 |
|
Morality
and religious belief [1]
Morality - An
Atheist's perspective
Avijit Roy
E-mail : [email protected]
It is a response to the article "Islam
Bashing � favorite pastime for some" written by Mr. K. Rahman
which published in NFB on July 23, 2001. In his article, he made some
brutal comment against the atheists in general, which led me to
response accordingly.
What is morality? Morality refers to the
human propensity to judge certain forms of behavior as good and deserving of
admiration, encouragement, and reward, and to judge other forms of behavior
as bad, not to be imitated, and worthy of punishment. Morality also includes
the systems of rules which particular societies develop to codify these
judgments. These systems of rules are developed gradually over many
generations and represent the judgment of many individuals about exactly
what sorts of behaviors are right, what sorts are wrong, and what rewards
and punishments should accompany each form of behavior. Humans have not only
a propensity to judge various forms of behavior as morally right or wrong,
but also a propensity to be sensitive to the judgments of their community
and to be strongly influenced by the particular rules of their own
communities. This propensity to conformity is also a part of morality.
Now, Saying that without God, not
everything is permitted, is not the same as saying that our complex ethical
systems are possible without God. Such systems exist. Are they evidence of
God? Or did they come about in some other way?
Mr. K Rahman traditionally
wrote in his article - "Godless person can do anything without fear of
consequences." and eventually Mr. Rahman concluded by saying -
"The apparent innocence of the atheists is hypocrisy and once they get
to the point of authority, they will be the worst murdered and ferocious
creature I can think of!"
If we focus on historical evidences without
being emotional we would have perceived that for a long time, devotion
towards god has been the sanction for moral conduct. Our deshi culture
promotes prayer, ritual customs, worship and devotion towards spirituality
as an effective tool for constructing moral behavior. We have heard such
statements from our parents, relatives, teachers for thousand times -
�Beshi
korey Namaj porille Allah Sha�ab mapp kare divey� (If you
pray devoutly, Allah will forgive you for all sins). On the other hand, It's
quite surprising to me how many people remarked, "Tumee
Nastik ? Tobe to tumee ja khushi korte paaro - tomar choritro bole to kichu
naai." (You're an Atheist? You must have no conscience about
committing crime then.) Despite the attempt of making our society peaceful
through namaz, roza, haj, jakat, krishna-lila, the spread of war, hate,
poverty and prejudice shows that the belief in god has not proved any
effective sanction. The reason is very clear. Faith in god has been the
indirect method to ensure moral conduct. For religious belief tells that god
blesses those that are moral and punishes the immoral. "If
a believer could obtain god's blessings by means other than morality, he
could afford to ignore morality with impunity. Prayer, worship, ritual and
sale of Indulgence are methods to gain god's favor without caring to be
moral. They pray loud who fleece fellow-men." [ -Gora]
Further, the growth of rationality and
advancement of science reveals beyond doubt that god is an illusion.
Therefore, by and large, faith in god is neither useful nor possible to keep
man moral.
Atheism, in my opinion, takes a
realistic appraisal of morality. Moral values, like truthfulness and
compassion, are social imperatives. One should do what he says and say what
he does in social relations. Otherwise common understanding is not possible.
Hence morality is a social necessity and not a passport to heaven.
As believers of god do not understand the social significance of morality,
war and inequality have prevailed in theistic civilization, despite ages of
belief in god. Look at the examples of the activities of our famous
Razakar-bahini in 1971. They killed thousands of innocent Bangalee people,
raped, murdered, destroyed, liquidated, slaughtered --everything they did by
the name of Islam. Take the example of the activities of stubborn
fundamentalist "Shiva Shenas" during the period when they
destroyed Babri mosque. But atheism encourages the people to insist on
truthfulness, because the untruthfulness of any disturbs the happiness of
others in a social milieu. Thus social checks and counter-checks are real
and affective to keep up morality. Atheism never produce vindictive Shiva
Shena or Razakar Bahini. Atheism encourages to be a real man free from
dogmatism and fundamentalism. As long as a belief in god lingers in the
society, man's mind is divided between obedience to god and obligations to
fellow men. When faith in god is wholly dismissed, social checks grow strong
and the level of morality rises.
Not belief in god, but
the disbelief makes man moral.
Mr. Rahman also mentioned
in his article, "You bet a Muslim (who practices faith) will not
be a thief or liar. The same cannot be said for a devout atheist who will
work only for his material interest."
His intention is very clear - "Atheist
people are immoral" and "Believers are obviously moral".
Well, to evaluate whether spirituality and other religious values (I am not
taking any specific religion in this case) is necessary for moral
conduct, we should devise a test for morality. Non-killing is moral for a
civilian but killing the enemy is the ethics of a soldier. Monogamy is a
moral principle enjoyed by Christians, but Muslims resent interference with
their right to be polygamous. Truthfulness is a commonly accepted axiom of
morality, but governments administer the oath of secrecy on their officers.
