Is religion dedicated to moral excellence?

[NaddiaAoC]

Timothy said, religion, at its best, is the dedication to moral and ethical excellence and the promotion of human well-being.I'm having trouble with this statement. How does religion, even at its best, demonstrate dedication to moral and ethical excellence?Moral excellence results when people are capable of using their own judgment to reach conclusions that are in the best interest of humanity. A person who refrains from harming another individual because of compassion and respect is operating on a higher level of morality than a person who refrains from harming another person because they fear punishment or expect a reward for their actions.It seems to me that religion operates on a lower plane of morality by dictating moral absolutes. Peer pressure results in conformity and it uses fear and reward in order to obtain the intended results. Even at its best, religion uses these methods. Liberal Christians, for example, may not have rigid moral rules like fundamentalists but they still "love thy neighbor" because Jesus said to do so. If morality in Buddhism is promoted on religious grounds it's done so because of the reward obtained. It seems to me that once religion is abandoned and an individual begins to think for himself he can begin to strive for moral excellence.Cheryl

[Jeremy1952]

Bravo! Well said.

[Johnny Neuron]

I both agree and disagree with your assesment. First, I think that much depends on what particular religion or spiritual path you are talking about. Certain types of Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans and other non-Abrahamic religions do not have a punishment/reward system and usually do not think in moral absolutes or authoritarianism. Taoism is basically about living within nature and in harmony with life and all living things. Eastern religions in general operate from a totally different perspective than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Okay, now for the brunt of my criticism. You say that religious people do the "right" thing solely for the benefits it brings them, ie an afterlife, approval from God/organization etc. You state that they are operating on a lower plane of morality because of this. I agree wholeheartedly that being "Christlike" for such reasons are actually selfish, although no believer would ever admit this. But does a non-religious person operate from a necessarily higher plane of morality just because they do not expect a heavenly reward from a deity? Perhaps, but there still is the blunt fact that we really all do the "right" things for purely selfish motives. Think about it, when we are hospitible to someone why do we act in that manner? It isn't solely because we want to please them, I mean, it doesn't end there. We are hospitible because we want to please them because then they will like us. I know this all seems a little childish and simplistic but it is true. Every action we take that is "moral" or "good" is actually done because it fulfills some need or desire we have. Even if it seems we are giving up some personal good for someone else we still do so because if fulfills some greater need on an emotional or social level. This doesn't mean that we are all bad or wrong for this, it just is a fact of life. In fact, it fits in with a Darwinian view of life; being moral and good has survival value. So I don't necessarily feel that the religious person is acting at a lower plane of morality than the non-religious person because both are acting out of selfish motivations. One just has a different view of what they are after. By the way, that doesn't mean you are wrong in your assesment. I agree that a non-religious person might be a more moral person, but that is just due to to education, circumstance and the freedom from the ingrained dogma of a religious person. Bradley

[NaddiaAoC]

Bradley,I'm not arguing that a non-religious person is more moral than a religious person. There are religious people who operate on a higher plane of morality because they choose to think about the situation and come to their own conclusion rather than simply adhering to their religion's rules. There are also non-religious people who are very self-centered and immoral. What I'm saying is that religious institutions do not typically promote a higher level of morality. They are not dedicated to moral excellence. Religions are often dedicated to dictating behavior, and even when they do allow for some freedom in judgment they still hold out some sort of eternal reward in order to elicit the behavior they desire. It's true that all behavior is, to an extent, motivated by selfish desires. But is it motivated by entirely selfish reasons or is there also a concern for the greater good? Here's an example. One person chooses to not abuse drugs because he believes that his god disapproves and he will go to hell for using them. Another person refrains from using drugs because he believes that if he keeps his body free from "impurities" he will be rewarded with eternal life. Another person chooses not to use drugs because he recognizes that abusing drugs is harmful to his health and it could cause problems in his relationships with those he loves. And another person not only recognizes that drugs can be harmful to himself and others, but he also recognizes that many young people are unaware of this so he volunteers 4 hours a week to counsel young people at a local school where drug abuse among adolescents is particularly abundant.Whether a person uses drugs or not is not the issue. The issue is why a person comes to whatever decision they make. What is their reasoning? Are they acting a certain way because they have analyzed the situation and have come to the best decision possible, or are they simply doing what they are told? A person may be religious and still be capable of using their own judgment and functioning on a high moral plane. Gandhi has been hailed as an example of one who was dedicated to moral excellence. However, religion itself does not seem dedicated to critical thinking and the use of ones own judgment. Even liberal religions are saturated in conformity and offer rewards for good behavior. I'll admit to not being well educated in the beliefs of many religions, but I have yet to see an example of a religion that operates on a high plane of morality. If you know of one, I would be interested in knowing how they promote moral excellence within their doctrine.You mentioned that Taoism is basically about living within nature and in harmony with life and all living things.. This sounds nice, but I have two problems with this. 1) Why is this promoted? What motivates a person to live in harmony with all living things? Does Taoism offer some sort of eternal reward? 2) I know pretty much nothing about Taoism, but if this statement is correct then it is still promoting a particular behavior, not the use of individual judgment to come to a "moral" conclusion. It's giving you the answer, or the desired behavior, and then telling you to conform. Even if the results are positive, Taoism doesn't appear to be dedicated to moral excellence, but religious conformity.Cheryl Edited by: NaddiaAoC at: 1/13/03 3:38:17 pm

