Which came first? Civilization or Religion?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Thank you for your answer.

I'm not sure that morals/morality spring from religion either. Religion has evolved-as has morality- along with our scientific gains from the first and earliest versions of each.

Religions come and go. I can see no reason that that trend doesn't continue.

Moral codes may or may not have their genus in Religion. As you have cited 'pearls of wisdom' that may not come from Religion are out there.

It remains, codified moral codes, with multiple 'pearls' are almost certainly rooted in religion.

Source of those codes "God-made" or not, is 'academic' as the whole body of that religion is, itself.

Codes of conduct are a necessary part of the fabric of a civilization. Religion, apparently, is the conduit for that code at this time. There is no viable alternative that I can see....so far.

A new and better moral code is probably needed. One that allows civilizations with different moral codes, different Religions, interact and still survive in their own right.

I am unconvinced that it will come from the 'humanist'. He still seems to believe that marginalizing Religion and by proxy,
moral codes will save civilization when nothing could be further from the truth.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Thank you for your answer.

I'm not sure that morals/morality spring from religion either. Religion has evolved-as has morality- along with our scientific gains from the first and earliest versions of each.

Religions come and go. I can see no reason that that trend doesn't continue.

Moral codes may or may not have their genus in Religion. As you have cited 'pearls of wisdom' that may not come from Religion are out there.

It remains, codified moral codes, with multiple 'pearls' are almost certainly rooted in religion.

Source of those codes "God-made" or not, is 'academic' as the whole body of that religion is, itself.

Codes of conduct are a necessary part of the fabric of a civilization. Religion, apparently, is the conduit for that code at this time. There is no viable alternative that I can see....so far.

A new and better moral code is probably needed. One that allows civilizations with different moral codes, different Religions, interact and still survive in their own right.

I am unconvinced that it will come from the 'humanist'. He still seems to believe that marginalizing Religion and, by proxy,
moral codes will save civilization when nothing could be further from the truth.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Codes of conduct are a necessary part of the fabric of a civilization. Religion, apparently, is the conduit for that code at this time. There is no viable alternative that I can see....so far.

The viable alternative is to draw your morality from teachers, family, friends, lovers. From books. From inner reflection. From Laws. From any and all sources. As opposed to a single dogmatic set of scripture.

I truly don't see how you could believe what you're saying. The implication of your words seems to suggest you believe the non-religious are all immoral or at least more prone to misbehavior. Since you're saying religion is the conduit for 'codes of conduct'. Obviously myself and other non-religious people are not drawing from religion. So we lack 'codes of conduct'? O_o

My family and I run a long-term care home for the medically fragile. We take in children and teens and care for them 24/7 for years and years because their parents either can’t care for them or don’t want to. Many of those parents who abandoned their medically fragile children were Christians. We’ve done this for a very long time. My family is entirely non-religious. You can have the belief that morality and goodness comes from and depends on religion [at this time via religion being a conduit]. Such is your freedom. However, it’s simply not true. At all. The truth is morality doesn’t depend on Christianity or any religion and there are good moral religious and non-religious people.

Then there is the UN study which is strong evidence that mostly secular societies are doing great, and also that religion doesn't guarantee the health of society.

I agree with much of your last post. It's only on this notion that religion is currently the only conduit for morality or 'codes of conduct' that I strongly disagree to.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Why is it you assume those that believe the moral codes of religion are a benefit also believe they are "god based"?

Are you arguing that the moral codes of all religions are good or only the moral codes or your religion are good? If it's the latter, why?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

A slight alteration in your post. I didn't say the 'only' conduit. It is the biggest...by far.

If I apply 'implication' to your posts as you have to mine, the you 'imply' the Judeo-Christian moral code had no contributory value whatsoever to western civilization? No value or worth?

Of course not.

Can and are those morals adoptable by the secular who see the worth of them whether or not they consider their 'probable' source as "Christian"? Yes and yes!

