A Reflection on Religion and Morality | Part 2
In which God is shown to be immoral, and by extension belief in Him
This is the second of a probably-three-part series on atheism and irreligion. Part 1 discusses the rationality of God and religion. In this post, I’ll focus on the morality of God and religion, discussing examples of misconduct and what they reveal about adherence to dogma. As usual, please let me know if there are any inaccuracies or errors.
1
The conclusion reached in Part 1 is that religious beliefs about an omnipotent creator deity (generalized as ‘God’) simply cannot be justified, and it’s entirely rational to adopt an atheistic philosophy. I discussed some common lines of reasoning in favor of God and my preferred rebuttals, then attempted to generalize these points to include non-Abrahamic belief systems.
It’s certainly not a complete discussion though, and in the spirit of the Swiss cheese model, this essay will serve to provide an additional line of reasoning against religion. My intent is not to demonize any belief system in particular, and I’ll do my best to draw from a wide range of examples.
The usual disclaimer about the vagueness of ‘religion’ applies, and so does my admission of an undue focus on Abrahamic religions. For the sake of this essay, I’ve considered an ethical doctrine a defining feature of religion. If you disagree with this characterization please let me know.
Keeping this in mind, my ramblings on the morality of a semi-arbitrary set of belief systems:
2
But first, ethics.
This essay will not address theology or ontology (these are more or less covered in Part 1) and will instead focus on morality and concrete examples of religious failings.
The first thing to determine is how exactly we should define morality. Because I’m an incompetently linguistics-oriented nerd, my instinct is to go the literal route here. The Latin root is moralitas, roughly meaning ‘character’. So, it’s reasonable to say that morality is about upholding (good) character. More specifically, it’s about an actionable distinction between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. A simple enough definition, though it raises an important question: how does one differentiate between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in practice?
This question leads us to moral philosophy, the branch of philosophy focused on, guess what, morals. Countless ethical systems have been proposed and used throughout history. I’ll summarize only a few of the most notable:
Moral Skepticism
This is the ethical school of thought which more or less rejects ethics. Adherents consider moral knowledge to be infinitely sparse or even unknowable. They assert that it’s entirely ridiculous to put forth any moral claim because we simply don’t know if it’s true.1
I won’t dwell on this theory for too long, and while there are substantial logical criticisms, suffice it to say that it’s just more useful to live our lives as if moral claims can be true. Similar to Pascal’s Wager, the difference in payoff is really big if we’re right and just eh if we’re wrong.
Normative Ethics
Virtue Ethics
The argument of virtue ethics is that we live our lives according to what would make us ‘virtuous’. Virtue ethics were developed in ancient Greece by Socrates and Aristotle (among others, including the Stoics), with the general goal of happiness. Aristotle saw a causative chain between knowledge, good actions, and joy, and advocated for self-improvement and moderation in order to become more virtuous.2
What exactly being ‘virtuous’ means is not totally clear, though Aristotle provides a list for us, notably including temperance, modesty, and righteous indignation.
Consequentialism & Utilitarianism
Consequentialists consider the morality of an act to be wholly defined by the positive or negative consequences of that act.3 What, exactly, defines a positive consequence is a question which utilitarianism attempts to answer.
Utilitarians judge a consequence based on the amount of pleasure it creates, with the amount of suffering subtracted.4 There are a couple branches of utilitarianism (Act and Rule) which are worth further reading.
Deontology
Deontology determines an act’s morality based on its intent instead of consequence, considering whether that intent falls under a moral rule or law. Immanuel Kant took this a step further with his categorical imperative, basically asserting that one should only act according to moral rules which can be applied universally. He also noted that humans should not be used only as means, but as ends in themselves, a practice consequentialism allows.5
Some deontologists (notably Robert Adams, St. Thomas Aquinas, and even Plato & Socrates) can be classified as divine command theorists. They believe that the moral laws under consideration come straight from God, or are at least derived from his ultimate goodness.6
3
The relationship between religion and morality is fraught. While many claim that their religious beliefs are directly responsible and necessary for their morals, this overlooks the reinterpretations, corrections, and mental gymnastics they conduct in order to rectify these texts with social norms or their ethical intuitions.
