Bradley Scotland
Examine Two Critiques of the Relationship Between Religion and Morality
The sense of ‘doing the right thing’ is a generally unifying concept held by the majority of humanity. Morality is a more or less uniform concept; for religious believers, this unity comes from a greater power pointing humanity in the right direction on decision making. For non-believers, the opposite applies.
Possibly the most famous opponent of the link between religion and morality is Richard Dawkins. Dawkins takes the argument in the complete other direction claiming that religion leads to evil. Religion serves as a virus that corrupts human minds; on the matter Dawkins said religion is, ‘an indulgence of irrationality that nourishes extremism, division and terror.’ Dawkins assault on religion is aimed primarily at extreme Islamists and Evangelical Christians. Dawkins strongly dislikes the idea of educational institutions being misused to teach what are in his view, lies, such as creationism and biblical texts over evolution; likening it to ‘child abuse.’ The link to abusing children is an extreme one to make; but for Dawkins to mislead children and fill their head with lies is wrong. To take that further; Dawkins hates the fear installed in children through religion such as the concept of hell and eternal damnation. Education is a tool that allows practices, belief, and knowledge to continue and to be passed on; for Dawkins this means that the divisions insinuated by crossing paths with someone of a different religion is worrying and damaging. Dawkins wants us to be people of the earth; not intimidated or opposed to those different to us.Children is a focal point for Dawkins, he believes that being labelled a religion is as absurd as being labelled as a member of a political party, ‘A child is not born ‘conservative’ or ‘labour’’ they are just born and grow to make decisions as they achieve their own understanding of the world and that’s good.More overtly for Dawkins is the role religion plays in wars and terrorism; Would events such as 9/11 or 7/7 have happened without religion? It is highly unlikely. All this for Dawkins is evidence that religion causes divide, fear, hate, and intolerance for one’s fellow man.A little victory for Dawkins was when pastor Ted Haggard, leader of the evangelicals, a man who opposed Dawkins to his face and became close to confronting him, was exposed to the public as having homosexual relations. Of course being homosexual is not a problem for Dawkins or any rational thinker; but the sweetener for Dawkins was that Haggard had repeatedly held sermons against homosexuality, condemning any ‘gays’ to hell. It is hard to take religion as a moral governor seriously when it is riddled with hypocrisy and contradiction.
Another opponent of the link between religion and morality is R.A Sharpe; claiming it a misconception that religion leads to morality. Religious followers are reluctant to condemn immoral acts that cause suffering if those actions are approved in their religion, one could draw a link to Ted Haggard’s sexuality coming into conflict with his religion. Sharpe using the example of contraception, asking if God is really interested in if people use condoms.
Sharpe touches on a bigger, more pressing issue, and that is the interpretation of religious texts and the practice of ancient laws tied into religion. Shariah law states men and women can face 100 lashes for extramarital sex, or be stoned to death for adultery. Religion slows social and technological progress, such as the legalisation of same sex marriage, euthanasia, certain medical practices, and the teaching of evolution.Weinberg said, ‘for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.’ This argument is clear to see when religious people do what they perceive is the right thing, but for the rest of society it is seen as wrong, such as the Christian who killed the abortionist.On the subject of contradiction; each religion teaches different morality. The man who killed the doctor would have seen his acts as the right thing to do; but will probably disagree with terrorism; how can it be determined which is correct, if any?
In conclusion, religion can ultimately be perceived as not linked to morality or even opposed. The impossible question is would the world be better off without it?