collosoll Japanese developed a high sense of morality (to fellow Japanese--since Japan is a racially homogenous country) because for millenniums, they were so tightly packed into a few small islands. If they didn't behave morally toward each other, they would be at each other's throats all the times, killing each other off (which the high-born and all-powerful samurais did just that). So morality had definite survival value for the vast majority of the common folks. The same reason goes for courtesy. Even 150 years ago, a samurai out for a leisurely stroll was fully within his rights to pull out his sword and BEHEAD a lowly peasant for failing to kneel on the side of the road and show proper respect when he passes. This is why the Japanese are all so courteous to each other and bow constantly. Now, the situation may change when they confront non-Japanese or "others". That's when their innate vigilance for showing morality/courtesy relaxes. This explains why such seemingly gentle, moral and courteous people can be so brutal in war and in the treatment of the defenseless POWs and civilians. In short, what I am saying is that the Japanese morality and courtesy has its origin in fear and survival. It is self-serving, not altruistic.
+rmwtsou "Even 150 years ago, a samurai out for a leisurely stroll was fully within his rights to pull out his sword and BEHEAD a lowly peasant for failing to kneel on the side of the road and show proper respect when he passes. This is why the Japanese are all so courteous to each other and bow constantly." No one in their right mind would think that the cause of Japanese courtesy is this one particular thing. Societies are multifaceted and complex. They just don't work that way. Your conclusion is simplistic. I take that you are not a sociologist or historian who specializes in this. That is pretty clear.
+SAAMIAM99 In feudal Japan, there were 4 classes of people, in descending order of importance/prestige: (1) the armed warrior class (shoguns, daimyos, and their samurais), followed by the unarmed (2) peasants, (3) workers and (4) merchants. The latter 3 classes were prohibited from owning weapons of any sort by the ruling warrior class. Contrast this to that of the social structure of ancient China: they were (1) scholars (intelligentsias) (2) peasants (3) workers and (4) merchants -- there wasn't even a "warrior class" to figure in on this. So, as you can see, the vast majority of the people of Japan throughout history were ruled by brute force only. After centuries of brutalization, they learn very quickly, like a beaten dog, that those with brute force are to be RESPECTED. Courtesy and politeness is thus always a virtue when dealing with those that can potentially kill you. That's why they as a people worship POWER and despise meekness. That's also why they love and respect America -- because we BEAT them. The only way to earn their respect is to be more powerful than they are. The moment you become weaker, they will jump on you mercilessly.
rmwtsou Your argument is flawed. The Japanese were not the only ones with this type of society. One that I might add you continue to oversimplify. Your generalizations and conclusions are simplistic. There were many other civilizations (most of them actually) that went through the kind of thing you described. it is IMHO a natural progression through which most civilizations must go. Medieval Europe went thorough something similar, where peasant were very poorly treated, and there was a hierarchy to society. Why have they not all turned out the same way?
When I was a little boy, I kept asking God to give me a bicycle. Then I realized that this is not the way God works. So I stole a bike and then asked God to forgive me. Religious morality in action :-D
Also, the Netherlands,Belgium, Denmark and Germany to a certain extent. Overall happiness rating is extremely high in Northern-European countries (happiness index) and the higher amount of cases of depression and mental illnesses is strongly connected to the fact that there are doctors who can identify these illnesses in these countries and people have access to them; other countries might have more people with mental illnesses, only they are never actually diagnosed with them.
It bothers me when my parents think I'm going to live a lonely and sad life because I'm an atheist.... I wish they could understand that my life will be even more joyous knowing that these 80-90 years on this planet are all I got so I'm gonna make the most of these years.
My experience is the exact opposite. I wasn't raised with any faith or religious teaching. My life was an empty, self-destructive mess. However, when Christ came into my life, everything changed. I genuinely cared for the first time, and it was liberating. 30 years later, I have learned that the purpose of life is to love and be loved. Everything other aspect of existence is in service of this truth. When I live with this as my focus, life is exhilarating and fulfilling. When I get distracted, life becomes futile and burdensome. To love is to make the most of life. Most people on their death beds are not concerned with FOMO. They regret all the wasted time they spent not loving those around them. All the best Soccafan5
@Milk man The gamer that’s a fact according to the statistics atheists countries take the lead in suicide although they are developed and rich countries like Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries and Japan as well also there is a study that shown people from non religion are the highest when it comes to suicide
I'm looking forward to hearing more commentaries from de Waal. He's a great speaker, and his decades of research needs to be shared in social forums like this one.
