What Happens When You Remove Faith

Mother Theresa and Ghandi are examples to most of us that our moarlity is not all it could be.It was sort of a rhetorical question when I asked about being greedy. All things can work to benefit us, and I don't see anything different in looking for rewards here or eternally.My point was, and I was not contradicting myself, that we don't do things 'just because they are right'. On the individual level, of course, we do that sometimes by reflex and long training in the motives of past generations. Altogether, we do 'right' based on what other people at one point felt out and decided was good for some REASON. There was no scroll that fell from the sky listing what was right.I was asking what exactly is the reasoning behind love of neighbor, BESIDES greed and the possible benefits to ourselves? Because, morality is not about greed. As you can see from the next posts, people get a little bothered by the thought that they are only doing good because it has benefits. We don't help others out of selfishness, no! Not in any way consciously.Ok, so how do you know 'right' exists? Isn't it just a trumped up view we have of certain behaviours, and always changing?'I do right because it's right' is lame-o because it essentially says nothing.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Again, I was being sort of sarcastic.Anything can produce good results or make us feel good.Morality is supposed to be selflessness. So why the feeling that everyone is doing things for survival and reward?I believe those things come to us, because we are living how we were meant to live, and all things fall into place. I also believe that there is an underlying reason for why things are 'right' and the results of the actions are inevitable.It is like a jigsaw puzzle maybe. All of the pieces go into place because they fit, but at the same time you can't help creating the picture that was intended in the puzzle. Even without the box to look at, you can still build it. You can't help making the same picture as everyone else, whether or not you acknowledge that there is a picture. Whatever satisfaction comes from matching pieces is not the over all plan of the mission.

quote:

---

Why do you need to explain why we have morality? Isnt it obviously because we are not instinctually going to do good things?

---

But we do "instinctually" do good things for other people, most particularly within whatever we consider out "in-group" to be.

quote:

---

Are you confused? We don't need an explanation for morality. We don't even agree on what is moral.

---

"Why do we have morality?" and "What is moral?" are two very different questions. The first is a very interesting question that is accessable to scientific inquiry. The second is philosophical and ethical in nature.

quote:

---

I feel no competition between woo and no woo, it is all part of creation.

---

This makes no sense to me. It isn't a matter of competition, exactly, but of using the method of inquiry that is the most reliable at discovering useful and verifiable truths.

quote:

---

So, what are your motives for respecting others?

---

Part social rules and part hard-wiring.

quote:

---

To learn about human psychology?

---

Curiosity.

quote:

---

Morality does not seek to explain or learn about human behaviour, it is a thing which we create to rectify and utilize the range of human behaviour. The question I asked was 'why'?

---

Morality allows us to live together in peace and cooperation, and that is a evolutionary survival advantage. By "us", I am referring to our "in-group", however small or large we decide to make it.

quote:

---

I am really not looking for a science experiment, I am looking for a way of living that produces people motivated to care for each other.

---

why do you think they must be mutually exclusive? Don't you think that understanding the basis and extent of the evolutionary origins of behavior might help us live better?

quote:

---

I have not found that any of the books I have read on spirituality or on God-based behaviour modification, have been without great insight. If I look to my own behaviour and follow these guides, I can see real true visible results in the lives of people around me. I don't know what is less woo-woo than results.

---

Following woo-woo guidelines doesn't help us understand, though.Hell, all you are doing is following social rules that happen to have a supernatural parent attached to them as a motivator."Don't misbehave otherwise you will make God sad" is barely different from "Don't misbehave otherwise you will make Mommy and Daddy sad."

quote:

---

Being moral isn't complicated. It is not about human social interactions. It is about one's self.

---

Tthat is just wrong. Being moral has everything to do with human social interactions. Human social interactions are the whole point of morals, in fact.

quote:

---

It doesn't need explanation, it needs motivation.

---

You aren't the least bit curious about why certain cultures and eras embrace entirely different moral beliefs, or why we have such a strong "in-group/out-group" connection to our morals, and why some people are able to resist following orders that go against their moral rules and other people simply comply, or why, when put into a prisoner/guard situation, almost everyone seems to fall into the roles?I think there is a huge amount of knowledge to be gained in this area of study and it is sad that you don't seem to care to discover any of it.

