Does morality require a religious point of view?

This post explores the premise, stated by Bradley[i], that religion is necessary for morality to have any force.  The choice is essentially one between moral absolutism and moral relativism and I investigate the benefits and dis-benefits of both systems. For a morality dependent upon a religious point of view it will be necessary for society to hold a belief and I will look at some obstacles and remedies to achieving this. In terms of moral absolutism, the question of whether God is the good or the good transcends God, will not to be addressed.  I will concentrate on the authority with which a moral system functions.

I will take the phrase ‘religious point of view’ to imply a belief in a higher authority, or God.

Moral absolutism holds that moral values are universal and apply to all individuals and cultures.  It is proposed, following Bradley, that a morality enforced by a higher level authority, one that would come with a religious point of view, would be far more effective than the authority of a relativist moral system. 

Relativist moral systems develop as part of the prevailing cultural framework within which they exist.  Sometimes with permissive results leading to practices that would be considered abuses or taboo in absolute terms.  As culture changes, between different communities or at a macro level, for example between the modern and post-modernism eras, so a relativist moral system will change.  There will be no consistency over time or between contemporary communities.  “If [relativism is] taken seriously and pressed to its logical conclusion, ethical relativity can only end in destroying morality altogether”.[ii] 

Conversely, the authority of an enduring God would provide constancy and solidity.  “If there is cosmic purpose, if there is in the nature of things a drive towards goodness, then our moral systems will derive their validity from this”.[iii]

Fein[iv] notes that hierarchies are a natural phenomenon present in all human societies, and Brandt and Reyna[v] note that God is at the head of a human hierarchy.  In other words, God is the higher authority within these hierarchies.

The efficacy of a higher authority to provide the necessary motivation to change or govern behaviour has been recognised in the secular world.  For example, ‘Higher Power’ is the term used by Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)[vi], and is also used in other twelve-step recovery programmes, to provide the power to achieve change within an individual that cannot be achieved by themselves.

A consideration that then plays into this discussion is whether to have an effective higher level authority it has to be ‘believed that’ such an authority exists (an intellectual commitment), rather than the moral system directed by the higher authority simply being ‘believed in’ (a moral or existential commitment).

Bradley goes on to outline some of the obstacles to belief, referring to the resistance to ideas of God and personal God, immortality and the conflict between revelation and science[vii].  Noting that these present obstacles, he goes on to say, “we say nothing about the ultimate truth of religion”[viii], but notes that “religion is a doing and a doing which is moral”.[ix]  There is a suggestion here, as in the approach of Alcoholics Anonymous, that belief in the ultimate truth of religion, ‘belief that’, is not necessary, but that belief in some form of higher authority is.

The three theistic groups hold that God “is by definition omnipotent; omniscient and eternal”[x].  The origins of these and other properties lie in the ideas of classical philosophy and the later theology of, for example, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas.  It helps that this being would be almighty (omnipotent, omniscient and other properties) for the imperative to follow moral principles to have some force.  (In the case of Christianity, it is also helpful that the doctrine of the Cross provides the opportunity to start again when failures to act morally occur).

However, although there are references within the Old Testament to the greatness of God, (Psalms, Isaiah, etc), it could be argued that these properties are described from the relative human perspective.  It isn’t clearly established that God must have these ultimate properties to be God. The alternative being that to be God, God only has to be relatively all-powerful.  The Greek Gods were seen as both fallible and of varying power, for example.

To state that God must be omnipotent as a starting point becomes a problem, when the existence of evil demonstrates, arguably, that that property isn't being experienced in the physical world.  The many wrongs of religion also present obstacles to belief, e.g. David Hume, “The greatest crimes have been found in many instances to be compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion”.[xi]

Can such a god be believed in and can a post-modern society, steeped in the progress of science and cosmology, then also believe in an omnipotent being?  Perhaps the arguments for God’s existence may be more successful if God is not seen as all powerful.

How is belief to be achieved?  Churches are weak in the post-modern West and evangelism is not effective, or even acceptable to many.

New strands of theology may provide an answer.  The emerging church movement prefers to engage in dialogue, rather than proclaiming a pre-digested message[xii].  Some proponents of Process Theology, which covers a wide field of thought, hold that the traditional concept of God as omnipotent is a barrier to belief as it fails to make sense[xiii].

Perhaps these developments could provide a route to belief in a higher authority in the post-modern western context.  Arnaud, Kanyeredzi and Lawrence suggest that, “as a lot of people in the UK have issues with religion, Alcoholics Anonymous’ concept of a higher Power could give its members the opportunity to accept spirituality free from religious dogma”[xiv].