[muzadi]

There is a difference, I think, between the doctrine of the ideology or religion, the organization, and the practice, and I think it is between these three factors where the issue of morality becomes played out in the manner described.The Big Three Monotheisms in religion and organization do tend to rather heavily push the idea of "do this because you're supposed to" and "believe this because that's the Truth". Buddhism doesn't really say, "do this because it will make you happy", rather, it lays out a proposition and lets you come to what are to it the obvious conclusions.Taoism and Heretical Pantheism don't even go that far; each's doctrine adamantly, even aggressively opposes the idea of religious authority or immutable doctrine based on the "because I told you so" philosophy. Neither of these, it's true, have any centralized authority, and this may have more than a little to do with this. Or alternatively, it may instead be that their approach to the dual questions of religion and morality simply don't foster or attract authoritarian minds.Geoff [email protected] Recordings of the Book of Heresieswww.therecordings.net"Inspired truth and revealed truth are not greater than reasoned truths. Intuitive or deductive, what is, is. Rapture and a greater glory cannot be had simply by the application of blind faith, and revelation is a poor substitute for understanding." The Book of Heresies, 2-20

[rielmajr]

What an interesting discussion. And please forgive me for butting in.If we observe people we consider to be moral, I think we can abstract from their behavior some consistent elements. First, they govern their behavior according to a moral principal (e.g., act so as not to cause needless harm to another sentient being); second, they have developed imaginations and habitually use them to project themselves into the shoes of others -- they empathize; third, they try to achieve a consistency in like circumstances (cf. Kant's categorical imperative) by assessing what would happen if all people were to behave as they in the same situation; fourth, they consider the consequences of their behavior. I think morality is independent of religion, though as noted below it can buttress and provide support for moral behavior. It seems clear to me that good people gravitate to the enobling scriptures in their holy books if they are religious -- and that the religious of a more malevolent disposition will seek out those scriptures that justify their behavior. This is why we can all cite examples of religious people who are beacons of moral excellence, while noting many examples of religious people who are haters. Religion seems to provide a context of justification for whatever kind of act a person feels righteous in performing (the southern slave owners were almost all devout Christians who thought nothing of beating their property to enforce discipline; after all, Paul commanded Christians to obey their masters). Some religions are in a sense non-moral. Hinduism, for example, denies the reality of the sensed world ("maya") and in so doing precludes the existence of an ethic, which requires the hypotization of sentient entities. Of course, this, as Howard Bloom well notes, is a good way to avoid any contention over caste status. Dick

[Jeremy1952]

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion." Nobel laureate Stephen Weinberg (1933-)

[rielmajr]

Q.E.D. Weinberg's observation is yet another reason to read Nobel laureates. Weinberg, like Sagan, is an unapologetic atheist and one who sees through the charade of organized religion.

[muzadi]

As noted before, people will do good or bad things depending upon who *they* are. Religion, organized or no, will simply either act as a justification, if the person is inclined to do "bad things", or else to channel and shape the exact direction of a person's inclination to do "bad things" (or "good things", for that matter).Religion, per se, I don't think is a bad thing. Like *any* ideology it can inspire bad or good deeds. It is a potent thing, though, and can create justifications and suggest directions for sewing discord. This isn't, to my mind, a reason to reject it, or ideology, outright, but simply a reason to enter into it with your eyes wide open.Geoff [email protected] Recordings of the Book of Heresieswww.therecordings.net"Then, if you are part of the universe, the universe can, indeed, know things. We are the universe's way of being conscious of itself.Your hand is a part of what you think of as you, but your hand is not, in itself, conscious of its own existence.Does a molecule know where it is supposed to go, how it is supposed to behave? Being requires neither consciousness nor awareness - only being." - The Book of Heresies, 2-19 Edited by: muzadi at: 1/16/03 12:57:11 am

[rielmajr]

"Religion, per se, I don't think is a bad thing." Not exactly a ringing endorsement; in fact, this is a neutral position on religion -- one perfectly consistent with religion's being a sort of Rorschach on which your own biases can be projected. Sadly, it is the darker biases that have studded much of the history of religion, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Marxism. I think that ideology, which too often is a kind of rigid thought structure, leads to bad things.