Religion and Individualism

[Beren3000]

For my English class, we were working on a German novel called Demian by Herman Hesse. This novel invited us "not to consider prohibited anything the soul desires" and to find our own morality since "evil is always changing". We were discussing the novel one day and one of my classmates said that he thought that people who follow religion just choose the easy way out. IOW, they wait for religion to teach them morals instead of finding them out for themselves. His comment seems to suggest a view that following religion makes you less of an individual, that (to quote Bop's sig.) "morality is the herd instinct in the individual". Now, I completely refuse this reasoning, but I just wanted to know what you guys think about it. To what extent can religion and individualism co-exist? How far does it apply to your religion; or, if you have no religion, what is your opinion on the matter?

[The Gaffer]

Excellent topic, sir.

Personally, I kind of agree with the idea (though I am clear that many religious people are not doing this), but that is probably because I agree that morality etc come from ourselves and not from any deity.

Another aspect to the question is how much individualism is valued within a specific religion and how that affects our culture. As we know, the Reformation challenged the hierarchical orthodoxy of the Catholic Church and helped lead to the rise of individualism in the West.

Finally we've got the question of how religion is in fact a very effective means of transmitting "moral knowledge" and ensuring that we all behave ourselves. Maybe we're not ready as a species for truly individual morality (though personally I think that we are).

[Beren3000]

Just a few points:

-I'm not personally against the idea of individual morality, but IMO, it doesn't rule out the existence of evil. There is such a thing as BAD, so if you try to universalize individual morality, the immediate result will be the abolition of all constitution and the "bad" people will have a field day.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

As we know, the Reformation challenged the hierarchical orthodoxy of the Catholic Church and helped lead to the rise of individualism in the West.

That doesn't neccesarily mean that the Catholic Church is anti-individualism, it's just the mal-practice and the abuse of power that reigned in Luther King's time were anti-individualist and wrong but the tenets of the Church in themselves are not.

More later, I gtg now.

[The Gaffer]

Well I guess we'll have to agree to differ about evil.

But how would "universalising individual morality" lead to the abolition of all constitution?

My view about individual morality is not a prescription but description: an opinion based on observation and thinking. Individual morality is, IMO, a fact of life and it hasn't led to "abolition of all constitution.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

nice topic, beren, best let Brownie, Rian, Inked, Lief, Lizra and Nurvi know about it, then we will have some excellent discussion

in my opinion, morality is individuality, you define your concepts personally, howerver, you may draw on a religious context if necessary, such as i base my belief system on that of the teachings of the buddha.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But how would "universalising individual morality" lead to the abolition of all constitution?

Because individual morality simply states that there is no universal morality. Law (and therefore Constitution) are simply not valid in that context because they represent the morality of a certain group of people only (the legislators) which can not apply to others.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Well I guess we'll have to agree to differ about evil.

Care to elaborate? What leads you to say that there is no evil?

EDIT: Cross-post with LCoU

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

in my opinion, morality is individuality, you define your concepts personally, howerver, you may draw on a religious context if necessary, such as i base my belief system on that of the teachings of the buddha.

I guess your PoV is close to mine, but let me see if I understand it. Are you saying that individualism can exist in a religious context or that morality and individualism can encompass religion?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

I guess your PoV is close to mine, but let me see if I understand it. Are you saying that individualism can exist in a religious context or that morality and individualism can encompass religion?

they can, they just usually dont
ie it is possible for one to encompass the other, and vice versa, it is just a human rarity

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

My view about individual morality is not a prescription but description: an opinion based on observation and thinking. Individual morality is, IMO, a fact of life and it hasn't led to "abolition of all constitution.

No it hasn't and that's because we have laws - which are the secular version of "religious morality".

Whether you believe in a god or not - your morality is strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian principals if you live in the west. This is the culture that is predominate here. That is why In the US or in Europe - peopel don't throw acid on a woman for looking at a man or having sex out of wedlock. While in other parts of the world - it's condoned.

Society - whether it's through religion or through secular laws is solely what defines morality. If we condoned cannibolism tomorrow - inititially - because of the culture - people would still not feel comfortable eating another human being. But as time wore on - the morality would change because more people would find it acceptable as the old belief gave way to the new.

