OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Moral or Religious

Entry 602, on 2007-09-05 at 20:10:26 (Rating 5, Religion)

The Infidel Guy's podcast is a great source of material for my anti-religious rants. Today I listened to an interview with Sam Harris, the author of two popular books which question the value and morality of religious beliefs, and his thoughts were even more inflammatory than most of the others!

One of the great justifications for religion is that it provides a moral code for people and that without religion for guidance people would revert to some sort of immoral state where there is total anarchy. This is total nonsense of course, but most religious people are too stupid to analyse the facts and see it for the nonsense it is. Instead they just blindly believe what they are told and use a perceived lack of morality as a reason to denigrate atheists.

A common definition of morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior" and this definition has the problem that it requires a standard definition of right and wrong or good and bad. Without a god how can we have that definition? Well we can't of course and this might imply that morality is impossible for an atheist. But there is a way out. Humans (and many other species which also exhibit moral behaviour) have evolved as a social species and in that process a set of rules which govern interaction between individuals has arisen. This is where the idea of good can originate from. So there is something that effectively is an absolute good, and its a natural consequence of evolution. That's a very satisfactory result for an atheist.

If atheists were genuinely immoral we would expect to see many examples in atheist groups of what a normal social person would see as bad behaviour. But we don't. In fact I see Catholic priests indulging in immoral sexual behaviour with young boys. I see Muslim extremists killing people with bombs. I don't see leading atheist organisations (for example leading scientific groups) indulging in immoral behaviour.

And remember that morality is to do with good and bad, not with what some real or imagined higher power might tell you to do. So when the Bible says that breaking a commandment such as "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." is immoral or sinful that's just garbage.

I think there is a good case to say that it is religious people who are immoral, not the atheists. Religious people act like morons. They are incapable of examining the brainwashing they receive in their churches to see if their standards of right and wrong have anything to do with morality. There's a difference between a moral standard and an arbitrary rule. They should engage their much under-utilised brains and think about what's more important: to be moral or to be religious.

Comment 1 (851) by WF99 on 2007-09-20 at 08:27:22: (view recent only)

"One of the great justifications for religion is that it provides a moral code for people and that without religion for guidance people would revert to some sort of immoral state where there is total anarchy."

I wouldn't go to that extreme, but it has been a help in that respect.

"This is total nonsense of course,"

Yes.

"Humans ... have evolved as a social species and in that process a set of rules which govern interaction between individuals has arisen. This is where the idea of good can originate from."

Really? Why do so many people have different forms of morality? Adolf Hitler was Roman Catholic, yes, but why did he view his ambitions as justified while a vast majority find his actions aghast? There is no passage of Roman Catholic Scripture (to my knowledge, anyway) that orders you to sanction the mass-slaughter of Jews, so why is his morality different?

"I think there is a good case to say that it is religious people who are immoral, not the atheists."

Morality is a subjective standard, though. You've mentioned that repeatedly throughout our discussions.

"Religious people act like morons. They are incapable of examining the brainwashing they receive in their churches to see if their standards of right and wrong have anything to do with morality."

Rape and murder. They're outside of the standards of both morality and right and wrong.

"There's a difference between a moral standard and an arbitrary rule."

What "arbitrary rules"? The "no graven image" thing? It means don't worship false gods. I think that that would be a totally fair request, provided God did exist.

"They should ... think about what's more important: to be moral or to be religious."

Being religious is just taking being moral one step further.

Comment 2 (852) by OJB on 2007-09-20 at 10:44:33:

In fact, the morality of different cultures has a lot of similarities. Killing, stealing, lying, etc are all commonly held to be bad. This is what we would expect if it was the result of cultural evolution as a response to a social group lifestyle. Of course there are differences which generally make sense in the social context of the group involved.

Morality is subjective but there is widespread agreement on what is moral and what isn't. Most people would say that following a morality because you genuinely believe it is the right thing is better than following a morality for fear of the consequences imposed by a church if you don't.

The graven image thing is an arbitrary rule even if god exists, because it does no harm to anyone. Of course, god doesn't exist and what it really is is a rule the church uses to protect itself.

I would love to hear your justification for religion being the next step from morality. From my perspective it is anything but that!

Comment 3 (860) by WF99 on 2007-09-21 at 08:16:38:

Yes, we are mostly similar, but what about the odd ones out?

You're treading on dangerous water with your second statement. Was Adolf Hitler doing the right thing?

It does do harm, if God did exist. But that's apparently the point where the debate can't go any further.

I think that my closing statement could have been phrased more carefully. I meant that religion is simply interweaving morality with other ideas.

