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:
- Firstly, this claim suggests that anyone who does not accept said religion is immoral.
- 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.
- 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.