Is Religion Intertwined with Morality? [feat. Dr. Ben Purzycki]

Dr. Ben Purzycki is an evolutionary anthropologist who studies religion and morality, focusing specifically on "moralistic gods," gods that care about human moral behavior. I sat down with Dr. Purzycki after a religion and science conference at Boston University in 2018.
Join our Patreon community!: / religionforbreakfast
One-time donations here!: www.paypal.me/religionforbrea...
Twitter: @ andrewmarkhenry
Instagram: / andrewmarkhenry

[@ligayaannawi4779]

I am an Anglican here in the Philippines specifically from a small town in Mountain Province. While I was raised as an Anglican, my family practices animism beliefs and practices that are rooted in our indigenous roots since I belong to an indigenous community. Indeed we practice morality based on our animistic belief and we call it inayan - that is the catchall moral belief of our animistic culture and traditions. Example: We should respect bodies of water most specially springs because we believe that springs have deities watching over them ensuring the continuous flow of abundant clean and potable water. If we disrespect such by polluting these springs, the deities watching these would get angry and would cause the spring to dry. Our moral belief of inayan see us through life and we find parallelism in the teachings of Christ in the Bible. That is our guide in this journey called life in our relationship with other people and our environment.

[@Salsmachev]

These gods don't sound amoral to me at all. It sounds like they demand certain activities that promote the common good, ranging from the direct (not over-hunting) to the indirect (ritually demonstrating peaceful intentions). It reminds me a bit of ancient Greek religion, where the gods are frequently straight-up assholes, but they still promote moral behaviour. After all, that stranger asking to stay at your house might be god. I think this might have more to say about how we should understand morality than about whether morality is tied to religion. I frequently do the wrong thing, and the Abrahamic God has never blasted me with lightning for it. The common interpretation of the Abrahamic God's morality (one I disagree with) is that it's very transactional and extrinsic. Neither of those adjectives should give us confidence in the system. If it's transactional, I can negotiate (sometimes pretty literally, as in the case of indulgences) and if it's extrinsic, I can try to get around the punisher (something that begins to seem easy when you realise that bad people rarely get smitten). What I see in these supposedly amoral gods is that they're shifting the location of the transactional and extrinsic elements of how we interact with morality. You can negotiate with a spirit for use of a forest, and if you don't you might get smitten, but you can't negotiate with morality itself and you're left with the natural consequences of bad behaviour. I don't really think we should think in terms of strategically optimising religion, but it seems to me that a kind of dual system would work best. On the one hand, we should have non-moralistic gods to emphasise natural consequences, but on the other hand moralistic gods provide a valuable framework for understanding natural consequences when they arise (by connecting non-material experiences such as feeling of guilt to material actions like stealing lollipops). The two systems could then be welded together by the common element of producing desirable material and social outcomes (prosocial behaviour, not overhunting, etc.). As for stripping religion out of morality, I think it's pointless. Any sufficiently advanced system of morality is indistinguishable from religion, and at some point you're just cutting your nose to spite your face by refusing to use every tool in your toolbox (thought the inverse is clearly not true- religion does not guarantee sufficiently advanced moral systems) We can't control the fact that we don't want to murder people and doing it hurts us. Religion gives us a whole host of symbolic and ritual tools for engaging with that fact and consulting the parts of ourselves we can't control. Rational systems of morality like deontology and utilitarianism deny their own foundation (Kant relies on ideas of desirability, while Mill relies on a very exalted notion of happiness, neither of which is rational or volitional) while also estranging us from that foundation by providing justification structures (utilitarianism deserves a special mention here, as "the greater good" can easily be employed to justify atrocities, even when the anticipated greater good never materialises. Atheists will recognise this pattern as a key element in how religion can mislead from morality). You don't have to use the word god to have a robust moral system, but if it looks like religion, works like religion, and quacks like religion, refusing to call it religion seems like a weird hill to die on.

[@andrewizzoclarke]

This is genuinely one of my favorite channels!

[@chendaforest]

Me too!

[@dersitzpinkler2027]

Dr. Purzycki’s voice is unintentional ASMR levels of soothing. Fascinating video as usual

[@andrewmarkhenry]

I was thinking the same thing as I was editing this video!

[@josephmillraney1061]

Andrew, was dad to see this discussion end so soon. Could have listened to both of you for much longer. Thoroughly enjoyed the conversation...thank you both!

