Thursday, July 2, 2009

Words from on High: Morals, or How Convert an Atheist: Part 3: The Reckoning

Sequels are fun. Trilogies? Only for epics- and what is more epic than saving souls?

So- you've got this religion. So far, you haven't found a miracle, and none of your prophecies stick to the wall. Fear not, as I propose a third option among my list of conversion techniques, and it's a doosey.

Item the Third: Morality
Conversion Status: Absolute, and it should stick
Ease of Evidence: Easy- all you have to do is armchair philosopher me into a corner. Or should I revise that to "Harder than it looks."

All I purpose for you to do is to find me a religion that is absolute in it's morality. From the beginning.

Being that morals are tricky things because morality is defined as : "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"- but since good is defined as "Morally Admirable" and evil is defined as "Morally Wrong" we find ourselves with a circular definition that leaves the true meaning subjective. So we'll go another route, as this one will take us toward every known religion on the planet.

What I am looking for is a religion that not only sticks to it's convictions but also has absolute moral values that one can use in every situation- a religion that does not contradict itself morally. Once wrong, always wrong and once right, always right. A religion that does not allow itself to be marred by the precedent of evil being tolerated, one that speaks from a creator that has absolute goodness in their heart.
I will follow a religion that has a true north moral compass, that will point it's followers undoubtedly past the eras of bloodshed, beyond underhanded tactics such as deceit, slavery and genocide. These followers will be admired among their peers, a testament to humanity- for all our flaws a moral guide that could not be misinterpreted to condone hate, killing or torture, a religion that outright denies the animal taint in human benevolence and rises above our humble roots to truly transcend our humanity, bringing us as close as possible to godhood.

Now, I know what you're going to say- "My religion is moral! It's the only morality" or some variation of such. Allow me to give you a checklist, see if your religion matches all of these criteria. I won't fault your followers, but the actual texts of the religion must have always stated thus:

  • Must not ever discriminate between human beings. Sex, Race, Sexual Orientation, Disability. Humans are fundamentally the same- a creator and truly good being would not only mention this, but make it a tenet.
  • Human Rights Violations are right out. Killing, Slavery, Rape, Violence. These are all violations of our rights and must never be tolerated
  • Deception by individuals, or by the Church. A true religion needs no lies, cover ups, conspiracy. Let the light shine in and reveal pristine cisterns of truth.
  • Must be written in a transcendent language understandable by mankind. Something that is clear, concise and translatable through the ages. A creator with foreknowledge of the future would know that this is paramount to the success of human kind.
  • Must protect children, and those who cannot speak for themselves. There is nothing about child abuse, pedophilia, the rights of those who are invalid or in a comatose state in any holy book I have read, and in many places calls for horrendous crimes to be done against them.
  • Must account for the environment, and the future. Morally, we must assure our great grandchildren have water to drink and air to breathe- it is through inaction we commit indirect violations of their rights to the pursuit of happiness.
Now- most objections to this is that these were the morals in the context of the society the books were written in. This is, while true, not a valid argument. Killing, Rape, Slavery, Child Abuse, Incest- these things have been wrong to do since we developed complex central nervous systems and are wrong today. They have always been wrong. The people who suffered, the planet that was damaged and the trauma that was done will not go away because of the ignorance of the times or the will of the culture- a truly good God would have given these laws to man as soon as we could write them- they would ensure that ignorance would never be an excuse to harm others and have made it abundantly clear that these things were taboo from the start.

Now- since these are subjective terms, I shall give you a sporting chance. Give me a book or a creed that is consistent all the way through- then argue why it is morally absolute. Please be aware that I shall go over this statement very thoroughly and more than likely, you will lose. Why? Because there is no such text.

10 comments:

  1. I like your thoughts here and you make excellent points. The moral failures of those in all religions is an indictment on them. However, if there is no God, wouldn't those morals be culturally-placed illusions in the first place? In other words, wouldn't "morality" itself be an evolutionary construct to get societies to be productive?

    It seems to me that your argument assumes God, because you assume that absolute moral law exists, which implies a moral law giver. How do you see it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I guess I am simply having a hard time wrapping my head around the premise of all three articles written so far. They touch on faith coming at an angle that is, to my understanding, in conflict with what I understand about my particular faith (Christianity).

    Specifically, these writings are about converting a person, telling him/her why they should believe. It's a human-centered concept. But Christianity is not centered around humans. It's about God.

    I don't want athiests to become Christians for their sake. I want athiests to become Christians because He is such a great God that He deserves to have as many people worshipping Him as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Michael
    Moral laws are not transcendent- and are arbitrarily defined, as I argue above. However, note the last paragraph- if you have a separate set of morals, argue their merit versus another system.
    My set of laws strives to give the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of individuals based on scientific research and sociological studies about what makes people happy (IE freedom, safety, being treated as equals).
    If you think of another way to accomplish this, post how, and why- or post about why it shouldn't be accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @James
    So- converting people isn't something that should be done?
    How selfish. Unless you don't believe we all get to go to heaven anyway- in that case you're off the hook for that.

    Also, WHAT specifically makes God great? WHY does he deserve worship, should he exist in the first place?
    And WHY does God need or want our worship?

