If you're an atheist, then this phrase should be immediately familiar to you: "Morals must come from God to have any basis or meaning."[1] Through this page, I hope to demonstrate that the opposite holds true.
What is Morality and how do we determine it?
If there is one thing that no two people will ever agree upon, it is how to approach the issue of defining morality. Some suggest that we should pray for divine guidance (the religious approach); others suggest we deliberate for weeks and months until we reach a consensus (the democratic approach).
There are other methods (i.e. scientific) that could work, but for the sake of getting to the point, I chose the democratic method: That is to say, I discussed it with many people until I was happy with one definition.
Any act that is truly moral will positively affect society without restricting the freedoms of an individual.
This definition (which was suggested originally by my friend Mark Wilkinson) is far from perfect, and there might be some situations that it could not be applied. I am willing to amend this definition at a later date if a better definition should appear. For the time being, however, it is the best definition available and I shall use it to demonstrate my opinion.
Definitions as used in this paper
Before I continue, I should clear up some confusion about the terms I shall use for the rest of this paper.
- amoral
- An adjective that describes the property of not being entirely moral.
- immoral
- An adjective that describes the property of being not moral.
Religion is inherently amoral
I should begin by noting that very few things in this world are moral by my definition, but organized religion and the lessons taught in church border on the immoral.
Religion does not positively affect society.
Of all of the medical and technological advancements made in the past 50 years, how many were the result of science and how many were the result of religion? Religion claims to promote enlightenment, but its role in the controversy over the Theory of Evolution[2] suggests otherwise.
Religion restricts individual freedoms.
Consider Galileo Galilei, an early scientist who was accused of heresy for claiming that the earth orbits the sun and spent the last of his days under house arrest by order of the Inquisition.[3] Unarguably, his personal freedoms were restricted directly by religion.
Conclusions
If religion does not positively affect society and often restricts individual freedoms, then I have to conclude that religion is:
- never moral
- always amoral (to varying degrees, of course)
- sometimes immoral
The contents of this editorial are up for discussion for anyone intelligent who wishes to challenge my claims or conclusion. My email address is kobrasrealm@gmail.com; don't bother emailing me if your purpose is to tell me that I am going to burn in Hell for all eternity (I've heard it all before).
References
1. The Boneman: Mommy, where do morals come from? (2-13-2006)
2. Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover School District, et al (4-19-2008)
3. Wikipedia: Galileo Galilei (4-19-2008)
|
