Archives for posts with tag: world views
Newer Entries »

Critique of Pure Religion

Aug 26, 2013 //
0

Normally I like to direct my condemnations toward atheistic and secular modes of thinking. Not because those beliefs are wrong, but because I think there should be more critical thinking in that area outside of the typical “godless, amoral monsters” attack that is too easily repudiated. The God-Shaped Hole argument has some validity, but that’s another blog for another day.

Today I’m going to bat for the other team, and give a couple of examples of things I find wrong with religion specifically, that don’t exist outside of the religious realm.

The first issue I have with religion is the hypocrisy. This centres mostly around morality:  religion is, at its foundations, a strict guide on how to behave. However, as I illustrate in my previous blog post (https://blogforchumps.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/subjective-morality-its-all-weve-got/) we choose our own moral code, and the rules of holy scripture become less of a rigid set of ethics, and more of a timid suggestion.

This wouldn’t be as much of a problem if people admitted that they were using those rules as suggestion rather than as stone cold fact. But this is not often the case, and people will defend adamantly that they are absolutely correct in their way of thinking because their way has fancy words like “Thou” and “Shalt” in it. This is despite these people either glossing over or downright ignoring the Thous and the Shalts that contradict some of their other firmly-held beliefs.

Atrocities may be committed in the name of secularism and atheists may hold atrocious beliefs, but since they don’t have a rule book that says otherwise, it can’t be considered a hypocrisy.

The other issue that I have with religion is the notion that only things that make us miserable can be considered morally acceptable, and if it feels good then it must be wrong. This is of course an exaggeration, but it’s still true to some extent. There is the puritanism, the guilt, the asceticism, and in the extremes we have the self-flagellation, the sexual mutilation, etc. associated with religion, and because of that association, these are seen as morally proper conduct.

This stems from the belief that religion should be a restraint on the natural urges of human desire, and yes, some restraint is a good thing. But humanity seems to like taking things way, way too seriously, and because of this , this way of thinking has far surpassed reasonable levels. It has even gotten to the point where we have secular beliefs that have been created by this “misery leads to morality, and pleasure leads to sin” way of life, such as sex is bad, drugs are bad, and veganism is somehow a good thing.

I’m not advocating hedonism, but religion’s restraint on basic human urges and desires needs to be examined a little more thoroughly. WHY do we slut-shame? WHY is marijuana illegal? It wasn’t secular thinking that led to these beliefs, and yes, an argument can be made that patriarchal cultures lead to slut-shaming, but where did the belief that sex is wrong come from in the first place?

When I think about critiques of religion, and there are many, I always think of John Lennon asking us to imagine a world without religion, and I do, and I believe most of those critiques would still be around. However, I don’t know if these two issues that I have raised would be. There are obviously moral regulations that people can be hypocritical about in secular circles, but no ethical rules are as absolutist as religious ones, which makes the hypocrisy that much more apparent. And you know, maybe humanity would find a way to severely oppress our natural desires outside of religion, or maybe we would simply be content oppressing ourselves in other ways, but who knows.

Who knows?

 

Post-script: I’m not saying that religious ethical beliefs are bad. I’m saying that embracing some and renouncing others is hypocritical if you also suggest that all of those rules are good and proper. Also, vegans, I’m just teasing you. Hugs and kisses!

Tags , , , ,
Categories Religion

Subjective Morality: It’s all we’ve got

Aug 16, 2013 //
3

Remember when you were a kid, and you knew there were delicious cookies not-so-locked-away in a kinda-sorta out of reach location? Did you ever take one anyway, even though you knew you “weren’t supposed to”? Why weren’t you supposed to? Because you’d spoil your dinner or “Because I said so!” Now that you’re (presumably) grown up, you might still have cookies semi-locked away somewhere, and you might find yourself in a similar dilemma. You’ve added a few more reasons to the list of why you shouldn’t have a cookie. You don’t want to gain weight. You’re saving them for someone. You already stuffed your fat face so full of pudding pops that to have even one cookie would make you puke all over yourself. All of those options basically boil down to, again, “Because I said so,” but in this instance, it isn’t your parent telling you, it’s your superego telling your id. You’re choosing whether or not it’s okay to have a cookie.

