Religious versus a-Religious Morality: Which one is superior?

[Toramana]

One i.e., the religious morality has origin in fear (God would get angry or He should be appeased, etc.) and reward (jannah/heaven in the after-life) whereas individuals in systems with no organized religion or concept of diety do it for its own-sake and for the intrinsic goodness/virtue of it.


For example take Budhists, who, though not having any concept of God or concept of life in hereafter are highly moral people as a whole...Same are humanists, most athiests, etc. who also don't have any concept of God or after-life are still very moral people extremly caring and benign...


My question is which morality is superior----that motivated by reward and imposed by fear or the other that is voluntary, self-less, and humanistic?

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Why don't you first define morality. Toramana, I am surprised at the fact that you commit so many fallacies despite the fact that you have a PhD in Computer Science. Correct me if I am wrong about the PhD part.

Friend, you are all over the place.

[Toramana]

No, you go and define morality to kick-start your argument...

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Why was the killing of Jews wrong in WWII?

Let us take it from here.

[abubaker]

[3.14159265...]

Better in what sense? In the sense of "good"? We'd need a model that encompasses both in order to compare them. Then apply this ad infinitum.

Further, if you mean better in the sense of which will survive the longest. I would say both, they are not independent of each other.

By the way Buddhist morals are religious morals, however morals one reaches through self exploration need not be Buddhist morals.

[Wrayun]

One i.e., the religious morality has origin in fear (God would get angry or He should be appeased, etc.) and reward (jannah/heaven in the after-life) whereas individuals in systems with no organized religion or concept of diety do it for its own-sake and for the intrinsic goodness/virtue of it.

Can you define what is irreligious morality? If you have set of standards, in this case what you call irreligious morality, which I think you mean the concept of "humanism", that dictates the course of human life, the nature of human life, the purpose and goal of it, that my friend is a "religion". So there is no such thing as "irreligious" morality. Morality is not possible without beliefs, and beliefs fall very short from religions. The existence of a supernatural creator is not necessarily required for a religion. Just like Buddhism.... no? Yet Buddhism is considered a RELIGION.

For example take Budhists, who, though not having any concept of God or concept of life in hereafter are highly moral people as a whole...Same are humanists, most athiests, etc. who also don't have any concept of God or after-life are still very moral people extremly caring and benign...


My question is which morality is superior----that motivated by reward and imposed by fear or the other that is voluntary, self-less, and humanistic?

FYI, Buddhists are religious people. Buddhist believe in an afterlife, and heaven and hell, though their concepts of these things are different than other religions. Buddhist believe in Nirvana, their goal is to reach it. That is only possible when your dead, ie. afterlife. Buddhists believe in hell, Naraka, in Hindiusm it is Narg. Naraka is different though, from other concepts of hells particularly from the Abrahamic faiths. Buddhists also believe this human existence to be hell, because of the pain and suffering involved. So when you die, if you are a good person, you go to Nirvana (heaven), if you are a bad person, you go to Naraka or come back reincarnated on this hell (earth).

That is a reward based system! If there was no REWARD in Buddhism, why the heck do monks spend their lives meditating sitting under trees or over rocks? They might as well disco if there is no afterlife or salvation.

All beliefs, are directly related, even your "irreligious humanistic" morals. All morality is predetermined and conditioned by existing ideas and thoughts. There is no such thing as an ATHEISTIC MORALITY, since atheism doesn't explain the purpose of life, or existence. It's job is to question the prevailing belief systems, particularly those revolving around supernatural Creators.

Many humanists take this preconditioned love, and sanctity of life, which was only possible through major beliefs (which happens to be religious btw) for granted. Take those beliefs away, let's experience where we stand.

Humanity is the quintessential man created delusion in an atheistic world.

[Baygham]

Irreligious Morality

Can you define what is irreligious morality? If you have set of standards, in this case what you call irreligious morality, which I think you mean the concept of "humanism", that dictates the course of human life, the nature of human life, the purpose and goal of it, that my friend is a "religion". So there is no such thing as "irreligious" morality. Morality is not possible without beliefs, and beliefs fall very short from religions. The existence of a supernatural creator is not necessarily required for a religion. Just like Buddhism.... no? Yet Buddhism is considered a RELIGION.



FYI, Buddhists are religious people. Buddhist believe in an afterlife, and heaven and hell, though their concepts of these things are different than other religions. Buddhist believe in Nirvana, their goal is to reach it. That is only possible when your dead, ie. afterlife. Buddhists believe in hell, Naraka, in Hindiusm it is Narg. Naraka is different though, from other concepts of hells particularly from the Abrahamic faiths. Buddhists also believe this human existence to be hell, because of the pain and suffering involved. So when you die, if you are a good person, you go to Nirvana (heaven), if you are a bad person, you go to Naraka or come back reincarnated on this hell (earth).

That is a reward based system! If there was no REWARD in Buddhism, why the heck do monks spend their lives meditating sitting under trees or over rocks? They might as well disco if there is no afterlife or salvation.

