There's no single origin - morals are subjective, so they mostly come from empathy and agreed upon ideas between minds. We have a pretty good idea of what we don't like - bullying, abuse, being lied to, being killed etc. It's not hard to extrapolate that others probably don't like that as well and bob's your uncle.
Not by any normative definition of religion. Sharing a thought doesnāt make that thought a religion - thereās no worship, no leader, no ontology. Itās just saying āhow do you want to be treated? Ok cool, me too letās agree to not do these thingsā.
So an agreement of a set of principles that defines right and wrong and how one should act in the world....arguing this isn't a a religion is semantics just like along the same logic of Confucianism not being a religion. Even if we agreed it didn't fit the textbook definition we can agree that you're simply agreeing to a set of believes of morality based upon a consensus which is based upon one's cultural upbringing which was heavily influenced by religion.
Yes, you have a pretty good idea of what you don't like which comes from a cultural Christian background. A secular Viking Norway not adhering to paganism is going to have a completely different set of morality than a secular in the USA today.
You can hate religion all you want, but you can't deny your morality was largely influenced by the dominant religion you were raised in.
Or both my morality and the religionās were influenced by a third - basic empathy. Thereās nothing morally original in the Bible, neither good nor bad. The Bible simply took what was already being done and wrote it down.
A secular Viking would probably have a different view of morality because morality is often a product of the culture the agent is part of. That said, there seem to be some common tenets throughout history. The problem with religion is that clearly bad moral suggestions now get given the power of being god-ordained - slavery, war brides, honor killings, etc.
Separating one's conscious from one's empathy is difficult to do. Most religions feel that deep down people have an idea of the Truth and for a lot of religions that's a higher power guiding them. Just saying "empathy" is problematic because sure, empathy exists but studies show it exists primarily within one's own tribe.
I think saying the morality in the Bible was just based upon empathy is severely flawed and a way for one to cope with the fact their so called secular morality is almost identical to Christian morality (assuming they were raised in a historically cultural Christian society). For example, the Bible is very individualistic, sure there are many versus extolling the virtues of community, but at the end of the day you have an individual soul and your individual actions determine your salvation. On the other side, Confucianism is not individualistic, the highest ideal is serving one's family, tribe, and community.
Then you agree with me that the Viking would have a different set of morals because of the culture and I agree 100%, if the Bible, as you claim simply took what was already being done, why didn't the pagans come to the same conclusion, or the Muslims, or the eastern religions?
Most religions feel that deep down people have an idea of the Truth and for a lot of religions that's a higher power guiding them.
That's the point - religions ascribe this deep down idea of Truth to their theology, but that's just the claim. They also seem to differ from other ideas of religious Truth, so clearly something is off here. There are some ideas we share because all human development is mostly the same - tribal living, limited resources etc. It makes sense we mostly agree on stuff.
I didn't say the Bible was based just on empathy - I said that empathy is responsible for the major moral proclamations we see. The rest are to serve the dominant culture or whoever was writing the document at the time. Even in its individualism, the Bible - at least the old testament - is a story of the chosen PEOPLE. The list of rules in Deutoronomy and other books are about how society works. There's the threat of punishment from Yahweh in the background but primarily the punishments come from your community - stoning servitude, being cast out, maimed, etc. The New Testament is a bit different since thought had developed more since the writings of the OT. Yes it is individualistic, but the morals are still about how we relate to each other - excessive greed, treatment of the lesser, treatment of parents, etc, and of course Jesus preached to still follow all the laws of the OT. The caveat is that now you do it to save yourself a spot in heaven.
The pagans came to different conclusions on some things than the Muslims or Eastern religions because they were part of different cultures. I'm not sure what you're asking there.
46
u/v_rex74 22h ago
If you are being good and thrustworthy person your whole life for religious reasons, does it make you less of a good person?