morality == religion? Sez who?

[loinburger]

From another thread that was unsuccessfully threadjacked...

Originally posted by Albert Speer
...if you reject religionism, as you call it, what right do you have to call anything evil? evil denotes moral absolutes made possible only through belief in religion...

Leaving aside the ridiculous notion that "evil" can only be used as an absolute term (since when has it been illegal/immoral/whatever to say something like "murder is more evil than jaywalking" or whatever?), this looks like the claim that you can't have morality without religion. I've never really understood the gist of this claim, though, even though I've seen it several times before.

One reason I can see for this claim is the belief that some god(s) are the sole determiners of what is moral or immoral. The problem is that if god(s) determine what is right and wrong, then morality is completely arbitrary -- if god(s) tell a worshipper to commit such heinous acts as torture, rape, and murder, then these acts become "good" by virtue of the fact that the god(s) commanded them, and the worshipper is morally obligated to torture, rape, and murder. One of my biggest beefs with this notion is the fact that many religions posit the existence of god(s) whose rules must be followed (e.g., God), as well as the existence of god(s) whose rules must not be followed (e.g., Satan) -- if everybody's rules are completely arbitrary, then how do you know which god(s) to worship and which to reject? Is it just a question of which god(s) are stronger, or what?

The other reason (which isn't mutually exclusive with the first reason) I can see for this claim is the belief that a god or gods will reward the righteous and punish the wicked. However, unless the god or gods arbitrarily determine that which is righteous and wicked, then a non-believer in that god or gods could conceivably determine what is righteous and wicked independently of the god(s) religious texts or priests or whatever. In this case, the "god(s) reward the righteous and punish the wicked" justification for equating morality to religion is actually a perversion of morality -- righteous acts are generally classified as acts performed with benevolent intentions, but if somebody does good works solely to be rewarded by god(s) then his intentions are entirely selfish and thus non-benevolent.

So what gives? How is it that somebody who worships god(s) can distinguish between benevolent/malevolent intentions and/or can distinguish between helpful/harmful actions and/or can distinguish between sound/unsound rules of conduct, while somebody who doesn't worship god(s) supposedly cannot make these distinctions?

[GePap]

well, I agree with Loin's basic point.

I guess this gets interesting when the other side gets here.....

[Ben Kenobi]

evil denotes moral absolutes made possible only through belief in religion

Speer's jumping a few steps here, but he's spot on.

1. Is it possible to have evil without a concept of a moral absolute?

Speer's answer here, would be no. The only other option is some form of relativism, where things can be considered personally wrong, but not wrong for everyone. In this, one can hardly label such things as 'evil' since they are not totally devoid of good.

2. Suppose we do accept the presupposition that there is an absolute concept of good and evil. Then we get to the second half of Speer's claim, that given a moral absolute, is it possible to do so without religion?

This one is a little bit more complicated. One way to argue this is to look at what we would consider a moral absolute. What would be the good?

First of all, it cannot be ourselves. Anything that is good has to come from outside of ourselves, in fact, it cannot exist in nature. Everything here is flawed to some extent.

So if it doesn't come from nature, and it does not come from ourselves, then what else is left to be the origin of the good?

It would have to be something that does not change, since morality would not change, and would have to be universal, since this morality would also be universal. That puts you in a tight bind. What could exist outside of nature, yet is both eternal, and universal?

I think to answer this question, religion gives you the best answer.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem is that if god(s) determine what is right and wrong, then morality is completely arbitrary -- if god(s) tell a worshipper to commit such heinous acts as torture, rape, and murder, then these acts become "good" by virtue of the fact that the god(s) commanded them,

This is a weak form of the divine command theory. I would suggest that the folks that peddle this view should read some theology, since theologians have adequately addressed this problem.

Suppose that God cannot command that which is evil, because good is an essential part of his nature. This claim has two fronts. First of all, this means that God is the origin of the good. The good is not arbitrary, nor does it change, since God is both unchanging and fixed. Secondly, this means that God cannot act outside of his nature, and thus, will not command things that are evil.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The only other option is some form of relativism, where things can be considered personally wrong, but not wrong for everyone.

There's a huge gulf between "personally wrong" and "absolutely wrong." F'rinstance, in the legal system, "personally illegal" (the equivalent of "personally wrong") is essentially a meaningless term. However, there is no such thing as something that is "absolutely illegal" (in the sense that you and Speer are using the term "absolutely wrong"), because the legal system is not absolute -- it changes over time. So, obviously there is something between "personally illegal" and "absolutely illegal" -- why is it inconceivable that there is something between "personally wrong" and "absolutely wrong"?

I think to answer this question, religion give you the best answer.

How does religion distinguish between that which is "absolutely evil" and that which is "absolutely good"? Is it entirely arbitrary?

[Lancer]

How does anyone know that something they do is wrong? Where does the feeling of disappointment and maybe guilt come from? The bible refers to God's law written in our hearts. I buy that but I wonder where non believers attribute such spiritual stuff to?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Suppose that God cannot command that which is evil, because good is an essential part of his nature.

