Morality and religion - Wikipedia
By using the concept of religion in relation to African Traditional Religion, .. How does the moral experience and performance of Africans conform to the . countries such as Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Togo and Malawi, but also many others. RS: Ethics: The Relationship Between Religion & Morality Home & Away Text A: The Relationship between Religion and MoralityThe. Is moral behaviour dependent upon religion? Do non-religious countries have worse morality? What's the evidence?.
For modern Westerners, who have been raised on ideals of universality and egalitarianism, this relativity of values and obligations is the aspect of Hinduism most difficult to understand. InPierre Bayle asserted that religion "is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality".
For example, The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics says that, For many religious people, morality and religion are the same or inseparable; for them either morality is part of religion or their religion is their morality.
Do We Need Religion to Have Good Morals?
For others, especially for nonreligious people, morality and religion are distinct and separable; religion may be immoral or nonmoral, and morality may or should be nonreligious. Even for some religious people the two are different and separable; they may hold that religion should be moral and morality should be, but they agree that they may not be. The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: For example, there is no absolute prohibition on killing in Hinduismwhich recognizes that it "may be inevitable and indeed necessary" in certain circumstances.
In the latter case, a study by the Barna Group found that some denominations have a significantly higher divorce rate than those in non-religious demographic groups atheists and agnostics.
The ethnocentric views on morality, failure to distinguish between in group and out group altruism, and inconsistent definition of religiosity all contribute to conflicting findings. Furthermore, some studies have shown that religious prosociality is primarily motivated by wanting to appear prosocial, which may be related to the desire to further ones religious group.
The egoistically motivated prosociality may also affect self-reports, resulting in biased results.
Peer ratings can be biased by stereotypes, and indications of a persons group affiliation are sufficient to bias reporting. Even for people who were nonreligious, those who said they attended religious services in the past week exhibited more generous behaviors. Religious people were less inclined when it came to seeing how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in other ways, such as in giving money or food to a homeless person and to non-believers.
We rely on copies-of-copies-of-copies, which at some point, have often been translated - quotations changed from Aramaic to Greek, entire texts from Latin to English, based on Greek translations.
We know that even from very early on numerous mistranslations have been introduced 39such as the mistaken usage of the word "virgin" to describe the prophecy of Jesus' birth since the major Septuagint translation. It is surprising that anyone thinks a god would attempt to communicate with us in any particular language, let alone ancient ones. If I was god, I would transmit my message directly into everyone's brain.
That way problems with translation and subjectivism would be removed and people could make informed decisions and moral choices based on the full facts, rather than miscommunicated ideals. This would end all translation and transmission problems too.
Clearly, no gods have imparted such a universal moral message into the minds of mankind. If there is a supreme and omniscient creator god then it is responsible for creating the way that our brains work.
Such a being knows that we can only interpret life subjectively, and that no text will mean the same thing for any two people. Therefore by design, any sacred text must only be designed by God for the specific culture into which the text arose. Fundamentalists largely hold that their scripture is the only authority we have as regards to the truth: It is an absolute truth.
Religion and social transformation in Africa: A critical and appreciative perspective
However, in order to select which text they consider inerrant there must first be non-scriptural basis for this selection. Before a person considers a text inerrant, they are in a position where their position in the world dictate their knowledge of religious texts and their approach to them.
These secular and coincidental factors determine whether a person comes to decide that a text is inerrant.
- What is the relationship between religion and morality?
- African Ethics
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. It is an illogical situation that once a fundamentalist has chosen a text, they then deny that they have no other source of authority: If there is no source of authority other than the text they've chosen, then their reason for selecting the text has become invalid.
Morality and religion
Beyond this point of self-contradiction it can be seen that the reasons are complex psychological ones. Fundamentalists have been unable to arrive at a logical criterion for how a secular living person should select which text is true out of all the religious texts available in the world, all of which have adherents who claim their chosen books are inerrant.
All claim that correct prophecies validate their text, and all claim that all the other texts don't really have correct prophecies. It is impossible to investigate all such claims yourself, in one lifetime, so it appears that a logical intellectual choice based on prophecy is impossible. Or it is ignorant: A choice can't be made without ignorance until a person has actively investigated all claims of prophecy by all religious texts.
Until the individual has done this, they're merely guessing which one can be judged, by criteria of its prophecies, to be "more" divine than other texts. That God has inspired multiple correct prophecies in multiple religious texts or that magic operates as part of the natural laws of the universe, and supernatural prophecy-making is possible whether or not God has a part in it.
Of all the prophecies that have not come true such as the thousands made about the end of the worldetcyou could very sensibly infer that any true prophecies are only true by coincidence and luck, not by supernatural means. In all cases, it can be seen that judging religious texts by their prophecies is a poor method. Faith is a cultural and psychological phenomenon.
Or, of course there is the chance that a God does actually support multiple even contradictory religions, and therefore that it doesn't really matter which one you pick. It is circular logic to claim that a text is an absolute authority on morals, and then to claim that you can judge a text by the morals contained in it, before knowing which text is true.
If you assume particular morals, then look at religious texts, you will end up selecting the text that most matches your own morals. If you select a text then claim that its morals are absolutely correct, you could have drawn exactly the same conclusion no matter which religious text you'd selected.
The factors which determine which one you select in the first place are therefore purely cultural and psychological - not moral.
We have no rational basis for claims of what morals God considers best. Selection by morals is a fundamentally flawed selection criteria, requiring either genuine stupidity, ignorance or doublethink. If you judged by popularity you would conclude that at the moment the Christian text is 'absolute' and correct. But, in previous centuries, Roman paganism was absolute and correct, and before that, the animist worship of multiple simple spirits was the correct set of beliefs.
It makes no sense that to say that now, at the moment, a particular religion is true merely because it is popular.