Does Religion Make People Moral?

A good example is anyone who sins.

Quote: FrGamble

A good example is anyone who sins.

Atheists don't believe in sin, there
is no god to offend. And yes, that's
the definition of sin, offending a
god. Please refer to the thousands
of posts in the sin thread before you
start this conversation all over again
for the 11th time.

Quote: FrGamble

I guess you are right, it does show that a belief in God does not make one good.

That is close to the original question, "Does religion make people moral?"

A criminal who is remorseful would still be considered moral. Wrong, but moral. A criminal who is not remorseful would not be moral.

But is that really true? Are there exceptions for property crimes? Sex crimes? Political crimes? Physical crimes (assault, murder)? What about Robin Hood?

Although the discussion has devolved again into belief in God/god/gods, I sort of think that somewhere along the line we've all agreed that religions do not make people moral. But we differ on what we think that means.

Those of us who are indifferent to the possible existence of G/god take it to mean there is no G/god: total belief cannot guarantee moral behavior.

Those of us who do believe in God take it to mean that sentient beings need God: the fact that religion does not make us moral is proof that we are flawed.

It is a spirited discussion, to be sure. It can be a difficult world to push through sometimes, when the answer to the question depends on whose ox is being gored. Which goes right back to the original essay.

Morality?
A rather fluid concept.
If you go look at the cooking thread you will see a post about the Moral Progressives who considered the Blue Plate Special to be highly moral conduct and eating mixed foods to be Anti-Christian and Anti-White Un-American activity.
Do beliefs even influence conduct? How many ministers get arrested for murder?
Much conduct is spontaneous and much is planned. Do we evaluate its morality based on time for reflection or time for remorse?

Quote: Mosca

It is a spirited discussion, to be sure. It can be a difficult world to push through sometimes, when the answer to the question depends on whose ox is being gored. Which goes right back to the original essay.

Religious believers ignore Euthyphro's Dilemma.

Originally it's stated thus: Socrates asks whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is pious only because it is loved by the gods. Later on it has been restated as: Is God good because he acts morally, or is something moral because God says it is.

This seems to be a rhetorical question without any possibly clear answers. But this assessment ignores centuries of scientific thinking, namely the value of simple observation. Every deity in every mythology, including the Judeo-Christian mythology, is often an asshole or a douchebag by today's standards. For instance, killing someone for a crime might be justified. Killing them, and their family, and their descendants, is something you'd expect the mob to do, not an allegedly moral entity like a god.

The thing is, do you accept a package of laws and commandments as moral absolutes, no questions asked, or do you examine their meaning, intent, effects, etc, and make a judgment?

There is a lot in the Bible that even American Christian Fundamentalists wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. And much the same goes for every other religion claiming obedience to the Biblical god. Inevitably they all pick and choose, and then take absolutist positions on their choices, claiming the ultimate divine authority to do so.

If you ask me, that is not only immoral but sick.

An act that might be immoral in one circumstance might be moral in another. One must have the flexibility to recognize that and act accordingly.

Quote: Mosca

An act that might be immoral in one circumstance might be moral in another. One must have the flexibility to recognize that and act accordingly.

I've said morality is a moving target here
for years. And every time I do, the Vatican
guy jumps down my throat.

Quote: Mosca

An act that might be immoral in one circumstance might be moral in another. One must have the flexibility to recognize that and act accordingly.

I don't think this is true. There is no circumstance for example that would make it moral to kill an innocent person. Some people would point to war as a circumstance that makes killing the innocent moral, but nobody really holds to this. It may be an unavoidable consequence of war but in war if you purposely sought ways to kill the innocent you would be immoral and a war criminal.

The other danger of this idea of morality is determining who decides what circumstance would make an evil act a good one? If it is you yourself who determine that because of my unique circumstance I can kill this innocent person it is dangerous relativism and I become the arbiter of what is right or wrong. If you place society as the judge of when circumstances make a normally immoral act moral you end up with things like slavery.

An act simply cannot become moral in one circumstance and immoral in another. In a similar way an immoral act cannot become a moral act based on the ends it achieves. The ends do not justify the means.

Quote: FrGamble

I don't think this is true. There is no circumstance for example that would make it moral to kill an innocent person. .

Yet the Bible in places condones slavery.
The Church burned innocent women at
the stake for being falsely accused of
ruining crops and drying up wells. The
list is endless of immoral acts by
supposedly moral people.

Morality is moving target, you cannot
pin it down. One generations morality
is another generations belly laugh.

Quote: Evenbob

Morality is moving target, you cannot
pin it down. One generations morality
is another generations belly laugh.

The scary thing about such statements such as this is that you lose the ability to say that those who owned slaves or those who committed genocide or those who rape young women are immoral. Do you want to say that those who engaged in racial slavery like the ancient Egyptians or the American south were moral in their decision to do so because circumstances were different than they are now? Wouldn't it be better to say that morality doesn't change, evil things don't become good or good things don't become evil, but our understanding of the objective moral truths for all of humanity is better understood and followed over time?