Then we would be supposing that God is not omnipotent, and/or that God is not the origin of all things (since He apparently could not have created evil). In addition, we would then be supposing that human sacrifice is good, because God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son.

[Aeson]

I agree a bit with both sides. It's a conflict of the use of the term evil. It is used to depict an absolute anti-ideal on one hand, on the other just a valuation.

It is being used to reference different things.

[Ben Kenobi]

then how do you know which god(s) to worship and which to reject? Is it just a question of which god(s) are stronger, or what?

This is a very good question. Not all religions are equal, nor do they make the same claims about themselves. However, they all have some things right, and as a Christian, I believe they are the closest to being right of all the other religions.

This comes right back to the source of the revelations provided. Consider Islam. Mohammed wrote the Q'uran, yet he does not consider himself God. You are one step removed from God. The same is with Israel and the prophets. None of the prophets are God.

However, Christianity claims something different, that God came down to Earth as a man, and that he died on a cross, and then rose from the dead.

Any assessment of the truth of Christianity relies upon the Resurrection. If Christianity is false, then you are right, that they are not to be followed. But if Christianity is right, then there is cause for trusting Christianity over all the other religions.

[Ben Kenobi]

However, there is no such thing as something that is "absolutely illegal" (in the sense that you and Speer are using the term "absolutely wrong"), because the legal system is not absolute -- it changes over time. So, obviously there is something between "personally illegal" and "absolutely illegal" -- why is it inconceivable that there is something between "personally wrong" and "absolutely wrong"?

There is, and I don't think Speer meant to deny this. He just means that in order to establish a moral absolute requires religion.

Law is man-made, and thus, is not fixed, nor unchanging. However, it has more force than personal opinion, as it results from the opinions of a great mass of people. The problem is that it cannot encompass morality, but can strive to approach morality. The good law will do this. Bad laws would take the opposite approach, to take law away from the moral standard.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lancer
How does anyone know that something they do is wrong? Where does the feeling of disappointment and maybe guilt come from? The bible refers to God's law written in our hearts. I buy that but I wonder where non believers attribute such spiritual stuff to?

Guilt comes from how you were brought up, and how that interacts with certain physical traits you are born with.

I've had friends who felt guilty just for being alive, when they weren't in pain, because they were abused by their parents. They were taught they should feel pain, and so they cut themselves because of the guilt they felt.

I felt the same way very strongly because of mainly biological reasons. I still feel it to some extent.

It isn't divine.

[Ben Kenobi]

How does religion distinguish between that which is "absolutely evil" and that which is "absolutely good"? Is it entirely arbitrary?

Christ is pretty straightforward on this.

The two greatest commandments are to love the Lord God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself.

That which is the good, will rest upon either of these pillars, while evil is the opposite, and will strive to take people away from these.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lancer
I buy that but I wonder where non believers attribute such spiritual stuff to?

For me, guilt comes from knowing that I did wrong, simple as that. However, often I won't know that I did wrong until long after the fact (e.g., I won't know that I harmed somebody by my actions until long after the fact, because they won't be able to tell me until long after the fact), and so I don't experience the guilt until long after the fact. It seems to me that, if God's law were written in my heart, then I'd have a better intuition as to when I have done harm, and so the guilt would affect me prior to my being explicity told (or learning in some other empirical manner) that I have done harm.

Besides, often children who are not taught to distinguish between benevolence and malevolence usually won't experience these feelings of guilt. F'rinstance, male children of abusive husbands will often grow up to abuse their wives, because they've implicitly learned that wife-beating is okay.

But all that's beside the point -- even if there were some spiritual nature to our guilt complexes, that still wouldn't justify the claim that morality == religion, that would simply justify the claim that there is some spiritual nature to our guilt complexes. Where does the worship and/or reverence of god(s) come into play there?

[Ben Kenobi]

Then we would be supposing that God is not omnipotent, and/or that God is not the origin of all things (since He apparently could not have created evil).

This is a rather deep point, the origin of evil, so I'll try my best. First of all, you are right. If God is the origin of all things, and he is omnipotent, then you are left with the question of how to reconcile the good in his nature with the fact that evil exists in the world.

You are right that God cannot create that which is evil, but rather, the explanation is that evil emerges from the world. In giving us free will, he allows us the freedom to love, as well as to reject God. In rejecting God, we seek that which is evil in itself, since we must find something to replace God. This takes a variety of forms, all of which we would label evil, or destructive.

What would be the alternative? I don't think having a free will can be separated from the possibility of evil. In fact, the evil we see can be said as proof that we have free will, that we can turn away from God if we choose.

[Ben Kenobi]

In addition, we would then be supposing that human sacrifice is good, because God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son.

If you are right, why then did God provide a lamb? If human sacrifice is what God desired, why would he intervene?

God desired Abraham's obedience, to trust that the Lord would provide an alternative to sacrificing Isaac.