Researchers test for honesty

[(((Fergus)))]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8170254.stm

Quite an interesting report here, with some widely differing views on the same behaviours.

Begs the question: given that many people today no longer look to the Bible for their moral compass, what, if anything, do they use instead?

[ArabHibee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8170254.stm

Quite an interesting report here, with some widely differing views on the same behaviours.

Begs the question: given that many people today no longer look to the Bible for their moral compass, what, if anything, do they use instead?

For me, it would have a lot to do with the way I was brought up. Yes, I went to Sunday School and church as a youngster but would say my parents have given me my moral compass. And I know how fortunate I am to be able to say that - even though my compass has gone wonky on a few occassions. :devil:

[Twa Cairpets]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8170254.stm

Quite an interesting report here, with some widely differing views on the same behaviours.

Begs the question: given that many people today no longer look to the Bible for their moral compass, what, if anything, do they use instead?

With little desire to start another religious discussion with you, what precisely has the Bible got to do with this? Seriously.

I may be reading waaaaayyy too much into your post, but you've pressed one of my buttons here. A smug little dig - "My oh my, where do these poor little unsaved souls get any idea of how to live properly compared to us basking in the light of the Lord".

And to answer your specific question, and being one of the "they" referred to, I get my moral compass from being brought up by loving supportive parents, who valued the power of reason, thought and reading over the dogmatic acceptance of faith.

Grrrr

[Sylar]

Where did your parents get their moral values? What about their parents? And Before them?....etc etc

How do you know that your upbringing and life experience isn't dominated by dogmatic writing, generations back through your family, and has developed from there?

I'm not siding against your argument, merely playing Devils Advocate.

[Twa Cairpets]

Where did your parents get their moral values? What about their parents? And Before them?....etc etc

How do you know that your upbringing and life experience isn't dominated by dogmatic writing, generations back through your family, and has developed from there?

I'm not siding against your argument, merely playing Devils Advocate.


Well, as it would appear that my mothers side of the family are probably of saxon descent, and my fathers almost certainly norse, if we go back far enough I would think you'd be looking at some neolithic northern European proto-Celtic religion for one, and the Norse gods on the other.

I dont think your argument holds much water Scott, even as the advocate of the devil. I do think that the country is, historically at least, culturally Christian, and that it has had some impact on shaping laws (and the behaviour/beliefs of my parents, Grandparent etc etc). However, as our fundamental laws of right and wrong - stealing, murder, fraud, etc are the same as countries with different religions or with secular government, I dont think religion or religious history has much to do with it.

[Sylar]

Well, as it would appear that my mothers side of the family are probably of saxon descent, and my fathers almost certainly norse, if we go back far enough I would think you'd be looking at some neolithic northern European proto-Celtic religion for one, and the Norse gods on the other.

I dont think your argument holds much water Scott, even as the advocate of the devil. I do think that the country is, historically at least, culturally Christian, and that it has had some impact on shaping laws (and the behaviour/beliefs of my parents, Grandparent etc etc). However, as our fundamental laws of right and wrong - stealing, murder, fraud, etc are the same as countries with different religions or with secular government, I dont think religion or religious history has much to do with it.

That was more what I was getting at to be honest. Cheers for the response.

[da-robster]

I would say that a moral compass would be more from expierance than not, for instance if a friend was murdered you might become a lot more opposed to violence.

To say all your moral compass comes from your parents or your religion would be wrong while a bit of it may some will not. For instance if two people brought up in the same way with the same faithand one was given military service and the other not then the one who is forced to join the army they will undoubtedly have completely different views on life to the one who hadn't.

If we inherited as much of our parents and religous moral compass as the people in this thread allege then we'd all be norse or against abortion.

[Twa Cairpets]

I would say that a moral compass would be more from expierance than not, for instance if a friend was murdered you might become a lot more opposed to violence.

To say all your moral compass comes from your parents or your religion would be wrong while a bit of it may some will not. For instance if two people brought up in the same way with the same faithand one was given military service and the other not then the one who is forced to join the army they will undoubtedly have completely different views on life to the one who hadn't.

If we inherited as much of our parents and religous moral compass as the people in this thread allege then we'd all be norse or against abortion.

