• @[email protected]OP
    link
    fedilink
    07 days ago

    Where did you learn your moral code from and how far back in your history do I have to go to find a religious believer?

    Do you have an example of a documented civilization that did not have some form of Religious or spiritual belief structure that guided their moral codes?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      67 days ago

      Some came from religious teaching, but mostly I got my moral code from my peers and personal experience. I very much start with treating others as I’d be happy/like to be treated. If you follow that principal to start with then most other morals fall into place.

      Not sure what you’re getting at about how far back you have to go but perhaps I can head off that discussion by saying that most morals can exist in the absence of religion and spirituality.

      Re your second question. No. And I doubt anyone has, but that’s because morals form a part of religious beliefs. As I discussed, morals first then religion based morals after.

      Religion or spirituality of some form or another has existed for as long as we have any detailed information on any societies. The main problem with this discussion is that spiritual, religious and plain moral beliefs long predate any written language system so we can’t refer to any solid evidence.

      If you start with “I don’t like that” as a simplistic moral, then that predates any language as well and therefore spirtuality or religion.

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        07 days ago

        Some came from religious teaching, but mostly I got my moral code from my peers and personal experience. I very much start with treating others as I’d be happy/like to be treated. If you follow that principal to start with then most other morals fall into place.

        My point is your peers, the books you have read, your parents, grand parents, etc have all been influenced in some way by Religious moral codes. One does not require it in modern times, but there was a point where it was necessary to define “morality” and unify the population under an exact moral code, and spirituality and Religion were necessary to spread and encode that morality in the greater population.

        This is why all Evidence we have suggests humans have always been inclined to be spiritual or Religious through out history.

        Not sure what you’re getting at about how far back you have to go but perhaps I can head off that discussion by saying that most morals can exist in the absence of religion and spirituality.

        Morals can now exist in the absence of Religion and spirituality, my point is that wasn’t always the case, and all evidence we have suggests spiritual practices are a driving factor in our ability to form larger groups because all the information we have suggests spiritual belief in those populations.

        Religion or spirituality of some form or another has existed for as long as we have any detailed information on any societies. The main problem with this discussion is that spiritual, religious and plain moral beliefs long predate any written language system so we can’t refer to any solid evidence.

        The verbal histories we have intact also demonstrate longstanding spiritual beliefs. If all evidence suggests that some form of spirituality was required for our species to agree on “morality” and form larger groups than I see no point arguing about things we don’t have evidence for.

        If you start with “I don’t like that” as a simplistic moral, then that predates any language as well and therefore spirtuality or religion.

        “Like” is subjective, and if I cannot communicate with you whether or not I like something we have no way of moving forward. When we can communicate, and we disagree, then what?

        Morality is subjective at the end of the day. Not everyone believes the same things are wrong that you do. If this is the case now, imagine what “debate” was like before communication and what would be required to instill consistency in the morality of the population.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          27 days ago

          Haha, I thought you’d say that! Well no, given how widspread and old religion and spiritually is that’s not possible for anyone but a child raised by wolves to say it hasn’t been an influence!

          My centre point of discussion is to look back before, wayyyy before any of these ideas could be cultivated. I feel that you are starting somewhere at a point where these morals are in the process of being developed and refined, if in early days, so your arguments are somewhat self supporting (happy to be corrected, just the impression I’m getting).

          You say there’s no point in discussing what cannot be proven with evidence…well that makes this whole discussion somewhat defunct then unfortunately!! I’d already written the below so I’ll leave it should you wish to discuss further despite this :)

          You say it was necessary for formation of larger social groups etc but…I go back to my basic starting point of “I don’t like…” As you say there needs to be discussion, development and unity of belief for it to become a recognisable, repeatable, lasting moral system. But that just demonstrates my point that basic, individualistic morals came first then once complex language started to develop then shared likes and dislikes become more prevalent. Imagine what it was like before? Just take a look at chimpanzees.

          The developement of shared beliefs, religious or otherwise, will no doubt have occurred simultaneously. Overlapping, replacing and morphing over millions of generations. Some ideas being discarded/diminished as other new ones arose - e.g. that great 1 in 1000 year volcano eruption replacing the end of the 20 year flood occurance, to use my natural disaster example again.

