Morality sums up justice, mercy, compassion, respect and love and how they are binding.

Morality is studied in three parts.

Part one is descriptive morality and it is about what people believe to be moral. It describes moral behaviour or behaviour that aims to be moral.

Part two is normative or prescriptive morals which asks if people have the right morals. It warns that good intentions are not enough.

Part three is meta-ethics which seeks to use God and other ideas to explain what ought or moral right actually mean. The reverse is explaining what ought-not and moral wrong or sin mean. It is philosophical and is about the brain work and the definitions.

There are three kinds of arguments for God being truly real and truly loving from morality.

First the formal moral argument says that you need a God to command what is just or good otherwise there is no duty or need to worry about them at all. 

The second is the perfectionist moral argument which says that without a God guiding and protecting and rewarding us, morality is too hard to do. This argues that morality can exist without God but for a high standard you need him and you need adequate knowledge of him.

The third is based on assuming that we should be moral for though this world is unloving and unfair there is an afterlife where all imbalances will be addressed.

Let us look at the formal. 

Religion when it says morality comes from God is saying that God is loving and kid and merciful and fair but these are not good in themselves. They are only good because God has them. So if you are merciful you must be merciful for no reason other than that God is. You want to mirror him and glorify him. You want to show him and not yourself. You want to be the image of the goodness of God. This is nonsense for it denies that any pleasure or good consequences or intrinsic moral value is enough. It must be all about God. You just have to love for God loves. Or be merciful. And so on. It makes no sense to say that sacrificing a baby is good if God says so.  Yet the believers tell you that without God you have no reason to not sacrifice the baby!  You cannot win.

The argument that morality is a set of commands and you cannot have a command without a commander who really has the ultimate authority to make the commands is really a fancy way of saying that even if right and wrong are real, commanding them is what matters. It is not far off the arbitrariness we have just looked at.  It cloaks morality in a robe of superiority and intimidation and that is not going to help.  A moral code that puts you off is hardly a treasure.  It builds a wall between you and others.

If something is not binding all the commanding on earth, Heaven or Hell cannot make it bind.  We feel a command around 1 and 1 being 2 and despite it not being a command it is still binding. Same with morality.

What matters for God and morality?  For religion, God on the personal level as commander matters rather than what he commands.  To claim this aspect matters is to say that hitting a baby does not matter in comparison.  What matters is not the hitting but if God is okay with it or not.  That is an inhuman way to look at it.

If God’s approval is what makes a good act good then this is incoherent.  It is too arbitrary.  Remember God is being arbitrary and so are we when we chose to follow what a God like that says.  What if he approved of devil worship instead of God worship?  Would that make it right and sensible? 

Any argument that if you deny there is a moral God then you cannot call anything evil suffers from this problem: we tend to call something evil some time after it happens when we see that it cannot be something that any goodness or any good being would tolerate.

The second, perfectionist, is a non-argument for God pretending to be an argument.  You cannot use God as a prop even to get people to be more moral.  It shows little faith in them.  And if non-belief makes your morals a bit low it does not mean that over all it is

The claim that God is perfect seems circular. It seems to be saying, “God is perfect for God is perfect as a God”. Or, “God is perfect for God is perfect at being God.” Actually it would not be circular. If he were perfectly life-affirming and life-preserving that simply describes a fact. He does nothing that undermines or harms life. But if you say God morally should be these things you end up with a circle.
God is like a perfect painting according to some standard but that says nothing about whether the standard is binding morally, if it is fair or loving.

The third will lead to somebody who has nothing but horrors and pain in life focusing too much on the next.  Plus it could be just though it does not look like it to beat up a child for it is part of the plan for the next life.  Justice is not an act in this scheme but a prolonged reality.  It is a wheel with many spokes.

All of the arguments attack those who doubt that a morally reliable God exists.  It accuses them of doing witting and unwitting harm.  This is unsafe for most religion followers.  And for all agnostics and atheists.  It does not help the devout for it automatically paints them as likely to be feigning faith for the prestige. A morality that actually or potentially - it does not matter which - invites opposition to the rights of unbelievers in God is not a morality.

Religious morality is built on lies about our free will which God gave us supposedly.  He gave it to let us be responsible for what we do be it good or evil.  The claim that if we have free will and God should strip us of it in order to stop us going too far, perhaps destroying each other, is said to be advocating a grave evil. So it is more evil to take it from us even for a while to stop us than to let us kill each other!