Atheists themselves do not have any morality. Morals by definition are non-material concepts which cannot be empirically proven. Therefore, atheists by their own reasoning cannot have morals. All atheists have are subjective opinions, nothing more.
Apart from providing symbolic answers to the unknown elements of life+death, religions (including the ones that Frans has apparently deemed irrelevant) serve to justify warfare, geographic expansion, social hierarchies and a host of other things that are incongruous with the notions of (a) perfect being(s).
He points out that most of the world's religions are 2,000 to 3,000 years old, and thus he concludes that morality existed beforehand and the religion was, in his words, "tacked on" to them... what he neglects is that there were many religions then, as well... religions that are now largely dead.
But why are they dead then ? because its archaic system of values are not compatible with current norms of society. Religion is just ONE of the mechanisms of different cultures for experimenting on various types of social conduct. You can argue for religion as a form of codified system of right and wrong, but to conclude that it is a foundation of morality is utterly wrong.
The problem is in it’s defining. He said human morality and attacks the argument from saying that our current religions are only 2000-3000 years old, but that only Islam, Christianity and Judaism as in its current interpretation. People believed in God way before Mozes as in these three faiths you had Abraham before Mozes. And not even considering the ‘Abrahamic’ faiths you had other people believing in God(maybe other interpretations or views of God) like the Hindus who are from 15th-5th centhury BCE or the Zoroastrianists(10th-5th century BCE) or even older the San civilization which is arguably the oldest civilization according to most archaeologists(however, some archaeological evidence supports the view that the San should be attributed to the Early Later Stone Age), and they believed in God. So the logical conclusion then is that human morality comes from religion/God. If you want to argue that animals also have ‘morality’ and animals predate humans and so morality doesn’t come from religion, fine. But at least admit that human morality comes from religion and I don’t understand why the professor in the video would make such a bold statement while scientifically be so wrong. You definitely need religion to be moral. All our current morals systems are derived, influenced or in some sense intrinsically found in ‘religion’. Philosophy is the little misguided child of theology.
I believe that early humans had morality that included respect for other animals. Then along came animal domestication and devaluation (propped up by organized religion): Frans de Waal, a primatologist and professor of psychology at Emory University, in a New York Times article writes, “When our ancestors moved from hunting to farming, they lost respect for animals and began to look at themselves as the rulers of nature. In order to justify how they treated other species, they had to play down their intelligence and deny them a soul.”
In order to live in morality without religion is to teach the basics of psychology and the theory of nature & nurture to everyone. We are our own believe system if we can influence making the right decisions on one another and keep the motivation to evolve our world for the greater good. Than yes we are absolutely capable of morality without religion.
So since “we are our own belief system” was hitler right in killing Jews? He was doing what he thought was right. If we are going to use humans as the standard, why is using hitler as a standard inherently worse than using Mother Teresa as a standard? Maybe because there are certain things that are right and certain things that are wrong that extend BEYOND humans and human nature. This, my friend is God. You can’t have a moral law (right and wrong) without a moral law giver. This points to God. I pray for all of you searching for answers that your view won’t be swayed by this one dimensional thinking. “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.” Romans 10:9-10.
@Omair Shakir it goes hand and hand. We have a need to be right and to feel secure, and dislike challenges to our belief and moral systems. It feels like an attack on character.
@Omair Shakir I has never saying all humans have the same values. I was saying that humans all have empathy, usually that empathy aligns with their moral system.
Nazi Germany was predominantly Protestant Christian, the Soviet Union was predominantly Catholic and orthodox Christian, Cubans are mostly Catholics. No matter what the politics of the country were/are, the fact is that the majority of the people in those places were religious in one form or another. What is unique about Scandinavian countries is that people have the freedom to choose, and they choose atheism and agnosticism. They are also some of the more peaceful places on earth.
