Morality, modern society, and the Christian religion
I wrote this essay a few days ago, sparked by a section in Germaine Greer's "The Female Eunuch" (which I'm currently reading for the first time). A current discussion on one of uncledark's entries suggested to me that a cross-post (from storm-artists.net) might be in order, so here it is. Intelligent comments are welcome, especially if you disagree with me and can make a good case for your opinion.
Morality, modern society, and the Christian religion
1. Introduction
There are many religions alive today; most have strengths, and all have weaknesses. Although this essay focuses on Christianity, it is not intended to single out that religion. Much of the content will be applicable to a variety of other religions, and may freely be applied to any other religion by any person with the requisite knowledge to do so. Such broad application of those ideas, however, is beyond the scope of the text itself. Please note also that this essay does not address questions of God's existence etc. I have no objection to believers; the objection is to those who use religion as an excuse to behave badly.
To an outsider, Christianity can seem bewildering in its enormous variety denominations and factions. Despite the work of countless ecumenical advocates, the dogmas and doctrines of the various self-described 'Christian' groups show a staggering variety and mutual incompatibility. Christians wonder why others believe such very different things about their god, and almost all consider at least some other self-described 'Christians' not to be Christians at all. A rational outsider can take a broader view, and wonder why the professed worshippers of one man (god, if you prefer) exhibit such dramatic disagreement on virtually every aspect of who he was, what he said, and, in particular, how people should live their lives now. This essay is an attempt to answer that question.
2. The Bible
The Bible[1] is central to any consideration of Christianity. Christians vary greatly in their beliefs about the Bible; at one extreme it is believed to be the inerrant literal word of God, whereas at the other extreme it is ignored entirely. This variation is intimately bound up with the variation in other beliefs within the religion, and therefore offers a convenient springboard for this discussion.
The first part of the Bible, the Old Testament, is a collection of Jewish writings spanning roughly 500-1000 years[2]. It contains a variety of laws and regulations, proverbs, assorted narratives varying from mythology to an incomplete history, and a number of poems and songs. The second part of the Bible, the New Testament, is a collection of writings centred around Jesus; it comprises narratives, letters and the Book of Revelation[3]. The Bible as a whole is generally acknowledged to have been written by many people over a period of roughly a millenium.
For the purposes of this discussion, we will consider the Bible only in its role as a source of (and justification for) moral convictions held by many people today. These morals are given in several forms:
a. Rules given in isolation
These are rules presented without narrative context, eg. the Book of Leviticus in the Old Testament, and much of the content in Paul's letters in the New Testament. Although jurisdiction is stated for a few of these rules, they are generally presented as universal rules. The observance of such rules, particularly those found in the Old Testament, is extremely variable.
b. Rules given by a character in a narrative
These rules include the Ten Commandments (given by God in Exodus 20), and much of what Jesus said throughout the Gospels. They tend to be respected, although tradition ignores some (eg. Exodus 20:25 and Exodus 20:26).
c. Rules merely appearing in a narrative
The Old Testament is incomplete; some major rules come and go without explanation. Perhaps the most obvious of these is that regarding polygamy: ruled out by the definition of marriage given in Genesis 2:23-4, subsequently accepted without question or explanation throughout much of the Old Testament, and then abandoned (likewise without question or explanation) before the time of Jesus.
As is all but inevitable for a work created by so many writers over such a period of time, the Bible is riddled with apparent inconsistencies. Although each apparent inconsistency can be 'resolved' by sufficiently creative interpretation, this in itself accounts for a significant portion of the doctrinal differences among modern Christians[4].
3. Morality derived from modern society
Socially-derived morals[5] cover virtually every conceivable viewpoint, and are often difficult to separate from religiously-derived morals. The variety is too vast and complex for easy discussion, and is not needed in detail for this essay; accordingly, no attempt will be made to discuss it in any significant depth.
