Posted by:
RPackham
(
)
Date: October 17, 2014 11:12AM
This topic came up recently in our local newspaper, where a lay Christian minister wrote a column claiming that morality comes from God. I responded with this in my own column:
-------------
In a recent guest editorial in this paper under the title "Without religious ideas, how do we define morality?" Dr. Tim Powell suggested the topic is "worth discussing." I agree, and I accept the invitation.
Dr. Powell suggests that we need an "objective standard of ethics ...upon which all society can agree." That is probably the original meaning of the term "morals," based on the Latin word "mores" which simply meant "customs," meaning the customs which a society agrees on and often codifies into its secular or religious laws. I still agree.
But then he suggests that religion will provide that "objective standard." Here we part ways. Although he does not specifically say that by "religion" he means the Judeo-Christian religion, he does not mention any other. The implication that those who have no religion, or a different one, are therefore incapable of being moral would certainly be offensive (and incorrect) to the part of the American population who are in that category.
I have no doubt that the morality of many Americans is indeed based on their Judeo-Christian religion. One Christian asserted to me that if it were not for his Christian beliefs, he would be a mean alcoholic who would romance the neighbor's wife, cheat on his taxes, and beat his dog. I am truly happy that his religion-based morality protects us all from him.
But even the Judeo-Christian religion does not provide an "objective standard." Not even the Christians can agree on the specifics. Some Christians assert that religion tells them the use of contraceptives is immoral. Others say it's not. Some say it is immoral to work on a certain sacred day (unable to agree on which day that is), others say it may be a sin, but not immoral. Some religious believers consider eating bacon to be immoral, or drinking a glass of wine, but that smoking a cigarette is not immoral. Other religious-based moralists hold the opposite. And none can convince those who disagree. So where is the "objective standard"?
Nor does religion as a base for society's morals have a good track record. It was religious morality (Judeo-Christian) that condoned slavery, the burning of witches and heretics, and the inferior status of women. It is religion-based morals in many Islamic countries that we Americans (even Christians) find abhorrent.
Dr. Powell suggests that deciding what is moral is not simply checking a list of do's and don't's. He will find that many devout Christians will strongly disagree, such as those who are advocating the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools and government buildings. Those Ten look like a list to me. The real basis for morality, Dr. Powell suggests, is the love that he says emerges from God. That may well be a lovely thought, but it is not of much practical value in deciding what is right and wrong.
A believer in God may well believe that God, and belief in God, is the source of his morality, and (like my Christian friend) that may well be true. But that is not the only available source for morality, any more than Supermarket X is the only source for groceries. You may get all your food there, and believe it is the very best source, but others may have a different source.
The study of ethics and morality is a major part of philosophy and psychology, and scholars there rarely see religion as their basis. Deciding on what is right or wrong, or good or bad, in any specific situation is often not an easy choice. Simple rules like "What would Jesus do?" are no better guide than Jiminy Cricket's song "Always let your conscience be your guide." There is often no clear answer, even in the religious rule books or the statutory penal codes.
What is clear is that each person who is faced with a moral choice must realize 1) that almost all such decisions may have both good and bad consequences; 2) that one must weigh all possible consequences; and 3) that the one making the choice is responsible for those consequences. And nobody else. I won't stick my nose in your moral choices if you keep away from mine.
Not everyone will make the same choice. But if we value our freedom, we must be very cautious in trying to force our choices on others. That, in my view, is the height of immorality.
-------------------
One only has to read a few chapters of a good introduction to ethics to realize that such religion-based systems do not even begin to help with ethical and moral answers, because they do not even recognize the complex moral problems.
In the wake of the 2000 school shooting, Newsweek Magazine, whose cover story in its March 13 issue was "Murder In The First Grade," did a feature story inside called "How Kids Learn Right From Wrong" (pp 33-34). It was an excellent survey of the latest research and findings from child psychologists and educators, and traced the development of the moral sense in the child, and what promotes it and what destroys it. It was fascinating. For example, they have determined that the very young child is by nature empathetic, and feels the emotions of another child who is hurt or sad. It seems to be instinctive. The child then develops under the influence of the kind of environment it has, whether filled with conflict or with love. It learns by imitating what it sees.
And there was not a single word about religion! (And this in a magazine which had about four cover stories in the same year on Jesus, Biblical Prophecy, the Pope's Holy Land visit, etc.!)
The Smithsonian Magazine cover story for its January 2013 issue is "Are Babies Born Good?" And again, no mention of religion or God:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/Are-Babies-Born-Good-183837741.html?c=y&story=fullstory