Over the years, there have been several attempts at
explaining morality and how it relates to religion, using text, audio and
video, but they didn’t do it my way
and it is not beaten enough yet – as can be seen from the repeated usage of the
word “morality” by religious apologists.
Christians as well as Muslims on GooTube claim in a never
ending number of videos that atheists have no basis for morality, which, after
all, is pre-supposed to originate with their favourite god and thus by-passes these
ignorant atheists.
Since the search function in GooTube is hopeless, let me
demonstrate using Startpage or Ixquick how many videos there are mentioning
atheists and morality or using their favourite term, which makes it sound more
important: absolute or objective
morality .
Now, atheists don’t believe there is evidence for the
existence of gods. That’s it. So there’s no mention of morality here, but if
you pre-suppose everything is based on your favourite god, then you may have a
point. Not attributing anything to atheists, but to humans in general.
Out of the 30,000 odd results you have 100s all showing how
objective morality does not even exist, is disgusting or justified, all
bringing their individual perspective and their own good or bad arguments for
or against.
Well then, what is there left for me to do? All this watching,
reading, searching has left me with a feeling that one holistic perspective is
missing, one which superficially analyses the claims, digs down occasionally
and provides only one thing, the impetus for further investigation and
thinking. If only a handful of people feel the urge to consult Sheikh Google
and ask for information, this video is justified.
If you look at the topic of morality, you will find a
mountain of materials. Each aspect has a huge amount of sub-topics associated
with it and each in turn has been covered by several books, so I acknowledge
that a comprehensive video addressing all aspects is impossible, which is why I
will cover the basics: the definitions, the claims, the results and the
consequences.
One thing is clear: no pork.
What we are confronted with, is a whole series of claims
made by Christians and Muslims alike:
There are laws, both physical and spiritual, which points to
and requires a law-giver. You know, the tired, primitive painting needs
painter, building needs builder.
Because a god created humans and is super-clever, only this
creator/god can know what is good and right for us god worshippers.
Humans are fallible and tend to screw things up, so this
creator/god has decreed that there be a set of rules or divine commands, which
are not to be touched and represent the right way, the objective way.
There are more, but this sets the scene quite nicely.
The obvious question is, are these claims somehow justified?
If I concentrate on Islam, you have several sentences on behaviour in the Koran
or the secondary texts, the Sunnah, but there are very few specific commands or explanations. You can find that telling the
truth, keeping a promise, showing respect to others, obeying god and Muhammad,
not stealing, not killing, paying your debts, being humble, etc and finally,
displaying righteousness and piety are mentioned and are considered Islamic
values. Plus, what you also get is an incredible amount of do’s and don’ts when
you are naked. What you don’t get is one of the prerequisites of morality, the
consequences. All I see is “do this” or “do that” – and you’re on your way to
get a reward. If not, beware of the punishment. But what I don’t see is any
reasoning, justification or the appropriate, adequate and fair punishment. Just
obey.
Because Muslims are not allowed to think and act
independently, they require guidance.
This is likened to a person with perfect vision in a dark
room, who can’t see in spite of his perfect eyes and thus requires a beacon to
direct this person in the right direction. Muslims are unaware that there’s a
light switch by the door because humans have since discovered electricity.
So what are all these words telling a human being? Is being
pious better for a human than eating a baby? According to Islamic texts, yes.
They don’t mention a whole lot of things and leave it up to the individual to
establish the well-being of himself, the tribe and mankind as a whole. So what
exactly is this well-being translated into? We know that in general life-forms
tend to avoid pain and strive towards well-being. Do we know and can we define
well-being?
For a sadist, inflicting pain increases well-being. For a
paedophile, fondling a child increases well-being. So, are inflicting pain and
fondling a child moral or maybe even objectively moral actions? If I donate
money to a charity, is this ethical or altruistic? If I tell another person the
truth about their bad medical condition, am I the cause for their emotional
distress; should I have lied? Is lying of a higher moral value than telling the
truth?
The words we see here in connection with this are objective,
ethics, morality, altruism and values.
What are these? How can we evaluate them?
Let’s start with the easy one: objective
Merriam-Webster
ob·jec·tive, adjective
\əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\
: based on facts rather than
feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings
philosophy : existing outside
of the mind : existing in the real world
Dictionary.com
not influenced by personal
feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
intent upon or dealing with
things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person
or a book.
Strange, there’s nothing here on divine commands.
What we do see, however, is that because all normal
life-forms try and avoid pain, the
person inflicting pain, whether emotional or physical pain, is objectively
wrong.
So what about ethics and morals? Well, ethics are rules laid
down by consensus and morals are more about what we feel when we do something. So,
for a peace officer performing a same-sex wedding might be ethically right and
morally wrong at the same time.