In essence, moral relativism provides a weak system, subject to cultural and societal change, for better or worse.  The benefits of belief in a higher authority to provide force to an absolute morality can work, but religion is also subject to abuse. 

The challenge then is then how a belief in a higher authority is brought about, and new areas of theology and alternative approaches may be more effective with post-modern audiences.

---

[i] Bradley, F. H. (1876) Ethical Studies, p.280.

[ii] Stace, W.  URL= https://sites.google.com/site/sirhcsemaj1/philosophy/w-t-stace-on-ethical-absolutism-and-relativism

[iii] Stace, W. The Meaning of Life, p 88.

[iv] Fein, M. (2012) Human Hierarchies: A General Theory, p.29

[v] Brandt, M. J. Reyna, C. (Sept 2011), The Chain of Being: A Hierarchy of Morality, Perspectives on Psychological Science, p.428

[vi] Alcoholics Anonymous. (2001) The Story of How Many Thousands of Men and Women Have Recovered from Alcoholism, p. 59

[vii] Bradley, p.280

[viii] Ibid

[ix] Ibid, p.281

[x] Mawson, T. J. (2005) Belief in God, p.51.

[xi] Hume, D. (1757) The Natural History of Religion, p. 27. URL = https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/hume1757_1.pdf

[xii] Perry, S. (2003). What is So Holy About Scripture

[xiii] Griffin, D. R. (2004) God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy, p.268

[xiv] Arnaud, Y. Kanyeredzi, A. Lawrence, J (2015) AA Members Understandings of the HP – A Qualitative Study, Journal of Addiction Research and Therapy.

God and the Tendency to Complexity

Well worth a look...

Kell Smith - Manifest Complexity

Palm Sunday and the man

I’ve been able to get to a couple of Lent meetings this year.  They’ve been run using the first of the C of E’s ‘pilgrim’ course (‘What do Christians believe’), which is very good. (www.pilgrimcourse.org) 

During session 3, which looks in more detail at who Christians believe Jesus is, it occurred to me the although Jesus is both God and man, divine and human, the focus of Christians today tends to be on the divinity of Christ, and his humanity is often side-lined.  For me although both aspects of his nature are equally important I have more recently been finding his humanness an area of real revelation.

As an example we have in (Mark 11:11-26 and Matt. 21:10-22) the incident of Jesus cursing the fig tree.  Jesus is hungry and seeing a fig tree he looks for fruit and seeing none he curses the tree saying “May you never bear fruit again!”  Later the disciples pass the same way and notice that the fig tree has withered (Mark 11:20, 21).  Many read some divine purpose and forethought in Jesus action – an intentional demonstration of his power.  For me it is a straightforward record of a hungry man cursing when he doesn’t find hoped for food, demonstrating a very human frustration.  That the tree then withers also demonstrates his divinity.

This event comes after triumphal entry into Jerusalem when he receives the adulation of the crowd while riding on a donkey.  Again this is usually seen as an unexpected, unplanned, and therefore divinely arranged event by many following the story today.  But Jesus was a deeply well-read scholar of the scriptures.  He knew that Zechariah 9:9 prophesied “See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey…”  And, knowing his destiny from this scripture he, as a man, will surely have arranged beforehand for the provision of the donkey, the owner anticipating that men would subsequently come to borrow the donkey saying, when challenged, “The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.” (Mark 11:3).

Something that seems to be missed in a fundamental way is that Jesus was a man of deep faith.  He believed in the destiny that God had set before him, he set out in faith to comply with the prophesies about the Messiah, and was obedient to this role right up to his death. “…being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!” (Philippians 2:8).

Coalition

Given the situation that faced the Country in 2010, with no overall majority following the General Election, the Coalition has been a good thing.  Whether you are a Conservative or Liberal Democrat or neither, a Government formed by the Conservatives tempered by the Liberal Democrats has done well, with the economy nurtured back from the brink and, what would be viewed by many voters as, the excesses of a ‘Conservative only’ government have been avoided.

To achieve this Nick Clegg had to take a Statesman-like decision in the Country’s interest and risk the significant criticism and slump in popularity that he and his party have since experienced.

Public sector cuts were required to restore the economy.  The public sector had grown to an unsustainable size in any case.  Large numbers of senior and middle manager posts (highly paid posts contributing very little to the performance of their particular service) needed to go.  And this readjustment should be welcomed.

