The Rise of Irrelevance: Religion vs. Implicit Morality

[Agnos]

Let he who is unwavering in his convictions, he who is replete of faith, come forward to assert that a world without God is a world without consequence; a world of vague ethical boundaries; a world awash in sin. Such an assertion, be it brash and full of pessimism, is not so dissimilar to that of the assumption of the existence of God, and of equal measure, the nonexistence of God. It is pessimistic in the sense that one must believe – in conjunction with this belief of ‘a world without God is a world awash in sin’ – that humans are, by nature, evil creatures; that only by way of divine doctrine may we be coerced out of sin. So distant this is from the truth, for anyone of healthy mind is quite cognizant of their own mortality; of their own surrender to love, hate, pleasure and pain, and through this they are endowed with what we shall henceforth refer to as implicit morality. There begins the rise of irrelevance, like a great stone pillar ascending unhampered into the sky, where beside it topple steeples and minarets; where within its shadow the concept of God itself is rendered as nothing more than a moot point. Nevertheless, to strive to acquire knowledge of such an all-encompassing property, such is God, should not be labeled a fruitless endeavor, and yet, by the same token, should not be given legitimacy on account of this ill-defined value called faith.

Implicit morality, simply put, can be defined as a framework of principles present in any sufficiently intelligent animal as an expressed condition of its biological existence. In other words, one knows it is wrong to kill because one does not desire to be killed. One knows it is wrong to rape because one does not desire to be raped. Granted, this system leaves room for moral dilemmas. In a situation in which one must choose to kill or be killed, there is a direct conflict with one’s own implicit morality – but this is merely an exception. In a stable society, one rarely finds oneself confronted with these exceptions. All considered, the next logical question would be, “What role does religion – or more to the point, the notion of God – play in our lives today?”

If we are to strip away the traditional and/or ritualistic aspects of religion, what are we left with? Motivations. Motivations through which the advantageous use of fear, the promise of an eternity of torment, manifest themselves. Motivations which, during the infancy of religion, may have been utilized with genuinely positive intentions, but which have since been altered in favor of political, economic, and/or chauvinistic ends. Though it would not be preposterous to assert that the world’s most well-known religious texts were written not by the hand of God, but by Man, and that these texts are in fact a direct reflection of the authors’ own implicit moralities, it would not be an effective maneuver either. To do so would be as bold as to claim with unmovable certainty that God exists, or, for that matter, does not exist.

One discovers, through the written work of philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche (among others), a system of ethics complacently devoid of religious influence, though most certainly inspired by implicit morality. In this regard, Man has thus filled the shoes of religion, of 'divine' doctrine, and of an unseen, unproven deity. Therefore, I once again offer up the question, “What role does religion – or more to the point, the notion of God – play in our lives today?”

[CoffeeSaint]

God is an excuse. He is an excuse for those who do not wish to search their own souls for any answers to their questions; he is a useful myth for those who do not wish to explore the universe and discover truth, through observation and experiment, through experience and contemplation. He is a justification for those who hate, and a sop for those who fear.

God is a way to avoid being human.

[Jack]

That was very nicely put, CoffeeSaint. You're earning a mention in my blog.

[Agnos]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint God is an excuse. He is an excuse for those who do not wish to search their own souls for any answers to their questions; he is a useful myth for those who do not wish to explore the universe and discover truth, through observation and experiment, through experience and contemplation. He is a justification for those who hate, and a sop for those who fear. God is a way to avoid being human.

I somewhat agree with you here. However, these premises do not imply that God does not exist; they simply imply that people 'accept' God into their lives for the wrong reasons. All of which, mind you, are satisfactory answers to my question (and I thank you for that), but unsatisfactory reasons for being an atheist.

Why are you an atheist?

[Jack]

Why are you an atheist?

I can't speak for C.S. or anyone other than myself, but I am an atheist, a non-believer in supernatural religions, for the same reason I'm a disbeliever in Nessy, Bigfoot, unicorns and all the other fantastic creatures imagined by people. Without a single coherent, logical and testable reason for their existence, why should I believe?

[Osborn F Enready]

I too am completely agnostic.

Why should I believe in anything but what betters me and my fellow men?

Better is the question, and it is different to everyone, hence individualism.

[Clarence]

Good read, Agnos. I agree, but to be fair, our religious heritage has a little to do with our implicit morality.

[Autolykos]

In a way, religion served an important purpose in earlier times. That purpose was to show that man is not the be-all, end-all. Man can not do everything; his abilities are inherently and fundamentally limited. Those things that were beyond man's ability to control were attributed to divine forces. So, religion's purpose, among other things, was to remind man of his (rather low) place in the universe.