Not to mention the clear, abundant evidence showing religious actors to behave in questionable, immoral, and sometimes genocidal ways. While isolated examples cannot provide an entire picture, the patterns of misbehavior are apparent in the very fabric of a stringent belief system.
Finally, many claim that religion or God gives them a purpose—for their life, generally or for particular practices that they feel provide external benefit as well. I’m not going to reject the value that can come of belief in God in dire times (many credit not necessarily Him, but their belief in Him with improving their mental or emotional state in dire times), but will attempt to show that He’s an unnecessary complication, and sometimes acts an excuse for not improving ourselves naturally.
(Please note: only a couple religions are given as examples in each subsection. This does not imply that certain religions are more immoral than others, but that these themes are consistent through a diverse selection of belief systems. This is a long section; 4 stands alone-ish if you prefer.)
Casting Religion as Morality
Judaism
In Judaism, the Torah is understood to be the Word of God (as transcribed by Moses). Considering the definition of God to be “a maximally great being”, this Word must necessarily be perfectly moral. Rejecting relativism because I hate it (see: Objections to Moral Relativism if you want more than that), it’s clear that what’s perfectly moral must remain perfectly moral for everyone, so even now everyone should follow the Word exactly.
When it comes to the Torah, that means that not only is it acceptable, but that it is our duty to stone any man who lies with another, allow people to hold and beat slaves, and sit around doing nothing every Saturday. Clearly, this is a problem.
Reform Judaism proposes an interesting solution: let’s just change whatever rules we don’t particularly like. It rejects strict adherence to halacha (biblical Jewish law), and simply redefines its doctrine whenever social norms or intuition suggest it. In this way, it’s hard to characterize it as religious Judaism—more a well-organized intuitive ethics community which occasionally claims to believe in a traditional God while rejecting His Word. Some Liberal Jews, spotting the obvious paradoxes, have gone as far as rejecting this God too and switching to a secular, culturally Jewish, atheistic humanism.
Islam
While Islam is a frequent target for alt-right, neoconservative commentators who often promote similar and sometimes identical Christian ideals, its critique has been rather neglected among the humanist & atheist left. At least, this was the opinion of the anonymous Ibn Warraq, who’s career has centered on providing criticism of immoral Islamic theory. I suggest his analyses highly, as well as the antithetical writing of Edward Said.
The Qur’an is even more exactly the Word of God than the Torah. As the story goes, the Prophet Muhammed couldn’t read or write at all, so required direct divine dictation to churn it out. More evidence comes in the composition of the Qur’an—it’s a beautiful piece of writing, largely written in rhyming verse, and widely considered “the finest work of Arabic literature”.7
However, as with any (necessarily) static Word of God, it’s unfit to be a moral doctrine if it obligates even a single immoral action. For example, apostasy is held to be punishable by death under Shari’a, though some argue that this is based on the traditional conflation of Islam and the State, rendering this punishment akin to a punishment for treason against any modern nation-state. Then again, connecting Religion with State isn’t an absolving factor—if anything, this case study serves as evidence against the practice, it leads to a broad, violent restriction of social freedoms based only on divine doctrine.
Said claims that Western criticism of Islam often comes with undue bias, including a base assumption that it’s a religious threat, that it constitutes an opposition to Christianity which must be destroyed. Others make the point that Western criticism may lack the necessary perspective to understand and appreciate Islamic beliefs. The Scottish Orientalist William Montgomery Watt asserted that the Prophet Muhammed’s ethicality should be considered only relative to his contemporaries, and British author Karen Armstrong encouraged a definition of the oft-mentioned jihad as a struggle for a just society.
To me, this all feels a little relativistic and straw-man-y. Said’s assertion that Western critiques necessarily contain bias is supported by a plethora of examples, but not universally true. In fairness, he was writing about the field of Orientalism, and his arguments cannot be accurately considered a general defense of Islam. Watt is guilty of clear moral relativism (the word’s even in the summary above), and Armstrong’s views are subjective at best and well-founded dispute is widespread.
