Escaping the Moral Certainty Dilemma

A Christian friend recently forwarded me an article about women in Islam.  The article described a lot of horrible ways women are mistreated as part of their religion.  I have no basis for judging the truthfulness or not of the claims.  But for argument's sake, what if it is true and that the God of Islam in his revelation really did mean that women should be treated as sub-human creatures.  Is my Christian friend then justified in concluding that Islam is barbaric and its God is capricious and immoral?

Let me consider possible ways a Muslim might reply:

1. We cannot understand God and the reasons for all his commandments.  He has the long-term perspective and what seems immoral to us may actually be for a good purpose that we cannot fathom.
2. God made us, not we him.  He is the potter, we are the clay. Who are we to tell him how we should be treated?  If God determines that some be treated better than others, that is up to him.
3. Ultimately it is God who determines what is morally right and wrong.  We have to live according to the guidance revealed in his book to us.

Here's the funny thing: these are the very same kind of arguments Christians use when confronted with God's seemingly immoral behavior in the Bible (God ordering massacres of innocents etc., see my original post in this blog: Is God Good?). On a side note: observing Islam is actually pretty helpful for Christians, if they are willing to be self-critical, as it lets them look in a mirror.  Many of the specks or logs they see, actually exist in their own eyes.  Perhaps not all the same outward behaviors, but many of the underlying justifications for their beliefs are shared between the religions.

So, back to the moral issue: what we have are two religions each of which claim absolute certainty in what is morally right and wrong and yet they conflict.  How can we judge which is right?  By using empirical measures of which actually treats people better?  Both would surely both deny that (at least when they discover that their own followers are behaving badly).  Ultimately each claims correctness based on divine revelation.  Can we judge which revelation is correct?  No -- who are we to tell God how he can or cannot reveal himself to humans.  Christians love to critique the divine inspiration of the Koran, but actually many of the same criticisms apply to the books of the Bible.  So we are stuck with two camps claiming "God told me this!"  "No he told me that!"  Each camp can make all kinds of unequivocal proclamations about what is morally right and wrong, but when one investigates one finds there is no basis (beyond blind faith) that it is true

Let's contrast that with the way much-maligned humanism would approach ethical and moral questions.  Here we observe that humans are sentient beings with needs and wants as well as things that hurt and harm them.  We reasonably assume the needs and wants of any one human are not inherently more valuable than any other human.  Then what is morally good and bad is judged based on the amount of good or harm it brings to humans.  In general actions that harm others are morally wrong to the extent that they harm others.  It may not be easy to judge in every case, and there may be gray areas (see a previous post on ethics).  The key is that whether an action is morally good or bad is an empirical question of the good and/or harm caused by the action and this can be investigated.   The secular humanist is not stuck arguing about indemonstrable claims of divine authority, but can judge moral questions on the merits and consequences of the actions.

Humanism

I have started reading about humanism. A good summary is the Humanist Manifesto III. It is interesting how it is diametrically opposed to much of what I learned growing up in a Christian household. Humanism, as its name implies, has a very positive outlook on humankind, whereas Christianity takse the opposite approach: as fallen creatures we are essentially evil and can do no good unless enabled to do so by God. (Depending on one's brand of Christianity this is emphasized to a greater or lesser degree.) So which attitude is right?

Everyone would agree that humans can do much evil; that is evident by looking current or historical events. But as humans are we condemned to committing evil? Humanists are the optimists and say: No, we are capable, given the right philosophy, of doing great good and living good and productive lives. Christianity is the pessimist in this regard: due to Adam and Eve eating the fruit we are lost in a vicious circle of evil begetting more evil. Only God's intervention can enable us to do good.

Is there any way to decide between these competing claims that good is a result of human motivation or only as a result of divine intervention? Unfortunately there is no way to determine if any action was caused by divine intervention. Good (and evil) actions can be done as a result in a belief in God, but a belief in God is much different than God actually intervening. So a choice between these isn't going to be made on physical evidence (although a choice might be made on a lack of evidence for supernatural intervention).

So it seems to me that a lot depends on a choice in attitude. It is either:

• I can live a good life on my own and will strive to do this, or


• I can't live a good life on my own. I will need to rely on God and he will make me good.

Which of these will be more successful in living a good life? I don't think it is the second. While it might seem attractive by its apparent modesty, I think it is a false modesty. By denying our ability at the outset it instills defeatist attitude. While it is true that none of us is perfect, that doesn't mean we can't be good, despite Christian claims to the contrary.

I believe the first option will lead to a better life. By pursuing the very things that make us human: rationality, creativity, compassion and love, we can live a good life. The good life is thus the fulfillment of being a human. Surely that is worth striving to achieve.