WE ARE BAD WITHOUT RELIGION?!

RELIGION AND MORALITY: CONNECTED?

"Without God, everything is permitted"  Fyodor Dostoyevsky

"(The autonomous man will have) developed his own, independent,

long range will, which dares to make promises; he has a sense of power

and freedom, of complete accomplishment" Friedrich Nietzsche 

Can we be good without religion? Do we need to derive our morals from scripture? Questions such as these are often asked when trying to determine whether religion and morality are in some way connected. The answer is by no means clear, and whilst philosophers and theologians have put forward arguments in support of the view that they are linked, there are many who would deny this; they may even argue that they oppose one another. These questions are important: issues raised have challenged religious belief as well as systems of secular ethics. 

DIVINE COMMAND ETHICS

The Bible. Christians believe that God's word is revealed through it.

This system of ethics believes that what makes us moral is God's commands. As an omni-benevolent being, God is the source of all goodness and so his instructions reveal how we should live. But from where do we gain God's commands?

The source of God's authority is said to be revealed through scripture. In scripture, moral commands are written down. For instance, in the Christian Bible contains the Decalouge (The Ten Commandments 'Thou Shalt not kill' etc.), the Sermon On The Mount, where Jesus gave moral guidance, and other moral instructions such as 'Love thy neighbour'. Scripture also recommends how we should lead a religious life, through prayer, through tradition, through rules. Following this ensures we will lead a moral life.

Those who believe scripture truly reveals God's intentions will find this view convincing. But there are problems. One is the more obvious one of whether God exists. If he does not exist, then the source of the morals revealed through scriptures is not God. It can also have the implication that what is written in scripture is reduced in value. 

Even if a belief in God is justified, the problems do not end there. Atheist Richard Dawkins examines some of the Old Testament in the 'God Delusion' and attacks the supposed 'picking and choosing' and also the content of these stories. For instance, he mentions the story of Noah, stating that "God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family) drowned the lot of them including children and also, for good measure, the rest of the (presumably) blameless animals as well.". He says that "irritated theologians will protest that we do not take the book of genesis literally any more" but "we pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe ,which bits to write off as symbols or allegories." It may be argued that much of scripture is era-dependant (the bloody time in which the Koran was written, for instance) and in parts shocking to a modern reader ,whether it be Lot being seduced by his daughters, or Job's suffering. Are such stories consistent with an an all loving God? 

Other criticisms are related to historical inaccuracies, such as those surrounding Jesus's birth, and by the influence of the author's personal views, such as St Paul's attitude to women. Of course, whose interpretation of scriptures is right? Atheists may even ask, whose book is correct? 

GOD, MORALITY AND THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA

The relationship between religion and morality is one which a religious believer must resolve, even examining the view that it doesn't exist. The scholar R.B Braithwaite argues that to be religious is to be committed to a set of moral values. Religious language, he claims, is the language of morality and that religious believers have committed themselves to particular ways of behaving. One of these way maybe that to believe in God is to live in obedience to his will and law, and the way in which he makes moral commands is crucial to understand. 

However, the moral critique observes that the demands that are said to be made by God lead to absurd, pointless and dangerous outcomes. 

One moral critique and a major challenge to the relationship between religion and morality is Plato's Euthyphro dilemma: Does God command X (any moral command) because it is good, or is X good because God commands it? 

If God's command should be followed because it is good, then goodness is separate from God. He is not its source and his morally good nature isn't perfect. He cannot bring goodness into being other than goodness he access from outside him. If this is accepted, he is not the wholly good God that people may worship. 

If something is good because God commends it, then in principle anything God commands should be followed as it always good. However, how do we respond if a command from God goes against our sense of right and wrong? The story of Abraham almost sacrificing his son is an example that immediately comes to mind. Was the command given to Abraham, to test his faith, a good command, although it may have led to a horrible conclusion, and may lead to the image of malevolent God? Or is such a view superseded by the virtue of faith?

A.C Grayling

MORALITY WITHOUT RELIGION? 

The scholar A.C Grayling argues that "...religion is precisely the wrong resource for thinking about moral issues in the contemporary world, and indeed subverts moral debate". He suggests that modern society values freedom, achievement, saving money, insuring against the future and being rewarded for success,  and religion is not consistent with the modern times. His view is that others should be seen as intrinsically valuable, and this should be a source of our morality.

Richard Dawkins speaks of a Darwinian explanation for our morality. In speaking of a gene ensuring its own survival relative to other genes, it may be that these genes influence organisms to behave altruistically. These 'altruistic genes' promote four different kinds of behaviour:

 Richard Dawkins

i) Kin altruism where an organism acts to favour their genetic kin. Being good to one's children is an example and Dawkins also explains how certain organisms have evolved societies where elder siblings take care of the younger ones, such as bees, wasps and ants.

ii) Reciprocal altruism, the principle of 'You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'. He explains it as such "The principle is the basis of all trade and barter in humans too. The hunter needs a spear and the smith wants meat". It works "because of asymmetries in needs and in capacities to meet them". It is greater he claims, between different species as the "asymmetries are greater".

iii) Altruism which has the benefit of developing a reputation, for instance of kindness and generosity.

iv) Altruistic deeds which are an advertisement of dominance and superiority. In terms of Anthropology this is known as the Potlatch effect, named after custom where rival chieftains of North- Pacific tribes attempt to outdo each other through generous feasts. 

