The relationship between religion and morality 

Key Words  - 

Divine Command revelation strong weak  Euthyphro dilemma omnipotence omnibenevolence modified arbitrariness injustices Adams benevolent nature Baggini another question

Dependence, independence, autonomy, theonomy, heteronomy, divine command ethics, atheism, anti-theism, moral argument, Westboro Baptist Church, terror, Quiverfull, biblical parenting. 

Dependence, independence, autonomy, theonomy, heteronomy 

Where does morality come from? There are three basic answers to this question, that morality is either autonomous, heteronomous, or theonomous. This means:

Autonomous:  that morality is decided by the individual moral agent; that person has moral autonomy and can make moral decisions for themselves using reason, conscience or intuition. Moral decisions are not dictated by outside authorities such as the church or scriptures.

Heteronomous; heteronomy is the opposite of autonomy; it is where an outside force dictates how the moral agent should conduct themselves; the moral agent submits fully to the decisions of another group. For example, a Catholic who follows the teachings of the Vatican or a Muslim who follows Shari’ah law, but where in both cases, they do not use their own reason.

Theonomous: Morality is dependent on God – one cannot exist without the othertheonomy is where a believer uses their reason and revelation through scripture or the teachings of the church to arrive at moral decisions. For Paul Tillich, it is the perfect unity of one’s own outlook on life with God’s law for human life. 

Context

What IS ethics and how does it relate to religion was addressed by Immanuel Kant who suggested we should think rationally and autonomusly and not deend on revelation. Paul Tillich developed Kants typology of the way religion and morality relate into three forms.  First, the idea that Morality stems from a universal source (God) is called THEONOMOUS ETHICS.  The idea that Moral decisions are decided by the moral agent (ourselves) independently of religion is called AUTONOMOUS ETHICS: It starts with criticisms of religious morality and the idea of objectively binding laws. We have conscience and moral obligation that can be used without God.  The idea that morality is defined by an external force (laws, religion, cultural norms) is called HETERONOMOUS ETHICS – 

1.       Heteronomy – principle of action being influenced by external force

• a.       Heteronomous system = top-down ethical system -> following of moral principles based on pre-determined rules

• b.       Most prominent religious application = divine command – God who makes command is omnipotent + necessarily existent for there to be moral knowledge

•                                                                i.      Must comply + absolutely abide with God-given knowledge

• 2.       Theonomy – religious law being applicable to social law

• a.       Social standards should be based on written religious commands, e.g. Sharia Law

•                                                                i.      Sharia Law permits slavery, allows sex with slaves + forbids ‘idolatry’ – Islamic law foundation forms base of ISIS’ enslavement of Yazidi women

• b.       Many of God’s commands don’t appear in themselves to be moral

•                                                                i.      Book of Covenant – ‘do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk’ -> no moral status + would trivialise God’s law-making authority

• 1.       Biblical parenting applied by Quiverfull movement =/= QoL

• c.       Genesis story of Abraham + Isaac – God calls on Abraham to offer son as ‘burnt offering’ -> excuses murder

•                                                                i.      Kierkegaard tried to excuse this – obedience to societal law would’ve hindered fulfilment of God’s law

• 1.       John Habgood retorted, ‘if morality is supposed to be universal, can it really be discounted?’

Key Quotes

"Religion and morality are not synonymous. Morality does not depend on religion, but rather is grounded in autonomy and reason." - Immanuel Kant 

"The pure moral law is independent of any empirical motives or particular inclinations, including religious beliefs." - Immanuel Kant 

"I am persuaded that the license allowed in religious controversy is one great cause of the gradual loss of religious belief. But I do not think that the dogmas and theories of theology are of any value unless they are intimately bound up with the moral principles and practical wisdom applicable to human life." - Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian (1927) 

"It is not true, as some people think, that morality is just the system of rules that religions teach us. There is no connection between moral goodness and religious faith. The connection is the other way round: some religious people are moral, and some are not." - A.C. Grayling, The God Argument (2013)

‘if morality is supposed to be universal, can it really be discounted?’  John Habgood

Divine Command Theory

DCT

Theonomous morality can be divided into three parts:

1. God is the creator of moral goodness; this means that all goodness in the universe comes directly from God: nothing can be good apart from God. This is usually a heteronomous view. We will consider this when looking at Divine Command Theory.

2. God is the source of moral knowledge; that all moral knowledge in the universe comes from God, but that we must use reason, intuition, conscience or inspiration to discover it. This is a more theonomous view and is similar to Aquinas’ Natural Law.

3. God is the motivation for doing good; that people do good things to be united with God in the afterlife where all good will be rewarded and all evils punished. This is very similar to Immanuel Kant’s moral argument.

