The Connection Between Religion and Morality is an Illusion!

As Sam Harris said in his speech to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, we never respect stupidity in our society unless it is religious stupidity. People that believe stupid things are not necessarily stupid, though some certainly are. Nor are they necessarily lunatics, though undoubtedly some of them are.

The erroneous connection between religion and morality is the key to the animosity towards atheists. If you think it isn't a problem, or it isn't irrational, read the following comment to another blog:

LoL! So, because the Bible is old, and inconvenient, it's just some fantasy? A respected woman I know once said this, in reply to the Bible and Christianity being false:
"If I'm wrong, then what does it matter? I have taken great comfort in these teachings. And if I'm right, what will happen to you?"
Judaism should not exist at all? By what standard? If there is no God, or even the word of God passed onto us through such things as the Bible, who's to say what should and shouldn't be? When there is no clearly defined Good, and no clearly defined Evil, everything becomes acceptable. Without God, without his word, there is no evil, and there is no good. Any person could do anything that they so desired without punishment, because there is nothing to hold them to any obligation. Ask yourself why it is that you would think it is wrong to murder an innocent person. Ask yourself why it is cruel to sexualy molest young children. Without God, these things are not wrong.
"The worst thing the Devil could have done is prove he didn't exist."
Don't disbelieve in something just because it is unpopular, or inconvenient. Disbelieve something if it is false, illogical, and unfounded.

Ah, Pascal's Wager (if in a rudimentary form)! As if that argument for belief hasn't been destroyed many, MANY times over… First, which god should you believe in? You can't believe in them all. And if you are wrong you have lived the whole of the one life you get based on a lie. Is it just me, or is that not a horrible fate?

There are many things in the Bible we now take to be shockingly immoral which seem to be part of everyday life in the time that the original codices were written. Take slavery, for instance. In no place in the Bible is slavery condemned, yet a civil war in America was fought in part over this. In fact, the Bible even tells us specifically how to treat slaves and was used as an argument by the South in favor of it. I had one discussion over this where my opponent said that this was ridiculous. The passages I was quoting were based on people selling themselves into slavery voluntarily. My response: So what? Was this person suggesting that some slavery is okay and other types not? Why is this not condoned by our society? Why are there no poor houses? Congratulations are in order; she had just reduced the Bible from something heinous to something to be reviled.

The idea that religion has anything to do with being moral is a lie. How can performing acts of good be respected when they are done out of fear of punishment? How can anyone really say they are moral on the basis that if they disobey dogmatic rules they will not be rewarded in the end? As Sam Harris said, religion gives bad reasons to be good, where good reasons available.

I also agree with Harris that the only rational basis for a system of morals is a concern for the well-being and suffering of others. To say that "without God, without his word, there is no evil and there is no good" is plainly wrong. I feel good when I open the door for a disabled person. I felt outrage with the knowledge that Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds and Shiites, people that he had an obligation to protect. Yet I do not believe.

I firmly believe that murder is wrong. I also firmly believe that molesting children is immoral. In neither of these moral calculations have I invoked any deity, let alone the Christian god. According to this person's view, I should not feel that way. I should be raping, mugging, murdering with abandon. Yet I am not. If the Bible and belief in God are the sole sources of morality, then why are responses to moral and ethical dilemmas virtually the same whether you are a believer or non-believer? This has been studied in great detail, and those interested should consult Marc Hauser's Moral Minds.

This misconception that only a belief in God can make us good must be dispelled. I don't disbelieve because it is unpopular (and just when was Christianity unpopular in the last century?) or inconvenient. I disbelieve because any religion is false, illogical and unfounded, not to mention irrational.

A modern moral dilemma

I was making that hellaceous drive in to work one morning listening to CBC radio (sometimes they have very interesting topics) instead of the iPod. A man with the Huntington's disease gene was being interviewed. Not about his disease, which in all likelihood he will suffer from later in life, but on the use of genetic screening to choose children without that gene. The couple chose to do this using in vitro fertilization rather than natural conception to avoid the potential ethical quagmire that would result if the fetus was shown to have the gene. The result was a set of twins that will never have to look forward to nervous degeneration later in life.

Enter an ethicist (why do they always weigh in to screw things up?). Her position is that since we would not think it ethical to eliminate people with undesirable characteristics, that no matter how positive (as is evident in this case), the outcome the ends do not justify the means. As Michael Shermer would say: Nonsense on stilts. This is nothing more than another case of absolute ethics throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Is genetic screening a form of eugenics? Probably (it has a rather broad definition according to the Wikipedia), but there is a vast difference between this case and the Nazi program that this word brings to mind. In the Nazi case, this was an attempt to create 'perfect' (whatever that means) humans and won't work. Selecting for certain traits can have unpredictable and deleterious results in other areas. This was seen in the famous Russian experiment with silver foxes. What happened when these animals were selectively bred for their tameness had unexpected consequences: floppy ears, coat color changes and curly tails (very much what happened in the domestication of the dog).

I would hardly place screening for Huntington's disease in the same class as Nazi eugenics programs when the end result is the certainty that your children will not become afflicted with a debilitating disease. Few of us can imaging their relief as parents for having undertaking this expensive procedure to ensure their children's health in later life, at least insofar as passing the disorder on to them. This was something I don't think the interviewed ethicist even considered when assessing her position.

While it was immediately apparent to me that the ethicist's position was ridiculous, I had to ask myself, "Why?" The question she asked was whether people suffering from Huntington's or other genetic conditions that may be construed by society as being undesirable, such as dwarfism, would want to be discriminated against or eliminated because of their condition. The answer is obvious. Life is preferable (almost) no matter the circumstances. But was this the correct question to ask? I don't think so.

One of Michael Shermer's main moral tenets is that if you are unsure as to the morality of an action (especially when it impacts on others), ask first. Well, we cannot ask a blastocyst and expect a response (which is one of the reasons that I think calling an unthinking, unfeeling collection of cells a human being is ridiculous), but we can ask people suffering from these disorders whether they would rather live with their condition given the chance to have a life without it. I think that that is the real question, and I think that the ethicist interviewed completely missed the mark.

The current legal position regarding genetic screening in Canada is dangerous, however. There is in fact no position at all. This leaves open the possibility of truly unethical uses of this technology, such as selection of sex (some cultures are notorious for their desire to have only male offspring). Fortunately, as is the case for a representative of an IVF clinic, screening for sex is done only in conjunction with testing for sex-determined disorders. With proper regulation and oversight, genetic screening can be another effective (and in the case of genetic disorders, currently the only) tool in the fight against disease. It was not all that long ago that IVF itself presented moral and ethical issues, but its presence in today's society is all but assured. Why not this?

Does religious dogma have anything to offer in the form of moral guidance in this context? Long answer: No. (Anyone who reads my blogs will have seen this coming...) Moral codes based on a society 2000 years ago simply cannot even relate to ethical and moral dilemmas presented by today's technology, a word itself only 150 years old in its current usage.

The problem with all absolute moral systems is there inability to adapt to new situations. For instance, how does religious dogma handle the disposal of unused blastocysts when abortion is considered immoral? The couple in the example here donated them for scientific research purposes, for which I applaud them. If use of stem cells from aborted fetuses is wrong, then is the use of blastocysts which will never be used (and hence have no potential for becoming human beings) for research also wrong? I put it to you that 2000 year old Abrahamic religious dogma is completely incapable of dealing with these situations and a new, more flexible set of ethical principles is needed.

More on that in a later blog. I have to get work done some time today....