Throughout my short career of debating religion, probably the strongest "argument" I've come across is the "argument for morality." The argument goes, "without God, there would be no source for objective morality. Therefore, God must exist!"
I think this argument is ridiculous on many levels. First of all, do you really have such low regard for humanity that you think we're incapable of treating each other with respect without gods? Second of all, can you prove that without religion, there is more crime? I doubt it. Third of all, isn't this a despicable appeal to fear (and consequences, and a red herring), that religion has to be true, because otherwise I might get killed?
Again, while I think it's a pathetic argument, a lot of attention must be paid to it, because many people are hung up on this concept. Is there any truth to this claim? Or is it merely a trick to help the rabbis keep the masses mind-enslaved for the rest of their lives?
It's a brilliant way to sidestep the question. Instead of investigating whether truth claims ABC are correct (in this case, God), let's make a different claim that without this belief, we're all a bunch of filthy Nazi murderers. Still want to question God?? It's a cheap, not to mention disgusting, way of avoiding the question, and don't let the rabbis get away with it.
What's more, one doesn't have to look very far back in history for examples of atrocities carried out in the name of God. It's ironic that what is arguably religion's greatest weakness is often seen as its greatest strength.
However, I think it's unfair to religion to judge it by the actions of some of its adherents, for better or worse. I'm all for objectively looking at the facts, and deciding whether or not a Higher Power exists. The fact that some on the other side of the fence feel the need to instantly attack my character, instead of engaging in reasoned, rational debate tells me all I need to know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
"I think this argument is ridiculous on many levels. First of all, do you really have such low regard for humanity that you think we're incapable of treating each other with respect without gods? Second of all, can you prove that without religion, there is more crime? I doubt it."
I think this may be missing the point of their argument. Yes, of course people can treat each other with respect without Gods, but is it moral to treat each other with respect? If so, why? All the evidence seems to point to the conclusion that we are molecules in a particular state of existence. We have no evidence to conclude we are anything else(like souls, or spirits...etc). And so, I ask you, if one molecule goes one way, is it an really objectively "good" thing? If one molecule goes another way, is it really an objectively "bad" thing?
It seems like these concepts are simply inventions of the human mind, and as such are subject to change by the human mind.
Essentially, they are saying that without God, saying "I don't think X is moral", is comparable to saying "I don't think X is beautiful". In other words: Morality is Subjective.
Now, the part of your post that mentions how it is an appeal to consequence is valid. Simply because we find a truth hard to swallow has no influence on its value as a truth whatsoever.
We may find it hard to conclude that we are just part of the surrounding nihil and void, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
>Yes, of course people can treat each other with respect without Gods, but is it moral to treat each other with respect?
You know, this is the cruel hypocrisy of religion. Yes, their source for morality may be more "objective." However, I would say it's just out of control of the people, and in control of, you guessed it, the rabbis. In no way, shape or form is there any religious consensus of absolute morality, in fact, the majority of beliefs and morals of each religion are often contradictory and highly controversial. Religious peple like to sound really secular and say that they're talking about basics and fundamentals like "don't kill" or "don't steal" but can we be really so sure that religion is the source for those ideals? I mean, look at Judaism, where killing a non-Jew is hardly a crime. Stealing from one is definitely not. Now, I know rabbis like to pretend otherwise, and hide the evidence that their religion is profoundly immoral, but the sources are there. I can look them up if I have to. I know for sure the punishment is far less severe for someone who kills a non-Jew, and there is definitely people like the Rambam who say heretics should be killed. Now they certainly try to hide these halachas and focus on the kumbaya stuff, but the fact remains that they cherry-pick their "morality" no more than anyone else does.
The entire claim that religious morality is objective is not true. It's merely taken from the hands of the people and common sense and put into the hands of "God" or, guessed it again, the rabbis, priests and imams who care oh so much about humanity. Like a true cult. Religion is nothing but mind control.
It's sad that what is seen as "objective morality" is really its opposite and defeats the whole purpose. I would say without religion you at least have hope for a little morality, with it, I'm not so sure.
(Yes, in theory, there may be more reason to be moral if you're religious, in practice I almost always find that it's just the opposite.)