• How good is defined: for theories that fall into this category, good is what is commanded by God and evil is what is forbidden by God. Divine Command Theory is a non-naturalist theory, because it holds that the source of ‘good’ is not in nature at all, but is in a supernatural being (a being who is literally ‘above nature’) – God. The reasoning behind DCT depends on a Classically Theist view of God: because God is omnibenevolent (all loving and all good) this means he is the source of goodness in the world, and by extension, everything that he forbids must be evil. St Thomas Aquinas develops this idea in his Gradations of Good Theory/ the Analogy of Attribution

• Aquinas says that God is good and that we have good in us because we are pale imitations of god. The good in us isn’t as big as the good in God, but it is there because God is good.

• In summary, then, Divine Command Theory is based both on God’s moral character and God’s moral commands, and these commands are understood as statements of God’s will.

• Which scholars and theories subscribe to DCT:

• Religious Legalism: a legalistic/fundamentalist religious viewpoint that the ethical commands given in the Bible are deontological rules that cannot be broken. Legalistic branches of Judaism uphold the rules of the Torah, including the strict code of morality and ritual cleanliness found in Leviticus. Christians are more likely to uphold the Decalogue of Exodus 20 and the teachings of Jesus such as the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount.

• Natural Moral Law: NML is deontological, and constitutes DCT because what God has commanded in the scriptures forms legalistic secondary precepts that cannot be broken. Furthermore C16th Manualism contributed to the legalistic nature of NML, by monks compiling large volumes of secondary precepts, based on God’s will in the scriptures and church tradition.

• How DCT perspectives make moral decisions: use of scripture, consultations of Church tradition, prayer and advice from religious leaders.

• The opposite view to DCT is moral autonomy.

• 
  

Key Quotes 

'The religions of the book are distinctive, and perhaps unique, in postulating a personal deity who in each case makes a set of moral demands on its worshippers.' Grayling A. C., ‘What is Good’ p59.  

Modified Divine Command Thery MDCT- Robert Adams

• Robert Adams has given a “modified divine command theory” which seeks to defeat Socrates’ arguments. He states that “it is logically possible that God should command cruelty for its own sake… but unthinkable that God should do so.” When believers say that ‘God is good’, they mean that ‘God is kind’. Therefore, cruel actions would conflict with what believers assume about God and so for those of faith are not a genuine possibility for God.

Challenges from atheist and anti-theist perspectives- the Euthyphro dilemma 

THe Euthyphro Dilema

1.       The Euthyphro dilemma

a.       X is good because God commands it – i.e. morality = dependent on will of God

b.       Consistent with doctrine in that God’s commands establish what is good, and nothing can be good unless God commands it

• 1.       Plato – ‘is the holy loved by the gods b/c it is holy, or is it holy b/c it’s loved by the gods?

• 2.       God commands X because it’s good – morality = independent of religion

• a.       Portrays God as messenger of already-existent goods

• b.       Moral knowledge =/= come directly from God; negating His ‘wholly goodness’

•                                                                i.      God conforms to standard of goodness He communicates

• c.       Moral values =/= established by God’s law, perhaps contradicting with traditional theistic image of God

• d.       Morality = independent yardstick – any point in worshipping God?

• 3.       X is good because God commands it – morality = dependent on God’s will

• a.       Portrays God as direct source of moral knowledge + guarantor of moral goodness

• b.       Consistent with divine command, where God’s commands establish what is good

•                                                                i.      Nothing can be good unless God commands it

• c.       Risks making God vague – saying ‘God is good’ is just saying ‘God does what He commands’

• d.       Moral law shown as arbitrary; morality dependent on God’s whims

• e.       Paradox – if God commanded someone to kill redheads, would it be morally right?

•                                                                i.      Say He’d never command it -> admitting God = subject to natural law of reason, =/= omnipotence

•                                                              ii.      Say He would command it -> God = maleficent > benevolent

• 
  

Challenges from atheist and anti-theist perspectives- Dawkins, RA Sharpe and Others 

Dawkins RELIGION OPPOSES MORALITY:

oHumanity would be better off without religion and belief in God. Religious positions on morality represent a dangerous form of indoctrination, especially when taught to children.

oReligious believers follow the moral codes imposed on them because of fear of punishment – ‘sucking up to God’.

oAdvocates morality based on reason and values autonomy. Moral choices are motivated by evolution as previous choices have allowed organisms to survive, so morality can be understood without God.

oTeaching children to live a strict religious life can be seen as child abuse.

oTERRORISM – all religion is a huge motivation. Religious people obey strict codes because they want to score points in heaven, and this view is seen to be at the root of some terrorist actions. He feels sorry for people suffering because of their religion.

2. Dawkins – not solely independent, but morality = autonomous from religion

a. Independence still sees God as necessary to communicate good; Dawkins suggested religion + morality = polar opposites

b. Morality evolves, not given by God + we’re not dependent on religion to teach it

c. Dawkins – for good people to do evil things, takes religion

d. Faith = ‘indulgence of irrationality that nourishes extremism, division and terror’

i. Rise of religiously motivated terrorism, e.g. Islamic extremism

ii. Westboro Baptist Church underpin xenophobia with Biblical doctrine

1. ‘men committed shameful acts with other men…’

iii. Misleading education, i.e. teaching creationism equal to evolution

Dawkins CRITICISMS:

oIgnores role of religion as a force for good – driving force for peace, charities to help famine and poverty.

oAssumes religious morality is stuck in the past and is not evolving, but many religious views on moral issues are slowly changing.

oVery selective in his examples – focuses on religious extremism (Christian and Muslim) and generalises it to all religion.

oIgnores the fact that many believers obey God out of love, loyalty, and respect – they want to be more virtuous to benefit life on earth, not just to earn a place in heaven.