While moral values thus differ with custom and expediency, there should
still be a standard for all humans. And that is the recognition of equality
of all humans. Therefore, ethics of all religions and constitutions of
governments proclaim equality as their pious objective.
Judged by the test of equality, the workings
of religious belief through long ages of past history and the professions of
spirituality have but failed to achieve equality. On the contrary,
religious belief has justified existence of inequality on the plea of divine
pleasure. Hindu faith attributes inequalities to the deeds of past
birth. Islam also did the same. We get those X-rated version of heavenly
bliss (eternal huri, wine, sex ..) described in all religious scriptures in
afterlife. Those stories which are full of carnal gratification, sensual
pleasures are reserved for man only should be the key for my present-life
honesty?
" for them is reserved a
definite
provision, fruit and a great honour in the Gardens of
Bliss reclining upon couches arranged face to face,
a cup from a fountain being passed round
to them, white, a pleasure to the drinkers .....
and with them wide-eyed maidens flexing
their glances as if they were slightly
concealed pearls." ( The Rangers 40: 45 )
How a rational person can make himself
believe that he will remain honest to achieve those dishonest reward
in afterlife ? All those "haram" things are cleverly, wickedly and
dishonestly made "halal" in paradise, for which the believers are
waiting so long!
While primitive people with simple thoughts
lived equal, organized religious belief of 'civilized' life raised
inequalities by suppressing free thought and free action and wickedly
reconciled the faithful to their miserable lot by holding out the promise of
heavenly bliss in after-life. So it is wrong to suppose that spirituality
and belief in god would promote morality. Besides, attempts at raising
moral standards were deemed irreligious, blasphemous, heretical or even
atheistic by their contemporaries. Persecutions of prophets and their
followers in every age are illustrations of the conservatism of religious
belief.
The reason for the failure of religious
belief to sustain morality is obvious. Of course, the honest objective of
religious faith is to make man moral through hope of heaven and fear of
hell. And many people are restricting themselves to do crime because
of "Guna", I admit. But it is also true that god, heaven, hell and
rebirth, being falsehoods, could be easily exploited by the clever people
while the meek laity lay downtrodden. The same is the defect of all
spiritual values. Their intangibility is their weakness. They hold out
big promise -- but prove false in fulfillment. How long can people live
in the hope of heaven after life, while the present is miserable especially
in comparison with pomp and comfort of dishonest fellows? The present is
real. So honest believers also are tempted to go dishonest and to reap
immediate gains. Thus, instead of promoting morality, religious faith
encouraged dishonesty and inequality. If only fear of "Guna" be
enough to make mankind moral, then there would be no need for democratic
rules, regulations, police forces, laws and courts in present life.
Real morality is
possible when the sanctions for morality are also tangible and real.
Therefore, atheism shifts the basis of morality from faith in god to
obligations of social living. Moral conduct is not a passport to heaven; it
is social necessity. As we are all humans, belonging to the same
species, we should live equal. Any attempt to transgress the obligation
should be checked and punished here and now by fellow-humans. The immorality
of one injures the happiness of others involved in a social association.
Therefore the checks on immorality are also social needs. There is no
postponement of the punishment to the imaginary fires of hell or to fanciful
faith in divine retribution.
Whether people can be so conscious of social
obligations as to check immorality here and now, is a doubt that rises in
the minds of people who are accustomed to religious faith. Because morality
is a social necessity, the moment faith in god is banished, man's gaze turns
from god to man and he becomes socially conscious. Religious belief
prevented the growth of a sense of realism. But atheism at once makes man
realistic and alive the needs of morality. Atheism alone is the surest
way to morality. Those who oppose atheism in any form betray their vested
interests in inequality of some kind of other (from Gora).
So, It is completely wrong for Mr. Rahman to
judge and conclude that all Atheists are immoral. Yes, If you define
morality as obedience to God, then of course atheists are less moral as they
don't obey any God. But usually when one talks of morality, one talks of
what is acceptable ("right") and unacceptable ("wrong")
behavior within society. If Mr. Rahman would remain his eyes open he
would have seen that many atheists behave in a "moral" or
"compassionate" way simply because they feel a natural tendency to
empathize with other humans. Many atheists are respected father or
loving mother, sister, daughter or son in their personal life and
contributing a lot in their professional, social and cultural life like
others. So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on
moral behavior.
Yes, Naturally, there are some people who
behave "immorally" and try to use atheism to justify their
actions. Polpot, Stalin may be some of the examples. Yes, Polpot may be an
atheist and may be he is also a monster. But I am also an atheist, and I am
NOT a monster. So what is the conclusion ? If you mean
"Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?", then the answer
is obviously no. Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how a
person will behave. Most atheists follow many of the same "moral
rules" as defined by HUMANISTS. Their view morality as something
created by humans, according to the way humans feel the world 'ought' to
work, rather than seeing it as a set of rules decreed by a supernatural
being or dogmatically following so called "holy" books.
