Morals

Morals are the big one when it comes to religious people justifying just about everything to do with their religion. However problems arise because religious people always end up with a sense of absolutes arising from the morals that they believe are established via their religion. This leads to a number of problems:

Absolutes don’t apply well to the vast range of situations that arise in the real world.
Moral messages that are interpreted from the religious texts suffer from being thousands of years old.
The religious texts always have examples of behavior that contradict the moral messages that the religious want to extract from the texts. These contradictions are usually hand-waved away.
There is a clear disjoint between the morals extracted from religious texts and the punishments that are felt to be appropriate for actions arising from transgressions against those morals.
The morals arising from religious texts are always incomplete when it comes to offering guidance (especially in a modern world), and therefore there has to be subjective interpretation of the texts. It’s never explained who has the right to make those subjective interpretations.
There is a great difficulty in attributing scale to moral messages from the texts. E.g. is a transgression against the morals in the text considered to be large or small?
The religious believe that the moral framework that they derive from their religion should apply to other people much more than they believe it should apply to themselves. Even if that is not stated out loud, it is very much observed in practice.

It’s important to have an understanding of what morals are … and are not. Morals can be taken to be a set of personal and cultural principles which promote standards of behavior that guide individuals’ conduct to live cooperatively in a society. Morals are subjective and are formed by life experiences, upbringing, and cultural values. Morals usually evolve slowly over time via cultural shifts, education and social change. Morals are not a set of prescribed laws and people’s moral framework can differ from the laws under which they live. People living in the same society can have very different moral frameworks.

As an example, consider the very simple case of instruction about how a public parking space should be used. There might be restrictions (laws) on the space being used at certain times of the day or on certain days of the week, and there might be restrictions about payment being needed for use of the space, and there might be restrictions to do with disabled drivers, and there might be restrictions to do with the types of vehicles that can use the space (e.g. the length of the vehicle), and there might even be restrictions about the orientation of vehicles using the space (e.g. “rear to kerb”). So why would a society adopt restrictions on a space that a vehicle could use? The reason always given is to make the space available fairly and safely to all who might want to use it. That’s the moral bit and associates the use of a public facility with fairness. Of course, the concept of fairness is open to interpretation and is impossible to define accurately, so the laws established by a society are an attempt to achieve some level of fairness. Those laws are likely to change as circumstances around the use of the parking space change over time.

However, problems can arise when people disagree or can abuse the restrictions (laws). For example, what if someone who can afford it keeps paying to use a spot and thus makes it unavailable to other people? That scenario is within the law, but might not be seen as a moral thing to do. Or, say that someone states that they are using a “No Stopping” spot to quickly drop off a sick relative for an appointment? Or, say that a parking space has a restriction of “rear to kerb” and someone uses it by parking with their front facing the kerb? The person using the space might say, “what’s the real harm” as justification for using the space as they did, and to be honest, in terms of a space being available to others, there is no harm (although the issue might be that the act of leaving the space might be more dangerous if the rear isn’t to the kerb).

How are transgressions for misuse of the parking space handled? A law-enforcement agency usually evaluates the misuse and applies a notification of penalty accordingly. The person receiving the fine usually has the opportunity to challenge the penalty, e.g. in court. The court might take into account mitigating circumstances and previous similar transgressions. These aspects of the scenario are all separated from the moral reasoning behind placing restrictions on the use of the parking spot. They are consequences of the moral principle of having to restrict the use of the spot.

Someone can be utterly against the concept of charging citizens for the use of a public facility (such as a parking spot), but still bring themselves to pay to use the spot. Is that person then betraying their own moral beliefs? Perhaps that’s okay in some circumstances? Another person might find it very useful for society to charge for parking spots because they therefore find it easier to obtain a spot in which to park. It is therefore possible for the one set of circumstances (a parking spot with rules) to lead to two different moral outcomes, e.g. in different people. If someone disagrees with the moral justification of charging for a parking spot, or with any restriction that is placed on the use of the spot, they are free to not use the spot and/or to lobby their government to have the rules changed.

