I sometimes get emails. The latest one is from a Christian who shared his opinion (a tired old claim) that, without his god, there is no morality.

As if that weren’t enough to get the last hair on my head standing up, last night I watched Dinesh D’Souza make the audacious claim that all of the good morals in western society are Christian morals.

I’ve often heard it said that the 10 Commandments is the ‘ultimate moral code’ (Dinesh has said something to this effect on numerous occasions). Let’s focus on them to see if the claim is true.

Table via Wikipedia

As you can see, the first three or four commandments (3 vs 4 depending on what brand of Christian you are) are all about worshiping god (note that I am lumping ‘keep the Sabbath’ in this grouping). Are these first commandments really about morality? It seems to me they are not – that they are about brow-beating people into accepting an insecure god’s authority. I would challenge anyone to show me how those 3/4 commandments make us more moral.

On to the remaining commandments…

Honor your father and mother: Sounds reasonable on the surface, but is it as wise as it could be? Why not “respect others as you would like to be respected”? And, while we’re on the subject, do all parents deserve to be honored, or is it more accurate that some parents are worthy and others are not?  What about parents who abuse their children? Are they to be honored at all times as the commandment commands?

You shall not murder: A pretty darn good rule. My questions about it are 1) Would we all be running around killing people without it, and 2) Does this rule not exist in other societies (religious and secular)? In other words, does Christianity think it’s the only world view to think not killing is a good thing?

You shall not steal: Again, this is a pretty good rule but I can imagine there to be nuances that it doesn’t consider. For instance, if your family is starving, and you live under a rich tyrant, would it not be acceptable to steal from him/her to keep your loved ones from perishing? This is similar to the ‘honor your father and mother’ commandment in that I don’t think it’s as wise as it could be (remember we are basing this discussion on the claim that the Ten Commandments are the ultimate moral code).

You shall not lie (bear false witness): I think we can all agree that, sometimes, lying is perfectly acceptable. Lying to avoid hurting a person’s feelings is ok. Lying to avoid being persecuted by an unjust ruler is ok. Again, couldn’t this take a wiser form?

You shall not commit adultery: This commandment really gets to personal feelings about what a marriage is and should be. The problem is that there are some variations in what people believe in this regard. What if two people no longer love one another, but have amicably agreed to remain married until their children have grown? What happens if, under these conditions, they want to have an ‘open’ marriage? Of course, a very religious person may view this choice as unacceptable in the eyes of their god, but a more secularly minded individual may think otherwise. Their viewpoint may be, “adultery is ok as long as each partner agrees and it doesn’t hurt the children”.

You shall not covet: There is a lot I could say here, but I will just say one thing – while it may not put a person’s mind at ease to be always wanting something he does not have, I cannot see it to be such a crime as to be worthy of eternal damnation. You could go your entire life wishing to have your neighbor’s wealth (or wife) but how does that mental wish make you hell bound?

Other Shortcomings of the Ten Commandments: I am sure there are others, but here are just a few off the top of my head:

1. Child Molestation: This should be a no-brainer if you’re making commandments.
2. Rape: Ditto
3. Slavery: At one time, Christians justified slavery using verses in the Bible. Now we know better. Why wasn’t something about slavery included in the ultimate moral code?
4. Equality: Women, blacks and now gays have all struggled for equality. Why didn’t something about basic human rights get included in the Christian moral code?

Ok, so we’re done looking at the Ten Commandments. To me anyway, it’s pretty clear that they are anything but an ‘ultimate moral code’. Some Christians will say that the Ten Commandments are not everything – that there is lots of other good stuff in the Bible. My answer is to agree that there is some good stuff in the Bible. However, there is also a lot of bad stuff. There are passages about stoning disobedient children, stoning women for not being virgins, carrying out genocide and much, much more.

To those charges, the liberal Christian pleads that much of the Bible should not be taken literally – that there are hidden meanings and positive messages to be found behind those passages. The passages don’t mean what they say. In other words, we need to better interpret them.

Ok fine but, at this point, I think it’s worth mentioning that interpreting and re-interpreting Bible passages has been going on for a long, long time. In fact, this sort of thing is what’s led to the multitude of Christian denominations we have today. Generally speaking, what happens is a person (or group of people) disagrees with the moral code being promoted by a given faith. In some circumstances, the dispute ends gracefully with a new moral interpretation. A good example of this is how most of Christianity eventually recognized that slavery was bad. In more extreme cases, new denominations & religions have splintered off to propagate their own moral preferences.

In both cases, their is one commonality – people engage their brains, review the Bible, strip away the bad stuff, and evolve their understanding of the Bible so that it can be made consistent with the morality of the day.

Did you pay attention to that last bit? It is people who have historically evolved their moral codes – not the Bible, and it is the re-interpretations that have  allowed the Bible to stay morally relevant.

And even then, it seems to me that the Bible is grossly inadequate compared to other sources of morality. Which sources? How about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a clearly secular document)? I’m sorry but, on issues of human rights, the Bible doesn’t even hold a candle.

