Is a world without religion a frightening prospect - would there be a decline in moral values?

Are you assuming that all moral values are based on religion?

If so, the obvious answer is "yes".

If not, then the answer would be that there would most likely be a change in the moral values of all of us, but not necessarily a good or bad change and it would seem to me it would vary from country to country (or region).

I'm of the view that many have values that are attributable to religion as well as values that are not attributable to religion, but to family, the environment and society.

What I wonder is whether those who have those values that are attributable to religion, would maintain those values if religion was to ever be abandoned or disregarded?

If the answer is that certain values would be maintained, I wonder what general factors would be relevant in deciding whether a particular value should be maintained or not.

Once again I can only speak for myself but ...

I've met thousands of wonderful, loving and highly moral people who may or may not be religious. Don't matter a whit as to why they are, just that they are.

Perhaps the question could include not just whether religion is necessary for the morality of mankind - but without organized religion would/could there be peace in our world. Huge gentle sigh.

Since organized religion is likely going to always be with us, my only wish is that tolerance of others with beliefs different from themselves was taught as a 'First Commandment', whether it be Christianity or any other religion.

This is a question about morality.

If life is precious, should those who disregard life be executed. Or should they be locked up and the innocent bear the burden (cost) of keeping such ones alive?

Who is the right one to decide if someone has no respect for life and should be segregated (by separation or execution) from those who want to enjoy the life they have?

What if preservation of life leads to the sparing of an individual intent on destroying more lives?

Who's sense of Justice should be taken as the standard? Often it's the one who bears the most firepower.



And these are the easy questions.

Yes, a 'world without religion' would touch on morality - simply because so many believe without organized religion in the world there can be no morality. (I disagree - gentle grin!).

But taking a small step away from morality, surely a world without religion would simply be easier for everyone. No 'religious cause' to smite thine enemy, no 'religious cause' to object to the laws of the land, etc.

For instance, if the law of the land says a woman and especially a rape victim can legally request and be given the 'morning after pill' - if there was no religion, some doctors wouldn't have the religious 'right' to not make the pill available to a patient. Or an abortion.

What I'm truly saying, I suppose, is without organized religion perhaps mankind could live in peace side by side with their neighbours, basing judgement solely on if he or she is a good person rather than of the same religious sect, etc.

Mara, I understand the argument. However, do you not believe that perhaps many people abide by the laws of the land because of faith.

It is possibile that without faith, mockery may be made of the laws.

CrazyDwarf, good point, so you're pointing out the principle of relativity, that an individual will maintain those values which it can relate to and considers appropriate. Those values which are basic and fundamental, such as a person shall not kill, steal etc?

Why do people associate religious as having morals. They aren't guarenteed to go hand in hand nor does not religious=immoral. Adolf Hitler went to church sometimes 3 times a week, you think he was moral?

It seems that many associate religion with morals simply because that is what they've been taught - usually by their religious leaders.

And it's these same religious leaders that often teach their followers that they, because of their particular religious beliefs and even because of their particular sect within that religion itself, have the sole 'right' answers. Ergo, anyone not believing as they do are 'wrong' - which often carries over into society in all aspects, not simply within their interpretation of the words within the Bible.

I often think of a psychiatrist and a religious leader as being extremely similar. Both deal with the mind and those seeking help are at their most vulnerable ... perhaps religious leaders should be required to have more than a certificate hanging on their wall.

For it, at least to me, so much damage is done by individual religious leaders who actually teach prejudices and intolerance of others.

Morality may be influenced by religion, but it does not seem to depend upon religion.

First, there does seem to be a general and common (even if vague and dressed in many shades of colours) morality that transcends both the religious "feeling" as well as the many varieties of institutional religions.
Secondly, we can point to people we would consider to be very moral and very responsible for their actions who do not follow any particular religion.
Thirdly, we can certainly and equally point to people who are extremely religious, but who seem to do immoral acts (we have only to look at the Middle East for examples, but history can provide a very long list).
Z

This post has been edited by Zarathustra: Jan 10 2008, 10:14 AM

Yes, and perhaps when deciding about people and those we choose to be friends with, if we can somehow put 'same religious' beliefs down towards the end of the criteria, maybe our world would be a gentler place?

It may be natural that people tend to congregate based on similar beliefs, but as Mara remarks, to do so exclusively tends toward (in the case of this thread) a certain kind of religous"inbreeding." It used to be that, at the end of formal education, a young man would travel abroad for a time, since an acquaintance with different nations and ways of life was thought to broaden his view of the world.
It has often been remarked that the best way to encourage tolerance is to allow people of differing views to meet one-on-one; since once gets to know Another one finds more similarities in being a member of the commonality of humanity than in accidental differences of language, religion, or outlook.
The same may be said for a study of history, for it not only provides a cultural genealogy, but allows one to understand ways of thought different from one's own time.
Z

This post has been edited by Zarathustra: Jan 10 2008, 10:26 AM

Very true that people congregate on similar beliefs. They also congregate based on colour, social status, financial freedom etc.

In relation to beliefs, in many cases they don't even have similar beliefs, they have what are perceived to be similar beliefs, and congregate on this basis. This is something I have noticed in the institutions I have attended and is evidence of the superficial nature of friendship.

People are inclined to considering themselves as right - they fail to realise that there is no right or wrong, that the laws of relativity apply and that it depends on which side of the line you are on.

But what else can be expected of the human animal?

Yes, we humans are indeed a strange mix - huge smile!

Re: It is possibile that without faith, mockery may be made of the laws.

I suppose this could be true ... but then, on the other hand, while 'Thou shalt not kill' is taught in the Bible, there are millions with no Faith that wouldn't dream of killing (or stealing or coveting thy neighbour's wife, etc)- simply because it's a moral issue for them.

In the Bible book of Revelation... False Religion is called a "harlot". So no... claims of religion do not automatically mean that the holder of some faith is automatically moral by someone's standard today.

But since "morality" is relative to the person holding their view... maybe to the Aztecs... Hitler was morally right in doing what he did.

In a world without religion... the persons with the best weapons will set the morality.

In the world with only one religion... the creator will set the standard of morality.