It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by juveous
To say that good morals are instinctive does not help in preventing immorality.
- Is this the purpose of religion, then – to ‘prevent immorality’?
- Why do you think understanding the origins of morality won’t help in propagating moral behaviour?
All animal behaviour consists of responses to stimuli. The better we understand the behaviour, the more likely we are to be able to stimulate it.
But if morality is at root instinctive, and religious ‘morality’ is at odds with those roots, do you not see the problem? And do you not see that religious ‘morality’, imposed by fiat, would be (i) always trumped by instinct in the long run and (ii) actually not morality at all, but immorality?.
Nonetheless you have been arguing for it. Why ?
And why do you think you don’t need religion? What makes you different from others?
i'm curious as if you would be ok with a consensus of what is moral, based off evidence and data? Sam Harris talks alot about why science should be a base for morality - how exactly would you define these roots? I was using instinctive morality in the common sense fashion of what most people would agree on regardless of their upbringing.
I have simply offered up what I consider to be nothing more than an indistinct route to a possible alternative explanation for the source for morality.
I am NOT concerned with the "right or wrong" of your (or anyone's) stated position(s). I am merely experiencing a facet to the wondrous variety of experience (and interpretation of same) I associate with this probable existence.
Yes, it's most certainly an "interesting subject" - for different reasons for different individuals.
The answer to that specific question as posed by the OP, and as it appeared to me, is simply that we do NOT serve religion; nor does religion serve us. We serve ourselves through the choices that we make...for better or for worse
Nowhere have I either stated or inferred that the OP or anyone else was right or wrong about anything. I have simply offered my general thoughts on the matter - and I have discounted absolutely no premise(s) here.
If you have consumed and digested my sentiments and arrived at the conclusion that I have been "rude"...well, that's up to you.
Hopefully, your curiosity concerning my "...artificial politeness..." has been sated.
By the way, your own "established parameters" set for my response here won't be followed to any great degree...due to my own "established parameters" for replying to questions. I'm merely framing what you are about to encounter...
Are you suggesting that this is what religion is good for? Would you care to expand on this?
...It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion.
Here’s the thing I wonder about the most – are we really capable of living – and functioning – without the illusion?
if genes do not change and I have genes that were in animals (who did not have changing genes either) so the molecules must have had a full operating set of genes also (because genes don’t change).
I [generally] subscribe to the Seth Information* (as overtly stated in my initial posting in this thread) – although, also as previously stated, due to my own individuality I have incorporated my own “truths” into that mix (i.e. my understanding of the interpretation of quantum mechanics presented by David Bohm and Basil Hiley).
It seems you agree…….. that religion is an ‘analgesic’, and that is its use to believers.
Another thing worth remembering is that evolution, seen through the eyes of evolutionary biologists, is an undirected process. Genes and organisms don’t want to evolve in any particular direction; they just do.
the true meaning and value of religion... is a connection to each other and to the divine.
I would argue that a lot of focus has been put on these commandments by the controlling and dogmatic bodies that have sprung up around all religions in an effort to control people.
I think religion has a place in the world, but I don't think we need external guidance to do the "right" thing. Just do what you want as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's right to do the same.
As one grows older, one oftens find that one’s moral choices lie less often between the right and the wrong thing to do, as between the greater and lesser of two wrongs.