Introduction
Few topics are argued with such vehemence as religion. With the recent departure of “W,” religion in politics is something that has been a fundamental part of our political climate for the better part of a decade. With an ever-louder voice, the Christian Evangelicals spout the inerrant word of God in form the biblical rhetoric, and believers of a false god press their opinions upon all who do not think like they do… this is to say all who think. Worse still, the believers spend their lives in denial of pleasures and indeed this life, in an attempt to attain front row seats in something beyond experience and essentially unknowable. If that were not bad enough, this false belief is then forced upon others by means of dictating “legal morality.” The realms of abortion, gay rights and freedom of bigotry are just a few areas that have seen and felt this misguided belief affect, and in some cases ruin, countless lives. It is my hope to show an alternative to, as well as arguments against, this belief structure. Failing this, my desire is to create doubt and critical thinking in persons who “sure” they are right.
I have heard many arguments concerning faith and belief. It is a common retort by evangelicals to atheists, “You have to have faith in science too.” I would like to point out this inherent contradiction of terms. Belief is a broad term that encompasses ideas based upon proof and observation; faith implies a lack of proof. Faith is a type of belief, however belief is not a type of faith. Here are the definitions of the two by Merriam-Webster, “Belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer
Epistemic Issues
Inquisitions into the limits of human knowledge are a fairly common endeavor for those of a philosophical nature. Quite possibly one of the best was David Hume’s Enquiry into Human Understanding, wherein he makes several critical points, some of which I will use. First, he defines our knowledge as falling into two distinct categories: the first being “matters of fact” and the second being “ideas.” Matters of fact are concepts that exist a priori (before experience); they are fundamentally true and do not need to be experienced to be valid. A good example of a matter of fact is the Pythagorean theorem; the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is the sum of the squares of the legs whether there is anyone there to see a triangle. This is true of all right triangles, always[1]. Ideas, in contrast, are based upon experience: sight, sounds, smells. These forms of knowledge are always slightly flawed, slightly different from person to person. Ideas are not knowledge of the world as it is, only the world, as we can know it. This is not inadequate; it is simply a definition of our epistemic limitations. The vast majority of our every day lives, the entirety of science, and human interactions are all based upon beliefs. These beliefs can be broken down into good beliefs and bad beliefs, based upon their foundations. Take the following example: since as long as I can remember the sun has come up in the morning, even if clouds have covered it, it still gets lighter. Additionally, there is an understanding as to why it appears to rise and it is beyond a simple, subjective experience. It is a universal[2], predictable and measurable experience. Therefore the belief that the sun will come out tomorrow is a good belief. The belief that a giant, flying, spaghetti monster created the universe and now rules on a throne of marshmallows, is based upon nothing be wild speculation and humor. This would be classified as a bad belief. This type of belief has no concrete proof. Regardless of how strongly a person believes it to be reality, no matter how much “proof” that person has experienced, it still lacks any form of objective tangibility[3], as such cannot be classified as anything other than faith.
Faith is innately unfounded; which is to say it is fundamentally a bad belief. However, this does not mean it should be inherently discounted. Rather, faith is something that should be judged on the criteria of whether it is helpful, harmful or simply a feeling. Since the absolute nature of various objects of faith is fundamentally unknowable, the criteria for consequentialist judgment are derived primarily from the real-world impact of the aforementioned faith-based-maxim. Let me develop this point a little further, for it is the crux of my argument. To allow your life to be influenced beyond the point of a fleeting thought by something that is inherently unverifiable is to deny the very life you live, the world that is concrete. By ascribing to your subjective experience of the traditionally Christian God the validity of a universal absolute, by following the teachings you are told are Biblical and therefore universal, by denying yourself the freedom to explore and choose for yourself you are denying the only real existence you can ever know. To assert, “The Bible, and therefore God, says that sex outside of procreation is wrong and the act should not be indulged let alone enjoyed,” is not only baseless, it denies the “faith”-holder the ability to develop and partake in a very healthy and very fundamental part of the human experience. This is an essential example of having a faith that is truly harmful by allowing it to further constrain our already limited existence. In contrast to this, to offer a brief prayer to any deity because, “it can’t hurt” is, by and large, not harmful. Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, so too, you cannot disprove its existence. Therefore a small “prayer,” is not an affirmation of an un-provable entity, as much as it is an acknowledgement of our own epistemic limitations. I do not pray to Ares to keep my best friend safe in war because I know the Greek pantheon exists; I pray to Ares because I cannot know that they don’t.
Morality
I have often heard “Christians” state that a person cannot be moral without being religious. This is simply absurd. Religion has nothing to do with morality. What few Christians understand is that they choose their own ethics. More importantly, the belief that you are following “God’s law” when you ascribe your “morality” to the bible is not only delusional, but also false. No matter who you are, your morality comes only from yourself. Religion simply shields the believer from taking on the personal responsibility of his own moral choices, discomfort and at times, hatred.
