Replies

I wrote this as a post to another thread, but it's a contentious and timely debate topic, so it needs a thread of its own.

ping!

This is a contentious topic, especially in our "politically correct" times.

When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."

The words of the Old Testament prophet, Isaiah, comes to mind. To paraphrase: Woe to those who call light, darkness and darkness light; good evil and evil good ...

I've read Ayn Rand and was impressed with her insight and seemily prophetic predictions of human nature. I think she did not address everything and explained only part of what was going on. I understand that she was an athiest, so she left out the "spiritual" dimension, which is quite a driving force in culture, ethics, etc.

I don't see how we can escape the "spiritual" or "religious" or whatever. Communism tried to squash it and it didn't work.

Also, our founding Fathers (and Mothers to be PC) did acknowledge the Creator, freedom of religion, and Deist like Jefferson, though he did not believe in miracle, had a lot of respect for the Bible.

I know, I'm rambling...

Ayn Rand's ethics is clearly also what America's founding fathers had in mind when writing the founding documents that recognized and moved to preserve individual freedom -- the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

I am a fan of Rand's but I only partially agree. Certainly at least some of the founders were religious 'God-fearing' men. Rand's ideas of morality also went far beyond the political areas of the documents.

I have to interject here with some points of contention.

1. I just want to start by saying that I take issue with the differentiation you make between religious and rational. I assume that you did not intentionally mean in that fashion but if you are a fan of Ayn Rand as I am then you will understand that words MEAN things and that the way we use them has meaning. The way you present it insinuates that your options are religious morality and rational ethics...therefore religion is not rational.

While I would be the first to admit that there are certainly some highly irrational "believers" in religion who care not a whit about the intellectual evidences and analysis behind certain religious doctrines and belief systems...there are also those who believe for who the science of religious thought and reason is an integral part of their religious belief systems. Theosophy and theology are very real intellectual and rational pursuits not whimsical fancies pursued by mindless masses.

2. I have never agreed with the notion that Aristotles “ethics” are free of religious encumbrances. Aristotles logic has one ultimate flaw. There is a reason why people, as a whole, tend to admire and respect certain people more than others. The recognition of those qualities as “good” “worthwhile” “respectable” is still an internal non-rational process. Ayn Rand’s philosophy butts up against the same problem. It is all well and good to talk about having rational value system. In the end though Ayn Rand could never and never did satisfactorily explain why her notion of right and wrong existed. She had a very clear moral code. Just because she was an atheist does not mean that her moral code was not based on religion. Ayn Rand I would argue was a deeply religious woman DESPITE her proclaimed atheism. She held deep convictions about what was right and what was wrong and built a philosophical frame work around them to explain their value in rational terms. But the core notion that what she stood for was RIGHT versus what she was against as being WRONG did not come from a rational judgment…they came from a different kind of understanding. Ayn Rand herself concedes that her belief system is in a way a religious conviction in The Fountainhead. She just denies a maker…she fails to explain however the glaring whole in her argument. She believes and utters on more than one occasion in her writings that there is EVIL. She just seems to dismiss it as some human failing. The fact is that despite Ayn Rands atheism she had a very clear moral clarity about right and wrong. Her philosophical framework was built around the understanding not visa versa. The chicken as it were did not come before the egg. That belief of right and wrong I would argue and I daresay many will agree comes from a deity. A supreme being. That is why we as a people have moral clarity and know the difference between right and wrong. Not because of a rational code of ethics…but because there is such a thing as good and evil. And if there is a good and an evil then there is clearly a god and an anti-god.

3. I was a one time agnostic and a huge believer in Ayn Rand. I am now an avowed Christian and still admire Ayn Rand. I nevertheless have to partly disagree with your statement that Ayn Rand nailed down exactly the philosophy that the founders believed in. Most of the founders were deists. Ayn Rand was not. Most of the founders believed in the morality of freedoms as coming from God. Ayn Rand did not. There was a serious difference that would have very real practical effects. Ayn Rand…despite her philosophies appeal had some glaring prejudices against people of faith. She did not understand people of faith and as a result her explanations of the reasons behind why people have religious faith are seriously flawed.

