loss of religion - loss of father figure and ethics?

Do you agree? (it seems to me that, up to a point, religion is about moral values and a code of good vs bad behavior, though some portions of it are no longer valid, as times do change)

Here's the quote this reflection is based on:


'Without the solid authoritarianism of religion's grand narrative, individuals, incredibly alienated into a self-reflexive solipsism, are catapulted into a hermeneutic no-man's land, stripped of identifying referential indicators and devoid of the appropriate apparatus for making consistent ethical choices. At heart the crisis of faith is articulated as a loss of the father-figure [...]'
(Daniel Lea - 'Graham Swift')


After all, Sigmund Freud himself made this observation, that religious faith and the way we see God is based on our experience with our fathers, which shapes the way we see authority and the way our superego is structured.

 

I don't agree. Something that is said to be morally correct doesn't mean its ethically correct or vise versa.

 

No, I do not agree.

All of those remarks suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. They presuppose that morals and ethics come exclusively from religion, or more specifically religious faith in God as Creator and father figure to whom we all must show reverence and worship, and who reveals to us through His word moral commands and precepts for us to live by.

That's clearly not the case. Morals and ethics can and do exist quite apart from religious beliefs, as thousands of years of Western philosophy have examined and demonstrated. The bottom line in that regard is that morals and ethics are man made, not god given.

I have asserted that conclusion rather than proven it, but I'm not interested in and have not the time at the moment to take a stab at setting forth such a proof.

Anyway, Mr. Lea's assertion that without religious authority individuals inevitably lapse into solipsism is nonsense. He is clearly question begging, or he has not a clue as to what solipsism is. There are many other philosophical world views that do not depend upon a godhead and which allow for the incorporation of the foundations for morals and ethics.

As for Freud, well, he was likely unbalanced himself in my lay opinion. He seems to have had an unhealthy fixation on dysfunctional relationships with both mother and father. Furthermore, he likely paid too little heed to the influence of other vital factors in personal development besides familial relationships, such as individual genetic composition, cognitive development and stimulation at an early age, other environmental factors, and other social relationships outside the home. Who knows? Freud as a patient might have made quite the case study for modern psychologists and licensed professional counselors.

 

I will just make the observation that the majority of atheists come from the more well educated and socially affluent strata of society rather then the less well educated and socially dis-functional. Alas despite the lack of religious conviction they seem to have had no problems in making sound secure ethical choices.

Do we fall into a "alienated into a self-reflexive solipsism" as a consequence of unbelief. May be that is the weakness of the character in "Graham Swift". Maybe he needs an omniscient God to feel centered in the world. The real world around us and the people in it are far more fascinating to many an atheist than the ghost's and fairies that seem to provide the security or insecurity to many theists.

 

A good action that is only committed under the pain of punishment is in truth no good action. If the only reason that you do not murder is that you fear divine reprisal, then you are not morally superior to the murder. You only excel him in restraint.

 

I think there is some question as to whether or not the atheist can be the moral equivalent of the theist who is 100% certain that God exists. Whether or not a person is really moral or only fears punishment is a good question. But could a purely atheistic society ever be as civilized as a society in which everyone was absolutely certain that their actions were being scrutinized by a higher authority? I don't think so. People are only good because they think it is in their best interests to be good. Without fear of reprisal, some people just won't behave ethically. That's no reason for anyone to believe in something they don't think exists, however.

But yeah...to an extent I agree, in that I don't think a disbeliever would test him or herself to the same degree as a person of "perfect faith", perfect faith being knowledge. So there is something lost in that. From the flip side of the coin you might think there was something gained in that, though.

 

not all religions are based on a father figure.

 

I agree that morals and ethics can exist apart from religious beliefs - but they haven't in the history of the U.S. Ethics in America come from religion. As much as this nation is supposed to be a secular one, it has been run by Christians from the beginning. Further, the media play religion out, and the people won't elect anyone who isn't Christian.

There's another question here as well - the difference between morals and ethics. I would say that morals are something unregulated, that each and every person discovers for themselves (either through self-discovery or through having them given, like from religion); ethics seems to me to refer to the higher system devised by society to codefy morals. This system of ethics become the basis for law.

