Morals.

[Edge]

Do you think that religion is a necessary factor in order to have morals?

Or to explain it better: do you think that morals came from religion?

I think that you don't need a religion in order to help your fellow men without expecting any award, and viceversa, you don't need a religion in order to refrain from stealing/raping/killing because you know it's wrong.

However, many religious people argue that if it were not for religion then humanity wouldn't have sense of helping others, everything would be selfishness, etc. That laws come from religious morals.

Well, first, laws are different on every country/state, and the most basic laws comes from the declaration of human rights, which have a secular origin.

Those human (or natural) rights were made on times where not being from a particular religion would mean that you would be treated different (a second class citizen), and when wars were mainly made because of their gods' word. People came up with the conclusion that everyone should be equal regardless of their beliefs. So, they declared everyone's right to live, to property and be heard as equal.

What do you think?

[Jay-qu]

no, I think that there is an underlying tendancing for humans to do good not evil - and it was relegion that sprung from that

[cwes99_03]

Emperical evidence, as far as I know anyway, shows the reverse.
The basic laws are based upon the Mosaic law found in the Bible. Whether these are divine in origin, I'll leave up to each individual, but I believe they are the first recorded law incorporating laws that you say owe to an underlying tendency to do good.
Other nations had laws before these, but these laws did not include proper treatment principles. These laws were designed to make the ruling party stronger, giving them the right to rape, pillage, murder, whatever they wanted, because they were in power.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Edge

I think that you don't need a religion in order to help your fellow men without expecting any award, and viceversa, you don't need a religion in order to refrain from stealing/raping/killing because you know it's wrong.

I agree.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

no, I think that there is an underlying tendancing for humans to do good not evil - and it was relegion that sprung from that

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Emperical evidence, as far as I know anyway, shows the reverse.
The basic laws are based upon the Mosaic law found in the Bible. …

I disagree. Cooperative, altruistic behavior is observed even in animals that almost certainly lack the ability to conceive of anything like human Religion. Anatomically and neurologically modern human beings existed at least 10,000 years before any of the currently existing religious documents, such as Mosaic law, was written. Empirical archeological anthropological evidence strongly suggests that early humans had both morals and Religion, but that their religion differed in theologically important ways from modern religions.

This suggests that human morals arose from pre-human social behavior, existed as an unwritten tradition, then were codified in legal and religious texts.

Other nations had laws before these, but these laws did not include proper treatment principles. These laws were designed to make the ruling party stronger, giving them the right to rape, pillage, murder, whatever they wanted, because they were in power.

The oldest surviving written legal code is believed to be ca. 2065 by Ur-Nammu. One of the most well known, The Code of Hammurabi, was written ca. 1700 BC. Although biblical scholars are unable to precisely date the Torah (Mosaic law), it almost certainly was written no earlier than 1000 BC.

These and other ancient legal codes all include prohibitions for rape, theft, murder, and other offenses against common people, with occasional commentary explaining the reasoning behind the rules.

The precedence of more ancient legal codes isn’t, however, evidence of mandated morality in the absence of Religion. Hammurabi’s code, makes a clear claim of divine inspiration and authority, as, I suspect, do earlier codes.

[pgrmdave]

Morality comes from a culture, and a person, not a religion. While religion can provide morality, the fact that there are moral atheist means that it is not the only place to find morality.

[orbsycli]

ah, very true dave.
how weird that these things occured with our evolution.

[Tormod]

There were people long before there was religion. That should suffice to show that morals do not come from religion.

IMHO religion was not made to give people moral guidance but to gain power. Religion is a great way to unite one set of people against another.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Edge

Do you think that religion is a necessary factor in order to have morals?

No. There are even animals that exhibit a sense of morality. Look how many mothers protect and care for their young. Neanderthals seem to have had morals that drove them to have burial rituals for their dead.

