Is religion what teaches virtues, values and morals?

[McCulloch]

The point was actually that teaching evolution to minor children in school undermines the religion of their parents, and religion is what teaches virtues, values and morals.

Is religion what teaches virtues, values and morals? Are secularists amoral? Are children raised without religion without virtue?

[Divine Insight]

People who claim that they need a God to tell them what's moral and what isn't are openly confessing that they have no clue what constitutes morality. In fact, they can't even claim to know that their God is moral. How could they know that if they are depending on this God to tell them what's moral?

So religious people cannot have a valid "opinion" on the concept of morality. They can't even argue that their God is moral. For if they give an rational argument for why they believe anything is moral or immoral, then they have just demonstrated that they don't need a God to tell them the difference between these things. They can "reason" them out for themselves.

So religious people cannot argue for "morality". All they can do is argue that they have place their blind faith in the idea that a very specific historical cultural religion supposedly reveals to us what is moral and what is immoral by a God who they have accepted on pure blind faith as the ultimate moral authority.

Personally I don't think it's wise to teach children to place their blind faith in ancient stories of Gods to be used as the absolute source of morality.

And what if they dare to disagree with anything these ancient Gods decree to be moral? Then what? Should they be chastised for disagreeing with this supposed ultimate authority on morality?

What if the religious dogma teaches that God not only approves of killing heathens who refuse to recognize him as the ultimate moral authority, but actually teaches that this God commands that such heathens should be killed. Do we all run out and become suicide bombers of anyone we believe qualifies as a "heathen". And if not, why not? Are we supposed to reject the religious dogma of this absolute authoritarian God and use our own common sense and reason instead?

Every Abrahamic theist, clergy, and even apologist has openly confessed that there are thing in the Abrahamic dogmas that give them great pause for thought concerning how these dogmas can be representing the ultimate moral authority when they clearly contain directs and commandments that clearly do not seem to be very moral by any sane rational person.

The apologist, of course, argue that these dogmas simply don't mean what they actually say, and that instead we need to personally interpret them in ways that make better moral sense.

There are two major problems with this.

The first problem should be obvious. If we need to push our sense of morality onto these dogmas in order to "interpret" them correctly, then the moral authority of these interpreted dogmas necessarily comes from us, not from the God the dogmas are supposed to be about. So we end up becoming the ultimate moral authorities anyway via how we personally choose to interpret these dogmas. And far more importantly than this is that everyone who reads these dogmas then necessarily comes away with their own personal subjective sense of morality anyway.

The second problem with this is that often times these dogmas need to be "re-interpreted" in such dramatic ways that the "new interpretation" is basically the complete opposite of what the dogmas originally stated literally. The apologists typically argue in these cases that the dogma at this point was merely a parable to make a point and never meant to imply that anyone should actually carry out the actions or behaviors described. But once again, this leaves the readers of the dogma to become the "ultimate authoritarians" on moral since the texts clearly need to be subjectively interpreted and twisted into something other than what they actually say.

So I don't see where religious people can claim that religions teach morality at all really. At best it could be argued that these ancient stories cause people to think about moral questions, and then ultimately arrive at their own personal choices of what they think should or shouldn't be considered to be moral.

But that would hardly be an argument that we obtain our moral teachings from any God. Especially when the theists who do the moral interpreting can't even agree with each other on what the moral interpretations of these stories should be.

There is no consistency in moral values between the Abrahamic religions in general. And there isn't even any consistent agreement on the moral values within the largest factions of these religions. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all proclaim quite conflicting ideas of what constitutes this "God's absolute morality". But even within each of these factions there are countless arguments and disagreements. Christianity alone has broken into two major divisive factions, Catholicism and Protestantism. And even those major factions contain their own disagreements on moral values. The Protestantisms in particular have become a rainbow of moral concept, where the factions at each end of the rainbow have such vastly different ideas of morality that they aren't even recognizable as being the "Same Religion" at all really.

Some believe in an eternal hell and others don't.

Some believe that to not recognize Jesus as the Son of God is sufficient grounds for certain damnation, others don't.

Some believe that this God has decreed that gay or transgender behavior is an abomination, others don't.

And of course this list goes on and on and on.

In short, they can't even agree among themselves what constitutes "Absolute Morality", clearly they have all pushed their own subjective opinions onto the dogma and just hold the dogma up as a symbol that their subjective opinions on morality somehow represent "God's Ultimate Morality".

Clearly these religions have no moral authority at all. None whatsoever. They represent nothing other than humans holding up their own personal opinions in the name of these ancient God myths.

Disclaimer. I make no apologies for this excessive rant.

It seems to me that the fallacy that these religions represent some absolute morality should be crystal clear to everyone, including the theists who attempt to use theses religions to support their own personal idea of what they think absolute moral authority should be.

I seriously can't see how anyone can argue that the morality associated with these religions represent some absolute moral authority?

Which religion? Judaism, Christianity, Islam?

And which faction within those religions?

Just limiting to Christianity, which faction of Christianity reflects this God's absolute morality? One specific Pope of Catholicism? The Amish? The Baptists? (if so which faction of Baptists?) The 7th Day Adventists? The Methodists (if so which faction of Methodists?) The Jehovah's Witnesses? The Shakers? The Mormons? How about the KKK? Don't they claim to be based on Christian morality too?

Where is this absolute morality, and why can't Christians, Jews, and Muslims AGREE on what it is?

From the outside these religions appear to be a complete joke.

In fact, many people on the "inside" are coming to this same conclusion and eventually getting out themselves.

