Religion and Morality: Indispensable Supports?
It’s confession time for Hercules Mulligan: I get more comments on this blog than from irregular readers, than on any of my other (many) blogs. Several of these comments, I have not yet responded to. I sincerely and profusely apologize to those who wrote them for not having given them the attention and concentration that they deserve sooner. I received the following comment from an anonymous reader, on my FFQF post, John Adams on Moral Authority. I anticipated (deliciously anticipated, mind you) contrary reaction from my driving the message which that theme for the month generated. This is the text of that comment, in full:
Be careful with your wording. Religion and morality are two very different things.
We don’t need a supernatural being to make us be good citizens and make moral choices. You must take responsibility and choose to be a moral person – it is much more genuine than someone making those sort of life decisions just to appease a higher being. I often wonder if religious people would still be “good” if they were to find out that there really isn’t a god (or gods, etc.)
As far as religion goes – keep your religion (by all means – it’s your freedom to enjoy), but also keep your religion out of my laws (it’s my country too). Laws are meant to govern a population so as not to oppress those and allow us all to live without fear of discrimination, unwarranted cruelty and/or threat to our lives and health. Religious-based laws often end up doing the opposite (don’t even get me started on this one).
So, in summary – freedom, love and equality for all (not just straight, Christian men and the women that agree with them). It’s that easy – if your religion doesn’t agree with that you must ask yourself where has your religion gone wrong?
I wrote back a rather lengthy response, in order to do this discussion a fair amount of justice (though I could have gone on longer). I do wish people would leave some kind of a name, so I could be more polite and have something more formal to address them with, rather than just “Anonymous.” I decided that it would be better if I made my response a post, rather than such a long comment. Here is that response:
Hello Anonymous. Welcome to my blog, and thanks for reading and leaving your comment.
I agree with you that religion and morality are two distinct things, but I also believe, along with John Adams and George Washington, that morality, on a nation-wide scale, depends upon the influence of religion (since they were speaking in an 18th-century American context, they would have been referring to Christianity in general — no other religion was accepted as valid in America at that time).
Since you seem to disagree with this premise, let me lay before you the following facts:
(1) Man is not inherently good. Oh yes, he has a conscience, and I agree with you that even those who are not religious can make moral choices on their own. The Bible itself tells us this in Romans 2:14-15. However, George Washington boldly declared in his Farewell Address: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” In other words, while we may acknowledge that certain individuals may enlighten their minds, and act reasonably, rationally, and morally, societies and nations have not done this often enough or consistently enough throughout history, or even today, for us to trust that man, without accountability to a Higher Power, will do, or even know, what is right on his own.
(2) Please note that you are not just arguing with me on this subject. You are arguing with George Washington (quoted above), John Adams (quoted in the above post), Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and even Benjamin Franklin (read his scalding letter to Thomas Paine here). I’m not saying that these men were infallible; however, they did possess a lot of wisdom and virtuous character (recall that Washington has been called “the eighth wonder of the world” for his virtue) — enough to found the greatest and freest republic the world has ever known. So, you’d think that their words, not spoken off a whim, but rather, in solemn declarations to the public, would have some considerable weight.
To answer your statement: “You must take responsibility and choose to be a moral person – it is much more genuine than someone making those sort of life decisions just to appease a higher being. I often wonder if religious people would still be “good” if they were to find out that there really isn’t a god (or gods, etc.)”
I think you have a misunderstanding of how religion, or, I should say Christianity, works. Most world religions operate through fear or brainwashing to get people to be good and moral. Christianity, as the Bible defines it, is the work of God in a willing and repentant heart. By renouncing sin, turning from it, and to Jesus Christ and His righteousness, God gives us a new heart. Our appetite is no longer for sin or for the passing pleasures of immorality; God gives us a hunger for Him, and changes us. We act out of willing and grateful obedience for His forgiveness — out of love. Any goodness that Christians may perform is genuine because it is voluntary.
Think about this also: people may want to do right. They may go through all the hoops and hurdles, but there still is a problem. How do you know that everything you do is moral? Who decides what is and is not moral? Now, we may not dispute over things like murder, but how about covetousness? How about adultery? How about little lies? Some people may think those things are not very bad, while others are convinced they are. The truth is, that, they ultimately harm others and harm society. In a free society especially, such things have much bigger consequences.
