What came first? Morals or religion? [long]

[cbelt3]

Most organized religions grew out of a self-aware need for explanations. The "Why" question that all children ask (and ask.. and ask... and ask...). As the inquisitive and empirically selfish child ages, inquisitiveness may turn inward towards personal motivation and outward towards societal motivation. And in societal motivation, the role of altruistic (or perhaps better relational) behaviors comes to the fore.

Enfolding and answering these imponderable questions became the role of religion. Since the need for answers embraced both the self-why and the societal-why (as well as the natural world-why), religion perforce had to provide answers to all these questions in order to stay relevant and valuable.

"Morals" is a complex word that describes complex personal and societal values. Yes. "Values" and "Morals" are different semantically. Cue the "Moral Cannibal" thought problem....

So my opinion is that "Cogito Ergo Sum" came first, and the development of how to function in a society of other self-aware individuals came next. Religion is merely the helping structure around this 'morality'.

As science and thought provide factual answers to the 'why' questions of the natural world around us, religion can get back to the fiddly bits of owning the imponderables that are beyond the physical and natural. The philosophy of infinity, death, life, the universe... you know how it goes.

[davester]

the_poochies wrote: While I'm not a big fan of the guy, Benedict XIV spoke about how the 20th century's distrust of religion led to the growth of the two most destructive movements of the century: Nazism and Communism. Both political movements placed their supreme trust in science or sociological ideas, and Nazism was horrifically linked with the scientific love-fest over eugenics that was all of the rage during the first half of the 20th century. IMHO, it seems like science without a moral structure may carry us to a totalitarian state akin to 1984 or Brave New World.

I don't believe any of that for a moment. The nazis used "science" as an excuse for their policies which were born of bigotry and religious intolerance. Their practice of eugenics could at best be referred to as pseudoscience, much in the way creationism is pseudoscience, and in no way followed scientific principles.

I also think you've got your popes mixed up. You must mean Benedict XVI, the former hitler youth. The catholic church in general were disgracefully neutral towards nazi atrocities, and most historians considered hitler to be a catholic, though one who didn't go to mass and didn't like the church hierarchy.

[Ted King]

What conceptual elements do all things we generally label as "a religion" have in common? (What I may say about the broader ideas of this thread will probably depend quite a bit on the responses I see to this question - in case anyone was curious about why I asked the question.)

[davester]

The main point of the OP seemed to me to be the contrast between after-death oblivion "If death is a finality, if I would be utterly annihilated upon death, would my life be miserable if..." versus some kind of afterlife as described by the major religions, the quality of which depends on how "good" you were while alive. Fear of oblivion and reward/punishment in the afterlife based on moral behaviour in this life seem to be the operative concepts. At least, that's how I took it.

Personally, I think that moral behaviour is ingrained programming created by millions of years of evolutionary selection. Social animals can't survive more than a generation or so without a complex mixture of moral behaviours that ensure community wellbeing and competitive behaviours that ensure individual and group survival.

[Pops]

I concur. I find the premise of the OP so foreign as to wonder if it's facetious. Any quick glance at human society, anywhere in the world, reflects a general sense of "moral" life with values that support the society. Abhorrent as wars and senseless violence is, they are but a tiny percentage of the human experience. Like all bad news, they get the headlines.

My atheism in no way makes it difficult to be a "good" person, by those high moral standards held by so many church goers. In fact, if I believed in a god, I'd bet that the measure of my life would get me into his home quicker than most of the religious people I know. But, I'm satisfied to know that I have tried to do good for others and when I die, I will simply no longer exist. I don't need crazy, other worldly promises of eternity.

[Black Tea]

Poochies:

Perhaps as a Catholic, you should investigate "Natural Law":

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

[OWC Jamie]

morals
and we would probably all be quite shocked at early tribal moralities

[davester]

billb wrote:
morals
and we would probably all be quite shocked at early tribal moralities

What do you mean by that. Most aboriginal people's have had complex social systems with inherent moral value systems, as do the primates with close to human intelligence (e.g. bonobos), unless you're talking about religion-based sexual "morals" which are irrelevant to the article and I would argue should not even be in the same discussion.

[Lux Interior]

I love morals. They can really brighten up a plain wall.

[RgrF]

billb seldom means what he posts, if he did he might have to restate his post and that he seldom does.

He's firmly committed to the "never admit a mistake" school of political polemic.