Morality sans religion
This article has been read 570 times.
Spirituality does not direct moral compass of societies
Several weeks ago, the pope visited England.
There are a lot of people who are unhappy with the Catholic Church right now, so he was greeted by a large number of protesters, lots of angry comments and supportive crowds that were much smaller than expected.
During his stay, the pope happened to make comments that made a number of people even more irate.
“Even in our own lifetimes, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.
As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus, a reductive vision of a person and his destiny,” he said.
Essentially, he claimed that the Nazi regime was spurred on by an atheist leader and that atheists lack morality because they are nonbelievers.
Many people think he made these inflammatory comments to distract from the pedophilia scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church.
They say he was hoping to not have to field questions concerning the church’s poor handling of the situation.
I agree that this is most likely why he said those things, and I would be willing to write the whole thing off as just the desperate blustering of an old man.
However, there is a large portion of society that believes that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were atheists, and they are convinced that it’s impossible to be moral without God.
On the subject of Hitler, it’s likely the case that he was not an atheist.
I say “likely” because it turns out he was fairly contradictory concerning religion. On the one hand, he would say things like, “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew, I am defending the handiwork of the Lord,” and, “Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. Be just, as thou hast always been just … Lord, bless our struggle.
During his time as head of the German government, various pro-Christian and anti-atheist laws were passed.
On the other hand, he also made anti-religious statements.
It’s most likely the case that he just said whatever he thought would best serve his desires.
He is quite probably neither representative of religion nor atheism, but just a very bad person whose like we all hope never to see again.
Even if he was an atheist, pointing to Hitler and claiming that he is proof of the immorality of nonbelievers is akin to pointing to those Catholic priests guilty of child molestation and claiming all Catholics are perverts. It’s disingenuous at best and slanderous at worst.
The other issue at hand is whether or not it’s possible to be a moral individual without guidance from some divine power. Studies show that it is indeed possible.
In fact, when researchers look at more secular countries and compare them to the U.S., a nation with a large number of religious citizens, they find that the less influence religion has on a society, the better off those societies are.
Gregory Paul, who conducted such a study, said this: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”
He goes on to say, “The disparity was even greater when the U.S. was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion.”
Paul and others believe that this data may actually show that religion has a negative effect on society, but I think it’s unfair to make such a claim based solely on a study such as this one.
The fact is that there are just too many factors involved in the formation, governing and overall attitude of a society to claim that any single aspect is responsible for how that society handles morality.
What it does show, however, is that God is not required for people to be good to each other.
We don’t like to be hurt, and most of us are capable of making a “leap of logic” to the idea that other people don’t like to be hurt either.
We can then decide that maybe we shouldn’t hurt others if we don’t have to.
Morality isn’t handed down from on high, it’s simply the act of considering your actions, weighing the consequences and deciding if what you’re about to do will cause more harm than good.
Consider this philosophical question that’s been modified a bit but was posed initially by Socrates: “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”
While Mr. Peterson attempts to make an argument for the possibility of a moral life exempt of God, he only uses shaky and flawed evidence.
First, he quotes a study from a Gregory S. Paul, which I can only assume would be the article found in the Journal of Religion and Society. What Mr. Peterson does not include with the study results is that Mr. Paul is not even qualified to make such a study in the first place. He has no higher degree of statisitcal analysis, sociology, or demography, etc. He is in fact an artist and freelance paleontologist. He had an agenda to skew his study results before he even started. The journal itself has re-evaluated Mr. Paul’s article and questioned its validity. If Mr. Peterson is attempting to prove that society can live without a God, he should find a more credible source of information and not use an obscure study that has been found to be pre-fabricated.
Secondly, Mr. Peterson makes the case that the Nazi regime was not an atheist movement created by an atheist dictator. It is true that Hitler had made those comments regarding God, but he was all in all a politician. To be able to influence all Germans, he understood that he would have to get the religious onboard his agenda train, ergo, his false statements regarding his belief in God. What one should focus on is who exactly influenced Hitler in the first place; these were two men: Nietzsche and Darwin.
Nietzsche was the philosopher who made the famous statement “God is dead.” He was also a man prone to insanity, spending the last 20 years of his life in an insane asylum. He made the prediction that due to a society in the 19th century that disbelieved in God, the next century would be the bloodiest the world would ever know. As we all know, he was precisely correct in that prediction. Hitler revered Nietzsche so much, he presented his work to Mussolini, the fascist Italian dictator. If he believed in Nietzsche so much and acted on the principles that he had set, do we honestly believe that Hitler was a Christian? Stalin, the evil dictator of Russia, blamed with the death of millions of his own countrymen, set out to completely erradicate God from society. So did Lenin; and Mao Zedong; and Pol Pot. Is it a coincidence that these men who all had the same agenda, same disbelief in God, are also credited with the most murders in once century than all the murders of the previous centuries, combined?
