False Morality is Immorality
Wanting a thing to be true does not make it true. We all know this innately, we know it even in the depths of self-delusion. Tell it to anyone and they will agree with you, because nobody wants to be thought of as insane. So, it always amazes me when I have a discussion with a religious friend, because most of their talking points sound, to my ears, like “I really hope it is true because I’ve invested so much into it.”
And then, as if in contrast, they tell me that it does not matter whether their religion is true. Of course I know where the conversation is going at this point; “it doesn’t matter” is a lie. It’s part of selling the last resort of the evangelist: “it makes you a good person.” Which, if you think about it, is usually coupled with the aforementioned lie, making it somewhat humorous, if not downright ironic.
Now, don’t think I start these discussions; it always starts with some attempt to convert me. I’m not interested in convincing them of anything, but if you start up a conversation I’m glad to share my point of view and explain it in great detail. It’s based on these things called “facts” that are fairly easy to verify. Whereas their beliefs are based on this thing called “faith”, which is verified, apparently, by ignoring facts.
After a brief discussion, my friend will see that I’m unconvinced that self-contradictory, unverifiable bronze-age scripture is holy truth. Since the evidence is made of facts, they are unable to hear my half of the conversation, so usually they give up trying to convince me that their faith is true. Inevitably there is the ridiculous claim that faith without evidence is a virtue. And then comes the it-doesn’t-matter lie: “even if it is not true, religion makes people better.”
I have yet to meet one person who believes in a religion solely because it makes you a better person. Let’s ignore that for the sake of discussion.
Somehow, it is a virtue to believe in lies, because it gives you a basis for morality. It is claimed that without religion, there is no morality. It is best that you believe in a religion, even if it is a lie. Otherwise you will have no reason not to do evil things. Without faith you are evil.
Surely anyone can see the huge problem here: If your religion is a lie and your god is false, then believing in it, and following its commands, is not moral. You are the one whose morality has no basis. Your ethics are based on the commands of a power that does not exist. You are believing, no matter how sincerely, in a lie. Since your moral code comes from a lie, following your moral code is not morality, it is literally immoral. You aren’t being good, you are being obedient.
If you are not entirely sure of your faith, your “morality” will be optional. Your faith can be used to justify the same passive aggressive acts as any other set of rules, rules to which you are not morally bound. And,if your prejudices run the same way as your faith, you can use it to justify acts of evil great or petty, and feel superior about it afterward, as a bonus. Of course, this holds true, even if you are a true believer.
And this is why the truth does matter. If your religion is a lie, your morality has no basis. The claim that “even if it is not true, you can not be good without religion” is entirely wrong. If your religion is not true, you can not be good with it.
January 6th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
It really boils down to whether you believe existence is objective – meaning that reality exists independently of there being a consciousness around to observe it (an objective reality) versus existence being subjective – that is, reality is dependent on some consciousness to create/control/observe it. All religions are based on a subjective reality.
In an objective reality, it is the properties of existence that give rise to consciousness. A consciousness depends on the objective reality in order for it to form at all. A consciousness, by definition, has to be conscious of something. And that something turns out to be some perception of the reality in which it resides. Given enough sophistication, a consciousness could discover “facts” and “reason” and to be able to prove these concepts against the dispassionate lens of a reality that exists regardless of what it or anyone else wishes it to be.
For the subjectivist – consciousness is primary and that is what gives rise to what they call a reality – a reality that is created by God, or gods – or something that has a consciousness. This kind of reality completely dependent on a consciousness in order for it to exist at all.
So, if you are arguing with someone who does not axiomatically accept an objective reality as the starting point for knowledge, you cannot honestly convince them of anything based on facts or reason – because there is no standard in their reality on which to test facts, and there is no method to apply reason. The epistemology of such individuals is roughly “Anything goes.” or “Because I said so.” or “Because Jesus said so.”, etc. If you find yourself in one of these conversations, I advise the best course of action is to politely change the subject.
January 6th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Well, yeah. It’s just bugged me for a long time, because something always felt wrong about that claim (you need religion to be good, even if it’s not true) but I hadn’t really thought about exactly why it bothered me. Now I see it clearly and it seems sort of stupid that I even spent time thinking about it. :)