This is indeed true, however a religious believer could argue that they are morally free because they believe that the rule system they are following is completely, morally correct and they have the free will to choose to follow that system. This is also true although Professor Chung’s next criticism to this would be that many religious believers who follow these moral codes do not actually believe in the all the rules and especially in modern society pick and choose which ones they wish to follow. An example of this could be the Catholic ideas that the use of contraception and sex before marriage is morally wrong. In reality a vast number of practising Catholics use contraception or practise sex before marriage and believe that the idea that these acts are sinful is absurd and what is morally wrong is the papal embargo on these actions. These views actually show us that although some Catholics believe their morality stems from their religious beliefs, it actually stems from common sense and practicality. They are in fact choosing to follow the rules from their religion that are practical and logical for example do not kill, while ignoring the rules which they consider illogical or wrong. These people are therefore shaping their religion around their own morality rather than shaping their morality around their religion, and therefore the link is weakened.
Another part of the attack on the link between religion and morality is that the actual moral systems that religions have and the effect this has on the world which is not always morally right. For example the Crusades resulted in thousands of murders, although the leaders of the Crusades believed what they were doing was morally right and they based their judgement on Christian teachings. Another example is the Serbian Orthodox who were lead by their religious moral teachings to murder Muslim Bosnians or the violence in Northern Ireland of Christians killing people from a different denominations of Christianity. Surely it would be generally agreed upon that these acts of murder are all morally wrong, yet it was religion that motivated them, therefore the critique is that religious morality can promote immoral acts, and therefore should not be used as a basis for morality, and the link is again weakened. It could be argued that these are all exceptions of misinterpretations of the teachings although I personally do not accept this as an excuse because it was religion that motivated the immoral acts and therefore it should take part of the blame for them.
Further criticism from Professor Chung is that in every day life the vast majority of decisions made are very straight forward and based on common sense and not religious moral systems. This again weakens the link as it shows that religion does not come into the vast majority of decisions made, even by religious people. A religious believer could defend this saying it is more practical and when it comes to big important moral decisions such as abortion or murder it is religion that people turn to for their moral guidance. This is true for a lot of people although the critique is that the moral teachings that religion provides if followed perfectly would lead to an immoral act being done, rather than a moral one. For example religious morality states that in no circumstances should a person ever kill. However in reality in certain situations for example to save their family the vast majority of religious believers would kill somebody to save their family, despite knowing that if was against their religion. Professor Chung is trying to show that the deontological morality system that religions use in impractical as in certain situations it could lead to even worse ends and it is often morally better to break these rules. Therefore the link is weakened furthermore as it shows that many religious believers would break their religion’s moral rules because they believed they do not always allow they to make the morally right decision, and therefore the link is weakened.
Professor Chung also points out that the reason many people follow religious teachings for their morality is through fear of punishment for example going to hell. This means that again religious believers are not actually morally free because they are often making choice based on fear of punishment. This shows that by following religion you are not truly moral which it religion claims that its believers are and therefore the link is weakened again. This is another strong criticism as it is very logical. Furthermore Professor Chung points out that even if a person chooses to follow a certain religion there are many different denominations within it with different moral codes. A religious believer would then have to choose which moral code to follow, and they would have to use their common sense to do this not a religious moral code, which is autonomy. Therefore religious believers by choosing which religion to follow are using autonomy as the deciding factor which is morality with no link to religion, and this shows us that humans are born with their own morality, and do not take it originally from religion. This furthermore weakens this link as it shows that morality is not from birth linked to religion.
Professor Chung’s final part of his attack on the link between morality and religion is based on the religious idea of God. If God is omnipotent which most religions believe he is then he has the power to stop a person committing immoral acts, and if he does not then he is responsible for that person’s actions due to aiding and abetting the person through divine negligence. This would result in a person losing their moral responsibility and this is exactly the opposite of what religion believes, so it is self contradicting and again the link is weakened.
In conclusion it is clear that Professor Chung has a strong argument against the link between religion and morality. He points out on more than one occasion that religious moral codes are not only impractical and often lead to immoral acts, but are self contradicting and often ignored by religious believers. Moreover he also points out that a person does not have to be religious to be moral, and therefore how can religion shape morality if some people are not religious but still moral. This clearly shows that morality comes from human nature and not religion, and therefore his argument is very effective, and in my opinion disproves the link of morality and religion.