Today, most of us prefer an "ethic" of choice rather than traditional morality.  Persuading somebody not to harm another is compatible with respecting that person’s right to choose. You are asking them to uphold the dignity of their freedom and use it correctly. God, if he exists, is responsible for the evil we do for he does not do anything to persuade us to rethink. Gentle persuasion is not persuasion but a weak effort.  He would be more responsible than you.

If you hold morality is not about laws but about goals then what?  Consequentialism is concerned with the goals.  Virtue-based morality puts the focus on rules.  Let us get hypothetical.  This leads to the hideous notion that if, say, it is your duty to thank God you must do it even if the Devil says he will torture the whole world to death and can actually do it.  You may say the Devil is doing the evil not you so you deny responsibility.  Yet you are responsible.  While people agonise you are smug in your virtue. Your example can be adultery or theft or some other violation of morality rather than being churlish to God.  It makes no difference.

If God has authority to command morality and should be obeyed what if he tells you to worship Satan?  This seems absurd.  But if God has a plan this is hypothetically possible.  If God is real he may be asking it of you if not me. 

God's plan would be an iceberg.  The devil worship could be the tip.  It all comes together. The tip is all you see and the wonder of the rest is obscured and unknown. 

But why do we worship Satan then?  Perhaps it is just right for God says so?  Or perhaps external factors make the worship necessarily.  It could be like how you may have to murder your innocent baby to stop him crying as the invaders pass by your house.  You don't want their attention and them coming in to slay the twenty or so people inside.

We have no way of knowing either way.  Or of knowing that God cares if we think one or the other.  Or if knowing if the person who preaches one or the other, or both, cares.  All that matters according to such thinking is that we do as we are told.  The lack of concern for educating us and teaching us why it is right clips our wings if we wish to fly to a place of higher wisdom and a life that is more productive for ourselves and others. We cannot mature and that means that soon we will get fed up with moral edicts.

Also it could be both this divine command factor and the external as well.  He can do both at the one time.

To act when you don't know means half of it is about saying, "God must be obeyed when arbitrary" and the other half is saying "God must be obeyed when he commands what is shocking and horrible for it only seems evil from where I am sitting."  Neither of those on their own is good.  And if that is not bad enough we have found a way to own them both.

The point is that people force God into what they want morality to be while he is not going to give us the kind of morality we want. Bibles go as far as to say God is guilty of this forcing himself!

Religion gives a religious definition of human nature and that is what it is thinking of when it blames human nature not itself for harms!  For example, a human being is made in the image of God and meant to live up to that image.  The human is connected to God.  So no matter how much harm religious people do, religion will claim to be a solution.  This is extremely unconvincing.  We can prove that we have nothing that some animal out there does not have.  Dogs clearly show that their owners are gods to them.  We can prove that there are flaws in our "design".  But to concentrate on a religious theory that dismisses the damage we do because of and within and with religion is reprehensible.

Jesus spoke of how in the gospel of John that anyone who commits sin is a slave to sin and warned that he is the light and people will hate him for he will show them and others their evil.  Slavery is slavery whether it lasts for five minutes or five decades. He told the apostles that the world will hate them as it hates him.  Religion likes to say that it regards evil as serious but argues that we must never give up trying to expose and combat it.  The gospels say that Jesus has tied its main instigator Satan and that he has overcome it with his blood that he shed to atone and heal sin.

From this we see,

Jesus is saying sin is like a spirit that knows what it is doing and can control people and even fake rewards for them to keep them motivated.

He is saying that Satan is not the prince of evil, yet he says that elsewhere in the gospel.  Evil is its own prince.

Also, if Jesus has tied up evil and Satan it does not inherently matter if we do nothing about it.

And if sin is a slavemaster of course it is going to make the sinner hate anybody who challenges it or who has the power to forgive and heal it.

We all know that many sinners are nice even as they sin.  To be asked to believe they hate you is going to lead to many hating them and attacking them.

Hypocrites rise to power in Christianity and their flocks look the other way at their duplicity.  Those who hate Christianity and its founder do not do so for they are good.  They see grave harms.  Jesus's claim that he and his disciples and the message would be hated for being good might happen but we see no major problem of it or huge evidence of it.  Cult leaders gaslight by demonising critics for they have lies to protect.

The reality is that people know less about defending morality and explaining it than they let on.  God and religion and especially Jesus give the problem oxygen.  They have put it out of control so much and so often.


No Copyright