Can religious people be genuinely decent?

[gromit]

I know the OP sounds like a silly question, but there are a lot of reasons to ask it. I've been religious and I remember thinking that atheists are fundamentally different in a way that is frightening. Being non religious now, there are people I can't trust, because to them I am just somebody to convert. If those are the types of people you've run into, and if you've had bad experiences, you would wonder...

Right, of course there are religious people like that. But they are not all like that...

Just like not all atheists think people of faith are idiots.

 

[Beorn]

Again - anyone can be decent in actions, I am asking about intent. An atheist doesn't necessary have a persistent all-encompassing ulterior motive for being good - a religious person does.

Are you talking about altruism specifically?

Regardless, I think you must first answer your question in a general fashion. Determine whether any people can be genuinely decent.

 

[Qlip]

Right, of course there are religious people like that. But they are not all like that...

Just like not all atheists think people of faith are idiots.

Agreed, it's good to have confirmation.

 

[Firebird 8118]

I know the OP sounds like a silly question, but there are a lot of reasons to ask it. I've been religious and I remember thinking that atheists are fundamentally different in a way that is frightening. Being non religious now, there are people I can't trust, because to them I am just somebody to convert. If those are the types of people you've run into, and if you've had bad experiences, you would wonder...

The sentence that I bolded: I'm sorry to all non-religious people who have had to experience that with those who are religious. People have a right to exercise their free will however they want.

 

[Beorn]

The sentence that I bolded: I'm sorry to all non-religious people who have had to experience that with those who are religious. People have a right to exercise their free-will however they want.

This has nothing to do with free will. Some people make their relationships contingent on similarity of religious views and are within their right to do so. Qlip and everyone else is within their rights to stay away from such people.

 

[Firebird 8118]

This has nothing to do with free will. Some people make their relationships contingent on similarity of religious views and are within their right to do so. Qlip and everyone else is within their rights to stay away from such people.

Well, what I was trying to say was that no one should have others' beliefs forced onto them. I should have been clear my apologies!

I'm just going to shut up now before I say anything else that's stupid...

 

[Beorn]

Well, what I was trying to say was that no one should have others' beliefs forced onto them.

Yes, I gathered that and it is exactly what I'm criticizing. I'm not sure where people get this notion that holding certain beliefs and having a desire to convert others to those beliefs merely through social interaction equates to forcing your beliefs on other people.

 

[Flâneuse]

Cool, but I'm kind of stumped as to why, of all well-known secular people, they would pick Bill Gates as the example of an ethical person.

.........

Anyway, to actually answer the question in the OP, I think there are many good religious people who act out of genuine love and kindness towards others, not just because their religion tells them to or because they want to be rewarded by God for their moral behavior. When I was a Christian I never treated life as a game to win points towards winning the desired afterlife. I considered good deeds and the enrichment they bring to others' lives to be important in themselves, and when I stopped believing in God that didn't change.

 

[Kullervo]

Mostly no.

However, there are some innate/gut emotions and instincts common to all humans which religious people will also have. Love and kin selection are good examples.

The motivation behind the more personal choices and actions of any given individuals is unlikely to be shaped by their learned beliefs as much as it is their personality, emotions and life experiences. Ideology determines your view of greater society, and has a greater influence on your conscious, rational actions than anything emotional. So whether somebody decides to give money to charities, and even more which ones they decide to give money to, is likely to be determined by religious beliefs (or lack of them). Whether the individual gives money to his own family members, by contrast, is not.

However, i don't think that anyone can be "genuinely decent", because beyond a few basic thou-shalt-nots there isn't any one way of being virtuous. It is different for everybody.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I think the OP's question is flawed because it seems to posit that only religious people might have an ulterior motive for kindness. Is it any "worse" to be kind in order to honor your God than it is to be kind in order to curry favor at work or try to impress someone in your personal life? No. Besides, I would say that someone who does the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing more good than someone not doing the right thing at all.

 

[wildflower]

for followers of jesus God doesn't really reward or accept our actions if we are not doing things from a place of love for others. note especially verse 3 below. so, if someone is a christian martyr but their actions weren't done out of love (i.e. whatever caused them to be persecuted) God is not impressed. if that isn't a high standard of love i don't know what is. also, the very first of the 10 commandments is basically "love God and love others". it's all about love but it ain't easy. personally, i don't know any followers of jesus who do good things for the rewards they may receive in heaven. they are doing good because they are trying to love God and love others as well as they know how. do lots of people of all faiths screw up? yes, definitely. and...one doesn't need to be a person of faith to screw up.

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails. 1 Corinthians 13:1-8

eta: i agree that the question is quite flawed. why do you assume people without religion can have unselfish motives? i find that rather specious.

 

[ceecee]

I'm not sure where people get this notion that holding certain beliefs and having a desire to convert others to those beliefs merely through social interaction equates to forcing your beliefs on other people.

You seriously don't see where this could be a problem for people?

 

[Mole]

Infantalising

why do you assume people without religion can have unselfish motives?

We all have motives, some selfish and some altruistic. Children and adolescents are largely unaware of how they are driven by their motives, and are even unaware of what their motives are. On the other hand, grown ups learn what their motives are, and learn to choose to follow their motives or not.