However what Mr. Rahman totally ignored that
like Polpot/Stalin there are equally many (actually a lot more than atheists
) people who behave "immorally" and then try to use religious
beliefs to justify their actions. For example,
"Here is a trustworthy saying that
deserves full acceptance: Jesus Christ came into the world to save
sinners... But for that very reason, I was shown mercy so that in me... Jesus
Christ might display His unlimited patience as an example for those who
would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the king eternal,
immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and
ever."
The above quote is from a statement made to
the court on February 17th 1992 by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal
serial killer of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It seems that for every atheist
mass-murderer, there is a religious mass-murderer. But what of more trivial
morality?
Look at the interesting comment of our famous
Razakar Professor of Dhaka University (Abdul Jabbar) who prays to god five
times a day made an in 1971----�The Razakars who are committing
rape on Hindu women�are doing entirely legal�because, Islam legalized to
get wives of enemy for the soldiers during wartime by mutaa marriage�.
(source : Ekatturer Ghatok dalalera k kothay) How can a believer define
those trivial remarks?
A survey conducted on hundred Indian
prisoners in 988 by the "Bharatiya Biggan o Yuktibaadi Shamiti"
(leaded by Prabir Ghosh)
and was found that 100 percent all the prisoners are the believers of
god [ Ref. Olukik Noy Loukik - Part 3, page 39] . If they would make the
similar survey in Bangladesh, I am sure�they would get the same result.
Again, According to the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (National Census of
the Jail Population 12/31/95), while 72% affirmed affiliation with religious
institutions (determined through answers to the question on "Religious
Background" on the Penal entrance form) only 54% of Federal and State
Prisoners actually consider themselves religious, and 33% can be confirmed
to be practicing their religion. In "The New Criminology," Max D.
Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found
that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10th of 1%.
W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined
1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to
religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding
that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from
penitentiaries, or nearly so. During 10 years in Sing-Sing, of those
executed for murder 65% were Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6%
Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1%
non-religious. Where does the religious morality stand then? It
could be that the above statistics merely indicate that religion has no
effect on moral behavior, or insufficient effect to result in an overall
fall in immoral behavior. The same study also demonstrated that the
believers are generally, less educated than the atheists. Therefore the same
researchers believe that the reason the atheists are less likely to commit
crime is because they are more enlightened than those who believe in a
god.
Bertrand Russell sums it up nicely:
"If the only basis of
morality is God's decrees, it follows that they might as well have been the
opposite of what they are; no reason except caprice could have prevented the
omission of all the "nots" from the Decalogue." -- Human
Society in Ethics and Politics (1962) p. 38
Atheists are most probably more enlightened
than the believers. Many atheists actually became atheists because they were
depressed by the words of god that revealed in those holy books. I would
like to refer the famous testimony of Shabnam Nadiya (Why
I Remain an Atheist) which was published in NFB as a feature article :
"That book told me
that no matter how much I read, how much I knew, no matter what love and
compassion for people I held in my breast, no matter my intelligence, my
talents, my love of laughter, I would never ever be as good as even the
lowliest of men. Because I was a woman. I was a field for a man to
sow his seed, I was part of the spoils of war for a warrior, I was impure at
times because I had the power to breed children, my word was not to be
trusted against that of a man, I was the gateway to hell because men would
desire me."
Please notice how she defined her life as an
atheist :
"Instead I decided
that I was human, the highest in the order of life, I was infinite
possibility, I was the limitless sky, I was the sun�s laughter. I would be
captain of my own ship. I would do good and not evil, not because I would
be allowed a good time when I died, but because good was worth doing because
it was good."
Yes, this should be the purpose of our life.
We are humanists, not the soldier of god. We do good - because they are
simply good - as simple as that. We do not consider a wrong and inhumane
task as "good" just because they are revealed in some holy books.
We judge and analyze everything from social perspective and from
rational point of view and then we decide what to do. Albert Einstein
also uttered in a same tune - "A man's ethical
behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties
and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a
poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward
after death. [Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, New York
Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]
I'd like to conclude my article with an
excerpt from the interesting George Carlin monologue (got from stupid
Mike's Web page) for the readers:
The bloodiest wars were fought over
religion, all because they gave the wrong answer to the god question.
"Do you believe in
God?"
"No"
KA-BOOM!! (DEAD!)
"Do you believe in
God?"
"Yes"
"Do you believe in my
God?"
"No"
KA-BOOM!!
"My God has a bigger di#k
than your God"
Thanks to everyone. I feel sorry if the above
satire sounds a bit vulgar, however, the main point of this issue lies in
the fact that religious belief/ theism does not have a monopoly claim to
morality -- but so to speak, all systems of morality should be human
based, and nothing else.
The article is kept in Mukto-mona article
page ( http://humanists.net/avijit/article
).