"can you prove that without religion, there is more crime?"
On the contrary, the opposite seems at first glance to be more correct. Your country has a high percentage of religious people and also quite high crime rates. My country, on the other hand, is inhabited by the most secular nation in western Europe, and our crime rates are a great deal lower than yours (correcting for population numbers of course).
Of course this is quite simplistic and there are a number of other factors to be considered, but it is an interesting fact. :-)
The thing is that what we call morality is just something that has evolved in us over time because it benefits our species to have our societies running smoothly, and they don't run smoothly if we randomly steal from and kill each other. But of course it's hard for many theists to accept this, which personally I chalk down to their need to feel special ... something their sky daddy does for them, and that's why many of them cling to him so ferociously.
"in theory, there may be more reason to be moral if you're religious, in practice I almost always find that it's just the opposite."
So true, so true.
>Your country has a high percentage of religious people and also quite high crime rates.
Higher rate of religious people committing crime, or higher rate of people believing in God and committing crime?
I think there is always a counter argument in order that we have a choice, what to think and what to believe. Both sides have different evidence and information. For ex, one side talks of evolution etc. The other side talks of morality, free will, miracles etc. That's why I feel that it takes more than info, it also takes faith.
Thanks all for the comments.
HH: You're not going to really going to try and say that those extremists aren't really religious people. If so, can you please define "religious person"? All religious people excluding extremists? All religious people except those who make it into the newspaper for committing atrocities?
Look, I'm more than happy to try and differentiate between people and religion. But I'm afraid too many religious people don't want to make that distinction.
OTD
Who is talking about extremists???
Reread what what Leisha wrote. She says that USA has more crimes even though its more religious. I simply asked for clarification. Are people that are mostly committing crimes, religious, or simply believe in God. Those are not the same thing.
If she meant that its mostly God believers than sure. I agree. I mean, i live in LA, and rest assured that most gang members believe in Jesus, but that doesn't mean they are religious.
The argument goes, "without God, there would be no source for objective morality. Therefore, God must exist!"
Hey there, I think you're oversimplifying (if not totally confusing), this argument.
I'm sure you're right that even without an objective source of morality we would all have been good people. Problem is, what is defined as good? Some people think that stealing is good, others think that murder is good, others still, feel that flying planes into buildings is good. How are we to judge what's good and what's not, anything you claim to be good I am entitled to claim is actually the opposite (and neither of us would be wrong since there is no objective right or wrong). Without an objective structure of ethical and moral standards, there is in fact no such thing as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ as we use those terms, there is just the things that I like doing and those which you like doing.
This puts other areas into an impossible situation, for example, how can we punish people, how can there be any justice system in fact, when there are no objective terms by which to judge people?
Now, Mills and others realised this position and developed codes by which we can all get along with each other. But it's important to realise that the Social Contract and Utilitarianism do NOT purport to be an ETHICAL or MORAL codes, they just provide a structure in which we can all live together.
The only source of objective morality can be G-D, because people are incapable of establishing objective standards by which we can judge good and bad (as I have already mentioned).
At this point you might say "ok, so there is no objective morality, and therefore I am not compelled into believing there is a G-D who came up with that objective code, who cares if there’s no such thing as actual right or wrong per se, I don’t mind conceding that it’s just a matter of what does or does not float my boat”.
Now, this is where the crux of the argument is, which you completely failed to mention in your brief summary.
Existentially speaking, we all know that there is a concept of right and wrong, we know that there are things which are objectively wrong morally speaking. We don’t look at a person who rapes little children and think, “well hey, that’s just not my thing”. We look at him with total disgust, not because we personally don’t like it but because we know that raping little children is objectively a bad thing, a wrong thing.
Furthermore, we express moral outrage at certain things, either the cruelty displayed by Nazi soldiers during the holocaust, or barbaric ways that Muslim fundamentalists execute a journalist and then broadcast the video on the Web or whatever it is. Again, the stress here is that we feel those things and those people are wrong. We don’t just dismiss it as not being within our range of what we personally feel is good, and we certainly don’t even think of saying, “well he thinks it’s good so I guess that’s ok then.”
