(If we define morality and character as doing the right thing without coercion, than belief in the Christian gods and their system of eternal reward/punishment automatically excludes Christians from possessing the capacity for morality. PLEASE NOTE: Christians often talk about "free will," however, they define free will as simply a choice between sharing their belief in the supernatural or burning in hell for all eternity - a rather lopsided equation, at best. FYI -- I am a Buddhist, but often refer to myself as an Atheist, particularly when confronted by a religious extremist of ANY faith system.
PLEASE NOTE: This essay may seem condemning of Christianity. That is not my goal in writing it. The intention of this piece is to show the trap -- the Catch 22 -- of claiming the absolute and only true faith. It literally ends your personal freedom to pursue life's mysteries, and relegates all who don't share your faith to a state of second-class humanity.)
No one claims a greater monopoly on morality than the religious, and in America the dominant religion is Christianity. In written essays and in discussion with me, Christians argue consistently that belief in their gods is necessary before a person can possess moral character. As one Christian friend told me, "If you don’t believe in God you’d might as well go out robbing and killing and acting like an animal, because there’s no reason for you to show any kind of morals."
Aside from the obvious falsity of this statement (although I am a Buddhist, and do not believe in God, I do not rob or kill, and possess a well-defined sense of right and wrong), and aside from the rather spotty history of Christianity (what with pogroms, burnings, disembowlings, holy wars, hangings, the holocaust and the recent death camps in Bosnia) I personally believe that Christian beliefs and moral character may be mutually exclusive. Let’s consider:
First we need to define "morality" and "character" as it’s used in this essay. When I speak about morality, I’m referring solely to refraining from needlessly or selfishly harming others, i.e. not stealing from, insulting, judging, depriving of liberty, or physically or emotionally assaulting another person. I’m not going to address what other personal conduct is moral or immoral, as that is subjective and relevant to your own personal and cultural standards. And no, I’m not judging Christians here, just logically and rationally responding to their claim to moral superiority over myself.
I will also define being moral and demonstrating good character as doing the right thing because you choose to do it, not because you are coerced. Prisons are full of "model" convicts who will revert to criminal behavior the moment they are released, thus I do not consider their good behavior while behind bars as demonstrative of moral character.
Now why do I argue that adherents of the Christian faith cannot posses moral character? The answer hinges upon this principle: Your morality and character are defined by your behavior when you are not observed - and thus need not fear consequences, neither punishment nor public censure, nor expect reward.
If I go into a store and know I’m being closely watched on a security system, and I don’t steal anything, am I demonstrating moral character? Of course not. I know if I steal I will be caught and punished, so there is nothing moral about my behavior.
On the other hand, lets say I walk into a store and the shopkeeper asks me to watch the till while she uses the restroom. Now then, I know I’m alone, I know no one’s watching me and I know I can’t be caught - but still I don’t steal. That is demonstrative of moral character.
So what are the core beliefs of virtually all Christian religions? That their gods are watching, their gods know everything, and their gods will sit in judgment of them after they die. Those who have faithfully followed their sects’ definition of their gods' laws will be rewarded by going to heaven, while sinners will burn in hell for all eternity.
Where does this leave Christians? Clearly, if they believe the superstitions and myths upon which their religions are based, they are never alone. Everything they do is being videotaped by the ultimate security system, and everything they do can and will be used against them in the ultimate court - with their eternal fate at stake. In other words, everything a Christian does is either going to be punished or rewarded. Nothing goes unnoticed, and nothing is without consequences, good or bad.
Therefore, by the very nature of Christian belief, a Christian can never demonstrate moral character. They can only do what any child does under the watchful eye of a stern and brutal parent: Exactly as they are told.
Despite the savage legacy of the Christian religion, many Christians have performed noble and heroic deeds. Some examples: While Christians may have run the Nazi death camps, other Christians risked their lives to protect Jews; and while Christians operate racist American organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and the Church of Jesus Christ Aryan, other Christians risk their lives defending minorities. Does this invalidate the above argument?
No. Unfortunately, that is one of many conflicts inherent to Christian mythology: Any act of courage they demonstrate, as long as it is in accordance with their faith, is by default no more noble than a worker placing money into her retirement fund. They all plan to collect it somewhere down the road. Christians celebrate their martyrs, many of whom marched happily to totally preventable deaths rather than betray their faith. Their belief in a supernatural existence outweighed their desire to lead a long and productive life in the real world.
And that brings us to one more odd flaw of the Christian belief system: Although a Christian cannot demonstrate moral character, a Christian can demonstrate cowardice. For example, a Christian can willingly march into danger to protect another, and thus in their imagination into eternal reward in heaven; but a Christian also may carefully avoid danger, and abandon another to their fate, and still be forgiven and accepted into heaven.
