Is it possible for a theist to behave in a moral way?
Here's today's question. Well, above, in fact - read it yourself. Is it possible? It does seem that the answer is no, and for two good reasons.
Firstly, moral acts need to have some moral intent behind them. For instance, if you are a theist with a backpack full of explosives, ready to blow up the tube, but you unfortunately trip, but in doing do, drop your backpack down a manhole, where it blows up and destroys a reservoir of smallpox which was about to infect the city, you have saved countless lives, but no one would claim you performed a moral act - the intent was to do harm, the lives were saved only by accident. Similarly, if you obey the "Do not kill" commandment, or the "Love thy neighbour as thyself" instruction, but do so only because you're frightened your imaginary friend will be cross with you if you don't, you are also not performing a moral act, simply an act of cowardice inspired by irrationality.
However, there is a deeper element to it than this. That is the fact that theism itself actually prevents people from performing acts with positive outcomes by preventing them from determining what positive outcomes are. For instance, if we could experiment on stem cells, we could save countless lives, and improve the quality of life for millions. Whilst doing no harm - nothing with a central nervous system suffers. And yet theists will oppose this simply because it is beyond the comprehension of the people who wrote various books between 2500 and 1700 years ago. And this very stance - that of preventing people from doing good, or even of understanding more about how to do good - is the essence of this superstition. Surely, the prevention of doing good is nothing more than a definition of evil?
Firstly, moral acts need to have some moral intent behind them. For instance, if you are a theist with a backpack full of explosives, ready to blow up the tube, but you unfortunately trip, but in doing do, drop your backpack down a manhole, where it blows up and destroys a reservoir of smallpox which was about to infect the city, you have saved countless lives, but no one would claim you performed a moral act - the intent was to do harm, the lives were saved only by accident. Similarly, if you obey the "Do not kill" commandment, or the "Love thy neighbour as thyself" instruction, but do so only because you're frightened your imaginary friend will be cross with you if you don't, you are also not performing a moral act, simply an act of cowardice inspired by irrationality.
However, there is a deeper element to it than this. That is the fact that theism itself actually prevents people from performing acts with positive outcomes by preventing them from determining what positive outcomes are. For instance, if we could experiment on stem cells, we could save countless lives, and improve the quality of life for millions. Whilst doing no harm - nothing with a central nervous system suffers. And yet theists will oppose this simply because it is beyond the comprehension of the people who wrote various books between 2500 and 1700 years ago. And this very stance - that of preventing people from doing good, or even of understanding more about how to do good - is the essence of this superstition. Surely, the prevention of doing good is nothing more than a definition of evil?
12 Comments:
I agree totally with your point about moral acts, but again your idea of the nature of religious belief is incredibly narrow, almost a caricature. (Understandably in today's climate, with all the fundies on both sides.)
The very nature of religion is such that it relies on faith, rather than evidence. As soon as it stops relying on faith, it stops being religion, and becomes something that can be discussed rationally - I fail to see how that's narrow. Give me an example of a "religious" belief that's motivated by empirical evidence. Go on - I dare you...
1. All matter is energy - All is One.
2. All You Need Is Love
3. A satisfactory phenomenological account of consciousness will show that C not reducible to a description of the firing of neurons.
How many more do you want?
4. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
5. There is more to synchronicity than mere coincidence.
6. That one can "...see a world in a Grain of Sand,
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour."
Neil,
post three. What CAN it be reduced to, if we are to take the most reductive line possible? It boils down to what, exactly (*in addition to* neurons)?
Have you been reading "The Mystery of Consciousness" (or similar) again recently? Interested, because it links so closely to your point 5 - Hannah and I chatting about this at some length, only last week.
Neil:
1. I didn't realise you were such an extreme reductionist - breaking
everything down to energy like that...
2. No, you also need food, warmth, shelter, etc.
3. Eh? How do you know that? Can you give any evidence to back up that
statement? And what else could it consist of? Also, it seems to go against the ultra-reductionist argument of point 1....
4. I have no doubt. What of it?
5. That depends on what you're talking about. Often there isn't. But I used
to believe in synchronicity when I was young (Psychoanalysis Gags R Us).
6. Lovely metaphor, but not necessarily true. Or supported by evidence.
The point being that there are plenty of empirical experiences which can simply be enjoyed. Or, if you're minded to, you can try to explain them - but explain them empirically, and don't resort to superstitious claptrap and fairy stories.
Plymouth - no, I was reading How The Mind Works by S Pinker, in which even he (scientist type) acknowledges the mystery of consciousness. The thing is, the first-hand qualitative "feel" cannot be boiled down, at all. It's the primary mystery.
Puskas
1. But even you couldn't miss the mystical parallel?
2. Yes, if we are talking about our everyday survival - obviously. But this statement is something else entirely. It's talking about the power of love to define one's existence and overcome obstacles etc etc. It's an article of faith. But I could bring in supporting empirical evidence - Gandhi, for example, who was prepared to do without food, as we all know.
3. I'm not suggesting all of these are consistent. I am merely citing examples in answer to your little dare. See my Pinker ref earlier. We are talking about a phenomenological experience, not nuts & bolts! What it is like to be a bat, and all that.
4. First-hand mystical experience is the best example. What of it? Well, it's a religious belief that's motivated by empirical evidence.
5. You shock me! I hope you don't any more. Many people do, and they may well be empiricists.
6. Poetry is a species of truth! But not if your world is purely nuts & bolts.
Just to clarify, since I wouldn't want you to get the wrong idea. My point 5 earlier was a cheap joke. You know - young/Jung. Do I really have to explain these things? Pah!!!
I would like to point out that you don't need to believe in the supernatural to appreciate the entirely natural phenomenon of emergent complexity, arising from "nuts and bolts", if you want to be disparaging about things that are real...
Yeah, it was late at night after a long day, so I didn't get the pun, despite huge colourful "flag".
I'm not being disaparaging about things that are real - they give me lots of fun too. I just meant to dismiss the attitude which claims that we may only accept as meaningful, statements that are falsifiable by empirical investigation. Many people, who do not have an "imaginary friend, nevertheless would accept as articles of faith ideas which do not stand up under so strict a criterion.
Your blog makes wonderful journalism, the best I know, but as philosophy this stuff is intolerant and just won't wash.
I wish I hadn't said that last comment! Because I love your blog, and it's massively thought-provoking. I was just getting into the cut and thrust of it all...
To answer the original question, it is not possible for a theist to be immoral, by definition.
As proof, should it be needed, I was recently reading a shitty book by someone who didn't know what he was talking about. Somewhere towards the end, he writes something like:
"Look at every person you pass in the street. Every one of them will suffer physical pain, the loss of their friends and family. They will lose everything in life. Why would you want to be anything other than kind to them?" (from memory).
That answer, of course, is that GOD WANTS YOU TO FUCKING KILL THEM ALL, you nob.
So, as you'll see, by definition theists cannot be anything other than moral in every act, by definition.
Post a Comment
<< Home