    A lot of us come from a place of unbelief because we were never given a reason to believe in the first place- and while you take it on the word of other people that God exists, we do not. We demand a better reason to believe what you say, other than the mere fact that you said it.
    Essentially, what makes your God unique, better, or more existent than other Gods?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @James, how do you explain the approach Paul took on Mars Hill in Athens? He seemed to be making the case for Christianity in a rational way, right?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Liz, you said:

    My set of laws strives to give the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of individuals based on scientific research and sociological studies about what makes people happy (IE freedom, safety, being treated as equals).

    Is that a transcendent value for everyone at all times? If so, who made it that way? Are you, in your desire to find morality without God, arbitrarily placing your own value on everyone?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ah- for a social society it makes sense for people to be happy, and for people to be happy society should function well(riots don't make me happy, having my home broken into doesn't make me happy, being passed over for a promotion due to my gender does not make me happy) and for society to function well the individuals in it should be as happy as possible, thusly causing them to resort to going outside the bounds of society significantly less.
    Think about it- barring neurological disorders, are you bound to steal food if you are not hungry? Hurt someone if you are not angry or frustrated?

    Treating the symptoms of societal ills is a folly, for you will be forever putting out fires. Treat instead the root cause- the antiseptic of a moral world where freedom and happiness is a paramount value, it is self-feeding.

    However, if you disagree- please explain how this could result in a better world and why.
    Note your sources!

    The idea that a happy individual is more productive, that harmonious families produce smarter and stronger offspring statistically and that when we feel safe we do not tend to break things not only testable and proven, but is a common goal for anyone not currently suffering from pathological insanity.

    This of course assumes our definition of correct pathology. Being that the neural net we weave from birth is wholly defined by our experiences and genetic factors- this is not something that can either be "correct" or "right". But I believe this mode and methodology of thinking produces an optimum survival rate, speaking for the species.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Liz, the short answer to your question in response to me is: no. I never said anything like that and frankly, I fail to see where you could think I did.

    Telling people the Good News is not only a good thing, it's an essential thing. As I said, we do so for Him, because He deserves to have as many worshippers as He can.

    Mike, yes Paul did a masterful job at Mars Hill in acts 17. He used human reason because that's what that particular audience would respond to. In the broader picture, we are to spread the Gospel by meeting the needs of the people we are in contact with. That's why Jesus sent the 70 out and told them to do a variety of things, such as casting out demons, healing, teaching, etc. For Jesus Himself, it was miracles, feeding people, teaching, raising the dead, making lame and deaf people whole, etc.
    So I guess the person who wrote this blog post has a need that needs to be met: she has to have God proven to her. So on that point, I concede somewhat. I mean, I think God has done more than enough to prove Himself. I pray that she will see it sooner rather than later.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Liz. Interesting articles. However I feel that you are looking for a religion, not God. Everyone has his own personal religion. For instance, no two Catholics I know believe the exact same thing, but they generally agree that some actions are moral, some are not. In fact, it seems that you have your own version of religion which values the environment, children, equality, and transparency. There is no set rule book, sorry. So, rather than trying to shrink-wrap a specific religion, I hope you would strive to know God, which is to know yourself, your neighbors, and to be in harmony with the world around you. You don’t need religion to see God.

    On another note, this little ditty reminded me of you.


    “Three ants met on the nose of a man who was lying asleep in the sun. And after they had saluted one another, each according to the custom of his tribe, they stood there conversing.

    The first and said, "These hills and plains are the most barren I have known. I have searched all day for a grain of some sort, and there is none to be found."

    Said the second ant, "I too have found nothing, though I have visited every nook and glade. This is, I believe, what my people call the soft, moving land where nothing grows."

    Then the third ant raised his head and said, "My friends, we are standing now on the nose of the Supreme Ant, the mighty and infinite Ant, whose body is so great that we cannot see it, whose shadow is so vast that we cannot trace it, whose voice is so loud that we cannot hear it; and He is omnipresent."

    When the third ant spoke thus the other ants looked at each other and laughed.”

    At that moment the man moved and in his sleep raised his hand and scratched his nose, and the three ants were crushed.” –Kahlil Gibran, The Madman

    ReplyDelete
  10. From The Sacred Romance, by John Eldredge and Brent Curtis:
    ----

    For centuries prior to our Modern Era, the church viewed the gospel as a Romance, a cosmic drama whose themes permeated our own stories and drew together all the random scenes in a redemptive wholeness. But our rationalistic approach to life, which has dominated Western culture for hundreds of years, has stripped us of that, leaving a faith that is barely more than mere fact-telling. Modern evangelicalism reads like an IRS 1040 form: It’s true, all the data is there, but it doesn’t take your breath away.

    As British theologian Alister McGrath warns, the Bible is not primarily a doctrinal sourcebook: “To reduce revelation to principles or concepts is to suppress the element of mystery, holiness and wonder to God’s self-disclosure. ‘First principles’ may enlighten and inform; they do not force us to our knees in reverence and awe, as with Moses at the burning bush, or the disciples in the presence of the risen Christ” (A Passion for Truth).

    ReplyDelete