Jump to content

Would people act ethically if there is no religion?


agncsw

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I have heard this argument being brought out on several occasions about atheism, at least in my country of origin which is Indonesia. In Indonesia, religion is part of the law because the nation is supposed to "believe in one supreme God", as mentioned in the constitution of that country. Due to that, there has been violence and attacks, to the extent that it started to become physical, on religious minorities and atheists. However, I have decided to focus this on a very specific slice of this whole debate.

I think the first time I had heard this argument come about when I was around 10 years old. At that point in my life, I was a relatively religious person because I was still seeking for mental help (this is another story). However, I saw this heated debate of a Muslim "expert" and an open "atheist". At first, I did not know that atheism could possibly exist and survive in a country like Indonesia because literally, the first sentence of the Constitution is the belief in one supreme God. However, the debate started to get more interesting on the religious side because he brought up some "relevant" arguments yet he could not back it up with evidence, therefore I dismissed the argument as written in the title as a big joke: because it was not backed up by him on his side. 

Then came around the time when I was 12, I started to get involved in the debate club in school (I was still Indonesia back then). And so, this argument was brought up again. However, this time it was backed up with evidence that showed some relevance to the question. It soon became a philosophical debate rather than whatever we were supposed to be debating about. It soon became a really gigantic part of my life because it shook the foundations of morality and the sense of decency in humanity. 

REMEMBER:

DO NOT ridicule other people's beliefs.

RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE: Remember that this debate allows you to evaluate everyone's stances.

this can be a really good TOK presentation topic. Just saying... :) 

Edited by agncsw
Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian here, and from Egypt, which is a country where religion is above all (even though it is a muslim country, christians hold to their religion to a huge extent too. It is the tradition). I remember being shocked by atheist ideas and such in TOK classes in IB1, so I can relate to you.

About the title, even though I am a religious person (hey, I am not a priest but I hold to my religion), I believe that ethics are independent of religious knowledge systems (2 different areas of knowledge thanks TOK). The connection between both ethics and religion is obvious. However, in my opinion, I believe that it is just that both areas agree on some grounds. Religion calls for ethics and ethical behaviour by its followers; nevertheless, I believe religion is not the source of ethics for humans, but rather our consciousness. I believe that ethics are a fundamental aspect in our nature and society.

Simple evidence from the top of my head would be that atheist people are not just psychos who go on and break every moral code on Earth, even though they are not followers of religion.

It is indeed a great TOK topic. For a development, look up "humanism"

Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...I'm an atheist that isn't a psychopath, so there's your answer. 

From my perspective, religion obviously isn't the source or definition of morality because it is simply a fixed system of moral principles written for a society that existed centuries/millenia ago.

So what is the alternative to religion? We can lay down some principles and build on them like mathematics does: "Do not do to others what you wouldn't want done to you", or "maximize happiness", and so on. But of course, there are many exceptions to every rule, so no system of ethics is perfect...

That's what we should do without religion, but that's probably not the reason why ethics exists without religion. Nobody goes "I'm following this moral rule as logically as I can", morality just...happens. Why?

I think biology is a huge factor: we evolved as social animals, so our emotions compel us to cooperate and help our 'tribe' (nowadays it's our families, friends, society, nation etc). So the universal basics of morality probably come from this, because it would be pretty dumb to go around killing and stealing. 

There's education on top of that: parents pass on their personal set of ethics, and a culture influences a child's beliefs. Tiny things like "be kind", "help others", "be polite" etc. Perhaps you could say that each generation 'domesticates' the next generation, so that children follow a set of ethics that can fit in society instead of following our most basic emotions...

Excuse my rambling. :P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Basically, i believe that morality and ethics have a base in "whatever works best for the individual." Our caveman ancestors basically believed (in my view) that what gives them the best chance at life is morally correct. Thus...

