What do you think about a world with no religion just moral values?
The simple answer, no, moral
values cannot exist on their own. The
danger is a morality based on individual proclivities. At the same time the other side of that
answer also no, “religion” is not a valid basis for morality even if morality
must have a valid basis. This depends on
our definition of religion. A belief in
God does not mean a belief in religion is one defines religion in a specific
way. We need a belief in God that
overcomes that weakness of a general belief in the validity of religion. Moral values require a belief in a God since
moral values cannot provide its own validation.
A lack of validation morality is always inevitably reduced to individual
choice. Every concept of God does not
meet this requirement. This position is
consistent with a particular theological exegesis of the Bible. I believe in God and not in religion.
A world without a
commitment to something greater always suffers from the threat of anarchy. Getting human beings to consistently believe
in anything is hard enough: this is the reason why religions have held
societies together even if any given religion does not do that well. Evidence shows us that if we look at the
human societies across the world (currently and historically) we see that
anarchy (social collapse) is held back from exploding in our faces by something
called morals. Yet neither a particular
religion nor a particular set of morals are “moral” enough to defend morality. The creation and maintenance of workable
behavior between individuals is the requirement for all human
civilizations. For better or worse this
functional workability is only possible because of moral values. Yet at the same time we have just as much evidence that any given set
of moral values (though not all sets of moral values) has resulted in the
exhibition of immorality.
To defend moral values
is not a blanket defense (or attack) of religion since some religions are more
successful at protecting its adherents and others will not. We need to be able to distinguish between
different kinds of religion. The Aztec Indians committed a greater and greater
number of sacrifices, bludgeoning hearts out of the chests of its victims, but
this did not save their nation from being conquered. While we may accept that a “religious” nation
like the US may be more ethically beneficial to its members because of its
moral foundations (even if not perfectly actualized) we cannot assume that is
the result of religion in general.
The fact is a religion
was also practiced (for example) by the Nazi’s. Stalin and Mao’s were just as
religious as everyone else despite claims to the contrary. I have yet to see a form of atheism that does
not also function by a kind of religious zeal meant to bring about social
salvation. Marxism claims for itself a
kind of millennialism: a future golden age where social happiness will exist
for every person. Socialism today continues to contain the same preconceptions
and (like these other systems) will force its religion on everyone else. Probe enough and all the hidden ideas are
revealed.
The Catholic Church
burned heretics at the stake. Luther’s Reformation of the Christian religion
did not prevent the murdering religious or political enemies. Even in our own
time one cannot be ignorant that the Muslim religion (not really different from
these other religions) has always desired the political power to impose its
religion on all unbelievers. An
uncritical acceptance of only the good examples of religion fails to take into
account the horrors of religion. Any given religion may advocate good as well
as evil. Likewise, the concept of “morals” as a basis for religion is itself no
guarantee that that system will extend those morals to the “insider” and to the
“outsider.” We have plenty of examples that this kind of religious equality
seldom happens.
This in no way suggests
that we can get rid of the need for strong basis to anchor moral beliefs. To me
some kind of universalism is the test of any moral claims. We need a set of
ideas that make possible a kind of universality that is required for morality
even if the actuality of those beliefs is never perfectly fulfilled. There are
enough examples to indicate that moral values will not be accepted without
something to base those moral on. Universal acceptance needs a universal
source. Even if this is the case we must be aware that a murder happened
between brothers in the first family described in the Bible. We have enough
“unmorality” what benefit would we get from removing all moral boundaries.
The absolutes of moral
boundaries are not any better than the absolutes of “unmoral” boundaries. Study
enough history and we will discover 4000 years of war, genocide, and torture.
Watch 1000 hours of police documentaries, investigations, and autopsies and see
the horrific things that human beings do to each other every day. Are we better
or worse if we follow the moral injunction “to do unto others as we would have
them do unto you?”