          But “I don’t like…” is still the starting point for pretty much any discussion about morals as far as I believe.

          • @[email protected]OP
            link
            fedilink
            07 days ago

            But “I don’t like…” is still the starting point for pretty much any discussion about morals as far as I believe.

            I think we agree but we are misaligned on the wording.

            Would you agree with the following statement:

            The Human species can use the basic idea of “like and dislike” to form rudimentary “premoral behavior”, but require the ability to communicate that information efficiently with a large group of humans and historically with the evidence we have this was done through spiritual and religious belief structures.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              17 days ago

              Quite possibly, I’m a devout athiest so don’t even begin to think in any religious or spiritual terms (could you tell?!)

              But yes, I certainly agree with that statement without argument. Thanks for the discussion :)

              • @[email protected]OP
                link
                fedilink
                07 days ago

                Quite possibly, I’m a devout athiest so don’t even begin to think in any religious or spiritual terms (could you tell?!)

                I don’t believe in Spiritual things. I know they are made up, and I know there is no argument or evidence to support the belief that any “God” exists. If something “Supernatural” exists (It doesn’t, but Gorillas were once a “cryptid” like big foot until we finally got one. haha), it is just a natural event we can now explain. So I would say we agree. haha

                Other than the “Atheist” thing only because I don’t want to label myself something that theists came up with, even if by definition one could argue I am one. haha

                But yes, I certainly agree with that statement without argument. Thanks for the discussion :)

                Awesome! Thanks for the great discussion! :)

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        07 days ago

        The need for a consistent moral code that is enforceable through fear of God instead of fear of force.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          07 days ago

          I’d disagree with that as well. I believe that “why did that storm happen?” “Why did drought kill everyone?” Etc - “the spirits and gods are angry!” As an answer in the absence of the level of scientific knowledge to expain it is the starting point.

          Bear in mind that these questions will have existed before complex language developed. And you can’t develop a widespread religion without consistant communication. You can’t form the concept of a spirit or god without generations of discussion.

          • @[email protected]OP
            link
            fedilink
            07 days ago

            I’d disagree with that as well. I believe that “why did that storm happen?” “Why did drought kill everyone?” Etc - “the spirits and gods are angry!” As an answer in the absence of the level of scientific knowledge to expain it is the starting point.

            Bear in mind that these questions will have existed before complex language developed. And you can’t develop a widespread religion without consistant communication. You can’t form the concept of a spirit or god without generations of discussion.

            My point is you cannot form a consistent “morality” in a species without first developing spirituality and religion through generations of very small groups of people making shit up to explain the world around them, and all evidence we have suggests that all early humans had spiritual practices and the unifying of those practices caused our population to grow with a “universal morality”.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          27 days ago

          It’s basic survival evolution. You don’t leave dangerous things around for fear of harm which goes against basic survival instinct. Everything that doesn’t evolve to survive goes extinct. All of our “morality” is to improve our chance of survival. Long ago we evolved to seek food and reproduce, it all stems from that. If you want to pin that basic life programming on some sort of source, I can get behind that to a degree, beyond that you cannot prove any interaction of religious entity. It’s our pattern recognition brains filling in the gaps with our own unique stuffing based on individual surroundings and oral/written tradition. Once again it’s all survival instincts because fear of the unknown can create anxiety, stress and ill health. When a child asks why, we have to alleviate their fear even if we don’t actually know the answers, hence fairy tales and religion, otherwise known as lies. You lie the same lie enough and you start to believe it yourself as true.

          • @[email protected]OP
            link
            fedilink
            07 days ago

            beyond that you cannot prove any interaction of religious entity.

            My statement does not argue for a religious entity existing. I do not believe in a “God” because all evidence we have suggests there isn’t one.

            My point is that all the evidence we have suggests that humans, including pre-civilization humans, had distinct spiritual practices including burial. Without evidence suggesting otherwise, I think it is safe to assume that spirituality was a required catalyst in order for a unified moral code to exist and human group populations to grow.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              17 days ago

              This is a fun conversation FYI. So all living creatures have a spirituality construct that is required for them to survive millions of years. There are many social creatures on this planet, are you suggesting they all have a shared spirituality guiding their morals in order to survive. If so interesting thought, if not why are we required to have one but not them. My opinion is spirituality is a by product not a necessity.