Consider this also: why does morality matter? I mean, if there is no God, why bother? “Immoral actions hurt other people; that’s why it matters.” True, but how can you possibly tell what will hurt other people? And haven’t you noticed the strange tendency people have to justify the “small” wrong things they do saying “No one will know” or “it won’t hurt anybody”?
Once again, certain individuals may act upon these considerations, but this is not common, since humans are inherently selfish and short-sighted. Therefore, to entrust morals on a nation-wide scale to simple discretion is very dangerous, as Washington was quoted above as arguing.
You say to keep my religion out of your laws. Please define. It’s one thing to force others to convert to my religion, or profess certain creeds from my religion, by using the force of civil law. I am not attempting to do that, and I am not aware of any Christians who are.
But if it is moral laws that we are urging, based on our religious convictions, sorry — our Founders did that before we did. They outlawed sodomy, polygamy, forbade gambling, etc etc out of their own Christian principles. So what Christians want to say, pass laws banning abortion? First of all, it’s not a religious law. It’s a moral law (i. e., killing innocent life is morally wrong), and our belief that abortion is wrong (just like we believe murder, theft, etc is wrong) is based in our Christian beliefs. Maybe you don’t agree with Christianity, but if you have any real sense of morals, why would you object to such legislation? And how does that “religion-based” law hurt people? Maybe you should turn off the major news networks and do some studying.
You say that “laws are meant to govern a population so as not to oppress those and allow us all to live without fear of discrimination …”
It’s a bit hard for me to tell exactly what you are saying here, because I am assuming there is a part after “oppress those” which is missing. So my question is “‘those’ who?”
But let me say this: laws are indeed meant to discriminate. They are meant to discriminate criminals from the innocent, to lay down the difference between what is right and what is wrong in society.
The obvious question then is, “What is the ultimate standard between right and wrong?” If the rulers are left to themselves to decide, they very likely will make those decisions arbitrarily.
Having learned this lesson from history, our Founders set out to establish “a government by law, and not a government of men,” to use John Adams’ wording. But let me ask you this: without God, all law and all authority must ultimately trace to man. And therefore, all morality, all standards of right and wrong, would be the arbitrary dictates of man — usually the man/men with the most power.
Can you please tell me how you can get a government of law without God? I have asked this question to other atheists, and they have been unable to answer. Maybe you can help me, if you have any answer to this.
13 Responses to “Religion and Morality: Indispensable Supports?”
January 24th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Excellent points made, Herky. I see where you come from and have to say you are correct.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Thanks Mrs. M.
January 25th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Well done, Herky. I would add to this statement:
The obvious question then is, “What is the ultimate standard between right and wrong?” If the rulers are left to themselves to decide, they very likely will make those decisions arbitrarily.
As we’ve seen the Bush administration do so successfully, those in power will decree themselves more power. And Obama will be no different.
January 25th, 2009 at 5:24 am
Thanks for reading, Jean. Good additional statement.
I appreciate your time and comments.
God bless you this Sunday.
Herky
April 9th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
akaGaGa, I don’t see your point to call out President Bush here. Our government so quickly pulled away from the founding principles (as early as the mid-1800′s), that very few administrations held to governing from a Biblical foundation. I would argue that the Bush administration did more for morality than many others in recent history… this isn’t a politcal post though
If you’d like to see something VERY scary, check out the original mission/values of some of our oldest education institutions… espeically Harvard and Columbia. There we founded on overwhelmingly Christian values and have since wiped them away. I was watching a video series that tied this movement to 1859 when Blackstone’s teachings on law – based on the bible – were thrown out in favor of case study law.
Great response above, Herky.
Josh
April 9th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
You’re right, Josh, that Bush was not alone. I guess I focused on him because a) he’s recent and b) his violations into our right to privacy really annoy me. But this isn’t a political post, so I’ll stop there.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Hello Josh. Welcome to this blog! Thanks for reading this lengthy post, and leaving your thoughtful comment.
I agree with your position that our government strayed from its foundation as much as 150 years ago. The road to perdition has been a little longer than many of us imagine, I’m sure.