Do you remember, or do you not? Turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor is NOT about an in group. half of the parables Jesus told were about loving the outcast, the Gentile, the sinner. ANYONE can love an in-group. That's not morality. For the sake of this converstion, I don't think we need to dwell on what is or is not moral. So, you want to scientifically discover what is moral? Come on, would you respect a person who told you that they were moral because it was hard-wired into them, or because society wanted them to be? Lucky you. Hm. Cooperation allows us to live together in harmony. We could harmoniously cooperate to do what was immoral. I don't believe that morality is dependant on a group. I think that morality concerns what we do NOW, regardless of what got us to this point. What exactly are you trying to understand? What do you need to know so badly that hasn't been answered already in 'love thy neighbor'? And how is one person's version of loving more woo woo than the next? What did Ma Theresa do wrong? Did she understand human nature, or did she not?No one is talking about making God sad. Morality is about making ourselves sad. No, I think that morality is not about others. It can be judged by others, and applied to others, but it is essentially the etiquette of the soul. It is a thing that you can only do by looking to yourself, and discerning your own selfish and prideful side. If you look well to yourself, all of the rest will follow. Let me know when the results of the studies come in, so that I may figure out how to live life as a good person. NATOR!!!! Do you really think we can wait around for curiousity and scientific enquiry? Morality is about how you live life now, as an ignorant person, as an uneducated person, as a HUMAN. It's not a science.

This is mostly true, if say I held the door open for a person and then became upset because they did not smile (or some such result). From my experience however its not a matter of "expecting" or "hoping" for a positive result, the result is inevitable. I dont need to hope for it. If I do a positive action a number of times I know that I will have a good result eventually - and this makes it worth it. You may not have conciously thought "I hope my coworker really likes me now" - but if being nice to people inevitably brings you positive results than its still in your own self interests worth being polite for no reason.'Greed' has a negative outlook, 'self motivated' is much the same. In the grand scheme of things I do see being moral as having a better prospect for my interests than being immoral. For lack of a better term this is greed. The situation you wrote about, though funny, is not the type of greed that I mean. A positive result did happen as a side effect, but the intent was purely immoral. Inflicting serious pain on someone simply to further ones interest in the long run would have negative effects. Tom now may decide that he doesn't like soccer, but will start weightlifting so he can rearange Bob's face in a few years. At the very least Bob lost a friend and isn't likely to make many more. So, since I can conclude that being a moral person will always have a overall positive result for my own self interests I see this as greedy. I don't like the word but my vocabulary hasn't come up with a better alternative. Being immoral and greedy may have short term benefits, but in the long run the jerks always seem to get whats coming to them. I prefer the route of being a greedy nice person.Referring back to the OP and Phat's quote from another thread: I used to be moral due to my faith, with the loss of my faith I had to decide for more personal reasons why I would continue to be moral. My self-centered outlook still led me to see that morality does have its place in a Godless society, its best for my own self interests. I am selfish, and it led me to see that a selfless act still has its purpose. I do not need God to be moral, I just need the desire to be happy and being moral helps me to reach that goal.Edited by Vacate, : spelling

I expected that, but it does not change the fact that I believe you are right. Why? I choose to live in a society that has outlawed murder and theft because I don't want to be killed or stolen from; why is this wrong? I obey these laws (and even our moral codes) because I believe that they are the best way to ensure the safety and happiness of the largest number of people. One of those people is me, the others it includes are my friends and family (who are important to me)Why is it wrong to admit that even a so called "selfless" act is never truly selfless. It does not lessen the effect. If someone does good things in the hopes of reaching Heaven what difference is that to me just wanting a pleasant journey into the dirt?

Because when those people think they can get away with something, they'll stab you in the back. Literally. I haven't seen that. Most of the time, when the going gets shitty, humans form tight knit gangs or groups. Maybe it does, for the little decisions. But for the biggies, the 'should we kill that tribe over there that are building weapons with which to kill us?' type decisions...God becomes a justification for either running or fighting. Well no. Animals don't just respond to negative reinforcement but you can do better to train them using positive reinforcement. I think the biggest issue isn't religion - but faith.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Do you remember, or do you not? Turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor is NOT about an in group. half of the parables Jesus told were about loving the outcast, the Gentile, the sinner. ANYONE can love an in-group. That's not morality.

---

LOL!!!That's right. ANYONE can love members of their in group, which indicates that there is an inborn aspect to morality.All Jesus was doing was trying to get people to expand the size of their in-group. That is, of course, in sharp contrast to what Yaweh directed his people to do. Yaweh was all about having "his chosen people" (a small, select in-group) exterminate or enslave the out-groups.

quote:

---

For the sake of this converstion, I don't think we need to dwell on what is or is not moral.