Whether you like it or not - it's the group (society) that defines morality - not the individual.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Whether you like it or not - it's the group (society) that defines morality - not the individual.

That is why we have laws. If it were the individual that really defined morality, then there wouldn't be any need for laws; ergo, individual morality universalised would lead to the abolition of laws.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Because individual morality simply states that there is no universal morality. Law (and therefore Constitution) are simply not valid in that context because they represent the morality of a certain group of people only (the legislators) which can not apply to others.

Well, it depends what you mean by "universal morality". If you mean that somewhere there is some sort of spooky USB connection plugged into our souls feeding us universal morality, then I'd agree. But if you say that we have conceptions of a collective morality, then I'd agree.

But enough agreeing: I disagree about Law. It is nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No it hasn't and that's because we have laws - which are the secular version of "religious morality".

Whether you believe in a god or not - your morality is strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian principals if you live in the west. This is the culture that is predominate here. That is why In the US or in Europe - peopel don't throw acid on a woman for looking at a man or having sex out of wedlock. While in other parts of the world - it's condoned.

Society - whether it's through religion or through secular laws is solely what defines morality. If we condoned cannibolism tomorrow - inititially - because of the culture - people would still not feel comfortable eating another human being. But as time wore on - the morality would change because more people would find it acceptable as the old belief gave way to the new.

Whether you like it or not - it's the group (society) that defines morality - not the individual.

No, morality is not the same as law, nor indeed is law a "secular version" of religious morality.

We have laws, and we may have moral reasons for having them, and they may well embody aspects of our morality, but morals themselves don't exist outside of our heads.

We can only be said to have a "group-defined morality" insofar as we can negotiate them with our peers. Once agreed (or rather, learned, since so much is embedded in our respective culture as you point out), each person relates differently and inconsistently to the agreed "group morality" (or else why do people exceed the speed limit but still think of themselves as a "good person").

The strength of religion, as I said, has been in mediating this communication. From a social anthropological perspective, religion facilitates the negotiation, agreement and implementation of collective morality.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No it hasn't and that's because we have laws - which are the secular version of "religious morality".

Whether you believe in a god or not - your morality is strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian principals if you live in the west. This is the culture that is predominate here. That is why In the US or in Europe - peopel don't throw acid on a woman for looking at a man or having sex out of wedlock. While in other parts of the world - it's condoned.

Society - whether it's through religion or through secular laws is solely what defines morality. If we condoned cannibolism tomorrow - inititially - because of the culture - people would still not feel comfortable eating another human being. But as time wore on - the morality would change because more people would find it acceptable as the old belief gave way to the new.

Whether you like it or not - it's the group (society) that defines morality - not the individual.

considering our frequent disagreement, i feel obliged to point out how much i agree with the above

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

one of my classmates said that he thought that people who follow religion just choose the easy way out. IOW, they wait for religion to teach them morals instead of finding them out for themselves.

I totally, wholehartedly agree with this statement.
I am an atheist; yet I consider myself a very strongly ethical person. I often consider myself a more ethical person than those who just read their ethic out of a book. My ethical perspective is very different from the one of religious people, not just in what is right or wrong, but in the way in which I consider the concept of "wrong". I might for instance reverse my judgement on occasion (which is a "no, no, no" for religion, as far as I understand it)

[inked]

Your ethics are completely self-derived, TWFM? Your morals also? How can you be sure that you haven't picked up ideas outside yourself? And, if you are so assured, what makes your system superior to all others, particularly those with a longer history than yours, or more adherents?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Your ethics are completely self-derived, TWFM? Your morals also? How can you be sure that you haven't picked up ideas outside yourself?

I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking whether I think I am the first on the planet to come up with the ethical claims that I make, my answer is NO! Some of it I heard from others; some of it I read about in books; some it I came up originally; some of it I just resystematized.
If instead what you are asking is how can I be sure that it is not indeed the holy gost or the the devil who speak through my mouth, then I will tell you that I can't be sure, but that (given that I don't believe in them) I don't belive so.
What is unique about my ethical view is that I scrutinized all of it to the best of my ability by using my brain; I don't exect this scrutiny to be final and I see it as perfectly possible that I will change some of my positions (albeit I expect that this will happen very rearly)

Originally Posted by inked

And, if you are so assured, what makes your system superior to all others,

I use my brain; my brain is far from perfect and downright wrong on occasion, but it is still the best brain I have ever met in my life or read about (no this statement has not been certified by any outside authority).