The concept of there being a moral basis for the restrictions and laws that are imposed by societies is found (to some extent) in all countries and societies (throughout time), however some of those are more obvious than others. For example, the concepts of “thou shalt not kill” or “thou shalt not steal” have a universal basis, whereas “thou shalt not worship a false idol” does not. Most governments couldn’t care less to whom you worship. Even with the “kill” scenario, there can be a wide range of mitigating circumstances, e.g the degree, intent and severity of the offence.

A compelling argument for creationists is that they have been given an absolute set of morals upon which to base their lives and conversely that people outside of their religion have no moral framework, or at the very least they have a suspect or loose moral framework. Both arguments are alluring on the surface but are actually based on errors in fact and understanding.

Let’s start with morals as dictated by a work such as the bible. Note that for much of the following, the pentateuch is considered, and there is relevant to Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

An important aspect of this topic is that every single religious institution will effectively lie to their followers when it comes to the teaching of biblical morals. The lie comes about via a process of omission and cherry-picking.

No one is suggesting that works such as the bible contain no good advice. For example the “Golden Rule” of “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (luke 6:31) sounds reasonable – if just a little non-specific in terms of practical assistance to the average person’s life. And in roman’s 12:16 we find “Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.” – which again seems like a nice way to behave to others. Of course the various religious texts also contain messages of love and charity. Note that those concepts were contained in religions much older than the abrahamic religions.

One problem with the better advice from the bible is that it is extremely non-specific. Besides basic motherhood-type statements, it doesn’t give the modern reader much practical assistance. Did the omniscient creator of the universe not anticipate that his creation might need advice relevant to the issues and problems encountered in the 21st, and future centuries, or did he somehow not anticipate that we might move on from the issues found in the first century? Did he think that the motherhood-type statements could simply be extrapolated to apply to all situations where the modern reader may need assistance?

Another problem is that it’s not easy to put the advice from the bible in context. When the bible says that you should “love your enemies” (matthew 5:44), how far do you go? Is that love merely a state of mind or does it result in the actions that people normally associate with love? If you love someone you might well provide for them, help them with their problems, invite them in for a meal, look after them for decades, give them money, etc. But consider the case where a paedophile has molested your child. There can be no doubt that such a person is effectively your enemy, so are you expected to comfort and provide for that person as a result of the love you are commanded by the bible to show? Is there a chance that the sort of motherhood statements such as “love your enemy” sounded good to the men who wrote the bible, however they didn’t bother to think out all the natural consequences of such advice?

The religious would no doubt think some sort of wishy-washy thoughts about how “loving” a paedophile would be the best way to reach out to them, but that’s a theoretical approach that is unproven and frankly, very risky.

Does the “love your enemy” edict work well if a survival-of-the-fittest mentality is considered? The human race has got to where it is by the evolution of the fittest, strongest, smartest, most attractive, etc. examples of the species being the dominant breeders. How propping up your enemy fits into that scheme isn’t clear.

And that’s the problem with just about all religious-based advice – it sounds (sort of) reasonable on a sign outside the local church but is suspect as a guide in real world situations. Consider “If you put yourself above others, you will be put down” (matthew 32:12), and think about that in your everyday life. That means that you will never seek a promotion at work because someone else could have it – even if they aren’t very good at the role (which could risk the future of the company). That advice means that you won’t be saving any money because there will always be charitable causes that you should be placing above your own needs. In fact you will probably end up living in a box under a railway bridge if you follow the advice literally because there will always be someone who you can put above yourself in every situation in life.

Also at issue with such advice is the anticipated retribution for each transgression. What does “you will be put down” mean? Will you be put down in the sense of what happens to a terminally-ill dog, or will you be given a clip around the ear, or will you merely suffer some sort of eternal damnation? “You will be put down” sounds great if you are writing a book on a topic upon which you know nothing, but which is, frankly, meaningless in everyday life.

However the bible does become very specific when it comes to instruction on the nastier side of the morality coin. The following list is lengthy, however it is necessary to examine the sorts of things that your religious instructors are definitely going to avoid mentioning. As you read through the points in this list (which is far from comprehensive), see if you can remember the last time someone in authority at your religious institution mentioned them? Also, see if you can find the moral basis for any of the points? (BTW, if you think the old testament no longer counts in your religion, then that would remove the ten commandments, right?)