It now looks likely that there will be no party with an overall majority following the next election.  Alarm has been expressed that significant influence will be held by a minority party (the SNP or possibly UKIP, for example) able to influence policy because its votes are needed in parliament by whichever party is in Government.  

Well to an extent this will be the will of the voters in the UK, and parliamentarians should be expected to work out a way of working with the situation following the election.  Many countries in Europe have already had to do this for many years and have been successful, not least Germany.  Proportional Representation, which would require coalitions to be formed after every election, must be the future for this country.  The feeling that one’s vote has no influence is probably behind the voter apathy that concerns many, and true proportional representation would immediately address this.

However, the big parties are even now considering a ‘grand coalition’ following the election, simply to remove the need to grant smaller parties any influence.  (It should be borne in mind that the number of votes cast for minor parties is far larger in proportion to the number of seats that they win).   

A grand coalition where the two major parties, with largely opposing policies, are willing to get together solely because they cannot bear the thought of relinquishing any power to the influence of others, would be utterly anti-democratic.

Russell Brand - Is There a God? YES!

I don't really like listening to Russell Brand, but without a doubt he is very influential, especially with young people. This piece however is intelligent, well articulated, and insightful. Well worth a look:

Atonement

As promised – my own thoughts on the meaning of the cross.  

I've felt obliged to start with a summary of orthodox understanding in order to set the scene for my own thoughts later on. Please do read to the end and don't be put off by 'yet another christian banging on about the cross' at the beginning.

The clear evangelical position on the meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection is termed Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA).  In a nutshell this means that Christ paid the penalty for the sins of the whole world when he willingly surrendered to execution by the Romans, thereby becoming a sacrifice to cover all of our sins, now and in the future. This is the clear teaching of the whole of scripture: 

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.  We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53 v5, 6)

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,(1 Corinthians 15 v3,4)

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5 v8)

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10 v45)

  are examples of many passages that lead to this doctrine.  

In the Old Testament sins were redeemed through animal sacrifice (Leviticus Ch14 and Ch15).  So to be able to pay the price for the sins of the whole world this sacrifice had to be significant indeed.  In fact only the sacrifice of God himself on our behalf could possibly do it, and so the fact of the resurrection becomes vital in the story. For the resurrection demonstrates that Jesus was truly God: And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins (1 Corinthians 15 v17).

These facts are central to Christian belief. The physical death and bodily resurrection are vital truths without which Christianity has no foundation.  

But now we come to the objection of many (notably in recent times Steve Chalke: Atonement debate) that God must be some kind of monster to demand such sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin.  If he is God why cannot he just forgive?  After all, that’s what we do.  

This now leads us to the observation that clearly in the Old Testament, God is not a fan of sacrifice: “The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?” says the Lord. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats”(Isaiah 1 v11), and

“You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.  My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise”(Psalm 51 v16,17) 

and in the New Testament: 

“But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt 9 v13). 

So why sacrifice, requiring the death of something?  Girard’s Mimetic Theory provides a solution. It proposes that in the earliest human communities the practice of sacrifice was developed as a solution to bad seasons and crop failures, and other unexplained difficulties for early human groups.  (For a clear explanation about how this anthropological theory works see “Compassion Or Apocalypse?: A comprehensible guide to the thought of Rene Girard” by James Warren (www.amazon.co.uk)).  

But in essence, sacrifice involving the death of something can be seen as a human device, not a divine one.  An effort by early human society to pacify the gods, which then developed with the passage of time into a requirement for a sacrificial price through the death of something to cover the penalty for sins.  Animals were sacrificed as a substitute for the human who needed redemption.  

So now in Jesus we have a saviour who has paid the sacrificial price for every level of sin that we are likely to commit: Have we done something that should require our arrest – he’s done that, something that would lead to our friends deserting us? Something that would make someone spit at us? beat us?, flog us?, and ultimately, something that would require our execution? He’s been through that.

But God does not require such a sacrifice, we do, and God sent Christ to the cross not to satisfy his need for a sacrifice, but to satisfy ours.  God could just forgive us, without any need for sacrifice, it is we who require sacrifice in order to be convinced that the required price has been paid.  

Which makes his sacrifice on our behalf, not to appease God but to satisfy us (“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” (Matt 27 v23)), all the more remarkable.

In the sun

Happy New Year

A YouTube video for the New Year (Michael Stipe and Coldplay).  The creator of this video has shown real artistry in the placement of images to accompany the lyrics.  To me it speaks of our search and longing for meaning in life.  "May God's love be with you always".