4. Synthesis
There are many obvious conflicts between modern morality and literally-interpreted Bible passages, ranging from the silly (eg. Leviticus 11:10) to the appalling (eg. Leviticus 20:9). As morality has developed in the millenia since the Bible was written, theologians have continually reinterpreted the Bible to fit their respective social and historical contexts. Church authorities pick and choose which Bible passages are considered, and largely choose how to interpret them. Given the size, complexity and apparent inconsistency of the Bible, a variety of morally repugnant beliefs and practices find support in carefully-chosen Bible passages.
There is a huge and complex tangle of conflicts between the Bible and modern morality in their respective variations. Different churches or denominations choose different compromises to resolve this tangle, with the result that Christianity has splintered on a vast scale. As a direct consequence of this, it does not make sense to refer to "Christian morality" as a single concept (except in limited contexts expressing common morals shared by mainstream Christianity).
5. The disintegration of Christian morality
Christian morality, having now splintered into a staggering variety of forms, is no longer a useful set of guidelines, let alone a competent authority. The variety is such that the choice of a denomination largely means finding an existing doctrine which matches one's pre-conceived rules. This being the case, Christian morality as such now serves very little purpose. The point of doctrine is to take choices away from individuals; when plenitude of existing doctrines effectively restores those choices to individuals, the host religion is doctrinally obsolete.
Christianity unquestionably offers some sound morals. However, it also offers many more dubious instructions. Given the variety of pre-existing doctrines available, doctrinal authority ultimately derives either from prior personal conviction or from trust in one or more other humans. Neither of these is equivalent to any supernatural being, and in neither case does Christianity offer anything substantial except arguably-official support for an arbitrary personal belief set.
6. What currently underpins socially-derived morality?
It would be irresponsible to propose the abandonment of the ostensibly-dominant moral authority without supplying a suitable replacement, and individuals' moral compasses are notoriously unreliable without some form of guidance. The general sense of right and wrong, much of which is common to most people on a visceral level even to the extent of contradicting sincerely-held religious beliefs, cannot support itself; being merely a statement of the status quo, it does not even attempt to explain its basis. It is widely believed that this sense of right and wrong rests on the foundation of Judeo-Christian morality. This is proven false by the many mismatches between modern socially-derived morality and actual Biblical authority. Except for the Ten Commandments, all Old Testament moral strictures may be dismissed on the basis of the many such rules which are now totally ignored (eg. Leviticus 11:10). The Ten Commandments are still held up as current, but are not entirely honoured - here are a few verses from Exodus 20, the Commandments as handed down by God:
-Blasphemy is an unforgivable crime in the eyes of God (verse 7), and yet it is unremarkable in modern society
-God mandates the 6-day work week (verse 9), and yet the 5-day work week is unchallenged.
-God forbids work on the Sabbath (verse 10), but even most Christians ignore that (the Sabbath is Saturday). Also, most people don't feel it's wrong to do any work even on a Sunday.
-God forbids altars made of hewn stone (verse 25), but many churches have them.
-God forbids steps leading up to an altar (verse 26), but many (if not most) altars in Christian churches have steps leading up to them.
On these bases, it seems clear that Christianity is not a necessary support for modern socially-derived morality. This leaves a gaping hole; we must now explain where that socially-derived morality does come from. The answer is compellingly subtle: human social interaction over time, influenced by a few simple factors and a variety of complex ones.
Simple factors:
-Harm as an undesirable thing, even when inflicted upon others: Being seen to cause harm tends to carry a social disadvantage.
-Self-interest: Self-explanatory.
Some of the complex factors:
-Religion: Religion tends to be conservative, and as such it tends to retard social progress of all kinds. Examples of this are sickeningly plentiful in the world at present, eg. repeated religious attacks on science education in the USA.
-Science: Science has the power to change the way we think, and the way we see things. From time to time, a scientific discovery will significantly alter the worldview of the general public, and this can aid social progress. It must be noted, however, that pseudo-science (even if done by reputable scientists) can be used to retard social progress - eg. scientific research in the USA during slavery, which concluded that blacks were inferior to whites.
