Is religion the source of ethics, morality and law?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:20 am
There is nothing remarkable about the wisdom the bible contains even when it does get basic morality right, which isn’t very often: not committing murder, theft, lying, etc. - these are the very low-hanging fruit of basic human kindness. Every ancient code of law, moral fable and myth manages to get this right as well, both in cultures that are older than the Israelites and unconnected to the Israelites. What the bible doesn’t do a good job with is explaining the tough stuff: how should we treat our slaves and should we have them at all? The bible advocates beating one’s slaves, but not enough to actually kill them. How should we treat women – are they our equals, near equals, chattel property or near chattel property? The bible consistently comes down on the “chattel property” side of the spectrum, in contrast to other ancient cultures where the status of women was higher, and in some cases such as ancient Sumeria and Minoan civilization, much higher. How should we treat people who are different from ourselves such as homosexuals? The bible is unequivocally pro-murder where homosexuality is concerned. How should we treat our neighbors? For a culture that supposedly has a direct line to God Almighty, the Israelites have historically done a very poor job of getting along with their neighbors, often killing them according to the Israelites own biblical traditions. If your religion has to have apologists who make excuses for your god ordering the massacre of children, there’s a good chance your religion is a lie, and the bible is full of god killing children or supposedly ordering it done (Numbers 5:11-21, 2 Kings 15:16, 1 Samuel 15:3, Psalms 137:8-9, Exodus 11:5, etc.). If your religion's apologists have to quote other bible verses in order to justify such wicked behavior, chances are they’re rationalizing and not being rational.
The situation doesn’t improve when we get to the new testament; the moral highlight of the new testament, the absolute best it achieves, is the Golden Rule. Yet we do not need god to explain from where the Golden Rule originated. In the ancient Middle East, the Golden Rule dates back to at least 1780 BCE with the principle of Lex talionis found in the Code of Hammurabi and, more empathetically, in the "eye for a fine" compensation principle found in the code of Ur-Nammu, dating to circa 2000 BCE. The Golden Rule is also found in ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, China, etc. In religious form, the Golden Rule is first found in Buddhism, dating to 563 BCE, and Hinduism, dating to approximately 1000 BCE. Even in Jewish culture, the Golden Rule dates to at least 50 BCE with the teachings of Rabbi Simeon ben Hillel the Elder. Some versions of the Golden Rule are far more eloquent and insightful that that of Jesus: treat others not as you would wish to be treated, but how they would wish to be treated. The deepest, most profound moral teaching that Jesus ever supposedly preached was plagiarised from earlier and better sources.
When one understands that the bible is not the source for human morality, law and ethics, the bible is left with nothing more than an unsupported and extraordinary claim for the redemption of a fall that never occurred. We know that the fall never occurred because there is overwhelming evidence of humanity dating back approximately 200,000 years, having evolved from earlier human ancestors. The bible gets basic facts of science wrong – geology, biology, cosmology – leaving it an unreliable witness to relate a legendary fall that makes no logical sense in the first place, and yet is supposedly the genesis of the most important story ever told. Further the whole story was stolen from the ancient Sumerians with their myth of Dilmun, a story dating back to before 3000 BCE, far older than the Israelites whom date to no later than 1200 BCE. The Sumerians were the original source of the myths of the flood as well, the Epic of Gilgamesh, dating to 1800 BCE, with earlier versions dating to over 2000 BCE. When your religion steals its foundational mythology from earlier cultures, then it isn’t the authentic word of god.
If the bible were the authentic word of god, one would expect its followers to be demonstrably more ethical, moral and law-abiding than unbelievers and followers of other religions. But overwhelming scientific evidence shows that the best predictor of moral behavior isn’t one’s religion, it’s their empathy; sociopaths will behave immorally regardless of their professed beliefs while people with healthy, normal levels of empathy will generally treat one another well, again, regardless of their professed beliefs. Furthermore, sociopaths are as likely to use their religion to justify their bad behavior as they are to be “scared straight” by the threat of divine wrath. An empathetic Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist is likely to be moral whereas a sociopathic Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist is quite likely to be immoral.
So, if western religion has no legitimate claim to be the source of morality, then what does? Behavioral psychology points us to the answer: even small children understand all too well how they would like to be treated and they quickly learn that when they treat others differently from this, then there are direct consequences, many of them bad. We have evolved to be social creatures; we do more than merely survive, we thrive, precisely because we are generally able to communicate, learn from one another, cooperate, get along, and generally be decent to one another. So: why does immoral, unethical, law breaking behavior persist? For starters, for most of our history we lived in small bands; we frequently had to kill our neighbors in order for our tribe to survive, so where we are empathetic to others, we are more empathetic to the members of our own tribe. Sociopathic and psychopathic behavior persists because being quick and willing to kill can have some evolutionary advantages that parallel the usual heuristic of treating others well. We are all biased towards ourselves and are quick to see superficial differences such as gender, skin color, weight, sexual preferences, culture, language, political views, religious preferences, etc as “other” and therefore not worthy of our empathy. This was an advantage when we lived in small groups, as we did for over 190,000 years; it’s not such an advantage when we live in large societies, as we have for about 10,000 years.
