Morality is not confined by religion

Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? What process does one follow in deciding the ethical value of an action? I will show that faith cannot constitute morality, but rather what can – is reason.

Lawrence Krauss suggested that the process of ethical evaluation is defined by examining the consequences of our actions on society – which he claims to be a scientific examination. Many would turn to religion to answer those questions. ‘What would Jesus do?‘ Is what an evangelical friend of mine, Sergio Andres Garcia Cruz, bases his entire moral structure on. And whether or not anyone can know what Jesus would do in a particular situation is irrelevant to the fact that a great portion of the population agree that this adoption is moral and healthy for society. These situations are limited in the way that – for example – asking whether Jesus would abort his unborn child (and questions of this nature) are not the correct way to examine them (God forbid Jesus ever having had sex).

But is that what we mean by morality? Is something moral if it meets social standards? fundamentalists would argue that morality is derived from religion. To that many critics, including myself, argue that if we do get our morals from religion, which religion? They all preach different morals. To the Christians who believe that the old testament is representative of our modern moral structure I say: “Go read the Old testament!”. Richard Dawkins famously ridiculed the God of the Old testament, calling him a racist, homophobic, genocidal bully (among many more colorful adjectives).

In examining the claim: ‘Morality is derived form religion‘. We have the following (non-exhaustive) remarks:

1. Firstly, this claim suggests that anyone who does not accept said religion is immoral.
2. Secondly, this claim suggests that morality is constant, in other words, the morality of people two thousand years ago is the same as the morality of today.
3. Thirdly, it follows from the first two remarks that it is necessary for all mankind to adapt said religion.

I hope you see that the first remark is a suggestion of a false statement. Every religious person must know at least one secular (or following a different religion) who shares the same values as them. The second remark suggests something that is contradicted by religion itself. The morals we preach today differ greatly to what may have been taught in ancient Rome during war times. Now it is taught that war is immoral (ending human life is immoral) but back then it was viewed differently: Enemies of Rome are enemies of God.  A means to unify the public against a threat (for survival). Examples of the use of religion to unify a mass of people to accomplish a goal are apparent in all our history records.

The third remark is what makes religion potentially scary. What comes to mind instantly are Islam extremists who go as far as mutually assured destruction in the name of their prophet, religion and moral structure. Even mentioning the religion brings fear of offense. Most people would agree that freedom and the tolerance of others’ freedom is part of the morality that we share today, although, Islam and other religions obviously do not follow these principles.

It is despicable to take the position in favor against freedom of speech, whether it be in the name of Mohamed or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There should be no authorities on morality.

Sam Harris is someone who should be recognized more for his efforts in the defense of freedom of thought and speech.

The late Christopher Hitchens said “Human decency is not derived form religion. It precedes it.” . Ethical evaluation should be done – as Krauss suggests – by scientific examination and reason.

‘Just’ a Theory?

Tradition  and blind respect for those whom we dare not question.

At home and at school, kids are ‘supposed’ to ask questions. If asked, parents would without a doubt approve this beneficial growth habit. However, both of these factions implicitly prohibit questioning authority when it comes to religion.

The ‘theory’ of evolution is a very controversial topic among the general public, because it
calls into question all creationist views. And this has morphed the way religious schools teach it if they teach it at all.

in the classroom it is said, by the teacher, with delicacy that the ‘theory’ of evolution is just a theory and has not been proven, as to avoid any offence. This is still the view that many people hold. Evolution is a model that has been refined over a long time to explain many different questions of nature. Any theory that attempts to explain natural phenomena is subject to question or refinement  constantly, but only if the evidence for the alternate hypothesis is more conclusive.

The truth is that when we say ‘Einstein’s theory of relativity’ it means something very different to our everyday use of the word: ‘I have a theory that my nurse is stealing my medication’.

The everyday use of the word is synonymous to the word ‘hypothesis’; something that we have some suspicion of, but have no proof of yet. On the other hand if we say ‘By Newton’s theory of gravitation, we can predict the position of a falling object’ then we mean that the theory is factual.

When someone asked you if you believed in evolution, it is similar to someone asking you if you believed in gravity. In a scientific context, the word ‘theory’ means something that has been proven through the scientific method and now is used to explain or predict natural phenomena.

The implications of traditional respect for religious authorities and blind faith are that children do not ask enough questions about the way things work. What should be taught is that children should make their own decisions based on information that they have collected. And that collecting information is important.

“If I am going to base my whole life structure on something, I had better have all the information laid out in front of me.” Is the type of attitude that teachers and parents should promote to the children.

Have more respect for those who have high regard for the pursuit of knowledge than those who demand it because of blind tradition. Encourage children to gather and assess the evidence and Make up their own minds instead of forcing traditional, narrow views upon them.

---