Let’s get a bit more philosophical here. When you were a kid, eating that cookie was wrong 100% of the time. Let’s call it immoral, just for shits and giggles. Now as an adult, eating that cookie is immoral, let’s pull this arbitrary statistic of 50% of the time out of my ass. Half of the time you feel bad about cramming your face hole with cookie goodness, the other half you just savour its deliciousness guilt-free because you found some way to justify it. Maybe you’re going to the gym later or maybe it’s your “cheat” day. Or maybe you just fucking love cookies, who knows.

At some point, eating that cookie became less immoral. Probably it’s when you moved out of your parents’ house. At that point, all of a sudden a whole lot of things became less immoral. Staying out past 10pm, bringing girls home, pooping in the bidet; now you are deciding whether or not these things are okay. The actions themselves aren’t imbued with any moral value, it’s strictly how you as an individual perceive them.

These are, of course, small fry examples. I think most people would agree that these trivial actions shouldn’t even count towards a form of morality. What about if that cookie was a shellfish? Or pork? Religion, the ultimate guide for morality, in some instances dictates dietary restrictions. So let’s look at religious law and see if it’s just as subjective as choosing whether or not to poop in a bidet.

If you’re religious, (I’m going to stick to Christianity in this instance because I’m fairly western centric in my thinking, though it does apply to every religion. Feel free to apply your own belief set to this theory) you would probably say the biblical law against murder is higher than the secular, governmental law against murder. What I mean to say is, you aren’t going around killing people helter skelter because of what God says, not because of what Johnny Law says.

What about slavery? The Bible, even the New Testament, advocates slavery. Ephesians 6:5-8 tells slaves to obey their masters as they would obey Christ. I sincerely hope that you would place secular, governmental law higher than biblical law in this instance.

So why do this? You might justify about how the Bible was written in a different time period, under different circumstances, and that it needs to be interpreted in a modern cultural context, and that’s fine. Go ahead and do that. I’ll allow it, but in return, I need you to understand that the only reason you’re saying that is because you were raised in that same modern cultural context, and because of this, you are choosing which parts of the Bible to follow. The morality dictated by the Bible isn’t inherently moral because of where it’s coming from, it is only moral if the person interpreting it declares it as such.

Even if you followed every letter in the Bible, it would still only be because you are choosing to do so, because that is your belief. Your choice. It’s only “Because I said so” if you let it.

I feel as though I need to take a step back and explain what I mean when I say morality. I’m going to do this super quick because this is a huge tangent and I apologize, but I want to make sure I’m being clear. An action is moral only if it is inherently viewed as moral. Because I said so, and because I’m going to punish you if you don’t, are not valid reasons for morality.  So governmental law, for example, isn’t a basis for morality because it’s a mix between because I said so, and the fear of being locked in prison. The only reason that religious law is exempt from this stipulation is because God is viewed as the source of Goodness. So God’s laws are already imbued with morality, simply because of their source. My argument is that that is not the case, as you as an individual already have preconceived notions as to what’s good or not, based on your upbringing, and use those notions to pick and choose which parts you like or dislike. Some folks attempt to use reason to dictate morality, but that always leads to trouble, and I’m not getting into that right now.

And we’re back. Okay. I have lost my train of thought. And this is why tangents are a bad idea.

Oh right. I remember. I’m going to give a few more examples of subjective morality that don’t involve cookies because that will just make me hungry.

