There is no morality outside of religion
Religion cannot and should not be usurped by science.
By Joe Hargrave on Monday, March 16th, 2009 - 1,078 words.
It is not merely a defensive or evasive tactic for modern theists to assert that science and philosophy deal with fundamentally different kinds of knowledge, and that scientific discoveries about the workings of matter do not in the slightest threaten faith in the divine.
Like so many comforting myths, the history of the supposed antagonism between religion and science is filled with half-truths in the service of ideology. Professional historical scholarship has debunked, discredited, or at least cast doubt upon every popular notion of what occurred between religion and science from the Middle Ages through the Renaissance and beyond (see books such as Aristotle’s Children by Richard E. Rubenstein).
Even so, many people in the advanced industrial countries North America, Europe, and elsewhere today are scratching their heads, wondering, “How, in the 21st century, can there still be so many people professing belief in supernatural phenomena and adhering to religions?” The premise is that the development of scientific knowledge over the course of the last few centuries has made religious belief intellectually unjustifiable.
Outspoken atheists have decided that religious beliefs were, at best, ways for primitive man, before the dawn of science, to make sense of the world around him. Now that science has made sense of it, or so it claims, we no longer need religion, or faith in God. What in a previous era could only have been attributed to God is now easily attributable to the blind and thoughtless mechanics of the universe.
As a rejoinder to this short-sighted narrative, I would point out that philosophical materialists have never been able to explain away the challenges to the mechanistic, deterministic universe raised by discoveries in quantum physics in the 20th century. But this is not why millions of people continue to hold to their religious beliefs. They do so, quite simply, because they choose not to accept another set of fantastic tales told by some of the very people who claim to have disproved and rejected all fantastic tales: that moral truth can exist without God.
The wasteland of postmodern philosophy and moral relativism, which seeks to undermine both religious and objective scientific truth, was born in the realization that, as Sartre once quipped, “If God is dead, everything is permissible”. The professional atheist, ever defensive about the claim that atheists can’t possibly be moral individuals, quickly leaps at this point to a dozen or so non-theistic moral philosophies after he or she has finished pointing out all of the supposedly immoral acts committed by religious people.
But that is not the point of the quip. Every religious person should immediately concede that, first of all, atheists are fully capable of living moral lives, and secondly that religious people have committed moral atrocities in history – though I would sharply disagree on some of the specifics that are part of an utterly false and ideologically-motivated historiography. Whether one professes belief in God or not is irrelevant, for it is not the issue. Theists believe that God created everything and everyone, including atheists – to deny that atheists are capable of morality would be as absurd to deny that they are capable of eating or breathing. Morality is an essential part of our humanity.
Morality does exist outside of religion, in a way. But it exists as an absurdity and a farce. Moral truths cannot arise from matter, nor can they possibly be reduced to it. There is no physical process in the universe capable of working out a human right. In a purely mechanistic universe that consists of nothing but matter-in-motion, to suggest that an anyone has an obligation to do anything is to promote blind faith in an eternally unverifiable hypothesis. We might call it “The Secular Delusion”, a nice story that millions of intelligent adults tell themselves so they can get on with their day without having to worry about the horrifying truth: that their reality is nihilism.
These intelligent men and women, every day, may engage in acts of kindness, generosity, and even love, and for that no one should ever begrudge them. It is always wonderful when faith – in abstract “humanity“, in some unverifiable ideal of goodness, even in one’s self – motivates people to do what is right and good, even if that faith is unreasonable. I for one greatly prefer any good done, for any reason, even a silly one that isn’t based in reality, than evil done for any reason. After all, no one but a psychopath (distinct, I hope everyone understands, from one who is psychotic) gets excited about the notion that “everything is permissible”. In spite of the contempt that many atheists may show for traditional religious morality, they still usually believe there has to be some kind of morality, whether it is derived from a “will to power”, a hollowed-out liberalism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, Marxism, fascism, or Randian “Objectivism“. But it is in that “has to be” that they are lost. Nothing “has to be” – we want it to be, we are sure in our heads that it should be, but only when we acknowledge God and a whole realm of existence beyond matter, an eternal existence where we are called to account for who and what we are, can we be confident that it must be.