A German 80 years ago lies
to a GeStaPo officer that he’s not hiding any Jews. Is he morally wrong for lying
or morally right for saving lives?
At this moment a child sneezes, causing the GeStaPo officer
to search the room and he finds 3 Jewish kids hiding behind the sofa. Following
his oath to follow the Fuhrer and his patriotism, his ethics command him to
turn them over, his morals command him to let them go and his altruism commands
him to hand some of his own food stamps to them so they can get food. What does
he do?
So, there are different levels to this and an unimaginable
degree of complexity.
One thing is clear: no pork.
What about altruism and does it belong here?
NOUN:
Unselfish
concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
Instinctive
cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to
the survival of the species.
No, it is only about selfless concern and already presumes a
positive attitude.
If there were a
set of laws which would be representative of objective morality, shouldn’t
there be a direct and precise answer in Islamic texts, indicating exactly what
this god wants his subjects to do?
It seems, however, that all we get are some general
guide-lines we could find in “Moby Dick”, “The Lord of the Rings” or any other thicker,
well-written book. What this demonstrates is that moral values are dependent on
situation and context. Independent and not requiring any gods.
We humans don’t judge a lion eating babies. It’s natural. We
don’t expect birds to prostrate before us if we put up a bird pool in summer or
a bird house with some food in winter. But we do honour people with little
badges if they perform well in battle – while honouring those who avoid those
very battles with peace prizes. We are not quite there yet, it seems.
A minute ago I stated that a person inflicting pain – a
sadist – is objectively wrong when
doing so to another human being. So why do Muslims think that if their god does
it, it is 100% right?
How can something be morally wrong, while being right if
performed by someone else? What is this “morality”?
Well, first off, we have causes and effects. Over the years
humans have developed a set of values which allow us to recognise the effect a
specific cause has and we have learned that sticking a needle into another
person can be beneficial if done in a medical context, a prank if done gently
and totally horrific if used in torture. This means we have realised that
causes are contextual and depend on who is doing what and why. This has no
absolute definition.
That means that objective morality is flawed right from the
start. But are there values or commands which are universal?
Not eating babies would be, I guess. But that does not
figure in Islamic texts. Condemning torture,
genocide, rape and slavery, just to mention a few. I guess. But those don’t
figure either.
One thing is clear: no pork.
So now we already have 2 huge problems.
We have a god commanding his people to be good and then does
exactly the opposite. This “divine command theory” proposes that a cause is
considered as morally good when and because it is commanded by a god, described in Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma . I can
see the consequence of this when Muslims frantically scramble to find reasons
to reject pork. Hilarious.
We have the second problem that the divine command theory also
proposes that a cause is considered as morally good when it is commanded by a god, even though the execution is the opposite of what was
previously commanded.
What we learn when investigating Islam, is that it says in
the holy book, the noble and glorious Koran, that all humans are equal in the eyes
of this god and then this very god decides that
a.) the
male half is just a bit more equal than the female half and
b.) some
humans can be owned by others like objects.
Do believing Muslims consider their god worth worshipping
and morally sound, if the Koran mentions slavery 29 times in the Koran alone
and 13 times telling Muslims what to do with slaves and that a slave is freed
as punishment for the owner or reward for a “good” slave, where female slaves
can be used for sex without consent, more commonly known as rape. Legally. Does
the Koran prohibit slavery per se or across the board? No! It even spells out
the lawful usage of female sex-slaves, where it says ...
Slaves
Prosperous are the believers who
abstain from sex,
23:6
Ahmad Khan
except with their spouses and
slave-girls. The practice of carnal relations is lawful with them.
Yusuf Ali
except with those joined to them
in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in
their case) they are free from blame.
The way this topic is described in Wikipedia for example
demonstrates sheer intellectual bankruptcy in my eyes because Muslims try to
tone down slavery and make it look as though Islam was and is a positive
experience for slaves. Is it a virtue in Islam to deceive others to make your
belief system look better than it is? They don’t treat the topic honestly and
acknowledge the moral failings of the past.
Instead, the Koran tells Muslims they are the best of the
nations and the righteous - and to fight for their god. This has led to the attitude
of supremacy which in the past has wiped out entire tribes, political and
cultural groups and today has them establish Muslim controlled zones in cities.
Does the Koran prohibit or even condemn genocide? No!
Wife-beating is condoned in the Koran and if we go through
secondary texts we find explicit instructions on how to rape female captives.
In Scandinavia, the Muslim population is below 5% yet most rapists are Muslims.
Jails across Europe are being filled by Muslims.
Are Muslims not getting the message or is there no such
thing as objective morality?
Does it help to look at the definition of morality?
Morality:
code of conduct put forward by
a society or
code of conduct that, given
specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
So we see the same again what
we have deduced by merely observing human interaction.
