tundey_1 t1_iujhh7u wrote
Reply to comment by Financial-Agency3322 in What is morality in the absence of religion? by mambosun_
Do you think non-religious people and atheists are necessarily immoral? Or less moral than religious people?
Financial-Agency3322 t1_iujik0m wrote
That's a great question and one that I've been thinking about on and off for some time now.
I think that a question needs to be asked first: if a Catholic and an atheist both do the exact same action, say, feeding and clothing a homeless man, is one action more or less moral than another? I've found that there's different levels to this. On one hand, the morality of the action done by both parties has the same intrinsic moral weight: a homeless man was fed and clothed. This is objectively good.
Then we have to turn to motivation. I would argue that doing this out of a desire to love thy neighbor as prescribed by Christ and, in doing so, try to imitate the perfection of God while seeking the highest possible good (in salvation) that the action holds a higher moral weight than the atheist doing the same action.
Some atheists would disagree and insist that the situation is reversed and that the religious person's actions would have less weight since they're acting out of obligation and thus are less sincere, but I find this assertion to be baseless and out of touch with reality. No truly religious person is doing good deeds that they don't want to do solely because of selfish reasons. It just doesn't happen amongst devout people.
All of that is to say that, yes, I think truly religious people (and specifically those who are part of Christ's Mystical Body on earth) are fundamentally more moral than an atheist due to the fact that a religious person's aim is the highest possible good: the salvation of their own souls firstly and then the salvation of their neighbours.
skyarrow999 t1_iujlzmd wrote
> It just doesn't happen amongst devout people.
> a religious person's aim is the highest possible good
So essentially your entire argument is that religious people are doing the 'better' job solely because they're religious. Surely you must see how silly this is?
Financial-Agency3322 t1_iujmu0l wrote
Maybe I'd be able to see how silly that is if I actually said that but being that I didn't, I don't.
It's not being religious that makes one virtuous. Being a part of a false faith does not make one virtuous. Being nominally religious doesn't make one virtuous. Man, even being a part of the one true Church doesn't inherently make one virtuous.
skyarrow999 t1_iujn3q1 wrote
Then what is it you said? Because that's all I'm seeing here.
Financial-Agency3322 t1_iujojdi wrote
Acting in such a way that you are actively pursuing your own salvation, the salvation of your neighbors, and the furthering of the Kingdom of God on earth is inherently better than not doing so.
skyarrow999 t1_iujqiyb wrote
... I don't even know what to respond to such a blatant demonstration of my point. Good luck out there.
Financial-Agency3322 t1_iujql02 wrote
God bless you, brother.
tundey_1 t1_iujmo1g wrote
>It just doesn't happen amongst devout people.
Who is devout? Truly? There's no way to know. And thus there's no way to know what motivates religous people more: a true love for their fellow humans or a fear of eternal damnation. When you have a carrot and stick, it's impossible to truly say which motivates people (more). In fact, if either of them is the motivator that's not a win for religion either.
Whereas with atheists, there is no promise of heaven or hell.
>a religious person's aim is the highest possible good: the salvation of their own souls firstly and then the salvation of their neighbours.
Most religions claim we are children of God. Right? And most of them preach love. If as you say, a religious person's aim is the highest possible good, how do you square that with all of the violence and death that's been done in the name of religion? And usually by the most devout religious people. After all, the casual Christian who goes to church only on major holidays is not running around killing people in the name of Jesus. It's the hardcore, devout religious people that do it. It's the Catholic priests who were raping altar boys. It's the Canada churches who were forcibly trying to rid indigenous children of their culture and upon whose church grounds bodies of innocent indigenous children have been found.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1012100926/graves-found-at-new-site-canadian-indigenous-group-says
Now you may say atheist also commit atrocities and you'll be right. My point is that there is no morality credit to be automatically given to religious people.
Financial-Agency3322 t1_iujo7dg wrote
Being unable to read the soul of another person has no bearing on what that person's motivations may or may not be. I am very clearly not saying that a person who is nominally Catholic but acts only out of self interest and who is apathetic to the wants and needs of other is more virtuous than an atheist on the basis of them being nominally religious.
No, not all or even most religions are "children" of God. There is one true Faith on the face of the planet.
Finally, you're factually wrong in that last paragraph. The percentage of wars caused by religion is something around like 5%, if I remember correctly. The amount of priests who commit these crimes is around 3%, which is the lowest percentage of any group on the planet, being significantly lower than public school teachers, sitting at around 7-8% of a SIGNIFICANTLY larger number of people. In 2018, there were THIRTY cases against the Church in America, and only 8 were even substantiated in a court of law. Whereas in public school, there were millions. Of course even 8 is too high, but it is literally the lowest rate of sexual abuse on the face of the earth.
Finally, the "mass graves" thing is a myth and has been debunked time and time again. The residential schools were run primarily by protestant churches and the Canadian government and you'll find that the Catholic-run schools were regularly requesting aid because they lacked the means to take care of a populace of children who were getting ravaged by deadly diseases. The children were then buried in individual graves all marked with crosses.
excusetheblood t1_iujn0lw wrote
I don’t think religious people can possibly be truly moral, since everything they do is out of promise of reward and fear of punishment
Financial-Agency3322 t1_iujof2b wrote
Every action done by every person all day long is done with a mind for potential reward or potential punishment. It is quite literally unavoidable, down to the most secular of cultures.
excusetheblood t1_iujp58i wrote
If an atheist gives his money or food to a homeless person, what reward is he expecting? What orders to be a decent person is he following? What punishment is he fearful of?
Financial-Agency3322 t1_iujphfi wrote
Strawman. This presupposes that every action done by a religious person is guided by a scrupulous compulsion to follow some mandatory guideline, enforced primarily or exclusively under fear. This is false.
excusetheblood t1_iujr51p wrote
If a person believes in an authoritative god who will either reward them with a blissful eternal afterlife or torture them for all eternity based on the decisions they make here on earth, then we can never truly trust their motives to be genuine can we? They’ll feed a homeless person or donate to charity all because they think it will raise their chances to get into Heaven and avoid hell, not because they wanted to do something good for the sake of it. They’ll also execute a gay person, hang a suspected witch, or vote against equal rights for the same reasons
Financial-Agency3322 t1_iujr9it wrote
Strawman after strawman. Adios.
excusetheblood t1_iujshhx wrote
You can’t just say “strawman” over and over again, you have to actually explain why I’m wrong and you’re right in order to win people over
Financial-Agency3322 t1_iujt3nf wrote
Yeah, but I'm done talking to someone who is so intellectually dishonest and manipulative.
Top-Royal6249 t1_iujp80r wrote
Sounds like you might be a sociopath if you only do things out of self-preservation without caring about others.
Financial-Agency3322 t1_iujplds wrote
Sounds like you might be a sociopath if you're so unwilling to engage with your peers that you willfully misrepresent me so egregiously that you accuse me of doing something that I've disavowed several times.
CaterpillarNo2943 t1_iujjcx0 wrote
This person preaching Jesus has to be a troll in this day and age. Morales are like any form of evolution. It benefits you to be kind to others as it increases your chances of them being kind to you. It helps the survival of the species. We have evolved to "feel good" helping (dopamine). By helping others, we help ourselves which helps us to continue as a species. Even if you don't personally have kids, it is better for your own well being and survival to be "morale".
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments