The role of religion in the formation of ethical values

This is a complex subject properly addressed only in long narratives. In just a few paragraphs, however, I hope to spell out an overly simplistic perspective. In subsequent postings I want to offer some examples. But now the theory.

To get to the fundamental issue: What we know as the good—the right way to live, does not come down from the sky as some sort of divine revelation, but comes up from human experience. RELIGION LIES IN THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THESE VALUES AND A WAY BY WHICH THEY CAN BE TRANSMITTED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION. Assume that there are people in most societies at their best who discover that love is better than hate, justice better than injustice, peace better than war—just to name three. How does recognition of these values arrive? Over time it is discovered that these ways to live are basically matters of social survival. They provide better security for everybody. These values are generated out of experience. Somebody gets the notion! What we call revelation comes up from human experience and from the very processes of nature. Indeed, what we call God may be the very processes of history and of nature.

In religious language we affirm that this is the way God works. It first occurs when somebody gets the idea that for the survival of the family, the clan, the village there are simple rules of life that need to be enshrined for the common good. Somebody sees beyond the immediate to the larger implications of how to live together. This always takes place in the midst of the human inclination toward selfishness, “where’s mine,” if your enemy is hungry starve him—or kill him. It is not necessarily human nature to be loving, just or peaceful, and there are institutions which further war, injustice and hatred. Often religious institutions embody the opposite of the ethical norms cited above. They can be exclusive, self-centered, warlike, and bigoted. They become part of the problem, not part of the answer. Their gods are the sole possession of the cult or clan. They are war gods. They are narrow, selfish and used to wall out everyone else, or condemn them to hell. They usually see god as some powerful person out there, whose only role is to take care of them. This perspective is what always gives religion a bad name.

But back to the values. Unless they are institutionalized they do not get carried from one generation to the next. RELIGION IS THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THESE ETHICAL VALUES. They are remembered and transmitted in stories, myths, and traditions, doctrines, art, architecture, music, drama, ritual, poetry, liturgy, science, nature and biography. Western culture is the summation of these things which are all related to the Judeo/Christian tradition. Pull them out of western history and you have no sustainable culture. The Bible says that in previous days God spoke through the prophets, but in these latter days God has spoken through Jesus, who was a personification of a loving, just, peaceful way to live. Other cultures have other personifications. It is always in every culture that the ethical norms come up through persons not down through thunderbolts. But without institutionalization, these values do not get from generation to generation.

Many non-religious people, atheists, agnostics and those who have never examined these matters also carry on the ethical imperatives, but in most cases they first heard them from parents who were religious, or from some Sunday School teacher or from the other things mentioned above—art, literature, biography etc. They did not come upon these things de nova. It is not human nature to be loving, just or peaceful Just read history! They got them from somewhere or some person, or some institution. Whether or not they give credit or even understand where they got them is not important.

The role of religion, therefore, is the codification and symbolization of ethical values. Without it, these ways to live may not persist generation to generation. Therefore, religion, properly understood, is important in the struggle for human survival.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery.

Delilah selling out Samson, lulling him to sleep and cutting off his hair, knowing he could be injured or killed by his enemies.

Jacob and Rachel conspiring to trick Esau and Isaac to give up Esau's birthright.

Eve getting the blame for eating the "forbidden fruit".

When you're in a Jewish Sunday School and you want debate, your request is deferred or ignored.

I knew I was a moral relavist more than a non-thinking, noncritical Jew.

That's why I was drawn to ethical culture, where my belief system is predicated on a variety of different philosophies that address the ethics of any situation, with no "correct" answer.

But I'm a Unitarian.

