Conscience is also something that many people believe can link morality and religion. H.P. Owen tells us that it is “impossible to think of a command without a commander”, or in other words that our consciences must be informed. This is something Aquinas agrees with, when he says that this commander, or informer is God. He also says that not listening to our consciences is wrong as they come from God. He believes they never make you do anything wrong. St. Augustine of Hippo tells us that God gives us a conscience to help us determine his law. Conscience is a tool for observing the law of God in the human heart. He says that conscience is the voice of God speaking to us, which we must seek within ourselves. It is the most God-like behaviour, and it brings us closer to God. Newman says that to follow the conscience is to follow a divine law, as it is a messenger from God.
Kant argued that there was only one undisputed fact in the universe. This fact was that a moral law existed, and that without God, it would be meaningless. He believed everyone could perceive a moral law that was apparent in the universe, and that everyone had a duty to try and obtain sunnum bonum, the words Kant used to describe the highest form of good. However, upon observing human life and actions, Kant determined that to obtain sunnum bonum would not be possible in this life. This led him to believe that there is an afterlife, and as a result he postulated that there must be a God.
Aquinas’ Fourth Way is the argument from degrees of quality and perfection. Aquinas noted, that upon the observation of the graduation found in some things, for example, the fact that one thing can be more beautiful than another, there must be a standard or perfection to which all things are measured. Aquinas believed that these perfections were contained within God.
Examine and comment on the ways that religion and morality are not linked.
Euthyphro’s dilemma is found is Plato’s “last days of Socrates”. Socrates met Euthyphro, as he was about to begin to prosecute his father, who allowed a prisoner to die. Euthyphro believes his actions are holy. When Socrates asks they young man, Euthyphro, as to what he means by the word holy, he replies, “What is agreeable to the Gods is holy, and what is not agreeable is unholy”. Socrates however, noted that the Gods often had disagreements, and so there cannot be a universal agreement of holiness. Euthyphro replied that though the Gods may have their disagreements, they would all agree that killing a man is unholy. Socrates however, wants evidence for this claim, and when it cannot be produced, the Euthyphro dilemma arises: “is the holy approved by Gods because is it holy, or is it holy because it is approved?” If things are holy because they’re approved then religion and morality are linked, but the idea that God could have simply picked a law and made it holy is posed. If God has told us that killing was right, would we believe it? If things are approved because they’re holy, then things are simply right. They are independent of God. This would mean that religion and morality are not linked. However, Christians would tell us that as the Bible is the word of God, and that the commandments, amongst other rules for Christians to live by, are set out in the Bible, these regulations have come from God. However, sceptics would say that we have no proof that the Bible is the word of God.
It can be argued that if our morality comes from God, then everyone’s morality should be the same. We know that this is not the case. Other cultures find it perfectly acceptable for a man to take three wives, but in Britain it would be illegal, and we would find it morally repugnant. Ethical essentialism, believes that all the varied forms of social norms around the world (including one’s own) are actually only what appear to those cultures to be moral. The various norms themselves only show us what different cultures and eras believe is proper moral behaviour. What some cultures believe may not actually be truly moral, but may only appear to that culture to be moral. However, Ethical relativism would find it difficult to say that some cultures are mistaken in their ethical beliefs. Ethical relativism believes that a culture’s moral beliefs are what constitute morality. There is no external standard against which to measure the validity of a culture’s moral beliefs, and as a result, we Ethical relativism would not allow us to argue that our morality comes from God.
Another issue that arises from saying religion and morality are linked, is the fact that non-believers can be just as moral as a theist. However, some Christians would say that God is with everyone, and Paul says “conscience is universal to all…whether they believe or not”. Freud and Paul would both agree that everyone has a conscience, but they would be divided on the sources of these consciences. Freud believed that the conscience did not link morality and religion as he believed our conscience, or the super ego, came from our childhood and our upbringing, and is not a result of God. An atheist could say they are moral, as they follow the law of the country they live in. However, even in mainly secular cultures in Britain, at one point in time many of the population would have been Christian. Therefore, the laws of the people may have been influenced by religious beliefs at the time, and therefore these laws could have been created in accordance with what was written in the Bible, which is the word of God. Therefore, although the people themselves may be atheist, it could still be viewed that they are following Gods laws.
I believe that religion and morality are linked. As a Christian, I hold the view that God has passed down to us rules to live by, and I believe that if I listen to the advice my conscience gives me, I am following the advice that God is giving me. I would answer Euthyphro’s dilemma by saying that yes, things are holy as they are approved by God, but when faced with the question “If God had simply picked something and made it holy, something that is different to what we believe now, would I still believe it was moral?” I would answer that he would not choose an immoral law. That would be a human mistake, and as the Divine Command Theory states, God isn’t human.