The King James Bible, the NIV (New International Version) Bible, the ESV (English Standard Version) Bible and the NLT (New Living Translation) Bible, just to name a few, are neither inerrant, nor infallible. Anyone who has read a bible in English or any current, living language has not read original scripture. Anyone who can read the dead languages of the Mediterranean, Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew among others has not read the original scripture. The original canonical scriptures were almost certainly not read by those who canonized them: the Nicean Council. The original scriptures where lost, long before Gutenberg invented the press; therefore, the copies that made it to the stage of mass, identical printing, were translated, interpreted and altered hundreds, if not thousands of times. I have heard that divine inspiration guaranteed what was important stayed, if this were the case, wouldn’t all present bibles be in the same language, in the same form? The very fact that within the English language there exist multiple different “canonical” versions further absolves the “divine inspiration” argument of any validity[4]. How then, can one say that their morality is based on the Bible? Which Bible? Why the Bible, why not any of the dozens of other grossly over read, misunderstood spiritual testaments? The scope of this essay would broaden to absurdity if I were to explore the reasons as to why any particular person chooses the Bible as the foundation to their personal morality; however, my point is thus, everyone chooses their morality based upon what information is presented, but more importantly, what information they choose to believe. Sheepism is at its most apparent when individuals are proud to turn over their moral and ethical autonomy to a higher, divine source.
Homosexuality is no more a sin then eating shellfish, yet eating shellfish doesn’t make people uncomfortable. We are biologically predisposed to be wary of that which is different. Yet, we are beings who posses the ability to override our biology. Is and Ought are not synonyms, nor are they causally linked. I warn those who read, be careful, this argument can go both ways, and thus, making the point of my whole argument. Just because something is biologically, psychologically or anthropologically “true,” does not imply anything as to the way things should be. Should implies an entire presupposed value structure that is as unique as each person themselves. To read the Bible and selectively choose which proposed tenants, shellfish versus homosexuality, to build your personal, moral structure on is no different and no more valid then watching South Park to do the same. The source lacks authority unless the whole of the source is validated and applied. Valid or not, no source can excuse the agent from his own moral choice and responsibility. Due to the inherent contradictions, errors and lack of cohesion, the Bible is a poor choice for the required submission to authority. I am not saying that it is not a useful, guiding tool; however, a Christian’s appeal to its authority for “right” and “wrong” behavior is more often times sick and a means to cover their own exclusionary mindset.
In summation, morality comes exclusively from within. Although various outside factors play into a person’s ethical structure, ranging from an understanding of enlightened dependant co-origination to strict legalism, the final deciding factor is the amount of responsibility the actor takes for his actions. To acknowledge the inherent gradation of “right” to “wrong” actions, beliefs and maxims, is to acknowledge that you alone posses the ability to determine correct thought and correct action. By submitting authority to an improvable higher power, especially in the form of a flawed book with a multitude of variations, the actor has intentionally released from himself the moral culpability of his own actions.
Conclusion
Sentient beings are rational, emotional, autonomous entities that, by and large, shy away from the responsibility of their own existence. In so doing, they are refusing to acknowledge what it means to be free. I am not talking about freedom from outside forces; powers and principalities shall always hold force over an individual body. However, no such shackles can be affixed to the mind, the will of a sentient agent. Affirming your existence through the explicit denial of your own rational and emotional capacities by ascribing undue validity to a work of creative fiction, results both in a life that is a bare step above that of a caged animal, as well forcing your shallow, petty judgments upon those that are most likely more enlightened then yourself.
[1] For this essay, I will not go into the various ideas attacking mathematics as truly being a priori. These are not particularly relevant to the argument I am attempting to make, I am really only concerned with ideas and good versus bad beliefs.
[2] I am not arguing true universality; there may be a random person here or there that discounts the sun coming up for whatever reason; however the exceedingly vast majority of the population of people would agree. Additionally there are mechanisms in nature based upon the sun rising and setting, like the typical morning glory.
[3] I would like to add, that if another person experiences what he thinks to be a flying spaghetti monster, ruling from a thrown of marshmallows, or something similar enough that these two Spaghettionites now feel as though there is an objective truth to their experience, one must ask, “what is in fact being experienced?” What occurred that made these individuals believe that they saw this thing? Just because you do not have an answer does not mean that a personal God or a Spaghetti Monster has a hand in it.
[4] For more on this topic, read Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. This is a phenomenal book written by a born-again, evangelical-turned-agnostic theologian, who, during his study of Biblical Textual Criticism, discovered the Bible was so full of anomalies that nothing quoted can EVER be close to what was originally written.
