Post by Jeff on Jul 19, 2006 13:24:28 GMT -5
That is the basic idea. Notice that it means that moral strictures can fluctuate depending on time and culture; morality can evolve. Certainly moral codes do change over time. I would argue that they can and often do become more sophisticated and that there is a legitimate sense in which we can speak of moral progress. What Christians, and other religious folk, must realize is that God is not tied to a specific set of moral principles. I think the NT states this in countless ways, but that is another topic. Morality, then, is an instrumental end and not an intrinsic one.
If religion were the fundamental source for morality, we would run into the problem of its arbitrariness. But I maintain that religious experience is but one source for moral codes. As atheists and agnostics know all to well, it is quite possible to be good without God. But being good doesn’t guarantee communion with God.
Some Christians then, and other religious folk, are in the grip of a logical error or are simply downright mendacious. For many push morality as if it were the essence of religion.
Today, I was teaching about Epicurus. He says something very interesting. I’ll paraphrase: The gods exist for our perception of them is clear, but they have no concern with human affairs and don’t meddle in them. Epicurus thinks that they don’t answer prayers and they don’t punish people in an afterlife. They couldn’t do the latter because human beings are mortal and have no real existence after they die. As I was explaining this view to my students, one of them said, “Well, why believe that the gods exist if there is no afterlife?” And I reiterated Epicurus’ statement: “Our perception of them is clear.” We believe not because of what they can do for us but because our belief is an accurate portrayal of reality as we know it. And then I asked them: Do you think that what a belief can do for you is a good guide to its truth? And that confused them. But you know all about how wishful thinking isn’t a reliable guide. It’s one of your strongest arguments against the kind of religious fuzzy-mindedness that you despise.
I just want you to know that I agree with your argument.
If religion were the fundamental source for morality, we would run into the problem of its arbitrariness. But I maintain that religious experience is but one source for moral codes. As atheists and agnostics know all to well, it is quite possible to be good without God. But being good doesn’t guarantee communion with God.
Some Christians then, and other religious folk, are in the grip of a logical error or are simply downright mendacious. For many push morality as if it were the essence of religion.
Today, I was teaching about Epicurus. He says something very interesting. I’ll paraphrase: The gods exist for our perception of them is clear, but they have no concern with human affairs and don’t meddle in them. Epicurus thinks that they don’t answer prayers and they don’t punish people in an afterlife. They couldn’t do the latter because human beings are mortal and have no real existence after they die. As I was explaining this view to my students, one of them said, “Well, why believe that the gods exist if there is no afterlife?” And I reiterated Epicurus’ statement: “Our perception of them is clear.” We believe not because of what they can do for us but because our belief is an accurate portrayal of reality as we know it. And then I asked them: Do you think that what a belief can do for you is a good guide to its truth? And that confused them. But you know all about how wishful thinking isn’t a reliable guide. It’s one of your strongest arguments against the kind of religious fuzzy-mindedness that you despise.
I just want you to know that I agree with your argument.