Where Did Morality Come from?

***

Many Christian believers assert that human morality was established by God. I think differently.

I think there is a set of universal values that any “decent” human being would recognise and appreciate (whether they themselves practice it or not). These values are things like compassion, honesty, equity, love, peace, liberty, etc. We humans then build around these basic values other offshoots and rules and regulations to promote and ensure these basic values are applied as much as possible to ourselves. Many of these rules and regulations become a kind of standards and what we know as “morality”. This is just a manifestation of the natural inherent instincts of the human species to ensure us humans a good chance to survive long into the future.

In other words, I believe those universal values such as compassion, honesty, equity, love, peace, liberty, etc. were established by humans ourselves out of needs; survival needs.

Millions years ago, early humans were living together in small groups. It became slowly but surely obvious that certain behaviours would be beneficial to the survival of individuals as well as of their group. Groups where members widely practiced and promoted behaviours such as helping, supporting, protecting, caring for, sharing with one another tended to have greater chances of surviving nature disasters, wild animals, accidents, rival/enemy groups, etc. than groups without these behaviours. As small groups expanded into tribes, villages, towns, etc. these behaviours became more and more recognised and valued. They were systemised and promoted by societies as “good social standards”, and then “moral standards”.

Because these values were established by the overall consensus of societies, different societies/cultures might not have identical sets of values. And when the overall consensus of a culture changes, these values would also be affected. 

However, the “core” values such as compassion, honesty, equity, love, peace, liberty, etc. mentioned above do not change much. It could be said that they have stood the test of time. It is because they are always required and valued (or being useful) in any societies whether primitive or sophisticated, in pre-historic times or today. That is why these values could be seen as “universal”.

Certain forms and degrees of these universal values can also be observed in many social, especially “highly evolved”, animals like primates, wild dogs, elephants, dolphins, etc.

We should always remember that whatever moral values we hold might only be truly valid in our own frame of reference. Other cultures, including our own, in a different time and/or a different place might have different views on what we currently uphold.

Numerous “moral” values have come and gone. For example, not too long ago it was acceptable and certainly moral for one to use military power forcing other people to convert to one’s own religion (those refused to be converted were considered not deserved to live). These practices have fortunately been modified to a much milder version today simply because the overall consensus no longer accepts those bloody approaches of the past. For example, not too long ago “moral women” were expected to stay home bearing children and looking after the family instead of getting out in the society living and working cheek and jowl with men. It was not even considered moral for a woman to drink alone in a public bar in parts of England some 60 years ago. Today all this has changed because of big shifts in the general living conditions, education opportunities, economics, politics, ethical viewpoints, etc.

Even the above mentioned “universal” values should not be observed absolutely in all circumstances. For example, during the Nazi occupation in Europe, many people lied to the Gestapo in order to save the lives of the Jews they were hiding in their own attics. It would not be appropriate at all if they applied the moral code “honesty” then. For example, an incorrigible serial killer should be locked up for life because his/her liberty has to come second in comparison to the safety of other people.

Perhaps when it comes to morality, in a way there is nothing absolute. (Including the preceding statement, of course).

***

Cigarettes

***

I could compare some of the religions today with cigarettes (I avoid using “opium” as an example because I do not want some people to get on their high horses and drag Mr Karl Marx out of his deep sleep!)

Only using common sense, one could see that cigarettes are harmful to our health. Just looking at the amount of yellow nicotine resin coating on fingers after only a few cigarettes, one could tell what actually takes place inside the lungs of a long-term smoker. Yet when talking with an addict, we could see how warply and cleverly the human mind can operate. When having a reasoning target to achieve, the mind could twist and turn, dodge and weave to bring out smart arguments using benign "facts" to cover harmful reality.

When craving for a smoke (because of withdrawal or lack of strong will) a person could convince and calm themselves with benign "facts" (such as "science has not proved exclusively that smoking is harmful", "if smoking is really harmful then the government would have forbidden it just like heronine", "hundreds of millions other people also smoke, it should be ok", "smoking relaxes the mind", "smoking is cool", etc.) and push aside the harmful reality of smoking (the rates of having cancer in lungs, ears, nose, throat and early death in smokers are much higher than in non-smokers)

The cigarette industry of course because of profits has always hidden the real facts about cigarettes. They have carried out researches about impacts of cigarettes on human bodies, however instead of announcing its toxic truth they use the knowledge to try to produce more products that are more attractive and addictive to people. Governments also because of the huge tax benefits from cigarette production and distribution have ignored this matter until the recent years.

Science today has proved clearly that breathing other people's cigarette smoke ("passive smoking") is just as harmful as actually smoking it. However, when the law prohibits smoking in some public places, many smokers got very angry. They see their freedom has been violated. They see their needs and lifestyle should be respected by everyone.

We still often see people smoking in the middle of a crowd or mothers obliviously smoking right next to their young children. To avoid the confrontation, rather than out of politeness, we walk away from them instead of come up and object to what they are doing.