Those atheists who find themselves unable to avoid the implications of their worldview, moral nihilism, are on the first step towards understanding at the very least the rationality of theism. Like the gravity which pulls us back down to Earth, the existential angst we feel when we are resolved to no longer entertain baseless theories of morality draws us back to the only possible source of objective, universal, timeless morality: a God who created us as an act of selfless love, endowing us with free will so that we may share in eternal life and happiness.
That we long for this so deeply, when we really empty all of the useless junk out of our minds and simply contemplate existence as human beings, strongly suggests to me that it must exist somewhere, as surely as we know there is a fire when we see smoke hanging in the air. In the end belief in a moral truth demands a leap of faith no different than that of belief in God. And if one is courageous enough to assert that there is such a thing as a moral truth, then accepting the reality of God is not so great a step as it may seem at first.
(-3 rating, 9 votes)
Loading ...28 Comments
Leave a Reply
Articles by this author
-
The US minimum wage debate is bogus
All of the tongue-clucking of the economists will never convince voters that granting more power to business will improve their lives. They know from bitter experience that what employers want is more work for less pay, and they will use the means at their disposal to reverse the trend
-
Strong community is the best defense against the Leviathan state
Joe Hargrave on the relationship between the state and the individual
-
There is no morality outside of religion
Religion cannot and should not be usurped by science.
-
The Hidden Hunger: We need to invest in every human and create real foundations for cooperation
The economic crisis was the result of unrestrained financial markets and a haywire capitalism that is anti-human. To get the best out of humanity we need to build up cooperation through rational planning.
-
The potential alliance between the religious and the secular
The attempt to separate the Church and State is a futile one, because many of our moral victories have been achieved because of religious morality.
-
It's time for a democratization of the economic system
Political democracy is a recent accomplishment of humanity; now our energy must concentrate on democratizing the economic system in a similar vein.
I think you're pinning a lot on 'has to be.' I certainly don't think morality 'has to be.' Morality changes across time and societies. But in the end it is something that each society decides for itself. Christians, too, in general, choose their morality based on the situation of their society. Christian morality today is different to christian morality of times past.
In short, morality comes from secular considerations; the religious then convince themselves they take their morality from their particular flavor of god.
Well does this guy think he can outdo Plato? Tell me oh wise one, does God love good because it is good, or is good good because God loves it?
Answer this question and you will see that morality without God is perfectly possible. It is a conundrum solved more than 2000 yeard ago in Euthyrpro. I suggest you read it.
Another example of science or though having to be bent to fit religious worldviews. Obviously has no grounding in logic anyway.
So it's logically impossible for morality to arise out of reality, but it CAN arise from faith — i.e., belief in the absence of evidence — and we can be 100% certain in the truth of that faith-based morality? Please read Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness to see the absurdity of this, and how one person did discover an objective moral system based only upon facts available to everyone.
I suppose it would be futile to point out that "materialism", whatever that would be in 2009, is possibly not the only conceivable alternative to religion.
So you found out about the naturalistic fallacy and ran with it. this is crude, and old hat. there are innumerable ways in which moralaity can be contructed and only some of them depend on recourse to God. Reciprocity is a feasible basis for morality that has nothing to do with god for example. its only neurotic pople who can't tollerate the negotiations necessary for living in a moral world not dictated by axioms that you can learn of by heart, that will like this argument, peopl who think that something needs to be total for it to exist at all.
i'm bored
p.s. when you say "we all long for this" i think you've made that mistake of thinking that "you" and "we all" are the same thing. personally, the fact that there is no "objective" morality, doesn't in the slightest reduce my sense of moral obligations to people around me.
and now i'm angry
you've just fucking butchered alot of philosophers that i really like (Hume, G E Moore, Kirkergard…) leave em alone.
Stepping aside from the above comments for a moment – what is said to be the consequence of concluding that morality is a human construct? What difference does it make whether morality "has to be"?
A person might conclude that morality is simply something a particular group of humans have themselves decided to do because they believe that their society will work best if that happens. So what? The issue raised in Joe's article is that this is "irrational". I'm not sure how that follows.