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers and enslaved for life (exodus 21:7-11).
Male Hebrews could sell themselves into slavery for a six-year period to eliminate their debts, after which they might go free. However, if the male slave had been given (note “given”) a wife and had children with her, they would remain his master’s property. The male slave could only stay with his family by becoming a permanent slave (exodus 21:2-5).
Non-Hebrews could be subjected to slavery in exactly the way that it is understood today. The slaves could be bought, sold and inherited when their owner died (leviticus 25:44). And let’s not have any dispute about slaves being the equivalent of modern-day employees. Slaves were most definitely bought and sold, and there is no mention of any sort of wages that they should receive {need to check the wages thing}.
If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property (exodus 21:20-21). So there you have it: the bible says that it is okay to beat your slave to death as long as that death takes more than a day or two.
But If the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently (exodus 21:5-6). This means that god was comfortable with marking people to publicly show their status as slaves. And why the door?
The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair (which implicitly means that slavery is acceptable).
The following is a list of those who are not permitted to “come nigh to offer the bread of his god” and “shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar”: those that have a blemish, or are blind or lame, or have a flat nose or any thing superfluous, or is broken-footed or broken-handed, or has a crooked back, or is a dwarf, or has a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or is scabbed, or has his stones broken (from leviticus 21:17-23). So if you work in a religious institution and need to approach the altar and you have a blemish in your eye or have a flat nose, then why are you breaking the rules of your lord? What possible reason could the omniscient creator of the universe have for establishing rules based on the slope of someone’s nose?
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness [menstruation], and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people (leviticus 20:18). So is that supposed to be some sort of self-reporting system? “Oh Shirley, I just noticed a tiny bit of blood after we had sex so get your things together because we are going out into the wilderness to cut ourselves off from our people”. Weird.
By Islamic law, if a man and woman fornicate outside of marriage then they will either be flogged one hundred times or be stoned to death (depending on the interpretation of contradicting texts). “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbour—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.” (leviticus 20:10).
The bible has many rules concerning incest. For example, did you realise that a man is forbidden from having sex with his stepdaughter, stepsister or daughter-in-law, but there are no named rules forbidding him from having sex with, say, his niece? Or did you realise that a man is forbidden to have sex with his father’s brother’s wife, but there are no named rules forbidding him from have sex with his mother’s brother’s wife, or indeed with his grandfather’s wife? For some reason, god seems to have slipped up when checking off the list. Oh yes, and cousins are not included in the lists of prohibited relationships. Even though there is a prescription about not having sexual relations with a “close relative”, there is no definition about what is considered “close”. The strange thing about the incest rules is that they exist at all. Here’s an example: “Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father” (leviticus 18:8), however that would seem unnecessary when a man is only supposed to have sex with his wife, isn’t he? So why the rules?
“And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people;” (genesis 17:14). So a child with a foreskin, despite not being responsible for failing to remove his own foreskin, should be cut off from his people? What’s a child who is cut off from his people supposed to do? Wander the desert, or the streets? That’s fantastic advice from the “omniscient creator” of the universe.
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (exodus 22:18). How is a witch defined or identified? So it is okay to kill someone who is identified (based on a set of nebulous rules) as a witch? If you, as a religious person, meet someone who identifies themselves as a witch, do you have the obligation to kill that person? According to your god you do.
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them (leviticus 20:27). Exactly why did your god believe that there is such a thing as a wizard?
Regarding the sabbath: “Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people” (exodus 31:14). So according to the word of the “omniscient creator” of the universe, you are required to be involved with the putting-to-death of those who do not observe the sabbath. How are you going with that? Reported anyone lately to your church? How about that nice bus driver who delivered you to church; surely he should be put to death for working on the sabbath? Guess that there must be a loophole for the religious people who work (and get paid for that work) on the sabbath? And how is someone supposed to be cut off from his people after being stoned to death (or is the “cutting off” being killed)?
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die (deuteronomy 21:18-21). How stubborn or rebellious does the son have to be before all the men of the city break the sixth commandment and stone him to death? This is a really horrible rule because it leaves it up to the interpretation of the father.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God (deuteronomy 22:5). So apparently women wearing trousers are an abomination to the deity who created two trillion galaxies?
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean (leviticus 15:19-20). So men, are you separating your menstruating woman-folk for seven days – as your god commands?
Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee (leviticus 19:19). Guess that the writers of the bible didn’t realise the benefits of hybrid vigour? It is known that some plants do better when mixed with plants of other species, however the writers of the bible didn’t know that. Have you checked your wardrobe for any clothes that have mingled linen and wool?
