Religion Leads to Moral Relativism
A very common argument of many religious people is that a secular, humanist or materialist worldview leads inevitably to moral relativism. I will deal with the fact that secular reason can, in fact, produce moral absolutes in another post. For now, I will take the religious’ assertion and turn it on its ear: religion, in fact, leads to moral relativism in many ways. How can this be? Simple: evidence.
In a framework of secular reason, evidence can be used to support or refute arguments of all kinds. For a long time, people thought that the sun went around the earth. Then new evidence arose indicating that the earth goes around the sun. So one idea, one well-established and long-held assumption, was thrown out because the objective observations no longer supported it. Naturally, the Catholic church in medieval Europe refused to accept the scientific evidence—and here is where the rubber meets the road. Whereas it was impossible to believe rationally that the sun went around the earth after the overwhelming evidence was made clear, the religious nonetheless continued to believe that for a long time. We see that in a religious world, many possible explanations can be held by many people, because there is no fundamental standard of knowledge. By contrast, in the world of secular reason, there is a fundamental standard—objective evidence.
That objective evidence can be misunderstood, practitioners of secular reason can be mistaken, errors in analysis can be made during experimentation, etc. But the essential, inherent nature of science and secular reason ensure that only claims that meet a certain standard are ultimately accepted as legitimate knowledge. Religion has no such standard. Much of religious knowledge comes down to what “God” wants or decrees. But how are we supposed to know when god is really talking to someone, and when they are just hallucinating? If someone claims to have special knowledge of what god wants, how do we know they’re telling the truth, or if they are lying through their teeth?
There is absolutely no way of knowing, because there is absolutely no objective standard of knowledge inherent in religion. And here is where moral relativism comes into play.
In religion, one person can claim that “God told me to stop committing violence and to become peaceful and to work tirelessly to help the poor,” while another person can claim “God told me to stop being peaceful and working to help the poor, and to start committing violence.” How do we know which one is telling the truth? How do we know what god really wants people to do, if anything? We cannot. Therefore, both claims are equally legitimate. Moral relativism.
Many religious people will say “this is an illegitimate argument because it is an established fact that god wants specific things.” Really? How do you know? How do you know that a special messiah arose thousands of years ago, as opposed to someone hallucinating thousands of years ago?
It becomes a matter of faith. And that is precisely the point. If one is to operate one’s belief system on the basis of faith, then anyone can have faith in anything, and no one will ever be able to refute their argument. If I truly, deeply believe that God desires for me to kill, rape and destroy, how can anyone prove me wrong?
Sure enough, history bears this out. There have been many religions that have supported violence, and many religions that have supported peace. More significantly, within particular religions, there have been countless individuals that have supported violence, and used their holy texts to justify it, and there have been countless individuals that have supported peace, and used the same holy texts to justify it! The fact that no final, binding and unequivocal moral standard can be provided by religion is demonstrated by the continued emergence of violence and oppression securely within the walls of religions that many claim are “basically peaceful.” Islam has its transnational terrorists and burqas, Christianity has its abortion clinic bombers and witch hunts, Judaism has its Israeli settlers.
So if religion can’t give us binding moral answers, what can? Secular reason, and that is the subject of another article.
MORE ARTICLES:
Secular reason is nothing other than another religion. It is a religion espousing faith in the the human mind… that it can produce, collectively with other human minds, a valid morality. There is nothing scarier than human beings dictating what is right or wrong based on collective opinion. There is no greater arrogance.
Secular reason and religion could not be further apart. Secular reason is a tool or system for obtaining knowledge and truth based on objective evidence. Religion, on the other hand, is inherently incapable of giving us knowledge and truth (although it might get lucky sometimes), because it does not have any fundamental standard for knowledge, as I argued in the post.
I also dealt with the ridiculous notion that secularism (or non-belief) is just another religion in this post:
http://100treatises.com/2009/11/why-i-am-a-secularist-part-2/
You say “There is nothing scarier than human beings dictating what is right or wrong based on collective opinion.” You are quite thoroughly wrong: (1) it is not scary to say that we can figure out what is right and what is wrong–it is empowering and uplifting to humans and to the human mind, (2) you create a straw man, because I don’t argue the truth should be a matter of “collective opinion,” rather that it is a matter of reason and logic.
In any case, you have not said anything about the main topic of this post–that religion leads to moral relativism.
