The Rise of Irrelevance: Religion vs. Implicit Morality

[zynner]

Something I hadn't thought of until it was brought to my attention recently is the idea that religion served the powers-that-be in earlier times, and it continues to do so today.

Consider the animal kingdom. For sake of discussion, consider the lion. The baby male lion grows up within the pride. Once he gets old enough and large enough to almost be a physical threat to the older, dominant male lion of the pride, the younger male is kicked out to go on his own (or with his brothers).

Eventually, this lion gets bigger and stronger until one day he can take on an established older male lion for the "right" to be head of the pride. If successful in battle, he gets the spoils (females).

Many animals are like this. Humans, too. In earlier times, one male (the "alpha") probably was in charge of the tribe. There may have been a hierarchy, but humans seem to divide into leadership and followership.

So, the male human leads the tribe. One day, however, he gets older and weaker. A younger male disagrees with him and wants to take over the top power position. The younger male is stronger and will win any battle of brute force. So, what is an older, more experienced but weaker male to do if he wants to retain his position of power?

He uses his mind and his influence over others. How? He creates a belief, with the help of the "priest" types within the tribe, that he is of a divine nature. To harm this leader is to displease the gods. So, various stories of gods not only could have served the purpose of shutting up kids ("Why is there thunder?" "Because." "But, why, why, why, why?" "Because it's the gods -- now shut up and eat your bison."), but these stories also served the purposes of those who would lord power over others.

That makes a ton of sense when we consider the history of human civilization. Kings and priests worked together most of the time in history. To the extent they battled, it was much like the Democrats battling the Republicans. They needed each other to maintain their power, so the battles were largely for the consumption of the masses and were not of any real merit (other than as a means to continue the power structure and status quo).

Now, if you can buy into this idea in general, then it can get really bizarre if you view religion as an offshoot of power. There are lots of stories of the illuminati, etc. throughout history and that certain people had unique information that others did not. What if some people had simply learned how to influence the minds of the others within the tribe, largely through superstition, many eons ago and then passed that knowledge down through their offspring and like-minded posterity?

Not that these people necessarily had a version of truth that had any merit at all, but that other people thought they did, or at least they themselves thought they did when in reality it was just that they had learned how to use the mind, rather than (or in addition to) brute force, to control others?

hmm...

~ zynner

[Suburbanite]

Implicit morality, simply put, can be defined as a framework of principles present in any sufficiently intelligent animal as an expressed condition of its biological existence. In other words, one knows it is wrong to kill because one does not desire to be killed. One knows it is wrong to rape because one does not desire to be raped. Granted, this system leaves room for moral dilemmas. In a situation in which one must choose to kill or be killed, there is a direct conflict with one’s own implicit morality – but this is merely an exception. In a stable society, one rarely finds oneself confronted with these exceptions. All considered, the next logical question would be, “What role does religion – or more to the point, the notion of God – play in our lives today?”

That isn't the only "moral dilemma". If one does not wish to be fucked by another person of the same sex it is then "implicitly" wrong for all men to do it? What of a man who wants to be killed, is he then entitled to kill? One does not KNOW anything, no piece of information is IMPLICIT. You really need to be careful here.
Implicit means implied. If everything is contingent how can something be implicit? Existence does not come with a set of rules, it does not imply them either. There are no rules, I'm sorry. No right, no wrong. No good, no bad. The idea of morality in general doesn't exist necessarily, it is a concept evolved out of a plethora of idiosyncratic and contingent elements.
I can't imagine that human beings are still struggling to except that there is nothing you must do nor anything which you must adhere. All such systems, society/government/religion/school/parenthood are relative.

One discovers, through the written work of philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche (among others), a system of ethics complacently devoid of religious influence, though most certainly inspired by implicit morality. In this regard, Man has thus filled the shoes of religion, of 'divine' doctrine, and of an unseen, unproven deity. Therefore, I once again offer up the question, “What role does religion – or more to the point, the notion of God – play in our lives today?”