So, where do we go from here? Do we continue to allow our petty squabbles, often motivated by our superficially different races, cultures, languages, values, etc drive us towards extinction? Will we continue to consume our resources in a unsustainable fashion? Will we make the apocalyptic fantasies of our various religions self-fulfilling prophecies as we compete with one another for ever scarcer resources in a world where our tools are ever better, ever more complex and ever more effective in killing people? Or will we evolve?
The situation doesn’t improve when we get to the new testament; the moral highlight of the new testament, the absolute best it achieves, is the Golden Rule. Yet we do not need god to explain from where the Golden Rule originated. In the ancient Middle East, the Golden Rule dates back to at least 1780 BCE with the principle of Lex talionis found in the Code of Hammurabi and, more empathetically, in the "eye for a fine" compensation principle found in the code of Ur-Nammu, dating to circa 2000 BCE. The Golden Rule is also found in ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, China, etc. In religious form, the Golden Rule is first found in Buddhism, dating to 563 BCE, and Hinduism, dating to approximately 1000 BCE. Even in Jewish culture, the Golden Rule dates to at least 50 BCE with the teachings of Rabbi Simeon ben Hillel the Elder. Some versions of the Golden Rule are far more eloquent and insightful that that of Jesus: treat others not as you would wish to be treated, but how they would wish to be treated. The deepest, most profound moral teaching that Jesus ever supposedly preached was plagiarised from earlier and better sources.
When one understands that the bible is not the source for human morality, law and ethics, the bible is left with nothing more than an unsupported and extraordinary claim for the redemption of a fall that never occurred. We know that the fall never occurred because there is overwhelming evidence of humanity dating back approximately 200,000 years, having evolved from earlier human ancestors. The bible gets basic facts of science wrong – geology, biology, cosmology – leaving it an unreliable witness to relate a legendary fall that makes no logical sense in the first place, and yet is supposedly the genesis of the most important story ever told. Further the whole story was stolen from the ancient Sumerians with their myth of Dilmun, a story dating back to before 3000 BCE, far older than the Israelites whom date to no later than 1200 BCE. The Sumerians were the original source of the myths of the flood as well, the Epic of Gilgamesh, dating to 1800 BCE, with earlier versions dating to over 2000 BCE. When your religion steals its foundational mythology from earlier cultures, then it isn’t the authentic word of god.
If the bible were the authentic word of god, one would expect its followers to be demonstrably more ethical, moral and law-abiding than unbelievers and followers of other religions. But overwhelming scientific evidence shows that the best predictor of moral behavior isn’t one’s religion, it’s their empathy; sociopaths will behave immorally regardless of their professed beliefs while people with healthy, normal levels of empathy will generally treat one another well, again, regardless of their professed beliefs. Furthermore, sociopaths are as likely to use their religion to justify their bad behavior as they are to be “scared straight” by the threat of divine wrath. An empathetic Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist is likely to be moral whereas a sociopathic Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist is quite likely to be immoral.
So, if western religion has no legitimate claim to be the source of morality, then what does? Behavioral psychology points us to the answer: even small children understand all too well how they would like to be treated and they quickly learn that when they treat others differently from this, then there are direct consequences, many of them bad. We have evolved to be social creatures; we do more than merely survive, we thrive, precisely because we are generally able to communicate, learn from one another, cooperate, get along, and generally be decent to one another. So: why does immoral, unethical, law breaking behavior persist? For starters, for most of our history we lived in small bands; we frequently had to kill our neighbors in order for our tribe to survive, so where we are empathetic to others, we are more empathetic to the members of our own tribe. Sociopathic and psychopathic behavior persists because being quick and willing to kill can have some evolutionary advantages that parallel the usual heuristic of treating others well. We are all biased towards ourselves and are quick to see superficial differences such as gender, skin color, weight, sexual preferences, culture, language, political views, religious preferences, etc as “other” and therefore not worthy of our empathy. This was an advantage when we lived in small groups, as we did for over 190,000 years; it’s not such an advantage when we live in large societies, as we have for about 10,000 years.
So, where do we go from here? Do we continue to allow our petty squabbles, often motivated by our superficially different races, cultures, languages, values, etc drive us towards extinction? Will we continue to consume our resources in a unsustainable fashion? Will we make the apocalyptic fantasies of our various religions self-fulfilling prophecies as we compete with one another for ever scarcer resources in a world where our tools are ever better, ever more complex and ever more effective in killing people? Or will we evolve?