  1. Killing a human being in their group is bad because that person helps them in the hunting of animals, collection of food, etc etc. 
  2. Stealing is bad because, if caught, you may be killed. Thus, thievery is again BAD. 
  3. Rape is bad because again, there is the whole issue of being caught, and if you are caught, then you may be killed. 

However, religion did come about, and with it came further attempts at improving our own morality. For example, in Christianity, you have "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" and in Islam, the prophet is quoted as saying "Righteousness is good morality, and wrongdoing is that which wavers in your soul and which you dislike people finding about." These were attempts at moving away from the notion of "what is best for the individual" to "what is best for the society."

As for Atheists acting immoral, that depends on what you define as morally correct and wrong. If we use US prisons as a reference, i would recommend reading through this source. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/

The difference between the atheist and the theist is that both (when they do act ethically) act ethically for different reasons. Theists have the whole thing with God, Heaven and Hell, whereas atheists are ethical for different reasons (don't want to disrupt social order, not going to jail, etc). 

To directly answer your question, it depends on what you view as "morally correct" and "morally wrong." Do you think murder is wrong? Do you think rape is wrong? Do you think incest is wrong? What about bestiality?

Well Stalin was an atheist, as well as Mao Zhedong, etc. However, there is no representative of atheists, and you can't judge atheists based on the actions of a few?

For murder, well the Encyclopedia of Wars, an extensive study published in 2008, chronicles 1,763 wars throughout human history. It names just 123 as religious in nature. You also can't state that the number of atheists in a country are the most peaceful either. The Institute for the Economics and Peace found that less religion in a country doesn't make iit more peaceful. The proportion of atheists in a country had no bearing on levels of peace. If you want to take a look at past examples, i again have to bring up the communists. It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million. 

Then you have the idiocy of Sam Harris when he stated "If i could have a magic wand and rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." Complementing this (unfortunately) is a study conducted in March 2014 that quoted:

"A new EU review of violence against women has revealed that one in three European women has been assaulted, and one in twenty has been raped, with the Scandinavian countries at the top of the league tables.

In the Scandinavian countries, in contrast, around half of the women reported physical or sexual violence, which researchers at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights said could have several explanations...

In Sweden, 81 percent of women said they had been harassed at some point after the age of 15 - compared to the EU average of 55 percent. After Sweden, which had the highest rate, Denmark, France, the Netherland and Finland all saw rates above 70 percent. The EU member state with the lowest rate - 24 percent - was Bulgaria."

In regards to incest, Lawrence Krauss, in response to the question "Why is incest wrong?" said "It's not clear to me that it is wrong," further going on to state that if it is between two consenting adults, etc, it is completely fine. TheAmazingAtheist (a youtube channel with 1 million subscribers) produced a video titled "Atheist Libertarian defends Incest, Polygamy and Cannibalism!" A quotation from the abstract of Will M. Gervais' study "Everything is Permitted? People intuitively judge immorality as significant of Atheism" not-so-wonderfully quoted that even "atheist participants judged immoral acts as more representative of atheists than of other groups."

For bestiality, i recommend that you read through this

However, you can't really state that atheists are by default immoral. As Ken Ammi once wrote "When considering any and every atheist condemnation of any action whatsoever it is of primary importance to keep in mind that they are expressing personal opinions about the act(s) they are condemning..."

You cannot judge Atheists except by their character. Thus, when i go out with my atheist friends, i don't assume that they are immoral because i have seen nothing from them that is immoral. 

---

I hope i didn't insult any atheists with this; again, i do not think you are immoral. It is all based on the individual...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Yes. Our morals can derive from many different sources. (society, religion and self). And who can say the moral values we get from religions are always moral?

Last month I just saw a scab-eating bug-eyed chromosomally challenged lunatic from hell insulting a cute gay couple in London. He believed in Jesus. But those who confronted him, some were atheists, some were religious. So you be the judge.

Sometimes your religion does enable you to make better decisions in life, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you might even be better off without it.

It is too arbitrary to say people who have a religion always behave more ethically than those who don't, or vice versa. It always depends on the individual.

 

 

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...