One of the problems in
discussing moral issues is that so often see is individuals who want debate
moral problems from a distance. In such
debates the individuals are not affected by the consequences of their own moral
(or unmoral) claims. To me this
invalidates their moral claims. The
tendency is to want to exist in a bubble of invulnerability. This happens when individuals give to
themselves the power to chose or deny morality from a position of deliberation
isolation. From there such individuals
presumes that they can function morally or amorally all on their own. The
problem is why anyone should agree when they may benefit greatly from violating
other’s moral rules. Morals are meant not to just limit our misbehavior but
protect us from the misbehavior of others (the others who may be in a position
to do great harm to us). Why should I not torture you (and your spouse, your
children, grandmother and grandfather, cousins, aunts and uncles , and best
friends, everyone you know all for the sake of my own fun), and then kill you
and take everything you own if something is not strong enough to bind me
morally. Remove the very concept of moral rules and we end up like any number
of places in the world where they are doing great violence. This is happening as we speak. Moral binding does not work perfectly but
that does not mean that all evils would disappear if moral binding disappeared.
This is not to suggest
that we do not have thousands of historical examples of individuals or entire
societies who were bound by one set of morals but denied those morals to
another. Those who follow one set of
morals feel no moral compunction to extend those moral rules of anyone outside
of their moral (social, familial) group. Wars have been fought over this kind
of identification. Within that sort of social group all neighbors were treated
with utmost kindness, like one’s own family.
Outsiders to that social group are composed of the rotting skulls of
one’s enemies in some distant field.
Such a field will most likely be far enough away to pretend that all
around them are white picket fences, clean streets, bright flowers and right
behaviors. My experiences in life have
led me I have a great aversion to theoretical hypocrisy.
However, while
believing that universality is necessary criteria for morality (something that
could be provided by God) I would not use the word “religion.” This is why for
me the question itself is a distortion of the problem. I could answer yes or
no: though my answer would be directed at another question. In the New
Testament Jesus Christ attacked the hypocrisy of the religion of his time as
being guilty of great evil because it was ritualistic and not authentic. Jesus
was Jewish but he opposed the Jewish religion in the form that was practiced by
the nation of Israel at that time. In fact, the same reasons that Jesus opposed
religion could be applied to any religion, wherever we find it. By his own
definition Jesus claimed he did not represent a religion.
Religions from its
historical origins have all functioned by way of a kind of bargain system. If I
give this sacrifice I will benefit positively or negative: I do this thing and
I will receive something for it or I will be protected from some evil that
could happen to me. This benefit could be crops growing or riches coming or the
protection from harm, violence, or disease. The bargain may include the fixing or
limiting of violence or sickness or some other negative. Wherever we find
religion, throughout all time and in all cultures, it functions in this sense.
Therefore, we may
define religions (in and of themselves) as functioning by a particular set of
rituals that are used by individuals to negotiate protection and benefit to
whatever deity they hold allegiance. A
deity may be anything: a rock, a tree, an animal, a political system, a famous
person. The rituals will be performed to earn the “special” standing before
(that) god. The kind of Theology is meant to engender some a level of piety (an
indication of a particular worth) or a particular sacrifice that will make the
crops grow, give protection to danger, heal sickness, make one popular or rich.
The comparison that
Jesus makes is between a religion based on the works of human beings or a faith
based on the work of God. The New
Testament counters the religious definition by it “rains on the just and unjust
equally.” Being wealthy or healthy is no proof of God’s blessing any more that
poverty or sickness is a proof of Gods curse. There is a Theology consistent
with this. The protection and benefits that Jesus describes are for a future
eternity beyond this life. It is unfortunate that many Christians have wrongly
used the miracles that Jesus did to establish his divinity as an indication of
God’s rules of function for all time. That is used to support this concept of
Christianity. The Bible does not defend
this position.
To the contrary the
Bible shows that most of the apostles died horrific deaths through
torture. One would think (if these
beliefs are true) that these persons who lived, ate, and traveled with Jesus
(and gave up their whole lives) would have received the greatest benefit from
their commitment. If one’s religion
functions by this premise these are demonstrate examples of a complete failure
of that set of beliefs.
In this definition
religion is always a flawed system. One of my professors in graduate school did
archeological fieldwork with the Aymara Indians in Bolivia. The Aymara
sacrificed Llama fetuses and Coca leaves (Cocaine) to the mountain (their god).
