Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PubFather
Why does the fact that religion has a moral code attached make it "distinct" or any more valid that a non-religion theory of morality? Religion should be treated no differently to any other belief system - and always seems less relevant to me because of its requirement to simply "have faith" that the words of its teachers are correct, rather than to exercise their own critical judgements.
|
I meant (in the context it was put) religion is distinct from political systems and the left-right system, none of which are specifically concerned with moral code, but do involve belief systems.
Of course there are other non-religious systems with a moral code, such as laws, rules of association, ethics, manners etc.
Of course there are also beliefs in intangible notions which are not religion, such as what fairies, ghosts, father christmas, Bach flower remedy, US foreign policy (oh wait maybe that
is a religion).
So religion is a belief in a metaphysical being, associated with a moral code which guides value systems, attitudes, life styles, and most importantly behaviour towards others. Whilst on the one hand it can lead to a higher quality of life, on the other hand it is an open door to domination of the masses by a hierarchy through doctrine.
I believe, based on fair evidence, that we have an inherent moral instict which is genetically hardwired. That instinct competes with other instincts and desires (hunger, material comfort/greed, power etc.). A code based on religious beliefs can certainly help the moral instinct to predominate, and who knows how important this may have been in the evolution of mankind as a social animal. But religious doctrine is perfectly capable of contradicting the instinctive moral code.