Until when, and in what situations, should we stop worrying about confrontation and let these people know our actual views about this?

If everyone thinks somebody else will do it, then who will?

***

Right to Speak Up

***

I don’t really give a hoot if somebody decides to believe in virgin birth, walking on water, heal the blinds, coming back to life from death, etc. and hence conduct their personal lives accordingly.

However when these people hold government administration power in their hands and use those beliefs to make policies that have negative impacts on my welfare then I believe I have the right to speak up.

When people using their own beliefs to openly or tacitly regard me as “morally inferior” to them then I believe I have the right to speak up.

There are people who hold those same beliefs but out of their own choice or otherwise have never done any harm to me nor disrespected me (of which I am grateful). However if these people indirectly or unwittingly condone these behaviours by not recognising or openly opposing them then I believe I have the right to speak up.

***

Prejudice

***

Many Christian believers say they are not prejudiced against non-believers.

Living in a western society, the majority of people I know are Christians in one form or another. From my observation, the devout people tend to be more prejudiced against non-believers. And many are not even aware that they are prejudiced.

Many Christian readers at this moment probably think: "It could be anyone else but not me, I'm definitely not prejudiced". This is because perhaps you have many acquaintances, colleagues, friends who are non-believers whom you always respect and regard as individuals equal in all aspects with yourself; you consider the fact they are non-believers as a private, separate matter that has no influence in the relationship between you and them.

In fact it is very easy to know if you are deep down prejudiced or not. You only need to do a small mental experiment to find out; the only requirement is that you must be totally honest with yourself.

Just try to imagine that an over-21-year-old member of your family one day announces that they would reject Christianity and become an atheist. This could be one of your children, or your brother/sister or your boy/girl friend or your husband/wife. Let us assume that this person has always been very responsible and mature in their life and their way of thinking. They would explain to you clearly why they want to reject Christianity using all the standard reasons that an atheist would use. 

Try to imagine what your feelings and reactions would be when that person is determined to choose that direction in life. Do you think you would be shocked because of this news? Would you try to dissuade or to stop them from doing this? Would you use all the standard reasons that a Christian believer would use (such as Christianity is a true and noble religion; atheism does not have a foundation for morality; the family's tradition has always been Christians; what would our neighbours, relatives and friends in the diocese think about this? etc.) to discuss with them? Or even if you could not be in the position to do this with them, would these thoughts come up in your mind? I want to repeat here, you must be absolutely honest with yourself to make it work because this is an experiment for yourself - and nobody else but you would know what you are thinking (!)

If you answer "No" to all of these above questions then you are really a believer who is not prejudiced in this regard; and you probably are the first one I ever know of.

Similarly, imagine if one of your children announces their intention to marry a non-believer. What would a parent like yourself think and react to this news? You could use the same questions above for self examination. Remember to be true and honest when answering.

Sometimes you could surprise even yourself.

***

A Confession

***

I have a confession to make.

Many times I have asked myself “Do I really want to do this?” By “to do this”, I mean to talk about Christianity the way I do now. It is not that I have doubts about my feelings towards Christianity, it is my feelings about many of my good friends who happen to be Christians. 

Majority of my friends do not know about my views on Christianity (simply because I dare not let them know). Some of those who do have stopped being friends with me, about which I am saddened. The very few of those who do and yet still accept our difference in this philosophical area and remain friends with me, I appreciate and am grateful to their tolerance and patience (not to mention their friendship!).

I know even those people who have been “tolerating” me cannot understand why I am doing this and what I am talking about. They were born and grew up in decent Catholic families. All their lives they are surrounded with love, kindness, compassion. They enjoy church music, spectacular worship ceremonies, friendly caring atmosphere at church activities such as helping homeless people, organising charity fund raising, etc. They find solace in praying, in almost-transcendental tranquility when contemplating the spiritual meaning of life. And a lot more. All they could probably see in me is a mad guy raving about something he doesn’t know and doesn’t even try to find out.

But I believe I have found something. And what I’ve found is not what many people would  want to see. 

What I have found is while there are many great things about being associated with Christianity - as the examples I mentioned earlier (note: I am not saying “there are many great things about Christianity”), there are many dark aspects of this religion. These dark (rotten, evil dark) aspects of Christianity are most of the time cleverly concealed behind a loving, caring facade that many people are attracted to because it responds to and satisfies their human and spiritual needs. 

All I want to do is to point out these dark aspects. First of all for myself as I have always said, and secondly for people who might have had similar observations but have never put them together categorically or dared to speak out.

I also want to assert that there is no need to be part of an out-dated and monstrous religion to cater for one’s human and spiritual needs. If you feel the love, kindness, compassion while you are in a religious environment, it is simply because these qualities already exist within yourself. They are also inherently within almost every one of the human species, even though of different levels and magnitudes. It is just mistaken to associate these universal qualities with religious doctrines or to regard them as exclusive properties of church’s teaching. If you tend to help homeless people or to run charity fund raising events, you would do that anyway even if you were not a Christian believer, or any other religions’ believer for that matter. 