[@Damons-Old-Soul]

I have never understood why knowing how something happens, the rainbow or right person right place right time, is seen to "neutralize" any spiritual or religious perspective on it. As long as the latter acknowledges that there is another explanation of, how a rainbow forms or the skills that person had is what helped.., why can't the former acknowledge the beauty of the rainbow or how amazing it was that the right person was there at the right time? I see no contradiction in acknowledging both.

[@PeloquinDavid]

I'm a lapsed Catholic who retains a certain respect for that tradition (and other religious and secular ideological traditions too, for that matter). I can't help but generalize analyses of how "religion" works and what its effects are to ANY class of ideological beliefs that serve as the basis for collective self-identification as a "community" and for certain collective behaviours. To my mind, the key issue (for the purposes of assessing whether such communities serve "the public good", say) is the extent to which these ideologies translate into intolerant behaviour (including, of course, violence) toward "others". Every religious or secular ideology (including "militant secularists") can have/typically does have its dangerous fundamentalists. But to the extent that these can be marginalized and/or controlled through in-group social pressure in a way that defuses inter-group tensions, I don't see why would-be philosopher-kings in academia seem to enjoy striking poses - even in jest - that advocate for the "suppression" of beliefs and communities to which they themselves do not belong.

[@hellobeastie9289]

I came from a strict Christian religion that was harmful to me so it’s so interesting to see the other side where a moral god or gods can actually be helpful to some people. “A cheap way” to set up a moral society isn’t something I considered before. I really love both your channels so much!

[@aymericst-louis-gabriel8314]

To me I think that what's missing from Christianity is an extra layer of self assessment. In a way we're still in "Pre-scientific" levels of theology. The scientific revolution, was only special in that description of nature was only accepted on condition that it was associated with prediction. In theology there's still too much risk-free "description" going on and not enough "prediction". Theologians need to out skin in the game and show how the types of beliefs they say are true are actually true in virtue of predictable outcomes.

[@nightprowler6336]

Christianity had schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc in its churches for thousands of years.

[@Chamelionroses]

Belief in things golden calf to ideas can help or hurt depending objective and subjective. Placebos and nocebo are things too. I am apatheist seeing humans influence humans but if some think it all only gods( and/ or goddesses) ...my nature I just don't really care.

[@Chamelionroses]

@@nightprowler6336 schools can be both bad and good historically ...also hospitals. I can tell the terrible things done in plan and law...government to religions to other tribes and religious not being the same. Though good things also can be said and improvement...but mental health to if it is demons to shun a person ostracized as witchcraft exists today places at least some will look for the better.

[@Chamelionroses]

@Melancholy Soldier yec need that besides flat earthers for Jesus.

[@josecarlosmoreno9731]

How is it possible to have morality without a divine or supernatural arbiter? As in what determines morality? If you say murder is bad, why is it bad, what is bad? Bad is simply what one person forbids, avoids, or dislikes, etc, likewise with what is good. You can say x is pro social or anti social, but why does that matter? There is always a value judgment and it can only come from someone saying so simply because they say so. If there is no religion, then there is objective morality, it's just different opinions, what's murder for one person is a good thing for another. As well as the issue of no logical reason to have a morality, because it limits personal desires, as in if someone enjoys murder, then why impede their desires if the source of morality is themselves? In that case there exists no morality, simply what is personally convenient at any given time. In contrast, if there is a divine arbiter, then there is a constant morality over time, people, contexts, regions, always constant, so that solves the objectivity. If there are divine consequences, then there is a logical reason to care about morality, there are real incentives and disincentives to being moral. Otherwise, to be a moral atheist is to mindlessly restrict yourself and others based on value beliefs either you made up or usually simply adopted as inertia from the environment you were socialized in with modifications only insofar as you are willing to endure backlash, serves your strongest desires, or your mind accidentally or by exposure decided to latch onto. The only logical position for an atheist is complete amorality, acting out of pure personal convenience, limited only by the cost/benefit of provoking backlash.