-Deliberate manipulation for commercial reasons: Advertisements have shaped our cultures far more than we care to admit, and continue to do so. The effect of this doesn't directly correspond to "social progress" or the retardation of same, being more of a perversion than a reversion; its effect on general social progress is sporadic and unpredictable, but probably tends toward retardation of progress.
7. Proposal
Where Christianity is right, it is obsolete. Where it is wrong it is dangerous, and the lack of reasoning behind its rules hinders any attempt to differentiate between Christianity's good ideas and its bad ideas. A reliable alternative is needed. Fortunately, such an alternative exists and is astonishingly simple.
The alternative is an axiomatic system: that is, a system where every rule can be justified by reference to one or more axioms. So far, only one axiom has been needed: "Try not to cause harm". This ties in with the first simple factor mentioned above, and self-interest is obvious enough that it need not be specified. The axiomatic system will need considerable thought before it may be considered complete, but it already seems sufficient for most situations.
If a Christian moral can be justified by the axiom of harm-reduction, then it is worthwhile. If it cannot, then on what grounds may it be justified? Throw out Christian morality entirely and we can build a better moral framework from scratch.
--
Notes
1. For the purposes of this essay, "Bible" refers to the Christian Bible. Depending on context, it may or may not cover non-mainstream versions; where this is significant, the meaning will be specified.
2. There is considerable scholarly dispute regarding the dates assigned to each part of the Bible. Such disputation lies outside the scope of this essay, and will therefore be avoided wherever possible.
3. The Book of Revelation is frankly bizarre, and no original classification will be attempted here. A variety of classifications have been made, but these classifications will not be discussed here.
4. For the purposes of this essay, any group or individual identifying as 'Christian' will be regarded as such.
5. For the purposes of this essay, "socially-derived morals" refers to the perceived consensus morality of a particular social context at a particular time.
NB:
I am not suggesting that Christians should abandon Christian morality, whatever that term might mean to them. I am merely suggesting that "Christian morality" should not be considered an authority in any secular discussion of morality, whether public or private.
Morality, modern society, and the Christian religion
1. Introduction
There are many religions alive today; most have strengths, and all have weaknesses. Although this essay focuses on Christianity, it is not intended to single out that religion. Much of the content will be applicable to a variety of other religions, and may freely be applied to any other religion by any person with the requisite knowledge to do so. Such broad application of those ideas, however, is beyond the scope of the text itself. Please note also that this essay does not address questions of God's existence etc. I have no objection to believers; the objection is to those who use religion as an excuse to behave badly.
To an outsider, Christianity can seem bewildering in its enormous variety denominations and factions. Despite the work of countless ecumenical advocates, the dogmas and doctrines of the various self-described 'Christian' groups show a staggering variety and mutual incompatibility. Christians wonder why others believe such very different things about their god, and almost all consider at least some other self-described 'Christians' not to be Christians at all. A rational outsider can take a broader view, and wonder why the professed worshippers of one man (god, if you prefer) exhibit such dramatic disagreement on virtually every aspect of who he was, what he said, and, in particular, how people should live their lives now. This essay is an attempt to answer that question.
2. The Bible
The Bible[1] is central to any consideration of Christianity. Christians vary greatly in their beliefs about the Bible; at one extreme it is believed to be the inerrant literal word of God, whereas at the other extreme it is ignored entirely. This variation is intimately bound up with the variation in other beliefs within the religion, and therefore offers a convenient springboard for this discussion.
The first part of the Bible, the Old Testament, is a collection of Jewish writings spanning roughly 500-1000 years[2]. It contains a variety of laws and regulations, proverbs, assorted narratives varying from mythology to an incomplete history, and a number of poems and songs. The second part of the Bible, the New Testament, is a collection of writings centred around Jesus; it comprises narratives, letters and the Book of Revelation[3]. The Bible as a whole is generally acknowledged to have been written by many people over a period of roughly a millenium.
