Introduction
I have for some
time been formulating my thoughts on the benefits of aspiring to lead a
moral life over one of religious piety. It is to help me regulate my own
thoughts that I have decided to write about this subject; I wish to
cause no offence and will always respect the right of any man, to hold
any opinion, on any subject, especially on those matters relating to
religion. A discussion on morality and religion does not, and
cannot, be equated with having achieved a high level of morality within
my own life.
This essay does
not attempt to discern whether morality itself is desirable but rather
takes as its starting point that morality is a positive force and
does not question that assumption. It is rather a discussion on whether
a moral lifestyle devoid of religion is desirable over the possible
alternative, which is morality guided by religious belief.
For disclosure’s
sake, my definition of Morality is this: Those actions which
collectively provide equality and contribute harmony to the greatest
number of people at any one time. Morality by definition requires
other people. Morality is also not concerned with a majority it
seeks a far wider remit than a simple majority.
I dare not claim
that the arguments held within this text are of my exclusive perception,
indeed nothing could be further from the truth. From the outset I am
grateful to the numerous thinkers and scholars who have dwelt on these
and other related subjects and from whom I draw my own inspiration and
conclusions. In particular, I want to draw your attention to the
writings of the Athenian philosophers Socrates and Plato, the Roman
Historian Edward Gibbon, the 20th century philosopher
Bertrand Russell, the modern religious scholar Karen Armstrong, and
perhaps above all, the English/American political and social commentator
Thomas Paine. Please refer to the recommended reading list at the end of
the text for specific books and essays.
Essay
Morality does not require religion, but all systems of belief and
forms of religion have within their doctrine a set of moral values, to
which they instruct their adherents to observe, on the pain of some form
of after-life punishment or consequence (and in some instances worldly
punishment imposed by the religious authorities).
Since we have no absolute certainty of the after-life, this notion is
based on faith rather than knowledge, it is important to
first examine the likelihood that any religious doctrine is correct in
its assumption of the existence of an after-life governed by God, for
that part of our being, which man describes as his Soul.
History provides
ample evidence that God, if He does exist, appears sanguine to the
religious supplications of His many devout subjects. Nature in Her wrath
spares not the religious over the irreligious, nor the virtuous over the
wicked when She decides to shift the earth in Her natural course of
events. Phenomena such as earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, fire, drought
and numerous other calamities of the Natural world appear immune to
discern those who lead a pious life over those who do not. Personal and
public tragedy, wrought of Nature, occur from time to time in all
corners of the earth and have done so since before Man evolved to the
sentient being he is now.
Although we have
a litany of mythological and religious references to God’s interference
in the Natural order of things for one group or another’s benefit, we
have no hard evidence of such interference. Progress in understanding
Science has rendered many claims of the supernatural as infrequent, or
perhaps irregular, but commonplace events within the realms of the
physical and chemical laws of our universe. As for the sacred texts
referring to direct acts of God intervening or interacting with specific
persons of history, we must too remain sceptical, as these works are all
in reported form. It would be intellectual folly to accept as Truth,
acts of the fabulous or fantastical, described in mystical scriptures,
if we have no direct evidence of their validity. These events so often
described and repeated can be interpreted in so many ways as to liken
their message to fable or lesson rather than absolute fact of history.
In the case of
the Christian faith, the Church is split between those who believe in
the Bible as the immutable Law of God and accept the literal sequence of
events from Genesis to Revelations, whilst there are those who accept
the Old Testament as a potted history of the Jewish people intertwined
with messages on the morality of the Christian Faith. Those who choose
to believe the literal version of events appear to wantonly ignore the
many inconsistencies within that extant text which, announce to the
dispassionate observer, that the Testament cannot possibly represent an
accurate account of historical sequence. For those who choose to place
the emphasis of the Christian Faith on the validity of the message in
the New Testament, whilst accepting the supposed metaphor in the Old,
leave themselves open to the just accusation that, if even a portion of
the Word of God is open to question, then why not the whole message?
It does strike as
odd that an omnipotent God who has the power to create all things within
His universe is unable to present a straight forward message of Truth,
understandable by all of his subjects, without the need for the worldly
interpretation of priests, bishops, monks, mullahs and other such
members of the Clergy. It appears an insult to the Deity to propose that
His only method of sharing Eternal Truth is through the frail faculty of
man.
The
Church, in whatever form, has always sought to present itself as the
arbiter of the Truth of God’s Will and God’s Word. Yet, if the
scriptures on which they base their claim for Divine authority are open
to question, the entire basis for their authority is also undermined.
Moreover, the history of the Churches of the world is a sad collection
of tales of abuse of power by those to whom the Churches have charged
with keeping God’s Sacred Message. The Churches have typically enriched
themselves and increased the favours bestowed on a few of their number,
rather than the whole body of the Church. This avariciousness, sometimes
barely disguised, inspires the sceptic to question the real motives of
the Church when prescribing financial remedies for their members’ moral
laxity. In all of the major world religions the complex collection of
rites and worship routines now in place are far removed from the
original teaching of their supposed founder’s message.
It is a truism
that Morality has never exalted one group of humans over another.
Morality has no arbitrary rules on what should and shouldn’t be eaten,
which days of the week are for labour or rest, which people should marry
or love each other. Morality has no desire to decide what people do in
their private sexual relations. It has no desire to dictate whether
one’s time should be spent in a particular enterprise and condemns no
man for desiring to acquire knowledge. Morality, ultimately seeks to do
the least harm possible.
In conclusion, as
religion prescribes a set of regular contributions in the form of time
and money to the institutions through which they spread their message, I
can see no benefit in following the religious life over a moral one.
The obvious
question that arises is, how does one live a moral life without the
guidance of religious or other moral leaders? The answer to that, has to
be to attempt to live one’s life at all times according to the time
honoured rule, adhered to and respected by almost all human cultures
throughout history: treat others as one would be treated.
Further Reading
A history of God
- Karen Armstrong
Love, Sex and
Tragedy - Simon Goldhill
The Republic -
Plato
The Christians
and the fall of Rome – Edward Gibbons
The Age of Reason
– Thomas Paine