The conclusion that "religion could not have induced our morality, because current religions are only 2-3 thousand years old, and morality existed before that" is logically unsound for two reasons. First, the conclusion states "current" religions, but religions existed long before the "current" religions. Older religions may have influenced morality. Second, there is an implicit assumption that morality had the same principles in the last 2 thousand years as it did 20 thousand years ago. There is a lot of evidence that this is not the case - morality evolved across cultures, over time, and across geographical areas. Current religion may have helped in shaping the current morality, just as older religions may have shaped older forms of morality. Frankly, sounds like a chicken-and-the-egg discussion.
I totally agree with this. I'm more interested in hard truths than in comforting fantasies. I was rise as christian then I opened my eyes to the world. Is hard to confront life knowing that there is no god out there to protect you and make justice for you. Also the terrifying reality of one death's is the end of the consciousness and nothing of what we do really matters in the end. I came to think that religious people definitely have a more happy life than us. Yet I cant afford to lie to myself.
Mr de Waal seems like a nice, honest guy, but his example is flawed. Current western society is built on a 2000 years old Judeo-Christian foundation, therefore our values are without doubt unquestionably influenced by the traditions and norms of our past. Religion is man's attempt to appease the gods and doesn't address the root problem mankind has; our destructive tendencies. I was not raised with any religion, so I lived for myself. However, that life was empty, and I was making a mess of it. One day, in my despair, I called out these words "God if you are there, I need you". From that moment on, my heart was changed. For the first time, I truly wanted to connect to others and help. Life wasn't all about me any more. I cared and It was awesome. It wasn't a burden, it was liberating. I wanted to read the bible. I later learned that this is what the Jesus called being born again. I was given the free gift of a new heart. Once I had learned this I 'officially', turned away from my old life and decided to follow Christ. (This is the micro version of my story). I don't know what you were taught, and I'm sincerely sorry for your experience, but I can't deny what happened to me, Christ set me free. For that, I am eternally grateful. Rolando, I wish you all the best.
@@DavidKnowles Thanks man! I can't say that religion would work for me. There is always men behind it. In the end what matters is whatever float your boat. So good for you. If you are happy, that's what counts.
@@rolandorodriguez9625 There IS a Divine force (look at nature! You think that that happened all by itself?)... it just has NOTHING to do with religion. Religion is Man's way of trying to control others. But don't confuse one with the other. Ask the Universe, your Angels (we ALL have them. 'Angel' is just a name for an entity that doesn't have a physical body. You don't have to call them 'Angels' or 'guides' ... you can call them anything you like!) to SHOW YOU in some way that they are present in your life. Ask for a sign that you will recognize. Ask for some sort of clear manifestation that they are at work in your life. You just ask, aloud, for this. I know it sounds really simple... just try it! It can be totally mundane; I ask my angels for parking spaces (especially when it's impossible). I ask them for help every day, all day long. (And I THANK THEM!!! Very important). EVERYTHING you do matters. And, inside, you KNOW this! But really, the only thing that matters is how we treat people (and ourselves). We should remember that Love is the greatest force in the Universe and it can transmute the worst situations. To view the world through the lens of compassion ... this is what I am trying to teach myself (I am very judgemental, so it's difficult!). Our bodies die, but our Consciousness is eternal. That should be a great relief (and it's true!). Have a wonderful life!
@@andreaandrea6716 I happy that you see it that way. I just don't believe your view. I envy your conviction that there is more after. I simply need proof of such things. Not signs not subliminal messages. I need direct proof but never seen it. BTW If I had angels watching over me Il be pissed at them and probably end up wanting killing them for invading my privacy and pulling strings in my life. Why would need angels for if we are eternal?
If my empathy, compassion and love are all part of an evolutionary process, why does my moral assertion apply to anyone else. Who am I to impose my views on you another human?
From the book ... The Final Inequality, by L. J. Ludovici. "Morals at any given moment have always been as good, or as bad, as our imaginations credit them, for the morals (from the Latin, mores: customs) means simply customs, and they keep changing all the time in all the corners of the world."
What a great speech. Religion has more side effects than it teaches us morality, because religion is a little bit of morality mingled with a set of illogical practices.