Of course, nowadays we don't need traditional religion to understand this concept, due to our much more advanced knowledge of the world and its workings. Religion was simply a more convenient (if not the only) method for explaining things when man lacked that knowledge.

- Rob

[Agnos]

Quote by: Clarence Good read, Agnos. I agree, but to be fair, our religious heritage has a little to do with our implicit morality.

Agreed, and I do touch upon this slightly when I say:

Quote by: Agnos Though it would not be preposterous to assert that the world’s most well-known religious texts were written not by the hand of God, but by Man, and that these texts are in fact a direct reflection of the authors’ own implicit moralities, it would not be an effective maneuver either.

Quote by: Autolykos In a way, religion served an important purpose in earlier times. That purpose was to show that man is not the be-all, end-all. Man can not do everything; his abilities are inherently and fundamentally limited. Those things that were beyond man's ability to control were attributed to divine forces. So, religion's purpose, among other things, was to remind man of his (rather low) place in the universe.

Ah, yes. Good point. I hadn't really thought of it that way.

By the way, I appreciate the comments everyone. I am new here, and so far I have found it to be a pleasurable experience.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Agnos I somewhat agree with you here. However, these premises do not imply that God does not exist; they simply imply that people 'accept' God into their lives for the wrong reasons. All of which, mind you, are satisfactory answers to my question (and I thank you for that), but unsatisfactory reasons for being an atheist. Why are you an atheist?

I am an atheist because I choose to be. As there is no reliable evidence for god, but only faith -- a choice to believe despite the lack of evidence -- that allows people to worship god, I choose to have no faith.

I also want, as I was attempting to say in my first reply, to live a human life: to experience my own joys and sorrows, as the natural and right consequences of my own actions and choices, without trying to shift the blame onto my Heavenly Father. I cannot live my life if I give it to god, and giving him credit for everything that I am is giving him my life. I want to keep my life, and that means I must think of myself as being in control of my own fate. If I am good, I want to be good for me, not for Him; if I am evil, I want to be evil in my eyes, not in His. I won't let him define me.

That, I think, is the role god plays in our society: he defines us, turning us into Christians/Muslims/Jews, the Chosen people or heretics; good people and bad people, the saved and the damned -- and even simply the non-believer. I'd really rather not be defined at all in terms of religion, and so I may even give up the term atheist; it's never been terribly applicable to me, anyway, since I don't believe there is no god; I simply have no beliefs.

Quote by: Isherwood You're earning a mention in my blog.

Woohoo! I've made it into the blogosphere!

[shield772]

I am deeply sadened for those who can not see the evidence of God, I see it everyday, I live my life by the teachings of Jesus, and the word of God, and even with God the World will have sin, I am a sinner I am just forgiven, see you in the afterlife, wait no I won't sorry.

[rez]

So I should be punished because I am granted with the common sense to treat my neighbor like how I want to be treated? I do not need a diety's teachings to come to this simple ideal. You act like if I do not follow the word of god, then you are bound to hell. Why? I have the same exact morals as you, I just do not pay money to your church, nor do I impose my will on others to believe in what I believe.

[Agnos]

Quote by: shield772 I am deeply sadened for those who can not see the evidence of God, I see it everyday, I live my life by the teachings of Jesus, and the word of God, and even with God the World will have sin, I am a sinner I am just forgiven, see you in the afterlife, wait no I won't sorry.

I can hardly believe that you're being serious. Let us know right now if you mean what you say, or if you are simply being sarcastic. It'd be nice to get that out of the way before I respond.

[iahag]

Ah, Agnos, do not underestimate the power of indoctrination.

[Agnos]

How can we assign relevance to something that can not be said to exist?

Anyone willing to answer this question?

[rez]

Quote by: Agnos How can we assign relevance to something that can not be said to exist?

duh, you assign relevance to something that does exist - power and control.

[Agnos]

Quote by: rez Quote by: Agnos How can we assign relevance to something that can not be said to exist? duh, you assign relevance to something that does exist - power and control.

Well said, my friend.

[shield772]

Quote by: Agnos I can hardly believe that you're being serious. Let us know right now if you mean what you say, or if you are simply being sarcastic. It'd be nice to get that out of the way before I respond.

The end is sarcasm.

[Agnos]

Quote by: shield772 The end is sarcasm.

Oh. So you believe that people who don't follow the teachings of Christ, and those who don't accept him into their lives as their personal savior are going to make it into heaven?

[shield772]

Quote by: Agnos Oh. So you believe that people who don't follow the teachings of Christ, and those who don't accept him into their lives as their personal savior are going to make it into heaven?

Nope, you will all go to Hell, nothing personal, I don't dislike you, I don't want to convert you, it just saddens me that anyone will have to suffer through eternal damnation and I was expressing that saddness here.