If they met with disaster they would lay llama fetuses on an altar. If they had a desire to obtain a particular
thing they would sacrifice llama fetuses.
If they did not receive what they asked for they would sacrifice more
llama fetuses. These religious practices were self perpetuating. There was always a need for more llama
fetuses. Within that religious system
(the dangers of religious systems in general) there was no way to disprove the
religions assumptions. Not only that they would punish members of the community
for any disaster had they attributed the cause of adversity to a failure of
giving enough sacrifices. As a consequence they blamed all misfortune on their
own behavior. They also blamed the negative events that happened to another
person on themselves. This amounts to attributing a religious causation for
every event. Like a thousand religions there is no way out of the circle of
religious influence.
If we study religion in
cultures around the world, and throughout history, we find that the morals of
any given religion may be horribly immoral.
There is no way to question either the religion or the moral
beliefs. We need some kind of criteria
to be able to discern certain religions are better or worse from other
religions. In many cultures religion
have provided the social, political, and moral structures that were
advantageous to the general happiness and cohesiveness to that society. Though
some religions have provided moral benefits for its members this does not mean
that religion in general is beneficial to members of any another religion or
society. In this sense there is nothing inherent in the concept of religion (in
itself) that guarantees any successful human value (in terms of if those morals
provide basic social functioning [down to the lowest possible threshold]).
My mother had a great
deal of contact with missionaries from around the world because of her job. She
has told me the story of a friend (Robin) who was Baptist missionary in Brazil
to the Jamamadi. Jamamadi - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamamadi
“The Jamamadí, also called the Yamamadi, Kanamanti, Jeoromi. txi,
Kapaná, and Kapinamari, are an indigenous people who live in Acre and Amazonas,
Brazil.” When the Robin arrived the tribe would kill one of a set of
twins because they were afraid that allowing both twins to live would bring
horrible misfortune. The feeling of curse was so strong that death was the only
option. In this instance the Jamamadi’s
religion did not stop the slaughter of a new born child but instead validated
those horrific (to our moral) behaviors.
It took considerable effort in opposition to their religion to have them
do a simple test of beliefs. The test was to discover whether or not if not killing
a child would bring disaster. When allowing both to twins live did no cause
disaster they soon stopped that practice. The reason to stop this practice was
moral but the application was by a method of common sense investigation. The problem is that the ideas of a religion
may be so strong as to disallow in form of questioning.
I can only think about
this question meta-theoretically. My
answer is more about issues we must consider to arrive at possible solutions.
It would be theoretically hypocritical to not situate myself within the problems. It is for this reason I am not an armchair
philosopher. I take the position there can be no armchair philosophers. Philosophical beliefs are proven by actions
in ways that arm chair philosophizing cannot fathom. Wang Yang-ming, who I have referenced on
another topic, describes this moral problem in 15th century China. There is no abstract moral knowledge. One
does not know morals without acting morally.
If one does to carry the moral claims to action no moral claims are
valid. Purely theoretical moral
discussions can function with a possibility of a fluidity that fails completely
when one is at the mercy of another individual’s kindness. Moral discussions
need to take place in the arena where we ourselves have lost all hope of
rescuing ourselves and must rely on the “moral” kindness of others. It is that
moment when one tests the legitimacy of all moral claims.
I cannot deny my solutions will derive out of a specific Biblical
interpretation. I was taught this as a child that functions very differently
from other interpretations of Christianity. My father was a Baptist minister
and later taught theology. He could read
Hebrew and Greek and knew the Bible far better than I. I aggravated him to no
end with in my incessant questioning of everything. He complained about this more than once. My
interests led me toward the intersection between philosophical, psychological,
historical, cultural, political, and religious, sources of evidence. I have
described elsewhere the requirement of an imaginary conceptual space that all
(potentially available) knowledge (no matter how imperfectly assembled at that
moment) must be brought together to make intellectual decision about
anything. Valid theories must presuppose
that the more important the task the more evidence that must be included to
arrive at working conclusion.
No, moral values cannot
simply exist on their own.