=========================================================
Courtesy
: Positive Atheism of Gora:
I was highly influenced by the articles of Gora who devoted all his life
for the Propagation of atheism. Gora also founded Atheist Center and worked to
end unsociability in India. He addressed hundreds of meetings in his extensive
tours in India and abroad and answered many questions related to atheism,
morality etc. This paved the way for clearing many doubts and confusion. I
excerpted a significant portion from Gora's "ATHEISM -Questions and
Answers" to form above article.
Morality
and religious belief [2]
DOES
RELIGION DEFINE MORALITY?
Aparthib
Zaman
E mail : [email protected]
It is the common claim of religious believers that sense of right and
wrong can only come from religion/God/spirituality and that anyone secular
is devoid of any moral virtue. So by their criterion it follows that
scientists/philosophers who hold secular beliefs or are atheists have no
virtue at all and virtues are monopoly of religious believers only. It
must be emphasized that Theists declare it as a rule that "Morality
cannot be enforced/defined without religion" whereas Humanists/
rationalists never declare it as rule that "morality can ONLY be
defined/enforced WITHOUT religion. They only affirm that morality is
POSSIBLE independent of religion, and that immorality is also possible
WITH religion. So even if there exists immorality among some atheists
or some secular society that does not change the fact that morality in
some other non-religious society/individual can also and do
exist, and similarly even if there exists morality in some religious
society/ individual that does not change the fact that immorality in another
religious individual/society can and do exist despite religion. Let me
summarize my points as follows:
1. One exception breaks a rule.
2. Theists declare it as a rule that "Morality cannot be
enforced/defined
without God of the religion"
3. There are moral societies (e.g societies based on Buddhism) and
individuals not based on God of the religion.
Thus rule 2 is broken.
First let me state an incontrovertible fact - that there are theists
who commit immoral acts and there are conscientious non theists who behave
morally. This fact already shows a basic weakness
of the view that religion has monopoly on morality. Theists might say
that "if a person was a TRUE follower of religious belief, then he/ she
would not have committed any immoral act and the fact that a
"theist" committed an immoral act only proves that his/her
conviction in religion is not strong or sincere." Whether or not they
were true believers in religion the fact still remains that they were not
"non-theists". And since there are "non-theists" who
also behave morally so the immediate conclusion is that religious belief is
not a necessary prerequisite for being moral. There are those who say
"Only strict adherence to religious injunctions/scriptures can
guarantee a peaceful society, free from crime, oppression, injustice etc.
And any violent and extreme acts of radical followers of the religion is
discounted by saying that they are not true followers of religion and true
followers of religion would never have engaged in such acts. The flaw in
these assertions is that it can be simply argued that
strict adherence to the law of the land is adequate to ensure peace. And if
everyone followed the rule of law then that would suffice to make a society
free from crime and injustice. The fact that a strict theocratic
state has less crime is not because people are so conscientious through deep
belief in the true spirit of religion that they refrain from wrong doings
but because severe punishments by the theocratic state machinery are
enforced and serve as powerful deterrents. In other words it is not
primarily a fear of God that
helps to prevent crime in a theocratic state, but a fear of human. Had there
been any slack in the enforcement of law or if left to the people's
religious conscience then those societies would be full of crimes and all
sorts of immoral acts. The theocratic system of laws did not succeed in
eliminating the evil instincts in the heart of the followers, only succeeded
in putting a lid on it with the potential for that lid to rupture any time
as is sometimes reported in those societies. On the other hand those secular
non- theocratic states who have managed to enforce the civil laws
effectively also are free from crimes, example is Singapore, communist China
( Before the openness). In fact it is ironically true that, autocracy in any
form helps to enforce law in any society. Since theocracy is a form of
autocracy it tends to give one an illusion that it is religion that is
ensuring the peace in the society, where in fact it is the draconian
enforcement by humans of a (theocratic) authoritarian rule which which is
responsible.
If one thinks carefully It will be evident that religious injunctions
actually REAFFIRM what humans already intuitively know to be wrong or right
through the faculty of conscience. CONSCIENCE is as much a part of inherent
human instinct like any other . Like all human instincts it is rooted in the
evolutionary biology of human over millions of years. Natural selection
(acting on the profound laws of Physics over a long span of time) gives rise
to those human instincts that help in its survival and propagation as a
species. In more modern biological language, conscience is the inhibiting
effect of our cerebral cortex on the primitive impulses coming from our
reptilian part of the brain ( limbic system). It has been observed quite
extensively by psychologists and neurologists that a serious damage to the
cerebral cortex impairs the judgment faculty of humans and a conscientious
person can become less conscientious while still functioning normally
otherwise. These primitive instincts are also biologically rooted and
are traced to the biological imperatives of aggression, dominance, mating
and propagation needed for evolutionary survival. For lower animals only
these baser instincts are necessary for their survival and they didn't
evolve conscience (no highly developed cerebral cortex). Only humans evolved
this faculty as evolution "chose" (randomly of course) humans to
the most evolved species. Human species has the highest Encephalization
Quotient (E.Q = 7) which is a measure of how large the brain is compared to
the size that is required for a basic survivial. Humans are not limited to
the basic survivial impulses of lower animals, but have memory, experience
and knowledge all aquired through the extra amount of brain (mostly cerebral
cortex) that helps him to judge his surroundings and make informed
decisions, sometimes in contradiction to the basic urges.