I agree with you to an extent Robster. There is a massive debate regarding the effect of nature v nurture in the way people behave, and the truthis it probably a mix of your upbringing and experience. But I think the basic ideas of right and wrong are instilled at an early stage of childhood (its not right to steal, its not right to hit, etc), and that these are modified as you live more of life and you experience more, well, experiences. If you are not given reinforced direction about basic right and wrong when you are essentially a blank canvas, I suspect that somehow it becomes harder to differentiate as an adult.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8170254.stm

Quite an interesting report here, with some widely differing views on the same behaviours.

Begs the question: given that many people today no longer look to the Bible for their moral compass, what, if anything, do they use instead?



Basic needs to be liked, appreciated and part of the herd ensure that most people act like they'd like to be treated.

That's our inbuilt moral compass that varies from culture to culture.

[Green Mikey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8170254.stm

Quite an interesting report here, with some widely differing views on the same behaviours.

Begs the question: given that many people today no longer look to the Bible for their moral compass, what, if anything, do they use instead?

Can the Bible be considered reliable moral compass? For example. should we believe in 'an eye for and eye' or 'turn the other cheek'?

Since the Bible is open to interpretation and has been used as justification for many crimes is it really an issue that it is not being used as moral compass?

[da-robster]

I agree with you to an extent Robster. There is a massive debate regarding the effect of nature v nurture in the way people behave, and the truthis it probably a mix of your upbringing and experience. But I think the basic ideas of right and wrong are instilled at an early stage of childhood (its not right to steal, its not right to hit, etc), and that these are modified as you live more of life and you experience more, well, experiences. If you are not given reinforced direction about basic right and wrong when you are essentially a blank canvas, I suspect that somehow it becomes harder to differentiate as an adult.

I think a good example of this is when you ask someone is asked why shoudn't drugs be legal they will stumble while this belief that they shouldn't is always there it's diffficult to explain why. It's far easier to shape kids minds than adults though if someone is told jews are inferior even though it's wrong, they will believe it. I feel that this is why education should be watched so carefully if a teacher teaches something wrong than the kids will believe it and if enough people do it then we face a problem. I think that the nature camp of people must acknowledge that there is some nurture, if a human is educated by gorillas it won't speak and it will be completely different to how it would be if he was educated by other humans. Although genes are important they are not going to decide every single one of your beliefs and what will happen to you in life.

[IndieHibby]

Can the Bible be considered reliable moral compass? For example. should we believe in 'an eye for and eye' or 'turn the other cheek'?

Since the Bible is open to interpretation and has been used as justification for many crimes is it really an issue that it is not being used as moral compass?

Good point.

The Bible, I hope we can all agree, contains good stuff and bad stuff.

People that refer to the Bible for life's lessons/codes/morals etc pick those bits that they deem to be 'good' and filter the stuff they deem to be 'bad'. These are 'good' people.

In the past, everybody followed the Bible so 'good' and 'bad' people used it for justification. (This still happens in many parts of the world today, but less so in the UK). Today, most 'bad'people do not follow the Bible, just as most people do not follow the Bible.

Is it the case that most of Bible is a 'fabled' reference to human nature, good and bad, and is merely a product of the cumulative lessons up to the time?

I think it is worth remembering the relative lack of communication between and within communities over this time. We know, for example, that much of the Bible was written/amended/deleted/mistranslated on many occasions. ("Who 'wrote' the Bible?":devil:)

Few people would have been aware and even fewer would talk about the veracity of the Bible - look at the Scientific community's reaction to Darwin - his book was barely acknowledged until many years after his death. Imagine having a conversation like this back then?
To me, it would seem that the Bible has it's part to play in the formation of the lessons/codes/morals of the society.

The increase in the availablity of information has gradually 'opened up the market' for religions and, more importantly, atheism. :duck:

References to the Bible as a 'moral compass', therefore, are a partial significance in modern society. (As long as it's 'affluent' :wink:)

[IMO, which professes no opinion on God....:rolleyes:]

[ancienthibby]

Can the Bible be considered reliable moral compass? For example. should we believe in 'an eye for and eye' or 'turn the other cheek'?

Since the Bible is open to interpretation and has been used as justification for many crimes is it really an issue that it is not being used as moral compass?