 

'Religious morality' is capable of changing over time because people do not use religion to decide what is moral, they use their innate sense of morality to decide what is religious. Religions come about because we are fundamentally moral and ethical creatures, having evolved a moral sense in order to survive and prosper in social groups. Morality does not come from religion, religious moral codes come from morality...

 

I don't agree at all. While it is true that every second of every day im grateful for religion because it keeps most people under control, i sadly have had sort of a falling out with religion and my behavior hasnt changed a bit, and i dont see myself going out and killing people or commiting adultery in the near future whatsoever.

 

Just out of curiosity, since I myself have never discovered evidence of western philosophy having demonstrated any valid reasoning to support the concepts of ethics in any manner, I was wondering if you might offer a reference that we can read ourselves? I am not questioning that ethics can and do exist outside of religion, I am just surprised to hear a claim that western philosophy has made such a distinction.

Please forgive me for making the correction, but until there exists a verified definition of what "ethics" means, it cannot be logical to believe that man made ethics.

 

I read recently a very interesting book, called "The wander of girls" by Michael Gurian, who is a practical family consultant. He points out to the crucial role fathers play in the formation of girls, as much as of boys. And his results show, that this effects all the spheres of the kids' personalities.
Yes, today's fathers seem to have much less opportunity to influence their kids' lives and formation spiritually and emotionally. They spend more time at work and put material needs higher, than the emotional and spiritual needs of their kids and wives. This cannot fail to have its ill effect on how their kids develop spiritually and emotionally.

So Christianity does well to point to God as our Father, who possesses of all the needed qualities and always has enough time to communicate with every single one of us. Therefore he is even called a "father of orphans" in the Bible. This Father gives also this commandment, that fathers should be heads of the families and take decisive responsibility for both material and emotional and spiritual needs of the kids.
Ethics, I guess, will be where they should be, if these guidelines followed.

 

I'm really not sure, but I tend to disagree, based on gut feelings and my admittedly limited personal experience and intuitions. First, as an Okie country boy, I tend to be put off by big words, and this passage is ridiculously pretentious. Second, some of the biggest crooks and hypocrites I know are the ones who preach the most about religious values and I know some decent, family-oriented atheists and agnostics who seem to have solid moral values, wherever they come from. Third, while there's some truth in what Freud says about fathers helping to shape concepts of God and the superego, he was only half right. I think mother figures are at least as important as father figures in the process of inculcating moral values. Coming from a patriarchal Jewish background, it was natural for Freud to emphasize the father, but any Catholic would probably give more credit to Mom, the Blessed Virgin, nuns with rulers, and Holy Mother Church. And of course Freud was an atheist who thought religion was a collective delusion. As a Christian, I'd certainly give my religion credit for influencing my morals, but I don't buy the common view that morality is mainly about following orders from some cosmic patriarch.

 

MLK said it the best, but in a different way:

"Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty, I'm free at last."

He who dies with no toys, wins.



x

 

I wish I knew the relationship between regular religious attendance and crime, but I do not. I am fairly confident, however, that those who attend religious services at least twice a month have a lower crime rate than those who seldom or never attend church.

However, the relationship between crime and religious practice is complicated by the fact that in Western Europe a smaller percentage of people attend church regularly, and the crime rate is lower.

The relationship is further complicated by the lack of consensus about sexual morality. Those who attend religious services regularly are more likely to be chaste, but many people do not value chastity.

 

I'd like to see some scholarly sources for your notions about correlations between church attendance and crime rates. As you say, Northern Europe has less crime, less violence and less religion than the U.S. Furthermore, morality is a much broader concept than lawabidingness and chastity. I'm fairly confident that some people who are in the front pews at church are stingy and mean-spirted toward the poor and outcasts of society, and that this is diametrically opposed to passages in both the Old and New Testaments that are actually more numerous than those dealing with sexual ethics.

 

I certainly agree. The more frequently one attends church - sometimes I go three times a week - the more likely one is to vote Republican. The Republican Party exists in order to advance the economic interests of the richest 10% of the population. Anything else Republicans talk about is an effort to win the votes of those who are hurt by their economic policies.

In my statement I am trying to illustrate the difficulty of determining a relationship between religion and morality. Even if we could agree on a standard of morality it would be difficult to determine if religious people are more likely to adhere to that standard.