So the assertion that morality is not rooted genetically is also not in
accord with the contemporary view of biology. Our instinct of conscience
developed long before the the relatively recent arrival (in evolutionary
terms) of revealed religions, so stating that conscience (or sense of right
and wrong) is a result of God's revelation is an anachronism. The
revealed religions of Islam and Christianity came long after the Greeks
already were familiar with and discussing the concepts of morality. All
aspects of morality that religion preaches had been taught by Confucius,
Buddha, and other ancient sages in different civilizations independent of
divine
preaching of morality. Besides it contradicts simple common sense that if
indeed God was the only source of morality then the complexity of human
brain and its evolution and its well known role in judgment faculty would be
totally redundant and unnecessary. After all God could just instill that
faculty without this unnecessary structural complications in our brain which
is known to affect our judgement faculty and hence sense of morality.
We can see there is an inherent fallacy in basing right and wrong
on a divine entity. For example the usual explanation of religion declaring
some action "X" as wrong (X= rape/stealing/murder etc) is that
God, as the source of all righteousness cannot allow such an evil act
"X" to be committed. Why is "X" evil? Here a
satisfactory answer is not possible. Any attempt to explain why
"X" is evil will defeat the premise that an evil is what God
decrees as evil. So according to the religious believers, ultimately an evil
is what God "decides" to be evil (criterion for such decision is
supposedly unknown to human). There is no human criterion that can explain
why something is evil. In other words to be consistent they have to admit
they cannot explain in human terms why rape/murder/theft etc are evil other
than saying that it is only evil because it is declared so by God. By the
same token if these acts were allowed and declared moral then to be
consistent a blind follower of revelations could not have challenged that
and accepted them blindly to be moral as declared by God, he/ she would not
need any justification/explanation in human terms as to why these acts are
allowed or declared moral. But in reality if an apologist of religion is
asked as to why these "evils" are not allowed, invariably the
answer will be "God can never allow such acts since they are
evil". So unwittingly they engage in circular reasoning and betray
their own instinctive human perception of right and wrong in defending why
these acts are not allowed by God. if things are neither right nor wrong
independently of God's revelations, then God cannot choose one thing over
another because it is right. An apologist might argue, for example, that God
would never condone such killing, raping, stealing, and torturing, for God
is all good. But if goodness is a defining attribute of God, then God cannot
be used to define goodness, for, in that case, the definition
would be circular - the concept being defined would be doing the defining -
and such a definition would be useless. Hence at the root of all these
conceptual contradictions is the deeply rooted human instinctive notion of
right and wrong (conscience) independent of God's revelation which a theist
invariably appeals to when arguing about morality and its divineness as we
saw above. So this instinctive notion of morality must be more
fundamental and precede any belief in revelations and thus debunks the claim
of theists that concept of morality can only be rooted in religion.
Religion seems to provide a deterrent by the threat of punishment in hell
and reward of heaven to naive minds. But the same can be and is achieved in
any civilized society by the civil laws. The reason a person with no strong
conscience does not commit a rape in public is NOT because it is forbidden
in religion BUT because he will be arrested immediately and thrown to jail
or sent to death row. In old days, in some societies, laws and penal codes
were not established or effectively enforced and integrated as part of
Government/State machinery as it is now. So in those societies religious
injunctions were the only deterrent against such uninhibited acts of
"wrong" . In societies where there were other human methods of
checks and balances this concept of divine arbiter to settle morality was
not relevant or necessary. For example a large population of the world are
Buddhist society. Buddhism is based on Godless morality. Even before
Buddhism the morality of ancient Chinese was based (and to a great extent is
still based) on the teachings of Confucius which in turn is based on human
values, not divine. Even the ancient Incas and Mayas had evolved a highly
organized society without the help of a revealed religion. Good people do
good because they want to do good - not because they will personally benefit
from it or because someone has forced them to do it. People who do good
solely for personal gain or to avoid personal harm are not the ideal good
people. Someone who saves a drowning child, for example,
only because he was offered a reward or was physically threatened does not
deserve much praise. Thus, if one's only reason for performing good actions
is his/her desire to go to heaven or his/her fear of going to hell - if all
his/her actions are motivated purely by self interest - then ideally it
should not qualify him/her for heaven because he/she acted out of pure
self-interest and hence not a good person worth the reward, since heaven is
for truly good people, who would be selfless. Thus the the religious concept
of heaven/hell and morality leads to a contradiction. Besides, the threat of
divine punishment cannot impose a moral obligation, for might does not make
right. Threats extort; they do not create a moral duty. Thus, if our only
reason for obeying God is the fear of punishment if we do not, then, from a
moral point of view, God has no more claim to our allegiance than Hitler or
Stalin. Morality then literally becomes an unquestioning compliance of
divine commands.