---

Agreed, so that means that your objection, "We can't even agree on what is moral, so it isn't worthwhile studying why we have a moral sense at all." is retracted yes?

quote:

---

So, you want to scientifically discover what is moral?

---

No. As I explained, science can't do that.What science can do, however, is figure out why we are moral and how morality impacts people's lives. These discoveries are the "useful and verifiable truths" I was referring to. What philosophers come up with regarding "what is moral?" are not verifiable, and not always useful. That's the problem with philosophy. Anybody can just make one up using any justification they like.

quote:

---

Come on, would you respect a person who told you that they were moral because it was hard-wired into them, or because society wanted them to be? Lucky you.

---

I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean.And notice that I said "part social rules and part hard-wiring". You changed my statement to; " social rules or hard-wiring."

quote:

---

Hm. Cooperation allows us to live together in harmony. We could harmoniously cooperate to do what was immoral. I don't believe that morality is dependant on a group.

---

Morality is determined by groups.That is why we see that moral values differ across cultures and have changed over time within cultures.Morality is relative, and always has been. There is no absolute morality. Or, rather, there is no way of determining what that absolute morality is if it exists. The result is the same as if there were no absolute morality.

quote:

---

I think that morality concerns what we do NOW, regardless of what got us to this point.

---

My husband is a scientist and currently studies how people learn. It turns out that most people consistently misunderstand certain scientific concepts in the same way. We make quite predictable comprehension mistakes, in other words.The research that he is doing is intended to eventually be used to develop better ways to teach those scientific concepts, because if we understand the why we have those particular "mental blocks", we can figure out ways to compensate for them when we teach those concepts people find difficult and non-intuitive.If we apply your logic to this situation, we shouldn't bother trying to identify or understand why people generally have trouble with certain concepts and we should just concern ourselves with the way we teach those concepts NOW.In other words, applying your logic, you also shouldn't believe that we can improve our teaching methods through greater understanding of how people learn.

quote:

---

What exactly are you trying to understand?

---

Why do we have a moral sense? How does this moral sense manifest in people and how does it affect us as individuals and in groups? At what age does it seem to appear and how are people different in that regard, etc., etc., etc.

quote:

---

What do you need to know so badly that hasn't been answered already in 'love thy neighbor'?

---

That isn't an answer to any of my questions. That is merely a directive.

quote:

---

And how is one person's version of loving more woo woo than the next? What did Ma Theresa do wrong? Did she understand human nature, or did she not?

---

I don't understand what this is trying to convey.

quote:

---

No one is talking about making God sad. Morality is about making ourselves sad.

---

That's not what I see in this thread, sorry.

quote:

---

No, I think that morality is not about others. It can be judged by others, and applied to others, but it is essentially the etiquette of the soul.

---

What is etiquette?etiquette 1. conventional requirements as to social behavior; proprieties of conduct as established in any class or community or for any occasion.It is still all about how we treat and behave around others.

quote:

---

It is a thing that you can only do by looking to yourself, and discerning your own selfish and prideful side. If you look well to yourself, all of the rest will follow.

---

But morality and ettiquite are meaningless without other people around!

quote:

---

Let me know when the results of the studies come in, so that I may figure out how to live life as a good person. NATOR!!!! Do you really think we can wait around for curiousity and scientific enquiry? Morality is about how you live life now, as an ignorant person, as an uneducated person, as a HUMAN. It's not a science.

---

Sure it is about now, but when we know and understand better, we can do better. It is an ongoing process.That doesn't mean we wait around until we know everything about where morality comes from, and I have no idea how you figured I was saying that from anything I've written.What I am saying is that we should incorporate real knowledge about human behavior into our concepts of morality and how to teach them more effectively.Relying on woo or philosophy exclusively means that anyone who is charismatic and promises heavenly rewards can get people to do all sorts of fucked up things in the name of morality.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

You have still not answered the question of why loving people is moral. I wonder why.Basically science has started with the philosophy that loving others is good. Is that the 'hard-wired' part?Can you break down some of the parts you see in morality?Not everyone who is atheist is also science minded.I should be able to ask you point blank, no matter who you are, 'why are YOU moral' and receive an answer from personal conviction. Many teachers including Jesus have suggested that a large ingroup is of prime importance. I should like to know why you have chosen to embrace this thought as well. Ok, so that was a mere directive. Nevertheless, without this directive, we have no basis for our discussion, because science can't study a non-existant morality. What does 'teaching the concepts of morality' mean? These things are f*ed up based upon what? Oh, I know, that mere directive you mentioned. Guess what? That 'love thy large ingroup' idea is a philosophy that is relied on exclusively when you make moral determinations.