Friedrich Nietzsche 

3. Friedrich Nietzsche – religious belief -> admiration of suffering

a. Religion-induced ‘slave morality’ vs. autonomous man

i. Autonomous man = detached from religious belief system to develop own ‘independent’ morality

"When religion is thought of as an instrument of morality, it becomes a mere convention and loses its binding force, since morality is not self-evidently related to it, and it can always be superseded by considerations of utility or expediency." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (1886) 

RS SHARPE - MORAL CASE AGAINST RELIGIOUS BELIEF:

We need to make a clear distinction between religion and morality because religious institutions have no necessary authority on moral matters (religions can get it wrong). People follow religious guidelines for their own sake, not for the sake of being moral.

Focuses on RC – disagrees on what practices they see as immoral. Argues that God is not interested in whether people use artificial contraception instead of natural methods.

Moral arguments for the existence and nonexistence of God- response to Euthyphro Dilemma

Moral Arguments

There are differnt types of moral arguments:

oAquinas developed a moral argument from divine perfection in the fourth of his five ways

Kants Moral Argument

KANT’S MORAL ARGUMENT:

oReason is needed to be moral (humans are rational and can discover moral rules through reason). Not incompatible with a belief in God as him and humanity use same moral principles.

oHumanity ought to strive towards moral perfection – humans have a good will which is the only correct moral intention. Striving to achieve summum bonum is acting out of good will.

oHumans are not omnipotent so although we can strive towards virtue, we can’t reach summum bonum as it is not within our power.

oThere must be a rational being who (creator and ruler of the world) has power to bring moral worth and happiness together. Reward for happiness is found in the afterlife.

oClear to him that we are moral beings with a sense of duty and we should believe in God because of morality, not logic.

William Lane Craigs Moral Argument 

William Lane Craig is an American analytical philosopher and Christian theologian. He states that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma. Craig talks about an alternative to the dilemma and the Euthyphro is false. God wills something because He is good. It is God’s own nature which determines what is good. He is good by nature. God is compassionate, just, loving. God’s commandment to us reflects his nature which is good. God in himself is the good who is the source of our moral duties.  Craig develops a form of the moral argument as a syllogism as follows

P1 If God does not exist Objective Moral Values and Duties do not exist

P2 Objective Moral Values and Duties do exist 

C: God exists

He argues P2 is obvious unless like the Buddhist or other Anti-Realists that moral you deny.  

Søren Kierkegaard:

Is right for a person to abandon what they know as intrinsically good in order to fulfil the demands of faith?

For Kierkegaard, duties cannot be justified in terms of social norms.

Abraham’s would-be sacrifice of Isaac is unacceptable in terms of social norms, but it requires a “teleological suspension of the ethical”.

Abraham’s duty to obey God’s command is higher than his social duty not to kill an innocent person and his personal commitment to his son.

He cannot give an ethical justification of his act in terms of social norms, but must simply obey the divine command.

The distinction between good and evil is ultimately dependent not on social norms but on God.

Criticisms

If faith is the highest virtue, then this shows a capricious, jealous and malevolent God.

Why would God cause us to aim for a level of faith that is beyond human understanding of morality.

Isn't morality meant to be universal?

Key Quotes

“...if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples.” (Exodus 19:5) 

“There are some whose killing God orders, either by law, or by an express command to a particular person at a particular time.” (Augustine)

“If I am liable to be sent to hell for not doing what God commands, I am thereby provided with a corrupting...motive for serving the good.” (A. McIntyre)

“God, if he exists, is the greatest relativist of them all.” (J. Baggini)

Contemporary focuses.

Westboro Baptist Church

Natural disasters and 9/11 are divine retribution for America’s support and tolerance of homosexuality. 

Strong belief in God’s wrath and hatred of homosexuals – support their view using selected Bible quotes. God only chooses a few communities to be saved and most people will therefore go to hell.  

Limited following but a lot of negative publicity.

Religion and Terror

Nowadays, views on homosexuality a 

Conservative movements 

Quiverfull

Conservative Evangelical Christian group – against artificial contraception and abortion. 

Having children is a blessing from God and the purpose of sex is reproduction – any attempt at family planning (natural or artificial) is evil. It is a Christian duty to have as many children as possible to create an ‘army of God’. God would not give them more children than they can cope with, so all family planning should be left to him.

Patriarchal movement – women are defined by the fact they have wombs and can bear children, woman means ‘womb man’, woman’s role is to mother and nurture children throughout their life, dying in childbirth is a noble act. 

Biblical Parenting

lity a 

Possible Exam Questions

Section A

Section B

Section C