5 ms·

> I am an atheist and don't need religion to tell me it is wrong to kill another man You do - but religion can be non-theistic. As an atheist, you nevertheless

> I am an atheist and don't need religion to tell me it is wrong to kill another man You do - but religion can be non-theistic. As an atheist, you nevertheless strive towards ideals that have ultimately no reason but your belief in them... That is religion - it is personal and it does not require supernatural beings.

mehwoot 8y ago
ideals that have ultimately no reason but your belief in them It's a pretty big claim that ethics has "no reason but your belief in it". There are plenty of logical reasons why one would want to behave ethically, even self interest, beyond you simply believing it.
- carlmr 8y ago
  That self interest is usually rooted in how society would react to your behavior. So in the end if it's society basing the idea that something is immoral on religion, you're still indirectly basing it on religion.
  - JohnStrangeII 8y ago
    I don't want to defend a naturalistic perspective on morals, which is unfortunately popular nowadays and leads to a lot of immorality, but there are definitely bio-logical reasons for not killing others in your group. Humans are altruistic, group-based apes whose survival depends on collaboration. Originally, this might have been small groups only. Today society is based on the collaboration between (nearly all) nations, because modern technology and labour division would break down entirely within about six weeks without massive global trade and shipping. There are also some moral principles that follow directly from factual matters, provided some very basic first assumptions are made. Theories of just resource distribution and social justice are of that kind. The principles that get things going are very basic, e.g. reciprocity, generality of moral statements, and fairness in the sense of trade/bargaining/exchange fairness get you very far. It is a myth that religion provides values, as it can be shown very easily by historical comparison that it never has. The values defended by major religions such as Christianity and Islam have changed over the centuries again and again. Modern Christian values, for instance, mostly come from the enlightenment movement and were not endorsed at all earlier. (Christianity is just an example, AFAIK this is true for all religions.) Churches and 'holy men' have always had a vested interest in selling their values as a product of their religion, though, and they are very good at selling this false story to the public.
    - catawbasam 8y ago
      Wat? "Thou shalt not kill" (or more accurately "Thou shalt not murder") has been there since the get-go in both Judaism and Christianity.
      - JohnStrangeII 8y ago
        Sure, but there is no prohibition against genocide, for instance.
    - trashtester 8y ago
      I'm curious: What "first assumptions" do refer to as "very basic"? Also, for the final paragraph: Your theory of religion seems to be based on intelligent design. I think it is more accurate (and less prone to conspiracy theories) to think of the evolution of religious memes in darwinist terms of "natural" selection.
      - JohnStrangeII 8y ago
        The Principle of Reciprocity, the No Harm Principle, and Democratic Power Division.
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  I think one of the difficulties here is that you may have a logical reason for cooperation leading to more pleasant life or increase production in a civilized society, etc. but when it comes down to being in a gulag, you often need stronger reasons for morality than a belief that it will make your life more pleasant. The short term consequences of an action (e.g. stealing) may seem more pleasant [satiation of hunger], the long term consequences may seem to be unlikely to occur [because of imminent death]. Religion provides much stronger reasons for living in a certain way (belief in afterlife, that justice ultimately prevails regardless, consequences of character you've developer for eternity, and that human life is sacred and valuable beyond the grave, etc.). Reasons that neither death nor deprivation can change.
- BadThink6655321 8y ago
  You may have a chain of logic, but what is the first link in the chain anchored to? It’s not too hard to show that this first link is anchored in belief.
monort 8y ago
It's not a religion, it's an ethical system. I think ethical system is only a subset of religion.
- bogle 8y ago
  ethics =/= religion For some interesting points about how these aren't the same I'd refer you to Richard Holloway[1]. An ex-Bishop he has refered to himself as a recovering Christian and writes extensively on ethics. He realised that people could make perfectly good ethically arguments without any reference to religion when he sat on various national advisory commitees whilst Bishop of Edinburgh. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Holloway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Holloway
bogle 8y ago
To be fair, most religions seem to think it's perfectly fine to kill another person, whether in war or the prison system.
- arethuza 8y ago
  That reminds me of "God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule" from The Onion: https://www.theonion.com/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule-1819566178 https://www.theonion.com/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rul...
tasuki 8y ago
> you nevertheless strive towards ideals that have ultimately no reason but your belief in them Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rationalism
- BadThink6655321 8y ago
  Necessarily. They make a claim that they then don’t prove. This really isn’t hard. Morality is just goal-based behavior. Paths that lead to a goal are called good; paths that lead away from a goal are called bad. Whether or not a goal is itself good or bad depends on where it lies on a larger path. So, what are the ultimate natural goals? Easy. One is life, which is the prequisite for being able to make choices; the other is death, where no more choices are possible. Certainly, you can switch between these goals, but the key point is that nature gives no clue which you should choose. Therefore, all natural ethics is based on personal taste. N.B. In Christianity, something outside of nature steps in and says, “choose life.” That’s why atheists can act morally (search heuristics can end up being similar).
  - trashtester 8y ago
    I partly agree, though I don't think the actual ultimate goals are "chosen" in any free way. Instead, I think they for the most part have evolved through natural selection (most of them by genes, but some by memes). Direct pursuit of the ultimate goals is not efficient, both because it is computationally impossible to calculate what action is most efficient in any situation, and also because direct pursuit will lead to a lot of conflict. As a solution to this problem, one or more levels of heuristic rules have developed that solve this problem in a social environment, and that form some kind of low-level social contract that we will follow if others follow it. Part of "signing" this social contract (ie be perceived as cooperative), is to bind yourself to the commonly accepted morality. Part of this is that you have to convince yourself that you hold the rules sacret. Of couse, if you experience radical changes to the environment, it is likely that your fundamental goals will be in conflict with those additional layers, and your behaviour will change accordingly. Most people are surprised of themselves when this happens.
the_af 8y ago
Your definition of religion is non-standard. That's not what people mean by that word.

