The Christian Delusion: Chapter Thirteen--Christianity Does Not Provide the Basis for Morality

In chapter 13 of The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, anthropologist David Eller returns to deal with one of the stock arguments that theists put forward, namely, that without a God, there can be no basis for morality. His essay is entitled, "Christianity Does Not Provide the Basis for Morality."

He begins by saying,

Imagine someone said to you that English provided the only basis for grammar. After you overcame your shock, you would respond that English is certainly not the only language with a grammar. You would add that grammar is not limited to language: understood broadly as rules for combination and transformation, many phenomena have a grammar, from sports to baking. Nor is grammar the sole or essential component of language: language also includes sound systems, vocabularies, and genres and styles of speech. And you would remind the speaker that grammar does not depend on human language at all: some species including chimps and parrots can produce grammatical—that is, orderly and rule-conforming—short sentences. Ultimately, you would want to explain that English does not “provide a basis” for grammar at all but rather represents one particular instance of grammar. English grammar is definitely not the only grammar in the world and even more definitely not the “real” grammar.

The person who utters a statement like “English provides the only basis for grammar” either understands very little about English (and language in general) or grammar or is expressing his/her partisanship about language (i.e. pro-English)—or more likely both. Thus, the person who utters a statement like “Christianity provides the only basis for morality” either understands very little about Christianity (or religion in general) or morality or is expressing his/her partisanship about religion (i.e. pro-Christianity)—-more likely both. But as a savvy responder you would answer that Christianity is certainly not the only religion with morality. You would add that morality is not limited to religion: understood broadly as standards for behavior, many phenomena have a morality, from philosophy to business. Nor is morality the sole or essential component of religion: religion also includes myths, rituals, and roles and institutions of behavior. And you would remind the speaker that morality does not depend on human religion at all: some non-human species demonstrate moral—-that is, orderly and standard-conforming—behavior. Ultimately, you would want to explain that Christianity does not “provide a basis” for morality at all but rather represents one particular instance of morality. Christian morality is definitely not the only morality in the world and even more definitely not the “real” morality.(pp. 347-48).

What is morality? Eller quotes Michael Shermer: "right and wrong thoughts and behaviors in the context of the rules of a social group" (The Science of Good and Evil, p. 7). What this terse statement reminds us is that (1) morality always refers back to a set of rules and (2) each social group may have its own set of such rules(p. 352).

Why do humans have moral principles?

Because we, as an inherently social species, are necessarily interested in the actions and intentions of other members of our group (which may include, we now realize, non-human agents as well). Therefore, we need to evaluate each other’s behavior—to be able to determine the meaning of that behavior, the intention of that behavior, and the predictability of that behavior. Indeed, the very existence of society depends on, one might even say is, a shared set of standards for the interpretation, evaluation, and prediction of behavior(p. 352).

Morality is ultimately nothing more than a special case of the more general human predilection to appraise behavior and to erect systems and standards of appraisal (p. 353).

“Morality” is one entry in the universe of appraisal-talk, of which there are many other entries. What I mean is that “moral” and “immoral” are two labels that can be attached to behaviors depending on their conformity to group standards. But there are other labels too, available to members to praise or denounce (and hopefully affect and control) behavior: legal/illegal, sane/insane, mature/immature, normal/abnormal, polite/impolite, ethical/unethical, professional/unprofessional, and so on. None of these other pairs of terms quite overlaps (p. 353).

Different societies have different moral standards, for example,

most Westerners do not regard the display of a woman’s face or arms to be a moral concern at all, and some tribes like the Warlpiri or the Yanomamo did not regard public nakedness to be a moral concern. The Jains consider eating vegetables or killing insects to be a moral problem, while the average Westerner does not (pp. 353-54).

How do societies develop their moral standards (i.e., what they approve of and what they disapprove of)? They develop them based on how they believe their group can best function so as to survive and grow and have stability and order. The actual moral rules grow out of what Michael Shermer calls premoral sentiments: attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group (The Science of Good and Evil, p. 31 cited by Eller, p. 354).

In order to give more authority to the standards, societies have typically tied them to their particular religion, thus giving them divine authority.