AkaGaGa already explained her mention of Bush; but (not trying to turn a non-political discussion into a political one
) I argue that Bush, although supportive of laws that side with “Christian conservative family values” (respecting infant life, and marriage), did great MORAL damage to our country, simply by not keeping his oath of office, in which he swore in the presence of God to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the US. As you pointed, his administration is not the only one to do this; but he is one of the few examples of Presidents unashamedly and openly placing themselves above the law (he once told a reporter to stop shoving the Constitution in his face, and called it “just a ___ ___ piece of paper”), and retaining the respect and support of “Christian conservative leaders.”
So, this is a moral issue, not merely a political one (although I think both issues in general are inseparable).
I appreciate your comment. I’ve heard about the mission and values of our early elite education establishments from David Barton of Wallbuilders.com, from his film “Education and the Founding Fathers.” Is this the video series you are referring to? Or is there another one? I am interested in the series you refer to, because I am very interested in the subject matter you refer to. Could you give me the name of it?
Thank you.
“Herky”
April 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Herky,
Your “anonymous reader, on my FFQF post, John Adams on Moral Authority” said:
“As far as religion goes – keep your religion (by all means – it’s your freedom to enjoy), but also keep your religion out of my laws (it’s my country too).”
My response to this individual is simple: Trace western civil law back to its origin and you will discover the Ten Commandments. Moreover, your opportunity/right to freely and publicly post your views on a blog is protected by the Bill of Rights, a document based on God’s Moral Law.
As much as our secular culture attempts to separate itself from Judeo-Christianity, the more it will find that Western Civilization and the Christian Religion are inextricably united.
BTW, Herky, I enjoy your Founding Fathers blog.
Freely and Faithfully Yours,
Mt1618
May 1st, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Hello Mt1618. Welcome to the blog! I’m glad you enjoy reading it.
That’s a good point to make about the basis of our law; thanks for adding it. It’s impossible to keep our religion out of those laws, because it is the very worldview that made those laws possible!
Thanks for visiting and leaving your comment. I hope you plan to return again.
Best regards,
Hercules
June 16th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
On the anonymous letter:
(1)Anonymous ("he" for sake of argument) did not claim that man is inherently good and the passage from Romans is not an epiphany. Washington will make a safe assertion in his philosophy because we are charting unfamiliar territory but I believe man is capable of a secular morality derived from situational observation and reason without the "Higher Power"… I noticed that you made it a proper noun. In order to be held accountable to a Higher Power, you need to believe it exists which stems from personal conviction. People become convinced enough to believe in what they can't see when conclusive evidence is presented. A religious book or a quotation from a founding father is not sufficient evidence. You could tell me that I should be held accountable to The Great Mermaid, but If I don't think it's tangible, I'm not going to adhere to the principle that is derived from it.
(2)The argument in Franklin's letter to Paine is basically the same idea that Washington was saying, but yes, scalding and fear-instilling. The argument was to project fear of disapproval onto Paine so that he did not voice his opinion. We have an amendment that protects the freedom of speech, coincidentally is the same one that helps keep religion out of congress, and last I heard, silence is approval. Franklin's letter is testimony to the existence of dogmatic traditions of theists.
"Most world religions operate through fear or brainwashing to get people to be good and moral."
So does Christianity with it's threat of eternal punishment. Right now my 4 and 6 year old niece and nephew are programmatically nodding their heads for the love of Jesus. They're just reciprocating what their mentors train them to do because of brainwashing. It's not like a 4 or 6 year old has the capacity to critically analyze the plausibility of theology.
I noticed your question "Can you please tell me how you can get a government of law without God?"
I think I answered it above… "situational observation and reasoning." …and as far as I knew, there's hardly a trace of religion in ours.
Rodney
June 17th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Rodney, I want to respond to a couple of your statements.
1) "People become convinced enough to believe in what they can't see when conclusive evidence is presented."
I won't speak for anybody else, but although it exists, it was not "conclusive evidence" that convinced me. It was the Holy Spirit convicting me of my sin, and God's loving offer of forgiveness through the cross. Faith in things spiritual comes through the Spirit, not reason.
2) Regarding your niece and nephew: "They're just reciprocating what their mentors train them to do because of brainwashing. It's not like a 4 or 6 year old has the capacity to critically analyze the plausibility of theology."
Thank God they can't! Again, critical analysis doesn't lead to faith in things that must be spiritually discerned.