We know that it’s wrong to murder. Not because we then run the risk of getting killed ourselves and not for any other Social Contract reasons, but because it’s just wrong. It doesn’t need explanation, we just know it.
The point is that when it comes down to the crunch, every single one of us knows that there is an objective code of morality. We know there are things that are wrong and things that are right, and that those things are not defined by us, we’re not the ones calling the shots (again, as I’ve mentioned, we are incapable of producing an objective scale of morality).
If that’s the case, where did this awareness come from? How is it in-built within all of us that there is a notion of absolute and objective right and wrong, especially if we ourselves are unable to establish absolute morality? This compels us into a position where we must concede some superhuman being exists that is able to establish a code of objective morality.
Anyway, that’s all I got to say about that.
Hey dude, me again.
I won't comment on you calling this a 'pathetic argument' especially as, like I said above, you haven't even given an accurate description of the argument.
But 'Or is it merely a trick to help the rabbis keep the masses mind-enslaved for the rest of their lives?', just sounds a little bit harsh to me. Do you really look at the entirety of Jewish religious clergy as a bunch of power hungry evangelists with no good intentions whatsoever. I mean could it not be that there are those involved in the outreach profession who see something beautiful in religious Judaism that they want to share with others? Is that really such a crazy suggestion?
I've told you somewhere else I'm frum but you're probably not likely to find a more open-minded frummer around. However, the thought of someone like R' Elyashiv or R' A L Steinman as someone out to trick the masses certainly doesn't quite seem anywhere close to the truth.
Anyway, peace out y'all.
I understand what you're saying, but I strongly disagree.
Yes yes, without an objective code of morality, who's to say what's right and wrong? We can all make up our own morality, can't we? I've heard this a million times, but it drives me crazy. Especially since so much is built on this weak foundation. You yourself say, "How is it in-built within all of us that there is a notion of absolute and objective right and wrong, especially if we ourselves are unable to establish absolute morality? This compels us into a position where we must concede some superhuman being exists that is able to establish a code of objective morality." As if our need for objective morality literally proves the existence of a God. Please.
>Existentially speaking, we all know that there is a concept of right and wrong, we know that there are things which are objectively wrong morally speaking.
I'm not sure what your argument is. Is it that God creates us with inherent knowledge of "good" and "bad", or is it that God (through religion of course) *teaches* us right from wrong? There's definitely a difference. Did God create us with objective morality, or do we learn it, again, thanks to religion.
Another reason I'm so hesitant to accept this argument is religion can claim objective morality, but we so often see religion abusing their sense of "morality." Things like throwing acid in the faces of women, and the persecution of homosexuals and women throughout history. Even if in theory, religion teaches morality, in practice, that would be very hard to find. What I'm saying is morality and religion are almost unrecognizable, to the point that even if religion taught objective morality, I'd say it still has to go, if only because of all the atrocities done in its name.
Now what would I say is the source for morality? Maybe some kind of survival mechanism. Consequentialism might be an answer too. But think, why don't cats kill each other out? In general, you take care of your own, and it's quite possible humans work the same way too. You live and let live, and don't bother other people. It's a selfish thing, as well as a selfless thing. Maybe all animals are wired that way: to help others, so that they will get helped. Incidentally, religion might work in that way, creating "families" if you will, and tribal groups, with greater loyalty to the in-group and animosity towards the out-group.
>I mean could it not be that there are those involved in the outreach profession who see something beautiful in religious Judaism that they want to share with others?
Very few.
>the thought of someone like R' Elyashiv or R' A L Steinman as someone out to trick the masses certainly doesn't quite seem anywhere close to the truth.
I wouldn't be so sure.
I wonder what would happen if a big rabbi like that would discover God doesn't exist. Let's say he'd find out with 100% certainty that the whole religion is a lie. Do you think he'd tell everybody, or keep it to himself?
This is a question that has bothered me most of my life. I've always suspected that he would keep it to himself, and now I think so even more. It's a terrifying thought. Welcome to my world.
Hi there peeps.
"As if our need for objective morality literally proves the existence of a God."
Again, it's not us human beings 'needing' objective morality, It's that we are all aware that there IS such a thing. The existence of such a thing might be a key to identifying some being that exists higher than ourselves (not that since we feel it convenient to have an objective ethical code we'll just say "well there must be a G-D").
