"Religion is the source of morality"

Beholderess

I'm pretty sure if we could magically wave away religion, human beings
would act... pretty much the same just with different excuses.

Most likely.

Not that this one is not saying that moral norms of religion are somehow, in themselves, worse than any others. Some of them might  be  perfectly fine.

It's just... saying that something is good or  bad because some higher power said so is genuinely scary for this one. What if that higher power told them to kill me? Of course, people might decide to do so on their own, but again, in this case this one would have at least some chance at persuading them otherwise.

Rottweiler

"Seems like a  decent  rationale, with no need for religion to even enter the picture."

If you could successfully force everyone to be like you, sure, they wouldn't need to be kept in line by faith. But forcing everyone to be a libertarian is self-contradictory.

Beholderess

It's not about keeping other people in line. It's about  keeping myself in line.

As for other people, religion is just another mechanism of social control, no better or worse than others. And just like other such mechanisms, should  be  kept in check.

Tnu1138

Rott Religion is a personal private matter of the individual kind.

Rottweiler

@Beholderess: If other people aren't kept in line, one might kill me. If there's no afterlife, that's the worst possible thing that can happen.

@tnu: You mean "I think it ought to be", as state religions have been a demonstrable fact for the past 5,000 years.

Beholderess

Religion is a personal private matter of the individual kind.

Actually, it  isn't. It started as a means to keep the tribe together.

However, that function is no longer necessary, there are other institutions to do the same. Besides, religion is an effective means of social control regardless of whether  it is true or not.  So this one thinks that by now, treating it as such actually diminishes it.

Beholderess

If other people aren't kept in line, one might kill me. If there's no
afterlife, that's the worst possible thing that can happen.

This one has at least some chance of persuading someone who wants to kill her for  personal motives otherwise. This one has no chance of persuading someone who thinks their religion demands this one killed.

Rottweiler

I'll believe it when I see it.

Try starting smaller, like persuading someone who wants a pig killed for their dinner to spare the innocent creature.

EDIT: And what institutions for holding the tribe together against individualism make religion obsolete?

Counterclock

@ Rott: I Get this feeling, that you're saying that if religion didn't exist, there'd be nothing to convince people otherwise to not be a raving pack of lunatic killers.

Now, I admit, this is probably not your intent, but I would like to question an implication I noticed behind that line of reasoning and maybe you can elaborate more on that?

There are people who accuse religion of actually promoting bloodshed and the deaths and genocides, and a defense I see against these accusations are "Well people would've killed each other regardless"

Doesn't it stand to reason then, that people who look for reasons not to kill each other, probably are not the type to kill randomly and for no given reason?

Beholderess

Personal sympathy. Bribe. Fear. People are selfish, and it is possible to persuade them that killing this one is not in their best interest.

It's human nature to be callously selfish, but it takes religion/ideology  for  people to be  selflessly evil.

As for institutions - for one, we got more  just laws now.

Unknownlight

You know there's a thing called "empathy", right? You know that there's actually specific parts of the brain that have been found to cause empathy. It's part of our very biology. I cannot see how anyone can truly argue that religion is necessary for people to act good when there's a part of our brain that's job is to do just that. 

Some atheists are jerks and don't care what happens to people around them. So are some religious people. The majority of both categories do care. It all feels rather simple to me. (By the way, I'm not directing this post to anyone in this topic, I'm just speaking in general.)

Vorpy

Except when it comes to the internet, fucktardism can take over, quite a lot sometimes, and allow even threads on minecraft.net to be derailed into bickering fights about people following the laws of an invisible man.

Unknownlight

That's the problem with the internet. Studies have been done: When you can't see/hear someone, that part of the brain that controls empathy doesn't do as well because it's not entirely convinced you're talking to a real person.

Vorpy

....then why do people emphasize with characters in books? It's generally the same thing as reading posts on an internet forum and what not.

Unknownlight

It's the "not entirely convinced you're talking to a real person" that's the issue here, not just the fact that it's text.

Good books let you get to know the characters' personalities very well, to the point where empathy treats them like a real person. Reading a line or two of text on a forum doesn't let you get to know someone at all. Sure, you also can't know someone just by looking at them or hearing their voice, but at least then your brain understands that it's a real person you're talking to.

This is the same reason for A Million Is a Statistic. A number doesn't convince you, biologically, that real people died. A murder of a single person on the news where you see pictures and names and interviews with family does convince you.

Rottweiler

@Beholderess: As for institutions - for one, we got more  just laws now.

Laws work on the principle of fear of the executioner. Even in states that have abolished the death penalty, police can shoot you for resisting arrest. I'm not convinced that a Hobbesian policy of relying entirely on external control by law enforcement is more humane than the Confucian one of using myth, ritual, and music to cultivate self-control in the population.

@Unknownlight: In the state of nature, empathy is not strong enough to eliminate homicide. Are you familiar with hunter-gatherer homicide rates?

Beholderess

So is  it about  truth, or  merely about control?

Religion does not have  to be a source or any morals worth following in order to  effectively enforce them, after all.

Nor does naw need to be just in order to be enforced, of course. But it at least can be evaluated, criticized, changed and adjusted.

EDIT

Not  to mention that being the means to enforce certain behaviour  has nothing to do with being the source of morality. Enforcinng  certain behaviour does not make it right - it only makes it necessary.

Rottweiler

^ It's about truth. And if the divine exists, any religion is closer to truth than atheism is.

Unknownlight

@Rottweiler: Correct, empathy might as well be a speck of dust when it competes with survival instinct.  When it comes down to: "If they get the food, I and my tribe may die of starvation. If I kill them, I get the food", then empathy plays near no part at all.

As most of us do not have to fight for our lives in everyday society, empathy plays a much stronger role.

Tnu1138

You really7 can't know the truth or really have any knowledge of a higher power whether there iz s or is not one or what its nature is or if there is merely one or many.