@@Supvia This is a very typical argument given by the believers. Morality can't come from a non existing entity. There is no evidence for any gods. The very source of morality is animals. They take care of their family and also of other species. Now tell me where the human cruelty comes from.
While most enlightened humans now reject the ludicrous idea that objective morality is dictated by the gods, we need to understand now that human rights are not supernaturally derived as well. It is clearly reasoning that led to scientific thinking that has given us a solid, sane concept of rights.
Are you familiar with the writer Tom Holland and his book, 'Dominion (The making of the western mind)'? His work is an incredibly strong challenge to Mr de Waal's perspective.
Morality originates from the sensations of pain and anguish. From there it transforms into empathy which becomes the foundation for complex moral codes.
"No absolute evil or absolute good," is a dangerous statement. Why is it that in our modern times we believe rape is wrong. Has it always been wrong, or did we only recognize it now? I would say even in ancient times, people knew their actions were wrong but did them anyway.
The foundation of morality is empathy. Empathy is found in highly developed conscious beings and is even more finetuned in a society of such. Religion is just one strategie among many, to overcome a number of psychological problems that arise with a highly developed consciousness.
Interesting fact:in the countries where religion is largely absent (de Waal speaks of Northern-European countries) crime rates are extremely low, living standards extremely high and people extremely happy.
One of the more beneficial moral systems humans have like no other animal is reciprocity. Reciprocity among individuals helps the whole group, which for example help us survive trough tough situations better, which is the enormous evolutionary advantage.
Brian Ng - My reaction was a response to Wasiq who seemed to have trouble understanding the comment of Kyssifrot, not a general comment on the video. Maybe I should have made that more clear, but I thought it spoke for itself as I replied to this comment thread instead of making a new comment.
''Truth is not a democracy.'' Some parts of morality are obviously subjective, but I think we can universally accept that when you hurt another human, that's not good.
Historically, religion was more about politics and social cohesion than morality. Basically, it's about 1) why the king is the best and you should heel and 2) how to identify people who are in our religion and others who are not in our religion.
Religion is a somewhat recent invention. Back in the day, you wouldn't say you were an animist or a monkey-god-ist, or a spirit-ist. They had tons of irrational and inaccurate beliefs about reality in general, not just on religion. As we attempted to understand the world around us, we had to put a divider between what's real and what is bullshit. The real stuff turned out to be scientific things. And the bullshit was either rejected upon closer examination or called religion if they wanted to have faith in it against all evidence. Faith in an instinct that needs to be scorned wherever is rears its ugly head, not given special treatment or laughed off as just some fundamentalist representing no general trend. Faith is rampant across the globe--as he said.
seeing his whole discussion it reinforces what the bible says. Says we are all sinners yes but that does not mean "good" cant be done. It speaks of the non believers doing good showing moral law is written in their hearts.
I don't like the use of the word 'probably' - we know morality exists without religion, look at switzerland, Denmark. And we also know that morality did exist before religion (Confucianism) - the golden rule! "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - one of the most important phrases representing morality.
The reason why all societies have religions is because religion and atheism fight an uneven fight. Religion has the weapon of indoctrination and atheism doesn't. when one group of people has been taught that their world view is superior and should be spread around the population and the other group doesn't, it isn't hard to predict what the consequence will be.
It is actually quite amazing that atheist don't seem to understand the very science (biological evolution) that so much of their views are based on. If atheism rendered a society capable of competing with religious societies, than we would have had entirely atheistic societies long ago. There is clearly a valid scientific assertion to be put forth (hypothesis) that human civilization is mutually interdependent on religion.
The Grey Area Cite a single religious belief I have promoted. I'm actually not all that religious. However, I am capable of observing reality as it is. The fact is that civilization is inseparable from religion. Where you find one, you always find the other.
JonnyNice No, I read it and the fact is that a religious world view is superior in every evolutionary sense to an atheistic one. Atheism lost because it is simply incapable of sustaining a stable civil society.
Without God there is no objective moral standard. Otherwise it's just your opinion that something is unjust or evil. BUT, we do know some things are unjust and evil and it's not our opinion. Therfore by what standard do you call something evil. You see, without God you can't justify evil. You can know it, but you can't justify it. God exists because good exists. Good exists because evil exists. There can be no evil without good and there can be no good without God. Period.