As mentioned earlier religious believers assert that a secular/Godless
person has no sense of virtue or right or wrong. Hence according to their
views, followers of philosophies (Buddhism, Confucius, Shamanism, Shintoism,
Bahai etc, none of which believes in God or divinity of any kind) do not
have or are capable of forming the judgment of right or wrong. But in
reality these people do indeed show sense of right and wrong. and are just
as capable of private moral behavior as theists. Thus belief in a
certain God does not seem to be a prerequisite. It is true that some
universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of
society. But it is incorrect to assume that God/ religion is the ONLY or
BEST possible source of such standards. Early and medieval Philosophers such
as Plato, Kant, John Stuart Mill, George Edward Moore, and John Rawls did
make convincing arguments that it is possible to have a universal morality
without God and we see this is true in practice in any societies not based
on revealed religions. Morality/virtue etc is an evolving personal and group
code of conduct that seem to reflect the most efficient way of maintaining
personal and group stability and peace in a community of people with clash
of interests and values. It is a product of the natural selection, through
trial and error. After all, human species itself is a product of evolution
via natural selection, so morality also has to be part of that natural
selection. It is part of simply being human, whether or not one believes in
a higher personal God of the religion or spirituality.
We should realize that the notion of right and wrong exist because humans
are being with needs, and that human beings have proven themselves capable
of devising and then abiding by their own rules independent of religious
decrees ( As the examples I have cited earlier show), within which an
individual or society can pursue their varied interests with differing
values yet maintain general peace and stability, then there is no longer any
need to posit any perceived higher moral authority. The Universal
Declarations of Human Rights is one such example of the reflection of the
common shared moral values of humanity. Only when someone posits a law
higher than what is already agreed to by humanity solely on the basis of
common sense perception of what is good and effective for humanity, need any
questions be raised --for it is only THEN that an explanation or
justification of such a moral base is necessary. The burden of proof belongs
on the one who steps outside the ordinary and common sense way in which
morals are derived, not on the one who continues to keep his or her morals
and values in conformity with that democratically established.
=======================================================================
This article is taken from : http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/religion.html#article4
Morality
and religious belief [3]
My Perspective
on Atheism versus Theism
Syed Kamran Mirza
New York City, USA
Email :[email protected]
Recently in NFB, Mr. K. Rahman has made several despotic
comments that are utterly ridiculous, unfounded, illogical and deserve
strong rebuttals. Avijit,
Aparthib
Zaman and Shabbir Ahmed did splendid job of rebutting those hilarious
logic of Mr. Rahman. Because of the ridiculous writing style of Mr. Rahman (not
putting quotations inside inverted coma), readers had difficulty
in understanding, as to, who was talking what in his article. However, it is
a well-known fact that there is an erroneous common perspective in general
that religion makes human beings perfect, kind hearted and impeccable
person.
This is only a century-old hypothesis, which has no
practical impact at all. Sometimes ago, Mr. Aparthib Zaman wrote an
excellent article in this forum with strong inconvertible logic and
philosophical arguments to prove that religion has no strong basis to make a
human being moral. But, Mr. Rahman is telling us completely a different
story. According to him, all religious persons are good humans and
conversely, non-religious persons are bad humans. In this essay, I shall use
some historical facts to prove that Mr. Rahman�s theory has flaws and
incongruity.
As Mr. Rahman says:
"I was not talking about any tom, dick or harry.
I was talking about two institutions, i.e., atheism and theism [strictly
speaking: ISLAM]. Islam in its institutional form of authority in ISLAMIC
EMPIRE simply did not commit any genocide or demonstrate murderous behavior.
Atheism appeared in institutional form in COMMUNISM and was a deadly blood
thirsty institution".
Let us examine how Mr. Rahman is right in his assertion.
According to his theory of institution�all communist countries are grouped
into one institution-COMMUNISM. On the other hand, all religious
countries are grouped into one institution-THEISM. Let me take first:
THE INSTITUTION OF COMMUNISM (ATHEISTS):
The following were the communist countries: USSR, Poland,
Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Mongolia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, China,
Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba etc. were ruled (some are still ruling)
by the constitution/doctrine of the Communism. As per I know the
constitution or doctrines of the Communism is the best possible pro-people
constitution in the whole world. Even the most pro-people constitution of
USA is of no comparison with the constitution of Communism. Truly speaking,
in theory, constitutional decrees of Communism are much more pro-peoples
than the constitutional decrees of Capitalist America, although practically
it has been proven quite opposite. Nevertheless, the book of
the Communist Constitution never ever contains any order to: kill, hate,
oppress, subjugate and punish any believers, non-believers or other race and
creeds.