Since everyone loves pop culture, and you’re a damn dirty liar if you say you don’t, let’s look at some situations where traditionally “wrong” actions are looked upon in a favourable light. Aladdin, for example, steals things. Disney, the production company for kids, says that stealing is okay. Sure he shares the bread, but he still steals. What is the message here? There are some options. Stealing is always okay. Stealing is only okay if it’s food. Stealing is only okay if it’s for the benefit of those who need it badly. Which reminds me that Robin Hood is another good pop culture example. Stealing is never okay and Aladdin should have his hands cut off, as was the tradition at the time. Of those options, which one did you relate to most? It’s going to be different for each of you, but that’s my point. Based on who you are as an individual, you are going to relate more to one version of morality over another. Especially in the grayer areas. Note: I hope you’ve caught on that my point is that they’re all gray areas. Some are just grayer than others.

Oh wait hold on let’s look at  straight up killing folks. This one is easy for those of us who are lucky to be born into such privilege where we can smugly assert that killing is wrong in every instance and that it is never justified (For the record, killing is always wrong and is never justified). What about those who live in the context of kill or be killed? Maybe you might change your mind if every day is a fight for your life. Pop culture reference here is City of God.(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317248/?ref_=sr_1) I wanted to give an example of a localized culture where killing has become the norm, but every action movie ever has us relating to someone who is killing dudes left and right. Maybe it’s for some cause or another, but it’s still death dealing that movie goers cheer for. The book and upcoming movie Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card has us relate to someone who commits genocide. Spoilers, by the way. Maybe you feel as though that every instance of death dealing is wrong, and that movies that perpetuate that culture are a hindrance to social progress. Kudos, but that’s still only because that’s what you’re choosing to believe based on your personal, unique life experiences.

There are countless pop culture examples of robots being programmed with “humanity’s best interests” and then being unable to properly understand this directive due to an acute case of Lack of Feelings, so they go on a murderous rampage or whatever, and then humanity has to assert its humanity in order to bring the world back to its chaotic interpretation of morality. Sometimes it’s wrong doing right, and sometimes it’s right doing wrong. Robots don’t understand this, but humans do, and that is because we choose our own morality, and it isn’t based on anything having intrinsic value, it’s based on how we happen to feel about it at the time.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories Philosophy

The Secular World’s Scapegoat

Oct 15, 2009 //
2

I just finished watching Religulous starring Bill Maher, and I started to consider whether or not the world would be a better place without religion. Bill Maher is pretty adamant that it would, and he cites the violence, intolerance, and ignorance that has been perpetrated and perpetuated by organized religion over the thousands of years it has been in existence. John Lennon asks us that same question by telling us to imagine a world with no religion, citing the same examples of using religion as an excuse to kill or die for.

So let us do exactly that.

I’m going to follow the main complaints by Bill Maher because I just watched the movie and his points are still fresh in my mind. The first of Bill Maher’s gripes is the biggest problem and that is the over-zealousness leading to violence. I don’t believe religion is the cause of people being violent in defense of, or as an attack of, their belief. If you disagree, look at European soccer hooligans, or Guns’n’Roses fans who would riot when Axl Rose doesn’t show up to perform in Vancouver. People will always latch on to something that they hold dear, and lash out irrationally at things that do not coincide with their belief set. Xenophobia, competitiveness, and mob-mentality extend far beyond the realm of religiousness.

One might argue that the scale in which violence accumulated around religious ideologies is vastly greater than a soccer riot or a bar fight over which is the hottest Charlie’s Angel. Well it’s true, but we’re imagining a world without religion, and if that were the case, people would obsess over something else in order to beat up somebody who doesn’t agree with them. It might be nationalism, which even today bears a striking resemblance to religious zealotry in some instances. However, if we are starting right from the beginning of humanity’s existence, then I believe that we, as a species, would have come up with an alternative to divine leadership. Religion is life philosophy with stories to go with it, so perhaps people would, in lieu of following the doctrine given from on high, follow particular philosophers with whom they happen to agree.

Followers of Immanuel Kant might hold their own inquisition over followers of Aristotle, completing forgetting that the Categorical Imperative forbids them from doing exactly that.