I respect the right of each individual to find their own path in life, and determine their own truths. But I also think it’s sad when people take refuge in blind superstition and turn their backs on reality. And I resent being called an animal - simply because I prefer reality to mythology.
Whether you agree or disagree, I'd like to hear your views on this issue. Please keep your comments focused and to the point, and I'll post any interesting responses. PLEASE REMEMBER: It is not sufficient simply to state I'm wrong. You must either frame a valid argument supporting an alternative position or demonstrate flaws in logic which would make my argument invalid.
I disagree with your conclusion that a Christian cannot be moral.
An aside comment which has nothing to do with the validity or course of
the argument is that I am not a Christian. I am an atheist, born of
Hindu parents.
My argument is this: It is the good fate of humanity that they do not
function so much as religious beings, as from an innate sense of right
and wrong. When you rescue a child from drowning water, it may hardly
have much to do with the fact that you have been conditioned to do so by
religous teaching.
The thought process that leads you to jump into water may not be : Being
good will lead me to heaven. It is good according to Christian teaching
to save the lives of others. I will therefore save this child.
The process is perhaps one driven purely by an intense emotion - a
feeling of an innocent life being lost (not of a child who has been born
of original sin, and whose safe passage to heaven is assured if it
drowns and dies without sinning any further).
Of course, an extended contradiction to this argument is that a
Christian WILL consider it his duty to save a child from drowning so
that the child can grow up to pray forgiveness of God for the orginal
sin of Adam and Eve and redeem his soul from eternal damnation, but
perhaps that IS stretching things to the level of the Pope, who is quite
likely to go through such a convoluted arguement, before jumping in to
save a child, since there are obviously theological issues to be
resolved before you begin to wet yourself in the water.
The point I am trying to make is that thankfully, most Christains would
not go through any process of rational thought before acting.
Thankfully, a Christian thinks of Christ only in the Church, and not
every minute. Thankfully, there is a dichotomy, nay, a schizophrenic
divide between Christian teachings in the and the actions of a
Christian.
Which is the reason why a Christian can be moral. Your argument could be
that I am in effect contending that a Christian is moral when he is not
being Christian, which is only a further validation of your argument,and
not a disagreement. I would disagree once again: Christian is a label
which applies to all who express faith in Christianity and its
teachings. True, but the label of Christian will apply irrespective of
the fact that the person may at most times be displaying behaviour not
in consonance with such teachings (for which Christians atone by
confession of course), and quite often, acting without considering
whether or not such actions are Christian to begin with. We cannot
restrict the label of Christian to only those who live life purely or
mainly by the teachings of Christianity. It would then be a highly
exclusionist definition, which may not include a single man including
the Pope.
I therefore conclude that Christians CAN be moral. CAN diaply valour or
courage. CAN make love without thinking of the disastrous consequences
that love-making can have such as the Fall from grace for humanity.
To state that Christians cannot be moral is merely the other side of the
coin of Ronald Reagan's statement that Communist Russians could not be
trusted since they do not believe in God.
If your Christian friends have stated that you are an animal because you
prefer reality to mythology, I would agree with them for totally
different underlying reasons. Fiction IS of far greater importance than
Fact. Mythos is as neccesary as Logos. It is the flight of fantasy that
provides the basic premise and drive on which Logos can work. It is the
dream of Kekule of a ringed serpent, which was transformed by Logos into
the Benzene ring the next morning. The land of Mordor, Gandalf, and
Frodo are the mythos of The Lord of the Rings.
Mythology IS an exaggeration of reality that perhaps never was, upon
which all creativity rests. Otherwise, we might as well have had
Russel's analytical machine which would churn out all possible true
theorems. Kurt Godel was the first to prove through his incompleteness
theorem that no system could churn out all possible true theorems in
that system.
To imagine, wildly, intuitively, without any seeming logic - to come out
with a Godelian statement which is true in a logical sytem, but could
never have been churned out by any logical process from the axioms in
that system requires a human being.
Who is so brute that would deny the value of Mythos, of Sinbad the
Sailor, of the myth of Gilgamesh, of the Odyssey? I speak not to
contradict what you wrote, but to discuss, to convince you of what you
do know (don't tell me that last sequence sounds like Marcus Antony, since
that speech was not part of reality, it too was mythology).
A Christian cannot demonstrate moral character...
this statement is for purposes of argument
it is NOT a claim of fact
In Response...
A powerful response from Raju in India
E-mail Rajendra here: rajendraprasad@oocities.com
You are not a Clockwork Orange - Main Page
This essay is not intended as an attack on anyone's beliefs. The purpose of my page and all my essays and poetry is to encourage people to think and to employ the science of careful observation and critical thinking in their lives. To anyone who is offended by this piece, I appologize for offending you, although I do not appologize for my beliefs, nor for expressing them. Reid Iford
© 1997 reid@teleport.com