According to Mr. Rahman communism means an institution of
atheists and this institution therefore should commit killings and every
countries under communism must have killing fields throughout the country,
because they are atheists. Now world knows�only some particular leader
(not every leaders) in USSR, China and Cambodia had committed some
political killings, again those killings did happen only under certain
particular dictators like Stalin, Palpot, Mao Tse-tung, etc. Even in
Russia�other rulers like Nikita Khrushchev, Gorbachev and others did not
commit mass killings. Therefore, we did not see any general trend of
killings in every Communist country.
A vast majority of Communist countries (mentioned above)
never had any such political mass killings. Cuban President Fiddle Castro is
ruling Cuba for forty some years by strict Communist constitution. Was there
any evidence that Fiddle Castro did mass killings in Cuba? Certainly not! So
where does stand the very ludicrous theory of Mr. Rahman that, Communism
must commit mass killings? Besides, mass killings in communist
countries were never documented like the killing fields of two World Wars;
hence most of them were simply propagandas by Capitalist world during the
Cold War period. Now let us draw our attention to the history of
those countries ruled by theists.
THE INSTITUTION OF THEISM (BELIEVRS):
Let us take some prominent Strict Islamic Countries:
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Sudan whose constitution is Islamic
Shariaat (Quran and Hadiths). In the constitution (Quran and Hadiths) of
these Islamic countries�there are plenty of scriptural (constitutional)
orders to: kill , oppress, subjugate, punish all non-believers, other
believers. Also there are plenty of orders to suppress/oppress/subjugate
women and minorities (Dhimmis). So what have we seen
in these three countries of strong believers? Let us check one at a time:
In Iran: After the Islamic revolution Ayatollah
Ruhulollah Khomeni immediately killed (by execution) half a million
so-called anti-revolutionist Iranians. He killed another million young boys
during the eight years of war with Iraq. After that this Islamic regime of
strong believers continued endless killings and tortures to tens of
thousands of innocent Iranians in the name of saving Islam and Allah.
In Saudi Arabia: A total despotic tyrannical
dictatorship with sporadic killings by beheading, maiming, tortures of its
citizen is routine. Oppression and subjugation of women and minority (of
course no minority exists) are rampant.
In Afghanistan: Needless to mention that this true
Islamic country is the reminiscent of modern day Caliphate of 7th
century Arab. Killings, tortures, subjugating, suppressing people�s
rights, suppressing women�s and minority�s rights are routine. In short
one can say that�no civilized people can live in Afghanistan today. This
country is the most black spot of the Islamic world today!
In Sudan: Since the inception of Islamic Govt. in
Sudan, sectarian fights between Muslims and Christians are rampant, which
had taken the life of tens of thousands of innocent human beings.
SO WHAT ARE WE OBSERVING IN THESE THEISTS RULED COUNTRIES
MR. RAHMAN?
Let us take some prominent countries ruled by the rulers
who is a believer or theist:
Germany, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Uganda, etc., are
some countries ruled by believers (and not by an atheist).
Germany: In the Second World War, Adolph Hitler
killed an estimated 20-30 million peoples. Hitler was a Christian and strong
believer (not an atheist) yet Hitler was a demon diabolic killer.
When he became the glorious leader of Germany, Adolph Hitler thought that
God�s invisible hands were behind his success. He incited his young
followers to kill all Jews and Communists to please Christian God. (Personal
diary of Adolph Hitler by: Adolph Hitler�Translated by Rukhsini Proshad
Battacherji ).
Indonesia: A Muslim Country having rulers who
believed in God�s existence unlike an atheist who does not believe in
existence of any personal God. What have we seen there? Does any body
remember Indonesian Military coup in 1965?
In October 1965, more than one million Communist workers and peasants
were brutally slaughtered in the name of saving democracy and Islam by a
organized army coup led by General Suharto, which swept aside Indonesia and
simply wiped out Communist Party (PKI) within a few days of massive
killings. In this cruel ordeal�Indonesian Mullahs gave full hand supports
to General Suharto. These were all THEIST PEOPLE INDEED WHO DID THE KILLINGS
IN Indonesia. Where stands the theory of Mr. Rahman?
Pakistan: In 1971, during the glorious Independence
struggle of Bangalees, Pakistani soldiers who were theist/believers killed
three million innocent peoples (Adam Santaan), raped 250,000 women and
destroyed Billions of dollars worth property. All most 98% percent of all
Mullahs, Maulanas, Madrassah students of Bangladesh helped Pak army in this
brutal killing, and raping of Bangalees. Tikka, Niazi, Yahya they all
were Muslims and believers indeed. So, where lies your theory Mr. Rahman?