That specific document aside, there are many places where you can begin satisfying your desire to learn about morality and to formulate your own code of ethics. Philosophy loves ethics and morality and has a nasty habit (according to some!) of failing to mention deities. Here are a few links to get you started:

1. Wikipedia’s Ethics Page – a good jump-off point
2. Index of Ethical Movements (another good jump-off point)
3. Objectivism
4. Humanism
5. Secular Ethics
6. Hedonism
7. Utilitarianism
8. Stoicism (A.C. Grayling says much of Christian thought was co-opted from Stoicism)
9. Consequentialism
10. Alternatives to the Ten Commandments

Or you might read up on what some of the world’s most famous philosophers have had to say. Great thinkers like:

• Immanual Kant
• Friedrich Nietzsche
• Aristotle
• and the list goes on and on and on…

My own morality leans heavily on humanism and the Ethic of Reciprocity (a virtually universal ethical standard – not found solely in the Christian version of the ‘Golden Rule’) but I enjoy reading about other schools, and view the subject as a lifetime pursuit. I think one of the most important things we can keep in mind when considering ethics and morality is that we aren’t obligated to buy into any one school of thought. It’s your brain – use it.

I’m curious if any of my readers subscribe to a particular school of ethical thought, and what resources they’ve used to arrive at their own views on the subject. Please share.

In the meantime, I hope it’s now clear that Godless ≠ Without Morals.

]]> http://40yearoldatheist.com/godless-morals/2009/12/feed/ 50 http://40yearoldatheist.com/why-religious-objective-morality-is-a-bunch-of-balogne/2009/08/ http://40yearoldatheist.com/why-religious-objective-morality-is-a-bunch-of-balogne/2009/08/#comments Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:48:46 +0000 40 Year Old Atheist http://40yearoldatheist.com/why-religious-objective-morality-is-a-bunch-of-balogne/2009/08/

An oft made claim believers make is that, without god, there is no objective morality. Meaning, without a higher power, we are free to make up whatever morality suits us, or the societies we live in.

I call bullshit.

1. Someone needs to explain how god’s morality can be so hopelessly confusing as to lead to thousands of religions – some of which are in such vehement opposition to one another other (e.g. Islam vs. Christianity). If god’s morality is objective, you’d think it would be easy for religions to agree on what is right, and what is wrong.
2. Specifically with regard to Christianity, someone needs to explain why there are so many strains of that faith. How is it that a Catholic’s moral code can be so different from a Protestant’s? Why are Jehovah’s Witnesses and Fundamentalist Baptists so different from every other faith? Also, why are each of these varieties of faith so adamant that their particular brand of Christian morality is the superior one (in answering this question, Christians need to be reminded that each competing sect bases its claim on an interpretation of the same book)? Why isn’t the objective morality of the Bible easier to reconcile within Christian denominations?
3. With respect to modern/moderate Christian thinking, why has your religion’s moral code changed so drastically over the centuries and decades? Why was it perfectly acceptable to own a slave a couple of years ago and not today? Why was it ok to severely punish (i.e. beat and/or stone to death) wives and children for their disobedience then, but not now? How can objective morality be claimed when it has, in fact, changed over the generations? Is it possible that your Christian morality is already evolving in the same manner you seem to fear it will if god were to be taken out of the equation?

Objective morality that comes down from the heavens seems pretty far from being true. From my perspective, it actually provides evidence that much of what we call morality is subject to change. Further thought on the three questions asked above leads me to think that so-called god-based objective morality is, in fact, relative morality created out of a combination of:

1. What culture you live in.
2. What religion you grow up in.
3. What point in history you are alive in.

Those three points can be wrapped up nicely into one bullet:

• There is no evidence for god-based objective morality. Rather, evidence seems to point to a high probability that religious moral codes are shaped by us.

Just how morality is developed is a much (much MUCH!) bigger topic for discussion.

It’s funny how one broken brick can lead to an entire wall falling down…

One of the first aha! moments I had after letting go of my god delusion was the realization that leading one’s life according to the laws (?) of Karma isn’t much better.

The Stoke-On-Trent Humanist Group has it partly right:

These people are deluding themselves. Karma is an Eastern idea, popular in sophisticated quasi-religious philosophies like Buddhism, and is a way of dishing out false hope to the down trodden and wretched without the need to invoke a god.

False hope. Sound familiar?

What’s also familiar to me is the idea that the good and bad stuff you do is being recorded somewhere. Only, instead of gods doing the tallying, the universe somehow is. Make no mistake however, that you are being judged. Everything you do goes into a score book which will be used to determine your reward (coming back as a more enlightened human) or punishment (coming back as a dung-beetle).

I think a lot of people who let go of gods replace them with mysticism of this sort – the supernatural idea that, somehow, the universe has taken a personal stake in your moral behavior. To me, karma sounds a lot like sin.

Let’s stop the madness and give up this perverse idea that someone or something is watching us and judging for the purpose of determining where we fit in after we are dead.