Comments on: Does Religion Ever Retard Moral Growth?

By: phiggins

phiggins — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:51:23 +0000

Good points, I like your rationale. Similarly, the concept of religious fatalism has been mulling around in my mind for the last several months. Many religious people, of any creed, will too often abandon responsibility or rational thought because they feel that their respective religious beliefs relieves them from acting according to the mores that bind the rest of us. I have had too many interactions with people of faith who, through their beliefs, try to remove themselves from the larger social mores that bind the rest of us.

I appreciate your articulating much of what has been bothering me. Thanks.

By: Virtualprimate

Virtualprimate — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:16:57 +0000

In terms of personal growth I would much rather be surrounded by people with different opinions (who are willing to argue about them and to sometimes agree to disagree) then to be surrounded by people who are all expected to believe the same thing. The latter embodies social pressure to agree with everyone else and de-emphasizes personal responsibility. It seems to me that the biggest ‘evils’ happen in accord with group mentality be it religious, patriotic or cultural even when the innermost ideas talk about values like love, the good, or ethical principles.

This is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree (although, if so, please have a well thought out argument and reasons without merely falling back on the dismissive idea that ‘I’m entitled to my own opinion’ or ‘that’s your opinion’ [sheesh... how many of u have heard this one before as a last ditch attempt to not talk about an idea any further?]. That we all are entitled to disagree and form our own opinions doesn’t make ones own opinion (or the group opinion) immediately right(eous).

Thanks Paul for yet another interesting and well thought out post

By: shirhashirim

shirhashirim — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:34:00 +0000

Hm… you mean like maths?

By: gnomon

gnomon — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:53:04 +0000

Any theory which posits absolutes prior to observation stunts growth whether it be moral or intellectual.

By: Mahendra

Mahendra — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:44:38 +0000

Well said, Nita!

By: Nita

Nita — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:11:13 +0000

I feel religion itself is immoral for the simple reason that it takes away freedom of the individual.

By: The Querulous Squirrel

The Querulous Squirrel — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:36:27 +0000

Any prepackaged system of moral judgment of others with no nuances, black and white, us and them is immoral in and of itself.

By: Prax

Prax — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:45:43 +0000

A nice post
Paul i especially loved the monks tale
I do agree , that not just evangelical christianity but many cultures and religions across the world especially the more active or religious ones impose some kind of rule or dress code towards the clothing worn by the fairer sex.
That said i roughly agree with mahendra –
for those who have their god and bad in their head and have a capacity to judge and evolve religion is secondary.
For those who cannot – they tend to use religion as a code or a lifestyle or a means to justify their actions.

By: shirhashirim

shirhashirim — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:16:02 +0000

There are roughly two modes of morality: the one that wants you to make the right decisions and the one that wants you to make decisions right. In the former ‘right’ is an adjective, in the latter it’s an adverb. The former is content- and output-driven, the latter focusses on the decision-making process. The former tends to come across as dogmatic, the latter hardly ever does, but they may both be dogmatic or non-dogmatic in practice. Religion has very little to do with this distinction, but the former tends often (not always) to be formulated in religious terms (if you don’t have a religion, there are no possibilities to quote a content- and output-driven commandment, because in that realm there aren’t any).

The former view answers the question ‘Should abortion be legalised?’ with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’, because either of those answers is considered ‘right’ (adjective). Note that the ‘no’-answer is often seen as dogmatic (or religious), whereas the ‘yes’-answer isn’t. The latter view would describe the process that needs to be gone though to arrive at a ‘moral’ answer. The golden rule is a -crude but effective- example of a focus on process.

The latter view focusses on rationality, exactly because it is process-oriented. The former view is ultimately based on emotions. The two cannot do without each other because ultimately morals are about emotions, not about reason.

Furthermore: the former view often functions as a ’shorthand summary’ of the latter (especially if it finds its home in (religious or civil) laws). It prevents people wasting time reinventing the wheel, from reevaluating the question ‘Why was it exactly that we don’t do cannibalism?’ (and others). Even more importantly: it gives everyone a clear view -beforehand- of the rules one can expect when planning to engage others in society.

The former ‘formalises’ the latter, but it can also fossilise it. The latter rejuvenates the former, but it can also break it down.
Fossilised morals of the former view (‘commandments’, ‘laws’) live in two places: religion and law. Both have the capacity to hamper mans individual moral growth, exactly because they’re -useful- ’shorthand knowledge’: they also offer lazy people an excuse for not thinking.

By: Man of Roma

Man of Roma — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:28:49 +0000

Starting from what Rick and Mahendra said, the strict Christian believes man is corrupted and a sinner from the beginning (Eve’s apple etc.) and that only God can save him. Man is full of iniquity, while God is morally perfect.

At the times of the Greeks the situation was reversed. The Greek ancient gods were amoral and whimsical: this had a good effect on moral responsibility, since men could not count on these whimsical gods’ help, they had to make their own destiny, had to believe in their worth.

Additionally, Greek men were not striving to be good because they expected a reward from god(s). Given such unpredictable deities, when men were good they were such because they really wanted to, not for any other external reason.