Morality & Guilt in various religions

(Originally written April 11, 2007 in book 15)

Chapter 4 - Morality & Guilt

Some fundamental distinctions

There are many moral concepts that are universal to all religions.

Duties in Religion
1. Moral Norms
2. Religious Norms
A. Obligatory Actions
B. Ritual avoidances
i. Defilement of self
ii. Defilement of the Holy

The Common Core

There are similarities in moral codes from religion to religion, but upon closer examination they can be seriously different.

Some principles may seem similar like Thou Shall Not Kill of Judaism & Christianity and the principle of ahimsa - the 10 precepts of Buddhism. But, "Thou shall not kill" means do not murder, while ahimsa is no harming of life whatsoever.

Other principles are completely contrary from religion to religion. The second commandment, "Thou shall not bow down before any graven images" is contrary to the statues of Buddhas, an integral part of Buddhism. Ahimsa is contrary to the animal sacrifice of the Old Testament.

Religious and ethical considerations go hand in hand. An ethical concept of a religion cannot be isolated from the overall context of that religion.

The Ceremonial Dimension

Sin and defilement are very different. Sin (a breaking of a moral rule) involves intent, whereas defilement (a breaking of a ceremonial rule) completely disregards intent.

Moral, religious, and ceremonial concepts can be isolated only in theory. In practice they work hand in hand and no such distinction is found among practitioners.

Case in point: Christianity

Christianity is not an ethical religion like Judaism or Islam. It is a redemptive religion The heart of Christianity is not its moral code (it does have one) but a historical event leading to the salvation of men.

The Law within Christianity operates in a few ways:
1) It governs life so that life is actually livable.
2) It functions as a "schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:24). It prepares us for adoption into God's family. It shows us that we are incapable of earning admittance into God's family and that we can enter only by Grace.
3) The keeping of the law is only possible via the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.

"Christian ethics apart from a Christian supernatural setting is pointless" (Corduan, 88).

Christian religion and Christian ethics are utterly and wholly intertwined. Without the theological underpinnings of Christianity all that is left is an impossible moral code.

From its inception Christianity ahas been against many of the ritual prohibitions that were integral parts of Jewish and Gentile societies.

The only occurrence of ceremonial purity in the New Testament is Paul's admonishment of the Corinthians' treatment of the Lord's supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34).

Corduan believes that this admonition is not so much a command for personal holiness prior to partaking of Communion, but a mandate to understand communion correctly and to treat it with proper respect. Linehan feels that this is a ceremonial purity issue right now (subject to change of course).

Side not: It may not be a call to become personally holy before partaking communion because that would in fact deny the nature of communion, but a more inner ceremonial purity in being ready to partake of communion. As for what communion is I am not ready to give it the Catholic transubstantiation status, but neither do I want to reduce it to a mere remembrance of the event. I think it is a true partaking of something holy and not merely a remembrance of something holy.

In various aspects of Christendom throughout history some ceremonial purity has emerged, but is not a part of the New Testament.

Ethics in the religious universe

Judaism & Islam have similar ethical codes.

Judaism has a longer history and a much more detailed set of codes.

The moral codes function differently in Islam and Judaism. Adherence to the moral code in Judaism is an expression of the relationship between the Jew and YHWH whereas adherence to the moral code in Islam is the way to enter Heaven for the Muslim.

The standards of Judaism also apply solely to the Jews whereas the moral codes of Islam we taken as universally binding.

Zoroastrianism's moral code is similar to Islamic & Jewish codes. All three were revealed by God to a prophet (Zoroastrianism - Zoroaster, Islam - Muhammad, Judaism - Moses).

Zoroastrianism however is preoccupied with ceremonial purity more than ethical obligations.

In Indic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) there is a two-tiered arrangement. Monks have stricter codes than the laity.

The Hindu code is hinged on the caste system. All ethical and moral obligations are tied to one's caste.

Hinduism also has duties associated with stages of life.

A man must become a sannyasin and renounce everything, his name, his family, his caste, etc. in order to achieve moksha (release, liberation).

The monks in Buddhism and Jainism are the only ones capable of release from the cycle of reincarnation. The laity can work to have a better rebirth, but cannot achieve nirvana.

Jainism is harshly ascetic. Eventually a monk will starve himself to achieve his goal.

Buddhism considers itself the "middle way" and is not as ascetic as Jainism.

Buddhism teaches that harsh asceticism can be a hinderance to spiritual enlightenment.

Confucianism is above all else a code of behavior.

Confucianism came to exist within other religions (Daoism/Buddhism in China, Shinto in Japan), not along side it.

Confucianism focuses on human behavior and teaches that proper individual behavior will alleviate societal problems.

Confucianism does not possess within itself any religious doctrine.

Violations and their Consequences

There are two major trajectories in the world's religions:
1) Western/Abrahamic Traditions
- Judaism
- Zoroastrianism
- Islam
- Baha'i
- Christianity

2) Eastern/Indic Traditions
- Hinduism
- Buddhism
- Jainism
- Sikhism
- Daoism

These two groups differ radically on the conception of sin.