I just don't see where there can be any rational argument that these religions represent any absolute moral authority from any God. They clearly do not.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Is religion what teaches virtues, values and morals? Are secularists amoral? Are children raised without religion without virtue?

I can't add anything to what Divine Insight posted on this, but every time I see a group of cows happily munching away in a field, or a flock of sheep, etc., they seem to all coexist without constant fighting, eating their young (and in fact fiercely protecting them against threats), or generally being amoral in any way. They don't have the ten commandments or any religious instruction, yet have the basic "morals" of any successful group of social animals.

Why would humans be any different? Basic morals appear to be innate in social animals without any input from religion. Just because humans have vastly higher levels of intelligence does not mean we need some sort of religious instruction to be moral. This intelligence may allow us to come up with all kinds of reasons to be amoral such as killing for property, revenge, power, etc., that a "lower" animal may not have the capacity for. But basic morals seem to be in place for animals far less intelligent than we are, without religion.

[marco]

Is religion what teaches virtues, values and morals? Are secularists amoral? Are children raised without religion without virtue?

When religion takes itself from God and discusses relationships, then it can instil morality. When people are told how powerful God is and how sacrosanct his messengers are, then morality goes out of the window.

A small child calling his teddy bear Muhammad could easily be put to death. And when gay people are thrown from high buildings, where did that morality come from? If your daughter has sinned sexually, take her to the good men of the town to be stoned. In many places in our religious world, that happens even today.

Religion returns to morality when it forgets about God, remembering only: love thy neighbour.

[liamconnor]

The point was actually that teaching evolution to minor children in school undermines the religion of their parents, and religion is what teaches virtues, values and morals.

Is religion what teaches virtues, values and morals? Are secularists amoral? Are children raised without religion without virtue?

Historically and Theologically (what is asserted by the bible and religious philosophers) not entirely.

Historically, There is overlap between the Decalogue and the laws of the cultures from that time, especially Hammurabi's law. Of course, not all cultures agree 100% on everything, but there is a uniform basic principle in all cultures; some cultures extend it in one way, others retract it in the other.

theologically (I speak only for Christian theologians) there has been general agreement that conscience is part and parcel of being 'made in the image of God'. Of course one's conscience is conditioned by one's culture, but the notions of 'right and wrong' are part of what is to be human.

[Divine Insight]

but the notions of 'right and wrong' are part of what is to be human.

So what good is this to theology when we have absolute proof positive that not every human will agree on what's "right and wrong"?

Even Christian theologians themselves do not agree with each other on issues of what constitutes "right or wrong" and they even have the same scriptures to read and they can't even agree on what the scriptures are saying.

So how does this support religion at all, much less Christianity?

It seems to me to prove precisely the opposite. If there was a God who designed human conscience, then every human should have the same conscience and thus the same notions of "right and wrong". But clearly they don't.

So doesn't this actually prove that this religion cannot be true?

I certainly think it does.

[liamconnor]

but the notions of 'right and wrong' are part of what is to be human.

So what good is this to theology when we have absolute proof positive that not every human will agree on what's "right and wrong"?

Even Christian theologians themselves do not agree with each other on issues of what constitutes "right or wrong" and they even have the same scriptures to read and they can't even agree on what the scriptures are saying.

So how does this support religion at all, much less Christianity?

It seems to me to prove precisely the opposite. If there was a God who designed human conscience, then every human should have the same conscience and thus the same notions of "right and wrong". But clearly they don't.

So doesn't this actually prove that this religion cannot be true?

I certainly think it does.

So what good is this to theology when we have absolute proof positive that not every human will agree on what's "right and wrong"?

I am not sure what you are getting at. Theology is about the study of God in his or its relationship to itself and to creation. That not all humans agree upon an exact ethical code could very well mean that the world is not entirely aligned with the deity that created it.

Even Christian theologians themselves do not agree with each other on issues of what constitutes "right or wrong" and they even have the same scriptures to read and they can't even agree on what the scriptures are saying.

What is your argument? That because Christian theologians disagree about something that something does not exist?

[marco]

theologically (I speak only for Christian theologians) there has been general agreement that conscience is part and parcel of being 'made in the image of God'. Of course one's conscience is conditioned by one's culture, but the notions of 'right and wrong' are part of what is to be human.

In harmonising with each other people have adopted an obvious modus vivendi which offers some safe predictability from year to year. Most people today refrain from eating each other. Unless they are extremely religious, they don't decapitate humans or throw stones at them to kill them for some offence to an idol.


It was convenient to attribute any old bit of moral info to the local god, but in today's world where we know God didn't invent television or the typewriter we can see that morality is a human development. It is unsurprising that religious and non-religious agree it is not very nice to kill a neighbour. It would be wonderful if the religious saw how nasty it is to kill in the name of a God.

Morality has little to do with God - thank God!

[bluethread]

The point was actually that teaching evolution to minor children in school undermines the religion of their parents, and religion is what teaches virtues, values and morals.

Is religion what teaches virtues, values and morals? Are secularists amoral? Are children raised without religion without virtue?

Religion can teach virtues, values and morals in a circuitous manner. However, I think it is more accurate to say that religion is virtues, values and morals. Religion consists of those actions that follow from a philosophy. For those who choose to see religion as entirely theistic, I would ask what one calls nontheistic virtues, values and morals. If such are merely called virtues, values and morals, without a term that summarizes them, the use of the term "religion" becomes nothing more than a term than biases the discussion. If there is such a summarizing term that can be used in a similar fashion to the way the term "religion" is used, what is the difference between that term and "religion" apart from theism?