What about “objective
morality”, which has been discussed through the centuries by philosophers? Actually,
philosophers themselves are not sure whether objective morality actually
exists.
Like where letting the train run, will result in 5 deaths,
pushing a button will kill only a single person. What will you do?
Most people will
select the “kill less people” option.
It seems right. But what if I replace the single person with
Hitler? Will that change the outcome?
What will happen if I replace the single person with
Muhammad? Will that change the outcome?
What will a Muslim now choose? Does Islam and his god give
him an objectively moral guide?
No? Why not? Well, it’s easy. Because there is no objective
morality in the sense that a god will provide an answer to every situation in
our brain. Because we are not created and programmed by a god. Thank god.
So how can we come to terms with this difficult and complex
topic?
One thing is clear: no pork.
Let’s try a different approach. Maybe only indirectly, but we
all know of Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”. This concept was translated in
“Logical Structure of Objectivism” into 4 basic categories:
- Material/survival
needs: health, food, sleep
- Spiritual
needs: knowledge, self-esteem, education, art
- Social
needs: communication, friendship, love
- Political
needs: freedom, clear laws
This shows how the moral effects and values are built around
our basic needs. So is there a need for “objective” morals? No, not really,
because this is the foundation on which morality is built. We don’t call a
house a house on a foundation, because we know that a house has a foundation.
The same is true for the foundation of the morals we use in our lives.
Based on this foundation, we have biologically and
instinctively developed behavioural patterns and values within these categories
which we consider as the norm, the moral norm, within our cultural groups. We
can actually check our behaviour and see its origin in the basic needs table
above and check if the consequences represent to desired outcome.
Due to the modifications of these needs over time, some
people reject all meat while others reject pork and others reject meat which
comes from an animal which was not pointing the right way or was not given a
speech before killing it. Now we are able to evaluate such behaviour and link
it to a basic need – or not.
Some people reject education which is not contained in a specific
book. This can be linked back to the 2nd basic need and shows that
it is not a sound moral decision to do so.
Some groups reject friends within other groups. Same
procedure as above will lead to a result.
Some groups can’t handle personal freedom and prefer a life
on their knees.
Some groups will throw homosexuals off a cliff.
Some groups will throw stones at people until they die if
they attempt to leave their group.
Some groups will kill anyone caricaturing their idols and
gods.
Which of these actions represent any form of sound, objective,
beneficial morality? Eating food is objectively right – but eating pork or
shrimps is not? Come on…..
So taking the logical structure above, we have here a very
rational explanation of what morality represents and how humans form their
decisions and what the consequences are. This way, we are establishing an
explanation which takes us away from the childish prohibitions of what a person
should be allowed to eat or how long, with whom and in what position we are
allowed to have sexual encounters.
This explains why Muslims and atheists, as well as members
of every other group, all behave in a similar manner. They will not eat babies
but take care of them. This means that Muslims are better than their god. We will help and support each other in
difficult times and even display altruism occasionally. Because we have a clash
between parts of our brain we are inherently irrational and can even become
violent. But in general, we all exhibit very similar behavioural patterns in
our social lives. It’s a pity religions need to come along and spoil this,
introducing their divisive dogma.
Let me reiterate the old Sam Harris challenge which was made
so popular by Christopher Hitchens: name a morally beneficial action or a
morally beneficial statement that a Muslim can do or make that I, as an
atheist, can’t. Good luck. In the last 30 years, the best any theist could come
up with is “prayer”, a monologue without any consequences. This demonstrates 2
things:
1.
that Muslims are better than their god and their
texts
2.
atheists live with similar if not identical
built in morals as everybody else
What we disagree over is the origin of these rules, where I
have shown that we derive these through biology, nature, evolution and Muslims
believe they are custom programs for each individual by a programmer/creator.
As an atheist, secular humanist, agnosticist, rationalist,
sceptic, freethinker, etc I am free to
differentiate between rational and emotional, where a male human being and a
female human being are free to engage in sexual activity of any kind - as long
as it’s consensual. Even if they are siblings or other relatives. I find it
emotionally disgusting and biologically wrong, but rationally, why should I
condemn this? Muslims criticise me for this – yet condone the very same thing
when it is written down in their Koran or when it is a 54-year-old man and
9-year-old girl – but only when it involves their idol, Muhammad.
Now THAT I find reprehensible, dishonest, hypocritical and applying
double standards. Is it also immoral? You judge for yourself.
Thanks for your time.
Sources
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Chart by Tim van de Vall,
copyright 2013 Dutch Renaissance Press LLC. These charts may be used for
personal and educational purposes only. Commercial use of these printable
worksheets is prohibited.
William Thomas and David Kelley, The Logical Structure of
Objectivism
Muslim rape
Ikea
No comments:
Post a Comment