Morality does not come from religion
Debate Rounds (3)
Every religion has its code of conduct that was set by a person of recognition within the church, or in some cases by a person who lived thousands of years ago that, according to the churches, reached a point of enlightenment by interaction with God himself or by their own experiences. This is a fact that i'm sure both sides can agree on as it has little effect on the outcome of this case, for now.
Now before i continue my case i would like to state that the question was "morality does not come from religion" Not, morality does not come from any ONE religion. Pro stated in his/her case that "humanity's moral framework (i.e., what is right and what is wrong) is not contingent upon any one religion, but has components that are innate." he did not answer to the question he proposed, he changed the context of the argument from the original statement. because of that i am going to focus on the original topic which includes religion as a whole, not specific religions targeted as a singular unit.
I will leave the rest of my argument to future rounds as It would be wise to take this topic slowly because its volatile nature and high sensitivity. I await my opponents statement now.
My first objective is to expand on my definition of morality, by broadening the definition to increase its accuracy by stating that morality is made up of beliefs about what is right and wrong behavior. With this definition in mind, I think science has a great deal to contribute to the idea that a sense of morality, or a set of beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, is innate and not an entirely man-made structure. I will now try to expand upon the ideas I have laid out in the comments section of this debate. Throughout human evolution, language has been used to ensure our species survival from generation to generation by passing on collective knowledge to the next generation. An example of this would be that on presumably multiple occasions throughout human history, people have walked off of cliffs or fallen great distances to their deaths, so it would make sense to pass this knowledge on to future generations so we are not reinventing the wheel every generation when ignorance leads someone off the edge of a cliff. Thus, for this knowledge to be passed on to future generations, natural selection would need to construct children's brains in such a way that would lead them to believe what their parents and elders are telling and teaching them. This trusting obedience, while useful for survival, can result in slave-like obedience even in the face of some bad evidence, as is the case for the moral teachings of religion en masse. However, I will admit that children can construct a rudimentary framework for right and wrong thanks to authority figures in their lives, with an example being teaching children that it is wrong to hit others because that hurts them and we wouldn't like it if they hit us (we do not solve problems by punching them away).
With natural selection shaping the structure of our brains, it would then seem to be a logical step that since religions are headed by authority figures (priests, rabbis, imams, etc.) that the moral teachings they offer to their followers would be accepted because they have more life experience than us and must have a pretty firm grasp on morality. We would be led by natural selection to blindly follow. However, contemporary religions and their followers show that this is not the case. With the divisiveness promoted by organized religion (in-group harmony towards those who follow my respective religion compared to out-group hostility towards those who follow other religions or no religion at all), we would expect each religion's moral framework to be passed on to anyone unfortunate enough to be raised in that particular religion, but the fact that atheists, agnostics, as well as those who don't accept particular moral principles of their respective religion exist in our world point to people having some sense about when they are receiving bad information.
To those who posit that without religion there would be no moral code and thus no action would be considered truly immoral, if you mean to say that without god or your religious leaders keeping constant surveillance on your behavior that you would commit burglary, rape, and murder, then are you truly acting morally by not committing these acts or are you just restraining yourself because god is watching? If this same person would admit that they could and would be a good person without their respective religion and god(s) then the claim that we cannot know what behavior is truly right or wrong without religion is undermined. Again, the fact that people choose to disregard religious moral teaching means that we have some means for comparison - we are comparing the doctrines of our religions or various religions to some standard. My opinion is that this standard is in some way innate and that objective human suffering does factor in to our decisions about what is moral and what is immoral, and that numerous textual (texts of various religions) examples can be brought forward clearly showing that religion does not support this standard.
First is the child raising. My opponent admitted that the upbringing has some effect in the process of developing a moral code, or what is right or wrong. While the statement is true it is not the whole story as the parents religious beliefs is the parents guidelines into how they go about the upbringing process. I will use four of the worlds top religions as an example for my argument, Hindu, Islam, Buddhism, And Christianity.
Hindu: Parents who are hindu believe in the acceptance of all things and that to achieve the ultimate enlightenment level the must go about a process called karma, in simple terms, what goes around comes around, they believe that if you do good things in the life you were given by the Gods then you will be rewarded with a higher since of enlightenment. This process continues until the immortal form. Parents will pass this on to their children and the children although imperfect will have a Hindu Moral code.
Islam: I do not have as much info on Islam as i would prefer but the message is the same as above with of course some MAJOR cultural diversities. Parents pass it on and the child is brought up an Islam with the religions moral code stamped in their head.
Buddhism: In this religion the people believe in the prophet Buddha who went from becoming a prince and a warlord to becoming a poor man with many problems. This man gave it up all willingly in order to achieve enlightenment and the Gods blessed him and gave him the know-how to create a religion. The Parents of the child in question are Buddhist so therefor the child will be brought up along the guidelines of the Four Nobel Truths, a moral code created by religion.
Christianity: While there are multiple denominations in the church, guideline code is very similar between the different churches. The Ten Commandments given to Moses at mount sinai are the basic guidelines to what is right and wrong. In the child's case, the parents will bring him/her up in this manner saying, "do not steal" or "do not kill" because that is what their religion tells them to do.
