The "God is Dead" declaration, along with the 'overman' statement are also heavily intertwined with the realization of the truth of metaphysical nihilism; that all systems of metaphysical belief, religion, morality, politics, economics ect ect, are all memetic creations (ideas) that are given power from our participation/belief within/of said systems. This realization then allows us to mentally recognize the truth that religion (and by implication many, if not all, other human ideas about structuring society) is nothing but an arbitrarily changeable system of human control. It, like many other systems, has been created to direct the human heard towards a goal; the outcomes reflect the rules. Thusly, we as a species created god, and we as a species have outgrown our mental creation and now seek more fulfilling answers beyond our little imagination and thus look towards the descriptive powers of science to discover the intricacies of the makeup of both ourselves and our world. The proverbial 'overran' would be a person able to accept the nihilistic reality of life and of our human condition, that we must realize that our man made control schemes are just as malleable as we may both fear and hope; as evidenced by the reality that our morality has, does, and will change again and again, showcasing that authority is and always was derived from us and only us. Yet the meme of religious authority seems to reign supreme over our cultural and societal realm of ideas.
So,
does religion have the right to dictate morality? Or should the question be
rephrased to say, should religion afford the respect of being the singular
authority on the matter? Perhaps an analysis of the definition of morality
itself can help us “Morality- descriptively
to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other
group, such as a religion, or accepted by
an individual for his or her own behavior or, normatively to refer to a code of
conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/) Note the
distinction of certain aspects of this definition. It breaks morality up into
four groups, individual, group, religion, and society, with the clause “rational
persons” to punctuate it. We well know that single individuals do not make
morality, that’s called dictatorship, and groups cannot be trusted, that’s mob
rule, religions say they have it through divine revelation, but fail to realize
that other people follow similar rules without having their beliefs to do so,
and society, well, slavery/segregation anyone? All of these things are
unreliable, in totality, to solve the unending problems that are the ever
evolving human moral condition. So, who holds the authority? This question it
often put forth by many persons of religious persuasion, often quoting the
great misquotation “If god does not exist, all is permissible.” (Attributed to Dostoevsky’s:
Brothers Karamazov) However, I find this to be a petty argument, and feel that
Sam Harris’s scale of morality is more reasonable. In fact, he employs the last
clause of “rational” best of all, for instead of letting our morality be
dictated, Sam argues, almost for a Christ like empathy and compassion, oft
echoing the phrase “Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.” (Luke: The Holy Bible) But pointing out “Religious people often
devote immense energy to so-called “moral” questions—such as gay marriage—where
no real suffering is at issue, and they will inflict terrible suffering in the
service of their religious beliefs.” (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/do-we-really-need-bad-reasons-to-be-good/)
This is a valid point if we utilize suffering as a principle standard for the
treatment of others, then certainly our moral discourse will improve the ways
in which we interact with one another, thus complementing our mutual humanity.
So, does religion operate in this manner? Well, self-evidently (as per the
quote) not. Homosexuality is but one absolutist stance (of many past outdated
ones) that the religious fundamentalists stand stanchly against their ears
pricking up at the slightest inference of human equality amongst those deemed a
taboo in society. “Where does it stop? Where do you draw the line?” This
question is always asked, (almost as if they think that it settles the debate)
and is easily responded to. By using the same standard of suffering proposed
earlier, one utilizes the concept of informed consenting adults (in the case of
gay marriage), and the inability for informed consent in children or animals
(as in the case of pedophilia or bestiality, as most animal brains do not go
far beyond what we would deem a child’s mind) Thus, if we make use of measuring
our actions based upon the suffering that they may generate, it only leads to
the conclusion that we will track a much more compassionate morality.