The religious tend to hide their motives, selfish and unselfish, behind a smokescreen of theology, from themselves and each other. In other words, the religious tend to be childlike or like adolescents. And indeed Jesus himself tells us we can't enter the kingdom of heaven unless we become as little children. So religion tends to be infantalising.

 

[Beorn]

You seriously don't see where this could be a problem for people?

See it? I can find it annoying myself depending on the circumstances. It's the mischaracterization with which I have an issue. Nobody has ever forced their beliefs on me. I have encountered many people who have had different beliefs and disapproved of my beliefs, but merely expressing those beliefs is hardly forcing your beliefs. It's especially silly when people complain about being condemned to a hell they don't even believe in. I don't care if a Muslim says I'm condemned to jahhanam because I don't believe such a place exists.

People are having other beliefs forced on them in Mosul and Nigeria.

Nobody is having other beliefs forced on them when they walk by a nutter with a sign on the street corner.

 

[Mole]

See it? I can find it annoying myself depending on the circumstances. It's the mischaracterization with which I have an issue. Nobody has ever forced their beliefs on me. I have encountered many people who have had different beliefs and disapproved of my beliefs, but merely expressing those beliefs is hardly forcing your beliefs. It's especially silly when people complain about being condemned to a hell they don't even believe in. I don't care if a Muslim says I'm condemned to jahhanam because I don't believe such a place exists.

I get into trouble with Catholic proselytisers in the street, when I point out they want me to worship a three headed God in the Trinity, and worship a cracker at Mass.

 

[Beorn]

I get into trouble with Catholic proselytisers in the street, when I point out they want me to worship a three headed God in the Trinity, and worship a cracker at Mass.

You replied before my edit:

People are having other beliefs forced on them in Mosul and Nigeria.

Nobody is having other beliefs forced on them when they walk by a nutter with a sign on the street corner.

 

[Mane]

eta: i agree that the question is quite flawed. why do you assume people without religion can have unselfish motives? i find that rather specious.

There are situations in which nobody will see or know that I've done a good thing, and even situations in which keeping it to myself is part of the "good deed". In contrast, If you are religious, then as far as you are concerned you don't have situations in which your actions aren't observed (By god) and won't be rewarded (In the form of a better afterlife), you always have someone's approval to gain.

I think the OP's question is flawed because it seems to posit that only religious people might have an ulterior motive for kindness. Is it any "worse" to be kind in order to honor your God than it is to be kind in order to curry favor at work or try to impress someone in your personal life? No. Besides, I would say that someone who does the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing more good than someone not doing the right thing at all.

An atheist can have plenty of ulterior motives for otherwise altruistic behaviors. I don't deem atheists to never have any. The difference is that the ulterior motives are contextual, not universal to every aspect of their lives and all encompassing - they still can have situations in which they wouldn't.

In contrast: By the very nature of religions with moral dogma's, is it ever possible for a religious person to not have it?

 

[wildflower]

We all have motives, some selfish and some altruistic. Children and adolescents are largely unaware of how they are driven by their motives, and are even unaware of what their motives are. On the other hand, grown ups learn what their motives are, and learn to choose to follow their motives or not.

The religious tend to hide their motives, selfish and unselfish, behind a smokescreen of theology, from themselves and each other. In other words, the religious tend to be childlike or like adolescents. And indeed Jesus himself tells us we can't enter the kingdom of heaven unless we become as little children. So religion tends to be infantalising.

you are confusing childlikeness (a trusting and innocent nature) with childishness (immaturity). jesus teaches us to be childlike–not childish.

with that i bid you folks in this forum adieu. God bless you all and good luck!

 

[Mole]

you are confusing childlikeness (a trusting and innocent nature) with childishness (immaturity). jesus teaches us to be childlike–not childish.

Great Caesar's Ghost, Wildflower, a trusting and innocent nature in a world of fear and greed, propaganda and scams, neurosis, abuse and exploitation, is a victim waiting to happen.

Victimise me please, I have a trusting and innocent nature.

 

[Southern Kross]

Do religious people - particularly belonging to religions of moral dogma - genuinely care about others well being? Or are they simply acting out of their own (Imagined) self interest (Scoring points for their afterlife game)? How can you know? How can they? Are there any situations in which acting for the benefit of others would not be in their own spiritual interest?

Disclaimer: I don't mean simply in action, but in terms of intent.

You need to cut them some slack. You shouldn't make assumptions about someone's morality based on their religiosity (or lack thereof). Unless you have genuine reasons to question someone's motives for acts of kindness, it's only fair to give them the benefit of the doubt.

It really bugs me when religious people doubt my moral fortitude simply because I'm a non-believer - I find it bigoted, patronising and sanctimonious. Similarly, if I was religious, I imagine I would feel equally insulted if others questioned the purity of my intent simply by virtue of my being religious.

Unless you think it fair to have your morality questioned based on whether or not you believe in God or go to church regularly, it would be hypocritical to do so to others.

Again - anyone can be decent in actions, I am asking about intent. An atheist doesn't necessary have a persistent all-encompassing ulterior motive for being good - a religious person does.

Um, how about the law?

How do I know that the real reason you don't go around killing people isn't just that you're afraid you'll go to jail?