I respect your very well thought out perspective; it is my position that many good-intentioned, well-thinking people have so exalted scientific processes of determining “evidence,” that is has become the lone untouchable belief system. It’s the “right” belief system, so to speak, and anyone thinking otherwise has lost their marbles. Science and fact-based reasoning have strayed from their humble origins and become so proud and defensive that anything contrary to itself is now laughable. That is a precarious position for any religion, belief system or entity. Any entity that looks inward and finds no wrong or possibility of wrong, reeks of pride and deception.
I also take contention with your statement, “Islam has its transnational terrorists and burqas, Christianity has its abortion clinic bombers and witch hunts, Judaism has its Israeli settlers.” Okay, we know that Islamic terrorists are at war with the western world, but “Christianity has its abortion clinic bombers”? There were like one or two non-Christians who were given a “Christian motive” by the left to fuel controversy. And Israeli settlers? That really is funny. The latter two are light years removed from the horrendous actions of Islamic fundamentalists. Rethink that sentence, please.
Humbly, and with respect.
Well, thank you for your compliment, and I appreciate your input.
My position is not that science is infallible, or that scientists are the grand priests of “The Truth,” or anything like that. Rather, the position, quite simply, is based on the nature of the scientific process and the nature of the religious process—completely separate and apart from human beings themselves.
The process of attaining knowledge in secular reason is a matter of weighing competing claims against the objective evidence that is derived from the common reality we all share.
In religion, the process of attaining knowledge (such as it is) has nowhere near the same kind of power; it is heavily influenced by subjective ideas and experience, and not as much by objectivity, and it is extraordinarily concerned with supernatural and other-worldly phenomena, which are only relevant for people who accept their existence.
The basic nature of these processes for attaining knowledge alone (to say nothing of their track records) allows us to conclude that secular reason is inherently superior.
Regarding your last comment, again I think you are reading into things too much. Absolutely nowhere on this entire blog have I said that Christian terrorists and Islamic terrorists are equal in the threat they pose—I do not believe that. That line is meant to demonstrate that all religions have peaceful as well as violent elements, or the potential thereof.
Israeli settlers—I was hoping that one would be controversial. Many of them are fundamentalist and are willing (and do) commit violence and theft against others.
Derek, Check out Al-nakba for info on Israeli Settlers. I will also add look into the USS Liberty. Israel is hardly peaceful.
We can add Christian Zionists into the mix who want to see a war in the Middle East to hasten the End of Times.
But that is an aside. I think Secularist is pointing out that in Secular thought, the responsibility goes with the person. Whereas religious thought allows for one to say “divine revelation” tells me to do X, which can sometimes run counter to what one believes. Such as a person who claims pro-life beliefs, yet is willing to murder an abortion doctor. I’ll Add in someone who espouses pro-life beliefs yet is unwilling to care for the welfare of the children brought into the world.
In the secular world this type of behaviour is called insanity.
Laci, on abortion, some have suggested that conservatives believe “life begins at conception and ends at birth.” Great line, that one.
Laci, if you were a country in the absolute center of the Middle East and nobody like you and made constant threats to annihilate you, what would you be like? And rightly so you would be that way.
Also, war is inevitable. Christians Zionists don’t want war, they simply know it’s inevitable. As long as mankind lusts, there will be war… therefore there will always be war.
Also, real pro-life people don’t murder abortion doctors… you demonstrate you don’t understand that it’s a liberal media agenda creating these fictitious scenarios. A man kills an abortion doctor so liberal media calls him “Christian” and “pro-life” to bolster their far-left agenda. You should know that.
There are countless multitudes of pro-life people that would take babies with special needs all day long into their homes… if the governments of the earth would let them.
Justin, suppose the truth you are searching for is a Man?
Derek, I am the man.
Derek,
While I respect what you are trying to do here, the “liberal media” did not lable that Dr.’s killer as either Pro-Life or Christian first – he did that himself with a long track record of abortion protests and internet writings. You appear to be a Believer yourself – would your local paper be “making something up to fit their political agenda” if they called you a Christian in your obituary?
Interesting premis and as you said over at atheism is dead very apropos.
I’m waiting for your next instalment to comment fully. I look forward to it!
Cheers!
[...] http://100treatises.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/religion-leads-to-moral-relativism/ [...]
[...] recently made a post arguing that religion, in fact, leads to moral relativism. Similarly, I will now argue that secularism or secular reason can lead to moral absolutes. And the [...]
In reality, no single religion could guarantee us a place in Heaven. In the end, what matters is how we a treat other people.*’,