Originally Posted by inked

particularly those with a longer history than yours, or more adherents?

There are too many examples of ideas (or systems of ideas) held for centuries and by entire masses of people that have been proven wrong to give to history or number of adherents too much weight

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking whether I think I am the first on the planet to come up with the ethical claims that I make, my answer is NO! Some of it I heard from others; some of it I read about in books; some it I came up originally; some of it I just resystematized.
If instead what you are asking is how can I be sure that it is not indeed the holy gost or the the devil who speak through my mouth, then I will tell you that I can't be sure, but that (given that I don't believe in them) I don't belive so.
What is unique about my ethical view is that I scrutinized all of it to the best of my ability by using my brain; I don't exect this scrutiny to be final and I see it as perfectly possible that I will change some of my positions (albeit I expect that this will happen very rearly)


I use my brain; my brain is far from perfect and downright wrong on occasion, but it is still the best brain I have ever met in my life or read about (no this statement has not been certified by any outside authority).


There are too many examples of ideas (or systems of ideas) held for centuries and by entire masses of people that have been proven wrong to give to history or number of adherents too much weight

TWFM,

Thanks for your answers. You have an assembled ethics and morality which is selected by you from among a roster of choices you say. That puts you in the position of being above all systems and in judgment of them. What, pray tell, is the basis for your judgments amongst them? I do not deny that you use your brain in the process, nor do I question that it is the best you have met in your life, granting that brains transplants are not possible and you have only the one like everyone else!

Exactly what examples of your contention that ideas have been proven wrong? As stated I do not know if you refer to ethics, morals, scientific paradigms, or theories of social structure. I am particularly interested in the examples that you say exist for ethics or morals.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

What, pray tell, is the basis for your judgments amongst them?

My judgement is based on what I truly feel being the ethical decision. Although I am sure some external observer could examine everysingle judgement I make and try to find consistency patters (and for sure there are), ultimately it is what I feel is right that I choose. That's why this answer sits in this thread "... and individualism"

Originally Posted by inked

Exactly what examples of your contention that ideas have been proven wrong? As stated I do not know if you refer to ethics, morals, scientific paradigms, or theories of social structure. I am particularly interested in the examples that you say exist for ethics or morals.

Well, the list of scientific theories that have been proved wrong is so long that i certainly don't know them all, and I sure you can come up with examples too.
Examples of previous ethical norms that are now considered morally-wrong are:
1) women and minors are not humans
2) natives of south america are not humans
3) if one of two brothers dies married and childless, the other brother must make the woman pregnant
4) prostituted should be killed by stoning
...

[Rían]

*headdesk*

I love math!

(never was good at history... )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Looks like I'm thinking of Alexander Nevsky, who fought both Teutonic Knights and Swedish invaders. Oops.

[Millane]

For some reason i recently read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It was a massive bore frankly, and his attempts at humour were lame as... One thing i did find slightly interesting was his so called atheist stance.

I knew the old moot stomping ground would have discussed it, and in my quick search i saw they had quite recently in the multiculturalist thread. I didnt want to include this there since it seems nothing to do with multiculturalism. Granted i didnt read much of that thread (gimme a break its like 20 pages) so if it has been covered already, sorry.

I had trouble grasping Dawkins agnostic/atheist distinction. For those fortunate not to have read, he introduces probability to the god question and defines 7 distinct groups that go.


1. Strong theist - Knows God

2. High probability but short of 100% - De facto theist

3. Higher than 50% but not very high.

4. 50% either way

5. Lower than 50% but not very low

6. Low probability but short of zero - De facto atheist

7. Strong atheist - Knows there is no God


Now in my understanding 1 = theist; 2->6 = agnostic; 7 = Atheist... and you see my dilemma.

Are the atheists here those Dick de factos? Whats wrong with agnosticism?

[Tessar]

I have moved the thread here, so that we don't have too many religion threads running rampant.