Similarly, the transcendental tranquility can be experienced anywhere outside the religious atmosphere. Life including the universe itself, even though cold and impersonal, is vast and magnificently beautiful; contemplating which can often bring up experiences equal if not far surpassing any religiously induced sensations.

I understand why some people see me as “angry”. It is basically because they are angry themselves at what I have to say. And they probably are angry because they see I am upsetting the apple cart. They are scared that when all the apples have fallen off then they would not know what to do with the empty cart. They should realise that it is perhaps a chance for them to lighten the spiritual burden that has been imposed on them from previous generations. Walking through life by oneself unaided by any supernatural being is probably a frightening thought at first. However once one has become familiar with the nakedness of truth and more confident of oneself then it can also be exhilaratingly peaceful.

There are quite a few “aggressive” atheists out there doing a great job of “bashing” Christianity. It is very tempting, and quite easy, to just bring up reasoning, logic and scientific evidence to bash the Christian belief. It asks for it, being so blatantly nonsensical, illogical and dark-age immoral. It is however probably not most productive in terms of convincing anybody. The first thing believers will do is erecting a wall of defense around themselves, then after that will certainly be anything but an open and frank information exchange.

I just want to know how come it seems so simple and easy for me to see things that many others do not and can not see. Am I missing something? Am I reading into things to much? The more I search, the more I find disturbing facts in more areas. I have so many questions about the Christian faith and doctrines that have never been answered satisfactorily. I wish someone well versed in Christianity could provide me with straight, honest answers to those questions. Without these satisfactorily straight and honest answers, I have no other choice but using my observations to come up with my own views about this religion. 

I do not want to be and try not to be seen as “aggressive”. It is not easy. There are always people who want to shut me up and tear me down at all costs. Even though it is not pleasant but I am getting used to that. What I am concerned most is by saying out loud what I really think, I am upsetting and offending many of my Christian friends and risking losing their friendship because of that. 

It is a hard task to balance between expressing what one feels compelled to say and maintaining what one values so dearly. At times I have thought of giving up. It is no fun to be seen as a trouble maker, even by one’s ex-friends.

I wonder what an idealist who commits to truth would do?

***

Special Rules of Play

***

Imagine two people playing chess, normal chess with normal pieces and normal rules. However, one person has a special small flag. Every time he wants to, he could raise this flag and the rule stops applying to his pieces. That means when the flag is up, he could move his pieces in any way he wants.

Discussing religious matters with a Christian is often like playing chess with a person having this special flag. Every time he is cornered, he raises his flag called “faith”. All the rules are expected to stop applying to him. He doesn’t see the need to prove anything or to have evidence to support what he is arguing for. Whatever he says are to be considered as true, correct and absolute. 

He would vehemently complain if the other player deviated in any way from the rules that he himself does not observe.

Then he announces that his way of playing chess is "true", "just" and "moral".

***

Atheists in Foxholes

***

Many believers use the argument "There are no atheists in foxholes" when debating about “faith”.

They want to show that in extreme and hopeless situations, people can see how small, weak, helpless they really are and then they beg for help and believe in God.

This statement is in fact very true for many people.

However, this statement cannot be used to prove that atheism is wrong or atheists are shallow and weak.

This statement only describes a natural weakness in human. When facing danger, survival instinct within a person makes them need and want to be protected and saved. In desperate situations, they tend to think of some supernatural being who is much mightier than themselves.

In fact, the above statement proves that the concept "God" (and from there, the formation of religion) originated from fear.

Hitler once said to Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Bavaria in 1936 that "Man cannot exist without belief in God. The soldier who for three and four days lies under intense bombardment needs a religious prop."

"A religious prop". This shows Hitler was very clever when he made and used this observation to manage his soldiers' mentality. However, a faith originated from fear is only a tool produced from need. It is not a conviction coming from a genuine heart, it is not from a noble spiritual ideal. Some atheists compare religious faith with a crutch; if this comparison is appropriate then perhaps this is a case where it could apply best. Believers should not promote the comparison between their religious faith with a crutch though (because they are unwittingly doing just that when bringing up the statement about "no atheists in foxholes")

Further more, the above statement does not apply to everyone. There have been many cases where devout believers one day while deeply suffering whatever they are suffering suddenly wake up to the fact that if there was really a loving and caring God as promised then they would not have been in such terrible situations. There are many soldiers after surviving horrifying battles suddenly realise that no compassionate omnipotent God would ever allow all the tragic killing to happen like what has been going on around them. These people from that moment throw away the delusion about God that they have cherished all their lives.

When anyone brings up the statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" to debate for the concept "faith" then perhaps they should be reminded that "there are people who do not need to be in foxholes yet spending their life forever crouching in fear”.

***