Simple particles combine to form atoms. Atoms combine to form molecules, molecules combine to form more powerful chemicals, chemicals combine to form creatures. Things become more complex and powerful given time, because the laws of entropy predict increasing order as time increases. And as humans have changed with technology through the years, becoming more powerful, I would wager that divinity is our future, not our origin.
The first people believed in something. This is known because archeologists found old flower petal fossils near dead bodies, spread around them. They found a couple of these in the same 100km squared (they also found necklaces and other artifacts) . So they did have a 'religion' but it doesnt fall into any categories of religion we have today.
A 1. Morality is either innate(theism) or learned(atheism). 2. atheism says it is learned 3. Therefore every culture and society is moral 4. Every culture is not moral, therefore morality is not learned 5. If morality is not learned then it is innate 6. If morality is innate then atheism is false 7. if atheism is false then theism is true B for the atheist that believes we are innately moral, (Atheism is now a belief system) 1. The notion of good comes from empathy 2. Empathy, is a product of the realization of wrong 3. You cannot have wrong without right 4. The notion of right cannot be accounted for without God (Usually atheists will revert to morality is learned here see A, 1) 5. Therefore the notion of good proves there is a god. It is proof of God because god is all that is good. It ties every human being to god whether you like it or not. Science cannot account for innate morality in the human which is my point even though atheists try to claim it does to no avail.
A) how come there is only the 2 options for one thing? Also how can you discern that all cultures are not moral? Morality is different in every culture which is even more proof that it is learnt. ie the treatment of women, laws, social sets of morals and etiquette are different across the entire world, how can you say that they would be all the same. If it was innate then everybody would have the same morals and there would be no question about it because we were born like that, it would be printed onto yourself like the need to breathe, the need to eat and to be loved but it isn't. Morality has evolved over time proof over time. If you looked at ancient bronze age to modern age, morals are very different. So then who is right here? If your hypothesis is true, then it would be implied that the bronze age of morals, ie the ancient set of morals because they follow the set of morals with would have been 'truer to gods, because people didn't learn and asses, where as now people are changing them because they are rethinking. So you have to wonder that if it isn't learnt and it is innate, that implies that we are going against what was implanted within us as morals. That type of thinking astonishes me. b) How do you asses what is right? it's like saying that you cannot have light without darkness They do not HAVE to coexist. Your statement is very black and white which is also troubling. How can anyone of us asses what is right if we are not moral? If we cannot determine what is right then how would anybody know if we saw it, even if we read it in the bible, how would we know that is right and everything else is wrong? I believe that it is definetly more learnt then it is innate. Bullies for example are a product of mistreat and hardship which has skewed their morals to be one of weakness (picking on others because they get picked on). rich people are also quite immoral in some cases ie doing things which would hurt others because they weren't received punishments for their actions and continue to do bad things because their parents money makes the problem go away. as a kid, if you hit another child, if you took something or did something wrong, you would get punished which would grow your set of do's and don'ts or in other words morals which generally results in Morally good = selfless actions Morally bad = selfish actions. which pretty much sums up the concept of morals in the simplest form. The last point i would like to make is the idea that your statement, which 'disproves' atheism, therefore proves there is a god. What rationalism is that? How does that single handedly prove there is a god? again, one does not equal the other and i know you're hoping there is a god and i'm not sure if there is, but the fact that we have morals does not prove anything of the existence of a god. I feel you have copy and pasted these posts from somewhere and you feel so smug about it that you wish to give it to everybody who would listen to it but it's wrong. Sorry for this essay but I saw just how many other videos you've put this garbage on and I had to say something you ignorant fool. Doubt you could read all of this because your brain is stuck in the 1st century A.D. where you left your morals. P.S. Atheism isn't a belief system you poor ignorant individual
***** word of advice dont insult people, if you want to be taken seriously. There is either immoral or moral, There is either right or wrong, innocent or guilty. And its funny you mention light and darkness. Because it is scientific fact that darkness is the absence of light. As is evil is absence of good. So without good, there is no evil. Hence our notion of right and wrong is given to us by god. But your B answers your A and supports my point that we are innately moral. Its kinda funny. But you are right when you say "how can we know what is good." As an atheist you can't. Therefore the fact that you know murder is wrong, proves there is a god. Different societies can be immoral, that's not the issue. Mankind still knows murder is wrong. Regardless of your society. So if your a mongol from the Philippines who kills people on a daily basis just because that's what your taught. It might be accepted in your society and culture. But it doesn't mean it is right. "Morally good = selfless actions Morally bad = selfish actions." These statements contradict your earlier point about morality being different in every society. Which is illustrating my point that there is an innate morality. However, What on earth makes you morally obligated to be selfless? What on earth makes you morally wrong for being selfish? Do you have a duty to be moral as an atheist? Do you have an obligation to be moral as an atheist? You should be answering No. If you answer yes then , where does this obligation/duty come from? You will say moral behavior, so you can revert back to my chart for clarification on why you are wrong.
