That’s objectively untrue. Religious leaders want you to believe that, and it’s a major part of their propaganda. But no, religions co-opted morals and human values; they did not invent them by any stretch of the imagination.
Of course they didn’t invent them. But they certainly influence what people think, mostly in a negative way. If the Catholic Church wasn’t the way it is, fewer people would be getting so pissed off about queer peoplr existing.
You’re making the false assumption that there are universal morals and human values here. That’s immediately falsifiable by noting that different societies don’t, in fact, have the same morals or values. You’re also making the other false assumption that religions never (or essentially never) challenge their host societies’ morals or values when the two biggest religions in the world (Islam and Christianity) provide ample evidence to the contrary. You’re then deriving from those two false assumptions the false conclusions that religions don’t shape the values and morals of their host societies when, for example, it’s not a coincidence that Americans regardless of religion tend to find polygamy morally unacceptable.
I think you’re confusing Morality - things like “I shall not harm others” - with social norms - like your polygamy example.
Morality derives from Empathy - the higher a person’s Empathy the less likely they are to do things to hurt others because due to Empathy they actually feel bad (mainly guilt) when exposed to the hurt in others which they caused.
Social norms on the other hand are things which we in society have agreed are better done that way for the good of all. Some do indeed overlap with Morality, but others are just the product of figuring out over centuries that societies are more stable and last more if those things aren’t done (for example, polygamy as a widespread practice - rather than when only done by very few and very rich men - yields societies with lots of angry young men unless such a society is constantly at war and hence most young men die in it, so generally being against polygamy is just logical). In simple terms, societies with social norms that don’t work or without some social norms quickly self-destructed or were destroyed by other societys which were more prosperous (or even more violent)
There is no necessity of people being told not to hurt others - it’s a natural thing for people who aren’t high on the Psychopathy, Sociopathy or Narcissism spectrum and hence have empathy, plus even for those there is the fear of reciprocation by others, which is why most hurting of others is people with more power doing it to those with less power (something, which by the way is inconsistent with the “Morality comes from Religion” theory - if that was the case, the powerful being just as Religious would do no more harm to others than the powerless).
There is no necessity of people being told not to hurt others - it’s a natural thing for people who aren’t high on the Psychopathy, Sociopathy or Narcissism spectrum and hence have empathy,
Counterpoint: Slavery. A good chunk (probably a majority) of societies before the 19th century saw slavery as just and natural, so either holding people in bondage doesn’t quality as “hurting” or morality is in fact dependent on social norms. Other counterexamples would include the death penalty, acceptable conduct in warfare (compare wherever you live to Israel for a modern example), domestic violence, the use of certain criminal punishments (i.e. corporal punishment), the whole concept of crime, illicit sexual relationships, drinking alcohol (viewed as morally wrong in most Muslim societies), etc. These are things that by most definitions would be included under “morality,” so while there’s a basic core of morality that’s mostly independent of culture, beyond that it’s all socially contingent.
Social norms on the other hand are things which we in society people have agreed are better done for the good of all […] (for example, polygamy as a widespread practice - rather than when only done by very few and very rich men - yields societies with lots of angry young men unless such a society is constantly at war and hence most young men die in it, so generally being against polygamy is just logical).
I strongly doubt the average American is going through that thought process when saying “polygamy is bad.” That’s a claim that requires evidence.
(something, which by the way is inconsistent with the “Morality comes from Religion” theory - if that was the case, the powerful being just as Religious would do no more harm to others than the powerless).
I didn’t say that being moral stems from being religious, but that the moral values observed in many societies (including Western ones) stem from religious ones, but also: You’re assuming the powerless don’t act like the powerful due to better morality rather than lack of ability. Usually people who transition from powerless to powerful act basically like the already powerful do, with maybe some benefit of perspective.
Congratulations on discovering that Racism is a good way to switch off the effects of empathy - if you see others as less than human, it’s easier to look away from their pain.
That said, you do have a point - morality and social norms do influence each other.
That said, most of those examples you give are wonderful examples of things that Abrahamic Religions did absolutely nothing at all to change. Specifically Salvery, death penalty, acceptable conduct in warfare, domestic violence and corporal punishment.
You’re arguing for religion to have shaped the moral values of modern societies whilst at the same time giving examples of ancient values that the main religions said nothing about or even approved of (for example, polygamy is still perfectly fine for Islam, with the Prophet himself having had several wives) so clearly modern day society didn’t change those values because of religion.
If lots of modern day society values don’t match the values of religion, whilst lots match those of some and not others and yet others do match, that shows low correlation between the two which is the very opposite of “the moral values observed in many societies (including Western ones) stem from religious ones” unless you meant just “some” or “a few” and even then you imply a causal relation by using “stem” (i.e. that modern society values derive from religious values) which you do not prove at all. “Both sets of values hail from the same ancient origin” (i.e. that religion picked up existing values over time and some of those lived till modern days, hence why they’re the same in religion and modern society) is a more logical explanation and actually for some values has evidence backing it (for example, read what Ancient Greek Philosophers wrote way before Abrahamic religions).