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you (leviticus 19:28). So anyone with a tattoo is breaking the word of god?
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman (deuteronomy 22:22).
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (leviticus 20:15-16). Exactly what did the beast do wrong?
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die (deuteronomy 22:20-21). This whole miserable part of the bible is to do with paying a fine for raping a woman, rape as a prelude to marriage, displaying the proof of the woman’s virginity, and killing her if that proof can’t be obtained. Are you really certain that you want to associate yourself with this garbage? (You are to the rest of us every time we see you walk into a church.)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not (deuteronomy 22:23-24). It’s a pretty bad day when you get raped and because you have been unable to cry for help (e.g. your rapist had his hand over your mouth), you then get taken to the gate of the city and stoned to death. Not sure what happens if the city or village in which you live doesn’t have gates?
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; (deuteronomy 22:28-29). There you have it: if you have the money and don’t mind getting hitched, you can rape a virgin. No mention of what the woman wants. By the way, there’s no mention in the bible about minimum age. Oh yes, 50 shekels is about 550 grams so at time of writing, the “penalty” for raping a virgin is about US$310. And apparently it’s okay to rape a virgin if you are not “found”.
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness (leviticus 19:29). Yes, that’s correct: don’t prostitute your daughter because of what that might do to the community – not because of what it might do to her.
Ye shall not round the corners of your head, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard (leviticus 19:27). Why would the “omniscient creator” of the universe possibly care about the shape of a beard?
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the lord. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the lord (deuteronomy 23:1-2). I guess that it’s a bad day when you get kicked in the testicles whilst ploughing your field, get permanently injured, and then realise that no matter how good or devout you have been, you can never again go to church? It’s also a tough time for a child born out of wedlock (which can never be their fault), because they can’t go to church, and neither can any of their subsequent ten generations (descendents over the next 250 years or so). Do you get the sense that the people who wrote the bible were just making it up as they went along?
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house (deuteronomy 24:1). Of course, there’s no mention of what the woman wants, and how is “uncleanness” defined? By the way, how many marriages in the bible could be considered consensual?
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death (leviticus 20:9). Who knows exactly what “curseth” means, but the penalty is pretty severe.
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her (deuteronomy 25:5). This one is just weird. Does that mean that the remaining brother can marry twice (if he is already married)? Of course, there’s no mention of what the woman may want. Oh yes, if the brother doesn’t want her, then (after discussing it with the elders) she is entitled to take off the brother’s shoe and spit in his face.
When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her (Deuteronomy 25:11-12). This is the bizarre one by which it is necessary to cut off the hand of a woman who accidentally touches the genitals/testicles of a man whom her husband is fighting. How would you like to be the guy who has to saw off a woman’s hand because she accidentally touches part of another man while she was trying to help her husband? Well, it’s fine by your god.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (leviticus 20:13).
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies (deuteronomy 20:10-14). So the bible does permit genocide, and even provides rules about it. Oh, and it’s quite okay to keep the “little ones” for yourself after you vanquest another city. Why would you want to?
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; (deuteronomy 20:17). Another mandate for genocide from the “loving” “omniscient creator” of the universe. By the way, DNA evidence has proven that not all of these tribes were destroyed.
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the lord thy god hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her (deuteronomy 21:10-14). Yep, keep the captured woman of your enemy for a month – to see if you like her or if she’s pregnant, and if everything’s good to go, you can force her to marry you. Or is it just to have sex with her, as in how a husband and wife would act? There’s no specific mention of marriage or divorce. However after having raped her and you don’t want her, she can be kicked out (but not sold). Obviously the woman’s point of view doesn’t come into consideration.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. (1 corinthians 14:34). To all those female religious leaders, remind us again as to why you are allowed to speak in church?
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him (1 cor 11:14).
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of god; but woman is the glory of man (1 cor 11:7). Well, according to religion, that about wraps it up for the feminists. I wonder why you’ve never seen that particular snippet on the sign outside your local church?
And of course, murder is quite okay if it is ordained by god. The books of the bible to do with the “exodus” are littered with examples of where god has organised his chosen people to commit genocide against people who did them no harm. See elsewhere on this site for many examples of this, but how about: “So the lord our god delivered into our hands og also, the king of bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of argob, the kingdom of og in bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto sihon king of heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.” (deuteronomy 3:3-6)? All of these things happened while the people involved were being led by a man (moses) who had been handed ten laws, one of which read “thou shalt not kill”.