That is some idiotic logic... Section A, part 3 and 4 have a horrendous jump in logic. Each society defines what it feels is "morality" and creates laws to justify that. Certain humans chose to not follow those laws and what many consider common morality (murder, rape etc) and therefor there are punishments based on that. If you want to claim morality is "innate" yet you say we failed to innately learn it because we are not moral makes no sense whatsoever. Want an example of morality exists without the Jewish god? Are any of you parents? If your child was premeditating murder, do you or your society feel it is moral to stop your child from committing that murder? Christianity based religion believes that God is the Father, is all powerful, all knowing and we are all his children. He is aware at all times of all the premeditated murder that will be committed yet does not stop it. Humans are morally superior to the "great god in the sky" on that basis alone.
Whores of Tijuana God allows evil because he allows free will. If there was no evil there would be no consciousness of wrong and right and therefore no free will. So yes there is evil in the world, but it is not because of god, it is because of man.
viva larevolucion so logic is bigger than god, god cannot contradict logic?, cant it be both, like theres an innate ability to feel empathy but theres a ratinal process after that that determines beyond the empathy if its benefical for all the individuals in a grand time scale or not, arent there different laws in different societies? Also your pointing out a false dichotomy, you contradict science and then you use it to prove your points, youre cherry picking, please doubt of your thoughts as i am going to do with mine
I understand another factor in the high rate of depressions in these countries is that kids generally grow up within a bubble (making them the happiest kids in the world) and don't quite get to experience hardship until they have to fend for themselves, outside of their parents' nests. Sorry for wrongly referring to the happiness index: I meant, in particular, the 'experienced well-being' (which pertains to happiness). The HPI also takes into account ecological footprint and life expectancy.
Here is a good way to frame what I was saying below. Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. If you are an atheist and disagree, which premise do you find to be wrong; Premise 1 or Premise 2. Or both!
People need religion to seek a safe haven. History has showed us that in time of desperation religion is what gave people hope. And hope/dream/goal/purpose, is what keeps people moving.
As an atheist I can't get away with doing evil because my ethics/conscience/ society in general judge my behavior in THIS life. I don't have confession as an excuse for doing wrong or the long wait for the afterlife as an excuse for everything. I don't have the excuse for doing wrong because others are infidels and as such don't count. All people count for me.
Morality is typically a large network of social rules, such as 'killing is wrong'. So even if you hate a person, someone might pull the morality card and and say you shouldn't kill that person because it is morally wrong; whereas an animal would kill it straight away without thinking about the moral implications. It is true that morality stems from our natural feelings, but they are different in the regards that we created them, while we did not create our primal feelings.
Anyone can be a good person, regardless of religious beliefs, if they do what they feel is right and try to help others when they can. Enough people have used religion as a reason or excuse to do horrible things to prove that simply following a religion does not make you a good person, ultimately who you are, how you were raised (which religion is only a part of) and who you decide to be play far more into morality.
The problem with this argument is that human history tells us that we cannot agree to hurt another human is wrong. Perhaps we need a foundation for moral values after all?
In the Soviet Union- atheism was forced. Religion was being ridiculed, especially Judaism. People held their beliefs strongly, practiced at home, in small groups. Sometimes they were persecuted, even deported for such gatherings. That is certainly not the way to be incorporating any sort of ideology. And in the USSR, there were strong indications of K.Marx and V.I.Lenin personality cults- their ideas were indoctrinated in schools... The growth of atheism now is very different. It's natural.