So your claim is HUGE whilst your arguments keep using examples which actually go against it in doing so disproving the high correlation between one set of values and the other, and on top of that you have zero proof for the causality part of the claim that one set of value stems from the other.
To use your own words: “That’s a claim that requires evidence.”
That’s objectively untrue. Religious leaders want you to believe that, and it’s a major part of their propaganda. But no, religions co-opted morals and human values; they did not invent them by any stretch of the imagination.
Of course they didn’t invent them. But they certainly influence what people think, mostly in a negative way. If the Catholic Church wasn’t the way it is, fewer people would be getting so pissed off about queer peoplr existing.
You’re making the false assumption that there are universal morals and human values here. That’s immediately falsifiable by noting that different societies don’t, in fact, have the same morals or values. You’re also making the other false assumption that religions never (or essentially never) challenge their host societies’ morals or values when the two biggest religions in the world (Islam and Christianity) provide ample evidence to the contrary. You’re then deriving from those two false assumptions the false conclusions that religions don’t shape the values and morals of their host societies when, for example, it’s not a coincidence that Americans regardless of religion tend to find polygamy morally unacceptable.
I think you’re confusing Morality - things like “I shall not harm others” - with social norms - like your polygamy example.
Morality derives from Empathy - the higher a person’s Empathy the less likely they are to do things to hurt others because due to Empathy they actually feel bad (mainly guilt) when exposed to the hurt in others which they caused.
Social norms on the other hand are things which we in society have agreed are better done that way for the good of all. Some do indeed overlap with Morality, but others are just the product of figuring out over centuries that societies are more stable and last more if those things aren’t done (for example, polygamy as a widespread practice - rather than when only done by very few and very rich men - yields societies with lots of angry young men unless such a society is constantly at war and hence most young men die in it, so generally being against polygamy is just logical). In simple terms, societies with social norms that don’t work or without some social norms quickly self-destructed or were destroyed by other societys which were more prosperous (or even more violent)
There is no necessity of people being told not to hurt others - it’s a natural thing for people who aren’t high on the Psychopathy, Sociopathy or Narcissism spectrum and hence have empathy, plus even for those there is the fear of reciprocation by others, which is why most hurting of others is people with more power doing it to those with less power (something, which by the way is inconsistent with the “Morality comes from Religion” theory - if that was the case, the powerful being just as Religious would do no more harm to others than the powerless).
Counterpoint: Slavery. A good chunk (probably a majority) of societies before the 19th century saw slavery as just and natural, so either holding people in bondage doesn’t quality as “hurting” or morality is in fact dependent on social norms. Other counterexamples would include the death penalty, acceptable conduct in warfare (compare wherever you live to Israel for a modern example), domestic violence, the use of certain criminal punishments (i.e. corporal punishment), the whole concept of crime, illicit sexual relationships, drinking alcohol (viewed as morally wrong in most Muslim societies), etc. These are things that by most definitions would be included under “morality,” so while there’s a basic core of morality that’s mostly independent of culture, beyond that it’s all socially contingent.
I strongly doubt the average American is going through that thought process when saying “polygamy is bad.” That’s a claim that requires evidence.
I didn’t say that being moral stems from being religious, but that the moral values observed in many societies (including Western ones) stem from religious ones, but also: You’re assuming the powerless don’t act like the powerful due to better morality rather than lack of ability. Usually people who transition from powerless to powerful act basically like the already powerful do, with maybe some benefit of perspective.
What does tha bible have to say about slavery?
Congratulations on discovering that Racism is a good way to switch off the effects of empathy - if you see others as less than human, it’s easier to look away from their pain.
That said, you do have a point - morality and social norms do influence each other.
That said, most of those examples you give are wonderful examples of things that Abrahamic Religions did absolutely nothing at all to change. Specifically Salvery, death penalty, acceptable conduct in warfare, domestic violence and corporal punishment.
You’re arguing for religion to have shaped the moral values of modern societies whilst at the same time giving examples of ancient values that the main religions said nothing about or even approved of (for example, polygamy is still perfectly fine for Islam, with the Prophet himself having had several wives) so clearly modern day society didn’t change those values because of religion.
If lots of modern day society values don’t match the values of religion, whilst lots match those of some and not others and yet others do match, that shows low correlation between the two which is the very opposite of “the moral values observed in many societies (including Western ones) stem from religious ones” unless you meant just “some” or “a few” and even then you imply a causal relation by using “stem” (i.e. that modern society values derive from religious values) which you do not prove at all. “Both sets of values hail from the same ancient origin” (i.e. that religion picked up existing values over time and some of those lived till modern days, hence why they’re the same in religion and modern society) is a more logical explanation and actually for some values has evidence backing it (for example, read what Ancient Greek Philosophers wrote way before Abrahamic religions).
So your claim is HUGE whilst your arguments keep using examples which actually go against it in doing so disproving the high correlation between one set of values and the other, and on top of that you have zero proof for the causality part of the claim that one set of value stems from the other.
To use your own words: “That’s a claim that requires evidence.”