In Abrahamic religions sin is an offending of God and breaking the human-God relationship.

In Indic religion sin is a negative Karmic effect.

God is the source of moral rules in monotheistic traditions.

The character of moral law is prescriptive and proscriptive, not descriptive in Abrahamic traditions.

Punishment occurs after sin in the West. It could be a warning, salutary, or be a making of an example out of the person.

Punitive action results out of a decree of a personal God. A personal God can also provide mercy or grace to the sinner.

Sin in the Indic traditions is similar to breaking a natural law.

Indic religions have the concept of Karma, which is not tied to a personal God.

In Hinduism, Karma is tied to Samsara, the cycle of rebirths. One's present life is the result of one's previous life.

Karma is not deterministic or fatalistic in Hinduism. One controls one's karma.

Karma is automated in Hinduism. It is not (usually) a judgment passed by a deity.

Karma is negative and pessimistic. It is viewed as perpetual suffering.

The goal of Hinduism is not to accumulate good karma, but to escape the samsara cycle.

There can be a divine intervention in samsara and karma. This is what the Bhagavad Gita tells Hindus.

The negative aspect of karma is even more noticeable in Buddhism and Jainism.

Buddha taught that there is no individual soul and that each person's an aggregate of effects.

Good karma in Buddhism is karma nonetheless and must be balanced out in another life. The goal is to have no karma at all.

In Jainism, Karma is a dust that accumulates on one's soul.

Only a complet abnégation of life leads to release from samsara.

The goal of a Jain monk is to do nothing and to starve himself to death.

Sin belongs within the framework of a system with a personal God. Karma fits into a framework without a personal deity much better.

Christianity alone possesses the notion of "original sin". At first blush this can appear similar to karma in that everyone is born into a state of condemnation through no fault of our own.

The major misunderstanding with original sin is to tie it to finitude. Our finitude makes it impossible not to sin is a common erroneous belief.

Christ proved that human being can live a sinless life.

Original Sin describes the broken relationship between man and God, not the introduction of finitude.

Healing the Breach

Ronal M. Green distinguishes between four senses of reason
1) Theoretical reason - our conceptualization of the world around us
2) Prudential reason - our capacity for living successfully in the world as we understand it
3) Moral reason - places our priorities in order
4) Religious reason - attempts to reconcile the conflict between prudential and moral reason

Response to the World Parliament Statement

Only the most minimal code seems to be fairly universal (truth-property-life-sex) and even these must not be abstracted from their religious context lest they become equivocations and meaningless.

The statement, originally by Hans Küng calls for an end to prejudice and hate. This is all well and good unless it denies objective truth on matters like abortion and homosexuality. Many Christians are labeled as bigots for their stances on these issues.

Likewise, Küng demands that religions denounce their fundamentalists because they deny peace among religions and without religious peace there can be no world peace. But this world be a denouncement of objective truth on many vital issues.

The 1997 Declaration of a Global Ethic affirms an universal moral code and locates it where it ought to be, within a religious context. But, it does not give any implementation strategy and leave evangelical Christians in a place where they cannot agree with it without giving away too much.

Moral Arguments and Objections for God

(Originally written March 6, 2007 in Book 13)

Moral Arguments and Objections

The moral argument for God was not posited as a rational argument at first. It was merely used as a practical postulate.

Kant: Positing God out of Moral Necessity

Kant denied any possibility for theoretical proofs of an absolutely perfect being or Necessary Being. But, he did posit God because it was necessary for a God to be to make sense of moral experience.

The unity of happiness (the desire of all man) and morality (what all men ought to do) is Kant's greatest good or summum bonum.

Kant stated that people are unable to reach the summum bonum in this life or without God. Thus, it must be assumed that there is a God and an afterlife.

Rashdall: Positing God is Rationally Necessary

Hastings Rashdall argues that there must be an absolutely perfect moral Mind. He argues that an absolutely perfect moral Mind must exist to hold an objective moral law that is independent of individual minds. Since there is an independent and objective moral law an absolutely perfect moral Mind must exist.

Sorely: An Expansion of the Moral Argument

W.R. Sorely argues that there is an objective moral law independent of human consciousness despite a lack of conformity to it because:
1) People are conscious of this law
2) People acknowledge its claim on them without actually yielding to it
3) People admit its validity prior to recognizing it
4) No finite mind grasps its fullness
5) All finite minds together have not reached complete agreement on its meaning nor conformity to its ideal.

Sorely argues that an objective moral law is an idea and that ideas exist only in minds. Thus, there must be a supreme mind in which this objective moral law exists.

He contends that the moral law is not a formal part of the universe and therefore cannot be accounted for in natural terms.

Trueblood: Further Refinement of the Moral Argument

Elton Trueblood added to the moral argument in the tradition of Rashdall and Sorely.