Religion is mans way of acknowledging the fact that man did not create himself and that intelligent design is apparent in everything. Life is the most rare thing in the physical realm. Contrary to most popular beliefs, I think life is no accident, or coincidence.
We could put it like this, both Austria and Germany were part of the Holy Roman Empire, that was dissolved like a century before, and both countries do speak German.
"can we set up a society where religion is not dominant anymore but still moral. Yes I think that experiment is going pretty well". Hello, have you looked around lately??? It's literally gone to hell out there.
That shouldn't be phrased as a static question. Throughout history, religion made total sense on every level - philosophically, culturally, technologically, politically. Now, that really depends of where you're talking about. The future, I have hopes it'll flourish. Humans command their own destiny.
he starts with 'current religions are only 2 or 3 thousand years old claiming there was God who gave us morality' and ended it with 'I don't know if humanity has ever done a morality experiment without religion'. As Ravi Zacharias explains, 'if there is right and wrong, there must be a moral law If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver. If there is no moral law giver there is no moral law. If there is no moral law there is no right or wrong, no good and no evil. Go listen to Ravi Zacharias explain this and other difficult questions. and keep asking them. Godspeed on your journey.
As a species, we are equally distant from bonobos and chimpanzees, which both exhibit moral behavior that is obviously without religion. The difference lies in bonobos are to chimpanzees what liberals is to conservatives in regards to empathy or in the case of chimpanzees the lack of it.
I'm pretty sure millions of people being happy, rich, and having next to no criminals just slightly outweighs a few hundred suicides, and a few hundred ended relationships. If suicide was a major cause of death in any country, your argument may have some validity, but suicide is one of the most miniscule causes of death there are.
Just because one religion or another makes a claim as to the morality of God, doesn't mean that objective morality ceases to exist. You ever going to answer my question? I've answered lots of your questions.
Religion is universal across all cultures because there are proven health benefits to being a believer. Statistically religious people tend to live longer on average. From a completely evolutionary viewpoint, it makes sense that back in the day, religion was an advantageous behavior.
I think it is possible for a society to live without religeon. However, in our history we rarely find a society with tolerance & morality without religeon which was not built on religeon. In other words, religeon has been the stepping stone to a secular moral society. As a spiritual but not religeous person it is important to remember that despite the fact that I see religeon as fables & good stories at best, it is a very important part other people and other societies evolutionary process.
Science is profound, religion is divine- there is no competition between those concepts. Understanding of both is probably a good idea. Both worldviews hurt humanity as much as help it - both are in balance - humanity is a series of advancing averages.
Step by step: 1. person X does not believe in God 2. person X does not believe in eternal punishment for sins 3. person X no longer believes in objective morals 4. person X is therefore less likely to contraint their actions out of fear of eternal torment for evil deeds.
Being oppressed would make religion a kinship/cultural/psychological tool to survive as best as possible. Individualistic society would encourage free thought and education - connotations behind any of that would cripple a religious viewpoint.
1:27 he says he is struggling with it. He says he doesn't really know whether we need religion or not. The way he says this, is telling me, that he thinks that morality comes forth out of religion, and that religion is nothing more. He also asks the question: Is this really needed (1:57). And back to 2:35 he says that he doesn't think religion is really needed. And those are the points that 'disgust' me.
I am not proposing hallucinations as an explanation. I am merely saying that each side of the thought experiment (and formulas) is relative to the other. This does not violate either the thought experiment or the formulas in any way. There is no such thing as a universally objectively "stationary" position and Einstein's formulas do not require it. In fact, if you understood your own "proof" you would realize that this is exactly what is shown. Mass varies & time varies with relative velocity.
The argument that you can't have a sense of morality without faith has always been lost on me. I, as an Atheist, consider myself to have a very strong moral compass and i haven't needed a God to get that. I obviously don't follow them, but i can safely look down the list of commandments and the Bible's teachings and say that i've never broken any of them in my life - even though i haven't explicitly followed them either. Having faith does not make you a good person (fundamentalists, anyone?).