How many times will it take for the atheist to see that there can be no moral foundation without something to found it upon? Atheism can only support moral relativism; if it can only support moral relativism, they are in no position to condemn the actions of men such as Hitler and Stalin, etc. which is completely asinine. If we must have a Constitution to set our laws in society, what makes one think that we can live morally without a standard set down by a higher being as well? It does not logically hold itself up.
I have to admit that my gut reaction to the current Pope is always negative. It’s purely based on his association with the Nazi party (as a young man, yes, which can be forgiven as youthful ignorance, national pride, or even perhaps survival) but it always makes me wonder why he keeps dredging up this One example of human cruelty (we’ve more recent and relevant unfortunately).
Though his example is pure sophistry. It is to provoke an emotional reaction because we still recoil from the desecration of human (God?) given rights to life, liberty, and all that jazz. He chooses to ignore the more numerous examples of murder, greed, and zealotry that western history provides (because, lets be honest, asking people to think about things that happened only 70-80 years ago is a stretch).
If it is a tactic to provoke a news storm that will overshadow the poor handling of pedophilia that seems to plague the Catholic church it is a sad one. Like slapping some mustard on a very moldy piece of bread! Both leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Religion, or the lack there of, is used as an excuse for inhumanity by the ignorant or manipulative. The capacity for cruelty lies in the man and not within faith.
p.s. Cole, really thought provoking!
@Brian Westley
“Theists can never show that moral actions make no logical sense without a god, they can only assert this as if it’s true.”
You must have missed, “What is harm for you may be good for another and vice a versa” i.e. moral relativism ergo moral actions make no logical sense without a god; a transcendental force. Appeals to the greater good are begging the question, who and how do you determine the greater good?
Here’s another example for you “is the life of an animal more or less important than a human?” If you say same, then I will at least give you marks for being consistent an atheistic based framework, however, I am sure presented with the choice of an animal dying or a person, you would actually be unable to live within your choice. If you say Human life is more important then why? Is it just because it is your “species”, why should your “species” determine what’s right and wrong for every other “species” and if you say Human life is less important, then get some help
In the Christian system the answer is easy, it is human life, because, Humans are made in the image of God, which means, like God, we think, choose and create. The only difference is we create from within the confines of what has already been created. God created ex-nihlo.
To the question of which god, that is a rather long answer, suffice to say, that only the Christian God and system of philosophy answers the metaphysical, moral and epistemological aspects of the human condition with sufficient clarity and consistency of what we actually experience in our lives.
All the best with your search for answers to the big questions in life.
It should be noted that’s Hitler’s alleged “anti-Christian comments” largely come from the “Table Talk ” series which many question as a forgery of his secretary, Martin Bormann. There is strong evidence that Hitler, had he succeeded, would have concocted a state religion having its foundation in Christianity with state worship, pre-Christian German paganism and the occult as its distinguishing characteristics.
In so far as Communism is concerned, not once did Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot ever say they commited the attrocities they did in the name of or because of their atheism. By the standards of those who use this argument, any time a believer commits an attrocity, it is because of their faith. For example, the over 18,000 reported murders in the United States last year commited by Christians would be because of Christianity. Now let’s add rapes. Now robberies. Now attempted murders. Now assaults. Now molestations. Now all those unreported. Now all those done throughout the world. Now all those done by every sort of believer. Now all those done since the beginning of their respective religions. That would amount to TRILLIONS of crimes that could be laid at the feet of faith using believer’s own standard.
When religion dominated, had believers access to the technology and weaponry of even the early 20th century, our species would not have survived.
The pope was doing what popes do, protecting his con game. For that is all that religion is, a grift. The greatest griift with the greatest hoook of them all. Promise of an afterlife that can’t be prvoen without dying.
I prefer ethics over morality. Society requires ethical action in order to survive peacefully.
When theists say that religion is required to keep people good it just means that theist sees themself as breaking laws if no one was around to watch. Sad people really.
@Brian Westley: Well said.
“Sigh…..same old, same old. The argument is not that you need God to be moral, it is that moral actions make no logical sense without God.”
Sigh…..same old, same old. Theists can never show that moral actions make no logical sense without a god, they can only assert this as if it’s true. But theists can’t even agree on basic morality (is polygamy moral or not?), so even if gods are the only basis for morality, you still end up with humans deciding which god is right.
Instead of using such a nonsensical and roundabout method, I think it’s much better to argue about morality without bringing what gods supposedly want into it. If gods want to enter this discussion, they have to present their arguments just like anyone else. And no humans supposedly speaking for these gods, they have to do it themselves.
Sigh…..same old, same old. The argument is not that you need God to be moral, it is that moral actions make no logical sense without God. Which is ironic since a lot of atheists like to think they are logical and rational.
Your statement..”Morality isn’t handed down from on high, it’s simply the act of considering your actions, weighing the consequences and deciding if what you’re about to do will cause more harm than good.” is nonsense…what is harm for you may be good for another and vice a versa. e.g. taking the life of a disabled person who is consuming resources so said resources can be consumed by healthy people able to be productive.