Religion and morals: my opponent stated that Atheists and Agnostics are at a higher moral level then those following a religion because there views are more broadened. While the two groups do claim this they also claim that they do so because it is part of their own religion. Therefor this argument is invalid and only helps the con side.
Superior being: In Hindu and Christianity the two groups were given there guidelines by the God or Gods that they worship, my opponent however claims that one does not need a god to tell us what is right and wrong. Whether it was an actual deity that gave these codes to the religions or a man with a good idea, its that godly picture that inspires the people of the religion to obey the codes of conduct in hopes of being rewarded either with the christian Heaven or the Hindu enlightenment stage, it is the religions that keep the humans in check by giving them a moral code.
These are my main arguments, while i have others there is no solid proof to them as it is only the views of my own faith and not solid fact. i thank you for this match as it was fun i'm assuming that the closing statements are next so i will give my source to this info.
(http://www.religionfacts.com...)- i found it to be very reliable as it seemed to be unbiased and fair.
As I hoped my comparison to sports illustrated, the moral code taught by religions like Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism are on another plane in comparison to Islam and Christianity. I also do not recall stating that atheists and agnostics are on a higher moral level, simply that they exercise logic and reason to judge the morality of a teaching or moral code and take issues like the suffering of other human beings into consideration. I hope that my examples of more moderate and peaceful Muslims not following the letter of Islamic law shows that even the religious utilize logic and reason and have moral principles grounded outside of their faith.
When looking objectively at the Christian faith, as I will now do since this faith has been used in my opponents argument and will serve to further support my key points that not all religions are equal and that we do have a sense of morality outside of our holy books and religions. My opponent is correct about the Ten Commandments of the Christian religion being God's guidelines about what is right and what is wrong. However, I will support the claim that even the Ten Commandments are not objectively moral.
The first commandment of the Christian faith is that we shall have no other gods before the Lord our God. Do you know what punishment was inflicted on those waiting at the foot of Mount Sinai and who were foolish enough to disobey God's commandment while Moses was up talking with God on top of the mountain? Richard Dawkins' paraphrases the wrath poured out by God beautifully in The God Delusion by noting that Moses reacted by melting down the golden calf (false god) of the people, burning it, turning it into powder, mixing it with water and forcing the people to swallow it. There, the God of Moses wins by making the people drink their own false god. Problem solved right? Wrong. Members of the tribe of Levi were then instructed to take up arms and kill as many people as possible. Then God finished pouring out his wrath by sending a plague among the survivors. To me, the first commandment is evidently less about accepting the God of the Old Testament because He was our creator and wants to have a personal relationship with us, and more about following the first commandment because literal hell-on-Earth will be unleashed if you disobey. The next three commandments also spell out how to not anger the Lord thy God by not having graven images, not taking the Lord's name in vain, and remembering the Sabbath day He created. We (myself included since I at one time accepted this faith and have since rejected it) do not follow God's commandments because they are morally good (granted, the last five are good ideas, but do we really need the Bible and God to instruct us that these teachings are morally good? Are we really just impressionable blank slates at birth that need to be taken by the hand and shown what is moral and what is immoral?), we follow them to appease God and save our skin (fear the Lord your God). Furthermore, Christians (I'm making an assumption here - about my fellow debater as well) do not execute homosexuals as the Bible instructs (Leviticus 18:22) and we do not stone women who are not virgins on their wedding night, even though the Bible again instructs us to do this (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). The fact that there are Muslims and Christians who lead peaceful lives along Buddhists, Jains, and Hindus shows that we can think for ourselves about what to believe is good and bad and use some innate guides to morality like logic and reason (e.g., maximizing the suffering of my fellow human beings is clearly wrong), instead of having religion guide us by the hand. Thank you to all who have followed this debate and thank you to debate339 for participating.
Pro used the punishment for changing religion for Islamic peoples as an example for his case, he also said that their are ex-muslims living after forsaking their teachings quite happily and because of that it proves that religion was not the source of that change.
I can prove that statement wrong with a simple definition. Religion, as defined by the Apple Dictionary is, "a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior." this same definition is found in the Apple Thesaurus as philosophy. when these people that the pro side mentioned changed their beliefs they did not forsake religion, they created a new one, a new philosophy on how to live their lives to the betterment of themselves and of others. It is impossible to say "i don't practice a religion because i found a better way to live then under religion" and then act on it. By saying that and practicing it, you are not deserting religion your making a personal religion. Along with your own religion or philosophy comes your own moral guidelines, a set that you yourself created, and because of that eternal tie to personal beliefs my case is made. It is impossible for a moral code to be devised without a philosophy or religion because even if you create one out of the blue you are instantly creating a religion along with that code. For my final sentence, Morality and the codes which define go hand in hand with religion and it is impossible to prove otherwise.
Thank you for this debate, I enjoyed it very much.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DJ-R3mix 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||2|
Reasons for voting decision: It ws a hard choice for these. Each man is out competing each other.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.