You don't actually need religion to be moral. Because that's what philosophy does prove, how and what is good and moral. I love videos that are educated like these. Helps with my anxiety disorder. Thanks so much.
It is. The problem is in it’s defining. He said human morality and attacks the argument from saying that our current religions are only 2000-3000 years old, but that only Islam, Christianity and Judaism as in its current interpretation. People believed in God way before Mozes as in these three faiths you had Abraham before Mozes. And not even considering the ‘Abrahamic’ faiths you had other people believing in God(maybe other interpretations or views of God) like the Hindus who are from 15th-5th centhury BCE or the Zoroastrianists(10th-5th century BCE) or even older the San civilization which is arguably the oldest civilization according to most archaeologists(however, some archaeological evidence supports the view that the San should be attributed to the Early Later Stone Age), and they believed in God. So the logical conclusion then is that human morality comes from religion/God. If you want to argue that animals also have ‘morality’ and animals predate humans and so morality doesn’t come from religion, fine. But at least admit that human morality comes from religion and I don’t understand why the professor in the video would make such a bold statement while scientifically be so wrong. You definitely need religion to be moral. All our current morals systems are derived, influenced or in some sense intrinsically found in ‘religion’. Philosophy is the little misguided child of theology.
Not sure why Lathox made the recent comment, his original solution is probably the most realistic, let Islamic extremist slowly fade off. The best thing that can happen is that peaceful muslims set an example for a better civilization.
Because if a society can be moral and do good things without religion, there is no need for an institution that also causes damage to it. From a utilitarian standpoint, institutionalized religion is simply a bad thing. Especially when death, social hierarchies and harsh punishment are core elements.
I totaly agree, we have no real use for a "god". It was used to explain the previously un-explainable so that those with weak minds were not scared, but now we have the best explanations ever, the new era of civilation, science.
I disagree with the part of "morals are based on what the majority believe is right." I'm saying that even if the whole world believed raping girls was okay, that it would still be wrong. In early America, the vast majority of southern men believed perennial slaver to be okay but I believe slavery was still wrong. If you hold to your subjective morality you strip away the basis for any moral value at all.
Morality is predicated upon the existence of a Creator. Morality based upon empathy and self interest isn't morality at all but rather, it is opportunism.
If objective moral values don't exist, what are we left with? Subjective moral values. If God doesn't exist, who makes up the rules for morality in our universe? Humans. This is subjective morality.
Do they really have morals? I assumed that the only reasons for an animal not killing everything it met was either due to: - Fear - Kinship - Lack of interest
It's not even about religion. It is about the truth that only your Maker is able to remake you again because no one else can. There is no perfect human morality and that is the reason for the need of a perfection that we do not have and only our Maker is able to give us. "Morals" without truth is very naive. You are keeping morals for no good reason and as soon as people "get wise", it will all break down again and resort to people hitting each other over the head with clubs. Truth sets us free.
If this a legitimate question, it's because of gravity. It pulls in all directions equally, thus creating a sphere (it's not technically a sphere since it's squashed at the poles.)
You said: the Dutch, Dutch is what I am, Germany does not allow me to vote, Dutch = Netherlands, Germans = Germany, I think that you have difficulty to understand that no Dutchman, woman, or child ever had the chance to vote for Hitler since he invaded my country in May 1940.
People need to discover a reason to be, I personally don't need religion and still can't find a single reason to be religious. I do feel alone in the universe but never lost, there are just too many wonders right outside and all around me to keep me happy
He's right. It's impossible to suppose morality without God as you need to believe in a supernatural authority and supposing the reality of that authority is just as impossible. You can believe that killing thousands of people is wrong subjectively and most of us do because of the effects it has on emotions.
Maybe you are referring to the debate over whether we have 'free will'? If we do not, then criminals who are dangerous to society cannot be blamed for their actions but still need to be locked up to protect others.
Now in our country euthanasia is permitted under certain conditions so it was probably the case with the old woman. About 80% of the people would call themselves catholic christians. Still most readers of this respected newspaper (the biggest in the country) -who call themselves catholics and go to church on occasion- agreed with the family and couldn't understand why that priest wouldn't permit a song that promotes euthanasia to be played in his church.
