Can you practice morality without religion?

I like Dennis Prager, he is a smart guy. But he always falls into the same intellectual trap. It’s easy to say “everything sucks now” and point back at a better time and say “we need to do this and that again”, but he fails to provide proper analysis of when and why Western society decayed, and misrepresents statistics of decline as proof that religion is needed for a society to function. But he is being intellectually dishonest.

1. He doesn’t say which religion. At best only one religion can be right and all others must be false. So if you’re gonna say religion is needed, you better also say which one and why this particular one is right and all others are wrong. He doesn’t do that, which is either intellectual dishonesty or cowardice (because he knows if he pushes for Judaism, then he instantly loses 98% of his audience).
2. He fails to provide proof how exactly the loss of religiosity lead to societal decline, especially in light of other countries improving since the decline of religiosity (Czech Rep, Poland, Croatia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hungary, Israel, India, just to name a few).
3. He ignores other factors. Most importantly: the observable decay of the West began ca 100 years ago. At that point in time, whites made up ca 35% of the world’s population and controlled 90% of the world’s wealth. Now it’s about 10% population and 45% of wealth. Meanwhile we had 2 world wars, several genocides, and a collapse on virtual all aspects of social life from real earning power to marriage rates to suicide rates, to alcoholism and drug abuse. So something important changed 100 years ago. What were the big changes?
-women’s suffrage (almost exactly at the begin of the decline)
-the end of imperialism after WW1
-the New Deal in the US and rise of Socialism in Europe
-loss of religiosity in the second half of the 20th century
-The pill and women’s sexual liberation
-Women entering the workforce (mostly due to necessity due to higher taxes and inflation), destruction of the nuclear family
-Immigration, loss of ethnic homogenity and multiculturalism

Prager tends to ignore these factors (especially women’s suffrage, which is probably the main reason for the West’s decline, but anyone who dared to point that out would be cancelled immediately). Or he presents them as a consequence of the loss of religiosity, which just by observing the timeline can’t be true, because Atheism didn’t go mainstream in the West until the late 1960s, and even the late 80s in the US. But even as far back as the 1800s, Atheist philosophers like Nietzsche warned that Western society was turning nihilistic and “soft”. If you read Nietzsche, he basically warns of everything that came to pass in the 150 years since.
Prager never touches on that and rarely delveys beyond surface level analysis of any issue (unlike say a Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson)

The question isn’t even: “what makes a moral construct good?”  because we can observe objective outcomes from different moralities put into law in different places (even if there are other factors at play, i.e. hostile neighboring countries, wealth of natural resources, preexisting infrastructure, etc. Obviously one can’t compare the wealth of areas like Saudi Arabia with that of northern Mongolia or Siberia and then say “Saudi Arabia is wealther, therefore their morality is better.)

The fundemantal question is: “what makes a moral construct universally right?”

Morality by definition must be universal. It applies equally to all people. An objective standard of morality is necessary. Faith, however, is a personal conviction. By definition it doesn’t require proof. In fact, if there was proof, it would stop being faith and become science. Faith based morality can’t be universal, because the faith itself is individual.

A religion and religious morality can’t be half right or half wrong. It’s either 100% right or 100% wrong. A secular morality can be partially right or wrong, because it would be based on science and observation, which are subject to change. But religions are rigid and absolute in their claims (except maybe some forms of Buddhism, but that’s a whole other topic). For any particular religion to claim to be the absolute standard of morality, it better provide ample reasoning why it’s absolutely right. And why all others are wrong.
Good luck with that. That’s pretty much why for the past 2000 years, humans have been bashing each other’s heads in trying to force their particular morality upon the other. In the end, where arguments failed, violence sufficed.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Wisdom.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Wisdom.

Sorry @Wisdom, but many of your statements are patently false.

South Korea has more churches than you seem to conceive. I know because one of my best friends who lives north of Seoul and is Korean has discussed this with me. You seem to not comprehend agnostic vs atheist vs spiritual. Korea may have a growth in agnostics, but not devoid of believing in the potential for a higher power and spirituality.

You mention Japan which is comical. They have the #1 suicide rate. How’s that working out? They literally have a forest, Aokigahara, nicknamed suicde forest.

As was stated before, Czech republic had high corruption, again a failure of morality.

India and Israel has large religious population, so again a failed example.

You would also need a representation of a region that has had generations of atheism. Today’s generations could easily have developed moral code from parents of grandparents who were religious or spiritual.

A civilization without belief of a higher power has no foundation for morals. It becomes survivability, what serves my purposes, and who holds power. There is no foundation for morality without religion or spirituality, and none of your examples hold up even remotely.

Sorry my context was off, buy my position still stands. The group now enduring an erosion of religion, the next generation, is killing themselves in Japan.

Also, I didn’t say Japan was terrible, on the contrary, it is currently a solid country. Why is that? Aside from wanting to strive for better on their own, it was America’s morality to rebuild them after WW2.

Your evidence being Wiki and Wapo are also laughable😅 I speak some Korean, studied Korean culture, and converse with a Korean family in Korea nearly every day. That evidence you reference is absurd😅 You also keep saying atheist, which is not correct. Korea has more agnostics, people who are open to the possibility of a higher power. I think even the surveys being taken are misrepresented.