It's not wrong. It is the brunt of most spiritual writing actually. Is pride motivating our good deeds, even possibly corrupting them? A tough call that only the individual can make, but very important.Consider the kindly old lady, and the charitable functions widow. Both pop up in stories as opposing epitomes. One is of boredom and boastfulness, the other of honesty and practiced patience. Jesus had similar characters in the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee.I do not believe that human nature lies. We are disgusted by false motives for goodness. This indicates that in spite of the accidental and sometimes dangerous satisfaction we get from our actions, that we also recognize that doing good for praise or reward, or the mental image of our benevolent selves bent over backwards, detracts somehow from the intrinsic purity we associate with morality. Even the deed itself is affected. No one wants the flowers that were meant last night for the girl who dumped you. No one wants the gift you took out of your closet collection of duds.In general, as you say, the deed can still be a good one, but it is very hard to judge the morality of a person based on externals. If you concur with this thought, you will see why I repeat that morality is personal, and not social.
Laws are set in place to eliminate to a degree this personal aspect, and law can only make a determination of an action, not a person.

When you say things like:

quote:

---

Basically science has started with the philosophy that loving others is good.

---

...I realize that you still are having trouble with the difference between the two questions, "What is moral?", and, "Why do we have morals?"The first is unanswerable by science as I have already explained.The second is something science can address.Science has started with, "Hey, we notice that humans have a moral sense. We wonder where it comes from, what it's effects are, and how it manifests differently in individuals and groups. Let's investigate."Science does NOT start with "loving others is good". It would more accurately say something like, "In culture X, it is observed that love for others within their in-group is generally held as a moral value."Likewise, science can observe a different culture and observe the same phenomena but that the in-group was larger or smaller or excluded different ethnicities or religious groups than in Culture X.

quote:

---

Is that the 'hard-wired' part?

---

No. Humans almost universally follow some kind of moral code, regardless of the form that code takes. The Nazis had a moral code, the Crusaders had a moral code, the Spartans had a moral code, the southern slave owners had a moral code. We know that when people are brain damaged or abnormal in certain areas, they become immoral or amoral. We know that social higher primates are very aware of concepts like fairness and reciprocity.All of that is the "hard-wired" part.

quote:

---

Many teachers including Jesus have suggested that a large ingroup is of prime importance. I should like to know why you have chosen to embrace this thought as well.

---

Makes sense.

quote:

---

In general, as you say, the deed can still be a good one, but it is very hard to judge the morality of a person based on externals. If you concur with this thought, you will see why I repeat that morality is personal, and not social.

---

All of your examples of good or bad morality involve social situations, though.Don't you find that contradictory to your contention that morality has nothing to do with social interaction?

For the reasons I already have explained, I do not.I refrain from giving other examples of morality, because in those we have no common ground. The only area we agree on is the social aspect. My personal moral code includes the way I behave privately and towards God. This is a big part of morality for a Christian. If we look at the Bible, we are asked to love God first, and love our neighbor as ourselves. God and self are definitely included in the goal.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I understand nator. Really.The issue is that whenever you are asked for a naturalistic explanation of morality, you start talking about empathy. This makes me feel that you have concluded that loving others is good. Perhaps it is you who is misrepresenting science. Gosh darn it, you just messed up again! You are using fairness and reciprocity as examples of how higher primates have moral codes. Science can not determine that this is moral, right? The most you can be doing is saying that intelligence produces codes. Without the adjectives for moral behaviour that you have used, it is impossible to determine if lesser animals are producing codes as well.Although I understand that science can't answer what is moral, I have seen enough documentaries to know that scientists DO start with the premise that compassion is so. Birds are extremely compassionate creatures, btw, but I have no reason to think they are moral, or have any code other than instinct. I was hoping to hear 'all men were evolved equally and endowed by nature with inalienable rights' but oh well. I am content to know that something woo woo makes sense even to atheists.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

quote:

---

My personal moral code includes the way I behave privately and towards God. This is a big part of morality for a Christian. If we look at the Bible, we are asked to love God first, and love our neighbor as ourselves. God and self are definitely included in the goal.

---

That still sounds like social interaction to me, especially the "love our neighbor as ourselves" part.Your "behaving towards God" part is also described in a social interaction manner, as if God were a person that is affected by how we treat them.It simply makes no sense for you to say that morality has nothing to do with social interactions when the only way you can describe morality is through the language of social interaction.