Religion Contorts Morality? Oh Please!
Posted in Atheism, Morality, Quickies on | 1 minute | 12 Comments →
So Greta Christina has a post titled How Religion Contorts Morality, and I think that’s nonsense. First off, we have a category error: “religion” is not an agent such that it can contort anything. Only people can contort morality, if such a thing called “morality” actually maps to the real-world in the first place. You might be tempted to think this is just semantics, but it’s not. Speaking precisely minimizes error and misunderstanding. Of course, “Why I Think Religious Person X Is Wrong About Morality” is nowhere near as provocative a title, so I guess I see where she’s coming from there.
Anyways, I’ve seen some pretty contorted “morality” from atheists, too. For example, Tommykey, who apparently thinks it’s wrong to torture terrorists for information, but okay for a woman to kill her unborn child simply because the father possesses unsavory characteristics, or because she thinks she might have a tough time coping with the burdens of parenthood.
In my opinion, that’s about as contorted as can be – but it has nothing to do with atheism, because atheism can’t contort anything.
NotAScientist
says...“In my opinion, that’s about as contorted as can be – but it has nothing to do with atheism, because atheism can’t contort anything. ”
But atheism and religion aren’t equivalent.
It would be fair to say that theism can’t contort anything like morality. But religions (which were created by people) certainly can and do.
Greta Christina’s only error, if you can call it that, is not pointing out the origin of religions.
cl
says...Hey there. I wasn’t charging Greta with error, at least not beyond my gripe with her title. Do some theists contort morality? Of course. Yet, every other variant of person has been known to do the same.
So? They both lack the capacity to contort anything, and the claim loses muster when we’re more accurate with our language. That’s the point.
I disagree. Religion can’t contort anything. A religious person — or any other person for that matter — can. Why imply some sort of connection between religion and morality?
Crude
says...We have a great example of an atheist arguably contorting morality – and religion – in the case of Jim Jones, by the way.
NotAScientist
says...“I disagree. Religion can’t contort anything.”
What is your definition of ‘religion’?
Matt
says...Hi NotAScientist,
Would secular humanism be an equivalent of religion? It is an invention of people that provides moral guidelines just like religion. I could be wrong but I would imagine Greta Christina as well as most atheists you meet on the internet would consider themselves secular humanists. Do you think the post would have been better if cl had said “secular humansim” instead of “atheism?”
Cl,
When I read Greta Christina’s post it seemed less like she was talking about people distorting morality using religion as much as religious thought contaminating the process of moral thought because you cannot adapt to new information. For example, religious people are less likely to say “now that we know genocide is wrong we have to fess up that we did bad stuff in the past and start doing good stuff” because The Bible has examples of divinely commanded genocide (of course, now Dr. Craig seems to side with Paul Copan’s view that what was described as genocide wasn’t really genocide) while secular people can say “what were we thinking back then?! Let’s not do that anymore!” I agree that she doesn’t fully explain her case when she says that “religion” contorts morality because A) she’s only speaking of one religion, she really should have said Christianity or Christian Biblical inerrancy, and B) she’s not talking about morality in general but how morality is thought about and discussed. Since most Christians today condemn genocide her real complaint is that the thought process requires some to justify past bad behavior (even if their current behavior is more acceptable to her). Perhaps her post should have been titled “How religious thought corrupts moral epistemology” but that is also less provocative.
cl
says...NotAScientist,
Why does it matter?
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m not interested in a dispute over definitions. In my opinion, it is sufficient and reasonable to promote clarity — which is the end goal of criticizing the statement, “Religion contorts morality.”
Matt,
Problem is, although some religious people have trouble adapting to new information and/or conceding error, that’s just wrong. There’s nothing about religion which requires inability to concede error or adapt to new information, and there’s nothing that prevents a secular person from doing the same.
Personally, I rarely endorse statements of the variety, “act X is morally Y.” I endorse statements of the variety, “When is act X morally Y or ~Y?” So, I immediately disagree with anybody who says “genocide is wrong,” because I can easily think of instances where genocide seems right. And I’m not even an exterminator!
