An Enduring Question of the Validity of Religious Authority.

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Geoff Woulf

Philosophy 100

An Enduring Question of the Validity of Religious Authority

Central to the thinking of most every rational person’s worldview is a belief in a higher power, that higher power’s creation of man, and the eventual afterlife. Ethical assumptions, guised perhaps in religious text or without, are largely and uniformly based on some manner of religious faith. Although this effect is very profound upon the actions of men, the faith in question might actually be groundless. Logically, a great many people must be following an incorrect faith, as many choose to believe in mutually exclusive faiths. However, the great conflict from one religion to the next, besides the validity of their particular deity (ies), lies in the morality of the faith itself. Although varying greatly in custom, most popular religions in the world try to explain their faith in terms of ethics, as in a how-to guide for living. In Plato’s classic dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, Socrates poses the question, “Is an act pious because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is pious?” The question itself is very simple, but has far reaching consequences. In answering, god is either ‘arbitrary’ or irrelevant to morality in the first place. In questioning the foundation of morality itself, Socrates undermines the influence and validity of organized religion and religious authority, which is just as important a conclusion today as in ancient Greece.

This is a preview of the whole essay

No singular force is as influential today, or any other time in history, as that of organized religion. Even if a majority of individuals do not consider themselves particularly devout, European and American institutions were and still are heavily shaped by the influence of the Catholic and Protestant sects of Christianity. Indeed, faith itself has been recently made into a presidential campaign spectacle. Distinction of morality separates the fundamentalists in Hamas from those Zionist fundamentalists of the Isreali Defense Force. And what is this source of morality? Scripture does not reveal, and it would seem that the ethoses of the masses are merely the products of politically sublimated messages into scripture. The firebrands of religious thought, from Jonathan Edwards, to Pat Buchanan or an Iranian Ayatollah, are quick to point out that humans are in the hands of an angry god, and we’ve no choice in the matter of being his instruments. To do otherwise is to risk damnation. However, these religious authorities are speaking of matters divorced completely from the supposed word of god, and belie the careful reasoning behind secular morality.

Speaking to contemporary matters, the question of religious dogma assumes an imperative role. A quick scan of top associated press headlines reveals many religious conflicts are of a life-and-death nature even in ‘modern’ times. Hebrews and Arabs are still fighting over religious ground. The courts of the world’s most powerful nation are a battleground between fundamentalism and secularism, and have been for a century. Indeed, the imposition of religious authority on the secular world has largely been that of a destructive force on the lives of men. The arbitrary words of old and mistranslated scripture hold more influence than elected officials, presumably hampering their ability to carry out the public good. Are we then to destroy god in our overcoming him, as Nietzche proposes? Is doing away with faith-based morality the answer to secular problems plaguing the world of men? Nearly all faiths denounce the practice of abortion and contraception, while at the same time preaching the populating of the Earth with as many offspring as can be reared, but is it possible to continue this growth, in keeping with the literal word of religious authority? The protection of the secular state depends on the destruction of widely held conceptions of morality propagated by religious authority.

Bibliography:

Plato. Jewett, Benjamin transl. Euthyphro.. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 10/9/2003

Socrates quote and context derived from this site.

Daraghmeh, Mohammed. Israeli Minister says killing Arafat a possibility. Associated Press/Seattle Times. 10/9/2003

This article is a current example of ongoing religious struggle directly resulting from dogmatic fundamentalist elements in rival religions.