mehwoot 8y ago

ideals that have ultimately no reason but your belief in them It's a pretty big claim that ethics has "no reason but your belief in it". There are plenty of logical reasons why one would want to behave ethically, even self interest, beyond you simply believing it.

carlmr 8y ago
That self interest is usually rooted in how society would react to your behavior. So in the end if it's society basing the idea that something is immoral on religion, you're still indirectly basing it on religion.
- JohnStrangeII 8y ago
  I don't want to defend a naturalistic perspective on morals, which is unfortunately popular nowadays and leads to a lot of immorality, but there are definitely bio-logical reasons for not killing others in your group. Humans are altruistic, group-based apes whose survival depends on collaboration. Originally, this might have been small groups only. Today society is based on the collaboration between (nearly all) nations, because modern technology and labour division would break down entirely within about six weeks without massive global trade and shipping. There are also some moral principles that follow directly from factual matters, provided some very basic first assumptions are made. Theories of just resource distribution and social justice are of that kind. The principles that get things going are very basic, e.g. reciprocity, generality of moral statements, and fairness in the sense of trade/bargaining/exchange fairness get you very far. It is a myth that religion provides values, as it can be shown very easily by historical comparison that it never has. The values defended by major religions such as Christianity and Islam have changed over the centuries again and again. Modern Christian values, for instance, mostly come from the enlightenment movement and were not endorsed at all earlier. (Christianity is just an example, AFAIK this is true for all religions.) Churches and 'holy men' have always had a vested interest in selling their values as a product of their religion, though, and they are very good at selling this false story to the public.
  - catawbasam 8y ago
    Wat? "Thou shalt not kill" (or more accurately "Thou shalt not murder") has been there since the get-go in both Judaism and Christianity.
    - JohnStrangeII 8y ago
      Sure, but there is no prohibition against genocide, for instance.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    I'm curious: What "first assumptions" do refer to as "very basic"? Also, for the final paragraph: Your theory of religion seems to be based on intelligent design. I think it is more accurate (and less prone to conspiracy theories) to think of the evolution of religious memes in darwinist terms of "natural" selection.
    - JohnStrangeII 8y ago
      The Principle of Reciprocity, the No Harm Principle, and Democratic Power Division.
brobdingnagians 8y ago
I think one of the difficulties here is that you may have a logical reason for cooperation leading to more pleasant life or increase production in a civilized society, etc. but when it comes down to being in a gulag, you often need stronger reasons for morality than a belief that it will make your life more pleasant. The short term consequences of an action (e.g. stealing) may seem more pleasant [satiation of hunger], the long term consequences may seem to be unlikely to occur [because of imminent death]. Religion provides much stronger reasons for living in a certain way (belief in afterlife, that justice ultimately prevails regardless, consequences of character you've developer for eternity, and that human life is sacred and valuable beyond the grave, etc.). Reasons that neither death nor deprivation can change.
BadThink6655321 8y ago
You may have a chain of logic, but what is the first link in the chain anchored to? It’s not too hard to show that this first link is anchored in belief.

monort 8y ago

It's not a religion, it's an ethical system. I think ethical system is only a subset of religion.

bogle 8y ago
ethics =/= religion For some interesting points about how these aren't the same I'd refer you to Richard Holloway[1]. An ex-Bishop he has refered to himself as a recovering Christian and writes extensively on ethics. He realised that people could make perfectly good ethically arguments without any reference to religion when he sat on various national advisory commitees whilst Bishop of Edinburgh. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Holloway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Holloway

bogle 8y ago

To be fair, most religions seem to think it's perfectly fine to kill another person, whether in war or the prison system.

arethuza 8y ago
That reminds me of "God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule" from The Onion: https://www.theonion.com/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule-1819566178 https://www.theonion.com/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rul...

tasuki 8y ago

> you nevertheless strive towards ideals that have ultimately no reason but your belief in them Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rationalism

BadThink6655321 8y ago
Necessarily. They make a claim that they then don’t prove. This really isn’t hard. Morality is just goal-based behavior. Paths that lead to a goal are called good; paths that lead away from a goal are called bad. Whether or not a goal is itself good or bad depends on where it lies on a larger path. So, what are the ultimate natural goals? Easy. One is life, which is the prequisite for being able to make choices; the other is death, where no more choices are possible. Certainly, you can switch between these goals, but the key point is that nature gives no clue which you should choose. Therefore, all natural ethics is based on personal taste. N.B. In Christianity, something outside of nature steps in and says, “choose life.” That’s why atheists can act morally (search heuristics can end up being similar).
- trashtester 8y ago
  I partly agree, though I don't think the actual ultimate goals are "chosen" in any free way. Instead, I think they for the most part have evolved through natural selection (most of them by genes, but some by memes). Direct pursuit of the ultimate goals is not efficient, both because it is computationally impossible to calculate what action is most efficient in any situation, and also because direct pursuit will lead to a lot of conflict. As a solution to this problem, one or more levels of heuristic rules have developed that solve this problem in a social environment, and that form some kind of low-level social contract that we will follow if others follow it. Part of "signing" this social contract (ie be perceived as cooperative), is to bind yourself to the commonly accepted morality. Part of this is that you have to convince yourself that you hold the rules sacret. Of couse, if you experience radical changes to the environment, it is likely that your fundamental goals will be in conflict with those additional layers, and your behaviour will change accordingly. Most people are surprised of themselves when this happens.

the_af 8y ago

Your definition of religion is non-standard. That's not what people mean by that word.