I agree that social traditions help to codify ethical values. And these can and often do include religions. But often they don't. Groups have social expectations and values of all sorts. Most groups seem to have their 'moral tales' illustrating good and bad behaviour. We still refer to Aesop's Fables, which are not religious tales, e.g. accusing people of being 'dogs in the manger', or advising them that 'slow and steady wins the race' as in the tale of the Hare and the Tortoise. At the same time, current up-to-date media, such as the Internet, can be used for moral suasion, in any direction. And attitudes do change. 100 years ago in the UK, the British upper classes seemed to regard the code of Being a Gentleman as supreme, and most people assumed that Britannia Ruled the Waves, and that the Empire was a Good Thing. All this has gone. When I was a child, only 'eccentrics' were preoccupied with the environment; nowadays this is at centre stage for many. Etc.

At the same time there are a lot of core values that are common to all cultures - though generally with their exceptions - and these seem to have been programmed into us all by evolution. Thou shalt not steal (unless you really need to, or the victim is outside your social group); thou definitely shalt not kill (unless the victim deserves it, i.e. is threatening you or your family *or* is outside your social group and seen as an Enemy); thou shalt not commit incest (unless this is the only way of maintaining the ruling family); etc.

They often don't. But if you take a good look at history, they most often do.

have been killed "in the name of God" than for any other reason.

“The fact is that more people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, that my friends, is true perversion..” Harvey Milk

.
.
.
.

Now wait for the inevitable bleats of Stalin! Lenin! Pol Pot!1!1 :popcorn:

Certainly the sort of religion I alluded to as negative has been historically disastrous; Far more people have been killed by tribalism, land hunger, famine and in the later years nationalism than anything else.

It's an atheist religion, and one of the reasons it's lasted so long is because its founder created a religious structure to maintain it from one generation to the next.

The "Atomic Priesthood" was proposed as a way of maintaining nuclear waste over millions of years:

I'm unaware of the nuclear hierarchies.

The origin of religion is hidden in the fog of the past, and no one knows its exact origin; but the role of religion is surely connected to this origin. Given the essential role you give to the institutionalization of ethical values, what do you see as the origin of religion?

One of the best arguments I've read about the origin of religion is in the book The Faith Instinct by Nicholas Wade. According to that book, its origin lies in ritual dance which strengthened community bonds. Wade cites anthropological evidence to support this idea.

In-group values are instinctive and come down to us through our evolution from ancestral species who also lived in groups. As humans became dominant over other species, their main competitors were other groups of humans. Religion was a powerful unifying force that helped groups fight other groups. This is why all surviving human groups have religion within their historical culture.

In general, do you agree or disagree with Wade's arguments? If you agree with them, do you see religion as still serving a role in the very real need for human societies to defend themselves from other groups of humans? I think the role of religion is very complex serving both as an in-group moral guide and as an aid in defense against out-groups.

But he leaves out much more than he includes. I would suggest if you want to fill out the argument you read Karen
Armstrong's "History of God." If Wade totally characterized the role of religion as necessary for in-group solidarity, then religion's role is suspect in today's culture. But that is a very limited viewpoint. In the days to come I will post some illustrations from recent times of what I have suggested.

The role of religion, therefore, is the codification and symbolization of ethical values. Without it, these ways to live may not persist generation to generation. Therefore, religion, properly understood, is important in the struggle for human survival.


Without religion, ethical values may not survive? What nonsense.

Religion, "properly understood,..."? If only we could all see it through YOUR rose colored glasses. Are you frikking serious?


Important for human survival? Seen from the non-believers POV, religion IS the problem, not solution.



While your opinion is welcome here, no one needs to agree with it to have "serious conversation" about it. I'm sure that my comments, along with other dissenters will be ignored by you and written off as just more "mean atheist" stuff. Thats been your MO since you arrived here.

between "may not" and "cannot." My rose colored glasses are probably more helpful than digging around in the garbage hoping to find just one more bit of slime..

Your hypocrisy is astounding!

and a sense that responders have at least grappled seriously with what I have written. What I tend to get is snarfy put downs. Whatever that it is, it is not intelligent discourse.

Why are you surprised by the responses you get?

