion may promote suicide bombings that take out non-believers in their faith. According to that religion the people that suicide bomb are doing the right thing so they believe them to have a good morality. What's right and wrong is different for every person out there so asking if one group of people have higher lower principles depends on who you're asking; it's subjective just like any opinion.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

I think it's problematic to say that that's something indicitive of a certain religion, though. I mean, I understand that you're trying to use it as an analogy, but I think the analogy's flawed since that's not actually what's happening. I won't claim to be an expert on Islam, but I'm pretty sure you'd be hard-pressed to find religious texts actually spelling out suicide bombing.

My fiancee and I actually had a similar discussion tonight (we talk about heady shit like legitimized plagiarism in academia while eating sushi--fuck you, it works). I made the point that cultural relativism (what you're basically talking about) only goes so far.

Look at it this way: if you asked any random Joe on any continent whether it was okay or not to kill one of his neighbors, without any qualifiers of their race/religion/sex/what-have-you, I would think that most people (on a gut level) would say "no." Which leads me to believe that it's less of a religious phenomenon, but more of a culturally-cultivated extremism.

[genocidal]

My fiancee and I actually had a similar discussion tonight (we talk about heady shit like legitimized plagiarism in academia while eating sushi--fuck you, it works).

You smug motherfucker.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

If it makes you feel any better, we also talk about things like who has the right strategy on Big Brother. We're some cultured fucks.

[Material Girl]

Danielle for the win!!!!! :wub:

[MetalHeadz]

Ok. For the people arguing that good and bad are subject - im talking fairly simplistically; my definition of good is, 'co-operative, honest, loyal, positive' - attributes which would have been evolutionarily beneficial. My definition of bad would be, 'hateful, selfish, selfrighteous' - things which may have hindered primitive tribes in the past.

Schlyrd made an interesting point in saying that a lot of values are cultural. Indeed they are, if they weren't and my theory that everything is dominated by evolution was correct, then you wouldn't have seen the progress in civil rights over the past 250 years for example.

My point is that evolutionary processes have provided us with a BASIC level of knowing what is good and bad. 1) By tribes which have 'bad' characteristics not surviving and 2) by goodness generally being reciprocated. 'I eat tics of your back now, you eat tics of my back tommorow' -> 'I lend you money today, you lend me money tommorow' -> 'You give my country a tax break now, I'll give your country a tax break tommorow'. The fact that we always associate a good, moral deed with some kind of reward in the future is testament to ancestral social adaptation, not because God says it's good to share. We'd have no understanding of what it would be to 'share' if we hadn't learnt that sharing was beneficial in the past.

[Reaver]

I think it's problematic to say that that's something indicitive of a certain religion, though. I mean, I understand that you're trying to use it as an analogy, but I think the analogy's flawed since that's not actually what's happening. I won't claim to be an expert on Islam, but I'm pretty sure you'd be hard-pressed to find religious texts actually spelling out suicide bombing.

My fiancee and I actually had a similar discussion tonight (we talk about heady shit like legitimized plagiarism in academia while eating sushi--fuck you, it works). I made the point that cultural relativism (what you're basically talking about) only goes so far.

Look at it this way: if you asked any random Joe on any continent whether it was okay or not to kill one of his neighbors, without any qualifiers of their race/religion/sex/what-have-you, I would think that most people (on a gut level) would say "no." Which leads me to believe that it's less of a religious phenomenon, but more of a culturally-cultivated extremism.

I don't disagree. I wasn't trying to prove that some religion says it's alright to kill people as much as I was trying to prove that right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder, or in this case who you're asking. I also agree that it's because of culturally-cultivated extremism but I also believe that extremism is able to exist because of their common ground through their religious beliefs.

[Galleleo]

As far as the Koran is concerned, from what I understand it's a very peaceful book, much like the bible. It's not the Koran or the religion itself.

[MetalHeadz]

As far as the Koran is concerned, from what I understand it's a very peaceful book, much like the bible. It's not the Koran or the religion itself.

Good point. But it's the few, dogmatic and dated values which cause so many problems. A lot of people view their religion in a none fundamental way; reading between the lines in parts and just advocating the extremely admirable values taught in the Bible and Qu'ran. However, it is extremists who lack the ability to read between the lines and take everything literally who cause so many problems.

[Galleleo]

It's not really the Koran.

It's a bunch of people who are extreme, with or without the Koran, who take advantage of the way people are being raised in those countries to hammer into those children that if the west is not attacked all muslim faith will die out. All they need to do is take some stuff out of context, go on and on about how the western world is set out to destroy all muslims and there ya go. There is no reading between the lines needed.

Besides, from what I understand there is a documentary out there about a bible camp in America which is doing the exact same thing, which is creating extremists and using the bible as an excuse.

[genocidal]

[Cops]

As far as the Koran is concerned, from what I understand it's a very peaceful book, much like the bible. It's not the Koran or the religion itself.

For the most part I find the book to be timid but there are a few parts which people take full heartily, mainly the part about infidels and the parts about women. Can we blame scripture for humans literal interpretations of holy doctrine, no I don't think we can.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Can we blame scripture for humans literal interpretations of holy doctrine, no I don't think we can.

The only problem I have with that phrase is that the initial doctrine was written by humans, so we're still (at least partially) to blame for any "misunderstanding."

[Ronn]

Good point. But it's the few, dogmatic and dated values which cause so many problems. A lot of people view their religion in a none fundamental way; reading between the lines in parts and just advocating the extremely admirable values taught in the Bible and Qu'ran. However, it is extremists who lack the ability to read between the lines and take everything literally who cause so many problems.

So basically no one is allowed to belive in anything or stand up for what they believe in?

You sound like youre covered in marxist shit. Should the whole world become a raceless, nationless, sexless no family structured load of liberal athiests?! Thats discusting and unnatural.

[Cops]

The only problem I have with that phrase is that the initial doctrine was written by humans, so we're still (at least partially) to blame for any "misunderstanding."

We are, but I doubt that the creators of these doctrines knew the level into which society would react to their creation. We understand that the wording of laws is just almost as important as the law, that's why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written, re written and so on and so forth, even now you can probably find a couple of discrepancies in it. A lot of the Bible I find is metaphors, but the problem is the way a person views a piece of writing is completely different than I or you would look at it, there's a lot of good and bad things that can be found in most if not all religious doctrine. I think the main problem is that when you look at something like the Koran or the New Testament you have to be objective, even if being completely objective is a paradox.