[@patrickwoods2213]

The problem with your argument is, where did your god get his morals? From himself? If that’s the case, then your right back to square one. Anyone of us could have been a god. But according to your theology- it was someone else who just so happened to be lucky enough to make the rules. If I were a god, and made the rules according to my nature and personal preference- then how is that any different than a human making the rules according to their personal preference? Who keeps god accountable? It’s basically just a never ending, circular problem. Morality is complicated. We can see clearly through history how morality has changed drastically through the centuries. It’s clear that morality evolved out of necessity for keeping a civil society as humans grew more into functional, and occupational beings. And we’re still evolving. Sure there are a few things that probably haven’t changed much, like murder for example. But even that was different thousands of years ago. Murder might have been considered wrong 3000 years ago - but it was wrong depending on the cultural context of that time, and what the reasons were. Many ancient societies condoned murder for different reasons. For example - in the Bible, it was totally okay to stone a rebellious son to death. Or stone someone for collecting fire wood on the sabbath. Today that would be unthinkable by most people’s standards.

[@emmanarotzky6565]

Only if you’re an emotionally numb robot. Most people have feelings that will tell them if something is good or bad. Everyone agrees that suffering (and whatever causes suffering) is bad because, by definition, it feels bad to suffer. Badness is in the definition of the word. We have all evolved to avoid largely the same sorts of things. That’s why objective morality is so generalized. Let’s say you meet a child who is allergic to peanuts. It would be bad to give that child a peanut butter cookie. That doesn’t mean it is always bad to give children peanut butter cookies, it’s just that it’s bad to deliberately cause someone to become sick (or dead). If you get overly specific with moral statements, then of course it boils down to individual opinions, tastes, and conditions (such as being allergic to peanuts), but the generalized statements are objectively true.

[@josecarlosmoreno9731]

@@emmanarotzky6565 What you call being an emotionally numb robot is actually called not being retarded. Basing anything on feelings is anti-intellectual and illogical, it's literally moronic. And everyone has completely different feelings driven by countless different factors and don't occur consistently even within the same person, so basing anything on feelings is inherently highly unpredictable and creates endless conflict. It's funny that supposedly "logical" atheists don't like where their own logic leads and so jump to basing their beliefs on the most illogical thing possible, feelings.

[@nityadasa5852]

what a great podcast, hope to see Ben joining you on your next podcast. Some very fascinating observation have been made in this video. Tnx for sharing the candle in the dark

[@bertinii]

I liked very much this conversation!

[@usergiodmsilva1983PT]

Went crazy searching for this on Religion For Breakfast, thought it got taken down! 😁 It would be great to have Frans de Waal for an interview to, with his new book being a best seller and all.

[@Jon.Alexander]

Great talk, I thoroughly enjoy these conversations. Thank you. If anybody is interested in similar work to what Ben talked about, I can highly recommend Rane Willerslev and his work on spiritual practices among the Yukaghir people.

[@Crispman_777]

Really interesting!

[@moreach13]

This recently came up among my Facebook friends: Is this correct? : From Naomi Wolf, Ph. D: “Okay, so I was challenged below: "Read the Bible! God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people." So....I may get crucified for this but I have started to say it -- most recently (terrified, trembling) to warm welcome in a synagogue in LA: Actually if you read Genesis Exodus and Deuteronomy in Hebrew -- as I do -- you see that God did not "give" Israel to the Jews/Israelites. We as Jews are raised with the creed that "God gave us the land of Israel" in Genesis -- and that ethnically 'we are the chosen people." But actually -- and I could not believe my eyes when I saw this, I checked my reading with major scholars and they confirmed it -- actually God's "covenant" in Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy with the Jewish people is NOT ABOUT AN ETHNICITY AND NOT ABOUT A CONTRACT. IT IS ABOUT A WAY OF BEHAVING. Again and again in the "covenant" language He never says: "I will give you, ethnic Israelites, the land of Israel." Rather He says something far more radical - far more subversive -- far more Godlike in my view. He says: IF you visit those imprisoned...act mercifully to the widow and the orphan...welcome the stranger in your midst...tend the sick...do justice and love mercy ....and perform various other tasks...THEN YOU WILL BE MY PEOPLE AND THIS LAND WILL BE YOUR LAND. So "my people" is not ethnic -- it is transactional. We are God's people not by birth but by a way of behaving, that is ethical, kind and just. And we STOP being "God's people" when we are not ethical, kind and just. And ANYONE who is ethical, kind and just is, according to God in Genesis, "God's people." And the "contract" to "give" us Israel is conditional -- we can live in God's land IF we are "God's people" in this way -- just, merciful, compassionate. AND -- it never ever says, it is ONLY your land. Even when passages spell out geographical "boundaries" as if God does such a thing, it never says this is exclusively your land. It never says I will give this land JUST to you. Remember these were homeless nomads who had left slavery in Egypt and were wandering around in the desert; at most these passages say, settle here, but they do not say, settle here exclusively. Indeed again and again it talks about welcoming "zarim" -- translated as "strangers" but can also be translated as "people/tribes who are not you" -- in your midst. Blew my mind, hope it blows yours." - Dr. Naomi Wolf

[@beanndip]

Hey Andrew. I'm looking for a specific video, (not sure which of your channels) in which you and your guest are talking about Jesus flipping the tables at passover and the Roman tower overlooking the temple and Pilot having to come to Jerusalem for passover to do his job and not really being stoked about that. Any help is much appreciated! Keep up the good work!

