Comment by Brian Pagano on January 25, 2012 at 10:13am

Slightly contrary to the findings of this study, I  remember Dawkins (The God Delusion) reminding us that people don't actually get their morality from religion.  The argument was roughly: nobody follows the holy book word for word, they select certain passages to form the core of their morality.  It's whatever chooses those arbitrary passages that forms morality (the brain) and not the book itself.

I'm glad you raised it though.  This is one of the two key questions that Atheists need to answer (in the absence of a punitive god or a divine user manual, how or why is one moral?).  The other question being "What, if anything, defines a meaningful or good life?" Julian Baggini did a great job deconstructing this question in "What's It All About."

Comment by Maruli Marulaki on January 25, 2012 at 10:22am

that people don't actually get their morality from religion.

Some people consider not stealing, not killing, not lieing as behavioral rules, that are part of their religion, as behavior owed to their deity.   Atheist morals need to reconsider the reasons, why such rules are important.

Comment by Dogly on January 25, 2012 at 11:13am

What a stupid "study".  The self control (and obedience) demanded by this protocol had no relationship to observable results. "enduring discomfort, delaying gratification, exerting patience, and refraining from impulsive responses".  Why?  If it were to endure discomfort to get a tooth fixed, or delaying gratification to help a sexual partner 'catch up', or exerting patience to allow a disabled person get on a bus before us, that would be exerting self control for a useful, or compassionate purpose.  Just obeying someone's instructions because he is in a position of authority, shows no virtue, but just blind, cringing subservience.

We, atheists, had enough self control to examine the teachings of religion with an open mind, to consider scientific knowledge, and use the scientific method to make sure what we are told is fact.  We are far less likely to commit atrocities because, "we were just following orders."  There is no good methodology in this study.

Comment by Dogly on January 25, 2012 at 11:17am

The original premise, "When people discard religion, they often discard the morals...", is not based on any facts.  Who says we discard morality?  More pseudo-science, and B.S.

Comment by Maruli Marulaki on January 25, 2012 at 11:54am

When people discard religion, they often discard the morals of this religion too

 

Comment by Russell20 on January 25, 2012 at 9:37pm

Some people,Atheists in particular don't indulge in "killin,lyin,cheatin,etc" because they observe the "Golden Rule"  (whether they do so consciously is open to debate) which to an extent can be reduced to "do as you would be done to" which is related to our genetic propensity for altruism.This in turn lends itself to our need to co-operate for survival purposes but can still be observable moral acts.No God/ religion involved and no need for either of them.

The problem I have with studies of this nature is that it implicitly accepts the religious paradigm vis-a-vis moarality, that is, we can't be moral without God. Thus any subsequent rejection of God can and does lead to moral decline.If that is the case I want to see the evidence which is not present in this study.

Comment by Russell20 on January 25, 2012 at 11:06pm

why do replies need prior approval here

Comment by Russell20 on January 26, 2012 at 12:50am

For those not familiar with the concept of altruism please see the link below

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Comment by Maruli Marulaki on January 27, 2012 at 5:24am

I do not mean to say, that atheism has no morals, nor do I deny the golden rule as a general moral guide.

But while religion specifies clear behavioral rules converted into automatic habits for every aspect of life, the responsible atheist needs very conscious evaluation of all interactions to transform the general golden rule into responsible and considerate behavior.

Here is an example:
For many women, physical intimacy automatically creates emotional attachment. These women have a strong emotional need for the exclusivity of reliable monogamy. Whenever such a woman gets cheated upon or dumped by a promiscuous man having used her body but refusing commitment, the woman suffers a lot of pain. The social and psychological consequences are sometimes quite drastic. Any man, who claims promiscuity as progressive and a liberation, is either immature or a psychopath without a conscience.

Christianity protects women from harm by a strong enforcement and requirement of monogamy. Monogamy is the only really beneficial and attractive aspect of christianity. It is the one reason, why I sometimes regret, that I cannot love a christian.

Unfortunately for atheistic women, many men discard monogamy together with christianity, when they become atheists, without replacing it with a conscious atheistic morality based upon consideration and responsibility for women's needs and emotions.
If a man is driven by instincts towards promiscuity, this cannot be helped. But being driven is no justification to allow cruelty instead of learning responsible self-control. While for an atheist, monogamy is not a duty to a god, an atheist needs to replace this by moral rules based upon consideration and insight:
Whenever his promiscuity drives him towards getting physically involved with a woman's body, he needs to stop and reflect, what he is planning to do. Before he becomes a jerk, as a moral man he firsts asks both himself and the woman, if his lack of commitment will hurt her. In the case of yes, atheist morals means to refrain from using her.

Comment by Russell20 on January 27, 2012 at 8:29am

"Christianity protects women from harm by a strong enforcement and requirement of monogamy. Monogamy is the only really beneficial and attractive aspect of christianity."

  Really ? try asking the wife of Ted Haggard (the evangelical guardian of  the nations morality) he indulged in affairs with other men whilst condemning both homosexuality and non-monogamous relationships from his pulpit. Whilst I recognise that this is anecdotal and not necessarily the behaviour of any of his congregation, it still suggests that at a micro-level religious belief is no guarantor of morality or commitment to the monogamous ideal.

"Unfortunately for atheistic women, many men discard monogamy together with christianity, when they become atheists"

 Again really? and your evidence for this would be what ? You seem to suggest that as Atheism steps through the front door, morality and commitment sneaks out the back and for no other reason than a lack  of belief in a deity.And why would this lack of belief lead to promiscuous behaviour ? Do you for instance believe that as Atheists men have no moral compass and therefore will have no capaciy for love and commitment ? If that is the case then morality has no human input and exists only via a belief in an intangible deity which outlines acceptable moral behaviour.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page