You're not likely going to get an answer.

I'll continue to speak out.

You should post a rational OP. Instead you posted your usual diatribe implying that society requires religion to function properly, and that everyone (even atheists) gets all of their good values from religion.

1. The statement that values could have only have come from religions is flawed. Religion did not teach humanity how to live together. Much of our willingness to get together as society either comes from instinct (Humans who stayed together and worked together lived, humans who didn't died), or from the common sense concept that a society is better if we work together than if we don't.

2. Most of the main religions these days have religious texts full of violence, and yet, these were not pushed to the side as you say. Many of them have rules so harsh that nobody could possibly live by them in this modern era. These values certainly are not ethical.

3. The concept that children may only learn good behavior from religious parents or parents who were influenced by religion in some way is such a glaring logical fallacy that it's hard to pick a point to argue against it - there's so many! It is a horrible, baseless statement that is not backed up by any real information other than a concept of religious supremacy - If something is good, it must be influenced by religion! This is one of the largest logical fallacies on your text here.

4. There is no doubt that Christianity brought the West many good things. However, had it not had influence on the West, it's impossible to guess what society would be like. There is no way to tell, and therefore it is not a valid point. Religion is not needed to sustain a culture - it is simply an influence on culture.

It is always in every culture that the ethical norms come up through persons not down through thunderbolts. But without institutionalization, these values do not get from generation to generation.

Yes they did. There are countless ancient texts that mention the worship of gods before Christianity. This is just so blatantly wrong I don't even know where to start. What about the ethical values of the Ancient Greeks?

5. RELIGION IS THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THESE ETHICAL VALUES.

No it is not. Many of the ancient Gods were especially rotten, and needed to be placated in order to not launch mass destruction. They had many of the flaws that modern humans still have. Even the Christian god showed his human side at times (jealousy, willingness to commit murder against his enemies, etc.)


So, in short, did religion greatly influence modern culture? Yes. Is it necessary to prevent us from killing each other? Obviously not. Some would argue that religion causes even more death and destruction, and it gives people an outlet in their mind to rationalize committing mass atrocities in the name of placating their god.

They have no religion to spread these concepts, yet we see altruistic behavior in several species.

The OP is horribly biased and bigoted against non-believers.

Many of these practices by humans predate organized religion by... Well, too many years to think of before our tiny human brains clash with our large human egos.

Be careful,however, about misreading what I have said. I never said or do I believe that values 'ONLY' could have come through religion. My argument is the logical conclusion that something may be sufficient but not necessary. There are other sources of institutionalized ethics beyond religion. Even so, historically religion has been A prime source. You quite properly cite two other sources.

And I never said nor do I believe that children ONLY learn good behavior from religious parents.

I suggest you try reading western history apart from the universities and other schools, the hospitals, the scientific laboratories, the art, literature, architecture, music, poetry----- on an on and on, which flow from religious culture.

Indeed, there are other institutionalizations in culture beyond Christian ones. You are correct in pointing out a couple. But I never said Christianity had any exculusive claim.


If you read what I wrote, I too pointed out the negative aspect of religions. We both are correct about that.

Have you considered the possibility that your writing isn't as lucid as you hope or that you may have made a mistake?

He's very Randian that way.

Religion after all is both linguistically and anthropologically very closely aligned with a constrained set of acceptable behaviors and opinions. Morality doubtless did arise from human experience, and undeniably did get propagated and maintained by a whole slew of religions. From primitive man through semi-literate subgroups with little formal education and ad-hoc legal systems even today, it makes a great deal more sense to tell kids that Ooga-Booga will snatch them if they steal but Bigbigman will reward them if they are honest and virtuous, rather than try and rationalize the concepts of universalized utilitarianism, or threaten them with a rapsheet from a non-existent juvenile court system. This long-standing process matured and eventually resulted in the first written moral codes.