Comment 4 (865) by OJB on 2007-09-21 at 13:34:18:

The odd ones out probably aren't as odd as you may think. I suspect (I can't prove this because its a long time since I studied anthropology) that there might not be any societies which don't share a significant majority of core "moral" beliefs with humanity as a whole.

What Hitler did wasn't because he thought it was moral, he did it because he wanted power and it suited his political purposes. On the other hand Christians went on the Crusades and killed many innocent people because they were told it was moral by their church.

We can debate religious morality whether god exists or not, but let's just pretend he does. Do you think that god has the right to impose any rules he likes on us?

I agree with the idea that religion interleaves morality with other ideas. Different religions have different moralities and immoralities. I look at religions from an objective perspective and take out the good while discarding the bad, but to do this I first discard faith and supernaturalism. By aligning yourself with one religion you lose all the good stuff in others.

Comment 5 (871) by WF99 on 2007-09-23 at 02:49:03:

*acknowledges that I've been outmatched in the first point*

I don't think that God's imposing a morality at all. Backing up to Eden, God was really just imposing facts. "The situation is this: you can live with me, or you can rebel." That seems fair enough. Now, it's, "You can accept my redemption for you, or you can rebel." I believe that that's the way it is. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, it's factual.

Your perspective on religion works perfectly if all you're looking for is a good guide for living. Some choose religion for the purpose of factual truth, not for a rulebook.

Comment 6 (872) by OJB on 2007-09-23 at 10:25:24:

OK, I agree that if we had good reason to believe Christianity was factual then the rules would change. But its clear that Christianity isn't true. Most the Old Testament stories and demonstrably false and the New Testament has almost no support from history. Many Christians now choose to interpret the stories as symbolic rather than literal.

If it could be shown that the Christian God really exists in the form described in the Bible then there might be a case to accept his rules (even then I would say blind acceptance isn't necessarily the right response) but given that there is no good reason to accept the stories as literal then I think its only sensible to reject the rules some people attribute to god.

Comment 7 (875) by WF99 on 2007-09-24 at 05:52:17:

Exactly my point. The Bible was originally intended to be a factual account of history. If it's been proven that it's not factual, then the Bible is entirely worthless, with exception to any positive elements that people can glean from it.

Comment 8 (880) by OJB on 2007-09-24 at 10:36:48:

OK, so we agree on that. The Bible should be relegated to being an interesting historical text which has some interesting moral lessons in it. It is also a hugely important book because it formed the basis for western thought for many years. But pretending it is literally true, or that its laws must be obeyed is both crazy and dangerous.

Comment 9 (883) by WF99 on 2007-09-24 at 10:46:36:

If it's properly interpreted, it shouldn't be dangerous at all. The command that you must slaughter an animal and sprinkle its blood all over someone whenever they sin would certainly cause havoc if it had any bearing on today's society. The Bible is the best moral compass I know. Christians take it to be even more. That's all.

Comment 10 (884) by OJB on 2007-09-24 at 12:16:00:

I have no idea what "properly interpreted" means and I don't think any Christians know either. Does it mean the original meaning, or does it mean reinterpreted to fit a modern context, or does it mean reinterpreted in a symbolic way, or does it mean treated as an interesting piece of historical fiction? No one knows, so different groups tend to interpret it in the way that fits their needs.

If the Bible is the best moral compass you know can I ask what other sources of moral guidance you have considered, and why you rate them as inferior to the Bible.

Comment 11 (886) by WF99 on 2007-09-25 at 03:41:22:

Understanding the grammatical and historical context of the passage, for one thing. Such as the passage in one of Paul's letters that says that unmarried men should stay unmarried - that obviously applied only to the people that he was writing to, for various reasons at the time.

There aren't very many moral compasses out there, really - at least not set-in-stone. I've read passages of the Koran and other holy books. All contain fragmented morality here and there - it's really impossible to write a doctrine for a religion without it.

Comment 12 (887) by OJB on 2007-09-25 at 12:25:15:

OK, there are two problems with what you say regarding context. First, the average reader probably won't have the knowledge to understand the subtleties of comments made in that context; and second, even experts in history and experts on theology can't agree on what a lot of the passages mean. Clearly the Bible (and other holy books) fail as a useful communications medium to the "average person".

Have you looked at any of the non-religious moral statements, such as the UN declaration of human rights, here.

Comment 13 (888) by WF99 on 2007-09-30 at 06:07:26:

Hmm. You've made your points. I'm only posting this so that it won't appear like I'm deliberately dodging anything. I just don't have anything to more to say.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.