[@1DangerMouse1]

You don't need a god to stop drinking

[@quengho3256]

Yes, you need. Otherwise your god will be drinking.

[@daniel.santos]

Tell that to AA

[@j.b.5422]

its consequence that makes morality.

[@zachariahpoltergeist4516]

"It's complicated."

[@thebelmont1995]

Morality is not intertwined with religion. When we think of morality we think of "not murder, not assaults, not stealing" etc. A lot of religions (including Christianity and islam) actively support murder aswell as slavery and stonings. So morality as we think of it now is not stemmed in or intertwined with religion. Morality is more evolutionary and it changes over time. Even Christianity changed its morals mutiple times across the centuries. And some religions don't even care about morality aswell as certain gods don't ever explicitly state or mention morality.

[@Annekesaid]

Do you have a video about the Akashic records?

[@santiagoaguirre3862]

In the case of the Abrahamic religions, I find it interesting that God doesn't feel the need to have someone write any laws until Moses. Other than just sacrificing to him, the only real command that God gives Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is "circumscise your sons." But if you look at the Greeks and the Romans there is no Moses figure. Hinduism, however, has the Code of Manu. And even before the story of Moses, in the Middle East you had Hammurabi depicting himself receiving the "code of Hammurabi" from the sun god Shamash. So maybe it's a phenomenon that only took place in South and West Asia. But I could be wrong.

[@vrrc7686]

Yeah, anyone who points out that religion should meet its end, has not really thought about the whole concept. As an Atheist, I believe Religion is a needed tool in every day society. There's far too many people out there watching Kardashians.

[@Chamelionroses]

I can understand that but as an apatheist need verses nature and nurture...in the end politics to religion people can interpret whatever but I still wouldn't care excuses.

[@modvs1]

If you had the choice between membership in a morally explicit community vs. a morally ambiguous one- that's a no brainer.

[@amellirizarry9503]

can you elaborate? which kind of communities would be morally explicit or ambiguous and why would one be preferable over the? i suspect i may not disagree with you but i wanna make sure what you mean, either way seems that you have something interesting in mind 🤔

[@burnttoast111]

@@amellirizarry9503 Yeah, I'd rather live in a morally ambiguous society than under ISIS. That's a no-brainer.

[@amellirizarry9503]

@@burnttoast111 well if that’s what it mean, then yeah obviously 🤷‍♂️

[@hurschelrm125]

i wish i could have smoked the blunt with them before this conversation and sat in the corner quiet as fuck the whole conversation

[@georgem7502]

Is the Pious pious because it is loved by the gods... or is it loved by the gods because it’s pious? (I just thought of that, super profound, right... And entirely original...)

[@Chamelionroses]

This video should have more like but I expect with vaugeness on religion and politics ...in also saying " gods" ...besides philosophy it is not so popular going on facts first over feels?

[@paradisecityX0]

What do you believe, Andrew? Just curious

[@Crispman_777]

Going by the way he discusses religion in all his videos and some of the background details in his older videos I'm guessing he's an atheist (or an analogous term that can be generally interpreted as something similar to "non-believer"). That is just a guess though. I imagine it's more professional, respectful, productive and less antagonistic to keep quiet about his beliefs the way he does though, whatever he believes. It's certainly what I would do if I had to talk to and about deeply religious people all day.

[@GraemeMarkNI]

God knows 😉 Srsly though, I get a “raised Christian, but now more open-minded” kind of vibe 🤷🏻‍♂️ That said, KZbin commenters can put words in his mouth all day, I don’t think he’ll ever confirm or deny it.

[@burnttoast111]

@@GraemeMarkNI I do think atheism may be a sort of implicit requirement to be more objective about religion. Although, I think if a person can step outside their beliefs when examining religion, that might work, although I don't know how easy that would be. I don't think a person is going to do good analysis if they see the religious landscape consisting of a particular religion as 'Truth', and all other religions are 'manipulations of sinners by Devils'. I just don't see much good scholarship coming out of that. Might be a little tough to get past peer review.