Haha. My brother, this is NOT what either Sartre nor Nietzsche were saying. Nietzsche, who wrote extensively on morality, would say that the terms with which we judge things (good/bad) are artificial and contingent. Sartre says that in life it is your responsibly to project any sense of the world unto it that you wish. Morality means a good/bad dichotomy. Sartre says existence precedes essence, meaning YOU make TRUTH. You make right and wrong. These aren't things which are implicit, they are CREATED. The vocabulary of these two philosophers is in direct contrast with yours.

[samsara15]

All the evidence I see points to the non-existence of God, as does logic. I can go along with Buddhism or pantheism, perhaps, but that's as far as I can go with theism.

[Nathan Struth]

I don't like buddhism it's too spiritual. I'm aethist and I cary the same morals as I had when I was raised jewish. I turnned when I was about 15. And now shit still don't stop. My morals are the same. I dont' steal, but religion is irrelevent. It's human nature that's bad...

[Athena]

"Let he who is unwavering in his convictions, he who is replete of faith, come forward to assert that a world without God is a world without consequence; a world of vague ethical boundaries; a world awash in sin".

If this were so, we would not have democracy. Religion promotes the idea that what you said is so, because it has a God who rules by whim. It follows without this God there is chaos. However, this is a superstitious understanding of reality, and democracy depends on a different understanding of reality.

The reasoning that is essential to democracy is a, Hellenistic, understanding of God. It holds, even the God's are ruled by reason. That is to say, there are universal laws, and not even a God is above universal law. Our reality is one of cause and effect, and anything that causes harm will get a bad effect. That which causes something good, has a good effect.

The law is not always immediate, but can have a delayed effect. For example replacing liberal education with education for technology and leaving moral training to the church, had a delayed effect. Christian fundamentalism and failure to understand scientic principles, such as cause and effect, and universal law is, one of the unfortunate consequences. Another is the increase, in general, of poor moral judgement, because that was taught through liberal education and we don't do that any more. The two problems play off each other and we have a real mess!

As I understand God, God is universal law. To know this God and have good morals is, to study science and exercise logic. The is how we develop our con-science. That is how we experience a high morale, that high spirited feeling that comes from believing we are doing the right thing. Conversely, a low morale, is the result of doubting the good of what we are doing. And back up to high morale, virtue is synonomous with strength. See it all works together, and does not require a biblical explanation of God and Satan.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Agnos I somewhat agree with you here. However, these premises do not imply that God does not exist; they simply imply that people 'accept' God into their lives for the wrong reasons. All of which, mind you, are satisfactory answers to my question (and I thank you for that), but unsatisfactory reasons for being an atheist. Why are you an atheist?

Because there isn't a shred of objective evidence that I shouldn't be. You state that the premises do not imply that God does not exist, but by the same token it doesn't imply that Allah, Vishnu, Enki or Bobo the Tree God that used to live in my back yard doesn't exist. Actually, I know Bobo was real, at least until a windstorm knocked him over.

The simple fact is that until there is a reason to believe in a god, any god, a sane person should not. Are you going to suggest that you can objectively demonstrate the existence of a deity? Or are you just blowing smoke?

[littleeif]

Implicit morality, simply put, can be defined as a framework of principles present in any sufficiently intelligent animal as an expressed condition of its biological existence. In other words, one knows it is wrong to kill because one does not desire to be killed. One knows it is wrong to rape because one does not desire to be raped. Granted, this system leaves room for moral dilemmas. In a situation in which one must choose to kill or be killed, there is a direct conflict with one’s own implicit morality – but this is merely an exception. In a stable society, one rarely finds oneself confronted with these exceptions. All considered, the next logical question would be, “What role does religion – or more to the point, the notion of God – play in our lives today?”

"Implicit" morality, by your definition, is not "one's own" morality since it is it is shared in common by all. Your given is that all men know that certain conduct is wrong at all times and in all places. If all men know this in common, then the knowledge came from outside of all men in common since all obtained it universally.
If all men know certain conduct ought not be engaged in and yet some men engage in it, then (1) the knowledge is not instinctive because instinct does not accommodate variation and (2) man does not always pursue that which he recognizes to be good for man.
The simple realization that the impetus for good derives from without a man and that the consistent attainment of good requires normative assistance is the realization of the possibility of God and the need for religion. Thank you.