But these codes, where they have been adjusted and maintained by courts and policing of various kinds for centuries, and where they have both fed and been fedback to a population capable of understanding and absorbing and communicating abstract mores for almost as long, have long ago replaced the need for any supernatural underpinnings. Even children of very few years today are instructed in abstract morality, from what upsets Mommy to how bad it feels if someone takes YOUR toys away (so don't do it to others). In further years but still in early youth, it is the power of earthly not divine authority and peer-pressure that works as the corrective threat for all but the Fervent far fundy few's kids. Don't scream or Mom will give you a time out becomes don't smash his toy or he won't play with you becomes don't joke around or the teacher will give you detention becomes don't shoplift or the cops will come, becomes act in a way sanctioned by the group or you will be a social pariah.

It would be unforgivable atheist hubris to ignore the fact that religions shaped, spread and supported moral codes throughout most of our history. It is however unforgivable theist hubris to suggest that they are either necessary for, or better at, doing so now for the vast majority of the world that is capable of internalizing secular moral codes and has some structure, not even necessarily a fully civilized legal system but at least a structure of some kind, to support those codes.

While there are serious disagreements between us, I appreciate your careful, thoughtful statement. Again I make the logical distinction between sufficient and necessary causality. I try to be carful not to make absolutist statements, even while many of my critics read an absolutist position in what I have said. Perhaps that is my fault for not being clearer.

Is the general set of morals most humans live by a product of evolution, or did it come about from social organization? The particulars of whether they were codified in a religious text or secular text like the constitution are secondary to question of their true origins.
If one does not believe they are simply "from God". and even the religious must admit there is not the evidence to support this. Then knowing how these ideas came to be are the crucial question. Not how various cultures transmit the info.

Humans have built amazing structures. For most of history the grandest were built for religious purposes. But does this mean that religion is the key ingredient to architecture?

Please see my response directly above your post.

I might argue that religious symbolism is at the heart of western architecture. To put it crudely, most structures were built to the glory of God. It was a response to the Mystery which was put in stone. The same can be said of Universities, hospitals etc.

But I disagree that somehow the grand architecture was a response to the "grand mystery" as you put it.
Religion is not needed for grand architecture. Like the Governments and other powerful secular institutions today that build the great structures, religions were projecting their power and place in society.
I am saying that just because religions helped codify moral codes does not mean that they had any special knowledge of those morals. They were simply a conduit because of how they developed within those societies.

The most important buildind used to be a house of worship and churches reflected that spirituality. Now churches are likely to look like office buildings or shopping malls because they reflect a new spirituality.

You title your post with "The role of religion in the formation of ethical values," then go on to say that ethics didn't necessarily rise from religion, but that we need religion to perpetuate them. Or, as you screamed, "RELIGION LIES IN THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THESE VALUES AND A WAY BY WHICH THEY CAN BE TRANSMITTED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION."

And of course, where you see contradiction, they see confirmation!

Trotsky continues to read your posts I think, he does not subscribe to the "ignorance is bliss" theory.

But if he and a couple of others posts anything it comes up on my scene, "ignored."

I have nobody on ignore. I can handle words being typed in my direction.

The question is whose religion are we talking about? But we know what you think don't we? "Western culture is the summation of these things which are all related to the Judeo/Christian tradition." That's the hook. Religion is indispensable for civilization and the only religion that matters is yours. This must indeed be a "christian nation" if you are to be believed. Fortunately we don't believe you.

People need to eat every day, sleep warm and dry, and make more people. For most of human history we got up in the morning, hunted and gathered all day, danced around the fire, fucked a little, then went to sleep. The hunting and gathering part is the material portion of existence. The dancing around the fire part is the spiritual portion. The fucking is a combination of both.

The practice of science, whether it's how to make an atlatl or a particle accelerator, gives us intellectual predictability. We can all agree on the specific gravity of water or the speed of light. That gives us air conditioning and ice in our scotch. The practice of religion as a physical manifestation faith gives us emotional predictability.