All beliefs, are directly related, even your "irreligious humanistic" morals. All morality is predetermined and conditioned by existing ideas and thoughts. There is no such thing as an ATHEISTIC MORALITY, since atheism doesn't explain the purpose of life, or existence. It's job is to question the prevailing belief systems, particularly those revolving around supernatural Creators.

Many humanists take this preconditioned love, and sanctity of life, which was only possible through major beliefs (which happens to be religious btw) for granted. Take those beliefs away, let's experience where we stand.

Humanity is the quintessential man created delusion in an atheistic world.

A belief is a personal preference, e.g. "I like a blue shirt" is a personal belief, a preference and may be a choice I make more often than not in buying or wearing a shirt. Our beliefs are sometimes shared, like I like soccor, is shared with millions around the world. In that case you can call it a shared belief.

With such a definition there is no inherent guidance in a belief, i.e. there is no morality in a belief. It is a personal preference.

However, say I seek guidance for my actions. Its hot outside in the desert sun, should I wear a dark blue shirt or a white shirt. My belief favors the blue, but I check my belief, check human experiences and other inferences from objective analysis (science) and use my cerebral cortex and say, lets go with white, it will protect us better.

When laws are derived for individual and group consumption one can go through a similar exercise. Morality thus becomes "individual and group well being", it acquires a humanistic flavor as multiple inputs washes individual inclinations and avoids subjugation and unnecessary suffocation.

Now in the comfort of my centrally heated/cooled workplace/home, it matters little if I choose to wear blue or white, I am not killing or torturing anyone for it, so my beliefs stay with me and I get what ever pleasure is my due.

Now if I choose blue but ban it on others and have a vice police to keep anyone from wearing blue, than use Allah or Zeus to tell people to obey or they shall be punished by me here on earth and burn in eternal hell, that is hypocritical.

And I dont need God, one or multiple, to tell me common sense things I can deduce with 10 working neurons, or prevent me from utilizing things deduced by millions of people who have put heads together because it offends or goes against some imaginary individual preferences (beliefs)..

Science is not a belief, present day science may have some belief based elements, but to call painstaking research and experiment as a mere different belief system is ludicrous and the biggest hypocricy of all.

[Alchemist]

One i.e., the religious morality has origin in fear (God would get angry or He should be appeased, etc.) and reward (jannah/heaven in the after-life) whereas individuals in systems with no organized religion or concept of diety do it for its own-sake and for the intrinsic goodness/virtue of it.


For example take Budhists, who, though not having any concept of God or concept of life in hereafter are highly moral people as a whole...Same are humanists, most athiests, etc. who also don't have any concept of God or after-life are still very moral people extremly caring and benign...


My question is which morality is superior----that motivated by reward and imposed by fear or the other that is voluntary, self-less, and humanistic?

Morality is not a "thing" or an "object" that you can make such superflous comparisons with, and that based on "motivation".

But then what you are proposing is a loaded question. You assume that humanism is based on selflessness/love and that religion is based on fear. Basically you are claiming to be a god and to know for certain what is in the heart of people.

You are saying that if I, a muslim, do any good deed it is because I am only motivated by fear. Really? But if you, a baymazab (irreligious person), does any good than it is out of love? lol .. whatever fool.


At the end of the day Religious laws are superior to Societal laws only because Allah is ever watching. But the recompense/consequence is not direct or "measurable". Someone who is God conscious will think twice of breaking any CIVIL laws. However, those who disbelieve in Allah are only afraid to do bad things, like steal or cheat, only when there is a hired watchmen or a camera pointing from the ceiling.

There are many facets of early Islamic empires that have molded much of today's western values that you cherish so much. However I am too disappointed by the shallowness of your mindset. Your grudging attitude towards Islam and your constant finger wagging towards muslims. If anything you are just exercising a slave morality.

I highly recommend that you read some books of philosophy to get a grasp of the basics before you come here and pose such silly questions. Try some Nietzsche or Max Stirner ...see what they think of "humanists"...lol

[Wrayun]

Baygham,

A belief is a personal preference, e.g. "I like a blue shirt" is a personal belief, a preference and may be a choice I make more often than not in buying or wearing a shirt. Our beliefs are sometimes shared, like I like soccor, is shared with millions around the world. In that case you can call it a shared belief.

You are right, a belief can be a personal preference, but that is just one type of "belief". The belief we are referring to are the ones that are predominant thoughts amongst a collective i.e. human society. When the majority in a society has a certain belief, for example killing is haram, such a belief is automatically imposed on the rest. So whether you like it or not, your personal preferences are only tolerable as long as they are not against the aspirations of the majority within a society.

Science is not a belief, present day science may have some belief based elements, but to call painstaking research and experiment as a mere different belief system is ludicrous and the biggest hypocricy of all.

I never called science a belief system. Science is a tool, a method, ironically perfected by religiously motivated philosophers and theologians (especially the Muslim) driven by the desire to seek the truth. Would science be possible without religion? You can make all the guesses you want, but it required beliefs (like religions) for it to grow and take place.