3) "I noticed your question 'Can you please tell me how you can get a government of law without God?'
I think I answered it above… 'situational observation and reasoning.' …and as far as I knew, there's hardly a trace of religion in ours."
The problem with your method is that "situational observation" is reactionary, it can't predict the future. And man's "reasoning" leaves a lot to be desired, which a cursory look at history will prove.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Hello Rodney. Welcome to my blog, and thank you for commenting. And thank you, akaGaGa, for adding your excellent response, as I (apparently) have been very tardy in adding mine.
I would like to address what I think is the idea behind Rodney’s response. I think it important to treat this subject, as it is fraught with errors which I observe are very prevalent in our society.
Rodney –
You seem to dislike religion in general, and Christianity in particular, because the motivation given by those religions for doing right and not doing wrong is based upon fear and intimidation. You say that Christianity, with its threat of eternal punishment, qualifies as one of those “intimidating” religions. In the stead of religion, therefore, you prefer a sort of secularist rationalism, because you would rather do good and not do evil for rational reasons, not because you are afraid of God.
Let me begin my response with an illustration. Suppose a man is contemplating murder — manslaughter of the first degree. But let us also suppose that in the nation where this man lives, there is the strictly-enforced law that the penalty for murder in the first degree is capital punishment, or, death. This law is designed to do two things: (1) to instill a healthy “fear and intimidation,” if you will, into those who contemplate breaking the law, and (2) to provide the standard of punishment for those who ignore that “fear” and who disregard the law.
With God’s law, it is no different. God, who is just, made everything. Therefore, He and no one else is qualified to decide just what is right and wrong. In the Bible, God says that all men have broken that law, and as such, are liable to the punishment due a criminal — eternal damnation and separation from Him. The reason why Hell is such an awful place is not because God is cruel. It is awful because neither God nor anything of Him is there. And only God is the Giver of anything good. If one is a “criminal” in God’s eyes, yes, he should be afraid; just as a murderer who has committed his crime should be afraid of the heavy hand of just law coming to repay his deed.
However, the born again Christian does not live in fear of eternal punishment. And why? Because he has trusted in Jesus, who took the punishment that all mankind deserves upon Himself. The penalty had to be served; but God cares enough about us, even though we don’t deserve it, chose to come to earth in human form and take it Himself, so that we could be spared.
No one can judge God of being cruel or unfair for this very reason. No one can accuse Him of being too harsh, or of being a capricious tyrant who wants a bunch of blind slaves. He suffered the fierce penalty that He Himself established, and He did it for us, His creation who didn’t care a mite for Him and His laws.
So the Christian is not moral because of fear. He is moral because He is grateful to God for saving Him. He wants to obey the great God that would have the heart to do what He did through Jesus.
Now I agree that unsaved people can do moral things. But let me point you again to the Romans passage (now just what do you mean by “it is not epiphany”? If it is spoken by God it holds great weight) — they are not doing it totally independent of God. Maybe He is not their conscious reason for doing it — but who gave them their reason? Who made the standards of right and wrong, which are so plainly evident to them. And furthermore, who made they themselves?
Another thing. People do not conduct their lives based upon facts that they perceive with their brains. Every action that we do is not first carefully weighed, scrutinized, and balanced by our intellects. Our intellect does have a place in how we live our lives, but we live life from what is in our hearts, not what is in our heads. To illustrate: do the basic principles of mathematics (an area dealing entirely with the intellect) profoundly influence your personal decisions? The principles of mathematics may help you decide how much you need to spend and save in a month, but it is your heart that decides what you will actually do with that knowledge.
Therefore, all reason-based morality (that does not acknowledge God, and His standards) is faulty because it does not deal with the “heart of the matter” — literally. Nor does it provide a stable or common basis for right and wrong. If it is up to man to decide right and wrong (especially in complex situations), even Hitler’s Holocaust could be justified. After all, he was merely defending the interests of his country; he was doing his patriotic duty. Isn’t that moral? “Our country, right or wrong” — is that moral? (BTW, Hitler was very rationalistic. His under-girding philosophy was socialistic Darwinism.)
