![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hawkwing_lbThe other day I listened to someone claim that one can't have morality unless one also has a God. That is, they claimed that without God, morality cannot exist.
I found that viewpoint interesting, and more than slightly disturbing.
It's something our theology class has touched on in passing: Kant argues for the existence of God as a postulate of a universal morality, without first explaining how he comes to accept the existence of a universal morality. But Kant is more of a natural theologian: his arguments in this matter concern themselves with attempting to provide evidence for the existence of a higher being. He extrapolates from morality to God: this other person takes things the other way around.
He's a Christian, of the sort that believes in the rationale of 'divine inspiration' for the texts of the Bible, and he holds that God gave out moral law in the Bible, most notably the Ten Commandments, but also the Deuteronomistic laws* and the teachings of Jesus. Atheists and agnostics such as the likes of me must be inherently immoral beings, being godless heathens.
But what is morality?
I don't know about the rest of the known universe, but from where I stand, morality is the code of behaviour within a society that governs interpersonal interactions.** It needs no divine originator: most of the principles of the Ten Commandments are sensible and self-serving, from a social point of view. You don't want to be murdered, stolen from, neglected by one's children, slandered, or cheated on. Neither do you want to have other people jealous of you. It's a social contract: you accept that you can't do these things, and in return society will punish those who do or try to do these things to you.
(Many scholars of Near Eastern history argue that the dietary laws and other restrictions of the Mosaic or Deuteronomistic laws originated or were expanded upon during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BCE and the practices brought back to Judea from there: that, in essence, before the early 5th century BCE one cannot speak of 'Jews' as such. Take a look at Gen. 12 and compare it to Gen. 17, for suggestive evidence that the tradition altered at some point: Gen. 12, God says, basically, 'Come on and I'll make you prosper,' Gen. 17, on the other hand, God says the same thing in different words, except he adds, 'As long as you and your sons get circumcised.' (Also the two different accounts of the creation, and don't ask me to look the chapter numbers up.) (Also, you know the Pentateuch was written up way later than Deuteronomy and the rest of the books of the law, right?) Okay, long digression. Back to the point now.)
A system of morality is the widely accepted (and sometimes codified by law, though also sometimes not: see under shame, ostracism, social marginalisation) series of behaviours deemed acceptable and unacceptable by the consensus of a society. Diverse societies can have conflicting sets of moral behaviours (see sex, marital and sex, not marital for an easy set of examples. Also see divorce.) (This is, incidentally, one of the major flaws in Kant's argument. There is no universally accepted morality.) Morality doesn't require the stamp of divine approval: this godless heathen believes behave towards others as you would like them to behave towards you is a perfectly acceptable moral system.
...I'm writing about theology on Livejournal. Someone shoot me now.
~
*I believe he misunderstands Mosaic Law, though, or he'd avoid shellfish and pork, which he doesn't.
**Some people define it as concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct; ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong, but society and culture influence one's perceptions of right and wrong: to a Roman of the Republican or Imperial periods, slavery was perfectly moral. So were wars of conquest. Very few persons in the developed world would find those things so today.
I found that viewpoint interesting, and more than slightly disturbing.
It's something our theology class has touched on in passing: Kant argues for the existence of God as a postulate of a universal morality, without first explaining how he comes to accept the existence of a universal morality. But Kant is more of a natural theologian: his arguments in this matter concern themselves with attempting to provide evidence for the existence of a higher being. He extrapolates from morality to God: this other person takes things the other way around.
He's a Christian, of the sort that believes in the rationale of 'divine inspiration' for the texts of the Bible, and he holds that God gave out moral law in the Bible, most notably the Ten Commandments, but also the Deuteronomistic laws* and the teachings of Jesus. Atheists and agnostics such as the likes of me must be inherently immoral beings, being godless heathens.
But what is morality?
I don't know about the rest of the known universe, but from where I stand, morality is the code of behaviour within a society that governs interpersonal interactions.** It needs no divine originator: most of the principles of the Ten Commandments are sensible and self-serving, from a social point of view. You don't want to be murdered, stolen from, neglected by one's children, slandered, or cheated on. Neither do you want to have other people jealous of you. It's a social contract: you accept that you can't do these things, and in return society will punish those who do or try to do these things to you.
(Many scholars of Near Eastern history argue that the dietary laws and other restrictions of the Mosaic or Deuteronomistic laws originated or were expanded upon during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BCE and the practices brought back to Judea from there: that, in essence, before the early 5th century BCE one cannot speak of 'Jews' as such. Take a look at Gen. 12 and compare it to Gen. 17, for suggestive evidence that the tradition altered at some point: Gen. 12, God says, basically, 'Come on and I'll make you prosper,' Gen. 17, on the other hand, God says the same thing in different words, except he adds, 'As long as you and your sons get circumcised.' (Also the two different accounts of the creation, and don't ask me to look the chapter numbers up.) (Also, you know the Pentateuch was written up way later than Deuteronomy and the rest of the books of the law, right?) Okay, long digression. Back to the point now.)
A system of morality is the widely accepted (and sometimes codified by law, though also sometimes not: see under shame, ostracism, social marginalisation) series of behaviours deemed acceptable and unacceptable by the consensus of a society. Diverse societies can have conflicting sets of moral behaviours (see sex, marital and sex, not marital for an easy set of examples. Also see divorce.) (This is, incidentally, one of the major flaws in Kant's argument. There is no universally accepted morality.) Morality doesn't require the stamp of divine approval: this godless heathen believes behave towards others as you would like them to behave towards you is a perfectly acceptable moral system.
