Maybe Theist Are Right About Morality.

[mensaguy]

With the high number of Christians in the prison population and the high rate of recidivism among inmates, I don't think you can realistically trace the motivation for moral behavior to religion.

I think people behave because they have been taught to do the right thing simply because it is good and right. They learn it from their parents and from society (which includes churches), but I do not thing religion is the only viable source of morality.

[Trimac20]

I agree, morality for most people - atheists OR theists - actually is more related to law and order of fear of EARTHLY consequences vs those in the afterlife. Apart from maybe sexual immorality.

Even if I were an atheist I wouldn't go out beating and robbing old ladies because I have no desire to. It causes me no pleasure, nor would it bring me any benefit. I would also feel guilty because of my conscience, perhaps that is in itself God-imbued. Anyway, it doesn't rely on some fear of God's wrath.

Also, it would result in strong peer disapproval. The fear of this disapproval and it's consequences (being shunned, for someone retaliating on behalf of said old lady) is enough to make us moral, even if we did desire to beat up the old lady.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

Besides, I really don't think a belief in god stops many criminals. I have worked with both incarcerated adults and juveniles, many of which believed god disapproved of the sorts of behaviors they were incarcerated for, but that didn't stop them.

But then, when they find God in prison (a very common situation, btw...), that's all good, but their recidivism rate (their return to crime) is still high. Perhaps they think that God is now on their side?

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

It would be wrong to think theists are all in agreement on morality. Theists aren't a big monolith.

People wouldn't be sociopathic without religion or God. Theists who think that either don't have a good understanding of the word "sociopathic" or understanding of humans.

Some main objections of theists I can think of include:

Morality would be subjective because there would be no authoritative teacher or anyone to make certain what's right.

Morality would largely be based on pleasure/pain, of self or others, as other forms of morality are harder to justify rationally.

People who contain irrational or illogical thinking can cite its "ickiness" or that religious prohibitions on incest are absolute.

People would be aware of morality without God, but would have no reason to act on if it's not in their self-interest or the self-interest of those with whom they feel a connection.

St. Katherine Drexel gave up all her wealth to help poor American Indians and African Americans. Without a belief in the hereafter or a loving God or whatever would people really risk death or poverty to help totally unrelated strangers?

Well maybe. (I've heard there's plenty of atheists in the Peace Corps) Still it seems like to me it'd be far less likely. Maybe you'd get less Torquemadas without theism, but also less Drexels or Dorothy Days or Martin Luther Kings or what have you.

Some curious ones I've thought of at times are

Morality would actually be stricter without God, way too strict.

All judgments have to be made by people in this life, not God or the Cosmos or Fate or what have you, so there could be a tendency toward being very interventionist or perfectionist.

...you get security cameras everywhere, bans on hate speech, sterilizing alcoholics, or other things I know occur/occurred in highly atheistic nations.

Agree with your last points, in the main.

Originally Posted by Mind over Chatter

I can usually talk to somebody for 5 minutes and determine pretty close to as how they were raised, either in the fear of God or not, by what type of language they use and their worldview.

Boy.. would you be easy to trip up and fool! You have a rather high opinion of your cultural abilities and the "God's in my back pocket!" syndrome, eh?

All one has to do is be aware that someone like you would be judging them. And the self-righteous smirking that self-aggrandizing Christians evoke is too obvious when unusual questions come from them: how do you feel about Abortion? How about the public education system science classes? Etc. etc. etc. make that an easy call to make! I see it all the time, most often when the car-rider fundy-fringe comes door to door with their withering smirks and "down-their-noses-at-you" looks.

It's all too much, but also rather easily spotted, as is any over-devout Christian with a goal to save you (and thus feel good about themselves). In fact, they need to feel BETTER than you, and have serious self-image issues. Issues that we atheists have dealt with, usually by our early twenties!

Not to mention that I, for example, am known in my community for my selfless dedication to the education of our community kids, to our family' contributions to local and national charities and endangered animal protection programs, and so on.

We're hardly the uncontrolled, barely suppressed Evil™ & Godless types so scathingly painted by jealous theists. (as in: we atheists get to set our own goals & values without having to meet the morés of others with a proven but rather slanted socio-cultural agenda.)

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I think you are correct - but only in the absence of a non-religious-God centered morality. The decoupling, in our society, from this religion-God centered morality has confused people as to the risks of immoral behaviour. Science has for a long time been slow to adopt altruistic and moralistic theories while at the same time adopting a very harsh reality of 'cut throat', 'tooth and claw' Darwinism which is far from what Darwin himself believed but what many of his followers pushed in the school systems.

