Is religion necessary for an ethical life?

[WiccanLiberal]

Having met all sorts of people, I have certainly seen my share of those who are truly good people and a few real dirtbags. I have my own opinions but I am interested in perspectives outside myself. Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach? Try to adhere to a philosophical and non flame approach. There's enough heat this week and I can go to a BBQ if I want to see flames.

[tailfins]

Having met all sorts of people, I have certainly seen my share of those who are truly good people and a few real dirtbags. I have my own opinions but I am interested in perspectives outside myself. Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach? Try to adhere to a philosophical and non flame approach. There's enough heat this week and I can go to a BBQ if I want to see flames.

It's a necessary, but not sufficient condition. I will use my wife's family as an example of religious consideration. They are what some refer to as "holy rollers", a certain rather energetic style of Pentecostal. They believe in something called "speaking in tongues". They also know a buttoned-downed primitive-style Baptist like myself believes that "speaking in tongues" summons demons. It's called "Batista Regular" in Brazil. They have the consideration to go out of their way to keep that kind of thing away from me.

[AllieBaba]

I'm not sure ethics can exist without commitment to the attainment of an ultimately unreachable perfection of kind thought and behavior. And I've yet to see non-religious people embrace that concept.

[Voted4Reagan]

No matter what the faith, it is a starting point to set ones moral compass.

Pagan, Jew, Muslim or Christian (Yes...Catholics are the original Christians by 1500 years...) or any other poly or monotheistic faith based system. It is the actions and mannerisms that you display in the practice of your faith and your ability to accept the differences in others beliefs.

So even if you are a Pastafarian...I respect your beliefs.

Have you been touched by his Noodly Appendage?

[Noir]

Not at all.

[Gunny]

Having met all sorts of people, I have certainly seen my share of those who are truly good people and a few real dirtbags. I have my own opinions but I am interested in perspectives outside myself. Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach? Try to adhere to a philosophical and non flame approach. There's enough heat this week and I can go to a BBQ if I want to see flames.

Define "ethical": You mean ethical according to Judeo-Christian society? There are no inherent ethics. That's a load of crap. Man CREATES the ethics. Ethics do not create Man.

[WiccanLiberal]

Define "ethical": You mean ethical according to Judeo-Christian society? There are no inherent ethics. That's a load of crap. Man CREATES the ethics. Ethics do not create Man.

Good answer. By ethical I meant being in line with the accepted right and wrong standards of one's society. People in modern western society have a societal standard that says, basically, that we should do the best for ourselves and family (as we define it) without overtly harming others. We therefore shouldn't cheat, steal, lie, etc. Whether you derive these standards from a reading of the law or from scriptural sources, these are general expected behaviors if you wish to be accepted as a functioning member of society. I behave ethically because I know that what I project outward to the universe is what comes back to me. Others have their own reasons. That is part of what I am getting at.

[gabosaurus]

Not at all. I know a lot of people with high moral and ethical standards who are not religious. It is about your personality and not your beliefs.

Then again, there are people who claim to be religious, yet do not have the moral and ethical standards normally required to be Christians.

[Gunny]

Good answer. By ethical I meant being in line with the accepted right and wrong standards of one's society. People in modern western society have a societal standard that says, basically, that we should do the best for ourselves and family (as we define it) without overtly harming others. We therefore shouldn't cheat, steal, lie, etc. Whether you derive these standards from a reading of the law or from scriptural sources, these are general expected behaviors if you wish to be accepted as a functioning member of society. I behave ethically because I know that what I project outward to the universe is what comes back to me. Others have their own reasons. That is part of what I am getting at.

It's a complex discussion with no single answer. Especially when "ethics" is generalized". As a society, our ethics are Judeo-Christian. I've spent countless hours arguing with people who believe they are inherent. Food and shelter--survival--are inherent. Everything else is created by Man through REAL evolution.

It's an argument that encompasses many things. People believe what they are taught and our society starts on us from birth. So do the Arabs/Persians. When we quit treating them like they think like us and understand us, we might get somewhere.

Ethics in this country appear to be more politically motivated now than anything else. As it stands, the left tell the right what they have to think and the right cowers to it. Heaven forbid you get called un-PC by the left. While the left won't hesitate to shove something down everyone else's throats regardless the hypocricy to the standard they hold the right to.