Simply because something is a human construct doesn't make it irrational. To stretch an analogy – the concept of a company as a legal entity is a purely human construct that clearly does not "have to be". That doesn't mean that the idea of a company isn't valuable, influential and likely to endure into the forseeable future. It doesn't, as best I can tell, make it irrational. Even if it does – what does that tell us?
Try going to japan. although Japanese follow Shinto and Buddhist rituals the majority do not belive in God. Yet it has one the lowest crime rates of any country in the world. I personally found the Japan to be a very considerate and polite country-far more so than the US.
"Like the gravity which pulls us back down to Earth". Gravity? Don't you mean "Intelligent falling"?
The thing that amuses me about "theists" is that, were I, after spilling the salt, to sprinkle some over my right shoulder, or to plan my day on the basis of the astrology column in the local rag, they would laughingly dismiss this as 'superstition". When I make the same suggestion about their beliefs, they accuse me of "moral nihilism". But just think, matey, I have chosen to be "righteous" because I think it is right to be so, not because of some "moral imperative" involuntarily thrust upon my by some fictional deity.
Mind you, I shouldn't really take you too seriously; you appear to think politics is a "science"…
Well, I must say, this was about the reaction I expected.
I only want to make a couple of points as a rejoinder to some of the general criticism raised.
I didn't come up with the title of this article. If you will all kindly notice, I said that "moral truth" cannot exist outside of religion/God – not morality. There IS a difference, depending on how we define morality. Without God, of course, we each as individuals, or even different societies in different times and places, "create" a morality, a set of rules by which people are supposed to live. But these are not moral truths; they are contingent rules that only last as long as they are convenient . If morality = set of rules by which one lives, then of course morality could exist without God. But moral truth means something else. It means that, in the same way 1+1 = 2 even if the whole entire world is ready to kill and be killed to assert that it is 3, right is right, and wrong is wrong, even if the whole world sees otherwise.
"Well does this guy think he can outdo Plato? Tell me oh wise one, does God love good because it is good, or is good good because God loves it? "
God is perfect. We can only be united with Him if we are likewise perfect. There is no subjective, linguistic problem here. For theists – at least a sizable number of us – morality is how we align our base human nature to God's perfect nature. That is practically the definition of a saint. A nature is an objective thing, we do not define it, we do not create it – we either have it or we don't.
We traditionally call what will align us with this perfection the good, and that which will disrupt that process, the bad. But regardless of what we call them, the differences in our natures and the incompatibility of imperfect, impure beings with divine perfection would remain the same. With all due respect to Plato and Euthyrpro, they lived before this fuller and richer picture of God became a worldwide phenomena. But what is your excuse? You live in a world that has been saturated with it for at least 2000 years. Yet you, like so many others, never take the time to see what it is thoughtful theists really believe.
No more comments from me, though. I know I offended some of you, but I also know I've been offended plenty of times here and elsewhere. We will never stop offending one another.
What still amuses me is that your reply doesn't actually make completely clear to which mythology you subscribe. When you refer to "God" do you mean Ra, YHWH, Jehovah, Zeus, Allah or one of the more obscure deities. Or are you a "Christian"*, and if so, which branch? What convinces you that the one you subscribe to is the "right" one, and why? Are the subscribers to the other branches of Christianity on the "wrong" path? Is that what JC meant when he said "in my father's house there are many mansions"?
Remember, when you evangelise you can't suddenly say "No more comments from me, though". You have a "moral responsibility" to answer the questions you've generated…
*Mind you, the "2000 years" reference is possibly a hint
And you didn't offend me; you amused me. Subtle difference. But I still want answers…
Well, since you asked me so nicely, and since I live only to amuse you and your chums –
I do believe that Christianity is the fullest and richest expression of faith in God. But that doesn't mean that I believe every other religion is 100% wrong. For my part, I believe practically all of them, from tribal religions to the major religions in existence today get some or even many pieces of the puzzle.
Why do atheists always assume that all religions must necessarily be totally and mutually exclusive to one another? Is the shouting of the isolated fundamentalist really the only voice you hear?
