RELIGION AND VALUES

WE CAN DISCUSS VALUES / ETHICS / MORALITY WITHOUT BRINGING RELIGION INTO THE DISCUSSION.

Most contemporary philosophers think that you not only CAN talk about values independent of religion, but that you SHOULD. WHY?

COMPELLING REASONS…  Consider Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning: If I do what’s “right” for fear of going to hell or for the privilege of getting into heaven, it’s pretty difficult for a believer to act ethically. Explain.  How can one be certain that reward is not one’s motivation?

COMPELLING REASONS  Has religious belief produced more good or more harm in human history? (When Religion Diminishes Women)  While it may not be possible to balance the impact of religion, its impact has certainly not been wholly positive.  Catch: If one is a believer, souls saved count in favor of the good benefits of religious belief.

COMPELLING REASONS  Is the argument -- “Religion is good for people”-- supported by the research?  Effect on marriage: Divorce rates are higher among Christians and Jews than among agnostics and atheists (Barna Research Group) Domestic violence is greater among “fundamentalists” (Jim Wallis)

COMPELLING REASONS  Is the argument -- “Religion is good for people” -- supported by the research?  Effect on physical well being: Some studies link regular attendance at religious services with better immunological response and longer survival with AIDS. Perhaps religious communities offer clear support and it’s that support rather than religion that we need?

COMPELLING REASONS  Life is filled with horrors – an argument against the existence of a loving, omnipotent God Natural evils: earthquakes, floods, rampant disease, droughts Unnatural evils: rape, plunder, slaughter, torture, terror, war  If one were to pick a contemporary human being at random, what is the probability that his or her life would be as good as yours?

 WE picture a “normal” life as one of development in childhood, joys in marriage and child-rearing, reflection in retirement and death in our sleep at the published life expectancy.  If we get anything else, we think our rights have been violated.  Most lives do not fit that pretty picture at all.

David Hume: Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Nothing can shake the solidity of this reasoning, so short, so clear, so decisive…

CAN RELIGION BE COMPATIBLE WITH DETERMINING WHAT IS ETHICAL?

Taken from Patrick Grim’s Question of Values, Lecture 6: “Thoughts on Religion and Values.” Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company, 2005.