I care not one whit whether those morals are 'deity sourced' or found in some early version of a Chinese fortune cookie.

They have validity, workability and have produced a legacy that is western civilization.

Your steadfast refusal to even consider this concept, never mind acknowledge it, is your 'cross to bear'.... not mine. I have enough of my own, thank you very much.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

This was very much addressed. He said much on the matter. I don't think it begs the question as that 'moral presupposition' was given a rational basis. I feel. I can transcribe what he said if you desire.

I didn't hear a rational basis. So please do.

That ultimately there is underlying neurobiology that can be studied and used to verify certain truths about cognition and emotion

Lets see some references, so i can check the specifics.

It's not scientific to say it then has to be limited to the most extreme of reductionist views as to undermine the complexity or importance of thoughts and emotions and subsequently how they relate to human well-being.

You see again your talking about thoughts and emotions effecting well being. Why should one care about well-being?

Do you think it's the overwhelming consensus of this field all we are is bags of star dust??

I think it would depend on what the majority of psychologist believe in regards to the existence of God. I don't have that stat.

You're projecting your thoughts into us because you feel we are necessarily defunct of certain qualities in life without religion. It

I don't think you have ever accurately understood where a christian is arguing from. It is an ontological argument not an epistemological argument.

Understanding scientific truths on how our chemical brains relate to thought and emotion doesn't reduce them.

It does without a God. How does he know he understands them? You sure we aren't all just fizzing and under the illusion that he understands them? (I know this is childish but it makes a strong philosophical point...)

a reply to: nwtrucker

A slight alteration in your post. I didn't say the 'only' conduit.

You said this:

Codes of conduct are a necessary part of the fabric of a civilization. Religion, apparently, is the conduit for that code at this time. There is no viable alternative that I can see....so far.

If there is no viable alternative then the implication is religion is that only conduit. Was your wording not mine.

It is the biggest...by far.

Biggest? I mean strictly speaking since most of the World is religious I suppose I am inclined to agree… That doesn’t negate my points about the viability of alternatives.

Can and are those morals adoptable by the secular who see the worth of them whether or not they consider their 'probable' source as "Christian"? Yes and yes!

The morality secularists have that resemble whats in Christian canon does not make it ‘Christian morality’. Quite obvious since we can see much of those morals [the goo ones anyways] reflected in philosophy preceding Christianity.

If I misunderstood what you meant let me know. I was a little unsure on the wording.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

As far as the conduit aspect of it, you pointed out the valid aspect of friends, family, lovers, etc..

As a broad dissemination "conduit", my point seems valid.

Of course the morality secularists would avoid the Christian label on a par with the 'Plague'. The source of them point directly to Christianity whether or not you assume some earlier source.

What cannot be argued is the dissemination value of those morals via Christianity. Frankly, not only dissemination but the collation of them as well.

It's funny imagining you doing contortions avoiding any possibility whatsoever of acknowledging Christianity for anything..

It invokes a belly-laugh...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Tangerine

Hmm. I have to think on that one. Off the top that seems a valid point.

Perhaps I've over-generalized?

You stress a time when things were particularly bad. I was thinking more short term-within my lifetime which is my empirical framework- that's where I see the drop-off. I also use the North American example having no personal experience elsewhere.

The list is long and I won't bore you with the usual lamenting of short-term thinking, self-indulgence and outright criminality that exists on almost all levels of our society.

Goodwill was a major consideration in business. Today? Not even a factor. All trumped by bottom line. The list is long...within the framework of my lifetime.

In general, gov't intervention occurs when people abrogate their responsibilities. The expansion of social programs reflects the drop in society covering those issues.

yes, economics is a factor. Yet those very economics reflect the morality of the day, not 'yesterday's'.

Safe streets, kids playing baseball in the public parks, neighbors watching over the kids in the area....on and on. Gone, or almost gone.

Back to the environment, sure, awareness has increased. That area has shown improvement. An exception that proves the rule. methinks. For some, it seems to trump all other considerations, balance gone.....