We are in a transition from the religous-God centered moral systems to a Scientific-biological-Social centered morality. Once this is pushed in the school systems then the Sciopathic Tendencies

(rflmn notes: huh? I'll assume this is a typo and you mean, but capitalized for some reason? You left this "â„¢" off! Sociopathicâ„¢? Do you think that, absent specific Godly re-direction in science Evolution class alone will create those sociopathic tendencies? (Wow! I had no idea that the simple demonstration of a known principle had that much power in our culture!)

...will change once people understand morality and those moral principles are deeply rooted in our biology and are necessary for our success and well-being without the need for religion or God as a brake upon their will.

Although as others have said the concept of God does not necessarily keep people from doing immoral acts.

So... your point is that we cannot be moral absent some specific Godly assistance? That, despite your last sentence, the presence of some rote-preached Godly moral concepts would in themselves prevent some/most/all sociopathic exchanges? I'm a bit confused....

Originally Posted by Fasaga

How many unspeakably immoral acts have been commited by man in the name of their God, justified by their interpretation of their Bible?

I agree a restraint system needs to be in place to maintain a socially accepted set of rules to live by, Religions have a place unless fanatisism takes over, as do our Common Laws and Legisative Laws outline what is generally acceptable, unless they also overstep the bounds of common good and common sense.

We can modify Laws to remain relavent as required over time and I think the same may have happened with Religious Doctrine over time, the question will always be what motivates the change and is it for the greater good.

I'm pretty sure that it's a logical, common-sense and survival process. It's not so good to chop up all your kids for that monthly big community roast-fest, now is it? As well, to openly allow theft, mayhem or other otherwise destructive processes, is to invite the rapid demise of your culture.

We do not need the artificiality of Christianity at all, truth be known!

Originally Posted by Stijl Council

Societies exist where there is very low religiosity and low crime. Japan is probably the most obvious example and the most problematic for the assumptions of the OP: few Japanese people are theists or religious, and the religions that are prominent culturally (Shinto, Buddhism) don't have a concept of eternal judgment like Islam or most Christian denominations.

Personally, I think you're right that there are some people whose religion induces them not to commit sociopathic acts. But I don't think it has much effect for most people one way or the other (they probably wouldn't commit such crimes whether they were religious or not), and there are definitely some people who use the in-group/out-group nature of religion to rationalize sociopathic acts or as justification for them.

Bingo! Right on, brother, etc. etc. The "Gotta be Godly Christianity or the Highway, man!" version is too restrictive, and it leads, in and of itself, to acts of unspeakable violence!

Peace and the FSM be with you, my children!

Quote from rifleman:

'So... your point is that we cannot be moral absent some specific Godly assistance? That, despite your last sentence, the presence of some rote-preached Godly moral concepts would in themselves prevent some/most/all sociopathic exchanges? I'm a bit confused....'

Original Point from the OP:

'Maybe they are right that they and other humans could not live such lives without any supernatural restraints.'

My original response:

'I think you are correct - but only in the absence of a non-religious-God centered morality.'

In otherwords people who think and have been taught that there is either no morality without God or that it is all relative and nihilistic will fit the OPs question.

The former are more likely to be sociopathic if they abandon God and the latter just do not see any reason to give a F&*^. Thesits teach the former and Atheists, throguh Darwinism, have taught the latter.

Darwin himslef did not teach this only some of his followers - particularly in the school system. If atheism is on the rise and people are abandoning God then sociopathic tendencies will rise.

Until people start to realize, in a school setting, that neither of those positions are correct and that morality is selected for (something denied by many early Darwinists) because of it's biological and social benifits - non-zero sum games - people are more likely to be better off, in the short and long run, acting in certain ways (moral ways) rather than other ways (immoral ways).

Instead of teaching a God centered morality or that it is relative and nihilistic we need a non-religious-God centered morality. I see where you might have got confused with that satement - I did not mean a God centered morality without religion but a no religion no God morality that is not nihilistic or relative - and I think a good case can and has been made for that - now teach it to the kiddies. IMHO.

[boogieman]

All religious people break some of their "rules" , all the time(subjective morality). I highly doubt it would be a serious issue if everyone just stopped believing. There are social consequences, and people who break laws, break laws regardless of beliefs, vice versa.