I guess a good summation is we have no ethical standard anymore.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Having met all sorts of people, I have certainly seen my share of those who are truly good people and a few real dirtbags. I have my own opinions but I am interested in perspectives outside myself. Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach? Try to adhere to a philosophical and non flame approach. There's enough heat this week and I can go to a BBQ if I want to see flames.

Right off the top of my head I would say that a religious belief has little to do with the morality of the community. There are examples where the less religion there is, the more moral are the citizens. There are also examples, notably the U.S., where they claim to be one of the most religious nations in the world yet have the worse abortion, crime and incarceration rates in the world.

I think culture and tradition are more important than religions as to how moral a community and person are. Not only do children inherit their parents religion without really choosing it for it’s moral values, children also inherit the morality or immorality of peers and community.

In my own life, I would say that I was more immoral before I dropped my inherited religion of R.C. than after although I should state that I was quite young when I dropped it. After a hiatus of many years as an atheist and skeptic, I chose the religion, Gnostic Christianity, which I now follow and I think I am at the epitome of the morality I can know and act out.


I come here to test that morality but many here do not agree with my moral views because they conflict with the bible God’s, although most will not argue for their God’s position and so I am forced for lack of better understanding to stick with them.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Define "ethical": You mean ethical according to Judeo-Christian society? There are no inherent ethics. That's a load of crap. Man CREATES the ethics. Ethics do not create Man.

I agree.

So would one of the Jesus archetypes. When he spoke of the Sabbath and it’s laws, he said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. That also implies, at least to me, that religions and Gods were created for man and not man for Gods.


Ethics and morals then are created for man and not man for the ethics and morals of some absentee God whose rules and laws have been invented by some man.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It's a complex discussion with no single answer. Especially when "ethics" is generalized". As a society, our ethics are Judeo-Christian. I've spent countless hours arguing with people who believe they are inherent. Food and shelter--survival--are inherent. Everything else is created by Man through REAL evolution.

It's an argument that encompasses many things. People believe what they are taught and our society starts on us from birth. So do the Arabs/Persians. When we quit treating them like they think like us and understand us, we might get somewhere.

Ethics in this country appear to be more politically motivated now than anything else. As it stands, the left tell the right what they have to think and the right cowers to it. Heaven forbid you get called un-PC by the left. While the left won't hesitate to shove something down everyone else's throats regardless the hypocricy to the standard they hold the right to.

I guess a good summation is we have no ethical standard anymore.

I agreed with your last but do not think I will here but need an example of what you are referring to before being sure.

If morally and ethically correct, I cannot see the right cowering on any issue.

What issue (s) have the left made the right cower on?


Regards
DL

[revelarts]

"Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? "
No, but.
People may live "ethical" lives based on their natural disposition and/or upbringing in a culture influenced by ethical norms. But never embrace, profess, acknowledge or even consider the real religious (or philosophical) ROOTS of those norms they live out.

Like a person who wheres clothes like everyone else but never questions WHY we do it the way we do.

"The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach?"
No, "ensure"? No, never has.
Make it more likely? Yes, in the right circumstances.
Adhering to a good religion lays a foundation for WHAT IS ethical that's clear (for the most part). It does not leave most ethical questions open for debate. But whether or not a person, the bulk of a religious group or a culture LIVE those values out is another story. It's more likely If the ethical standards are PROMOTED and lived out by example by the leadership, in the religious group, the fathers, and broader culture. today the media culture. And sincerely passed down.


.......

Red points out "what do you mean "ethical".
At this point in time the clearer jeduo Christian definition is just the old MOLD that todays western current ideals are barely shape by. But it's still a real facsimile. As you mention not lying cheating stealing and killing are still adhered to and aspects of human equality and the santitiy of life . But all those are even questioned by some at this point even though most would claim they still agree with them.

My point in the atheism thread is that Atheist have nothing to go on but there OWN personal standards (mostly picked up in their culture) .
But finally the cultural ethical standards are BS ad hoc social structures for humans to get along with. Cannibal societies got along and had ethics. Societies with human sacrifice got along and had ethics. Those bad old missionaries taught them that eating people was bad and human sacrifice to false gods was bad. Against the rule of GOD. Ethics to an Objective standard.
Even the Irish were sacrificing children to false god's and drinking out of human skulls until St. Patrick and other CHANGED the ethics --the Faith-- of the culture. (mostly anyway).