[@federalbureauofinvestigati1675]

@@burnttoast111 I love this dude’s channel because he is super unbiased it seems. I would not go to a Christian (even though I am Christian) KZbinr to learn about Islam and vice versa. Or any religion talking about another religion for that matter. I definitely think atheists can be biased but he doesn’t come off that way and I would much rather go to an atheist or agnostic to learn about the history in and around a religion then to a religious person who can be extremely biased to their own and others beliefs.

[@federalbureauofinvestigati1675]

@@burnttoast111 I would like to clarify that I agree with your statement and am adding to the discussion haha. I don’t want to come off bad:(

[@TeethToothman]

⚡

[@bobbyg5154]

The dichotomy of secular/religious is a Christian idea. If you are wanting the world to be secular, you’re a missionary. You’re Christian.

[@facundocesa4931]

I find that talk about "picking your poison" between theism or drunkenness quite condescending. Also, a false dichotomy. Also wrong for other reasons. Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum. They inform our actions, and influence others. Beliefs that are apparently harmless can mutate at any moment and become destructive, when they're not tethered to reality. Beliefs are not individual. They're contagious. And religious beliefs are even more contagious pretty much by definition. So even if we find a singular case where we could establish that a false belief is better for an individual, turns out no man is an island. The thing he clings to when resisting alcohol can be the same that prompts him to hate gays, for instance. And I don't want a society of sober homophobes.

[@emmanarotzky6565]

Okay, but that’s just another poison. You can easily replace alcoholism with homophobia in the original statement, as theism could be used to cure homophobia (far more easily than alcoholism, since alcohol is an addictive drug and homophobia is just being a dick to one’s neighbors. You can stop being homophobic by simply deciding to grow up and be a better person, but you can’t immediately beat a physiological addiction by just deciding that you want to). But if you have both of those vices, I would tell you to focus on the alcoholism first, mainly because it’s immediately dangerous to your survival. Unless your homophobia is manifesting as hate crimes, it’s probably just talking shit and being an ass, which is annoying but it’s not going to kill anyone as fast as alcoholism will kill you. So focus on getting sober first, and if you use a moralistic god to do so, you will probably shed your homophobia along the way- or af the very least it will be much easier to get rid of the homophobia when you’re sober and clearheaded and armed with the knowledge that you have already defeated a much more difficult vice.

[@alethearia]

Question: Where do folktales fall in a religious context? Like, my point of reference is a western, European, Christian majority. I grew up hearing about Santa being a judge or morality, and the Scissor Man, the Tooth Fairy, and Krampus, and "don't go into the woods because of witches and wolves", but then grew up and my parents were like "oh, yeah. Those aren't real, but God... oh he'll judge you more than them. Are these folktales holdovers from older religions? What place do they have in a more western culture? Part of me is almost jealous at the rest of the world having held a tighter grip on their folk religions. I feel like there's something very rich and deep that's been lost in a lot of western christianity.

[@doctorshell7118]

I have no doubt that there are evolutionary reasons for why our species believes in gods. Interesting chat. The difference between religion and other gatherings in the US is that religion pays no taxes and heavily influences our laws though.

[@doctorshell7118]

Zen Tao how were US laws built around religious ideas and which religion are you talking about?

[@wmlundine]

...ben.

[@TheFrigginDevil]

Your voices are so nice. Mmm. Nighty nite 💤💤💤

[@ziadlalmi]

Evolutionnary anthropology ...bias , he cannot be objective

[@ordinary_deepfake]

So any one can become a Dr i see

[@jameskosusnik1102]

Found a troll in its wild habitat.

[@RobbieSalome]

Joseph Campell, on "Spirit's"...archain, primal religion's Aztec's, Incan & Mayan ...religions, ...archetypal....even early American Indian, traditions, ...European Religious system's, Wall Painter's...different, .... Mathew Alpert, "God Part of the Brain"....see Art Bell, interview 1998...on George Noorey, ....and Dr. Andrew Newberg,..on "Spiritual Theology,"....et,al...see Julian Jaynes, work on the Bi-Cameral Mind, specifically Tor Norretanders Book, "User Illusion".1992...a deep read,...and Patanjulies, on the Upanishads.... SHEMA YISRAEL 🕎

[@adamlane6453]

Do you expect anyone to make sense of what you wrote?