[cwes99_03]

You say animals have morality, yet I know of several studies, mostly in the UK where cats were observed to eat the young of other cats so that the toms would mate with them again. What studies are you all suggesting show a moralic sense among animals?

Actually the Mosaic law was handed down in 1536 BC.
http://www.talkreason.org/Forum.cfm?...ubin_Gottl.cfm
http://www.wordsight.org/btl/000_btl-fp.htm
A couple of other sites stated as early as ca. 2400 BC. Some stated a range of dates between 1530 and 1500 BC. A couple stated dates around 1200, and some around 1000. I myself have reviewed date timelines from the Bible based upon the known date of 607 for the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem, and they lead to 1536 BC.

I don't know as much about Hammurabi, but most sites I visited suggested dates around 1770 to 1750 for his code.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/topics/arch2.htm
Says he received this law from a god. But also note, this site also says it was standard to scult a statue and put the laws at the feet of the statue of the person who had the laws written. Sounds like they changed the law often.
Note that the law did not mention murder (near the bottom of the website, it brings this out).
Note that the upper class was allowed to exact greater punishment upon those lower than them
Also note that a bit down the page, they mention that the laws on wives and slaves were based upon the rules, laws, that Abraham and Sarah followed (and we know what the Bible says Abraham believed, and who his moral compass was).

Then it says the following which i hold to be the most significant.

Originally Posted by www.abu.nb.ca

Compared to Old Testament Law
AAlthough there are many apparent similarities between the two codes, upon close examination these are not strong parallels. Death is ascribed to those who have committed adultery (sect 129, Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). The principle of lex talionis is observed (an eye for an eye) in both law codes (Exodus 21:23ff; Deuteronomy 19:21). However, the code of the Hammurabi observes the class distinctions in the outworking of this law, Mosaic Law did not. Hammurabi's law was three centuries earlier than Moses and they shared different origins, and code of ethics.

Although many people attempt to magnify the similarities between the two codes, the distinctions between them are significant. The distinctive characteristics of the code of Hammurabi stand in sharp contrast to the Hebrew laws. There is a pantheistic background which stressed a humanistic orientation. There was a lower view of human life and it made no use of the distinction between deed and intent.

In contrast to this, the mosaic laws were characterized by a distinctly monotheistic (one God) background which consequently placed a higher value on ethical and moral conduct. These laws were basically spiritual in content, universal in aspect, final and binding.

There have been four main theories which attempt to harmonize the similarities between the two law codes.

Independence
TThe first approach might be called the theory of independence. This theory sees the two law systems as having a common general Semitic heritage but not consciously borrowing from one another. Their similarities are due to their geographic proximity.

Dependence
The second theory has been called the theory of dependence. This view sets forth the hypothesis that the Hebrew laws are dependent on the Hammurabi code for its writing. However the differences and not the similarities dispose of this argument. On the simple level of justice for the outcast and downtrodden the Hebrew law is worlds apart.

Intermediate Transmission
The third theory is called the theory of intermediate transmission and asserts that the Canaanite culture influenced the Hebrew people at the time of the invasion and settlement in Canaan, and continued to influence them until the two became closely associated.

Cognateness
The final theory has been called the theory of cognateness, and purports that both codes had been influenced form a common Semitic background during the era of Abraham and Hammurabi.

The idea that the Hebrew law code was based on the code of Hammurabi is false. However while the Hebrew laws are divinely given, they were not given in a vacuum. It is certainly evident that Abraham had contact with the Sumerian law codes in Ur and that the people of Israel had intimate contact with the Canaanites. God's revelation was given in time and space not apart from the understanding of the Hebrew people. But God's Word clearly declares Israel's laws to be unique and based on a special covenant relationship with God. Morally and ethically the Mosaic Law was superior to the Code of Hammurabi.

I'm not convinced of "empirical" evidence suggesting humans have been around for 10,000 years, but I really have to say I've never fully studied the issue. I guess that is one more subject I'll have to investigate, anthropology and the carbon dating process.