Now, God gave us rational faculties so that we could appreciate His standards of right and wrong (outlined in the Ten Commandments). He does expect us to use our reason and to think things through. Our reason does serve a great purpose; but God never meant it to replace His authority. And think about it; reason is not an encyclopedia of truth. It is like a calculator; it can only work with the input given to it. It is not an oracle; it is a process by which we digest input. And if our morals are to be correct, we need God’s input. We cannot expect our solitary reason, and our very limited scope of knowledge (and how do we know that what we know is true?), can give us a reliable moral standard, any more than than we can expect a calculator lying on the desk to give us a solution to an equation.
This was a long response to your comment. Thanks for reading and taking the time to add your thoughts.
December 14th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
I’m new to this so bear with me. Also, I know the last comment is a year old but I’ll post anyway.
Rooney– I completely agree with everything you have said. Spot on.
akaGaGa– I have more to say to you.
1) “I won’t speak for anybody else, but although it exists, it was not “conclusive evidence” that convinced me. It was the Holy Spirit convicting me of my sin, and God’s loving offer of forgiveness through the cross. Faith in things spiritual comes through the Spirit, not reason.”
First off, if you’ve got “conclusive evidence” I’d like to see it. I don’t think you have it or even anything that resembles it.
Secondly, I will address faith. Faith is believing without evidence. It is foolish, ludicrous and dangerous. Keep that wishful thinking and idiocy to yourself completely. Don’t spread that virus any further.
2) “Thank God they can’t! Again, critical analysis doesn’t lead to faith in things that must be spiritually discerned.”
This scares me. Intentional indoctrination is child abuse and here I see it being celebrated. The reason critical analysis doesn’t lead to faith is because thinking freely and critically will lead one to realize exactly how crazy supernatural beliefs are, Christian and otherwise.
3) “The problem with your method is that “situational observation” is reactionary, it can’t predict the future. And man’s “reasoning” leaves a lot to be desired, which a cursory look at history will prove.”
Rooney said that he would have us (and in fact, we do) rely on “situational observation” and reason to come to moral conclusions. He never said it was foolproof; no system seems to be. Even you think this way; this is how you conclude parts of the bible to be immoral (like selling your daughter to be a sex slave for example (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)). If you don’t think THAT is immoral then I hope you don’t have any daughters. Or children for that matter. The point is that YOU are using YOUR judgment to determine what is good an what is bad even within the bible itself. You are better than your religion.
Mr. Mulligan– I have a few things to say in response to you as well.
1) “However, the born again Christian does not live in fear of eternal punishment. And why? Because he has trusted in Jesus, who took the punishment that all mankind deserves upon Himself. The penalty had to be served; but God cares enough about us, even though we don’t deserve it, chose to come to earth in human form and take it Himself, so that we could be spared.”
There are so many things wrong with this. If this god existed, he (I use he for the sake of sentence structure) wouldn’t exactly be all-loving. In fact, he would be a capricious, cruel, bully; a straight up ******. God was created in the image of man. Thank goodness there is not a shred of evidence to suggest he(she? they?) exists.
2) “Another thing. People do not conduct their lives based upon facts that they perceive with their brains. Every action that we do is not first carefully weighed, scrutinized, and balanced by our intellects.”
Just because not everything that our brain does goes through our frontal lobes doesn’t mean it still isn’t our brain. You’re assuming that everything that our brains are capable of is confined to rational thought. However, our brains are HIGHLY complex and the more we learn about it the more connections we are able to make between our behavior/instinct and specific parts to of our brain. It is pathetic to use a god-of-the-gaps argument here and say that we need supernatural influence to make the most informed moral decisions possible. Moral reasoning facilities are equally available to you with or without your superstitions.
3) You state that you think Hitler was completely rational and nonreligious. His religiosity is debatable (he made many Christian references in his speeches though these may have been for public support. What is clear is that religion (or the absence of it) did not play a factor in his decision making). However, to say that he is the epitome of nonreligious reasoning is simply insulting. This indirect Ad Hominem argument is as poorly attempted as it is irrelevant.
I said this to akaGaGa and I say it to you: You are better than your religion.
For akaGaGa, I suggest you read some Sam Harris who addresses the danger of the idea that religious ideas and faith are to be treated with unwarranted respect.
For Mr. Mulligan, I suggest you read the chapter on morality in Richard Dawkin’s “God Delusion.”
Thanks for taking the time to go through this obnoxiously large post. Think freely and live happily my friends.
Kyle
Leave a Comment