Posted on 01/13/2016 3:56:27 PM PST by sparklite2
"As religion has declined in Europe there has also been an increase in acceptance of personal autonomy on issues concerning sexuality and family. Each generation is more liberal on these issues than the one before. In contrast, we find no evidence that moral values have become more self-interested or anti-social."
The research also found that religious people are slightly less self-interested on average, but this can largely be accounted for by their age. This is because the average religious person is older than the average nonreligious person, and older people, whenever they were born, are less likely to justify self-interest values.
"Religious faith and worship also makes most difference to morality in the most religious countries. To be effective, religious norms need to be validated by a moral community of other religious friends and family and social and political institutions" concluded Dr Storm.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
In fact, when dealing with cults such as islam that is disguised as a religion, getting away from such evil is a GOOD thing.
Nietzsche begged to differ.
It would be part of the process of becoming an immoral culture.
Even Africans know better....
"If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them."
Basuto proverb.
I guess letting savages mass-rape your female population isnt any sign of decline.
Just change what is considered moral and it’s a wash.
Are we measuring moralism by doing what one thinks is moral, or by conforming to what the group says?
Amen.
the cut flower thesis theorizes that a culture that has been nurtured with religious morals, will continue with them for a while after the country loses the religious belief. But like a flower, that’s cut from it’s nurturing soil, that morality will eventually wither and die.
http://www.ourhappyschool.com/philosophy/theistic-ethics-and-cut-flower-thesis
Idiot. With a European birth rate of something like 1.3, they are not maintaining their minimum replacement population. THAT is a consequence of Religious/Moral decline.
Because they aren't making babies the way God intended, (Recreational sex is a Liberal attitude) they needed to import workers just to keep the machinery moving.
The new workers have a moral ethical system that does not come close to creating a functional civilization.
Once the mass murdering starts, I think we can all safely say that the lack of religion in Europe triggered a serious moral problem.
That is an excellent way of putting it. I had never heard of that thesis before. I will have to put it on the shelf right next to "Chesterton Fence."
For instance, the premise that abortion and homosexuality offend against "tradition," but do not harm anybody and are not anti-social.
But if you look at both of these practices objectively and discard the blinkers, you will see that first, both aborting people and sodomizing people "harms" them: one was once rightly recognized as a variety of homicide, and the other an intrinsically violative act. And second, in the transgenerational sense, both acts are unfit for reproduction, and thus reduce the procreative fitness of the family, nation or civilization.
Germany, whose total fertility rate has been cratered for 50+ years, has been importing Turks for generations to make up the deficits in their workforce. At this point, the German economy is still absolutely dependent on the 2nd and 3rd generation descendants of the Gastarbeiter.
That's one reason, I think, why Angela Merkel thought they should "go with it" when a million Iraqis and Syrians appeared at their gates. She still apparently doesn't realize that you really can't build Germany's future without Germans.
Germany will be the first --- but only in the first in a long line --- of nations which have committed suicide by contraception, abortion and buggery.
Turns out Pope Paul VI was right. But even now, nobody will admit it.
It all depends on what your definition of “morality” is.
“For instance, the premise that abortion and homosexuality offend against “tradition,” but do not harm anybody and are not anti-social.”
Or abortion, or cohabitating unmarried couples, or rampant divorce, or... the list goes on and on.
Morality without religion is grounded on nothing, and therefore, not real morality. The Eurotrash will get a religious morality anyway- that of the Mohammadens- because they will treasure political correctness and multiculturalism over survival.
***I guess letting savages mass-rape your female population isnt any sign of decline.***
“...we find no evidence that moral values have become more self-interested or anti-social.”
I guess it shows less self-interest.
My, my. If I read this right, personal autonomy (which I suppose generally translates to guiltless sin) is a substitute for religion. Religion down, but (phew!) personal autonomy’s up. Utter nonsense. How is personal autonomy different from free will? And when did undefined “religion” (what does that mean? every religion? any religion that relies on certain ethical standards? The practice of any or certain of those religions?) qualify per se as an ethical good? Which leads into DiogenesLamp’s retort. Right on!
Pretty stupid article.
Religion is the basis for all morals and principals.
Without it all you have is the state.
Our constitution recognizes religion and promotes it because
it intrusts our morals and values above the state.
The 10 commandments
The golden rule.
As religion is replaced by secularism, researchers found no decline in morals, as measured under secular definitions. I don’t find that conclusion persuasive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.