"Another reason I'm so hesitant to accept this argument is religion can claim objective morality, but we so often see religion abusing their sense of 'morality'".
I'm sure you must be aware that this doesn't cut it. The fact that a few nuts go about Mea Shearim doing stuff like that is not a reason to deny the existence of G-D. 99.99% of those identifying with orthodox Judiasm do not throw stones, acid, laptops, cars, trucks or anything else for that matter.
"even if religion taught objective morality, I'd say it still has to go, if only because of all the atrocities done in its name"
Again, that's not being intellectually honest. How can you dismiss Judaism, if you were to know it's true, because there are people who do things you don't like?
"Now what would I say is the source for morality?"
Based on my first post on this piece, you should realise that all the options you give in order answer this question cannot be defined as morality. Looking after each other, or whatever, is not called morality, it's just establishing a way that humans can hopefully all get along. But again, that's not how we actually feel about life. We know that there are things which are morally right or wrong.
"I'm not sure what your argument is. Is it that God creates us with inherent knowledge of "good" and "bad", or is it that God (through religion of course) *teaches* us right from wrong? There's definitely a difference. Did God create us with objective morality, or do we learn it, again, thanks to religion."
Now, out of everything you wrote, this is the one point that i really need to think about and I hope you don't mind if I take a timeout on this particular point.
All the best
Oh and by the way, I'm all up for a non-frum guy expressing his views on a blog and all that, but please, stop with the Condell guy, he's such a miserable, sarcastic and pathetic guy. So far he hasn't told us once what DOES believe in, and even when he does mention very vaguely something like freedom of speech, ho makes no mention of how to go about getting it. Just a thought.
See ya
>How can you dismiss Judaism, if you were to know it's true, because there are people who do things you don't like?
Key words being IF you know it's true. If I knew it was true, I would be happy to overlook almost all its problems. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing that, and I'm afraid no one else does, either.
>Looking after each other, or whatever, is not called morality, it's just establishing a way that humans can hopefully all get along.
I understand you're uncomfortable about the idea of morality being in the hands of humans. Wouldn't it be nice if we had absolute morality? If I could know for sure that I'd live until 80? A lot of things would be really nice, but I'm not sure that makes it true. Like I said, morality could be an evolutionary concept, that people rewarded "good" behavior, and punished "bad", much like a kindergarten teacher does. I don't see why it has to be from God. I think it's a blind spot us religious people have that is exploited by the rabbis. We're used to filling in gaps in our knowledge with "God", so rabbis are able to do that too with morality. We may not know where we get our morality from, but that doesn't mean it's from God! I don't have any idea how this computer works either, but it sure as heck isn't from God!
(gets struck down by lightning)
Again, the source of morality is an interesting question, and it ought to be investigated seriously, but it's criminal when rabbis nip the conversation in the bud by using scare words like "murder" and "Nazis". As I said in the post, it's a despicable appeal to fear and consequences, and I wonder how many people have been bullied into pretending they believe in God, all so that they shouldn't look like they condone murder and have "no morality." Watch for it. Unfortunately, bullying and scare tactics is what rabbis do all too well, in my experience in real life, and especially, on the internet. Try this guy, for example.
I'll try to cut down on posting Pat Condell videos, partly because I like you, and partly because I've run out of videos to post.
Anyway, if you want to email or gchat anytime: offthed@gmail.com.
Aviva, I don't know what you're talking about when you say that we ALL KNOW there is objective morality. I may look at someone with disgust for committing a mass genocide, but this is only because of the way my brain works. If my brain worked differently, I might look upon such an action as something wonderful. Indeed, what people considered moral and immoral has greatly changed over time. That much isn't really debatable. I can find no evidence to support the contention that such a thing is objectively immoral. Or that there is such a thing as objective morality in the first place. Things are the way they are. Beyond that, I don't think one can draw any conclusions or extrapolate into morally normative claim(s), at least on an objective level.
Simply pointing out that there are situations that are hard for me to swallow from a nihilistic perspective has nothing to do with the validity of nihilism.
Post a Comment
Please be respectful.