Well, the New Testament tells us quite clearly that the Lord Jesus is the only way to our creator God and that He has fulfilled the OT law by His death and resurrection. So that makes the 'turn the other cheek' encouragement the only 'modus operandi' for us all!!

[Twa Cairpets]

Good point.

The Bible, I hope we can all agree, contains good stuff and bad stuff.

People that refer to the Bible for life's lessons/codes/morals etc pick those bits that they deem to be 'good' and filter the stuff they deem to be 'bad'. These are 'good' people.

In the past, everybody followed the Bible so 'good' and 'bad' people used it for justification. (This still happens in many parts of the world today, but less so in the UK). Today, most 'bad'people do not follow the Bible, just as most people do not follow the Bible.

Is it the case that most of Bible is a 'fabled' reference to human nature, good and bad, and is merely a product of the cumulative lessons up to the time?

I think it is worth remembering the relative lack of communication between and within communities over this time. We know, for example, that much of the Bible was written/amended/deleted/mistranslated on many occasions. ("Who 'wrote' the Bible?":devil:)

Few people would have been aware and even fewer would talk about the veracity of the Bible - look at the Scientific community's reaction to Darwin - his book was barely acknowledged until many years after his death. Imagine having a conversation like this back then?
To me, it would seem that the Bible has it's part to play in the formation of the lessons/codes/morals of the society.

The increase in the availablity of information has gradually 'opened up the market' for religions and, more importantly, atheism. :duck:

References to the Bible as a 'moral compass', therefore, are a partial significance in modern society. (As long as it's 'affluent' :wink:)

[IMO, which professes no opinion on God....:rolleyes:]



Great post, but I have to point out one error. The Origin of the Species drew major and significant reaction almost immediately. See the following, and this link (http://www.gradesaver.com/the-origin-of-species/wikipedia/publication/)

On the Origin of Species was first published on 24 November 1859, priced at fifteen shillings. The book had been offered to booksellers at Murray's autumn sale on 22 November, and all available copies had been taken up immediately. In total, 1,250 copies were printed but after deducting presentation and review copies, and five for Stationers' Hall copyright, around 1,170 copies were available for sale.[46] The second edition of 3,000 copies was quickly brought out on 7 January 1860,[47] and incorporated numerous corrections as well as a response to religious objections by the addition of a new epigraph on page ii, a quotation from Charles Kingsley, and the phrase "by the Creator" amended to the closing sentence.[48] During Darwin's lifetime the book went through six editions, with cumulative changes and revisions to deal with counter-arguments raised. The third edition came out in 1861, with a number of sentences rewritten or added and an introductory appendix, An Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species,[49] while the fourth in 1866 had further revisions. The fifth edition, published on 10 February 1869, incorporated more changes and for the first time included the phrase "survival of the fittest", which had been coined by the philosopher Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology (1864).[50]

[lyonhibs]

Anyone else share my suspicion that the bible is just a tome written by a commercially aware dude a couple of thousand years ago, aware of the fact that those with little confidence in themselves would need someone else to tell them how to live their life??

:devil:

[HibsMax]

Begs the question: given that many people today no longer look to the Bible for their moral compass, what, if anything, do they use instead?
Didn't look at the link but I do have a response to your question.

I am not a religious person and neither are my parents (my Mother was when she was younger and she tried to get us into it. Fool! :wink:). I am not sure about my Grandparents and their parents, etc. I know my maternal Grandmother was religious when she was younger. I don't know if she lost her faith or simply got too old to continue going.

My opinion is that even though I don't look to the bible for my moral compass, generations before me did. The lessons that they learned have been passed down from generation to generation. Even though I am not a religious person I have no issue living my life in a certain way. I just do so because I was basically programmed (brought up) that way. It's learned behaviour.

To use a crazy "moral compass" example. Consider other social animals. Why don't they kill each other? I know that in some instances they do but it's usually for a reason such as territory, leadership, sickness, etc. Why don't prides of lions implode and start killing each other? Survival or because some higher being told them that to do is a bad thing? Humans are animals and I think we have this same understanding as other social animals. United we stand, divided we fall. Any social animal that tries to go it alone is going to have a hard time of it....but that doesn't make it impossible.

And yes, there are exceptions to the rule.