Note that religious apologists have a range of excuses for many of the above, but none of those excuses obviate the fundamental problems raised; they just try to explain them or make them more palatable to a modern audience. Some of those excuses are covered elsewhere on this website.

There are also modern-day religious apologists who neatly tuck the majority of the above examples away because they are from the old testament. They believe that the new testament somehow cancels the nastier bits of the old testament. Well, perhaps they should turn to their own jesus for advice on the matter? As jesus said: “The scripture cannot be broken” (john 10:35), and he referred to scripture as “the commandment of god” (matthew 15:3) and as the “word of god” (mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished” (matthew 5:17-18). So if the old testament was good enough for jesus, why isn’t it good enough for those who want a watered-down version of religion? What gives such people the right to draw some messages from the old testament, but ignore other messages? If the old testament is no longer relevant, doesn’t that mean that the “ten commandments” have to be also cast aside as not being relevant?

Did you get a sense from that list that the bible is very much a product of its time? Was there anything in that lot that you felt appropriate for your life in our current world? If not, you don’t have a lot to thank the so-called omniscient creator of the universe. The other problem with the bible being a product of its time is that it is indistinguishable from a work invented by people of the time – and therefore not the word of the so-called omniscient creator of the universe.

Far from being a collection of morals from which it is possible to lead a virtuous life, the bible actually contains a set of instructions that would land anyone following them in jail – and rightly so.

But what about those who say that all the nastier bits of advice are just so old that they don’t apply today? Well, who are they to say which bits of their religious texts they should obey? Did the bits still have to be followed 50 years after they were created? After 250 years? After 1,000 years? When did it become okay not to adhere to the older bits? Did the omniscient creator of the universe get it wrong when he created the older bits? Why would writings of their god need correcting and updating by so-called followers? Can the bits that still seem important today be ignored years from now when they no longer seem appropriate? Incidentally, the Catholic church is expert at (reluctantly and eventually) downplaying the bits of the bible, and of their own teachings, that science is rendering obsolete and ridiculous. Could the fact that more and more religious people are ignoring the bits of their religious texts which seem ridiculous today be proof that those bits were written by men based on the issues of their day, and not by an eternal being writing prescriptions for his beloved creation for all time? (Hint: yes.)

What about the other side of the morals debate: the suggestion that non-religious people have no, or little moral framework upon which to base their lives? That is a ridiculous and offensive suggestion because the opposite is true.

The secular system of law-making and justice is so elaborate, specific and well-developed in most civilized societies that it knocks any sort of biblical system into the stone age (well, into the iron age at least). Most people are well aware of the crimes that attract punishments in their own society and have a passing knowledge of the scale of punishment for those crimes. People also tend to be aware that not only can the authorities take action against individuals (criminal cases), but individuals can seek legal retribution against other individuals (civil cases). Other societies have varying levels of state-based retribution for crimes – some being quite barbaric.

Accordingly, there is a strong means of deterrent for wrongdoing in most civilised societies. If you transgress you know that you are likely to be punished. And if that punishment involves a lengthy prison sentence or forfeiture of life, then there is an especially strong deterrent.

Ironically, it is likely to be a religious person who might not be as intimidated by the deprivation of liberty caused by a prison sentence because they are more likely to believe that their time on Earth is merely a stepping stone to an infinite life in the hereafter.