Firstly, Joe, it's not us that insist that all religion's be mutually exclusive, its religions that do this. See for insatnce: God vs. Baal, The crusades… ad infinitum.
When we chriticise you on this one, were merely insisting that for your doctrine should at least be internally consistent.
Secondly, Clearly many people do think that ethical thoeries can found morality in non-revealed truth. Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and Virtue ethics do in fact exist, moreover they have been robustly defended by generations of Philosophers. Therefore, either you should have good reasons for dismissing these positions, or you should accept that your view that your idea of morality is merely one amongst many.
You do neither of these things
Therefore, you are wrong. QED
You say will make no more comments, which is an attitude of contempt to your audience. Then you come back with a patronizing attitude – ‘since I only live to amuse you and your chums.’ I would suggest that if you are unwilling to treat your readers with respect, and unwilling to tackle their questions, you are not yet ready to be posting on a site that invites public interaction.
You say moral truth cannot exist outside of religion. Of course it cannot; that is because there is no such thing as moral truth. It is a fiction, just like religion. It’s no surprise you would therefore bundle them together.
Morality changes, and each society decides its own morals. This is exactly as true for religious society as it is for non-religious society.
You make the claim that atheists ‘never take the time to see what it is thoughtful theists really believe.’ Very well then; tell us what you believe. Give us some insight into how you align your ‘base human nature to god’s perfect nature.’ Just a few basic pointers – I am not so prurient as to expect you to bare your whole moral soul. But you raised the issue, and I would like to read some justification.
I would like to hear a ‘moral truth’ that comes from your religion. I would like to learn how your moral thinking is a product of your religion rather than simply a product of your society. What moral truths does your belief give you access to beyond the morality held by the average atheist?
Well, you're right, I shouldn't have said no more comments, and then commented. I won't do it again.
Then I can only conclude you lack the ability to defend your position. Therefore your argument above must be considered as lost.
I accept your beliefs on sainthood and the perfection of God as legitimate positions.
However, when you say "moral truth" is what you mean one's certainty of correctness of a moral code? Because to my mind, that's like saying "I know I'm right and that certainty is what I seek". I still don't understand how being a theist gives one an insight into truth, rather than just a belief that one has an insight. What is less contingent about a moral code based on religion except the believer's belief that it isn't contingent? The essence of faith is all that is different I think.
What is my excuse? I didn't say I was an atheist. My problem was with the logic. I don't believe a website like this should publish an article like this where all criticism is subsequently deflected by the "I'm right, you're wrong and I know because I'm a believer" line. Where lies the potential for dialogue there?
I still think this article was a semantic trap set by a firm believer before he thought it through.
I can't find that this article contains any argument and I worry that it might be mere rhetoric.
Why exactly would theism have an advantage over atheism when it comes to moral foundations? Why can't a thoroughly physicalist worldview account for moral objectivity, and (for that matter) what about atheists who reject physicalism and accept non-natural moral properties? As far as I can tell, you haven't yet begun to provide any arguments for these claims.
I still haven't seen any response to the Euthyphro dilemma. I mean, is it your view that there is no moral standard other than God's will? If so, get ready for some truly disturbing consequences.
Also, is it your view that morality requires religion or is it that morality requires theism? I ask because nonreligious theism is a view that strikes me as far more reasonable than any religious theism.
Finally, that quote is not Sartre. It's typically attributed to Dostoevsky, although I believe it cannot be found in his works (though similar claims are made by characters in the Brothers Karamazov).
You are begging for backlash with a title like that. Though I do believe you said you didn't choose it.
I'm still sort of confused about the term "moral truth". What believers could appreciate from your article is the pleasant articulation of your experience in coming to understand God's greatness, and how incomprehensible it is.
Regarding "moral truth". I've noticed that it is quite possible for individual atheists to conjure a firm fundamental moral rod to walk with. And I don't mind such processes as rationality bringing about morality is a cool thing as it can be explained to a wide range of people.
Ones that I like to use usually paraphrase the Golden Rule of Ethics. E.g. The universe works in immaculate harmony. Try taking all of it in for a moment from a quark to the farthest reaches of the cosmos. Think of Newton's 3rd Law. What you get is what you receive. Or the Nash equilibrium. Only works in your favor to do good.
