One of the principle arguments used in support of the idea that things like morality and democracy should be based upon God and religion is that these provide reliable sources of transcendental, absolute, and eternal values. Basing morality and democracy on humans, however, is a risky affair because of the relative and temporary nature of our own values.
This argument, however, is guilty of massive theological question-begging. It assumes that there is a god, that God has certain moral standards which we should be expected to follow, that we can follow these standards, that these standards can be understood by humans, and finally that these standards have been revealed to us through one or more religious traditions.
Focusing primarily on the final point: to which religion should we look in order to discover the "right" absolute and eternal values? In fact, how do we determine which manifestation of which religion to rely upon? Should we look to the Pope and Roman Catholicism or Pat Robertson and Protestant Pentecostalism? Should we look to Orthodox or Reform Jewish rabbis? Should we look to fundamentalist Shi'ite or orthodox Sunni Islam?
In fact, the demand that we turn to religion rather than ourselves in order to find a foundation for our values is simply a bait-and-switch, because when turn to religion we are still turning to ourselves - or at least other humans. God does not regularly stop by for a chat in order to inform us of what we should do. At best, we are learning what other humans tell us that God wants - and those fallible humans could just as easily be wrong as right.
Turning to religion means turning away from secular discussions of values and towards religious leaders who claim the authority to inform us about the will of God, the proper means for discerning God's will in religious scriptures, and the correct way to incorporate God's moral standards into our daily lives. There is nothing about religious training or mystical visions which makes them any more inherently trustworthy than politicians or, to be quite honest, any salesman.
This often results in a tremendous amount of moral and political irresponsibility. By placing the actual responsibility of vital decisions in the texts of religious scriptures or in the decisions of religious leaders who claim to be able to discern the Will of God, people essentially give up the responsibility to come to their own conclusions.
This is not to say that it is wrong for them to even consult religious texts and religious leaders - no more so than it is wrong to consult philosophical texts and philosophical teachers in an effort to find some wisdom, understanding, or insight. We don't know everything and so will always have to look outside ourselves for assistance; the key here, however, is assistance - not answers.
It's one thing to look for help in coming up with answers, but quite another to look to someone else to give us answers so that we don't have to make the effort to develop them, much less take responsibility for them in case their consequences are less than pleasant. Humans may be "inadequate," but they aren't improved any by religious leaders who keep them in a state of theological and ethical dependency. Only by encouraging them to exercise their reasoning skills and their ability to work through social and moral dilemmas will their "inadequacies" have any chance of being overcome.
« Is Religion Necessary for Democracy? | Religion, Morality, and Democracy »