I love your moving the goal posts also. I keep stating religion and spirituality. You now change this to merely the belief in God specifically, which the OP and myself never stated. Buddhism is by all means a religion. The Korean friends I have, one Catholic, her husband Buddhist, are both spiritual in their own way.

The statement you make about one religion being correct is nonsense. Christianity and Buddhism don’t share some moral codes? They both follow a code of good behavior. Native American practices also had moral codes and believed in greater powers.

I’m going to proceed assuming you must be Atheist yourself and have little concept of religion and morals. Regardless, the OP’s statement is by all means correct.

Now you are conflating actions of men with the actual religion. As for Christianity, Jesus would never have approved many of the acts that happened under past popes. That, and I hope we aren’t trying to suggest anything about the crusades. With even a little research, one cam see the crusades were actually a response the hundreds of years of Persian invasion and expansion, a group that is still responsible for the most deaths of slaves in history, estimated between 1 to 2 mil.

There’s a constant mistake of using humans that have bastardized teaching and not following, as a representation of the religion itself. By all means, religion can be distorted and used as a weapon, but that’s another topic.

To say Agnostic and Atheist difference is merely academic is preposterous. Atheists do not believe in a higher power, end scene. Agnostics acknowledge that one could exist, but they need more proof. The concept that a greater power could exist has profound impact on one’s actions in life.

To say morality would exist in a society devoid of any belief in religion or spirituality, would take generations of said example as proof. A generation or two removed from ancestors with strong beliefs can still be a remnant passed down.

There is still no true example of this existing.

Look at America: Belief has dropped almost 10% since the last century, and so has depravity. We have leftists feeling it’s okay for children to be exposed to sexualized content, and a disgusting push to have them destroy their bodies. The drop in religion is coinciding with blatant moral decay.

I been thinking about this and remembered, I had the chance years back to go to the Amazon and met a tribe deep in the forest. These people were but a hundred years ago snacking on missionaries. We were told by the tribe when one of the group asked if they were now christian and the old man answered. We have our spirits but not your or any god.

Now after spending a couple weeks with them I can say they were more moral and ethical than 99% of people who I know with or without religion. They were only interested in taking care of their village and the people in it. They sure made us feel welcome and were happy to show is their ways. Jivaro  People, for the most part farmers but they did hunt.

So after remembering them, I would say the answer is YES you can. But for the modern world a lot of our morality we look at from religion, but they had none. Hell they ate religion literally, yet they still had many of the same morals we do. So this is a Chicken and Egg dilemma.

I believe for me, I will say that if you are a Christian you say Religion came first….. If you are not religious you might say Morality was learned as a way to get along without killing, making slaves or eating your fellow man. Though after typing that last line, I have to wonder will we ever learn to be truly moral and stop the slavery and killings?

Flash: “To say Agnostic and Atheist difference is merely academic is preposterous. Atheists do not believe in a higher power, end scene. Agnostics acknowledge that one could exist, but they need more proof.”

Like I said, the same thing. Atheists don’t believe god exists, agnostics don’t believe god exists. Both would require proof. The only difference is Agnostics believe a god *could* exist.
This is like saying “I could win the lottery if I play.” Technically this is true. You could win the lottery. But anyone actually believes they will win the lottery is an idiot.
As a life long Agnostic, I can very much confirm we’re infidels.

“To say morality would exist in a society devoid of any belief in religion or spirituality, would take generations of said example as proof. ”  How long exactly? What’s the longest a religious country has gone without a starting a major war, conducting slavery or various other atrocities? By my count we’re looking at roughly 100 years. Shouldn’t be hard to top.

Btw the crusades had nothing to do with the Persian empire. The persian empire was conquered by Muhammed and his successor in the 6th century. The crusades were a response to Arab conquests of Christian lands in the middle east. I certainly did not blame Christianity for going on the crusades. However, the crusaders didn’t just kill Arabs. Along the way, they buthered thousands of Jews in Germany (massacre of Worms) and at one point sacked Constantinople as well just for the hell of it, which weakened Christian Byzantine to the point that it fell to the Ottomans. But apparently they hated orthodox Christianity. Another case of very moral religious behavior ^^

And yes, as I agreed before, in the US the loss of religion has coincided with a decay in quality of life and overall civilizational decline. The same goes for West Europe, too. But if you broaden your horizon beyond the US, you can find examples of countries flourishing despite the same loss of religion: All of East Europe and parts of East Asia. You can argue that the US is still richer than Hungary, but you were talking trends and developments.

So have you bothered to ask yourself why that is? What does the US and West Europe have that East Europe and East Asia doesn’t have?

Hint: 3rd world immigration. Poland, Czech Rep, Hungary, Serbia, Slovakia, Russia, Vietnam, Japan, etc aren’t letting in 3rd world immigrants and didn’t adopt multiculturalism.

No multi-ethnic nation or empire in the history of the world survived without eventually decaying or splitting apart in civil war.

@Mustangride1  That must have been a fascinating experience. And yes, a good example of people acting in a moral way, when they are in harmony with nature and their surroundings.

@ Vknid:  Good point about morality needing to be bigger than the individual and subjective. Morality must (almost by definition) be universal and based on truth / reality and a reasonable interpretation thereof. How to do that… that’s the big question.
Let’s hope mankind figures it out one day.