Of course I believe having that kind of rationality also means you can logically come to the conclusion that there is a God.
I've not truly been in the mind of an atheist. When entertaining the idea I have found a haunting vacuum that none should want (does this sound patronizing?). At the end of the day I can only say this. Dear atheists, if you've found your "moral truth", good for you. But it is nowhere near experiencing even the very slightest aura of Allah's light within oneself.
And I guess that's all Joe was trying to say. His mistake was not being prepared to debate if the argument extended into the workings of religion itself.
I don’t think Joe H. will be back to comment. Like many religious people, he is too sure in his beliefs to have much interest in debating with those who do not share them. This is a form of intellectual – and perhaps moral – cowardice that typifies many (not all) of the religious. I would imagine most of the commentators here arrived via the Guardian link and so will likely be familiar with Theo H., another writer who makes an argument and then runs away from it. It’s arrogant cowardice, the most pusillanimous type.
Of course, given the Guardian link, this was a chance for Joe H. to make a little bit of a name for himself as a pundit. Too bad he wasn’t astute enough to see it.
In the end, his demeanor shows that while many atheists are interested in dialog with the religious, the religious are not ready to respond. It’s a splendid own goal, and it gives hope that perhaps humanity is ready to move beyond the desperate, preposterous and offensive beliefs of the religious.
Ok, I debated whether or not to come back and comment. I decided I would. At first I felt as if I no longer wanted to engage in an argument with 10 people simultaneously. Perhaps some of you are quite good at that. For me, working a day job and having less time to myself than I used to as a student, it gets a little tiresome. How would the debate end? I don't want to go in circles until someone drops. That never results in anything good.
At the same time, I do think it would be irresponsible to make an argument, then respond and then not respond. So, here we go.
First I have to respond to Chinabounder:
"Like many religious people, he is too sure in his beliefs to have much interest in debating with those who do not share them."
This is the furthest thing from the truth anyone has yet said during this entire exchange. Too sure? I've never been 100% sure about anything, not as a teenage Satanist, a college Marxist, or a working Catholic. Everything requires a little leap of faith, otherwise self-doubt would cripple us to the point of immobility. "Paralysis by analysis" is a condition that some have ascribed to small, sectarian political groups unable to grow or move forward because they are always caught up in theoretical debate. The only way out the paralysis is to take at least one premise on faith and move forward. This is true no matter what you believe.
"Of course, given the Guardian link, this was a chance for Joe H. to make a little bit of a name for himself as a pundit. Too bad he wasn’t astute enough to see it."
Of course I saw it. I don't really want to "make a name" as a commentator on religion, to be honest with you. I wrote this piece because I was asked to. I'd rather write about socio-economic issues, on which we probably agree a great deal more (if you're anywhere left of center). And truthfully, I don't care why you believe, only what you believe – whether you get there as an atheist, a Christian, or something else entirely. Your salvation is ultimately your business.
For Frank the Yank:
"However, when you say "moral truth" is what you mean one's certainty of correctness of a moral code?"
I mean a moral that is objectively true regardless of who believes it in a subjective sense. The whole world could turn its back on such a moral truth and it wouldn't be any less true, because following it will still align you with the divine perfection, while rejecting it will still bring you further out of alignment.
People make a mistake when they get too rigid with it, however. There is a difference between form and content, appearance and essence. The former can be changed historically, but it is the latter that remains timeless. Likewise some of God's particular demands on humanity can change in the details. Any religious person who denies this, I believe, is mistaken about the nature of God and his relationship to man.
Again, regarding the dilemma of the ancient Greeks, "good" is the name we traditionally give to "that which aligns with God's will". Now, you don't have to call that "good". But it seems to me that the crux of the problem is in the definition, is it not? How can you ask "is x good because God wills it, or does God will x because it is good" without having first defined good? Some get around it by defining God AS good. I say that whatever brings us closer to God – which we can know through revelation – is good. As distinct from pleasing, pleasurable, enjoyable, beneficial, etc.