For the purposes of this discussion, we will consider the Bible only in its role as a source of (and justification for) moral convictions held by many people today. These morals are given in several forms:
a. Rules given in isolation
These are rules presented without narrative context, eg. the Book of Leviticus in the Old Testament, and much of the content in Paul's letters in the New Testament. Although jurisdiction is stated for a few of these rules, they are generally presented as universal rules. The observance of such rules, particularly those found in the Old Testament, is extremely variable.
b. Rules given by a character in a narrative
These rules include the Ten Commandments (given by God in Exodus 20), and much of what Jesus said throughout the Gospels. They tend to be respected, although tradition ignores some (eg. Exodus 20:25 and Exodus 20:26).
c. Rules merely appearing in a narrative
The Old Testament is incomplete; some major rules come and go without explanation. Perhaps the most obvious of these is that regarding polygamy: ruled out by the definition of marriage given in Genesis 2:23-4, subsequently accepted without question or explanation throughout much of the Old Testament, and then abandoned (likewise without question or explanation) before the time of Jesus.
As is all but inevitable for a work created by so many writers over such a period of time, the Bible is riddled with apparent inconsistencies. Although each apparent inconsistency can be 'resolved' by sufficiently creative interpretation, this in itself accounts for a significant portion of the doctrinal differences among modern Christians[4].
3. Morality derived from modern society
Socially-derived morals[5] cover virtually every conceivable viewpoint, and are often difficult to separate from religiously-derived morals. The variety is too vast and complex for easy discussion, and is not needed in detail for this essay; accordingly, no attempt will be made to discuss it in any significant depth.
4. Synthesis
There are many obvious conflicts between modern morality and literally-interpreted Bible passages, ranging from the silly (eg. Leviticus 11:10) to the appalling (eg. Leviticus 20:9). As morality has developed in the millenia since the Bible was written, theologians have continually reinterpreted the Bible to fit their respective social and historical contexts. Church authorities pick and choose which Bible passages are considered, and largely choose how to interpret them. Given the size, complexity and apparent inconsistency of the Bible, a variety of morally repugnant beliefs and practices find support in carefully-chosen Bible passages.
There is a huge and complex tangle of conflicts between the Bible and modern morality in their respective variations. Different churches or denominations choose different compromises to resolve this tangle, with the result that Christianity has splintered on a vast scale. As a direct consequence of this, it does not make sense to refer to "Christian morality" as a single concept (except in limited contexts expressing common morals shared by mainstream Christianity).
5. The disintegration of Christian morality
Christian morality, having now splintered into a staggering variety of forms, is no longer a useful set of guidelines, let alone a competent authority. The variety is such that the choice of a denomination largely means finding an existing doctrine which matches one's pre-conceived rules. This being the case, Christian morality as such now serves very little purpose. The point of doctrine is to take choices away from individuals; when plenitude of existing doctrines effectively restores those choices to individuals, the host religion is doctrinally obsolete.
Christianity unquestionably offers some sound morals. However, it also offers many more dubious instructions. Given the variety of pre-existing doctrines available, doctrinal authority ultimately derives either from prior personal conviction or from trust in one or more other humans. Neither of these is equivalent to any supernatural being, and in neither case does Christianity offer anything substantial except arguably-official support for an arbitrary personal belief set.