The process of evolution has seen to it that it feels good to cooperate. That's why religion is so important to civilization. The practice of religion makes us feel the same way about something. We can either feel good about it, as in the case of the pearly gates, or feel bad about it, as in the volcano that requires a steady diet of virgins. Religion in general and Christianity in particular has been on both sides of the love hate relationship humans have with each other and the world around them.

If you want to credit your Judeo/Christian tradition with all that is good with western civilization, you have to blame it for all that is wrong with it as well. You can't avoid that obvious fact and all the marketing spin in the world won't hide it.

Again, many of you want to push me into an exclusive claim. I make no such claim. I never claimed that the Judeo/Christian tradition is responsible for ALL that is good. If that has not been clear it is my fault for not getting it properly articulated.

If you know my areas of concern you would realize thinking that only religion matters to me really misses who I am. I deal most of the time in politics, social thought and economics--and religion has only a peripheral--but very important-- relationship. You might want to check out my Wednesday posts in editorials and other articles--or whatever it is called.

"What we know as the good—the right way to live, does not come down from the sky as some sort of divine revelation, but comes up from human experience. RELIGION LIES IN THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THESE VALUES AND A WAY BY WHICH THEY CAN BE TRANSMITTED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION.

...

What we call revelation comes up from human experience and from the very processes of nature. Indeed, what we call God may be the very processes of history and of nature."

When you say that religion is responsible for our understanding of the good, you've given religion credit for all that is good. It may have been poorly articulated for a lay person, but you're a theologan and you've probably given the matter considerable thought. The same thought is expressed with great clarity by those whose practice of religion you're are so quick to question.

Those same people who deny the theory of evolution would be equally comfortable with calling the " processes of history and nature" God. It is more accurate to call the processes of history and nature - the processes of history and nature. That has been the case since the enlightenment.

For most of human history religion was the primary means of articulating mankind's place in the world. Since the enlightenment that is no longer the case. Religion has been relegated, in terms of culteral relevance, to a position equal to that of professional sports. You're just rooting for your team.

When you claim a religious imprimateur for morality you are actually expressing an extremely conservative point over view no different than any religious fundamentalist.

:applause:


Now, lets see if you get an honest answer, are told that you do not want serious conversation, or if evasion and misdirection become the tactic.

:popcorn:

from him WOULD be an act of faith.

that religion is responsible for ALL that is good. But it has always had a positive (as well as a very negative role) to play. It is an important part of the social matrix.

"What we call revelation comes up from human experience and from the very processes of nature. Indeed, what we call God may be the very processes of history and of nature.

In religious language we affirm that this is the way God works."

Evolution deniers do exactly the same thing. You couch moral behavior in religious terms with every word you write. Yours is the same effort to re-brand religion as the lynch pin of society as the fundamentalists on the right. Religion is no more culturally important than professional football or oldies rock. We don't need clergy to help us sort out our emotional or moral dilemmas. We have psychiatrists and philosophers for that, and those guys don't have a history of burning people alive for disagreeing with them. As the cultural importance of religion declines in inverse proportion to the amount of property it owns it will increasingly come to depend less on nurturing and more on authoritarian demands to stay relevant. It has to put its hands on the levers of power; and that is exactly what is happening right now. Religious liberals are a pale shadow next to the power of fundamentalists on the right. And not a few liberals don't mind profiting from the efforts of their ideological opposites when it suits them.

"Unless they are institutionalized they do not get carried from one generation to the next. RELIGION IS THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THESE ETHICAL VALUES."

Religion might have been the institutionalization of ethical values five hundred years ago, but since the enlightenment it just ain't so. I've told you before, you're struggling for a growing share of a shrinking market.

But it has always had a positive (as well as a very negative role) to play.

