Impotent Arguments Against Non-Belief, and Cultural Misconceptions Held by the Faithful: Part 1- A Short Inquiry on Morality

Impotent Arguments Against Non-Belief and Cultural Misconceptions Held by the Faithful: Part 1- A Short Inquiry on Morality

There is a tendency (albeit not compulsory and unilateral) for believers, theists and deists of many kinds to think that their counterparts hold some questionable positions on morality, cosmology, and intellectual honesty. For the sake of this screed, I shall address only the first topic in this entry, and in an extremely abridged form. I entitled this piece proportionately - for many of these ideas could not be further from the truth. It is often heard said by devout believers that atheists possess no ethical compass, and that there is no source from which they can draw an objective standard about the characteristics of good and evil. Aside from being a fantastic piece of presumption and an exhibition of wickedness, this mentality has obvious flaws. Dostoevsky addresses this in his exemplary novel "The Brothers Karamazov" in which the youngest of the bunch (also the moral idiot of the book) suggests that if god exists we must do what he wants, and that if he does not we can do whatever we like. This is a stereotypical position held by people who swallow their morality in tablet form - a.k.a the ten commandments. There is actually not much that can be drawn from the ten commandments that actually is moral, pertains to ethics, and that could not be intuited and practiced by any decent human being. Furthermore, if there is anything to be extracted and implemented into everyday life, its authenticity is more than likely not attributable to the bible. The first three injunctions address the characteristics of this desert enamored deity, and his personal insecurities. The first of which enjoins that you shall observe no other gods before him - which evidently has an obvious paradox within it. This would imply that the god of Abraham does indeed acknowledge the veracity and existence of other pagan and none Jewish deities. If anyone has ever read any semblance of Jewish, Christian, or Islamic literature or scripture, they would know that this directly irreconcilable with the tenets of the faiths. It also speaks volumes about his lack of self-confidence; "be my fan or forever suffer the dire consequences which are supposed to demonstrate my love for you." The second and third commandments also declare that thou shalt not produce any graven images, and to observe the Sabbath appropriately. Finally, I feel as though it would be superfluous to censor speech, lest someone be accused of taking a name in vain. A declaration that I still to this day do not understand. At risk of being accused of engaging in reductio ad absurdum, it would seem as though Yahweh's self-esteem issues have gotten the best of him - as he now despises any artwork and the right of those to have a day off from the work and toil with which he so generously endowed Adam for a crime he did not commit. The idea of his predilection against artistry is also baffling. It is often heard said that man is made in the image of god (I would argue the corollary, which would explain the overwhelming number of them and their anthropomorphic shortcomings) and thus is indeed a representation of big brother himself. Would that not imply that our countenance and physiology is a walking blasphemy? Or did Jesus simply not consider this amidst his bizarre and evil preachment? In a cruel irony, the idea of Jesus being a walking god also violates general precepts that are intuitive to Jewish text. Maimonides, a twelfth century Jewish philosopher who was well educated in the Talmud and lived in Spain, addressed this concept directly. He said that any notion of the Nazarene merely being considered to be the messiah was a heinous slander, and therefore the ensuing events that allegedly occurred toward the end of his life were not simply warranted, but mandatory as a fitting punishment. While I do not think I could push myself that far on this subject (that an eccentric rabbi made some seemingly bold claims about himself), I do think that anyone who espouses such an opinion of themselves is in direct conflict with the success of society. To me, the idea of any primate proclaiming himself to be divine is a very deep form of profanity and insult. Banal statements such as honoring one's father and mother are axiomatic positions one should try to uphold, provided the circumstances allow it. There is no mention of care for children, or injunctions against slavery or genocide; all of which are divinely approved and encouraged in Exodus 20 and 21, where Moses and his brood so righteously pillage the Amalekites and Midianites only to keep the young virgins for themselves. This seems much more like an attempt at justifying a wicked ideology, and is reflective of the male driven society and its inhabitants comprised of illiterate pastoral goat herders. 

However, let us not digress. Other commandments dictate aversions to murder, theft, adultery and perjury - and neither I nor any other civilized human being needed Moses in order to recognize this plain fact. Following pronouncements lump in women with chattel as mere property that should not be coveted. I do not think I need to spell out the injustices here: mainly that women hold the same value as livestock, and the lack of specification in "coveting". Of course it is wrong to steal someone else's property, but coveting implies a desire for a material good and thus can be used as an economic spur to do better. Accompanying rules state that one should not bear false witness against their neighbor - which actually does demonstrate some nuance and is a respectable assertion. Of course, this still in no way confirms the ancillary claims in the Decalogue as being morally correct, or any of other statements in the bible as being valid or true. The eleventh commandment which actually has nothing to do with holy books, is the golden rule. This idea actually does have roots in the Analects of Confucius - and Confucians rather nobly realize that this moral maxim in no way helps validate any of their other beliefs. 

It comes down to this - Christopher Hitchens issued a challenge to many different individuals on this topic. In order for there to be come sort of credibility to the argument of ethics being a derivative of the bible, one would have to meet the following request. Name a moral action performed or ethical statement uttered by a believer, that could not be done by a non-believer. Now consider its supplementary question - can anyone think of a immoral action done or statement made only in the name of faith - and no one has a problem providing a response. This may be a bit reductionist, but it is an essential meditation. 

To conclude, it is more than likely the case that our moral positions (which are not monolithic and will not persist eternally without alteration) are the outcome of our progress as a species and a necessary byproduct of our human solidarity for the flourishing of our societies. My advice, do not act considerately in aspirations of achieving a divine reward or obviating a divine punishment. It's dishonest and evokes suspicion about the integrity of one's benevolence - even in the slowest mind.

Morality is result of our efforts and growth as evolving creatures, religion attempts to hijack it - and rather ineptly at that.

As always, check your purpose, mammals.