But what about activities that may be thought of as wrong or suspect but are unlikely to either be detected or punished by the state? For example, adultery, minor cases of stealing, or lying? Surely the religious folk are correct that without a supreme arbitrator of rules and retribution, what’s to stop people from believing that they have a free pass to perpetrate such activities?

Quite a lot actually. To start, there’s the human conscience – something that is very difficult to define and varies tremendously from individual to individual. The religious have laid claim to the conscience as being of divine origin, but there’s no evidence for that. The conscience is actually an evolved mechanism that helps with the survival of the species. It is obviously better to consider actions and to weigh them against imagined outcomes, as opposed to acting more instinctively, like many animals do.

Humans have had the best results by being social and working together. Food is easier to hunt and grow in groups, and groups are also better when it comes to protection and reproduction. We naturally tend towards family and community groups, so there is a penalty for acting in a way that causes displeasure to other group members. By cheating or lying to friends and family, we risk being ostracized by those groups – an outcome that makes it harder for the individual to survive and prosper. That is a protection mechanism, and is a consequence of how we have evolved.

There’s also a modern deterrent, namely how we are perceived by other people and future generations. With the comprehensive recording of events (something perfected by the Internet’s social media) we risk a comprehensive record of our transgressions forming part of a permanent record available for current and future generations to discover.

The end result of these factors is a far more comprehensive set of relevant laws, rules, constraints and guidelines upon which to live life in contemporary society than anything available in the various religious texts.

Perhaps you are worried that if you give up your religion you will quickly revert to a state of amoral barbarism? But why should that be a concern? You know about the penalties and disadvantages for transgressions against members of your society, family and friends, however why should it even come to that?

Religious people often give the impression that ultimate morals must come from their religious texts, however that’s never the case. Most of the morals and rules derive from variants and interpretations of the “golden rule” (luke 6:31), however precursors of that rule have been around for a lot longer than the book written by a fictional character known as luke (between 80 and 110 CE). For example:

“What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others.” – Confucius (ca. 551–479 BCE),
“This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” – Mahabharata (5:15:17) (c. 500 BCE),
“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.” – Hillel the Elder (ca. 50 BCE-10 CE),

And many others. So the “rule” is not unique to the bible and it doesn’t originate from the bible. Because the “rule” found its way into so many cultures, perhaps it is inherent to mankind rather than a by-product of religions invented by mankind? If it is inherent to mankind (which seems a reasonable assumption based on evolved group-survival mechanisms), then the removal of religion from your life can’t result in the removal of the instinct inherent in the “rule”.

There is no evidence that religion is necessary for ethical behaviour, and as the late Christopher Hitchens used to say: “show me an action for good performed by a religious person that can’t be performed by a non-religious person”. Unfortunately for the religious, there is evidence that the more religious countries and states have more problems and issues than the more secular countries and states. Such things are difficult to generalise however there is compelling evidence to support such a correlation. For example, Zuckerman (2009) observes (based on various scientific studies):

Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in god is widespread.
Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries.
Within the US, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon.
Rates of all violent crime tend to be higher in religious states.
At 0.2%, atheists are hugely under-represented in the American prison population.
Atheists and agnostics have lower divorce rates than religious Americans.
A Canadian study found that conservative Christian women experienced higher rates of domestic violence than non-affiliated women.
Teens who make religion-inspired “virginity pledges” are not only just as likely as their non-pledging peers to engage in premarital sex, but more likely to engage in unprotected sex.
The most secular nations in the world report the highest levels of happiness among their population.
Secular nations such as those in Scandinavia donate the most money and supportive aid, per capita, to poorer nations.
Atheists and agnostics, when compared to religious people, are actually less likely to be nationalistic, racist, anti-Semitic, dogmatic, ethnocentric, and authoritarian.
Atheists and other secular people are also much more likely to support women’s rights, gender equality, and gay and lesbian rights.
Religious individuals are more likely to support the government use of torture.

If a moral framework is built into a religion how come religious people are, on average, tending to fare worse in the above areas than non-religious people? Shouldn’t the moral framework inherent in their beliefs mean that they actually fare much better than the non-religious?

If it hasn’t happened in two thousand years, then when will the benefits of religious morality start to kick in? Perhaps the “morals” promoted by religious texts aren’t that moral or useful after all?

Back