Anon asks,
"Why can't a thoroughly physicalist worldview account for moral objectivity,"
It might be able to account for why certain morals exist at certain times, but it cannot account for – as I said quite clearly in the original – moral obligations. It can only account for why society x has moral y during epoch z.
"and (for that matter) what about atheists who reject physicalism and accept non-natural moral properties?"
It may be irresponsible of me to say "atheists" when I really mean to criticize materialists. I will ask for forgiveness on that score. I just don't see many non-materialist atheists going after theistic religion lock, stock and barrel, so I tend not to engage their views as much. If that makes me sloppy, so be it. I shall be sloppy. But I do apologize for the confusion.
Ok, now that I've answered some questions, hopefully, in the future, we might all try to get along at least a little. I don't expect us to be friends or even like one another (though it would be fine with me if we did). In the future I'm going to stick to socio-economic issues, and I invite you all to read the article I published before this one, of which I am far more fond. Thanks, and Vade in Pace.
"'Why can't a thoroughly physicalist worldview account for moral objectivity,'
"It might be able to account for why certain morals exist at certain times, but it cannot account for – as I said quite clearly in the original – moral obligations. It can only account for why society x has moral y during epoch z."
That's a restatement, not an answer. Have you read Ayn Rand? If so, what do you think her particular error was in deriving an objective morality from facts of reality?
Because in spite of her assertion to the contrary, you still cannot derive an "ought" from an "is", much less a moral from a material process. It is still, no matter how firmly believed, a subjective opinion. That goes even for theists who accept the existence of God. What I accept as moral objectivity are simply things that one must do to be aligned with God – in the same way I accept that I must eat in order to live or take medicine when I am sick. It is still an objective process that arises from a particular reality. Whether I think I ought to do it is my opinion. I might think I ought to die, or that I ought to live, but neither of these alternatives can be "true".
If reality just "is" – if it is simply an uncreated accident, then all behaviors simply "are", and there is no "ought". There is, as others here have pointed out, only historically contingent morality, but no obligation to do anything. Only a dialectical view of "eternal becoming", of never-ending moral transformation makes any sense. In the end the Randian view is not so different from the Marxist view, which is that morality is a product of the class struggle. "Objectivism" is Marxism for the wealthy.
Of course there are lots of things that make us feel bad, and lots of things that make us feel good. But for me "moral truth" means alignment with what is perfect and real. And I find it fascinating that the two representatives of Western and Eastern religions, or at least two of the major ones, Jesus and Buddha, essentially said the same thing: our goal as moral beings is to become perfect.
‘This is the furthest thing from the truth anyone has yet said during this entire exchange.’
Yeah, I guessed it might be. But I was just being a bit pompous to see if such a comment might make you come back. I’m glad you did. Your replies are pretty thoughtful. Naturally I do not share your belief, but I do now understand the consistency of your opinion. Thank-you, and I will check out your other article. Peace to you also.
Hiya Joe,
Your views are clearer now.
As I thought, faith is the crux here. As regards the good question I think Plato's point was in fact to arrive at a moral truth; i.e. he is trying to define good with that question itself. Good is not something he has a priori defined. He was seeking it, not presuming it.
I don't think we're going to agree on whether God is necessary to arrive at a moral truth, especially not if we define it as a function of theism. Anyway, keep writing.
ciao
Let me just say that I am very grateful for both Chinabounder's and Frank's replies. We overcame some unpleasantness and are engaging each other with respect. Beyond individual beliefs and disagreements, this to me is among the most important things we can do as human beings. So I thank you. And I look forward to more discussion in the future!
i didn't see that one working out with the massive love in it did, amazing… theists and athisits livingin in perfect harmony.
i too repent, sorry for the harsh words.
Joe: There are no true morals outside of religion.
Philosopher: How do you know?
Joe: Because it says so in the bible, and what the bible says is true.
Philosopher: How do you know what the bible says is true?
Joe: Because God wrote the bible.
Philosopher: How do you know God wrote the bible?
Joe: Because it says so in the bible, and what the bible says is true.
Philosopher: You're begging the question…
Joe: I'm not answering anymore questions.