One might also argue that religion preaches intolerance and ignorance. Bill Maher argues the treatment of homosexuals as a point against religion. Using the previous example of followers of philosophers in our world without religion, those following Renée Descartes might be seen as monstrous in modern society, based on their views surrounding the treatment of animals as unfeeling machines. People would have to understand that these philosophies were written in different social circumstances, and what may have been permissible in Renée Descartes’ time might not stand against current, presumably more civilized, social standards.

If you don’t believe me that people would pollute the ideals put forth by the Categorical Imperative, or would cling to dated social norms for the sake of tradition, then you simply have to look at modern day religion, where people commit violence in the name of peace, and hinder social progress with a regressive mindset.

If you don’t believe me that people would adopt alternative philosophies in lieu of religious ones, then, if you believe that the world would be a better place without religion, you likely believe religion to be a man-made construct. If that is the case, then why would humanity create religion if people did not require some form of philosophy, spiritual or otherwise, to guide their lifestyles? If you are religious, then it might be tougher to imagine a world without religion, but think of it like this: people would have their faith, but nowhere to place it save for other, non-religious ideologies that they would cling to just as strongly.

People require faith. Americans have faith in America; optimists have faith that the world will get better; atheists have faith that there is no divinity outside of the empirical realm. Faith is believing something when there is no proof. It is completely irrational, making the only reasonable religious outlook agnosticism, but humanity is not a reasonable species, so we as a species would invariably have come up with some way of guiding our lives, be it religious or otherwise. To quote Voltaire, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.”

Another problem Bill Maher had with religion was the “silly” stories that go along with them. I apologize to those who would take offense to having their scripture referred to as silly, but in regards to a virgin birth, a talking burning bush, and various other stories, one can safely say that by today’s standards of sanity, these would not fly as actual events. I’m also sorry for sticking strictly to western traditions, but they are the ones Bill Maher is complaining about and the ones that seem to be in the news all the time, so my mind is somewhat western-centric right now.

Anyway, Bill Maher believed that these stories were somehow dumbing down the population who believed in them, so let’s go back to our world without religion. Let’s look at a completely non-religious story, say the cautionary tale of Hansel and Gretel, two German children who have a penchant for winding up in an oven after trying to eat a house. This teaches us all about not eating candy you find in the woods, and instead of having biblical tales to teach us morality, we might adopt something similar to this one. Let’s presume for a minute that a long time ago, German parents and authoritative figures would tell children that this story was true, in order to keep them from going out into the woods and eating candy they find there, which no good parent would ever allow their child to do. Let’s say that these children were never told that this story was false, and when they grew up, they still believed this story was true, because people in authority would consistently enforce its legitimacy. They would likely continue to believe this story to be true, and would tell their children that it was true, and enforce that belief in them as well. They might think in the back of their minds that it doesn’t quite match up with their logic and reason, but it doesn’t really occur to them because it is a comfortable story they grew up with, everyone else seems to believe it to be true, they are told that it is true, so why would it be false? It’s not that these people are stupid; it’s that they have been taught a certain way, and their beliefs reflect that teaching.

Later on in that family’s genealogical line, someone might believe they have found themselves a witch, and throw her in an oven in order to garner some form of justice for poor Hansel and Gretel. By this point, people would be so indoctrinated into believing the story, that they would forget what it was initially intended for, which was a cautionary tale about not eating candy you find in the woods.

Basically, my point is shut up Bill Maher; your movie was only okay. Preaching intolerance and telling people to rise up against the religious is the same thing as calling for another inquisition. It is turning non-religion into a religion, and adopts all of the wrong things without any of the goodwill or faith. It would be nice if people would stop killing each other over their differing beliefs, sure, but it is difficult to blame the religious catalyst that sparks these battles, for, if religion were non-existent, humanity would simply find another excuse to hate, fear, and kill.

Tags , , , ,
Categories Religion
Newer Entries »