4. And finally, your assertion that one religions morality is another religions immorality is patently false. Quite the contrary. While it is true that certain religious sects may have varying opinions as to why dancing or wearing skirt or drinking may or may not be a sin. The basic principles that underlie a moral code remain extremely similar. Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not commit adultery….Each of them agrees in some measure or fashion that these are moral and GOOD value to have and that to break them is evil. Even Islam despite its extreme violence adheres to these principles. It just builds in a framework wherein followers are excused from perpetrating those “sins” against unbelievers…a sort of moral relativism (Killing is bad but its ok to kill an infidel because God Hates them anyway)
Regardless the point is that all religions despite their very many differences still share a certain common value of what is good and what is bad. And the basics just happen to be the same ones that atheists and agnostics share. The difference is that people of religion tend to believe that that sense of right and wrong come from God while others built philosophies around why it isn’t.

When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."
And that contradiction is evidence of serious flaws in religious moralities.

For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only ethics worthy of carrying the name "moral."

Logically, then, if we find contradictions between two systems of rational ethics in the same way that we can find contradictions between two religions, this would be evidence of serious flaws in rational ethics. If you want to be logically consistent, anyway.

So take any two distinct systems of rational ethics. In order to be distinct, either one must render judgement on a behavior where the other is silent, or they must disagree on some point (a contradiction). If they are both well-developed systems, it is doubtful that there would be many points at which one would render judgement while the other would be silent, and even enough of these would constitute somewhat of a contradiction.

The conclusion is this: if there exist two distinct philosophical systems of rational ethics, then YOU MUST ADMIT THAT RATIONAL ETHICS HAS THE SAME FLAW YOU ASCRIBED TO RELIGIOUS MORALITY.

If you want to be logically consistent, anyway.

BTW, did the Randian system agree in all points with the Aristotelian system? Just asking...

I respectfully disagree with your analysis.

Our country was founded by God-fearing men and women who wanted the freedom to worship, the freedom to choose their religion. Our founding fathers were to differing degrees devout and most, if not all, were Christians. Even Thomas Jefferson, who everyone calls a "Deist", said:

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

While Ayn Rand had many wonderful ideas about individual rights and liberty, when it comes down to morality, unless you deny the existence of God, there IS a divine moral order and there ARE commandments which we are all subject to.

So, if you say you're an Atheist, we have a different debate. If you say you believe in God, that's another story altogether.

And that contradiction is evidence of serious flaws in religious moralities.

I can honestly say that my church follows the word of God and the moral laws it requires of its members are universal moral truths based on the Word of God and Sacred Tradition. You can't honestly believe that there is no definitive right and wrong. There clearly is. There is evil and there is good. Satan is evil. God is good. And we sinners are striving to be more good than evil (hopefully) so that we may have eternal life.

Because that is the choice you have: eternal life, or eternal death.

I neglected to answer one of your questions...you asked

to explain why one culture can believe in suicide bombers as going to heaven whiel another thinks they are going to hell...

You asked that in reference to how I could state that the belief in god can be based on and lead to a religion that is founded upon rational logic.

I will answer that.

Just because two belief systems disagree on an issue does not mean that they are irrational. It does mean that one is wrong and one is not...or perhaps that both are wrong. But being wrong does not make something irrational. Look at you and I . You dont believe in religion (or at least you act like you dont so forgive me if I assume incorrectly) I believe in God. One of us is right and the other is wrong. Period. That does not mean that the one who is wrong is irrational. It does not make him insane or illogical. It jst simply means that through his own interpretation of the facts he sees before him he was wrong...incorrect. The world is full of philosiphers that wew later dismissed as wrong. It certainly did not make them wrong.

