Does how one perceives god, or doesn’t previewed god have any bearing on ones morality and ethics? I have my own beliefs and theories about what I call divine, and then I have theories about what I call deities. But, ultimately, I cannot even persuade myself of their reality, because my perspective of reality shifts with a constant questioning, curiosity, that has lead me to many dynamic experiences that have challenge my notions and force me accept different reasoning. What I can say today about the nature of divine, the universe, and life I cannot say I will agree with in the near future. If I have any faith in anything it is that I trust the universe to be what it is. However, I see how none of this speculation about the nature of divine or deities has any direct relationship to how I live my life and how I form my morality through rational balance and consideration of all interests involved in any given circumstance. So I pose the question:

How does your belief or lack of belief in god or divine, or any multitude of deities have anything to do with the way you live your life, and how you ethics and morality demands you treat others?

Secondly, for example, if you were Christian, would being Muslim, Buddhist, pagan or atheist, change the way you interact morally and ethically with the world around you?

In what ways would morals and ethics without god, theology, or even ideology, differ from morality and ethics based on a defined notion of god and a specific theology or ideology?

Historically I would say morals have been inculcated over time usually have some origin in a major revealed religion.

After a while the moral code gets formalized into civil law...such as monogamous marriage and penalties for bigamy and so on.

In time issues of religious beliefs can recede but the moral code remains...hence you still have sanctions against being untruthful in court...perjury and so on.

- Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

this reminds me of a discussion that I had with my step-mother, who I love dearly, but can be demanding.

When my oldest son was born, her comment was "finally you will join a church" And I replied "Why?" she said that "you can't teach a child morals without church, religion, and God" I said that "I don't see what God has to do with morals. Morality is being able to see and act upon what society deems is right or wrong. I am pretty sure that we can teach him that." Anyway, I see my faith and my morality as mostly seperate things. There are morals that my faith asks for that society does not, but that just means that I have to try harder to be a better person.

As far as the different ideal set forth by different religions, I think that they just put more stress on certain areas than other religions do.

arthra, I realize one can't say for sure, when delving into the murky depths of prehistory to say anything for sure. With written records we have, it would appear that a sense of morality and ethics is hand and hand with the emergence of religion, particularly those hinged upon a singular character (Christianity, Buddhism, Islam) or written text (Christianity, Islam, judiasm). . . . but then their are religions or, better said, spiritual systems that were without these traits, such as the indigenous animism that was often superseded by reveled religion via migrations, conversion and conquest. it is these animist religions were our understanding of religion's origin is the murkiest . . . but is it entirely possible religion grew out of morals and ethics reflected in earlier customs (Animism views are strikingly different from reveled religion and many argue, and I would agree, that animism really wasn't religion in the form we know of it now.) Perhaps we have a chicken and egg quagmire on our hands. what came first? morality and ethics or religion? After all the institutions of government and laws in which remnants of religions present and pass do leave an impact full residue are institutions that emerged often hand in hand with institutionalized religion. Perhaps it is a sense of moral and ethics (ascertaining the interests involved and making the best judgment on actions to be taken) are ingrained in humanity and it is cruelty and injustice that is a learned behavior?

I think that socially-agreed morality predates, and formed the basis for, religious morality. To my eyes, religious commandments appear to be an institutionalized enforcement mechanism rather than the source of ethics.

Absolutely correct! Take a gold star and go to the head of the class!

Now, think forward to the next step, which is that once various commandments become institutionalized, that is they become "divine commands," they become detached from the basis for our human understanding of them in the first place. Now, it is not wrong to kill because killing deprives another creature of life; it's wrong because God says it's wrong. "Thou shalt not commit murder!"

The problem is, once we start to accept these divine commands, divorced from the human experience which creates them, we can begin to commit all sorts of atrocities in their name. Stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath is just an early example, but it comes directly from:

• A day of rest restores the man, becomes
• therefore, take a day of rest per week, becomes
• "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," becomes
• Saul worked on Saturday, stone him!

We could take this analogy to endless hurt done to others in the name of divine commands. Right up to the present day, and the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, Fred Phelpps, James Dobson, and their counterparts in Fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Judaism, fundamentalist Hinduism, and all the others.

But when we remember why we behave morally, without reference to divine command, it is much, much more difficult to get into these kinds of situations.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.