Your equivocation renders your assertion that the church is the "institutionalization of ethical values" by admitting it can be just as corrupt and evil as the surrounding culture. In fact, religion in general and Christianity in particular actively solicits and exploits support from the wealthy and powerful to function. The church is not a living thing with divided loyalties and agonizing introspection of its motivations. It is, as you say, a tool for social cohesion. It can also be a tool for social coercion. It can be either used for good or ill depending on the motivations of the people using it. It can also be discarded or redesigned when it becomes outdated or too expensive to operate.

If religion were even a minor conduit for the transmission of ethical values, it wouldn't have supported or been actively responsible for some of the most horrifying crimes against humanity in recorded history. As an important fount of morality, it should be able to police its own ranks at least somewhat better than than the surrounding culture. As it stands now, religion is wallowing in the filth of consumption and corruption far in excess of the bulk of the people it claims to lead.

Imagine a natural resource that is inexhaustible. Plus, if you need a spike in supply you can gin one up with very little effort. This natural resource can be exploited with little or no capital investment and can deliver huge profits for anybody willing to tap it. The natural resource I'm talking about of course is human emotion. Religion has been profiting from people's feelings for over fifteen thousand years. In a culture that is sucking the natural resources of the planet dry religion is one of the most profitable drilling operations out there and its most toxic byproduct is anomie. That phenomena is nothing new. Religion, rather than being a beacon of right moral and ethical values and the guardian of all that is good in the human spirit is following along with the rest of culture and parroting its worst abuses. It is an ineffective tool for the implementation of right behavior. That's why we have a First Amendment. The last thing we need is people like you trying to mix politics and religion. That always ends badly.

Because if so, it ignores everything I put you in favor of a tangential issue.

But that's how I am. :evilgrin:

advancing ethics. They become stratified and inflexible. You religion stopped advancing in ethics about 1500 years ago, secular ethics has advanced far beyond that, and even you follow most of them, considering you consider yourself a progressive. The most basic values of freedom, human rights, and treating each other fairly is simply not present except in limited form in your religious texts. You cannot claim that what humans have built in through evolution and the ethical advancements of the Enlightenment as birthed from your religion when they either predate your religion by many generations or were themselves born from philosophies and ethics that were born in OPPOSITION to your religion.

I don't know what you are reading that religious writers and thinkers have been about in recent times. You might start by reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Rusty Swords," a work that has been around since he was executed by the Nazi's just before the end of the war. Or you might take a look at any number of moderns books and writings about the course of Christian ethics. They are hardly stratified or inflexible. I celebrate what skeptics and others have had to say from the Enlightenment on. They have made important contributions to the dialogue. But it is a multi-focused dialogue.

may take me a while to read through some of it, but I'm interested.

and in a letter to you incase you can't find it here

Stanley Hauerwas "The Peaceable Kingdom. A Primer on Christian Ethics"
Robin Lovin "Christian Ethics--The Essential Guide"
J.Ian H. McDonald "Theory and Practice in Christian Ethics Today"

I need you to make about 3 more posts, and then take a break for a day, so I can play Iron Maden and mosh around the office for a bit... that is all.

Thank you in advance.

You sound like a big boy who probably doesn't need me to do or not do anything. Go ahead and play. You have my permission if you need it.
Cheers!

1. "This perspective is what always gives religion a bad name." This perspective is religion. You may not like it, but it is. It is also THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF VALUES. Just not values you like. If you are going to tell us how great religion is, you can't dismiss the bad as just a blip on the screen that is a deviation from the norm.

2. "It is not human nature to be loving, just or peaceful Just read history! They got them from somewhere or some person, or some institution. Whether or not they give credit or even understand where they got them is not important." Nor is it in the nature of religion to be so. Some humans are good; some are bad. Some religions are good; some are bad. To me, that doesn't seem like an argument for keeping religion.

i find much of what you have to say informative and thoughtful. I'll get back with a response when I get the time. This is not the only thing I do!