...I'm writing about theology on Livejournal. Someone shoot me now.
~
*I believe he misunderstands Mosaic Law, though, or he'd avoid shellfish and pork, which he doesn't.
**Some people define it as concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct; ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong, but society and culture influence one's perceptions of right and wrong: to a Roman of the Republican or Imperial periods, slavery was perfectly moral. So were wars of conquest. Very few persons in the developed world would find those things so today.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 09:13 pm (UTC)Goodness. I almost want to register for Theology now, just so I can get kicked out of the class for disruption. That quote right there? Argument GOLD, man.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 09:18 pm (UTC)Strangely enough, my theology classes are about evenly spread between the sincerely religious and the defiantly agnostic/atheist/heathen. We have very, ah, enthusiastic discussions. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 09:20 pm (UTC)Oh, and the Mosaic Law also forbids shaving, wearing clothing of mixed fibers (sayonara to your favorite cotton-lycra-spandex socks!), working on the Sabbath, and so much more. DO let's pick and choose which laws we will obey, right?
Yes, morality has changed within our lifetimes -- look at perceptions of animal rights and moral standing. We've gone from "animals are property" to "animals have moral standing therefore legal protections".
I'd so join you in that class if only to verbally berate and beat up on your Moralistic Moron. ;-)
...just another godless heathen chiming in.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 09:33 pm (UTC)Mosaic law is pretty interesting. I've only got a very basic understanding of it (our Ancient Near East prof concentrates on the Exile traditions, so we're reading Jeremiah right now), but it's an interesting codification of things that set a people out as different. (If one accepts the argument for the laws to have been written up and solidified into their nearly-final form during the Babylonian Exile, it becomes even more interesting from a socio-historical point of view.)
...Moralistic Moron...
There's always one. We also have an Aggressive Atheist (I mean, really. The first answer he came up with when the prof asked 'What is religion?' was 'A source of conflict.' Not can be, just is.).
The theology class is interesting, because you're getting a perspective on religion that even most religious people don't go for. How many of your average Christians actually read and think about the theological arguments within their religion?
(Godless heathens for a moral society! :))
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 09:47 pm (UTC)I am definitely working way too damned hard, because I've just found myself wondering about singing the Tetragrammaton to the tune of "Y.M.C.A." and what the other words want to be.
[ Moralistic Moron ]
There's always one. We also have an Aggressive Atheist
If either of them are actually accessible to reason, have fun; my experience with both kinds is that you pretty rapidly get to a level at which there's an axiomatic denial of the possibility of argument.
The theology class is interesting, because you're getting a perspective on religion that even most religious people don't go for. How many of your average Christians actually read and think about the theological arguments within their religion?
Not many, because the ones who do don't stay Christians ?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 09:59 pm (UTC)Heh. That has definite humour potential. Maybe even hit single potential. :)
So far, both Atheist and Moralist have raised, ah, interesting questions. I don't think the professor appreciates either of them, but I think I mentioned in a comment above that the class is pretty much a fifty-fifty split on the whole belief thing, so we get quite a lot of heated discussion after most classes.
the ones who do don't stay Christians
It does seem to require a high level of irrational faith. Some of them manage it, though, or there wouldn't be any PhDs in Theology in the priesthoods. Or religious Theology professors, for that matter.
...though it does bring home how uneducated a lot of so-called 'religious' Christians are content to be about the origins of the doctrines they follow.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-26 01:51 am (UTC)*twitch*
no subject
Date: 2007-01-26 10:32 am (UTC)Oh dear. Is that a nervous tick, or a restrained reaction? :)
I don't know if faith can ever be other than irrational, myself: most of the theologians on my reading list make a good case for the impossibility of proving the existence of the divine being through deductive reasoning. (Schleiermacher makes a case for God with his feeling of 'absolute dependency' lark, but that's nowhere near a rational proof if you're not already predisposed to believe.)
I admire most believing types, but gods and little fishes, they puzzle me. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 10:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-26 03:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-27 03:55 am (UTC)Well. We've got our motto -- all we need is a name, and a meeting place. Oh, and a mascot.
As for Mosaic Law, most people have only a basic understanding of it, as it's large, cumbersome, and written in a language without vowels, lending itself to a multiplication of confusion and/or argument over the real meaning of important words. Then, translated or mistranslated into many languages.
Little wonder I have serious issues with people who claim the word of the bible is god's will and is unviolable.
<-- became a godless heathen after pondering theological arguments.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-27 10:17 pm (UTC)This is always what gets me about people who use the claim of divine inspiration for the biblical texts. Are then all the compilers and translators divinely inspired? Because our (Hebrew-reading) Ancient Near East lecturer pointed out last term that there have been severe liberties taken with some parts of the Bible (she used an example from Psalms) by some translators.
If one examines the Bible as one would any other historical source document, it is damn near impossible to be anything other than heathenish and dangerously free-thinking. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-28 01:46 am (UTC)At the risk of sounding hypocritical....amen to that.
:-D
That last bit is where organized religions run into trouble, because if their congregations begin thinking for themselves, then the priests end up out of work. In order to justify their collective existence, they need to hoard the power and the glory for their own position, therefore they need to elevate the words of humans into the Words of God and claim special translation powers.
Anyhow.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-28 01:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-28 02:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-28 08:07 pm (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 04:02 pm (UTC)That's a good start. :-D