So why do these gymnastics? Why contort and twist the meaning of holy texts to fit our modern sense of morality, to the point that they stop resembling the religion from which they originate? It’s easier, and indeed more rational, to simply live morally without God, cut him out of the equation. You no longer run the risk of belief in God’s negative effects (see below), and are free to pursue an ethical framework based solely on ethics instead of divine dogma.
Evidence of Harm and Immorality
Christianity
Christianity, best described as a glorified sect of Judaism8 is a really big religion with a lot of questionable ethics. There’s a ton of different sub-Christians, some notable denominations include Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Protestants (including Calvinists, Baptists, Evangelists…), and Mormons (plus Jehovah’s Witnesses). The things they’ve all got in common, of course, are Jesus Christ and the Bible.
Beyond the paradoxes and ridiculousness of the Biblical God (see Part 1 | Section 2), exacerbated by his personability, miracles, and, in Christianity, three-way split, the Bible contains some glaring ethical lapses. Those in the Old Testament are also considered divine doctrine by non-Reform Judaism and Islam.
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Pretty problematic, huh? If we consider human autonomy a reasonably important ethical tenet, this is clearly unacceptable, subjugating half the population, not to mention its flat-out rejection of gender equality.
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Really, there’s no ambiguity when it comes to homosexuality in the Old Testament. Note that God does not need to provide justification for these acts being “detestable”, He declares it and is relayed by Moses.
Hinduism
The caste system seems to have originated in the Indus River Valley Civilization, that is, before the Vedas and well before Hinduism.9 However, capitalizing on popular social movements and constructs is how religion gets so popular (this idea will be covered much more fully in Part 3), and the distinction between arya varna and dasa varna was first discussed in the Rigveda around 1500–1200 BCE. The arya were considered noble, an identifier for the Vedic tribes, whereas the dasa were rival tribes, literally meaning ‘enemy’ or ‘servant’.
In the Atharvaveda, the arya varna is redefined as the Vaishya, the members of the tribe, the dasa is redefined as the Shudra (some nuances, source), and two new varnas are added: the Brahmin, the priestly class, and the Kshatriya, the warrior aristocratic class.
This redefinition and addition of varnas marked the evolution of the caste system within Hinduism. It became a social hierarchy where individuals were born into specific castes and were expected to fulfill certain roles and duties based on their caste. This system determined not only a person's occupation but also their social status, access to resources, and opportunities for advancement.
The harm caused by the caste system is multifaceted and pervasive. Of course, a main issue is the perpetuation of social inequality and discrimination. Castes were hierarchically ranked—Brahmins occupy the highest position and Shudras the lowest. This ranking created a rigid social structure where individuals were limited by their caste and faced significant barriers in terms of education, employment, and social mobility. The lower castes, particularly the Shudras and Dalits (formerly known as untouchables), suffered from social exclusion, economic exploitation, and limited access to basic rights and opportunities.
The caste system also fostered a culture of prejudice and oppression. Discrimination based on caste was deeply ingrained in Indian societies, leading to social stigma, segregation, and violence against individuals from lower castes. It resulted in the dehumanization of certain groups, perpetuating social divisions and reinforcing systemic injustice.
The idea of karma and dharma within Hinduism often reinforced the notion that a person's social position and opportunities in life were predetermined by their actions in previous lives, creating a sense of defeatist fatalism and acceptance of one's caste-based poor circumstances.
So why not change these immoral practices? Certainly, attempts have been made, but it’s just not quite how religious doctrine works. It’s definitionally static, and doesn’t need to be justified.
4
If God says something 3000 years ago, He doesn’t need to tell us why, and we can’t question it. As soon as we do, we admit that God isn’t maximally great. That He was wrong. Frankly, once we’ve done this, it’s no longer the kind of religion I’m talking about. It’s simply using moral philosophy or intuitive ethics as a basis for morality. At that point, why not cut out God entirely?