To me, that’s just the same problem re-introduced, and again, there’s nothing that prevents a person from doing the same with a secular train of thought.
Thinking Emotions
says...Well, religion can’t really do anything. The more I think about it, religion is a lot like a drug: its effects on a user’s mentality can taint the world via the human agent, but by itself it does not do anything. The responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of those under the influence of a religion. I’ve never seen Islam bomb a building, just like I’ve never seen a can of beer crash a car. Anyone else smell some irony? I imagine a few atheists are proponents of drug legalization or decriminalization, but religion? It’s gotta go. Oh well, I’m digressing. Crackpot religious people are worse than ignorant, belligerent atheists (but not by much).
Religion, morality, secular humanism, etc. are just ideas. They’re inherently inept. The only time they even have meaning, arguably, is when we interpret them and apply them. So, Greta obviously meant religious thought corrupts moral epistemology, but I don’t really care. Atheistic thought can corrupt moral epistemology just as well.
cl,
You said,
Are there instances where abortion could seem right? What about instances where torturing terrorists is wrong?
cl
says...ThinkingEmotions,
That’s exactly what I was getting at, and no amount of defining the word “religion” or “theism” or “atheism” can change this fact. This is why I said what I said to NotAScientist at June 1, 2011 at 2:02 PM.
Torturing anybody for the sheer thrill of it–or financial gain–is always wrong in my book. I’m not sure about abortion. I’m tempted to say that cases where childbirth might kill the mother would be an exception, but something doesn’t sit right there.
woodchuck64
says...I think of religion, atheism, conservatism, liberalism, culture, common sense, reason, logic, etc., all as basically packets of information waiting to be picked up by more brains. They’re memes; no more or less intentionally malicious or beneficial than genes.
At what stage? I think abortions in the third trimester are very problematic morally speaking, but it’s hard to imagine any moral contortions needed to take a “morning-after” pill.
cl
says...woodchuck64,
I feel that. I think of most things the same way: morally neutral until an agent’s motive enters the picture. TV, drugs, alcohol… most things can be “good” or “bad” depending on the situation. At least, that’s my gut feeling about morality.
As for the abortion thing, like I said, I’m not really sure on it all. I agree with you on the third trimester remark, but I think even first trimester abortions are morally wrong. However, I’m certainly not interested in a semantic battle, which seems to be where these types of discussions usually go from here, e.g., “Does a ten-week-old baby really count as a life?” I’m not interested in that game.
I would, however, like an explanation from Tommykey — but I don’t think that’s gonna happen. I’m very curious as to what makes abortion morally permissible, but torture not.
Ana
says...cl,
You said:
Unfortunately, difficult moral dilemnas exist in this world.
Take a look at this wiki article on the Principle of Double Effect.
(If you scroll down to where it says “Medicine”, there’s a paragraph that concisely ties it in to a procedure intended to save the life of the mother, that results in the death of the unborn child). The key is the intended outcome.
Here’s a Q&A ( no. 6)relating to that topic:
(emphasis mine)
To put paraphrase the point of the above, I would say: Direct abortion is always murder, whatever the circumstance, because bringing about the death of the innocent child isn’t just a consequence, it was the intended goal.
Direct abortion is underlied by the outright intention of NOT saving the child — it, by its very nature, involves the active willing that the life in the womb be destroyed. The will should be that both the mother and the unborn live. That is not the will of abortionists.
woodchuck64
says...cl,
If you believe in the soul, there is a valuable life as soon as the soul unites with biological material, granted. If you don’t believe in the soul (as I do not), the time continuum from a single cell to a fully functioning, self-aware human being implies that life, personhood and even consciousness should be best understood as continuums, not as discrete points. My moral view would be guided by that understanding (which doesn’t necessarily make it easier).
But if I believed in the soul, I would most likely believe abortion at all stages to be immoral and so I certainly don’t fault you for that belief.