In the 20th century the Atheist social darwinist taught that human kindness and not killing the weak was Anti the reality of our evolutionary mandate. That the strongest and fittest should survive. Lying, cheating stealing, killing were OK if the ultimate goal is the survival of the "highest" races.
Other Atheist ,who don't agree have no "ethical" base to refute them on. ethics for them are personal and made up by the societies. If the society decides it's wise and good to kill handicapped children then THAT is not just legal it's "ethical" since they can claim no outside objective standard.
Athist like richard Dawkins says he doesn't LIKE social Darwinism but he he has no good reason why it's "wrong". But he still says that our evolutionary natures compel us to survive above all and evolution's made us so only that animal urge will dominate our actions. Though he somehow HOPES we can RISE above it ..."somehow".

sorry its long

[AllieBaba]

"Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? "
No, but.
People may live "ethical" lives based on their natural disposition and/or upbringing in a culture influenced by ethical norms. But never embrace, profess, acknowledge or even consider the real religious (or philosophical) ROOTS of those norms they live out.

Like a person who wheres clothes like everyone else but never questions WHY we do it the way we do.

"The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach?"
No, "ensure"? No, never has.
Make it more likely? Yes, in the right circumstances.
Adhering to a good religion lays a foundation for WHAT IS ethical that's clear (for the most part). It does not leave most ethical questions open for debate. But whether or not a person, the bulk of a religious group or a culture LIVE those values out is another story. It's more likely If the ethical standards are PROMOTED and lived out by example by the leadership, in the religious group, the fathers, and broader culture. today the media culture. And sincerely passed down.


.......

Red points out "what do you mean "ethical".
At this point in time the clearer jeduo Christian definition is just the old MOLD that todays western current ideals are barely shape by. But it's still a real facsimile. As you mention not lying cheating stealing and killing are still adhered to and aspects of human equality and the santitiy of life . But all those are even questioned by some at this point even though most would claim they still agree with them.

My point in the atheism thread is that Atheist have nothing to go on but there OWN personal standards (mostly picked up in their culture) .
But finally the cultural ethical standards are BS ad hoc social structures for humans to get along with. Cannibal societies got along and had ethics. Societies with human sacrifice got along and had ethics. Those bad old missionaries taught them that eating people was bad and human sacrifice to false gods was bad. Against the rule of GOD. Ethics to an Objective standard.
Even the Irish were sacrificing children to false god's and drinking out of human skulls until St. Patrick and other CHANGED the ethics --the Faith-- of the culture. (mostly anyway).

In the 20th century the Atheist social darwinist taught that human kindness and not killing the weak was Anti the reality of our evolutionary mandate. That the strongest and fittest should survive. Lying, cheating stealing, killing were OK if the ultimate goal is the survival of the "highest" races.
Other Atheist ,who don't agree have no "ethical" base to refute them on. ethics for them are personal and made up by the societies. If the society decides it's wise and good to kill handicapped children then THAT is not just legal it's "ethical" since they can claim no outside objective standard.
Athist like richard Dawkins says he doesn't LIKE social Darwinism but he he has no good reason why it's "wrong". But he still says that our evolutionary natures compel us to survive above all and evolution's made us so only that animal urge will dominate our actions. Though he somehow HOPES we can RISE above it ..."somehow".

sorry its long

Yes it is, and yet you never made a coherent point. What is your point?

[revelarts]

Yes it is, and yet you never made a coherent point. What is your point?

People can live ethically in the west without even knowing much about a religion. But the Ethics in the west they are living are OFTEN based on the fumes of ethics from 1000+ years of christianity in the west.

Adhering to a good religion is no guarantee of ethical behavior but it's a foundation for the probability of MORE ethical behavior.

......
Atheist can't rationally say a cannibal eating a human for lunch is Unethical.
Neither can they rationally say that not baking a cake for a homosexual is Unethical. Ethics are culturally based but ultimately personal for them. And it's often just a word expressing a desire that's in conflict with humans basic evolutionary drives.