Some of the world most celbrated philosiphers were ardent Christians. Does that make them crackpots. Homer was a pagan who believed in a multitude of dieties..does that make him a freak of nature. An irrational weirdo who can tthink. I dont think so. Your position that one has to be one or the other is what I take umbrage to. Just because someone is wrong does not make them irrational. It is the same animosity that defeated Ayn Rand. She could not argue successfully against religion because ever word that came from her mouth was dripping with her contempt for it. She could not even discuss it from a objective perspective. It colors the value of her observations.

I believe you are wrong. But I dont think you are an idiot. Why must you assume that because I believe in God I must be a irrational nutscase who believes in "mystical fantasies"?

Now as for why two religions can contradict themselves and how that doesnt mean they have apposing moral perspectives.

Suicide bombing is a modern development. There isnt even any writings in the Koran about suicide bombings. It is clear in a religious context (lets speak in Judaeo-Chritianic terms) that murder is evil however.

Nevertheless even the bible offers up justifications for war. So clearly in some instances killing is not "murder" and therefor does not consitute a sin...and just so you know the original greek interpretations out of the aramaic do in fact differentiate between the act of murder and kill.

Where an action falls in that line of reasoning is a matter of interpretation. That interpretation may very well as you believe be a result of irrational behavior and belief systems. But it is not necessarily so. A person could have a very clearly thought out and very logical explanation as to why a suicide bombing is not evil. I dont doubt that the palestinians have just that. The only question is whetehr you AGREE with their reasoning.

Now as for who is right and who is wrong...That is where things get interesting.

There are muslims who believ that suicide bombing is evil because it slays innocent lives. Are they right? I would argue that since the number of people who are actually out doing suicide bombing is significantly lower then than full number of muslims thatg the majority of muslims...while happy to have their brethren kill a few infidels dont necessarily believe it is a one way ticket to paradise.

That is a matter of indoctrination...Now I could really get heavy here and start quoting the Koran surah for surah and give yu all kinds of rational reasons why I personally believe that the Koran is a false religion and why I believe it builds upon religious doctrinal turths that came before it and then perverts them to its own ends...but that is a whole seperate discussion.

The bottom line is that religious doctrine dictates that killing is wrong. It is MEN that draw the distinctions that say oh suicide bombing is fine or no its not.

But neither of those behaviors are in and of themselves necessarily irrational.

For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only ethics worthy of carrying the name "moral."

First of all, a system of values is not "AN ethics;" it is an ETHIC (singular). "Ethics" are the values themselves.

Now that the semantics are cleared up, I certainly can't debate what's "true" in your personal opinion. But a "rational ethic" is subject to the same flaws as any based on religion, for the simple reason that men are notoriously poor at judging their own rationality and its derivatives. Liberals are a prime example. They will defend their empty values to the death, firmly convinced in their own minds that their irrationality is fully justifiable. Never mind that their track record is deplorable. Never mind that the "logic" they use is valid under no construct known to man. In their minds, it makes sense, and all other lines of reasoning are hollow.

Besides, since logic is itself a construct, by what values do you form an ethic? Utilitarianism? Transcendentalism? Judeo-Christian cosmology? Ultimately, everything you know and believe come from the values formed over 2,000 years of Western thought. How do you propose to divorce them from Judeo-Christian influence?

Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a pipe dream, itself fatally flawed.

For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only ethics worthy of carrying the name "moral."

Rationality can lead to anything (hence the word: rationalize). Stalin, Mao and Genghis Khan were all supremely rational.

For all your talk about reason, you don't seem to be very good at it.

When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality." And that contradiction is evidence of serious flaws in religious moralities.

A non sequiter.

And remember, Jesus said that most people wouldn't be Christians, so if Christianity is true, a proliferation of other religions (and thus other religious moralities) is exactly what you'd expect.

For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only ethics worthy of carrying the name "moral."

But the "rational ethics" disagree with each other, and so would fall if the first quote weren't a prize piece of illogic.