The face of religious tomfoolery
Few things are lamer than attempts to demonstrate that religion is the foundation upon which moral behavior rests. Each new such endeavor seems to be as unconvincing as the last, with the same old tired canards being recycled in delusional ruminations about the necessity of divine approval in human relations. Such is the recent attempt by Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby in a particularly puerile Op-Ed, whose claims should repulse any freethinker.
The best part about Jacoby’s column, is that in arguing for the necessity of a Biblical foundation of morality, he actually refutes himself, thoroughly might I add. Read the following passage, where Jacoby is describing and ridiculing the American Humanist Association’s secular ad campaign. He says the organization is being unfair by highlighting only the shockingly violent passages of the Bible to quote, even though such passages are everywhere and easy to find. In a paragraph that is totally self-defeating for his own case, Jacoby whines,
Of course anyone can cherry-pick quotes to make a point. And of course it is true, as the humanist group’s executive director Roy Speckhardt maintains, that there are “religious texts’’ that “advocate fear, intolerance, hate, and ignorance.’’ Religion has often been put to evil purposes or invoked to justify shocking cruelty. Then again, the same is true of every area of human endeavor, from medicine to journalism to philosophy to the law.
He then proceeds to blow a lot of hot air about why religious morality is necessary for civilization, but it’s all moot, because in these two brief throwaway lines inserted with the purpose of defending his position, he actually destroys it before he even really gets started. Jeff Jacoby, thank you for playing, your column is over.
It is over because he outright concedes the point that religion is a human endeavor often “put to evil purposes or invoked to justify shocking cruelty.”
Saying religion is a “human endeavor” could mean one of two things. It could mean that religion is a human invention, with its gods, lore, and moral customs outright fabricated by humans using some sort of vague and illusory divine sanction. Or, it could mean that religion is truly a divinely-inspired enterprise whose execution is nonetheless ultimately in the hands of imperfect humans who put religion “to evil purposes.”
As a believer in the Judeo-Christian tradition, Jacoby’s understanding of religion as a human endeavor falls into this latter category. Not only does he concede that religion is capable of inspiring horrific acts, he actually puts religion in a category with medicine, journalism, philosophy, and law—strictly “human” disciplines. Thus, in his attempt to elevate religion to the status of the sine qua non of morality, he paradoxically “lowers” it to the level of earthly studies. His point is to show that religion too, is not immune to the taint of human influence. But if this is true, then what is religion for? If religion is as corruptible and susceptible to pure sophistry as any other “human endeavor,” then it stands to reason that whatever moral rules are said to derive from religion could just as easily have arisen by nonreligious means. Despite Jacoby’s claim that the secular ad campaign “cherry-picks” Bible passages that are especially abhorrent, the Bible is rife with instances of objectionable behavior by both humans and the heavenly father. It contains innumerable acts and instructions which no reasonable person could condone or follow. We do not stone those who work on the Sabbath. We do not kill those who practice witchcraft. We do not regard our women as chattel like the Tenth Commandment would have us. We do not punish those who hold different religious beliefs. We do not adhere to the lesser known commandment that we mustn’t wear clothing woven from two different materials. We do not allow our enemies to strike us without us striking back. And the reason we do not follow these and countless other commands—even though they are in the Bible—is because they are ridiculous and wrong. Members of the Judeo-Christian faiths “cherry-pick” from the Bible all the time, and we should be thankful for that. Otherwise our society would be characterized by a horrifying authoritarianism that regulates virtually every last detail of human behavior. The plain fact that not even Jews and Christians adhere fully to the Bible’s diktats is the clearest evidence that humans are capable of constructing a morality which is independent of revealed wisdom.
These considerations render Jacoby’s argument senseless blather, and his subsequent remarks contain all the intellectual rigor of a game of tic-tac-toe.
The truth is, people are not good because of religion. They are good despite religion. Believers tend to be more moral than the religions they practice, as shown by their unwillingness to adhere to the more despicable maxims which comprise their respective faiths. We may thank someone for that.
Just not god.
- Max
No comments:
Post a Comment