Objective Morality?

Morality is somewhat of a tired argument for the case of religion (and a religion's claims to a supreme being).

This argument is old and fallacious for many reasons, but mainly because it's just not true. The most contrived of fallacious arguments,within the morality spectrum, is that for objective morality. Morality is and always has been subjective and in a constant state of change. Although two people can find many points of agreement on moral issues (e.g. murder, capital punishment, abortion), those same two people will find many points of contention as well.

Asserting that there is some form of objective morality is fundamentally the same as asserting that all plants are the same - one might be able to make a case for it (e.g. similarities in reproduction, physiology, and anatomy), but there is little to no evidence in support the entire claim.

Also, asserting there is an objective morality is to say that there are some (or at least one) moral issues that have and will remain infinitely constant. I defy anyone to find a moral point that has and will remain definably constant.

Moreover, morality is virtually meaningless to a single individual. This is because morality boils down to accountability, and a lone individual is accountable for next to nothing (on moral grounds) in regards to themselves. But, integrate this same individual into a society, family, household, community, country, or world population, and there are means for accountability. It is necessary for this person to be accountable, in various ways, to others in society through norms, values, laws, folkways, etc (i.e. morality). More importantly, there is no real obligation to adhere to this morality; only a socially constructed obligation.

In short, morality is a necessary social construct, which speaks very little for the case for an inherent and/or objective morality.

I challenge you to define religion, fellow atheists.

I have atheist friends, and many atheists that I have seen commenting here on the interwebs, which say that religion is truly an evil thing. These individuals constantly comment on the fact that religion is doing more harm than good, and that it should be necessarily eradicated from society.

I do not challenge the fact that religion does more harm than good; one could make a good case for this very idea. I am altogether unconcerned with this idea and with what religion does in society, to a certain extent. As a sociology student, I am keen to the fact that just the opposite is true in many schools of social thought; that religion has a socially unifying effect and is part of an institution (or institutions) that helps sew the fabric of society together. To the dismay of someone like Sam Harris, understandably, these ideas about the positive or negative effects of religion are not my main concern.

As a student of sociology, I have recently been reading literature on religion and how it operates in society. In the study of this literature, it had been brought to my attention that the term 'religion' is not an easy one to define; and this fact has perplexed sociologists and their subsequent studies of religion for a long time. This brings me to my main point.........

Can you define religion?

No. You truly cannot.

If, in your attempt at a definition, you used words like belief, or faith, then you have missed the boat. Similarly, if you used terms like supernatural, god, spirit, deity, spiritual, or essence, then you are wrong as well. All these terms may, in your opinion, define religion, but they are not necessarily EXCLUSIVE to only a definition of religion. For example, I personally am not religious, but I do believe in things (e.g. human rights, individual freedoms, democracy). Similarly, for example, there are groups out there that we consider religious in nature that do not specifically follow a religious doctrine, a god(s), and nor are they spiritual.

To all the atheists out there who are calling for the eradication of religion: If you cannot properly or specifically define religion, then how can you eradicate it? How can you eradicate something whose definition (that you imply on it) steps on one or more of your own personal morals, ethics, or espoused beliefs?

Think about it.

Stop. You're doing it wrong.

If, by chance, you have come across this blog and you are a religious person, please stop and think about what it is that you actually believe.

Many people that I know believe in various religions for very ambiguous and very stupid reasons. They cannot justify many of their beliefs; much less provide any evidence or sound reason as to why they believe. Personal justification is an important part to action, and religious belief should be no exception to that rule.

Learn about logical fallacies. They will help you in the justification process.

Question everything. There is nothing so sacred that cannot be questioned.

I have personally sworn off religion years ago, and have been living with an atheistic sensibility for roughly 4 years now. The process of "de-conversion" was not an easy one for me. I had been a christian for the majority of my life, and those religious beliefs had created complex webs around rational thought, that ultimately were doing more damage than good. I am a better person now; and not in any sense due to being unaccountable to a "higher being" or have foregone my previous morals.

By no means am I an elitist, nor do I explicitly think that all religion should be eradicated. I do not know for a fact that I am right, about much of anything. If you feel that you are justified in your beliefs, then by all means, keep right on believing. However, do not be so gullible to believe anything without proper justification and/or proper inquiry; and I think this extends to many more things beyond simply religion. As human beings, we have an innate intelligence - an evolutionary advantage - and it's high time that we actually start to use it in all areas of our daily lives.