So why does religion hold the reins of morality? Again, a perplexing question, however, it may not be much of a mystery. For when we look back through time, we see that (especially, though in no way exclusively) the Christian religious sect has (in the past) championed the poor, (though not so much in America today) and the poor have always outnumbered the rich and well to do. So it only follows that religions of this nature would garner a very large base of followers when looking at the standard in which they bare, seemingly echoing the beauteous sentiments of the statue of liberty “Give me your tired your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” (Emma Lazarus’: The New Colossus) But this cannot be the only reason religion flourishes, it must indeed speak to a primal need within us, an aspect of humanity, that (perhaps) is withheld or (seemingly) taken from us. It must speak to and of our insecurities if it is to hold morality as a mother clutches the child to her breast, or perhaps it is the other way around. “Thus the benevolent rule of divine providence allays our anxiety in the face of life’s dangers, the establishment of a moral world order ensures the fulfillment of the demands of justice, which within human culture have so often remained unfulfilled, and the prolongation of earthly existence by a future life provides in addition the local and temporal setting for these wish-fulfillments.” (Sigmund Freud: The Future of an Illusion) Wish-fulfillment, this phrase speaks volumes in and of itself, but it is the idea that “benevolent rule” is the only way in which to be able to conduct one’s action under. The concept that someone is always watching you, that you are held accountable (not to your own conscience but) to a higher power of authority. This, along with the idea that “this life is not the end” and “storing up treasures in heaven for a greater reward” lends itself to the idea that, if you just live a moral life now (no matter what squalid conditions you’ve been born into) god will reward you tenfold after your death, but can also punish you a thousand times more so if you do not comply. Does this not call into question of the goodness of morality itself, should morality be coerced? If an action is done out of fear, how exemplary is it? If all actions undertaken are done for fear of punishment, or in lieu of reward, then is not any action thusly justified through the aphorism “Might makes right!” (Ragnar Redbeard: Might Makes Right) Is not the voluntariness of morality what makes it so venerable? And is not the threat of hell, a non-voluntary aspect of the morality of religion?
So now, why do people believe morality can come from no other source? As we have established, the inroads made by religion into those of less fortune in our society have cut large swaths indeed, but have I punctuated it enough? Karl Max is well known to have written “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart in the heartless world, the spirit of the spiritless situation. It is an opium, for the sufferer, for the people… The demand to give up its illusion, is the demand to give up the conditions that require illusions… Criticism has plucked the flowers from the chain, not so that man may wear the chain without consolation, but so that he may break the chain, and cull the living flower.” (Karl Marx: Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) Its imposition as such, seems to be the main reason for its holding so tightly upon the talisman of morality. It has become “Tradition!” as Tevye (Fiddler on the Roof) puts it. The long standing perception that religion leads to a moral life has been engrained in our society for generations, an unquestioned taboo if you like, for this is what taboos are, challenges to the social norms (some for good reason, others not so much) of their times.
Well, does religion hold a monopoly over morality? Obviously this is not the case. Religion’s only monopoly is that of (and most authors of many creative works would dispute this) the supernatural (at best) which seems to wish to negate the dreaded statement “Today is bad, and every day it will get worse, until the worst arrives.” (Arthur Schopenhauer: Essays and Aphorisms) If this is the case, then religion is not really arguing for morality’s sake, but rather for the finitude of human life itself. Religion screams in the face of death in an attempt to consol itself of life’s own bravery. Religion attempts to be the creed of those poor solders of life found conscripted from the womb. It is the attempt to negate the nihilism of reality with the phoenix dream of an apocalyptic rebirth. However, this says very little about how humans should conduct themselves in the now. I think I can sum up Nietzsche’s philosophy in one phrase, and I must agree with it. ‘Live what you love, and love while you live.’ I shall close now with this “"Why don't you accept this wonderful offer? Why wouldn't you like to meet Shakespeare, for example? I don't know if you really think that when you die you can be corporeally reassembled, and have conversations with authors from previous epochs. It's not necessary that you believe that in Christian theology, and I have to say that it sounds like a complete fairy tale to me. The only reason I'd want to meet Shakespeare, or might even want to, is because I can meet him, any time, because he is immortal in the works he's left behind. If you've read those, meeting the author would almost certainly be a disappointment. But when Socrates was sentenced to death for his philosophical investigations, and for blasphemy for challenging the gods of the city — and he accepted his death — he did say, well, if we are lucky, perhaps I'll be able to hold conversation with other great thinkers and philosophers and doubters too. In other words the discussion about what is good, what is beautiful, what is noble, what is pure, and what is true could always go on. Why is that important, why would I like to do that? Because that's the only conversation worth having. And whether it goes on or not after I die, I don't know. But I do know that that's the conversation I want to have while I'm still alive. Which means that to me, the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can't give way, is an offer of something not worth having. I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don't know anything like enough yet; that I haven't understood enough; that I can't know enough; that I'm always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom. I wouldn't have it any other way. I urge you to look at those of you... those people who tell you at your age, that you’re dead until you believe as they do, what a terrible thing, to be telling to children, and that you can only live... that you can only live by accepting an absolute authority. Don’t think of that as a gift, think of it as a... think of it as a poison challis, push it aside however tempting it is, take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness truth beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.” (Christopher Hitchens closing speech in his debate with Tony Blair)
(Citations)
Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
Luke: The Holy Bible
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/do-we-really-need-bad-reasons-to-be-good/
Sigmund Freud: The Future of an Illusion
Ragnar Redbeard:
Might Makes Right
Karl Marx: Critique of
Hegel's Philosophy of Right
No comments:
Post a Comment