Iraq: President Saddam Hussein who is known as a
diabolic killer is a true believer. To many a Muslims, he is a Islamic hero
who fought, or fighting infidels for the cause of Islam. This demon,
diabolic Muslim killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi peoples. He used
weapons of mass destruction (Chemical weapons) to kill several Kurd villages
where he annihilated thousands of human beings. He even killed his own
son-in-laws, nephews and other nearest relatives, and still continued
assassinating peoples who opposes him. Where lies your theory, Mr. Rahman?
Uganda: Dada Idi Amin of Uganda was a true
Muslim/believer who slaughtered tens of thousands of peoples. It was told
that, he was a diabolic terrorizing ruler who was also a cannibal who loved
to eat human liver and flesh. So, where lies your theory, may I ask you Mr.
Rahman?
Now let us deal with the Institution of the Prophets:
Prophet Moses: was a blamed for killing human beings
who fought wars and killed peoples at war and also killed people who
surrendered to him.
Jesus: Jesus was an extremely kind-hearted forgiving
Prophet. This prophet asked to forgive all sinners, love all sinners, never
kill any body, never take any revenge, and love your archenemy. Even love
and forgive thieves and prostitutes. He used to advise his disciples to
conquer enemy�s hearts by love and forgiveness.
Muhammad: This Prophet of Islam, though in his
early life was a peaceful, honest guy, begun his venture of establishing his
new religion Islam by force. From the very early period he started a
collision course with the pagan Arabs and used his sword to overcome all
resistances from his rivals. In many wars, and in many secret conspiracies
he killed tens of thousands of peoples who opposed Islam. He hired killers
to annihilate his rivals by luring peoples with the dazzling heavenly
pleasures and happiness. He even killed surrendered unarmed war prisoners in
the Khyber war.
Buddha: was a Prophet who never killed any life
(Humans, Animals, Insects etc.). He asked his followers to love, forgive and
never kill even a Mosquito.
So what should be our honest and sincere conclusion by
the above survey of world�s history? Here in the Prophetic institution
also we have seen no consistency at all. We neither can claim that anybody
who is a Prophet should be a killer/demon, nor can we say that anybody who
is a Prophet should be a merciful, kind hearted benevolent human being!
When Aparthib Zaman and others pointed their fingers
towards Yahya and Tikka khan�s cruelties then Mr. Rahman said, "Yahya
or Tikka khan did not represent any Islamic institution. They represented a
traditional power institution". Well Mr. Rahman, could you tell us
why Stalin, Polpot and Mao Tse-tung could not be considered just as the
likes of Tikka khan, Yahya who also represented a traditional power
institution?
In his flip-flop sidetracking of real answer to those
questions asked by Shabbir Ahmed, Aparthib Zaman and others, Mr. Rahman
tried to get excused by saying: "well, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan is
not the real Islam!" Now the question is what is real Islam? And
where lies the real Islam? Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are being
ruling by pure Islamic Shariaat (Quran and Sunnah). My
fervent request to Mr. Rahman or any other Islamists -- please, could you
give us just FIVE good reasons/criteria,
as to why, we should not call Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia a true Islamic
Country? Your FIVE reasons must have supports from Quran and hadiths.
Conclusion:
Truth of the matter is � to be a tyrant killer, one
does not have to be either an atheist, nor theism is the prerequisite
qualification for a killer. More or less, people of both camps (atheism and
theism) could turn into a despotic tyrant killer anywhere and everywhere in
this world. Modern science has proved with well-founded theory that, killer
instinct of a human being lies in his genetic make-up. And this genetic
predisposing factor may get even stronger/worst by political strength and
dictatorship. Nevertheless, a careful survey of world history will tell
exactly the opposite of what Mr. Rahman asserted in his first essay that
atheism insist killing spree in human minds.
To the contrary, the world history will tell us that it
was the THEISM incited killing spree among the people for thousands of
years. THEISM vehemently divided the human race for thousands of years
causing tremendous harms to humans. Religions or belief systems of various
types are the most prominent cause of blood shed in the mankind�s history.
No other single factor killed so many peoples than
the total number of peoples killed by the religion, for the religion and of
the religion in the whole mankind�s history. Even today,
religions are the main factor of sectarian killings in Pakistan, Sudan,
Philippine, Indonesia and many other countries of the world.
Even the social oppressions and economic corruption runs
high in those countries ruled by theist person (Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Nigeria, India, Sudan, Somalia, Uganda, etc.), but social
oppressions/corruption are much less in those countries ruled by atheists
rulers (Singapore, Japan, China, Taiwan, Thailand etc.). I have a bitter
personal true observation that tells me that the THEIST people are
more inclined to commit crime than ATHEIST people, which I will bring
in this forum sometimes next. Let me conclude this essay with a famous
quote:
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or
without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people
doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes
religion ."-- by Nobel
Laureate physicist Steven Weinberg:
====================================================
Published in NFB ( http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/jul/27/v4n639.htm
)
|
|
|
