Monday, June 27, 2011

Religious morality


Infidels use two contradictory arguments to assail Christianity.

On the one hand they quote various OT precepts which they regard as morally abhorrent. This goes to show what’s wrong with religious morality. And that, in turn, indicts the religion which sponsored these reprehensible religious law codes.  

On the other hand, they assure us that OT precepts are uninspired. They simply codify the social mores of the ANE.

But if we accept the second objection, then there’s nothing inherently religious about the “offensive” OT precepts. The religious overlay is superficial. The religious establishment was merely rubberstamping the cultural ethos of the day. You’d have these social mores whether or not the religious establishment formally adopted them. 

5 comments:

  1. To the point.

    Another point for atheists that is interesting to watch them squirm on is all the evidence from physics that gives a person good confidence to believe in a Super Intelligent Designer Being.

    Or God.

    Dawkins humself said I believe that a person is bound by the laws of physics.

    It is interesting and also sad to watch the squirming.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I recently lost an unbelieving friend because she used the old argument that religion causes all wars, racism, intolerance, and all types of bigotry, but later in the exchange retorted that absolute morality does not exist. Of you can guess what I said: then what is WRONG with religion! She has not spoken to me since. (Note: I was not defending RELIGION. I was defending biblical Christianity)

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is a moral framework for secular humanism, and violating it can have temporal repercussions (although no eternal ones, obviously).

    Essentially: certain ideals and behavior enable humanity to "thrive" in this existence. These moral norms aren't highly codified, although they value tolerance, compassion, generosity, etc. When societies embody these ideals, people are happier, healthier, wealthier, etc.

    Of course, there is often an overlap between these norms and Christian virtues, but their ends are different.

    From a secular mindset, if everyone took it upon themselves to eradicate other people or populations who failed to live up to their religious ideals and believed that these actions were endorsed and justified by the God they believe in, societies would not thrive. Rather, they would rather quickly extinguish themselves.

    Their presupposition is that human existence is a good to be embraced for no other reason than it is, not necessarily because its value has been assigned by God.

    At least that's my observation of the general mindset of this perspective: other unbelievers will certainly embrace nihilism and the notion that human existence need not and should not be considered as having any value whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The question at issue is not whether some atheists believe human flourishing is good, but whether that's consistent with their overall outlook.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm trying to think of the highest common presupposition for both of these for that's the other end of the argument, the first being the resulting contradiction that is pointed out here. But what I have to note is that if the OT social mores are uninspired and there is a morality that transcends an uninspired morality according to atheists, then there must be some inspired morality they are using as a presupposition that they aren't voicing. Otherwise there is no basis for an atheist to judge the morality of the OT.

    What I suspect is that atheists who make this argument have a culturally formed sense of morality as well as a desire for there to be no God. Therefore, the highest common presupposition is their own current intellectual comfort rather than an objective desire for truth because that presup imports all the other unfounded baggage.

    Looking outwardly, it's interesting to note that religions don't grow because they rubberstamp cultures. They grow because they challenge cultures. A religion that merely follows the culture is irrelevant and subsequently untenable. In the ancient world it can be noted that religious beliefs informed cultures, not the other way around. Even today, Hollywood doesn't derive popularity by following the culture. It is popular precisely because it drives the culture by creating the groundwork for our cultural frame of reference.

    The message for Christianity today is that people in our culture, it having drifted from its Judeo-Christian mores, might more easily be brought to the truth because the Bible is now counter-cultural.

    ReplyDelete