The common denominator? I see it as the morals of the people. In the west's case, the Judeo-Christian moral code...yes imperfect, yes, laden with hypocrisy-which is far more preferable than the 'no moral code' code we seem to be saddled with now.

There is no question, in my mind, that the loss of peer pressure from that code has diminished to the point of near non-existence in our present life-style.

Back to the point of the thread, religion with their moral codes seem to be part and parcel a vital ingredient to a civilization's success.

Again, this is my think and I'm not really sure I'm right. LOL.

I certainly agree that this society is going to hell in a hand basket, no religious reference implied. But how do you explain the relative happiness of people in the Scandinavian countries? What is different about how their moral code and enforcement of same and ours?

a reply to: Tangerine

Neither, actually, I measure the moral codes on their results and consequences of their absences. Not their source.

To repeat my (self-assumed) humorous line, "I care not one whit whether they are Deity-created or found in an early version of a Chinese fortune cookie....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Laugh to your hearts content. Your laughter and simply stating I am in error is not a compelling argument.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Tangerine

Neither, actually, I measure the moral codes on their results and consequences of their absences. Not their source.

To repeat my (self-assumed) humorous line, "I care not one whit whether they are Deity-created or found in an early version of a Chinese fortune cookie....

I'm not sure to which post of mine you're responding. This is what I said: I certainly agree that this society is going to hell in a hand basket, no religious reference implied. But how do you explain the relative happiness of people in the Scandinavian countries? What is different about how their moral code and enforcement of same and ours?

a reply to: Tangerine

That thought has struck before regarding the Scandinavian countries, more on the socialist side than religious.

Off the top, a more homogeneous society? Less diversity? Certainly a laid back lot. I'm not really sure.

It reminds me of a trip to Hawaii. Brilliant, idyllic, amazing.. Yet the locals have a term. It's called "Island disease".
Sheer boredom. The malcontents and ne'er-do-wells leave. Never to return.

I work for a family from the Islands. They'd never go back other than to visit family.

Belgium, Sweden, perhaps more are now having immigrant issues as their countries 'diversify'.

a reply to: Tangerine An earlier post of yours.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I didn't say or even think 'error'. More a blind spot. We all have them...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Yes. We all do.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Actually the Judeo laws of Moses are not "loose" at all. Even a man's hair must be a certain way. Everything is controlled.

Empathy allows a society to grow, and all social creatures have it. Anything else is just domination and control.


"In all things, do to others as you would have them do to you for this is the law and prophets" (Mat 7:12)


If people actually followed THIS instead of trying to force society to go with whatever huge amounts of religious rules, there would be a lot more freedom and happiness and acceptance and peace with one another.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Look, I've picked up a perspective from your posts. I consider that my viewpoint has expanded.

Specifically, the possibility that a higher level of morals could come from a more scientific view. I'm not convinced, by any means, of the likelihood of that occurring any time soon. It is possible.

I'm fully aware of the hypocrisies, flaws and contradictions in religion. I'm also aware that that is a human condition, not restricted to Religion by any means. There have been benefits. I have mentioned what I consider a huge one.

If you haven't benefitted similarly, then sobeit.

a reply to: Tangerine

I should have used a quote. I'm not very versed in it. My bad.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Tangerine

That thought has struck before regarding the Scandinavian countries, more on the socialist side than religious.

Off the top, a more homogeneous society? Less diversity? Certainly a laid back lot.

I'm not really sure.

It reminds me of a trip to Hawaii. Brilliant, idyllic, amazing.. Yet the locals have a term. It's called "Island disease".
Sheer boredom. The malcontents and ne'er-do-wells leave. Never to return.

I work for a family from the Islands. They'd never go back other than to visit family.

Belgium, Sweden, perhaps more are now having immigrant issues as their countries 'diversify'.

OK, but now you're switching from moral codes to diversity. What is it about the moral codes of the Scandinavian countries that differ from our moral codes?