6. What currently underpins socially-derived morality?
It would be irresponsible to propose the abandonment of the ostensibly-dominant moral authority without supplying a suitable replacement, and individuals' moral compasses are notoriously unreliable without some form of guidance. The general sense of right and wrong, much of which is common to most people on a visceral level even to the extent of contradicting sincerely-held religious beliefs, cannot support itself; being merely a statement of the status quo, it does not even attempt to explain its basis. It is widely believed that this sense of right and wrong rests on the foundation of Judeo-Christian morality. This is proven false by the many mismatches between modern socially-derived morality and actual Biblical authority. Except for the Ten Commandments, all Old Testament moral strictures may be dismissed on the basis of the many such rules which are now totally ignored (eg. Leviticus 11:10). The Ten Commandments are still held up as current, but are not entirely honoured - here are a few verses from Exodus 20, the Commandments as handed down by God:
-Blasphemy is an unforgivable crime in the eyes of God (verse 7), and yet it is unremarkable in modern society
-God mandates the 6-day work week (verse 9), and yet the 5-day work week is unchallenged.
-God forbids work on the Sabbath (verse 10), but even most Christians ignore that (the Sabbath is Saturday). Also, most people don't feel it's wrong to do any work even on a Sunday.
-God forbids altars made of hewn stone (verse 25), but many churches have them.
-God forbids steps leading up to an altar (verse 26), but many (if not most) altars in Christian churches have steps leading up to them.
On these bases, it seems clear that Christianity is not a necessary support for modern socially-derived morality. This leaves a gaping hole; we must now explain where that socially-derived morality does come from. The answer is compellingly subtle: human social interaction over time, influenced by a few simple factors and a variety of complex ones.
Simple factors:
-Harm as an undesirable thing, even when inflicted upon others: Being seen to cause harm tends to carry a social disadvantage.
-Self-interest: Self-explanatory.
Some of the complex factors:
-Religion: Religion tends to be conservative, and as such it tends to retard social progress of all kinds. Examples of this are sickeningly plentiful in the world at present, eg. repeated religious attacks on science education in the USA.
-Science: Science has the power to change the way we think, and the way we see things. From time to time, a scientific discovery will significantly alter the worldview of the general public, and this can aid social progress. It must be noted, however, that pseudo-science (even if done by reputable scientists) can be used to retard social progress - eg. scientific research in the USA during slavery, which concluded that blacks were inferior to whites.
-Deliberate manipulation for commercial reasons: Advertisements have shaped our cultures far more than we care to admit, and continue to do so. The effect of this doesn't directly correspond to "social progress" or the retardation of same, being more of a perversion than a reversion; its effect on general social progress is sporadic and unpredictable, but probably tends toward retardation of progress.
7. Proposal
Where Christianity is right, it is obsolete. Where it is wrong it is dangerous, and the lack of reasoning behind its rules hinders any attempt to differentiate between Christianity's good ideas and its bad ideas. A reliable alternative is needed. Fortunately, such an alternative exists and is astonishingly simple.
The alternative is an axiomatic system: that is, a system where every rule can be justified by reference to one or more axioms. So far, only one axiom has been needed: "Try not to cause harm". This ties in with the first simple factor mentioned above, and self-interest is obvious enough that it need not be specified. The axiomatic system will need considerable thought before it may be considered complete, but it already seems sufficient for most situations.
If a Christian moral can be justified by the axiom of harm-reduction, then it is worthwhile. If it cannot, then on what grounds may it be justified? Throw out Christian morality entirely and we can build a better moral framework from scratch.
--
Notes
1. For the purposes of this essay, "Bible" refers to the Christian Bible. Depending on context, it may or may not cover non-mainstream versions; where this is significant, the meaning will be specified.
2. There is considerable scholarly dispute regarding the dates assigned to each part of the Bible. Such disputation lies outside the scope of this essay, and will therefore be avoided wherever possible.
3. The Book of Revelation is frankly bizarre, and no original classification will be attempted here. A variety of classifications have been made, but these classifications will not be discussed here.
4. For the purposes of this essay, any group or individual identifying as 'Christian' will be regarded as such.
5. For the purposes of this essay, "socially-derived morals" refers to the perceived consensus morality of a particular social context at a particular time.
NB:
I am not suggesting that Christians should abandon Christian morality, whatever that term might mean to them. I am merely suggesting that "Christian morality" should not be considered an authority in any secular discussion of morality, whether public or private.