He goes on to explain that "Through most of our prehistory, humans lived under conditions that would have strongly favoured the evolution of all four kinds of altruism" for instance in villages, or in roving bands. You would be closely related to your group, and may have come across other groups, and due to this, he argues, it is easy to see how all four evolved. 

What Grayling and Dawkins are trying to show is that we do not need God or religion to understand the roots of morality or even as sources of morality.  Numerous other explanations of how we gain our morals and our ethics also exist and some of their authors have attempted to show, such as the two examples here, that religion and morality are independent of one another. 

Sources: 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins
               'A2 Religious Studies' by Sarah Tyler and Gordon Reid

MUCH OF WHAT WE SAY: MEANINGLESS?! (PART 2)

In part 1 (http://phenomenal-philosophy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/much-of-what-we-say-meaningless-part-1.html), we introduced the Logical Positivism movement and its main idea - the Verification Principle. An apparently impressive idea, its critics exposed its weakness to such an extent that the theory was discredited by the 1970's. In part 2 we will discuss these weaknesses.

OBJECTIONS

1.A major problem with the Verification Principle is that it is self refuting: 'A statement is only literally meaningful if it is a tautology (analytical statements) or can be empirically verified', yet we cannot verify this proposition empirically nor is it a tautology. Could we even verify it in principle (remember Ayer's hills on the moon?)? I found this funny video while attempting to search for the answer, do take a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ags_M3ILszo 

2. Another major issue is that it rules out historical statements, as even though there is evidence (books, letters, official documents etc) there is no way of empirically verifying them. To say that 'the Battle of Waterloo took place in 1815' is a meaningless statement as there is no one alive who could claim to have experienced it.

3. Think about the statement 'I love you'. It is an unverifiable emotion, and would be ruled out as meaningless. We could not definitely define what it means to love someone, but when we make the claim it is understood as meaningful, so it meaningful in principle.

4. Ethical and moral statements are said to be meaningless. No sense experience could verify the statement 'do not kill'. However, such statements influence the shaping up of religious and secular laws and some of these statements are considered for the most part universalisable.

5. We cannot absolutely verify the laws of science. No finite number of observations can conclusively prove that 'Gravity causes an object to fall back to the ground'.

RESPONSES: DOES THE THEORY WORK?

A.J Ayer in 'Language, Truth and Logic' suggested a 'strong' and a 'weak' form of the principle. Strong Verification deals with statements whose truths raise no doubt 'A circle is round'. Weak Verification involves statements where there is no absolute certainty, only but there is a strong likelihood of truth due to evidence existing e.g. the sun rises every morning. The philosopher in you might say that separating the principle into two forms help deal with 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' forms of truth. The idea of verification in principle (hills on the other side of the moon) would also be used as a response. 

None of this however solves the problems. One objection that could be raised is that the positivist might see religious language as meaningless but the scholar John Hick has argued that many religious claims are historical, and since weak verification would allow historical statements due to the existence of evidence, then at least in principle a statement such as 'Jesus rose from the dead' is meaningful. 

If we knew what would in principle verify a statement, then we could say it is meaningful. However, we can object to this because in theory virtually any statement could be verifiable if it were known, in principle, what would verify it. Thus, much of what the movement claimed as meaningless, such as Metaphysics, may be shown to be meaningful, it is just that we cannot know what will verify it. 

You could also accuse Logical Positivism of assuming that you could apply the scientific principle of empirical observation to the use of language, saying that a proposition must make a claim that observation could verify. This denies that human beings use language in a rich variety of ways, such as creating great works of literature; we don't just use language to evaluate what is right and wrong. It also assumes that observation best verifies a statement, but you could easily object to this claim, as we can easily be deceived by our senses. Richard Dawkins talks about the power of the brain*, processing information and creating an image which could easily be misleading, quoting the illusion of the **'Necker's Cube'

The Necker's Cube

Perhaps the biggest problem is that accepting the theory's criteria makes the theory itself meaningless. We have no way of showing that it is meaningful, no statement of logic, no piece of empirical data, no hypothesis we can test. It is an example of the kind of statement which the first positivists wished to evaluate the meaning of; statements which were accepted almost axiomatically (self evident truth which need no proof). 

Thus the movement failed to the extent that even A.J Ayer later said that most of what was claimed by this movement was 'false'. It still retains an important place in the history of Analytical Philosophy due to its large impact and because it influenced further movements. 

For both parts Sources: 'Language, Truth and Logic' by A.J Ayer

                                     'A2 Religious Studies' by Sarah K. Tyler and Gordon Reid  

                                     'The Thinkers Guide to God' by Peter Vardy and Julius Arliss

                                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Necker_cube.svg

                                     http://askaphilosopher.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/does-the-verification-principle-fail-by-its-own-criterion/

                                     

*In the God Delusion, Dawkins talks about the power of the brain when objecting to the view that Religious Experience justifies belief in God.

** Find out more about this illusion http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/supersenses/necker.htm