He argued that there must be an objective moral law because otherwise:
1) There would be no agreement on the meaning of it
2) No ethical disagreements would have ever occurred because each person would be subjectively right.
3) Normal judgment would ever have been wrong
4) No ethical question could even be discussed
5) Contradiction would result

Also, he argued that the moral law is beyond individuals and humanity as a whole.

He stated there must be a Lawgiver that is a moral, personal Mind.

Lewis: Further Expansion of the Moral Argument

C.S. Lewis argued that:
1. There must be a universal moral law because otherwise:
- Disagreements would make no sense
- All criticism are meaningless
- Promise and treaty keeping are unnecessary
- We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law
2. This moral law cannot be herd instinct because otherwise:
-The strongest impulse would always win
-We would always act from instinct
-Some instincts would always be right
3. The moral law is not mere convention because:
- Not everything learned is a social convention
- Judgment about moral progress makes sense only if the basis for value judgment is independent of human society
- Variations in value judgments are largely factual, non-moral
4. The moral law cannot be identified with a law of nature because:
- The moral law is not a descriptive 'is' but a prescriptive 'ought'
- Situations factually more convenient are morally worse than these less convenient
- Factually convenient situations can be wrong
5. The moral law cannot be mere fancy
6. The person is the key to understanding this moral law
7. Therefore, there is an absolutely perfect power outside of man which is more like man than anything we know

Russell: Moral Disproof of God

1. If there is a moral law it comes from God's fiat or it does not.
2. If it comes from God's fiat is arbitrary and God is not essentially good
3. If it does not come from God's fiat than God is subject to the moral law and thus, not ultimate
4. Either God is not essentially good or else God is not ultimate
5. Neither an arbitrary God or a less than ultimate God is religiously worthy.
6. Therefore, there is no God who is worthy of religious devotion.

Some theists, following in Ockham's tradition argue that God's fiat is not arbitrary. Other theists, following Aquinas, argue that this is a false disjunction.

Bayle; The Basic Form of the Dilemma

Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) gave the basic logical moral argument against God:

1. Evil exists
2. An omnipotent God could destroy evil
3. A benevolent God would destroy evil.
4. Therefore, since evil is not destroyed then either
-God is omnipotent and malevolent
-God is benevolent but impotent
-God is malevolent and impotent
-God does not exist

Most non theists have not used this a definitive proof because
1. It is possible God is doing something to destroy evil
2. It is possible that there is some greater good achieved by allowing evil.
3. What seems evil may be a part of a greater good.
4. It is possible that it may be contradictory to God's will or man's free will to destroy evil
5. It is possible that God is all-perfect but not all-powerful.

Camus: Theism is contrary to Humanitarianism

Albert Camus claimed that if humanitarianism is right then theism is wrong.

He held that if there is a God, he must be worked against because he is the source of evil.

Other forms of the moral argument against God

Roland Puccetti argued against John H. Hick's defense of theism, stating:

1. There are instances of innocent suffering
2) An all-wise, all-powerful, all-good God would not allow innocent suffering
3. Therefore, such a God does not exist

Puccetti's argument does not logically rule out an all-perfect God.

Innocent suffering is no the same as unrewarded and unredeemed suffering.

It is possible that no suffering is innocent.

There are plausible explanations to why God permits suffering: Even if no theist knows these reasons it may still exist.

If the theistic God exists, there is a good explanation for all suffering.

H.J. McCloskey argued:

1. Either we should work to eliminate suffering or we should not
2. If we should not, then the moral law is wrong
3. If we should, then theism is wrong
4. The moral law is right
5. Therefore, theism is wrong

Moral disproofs of God all appear to be doomed to failure because they must assume some standard of justice from beyond this world.

Even if the anti-theist insists that the moral standard comes from something other than God he must admit a major premise of theism (an objective moral law).

Küng: Exercising Fundamental Thrust

Hans King, a Roman Catholic Theologian offered an argument that is both moral and cosmological:
1. Traditional defenses of God's existence are inadequate
2. Modern atheism is not rationally defensible, but it is not rationally refutable
3. Atheism has given way to nihilism
4. One must choose to affirm reality or deny it and fall into nihilism
5. When we affirm meaningfulness we exercise fundamental trust
6. Reality has not shown itself to be self-grounded
7. We must choose to see reality as grounded in something or not
8. We can say yes to God as the ground of reality.

Küng presents a disjunctive argument. God cannot both exist and not exist; reality cannot both be and not-be meaningful.

King does not demand that we choose God, only that choosing God is a rational decision. But he leaves atheism as a rational, albeit implausible choice as well.

No rationally inescapable moral proofs for God have been offered.

No definitive moral disproof of God has been offered.

The theistic case must demonstrate the plausibility of evil being a condition for a greater good.

When any anti-theist is proof is pressed too far it becomes an argument for God or at least grants a major premise in the theist's argument (objective moral law).

The theistic moral argument depends on the cosmological argument because laws need causes.