For the non-theistically inclined, the thesis does hold. Static doctrine, with or without God is immoral if there’s single statement or even unclear sentence whose interpretation can be immoral. As soon as we revise, we’ve created a new doctrine. This new doctrine, if static, falls into the same trap 20 years later when our intuition or societal norm changes and we find something wrong. If dynamic, it fails to be a religious doctrine. There’s no religion left to speak of—only a moral life to live using this new adaptable, mutable set of guidelines.
The Strongest Case for Religion
Let’s say we move to that dynamic doctrine [as (liberal) society seems to be doing]. We’re living our lives as we might based on humanism, deontology, consequentialism, utilitarianism…—whatever moral philosophy. At that point, it seems to me that we should give up our belief in God or doctrine, give up the religious traditions, the holidays, if only to simplify our lives. To allow us to focus on innovation, altruism, family, whatever else.
But I’m certain some would disagree.
Religion can be fun. Who doesn’t like a holiday meal or a particular dance at a particular celebration or marriage?
People can really really suck. Sometimes humans are jerks to each other, and an inhuman intelligence can no doubt provide wonderful solace.
What’s it all for? If there’s no benevolent God looking out for us, no heaven or enlightenment to be reached, then what are we doing here? Why continue doing it here?
These are tough, legitimate questions to ask. I don’t intend to entirely invalidate these viewpoints, but I’d like to address some of their shortcomings and fallacies.
Irreligion can be fun. I think that connections between humans go deeper than a shared delusion (for lack of a better term), and those political, communal, or hobby-based connections can turn into new traditions and holidays. Beyond this, cultural & ethnic ties can justify the continued celebration of old holidays and festivals.
It doesn’t seem like a great idea to go full Jacobin with a Cult of Reason—cultural differences shouldn’t be repressed—but with God cut out there’s far less risk of the nastiness associated.
I think it’s likely that if we remove the excuse of a higher power, people will act better toward each other. Replacing, “it’s part of God’s plan” with, “I’m sorry that bad thing happened to you”.
Also, relying on superstition and vaguely defined inhuman forms of support isn’t super healthy. It’s almost certainly better to rely on fellow humans, mental health practitioners, for that sort of assistance.
I don’t have a good answer for this. It’s something I still reckon with, and I hope to uncover more of my beliefs about it. In terms of afterlife, there are some Jewish teachings I seem to recall which imagine death as a kind of endless sleep. It doesn’t sound wholly unpleasant.
As for what we’re doing here, it’s probably impossible to say. I’m inclined to agree with Camus’ absurdist humanism (or some brand of it), as shown in The Myth of Sisyphus: we create our own meaning. Self-determination and personal agency are the only overarching themes.
How far that agency goes (re: physician assisted dying in particular) is something I hope to go into in a future essay. For now, if you’re interested, see Canada (non-paywall alternative).
5
The purpose of this essay has been to shed light on the harmful aspects of religion, the contortions and reinterpretations necessary to salvage its moral framework, and why it’s acceptable and beneficial to move away from these belief systems.
By examining the flaws and contradictions within religious doctrines and their potential consequences, we have highlighted the potential for harm that arises from rigid adherence to static, unjustified moral frameworks. Whether through religious grounds for violence and discrimination or the suppression of critical thinking and ethical evolution, religion often has detrimental effects on individuals and society.
In the next part of this series, we will delve into the reasons why people hold religious beliefs in the first place and explore the value and challenges of attempting to persuade them to reconsider their faith. By understanding the psychological, social, and cultural factors that contribute to religious belief, we can approach the topic with empathy, seeking constructive dialogue.
Thank you for taking the time to read this essay.
Moral skepticism - Wikipedia
Virtue ethics - Wikipedia
Consequentialism - Wikipedia
Utilitarianism - Wikipedia
Deontology - Wikipedia
Divine command theory - Wikipedia
Sarcasm – Me
Caste system in India - Wikipedia