Just as religions have different beliefs, they also have different standards of behavior. In orthodox Judaism, what one can and cannot eat is a moral matter. In many forms of Islam, it is morally wrong for a woman to show her face in public. In Hinduism, the moral standards differ based on the particular caste to which a person belongs:if one is pariah, one’s moral duty is to perform dirty jobs, and if one is kshatriya one’s moral duty is to lead, to fight, to kill, and to die (p. 357). In Buddhism, one is to follow the Ten Precepts: to avoid harming any living thing, taking anything not freely given, misbehaving sexually, speaking falsely, ingesting alcohol or drugs, eating untimely meals, dancing/singing/miming, using garlands or perfumes or other adornments, sitting in high seats, and accepting gold or silver (p. 357). Each religion and even various sects within each religion have their own moral standards which they believe is part of their faith to follow. As Eller says: Every ancient and tribal religion included its own moral standards, some similar to Christianity, some foreign to Christianity, some absurd to Christianity. And the feeling was mutual (p. 358).

While religions attribute the origin of their moral standards to a supernatural being, philosophers going back to the ancient Greeks have sought the basis for morality in reason. Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Kant, and J.S. Mill each developed a system of morality apart from religion or revelation.

Recent research has shown that its not just human beings but other species as well that have morality. For example,

Peter Singer’s 1981 The Expanding Circle, Robert Wright’s 1994 The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, Marc Hauser’s 2000 Wild Minds: What Animals Really Think and his 2006 Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, Michael Shermer’s aforementioned The Science of Good and Evil, Richard Joyce’s 2006 The Evolution of Morality, and the many works of primatologist Frans de Waal, including Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (p. 362).

The core of this research is that “morality” is not utterly unique to humans but has its historical/evolutionary antecedents and its biological bases. “Morality” does not appear suddenly out of nowhere in humans but emerges gradually with the emergence of certain kinds of beings living certain kinds of lives. This is not to assert that animals have full-blown “morality” any more than they have full-blown language. It is to assert that, just as some pre-human beings have “linguistic” capacities, some pre-human beings also have “moral” capacities. The key to the evolutionary theory of morality is that social beings tend reasonably to develop interests in the behavior of others and capacities to determine and to influence that behavior (p. 362).

So, to summarize, Eller has shown that moral standards develop within societal groups (human and non-human) as a means to help them function and survive, these moral standards are often tied to a religion to give them "divine authority," and become incorporated within the culture. These moral standards evolve and change as everything within the culture does, including language and religious beliefs. To say that morality has to come from outside of man is to ignore the findings of sociology and anthropology.

What are the Functions of Religion?

As I indicated in prior posts, I have been fascinated by the writings of David Eller, an anthropologist. He is the author of two chapters in John Loftus', The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. He is also the author of a college textbook entitled, Introducing Anthropology of Religion: Culture to the Ultimate (Routledge, 2007). On pages 10 and 11, he gives six functions of religion:

1. Filling individual needs, especially psychological or emotional needs. Religion provides comfort, hope, perhaps love, definitely a sense of control, and relief from fear and despair.

2. Explanation, especially of origins or causes. Humans wonder why things are as they are. How did the world start? How did humans start? . . .

3. Source of rules and norms. . . . religion can provide the answer to where the traditions and laws of the society came from. . . . This is the charter function of religion: It acts as the the "charter" or guideline or authority by which we organize ourselves in particular ways and follow particular standards. Why do we practice monogamy? Because a religious being or precedent says to, or because the first humans did, etc. Why do other societies practice polygamy? Perhaps because their religious being or precedent (say, the ancestor or founder) said it or did it.

4. Source of "ultimate sanctions." Religion is, among other things, a means of social control. . . . a large part of religion is about what we should do, how we should live. . . . Human agents of social control cannot be everywhere and cannot see everything, and the rewards and punishments they can mete out are finite. . . .

5. Solution of immediate problems. . . . If we are sick or distressed, are the beings or forces angry with us? What should we do about it? If there is an important social or political decision to make (say, going to war), is there a way to discover the preferences or plans of the beings and forces--to "read their mind"? Can we ask them for favors, give them gifts, or do anything at all to influence their actions and intentions?

6. Fill "needs of society." . . . Certainly, not everything that a religion teaches or practices is good for every individual: Human sacrifice is not about fulfilling the needs of sacrificial victims. Nor does religion always soothe individual fears and anxieties; for instance, the belief in a punitive afterlife may cause people to fear more, and concerns about proper conduct of rituals can cause anxiety. However, belief in a punitive afterlife can cause people to obey norms, which is good for society. The primary need of society, beyond the needs of individuals, is integration, cohesion, and perpetuation, and religion can provide an important "glue" toward that end.

I think these "functions of religion," as Eller calls them, goes a long way in explaining why religion is so very important to people. These functions are not unique to any one particular religion but common to them all. They help us to understand why religion is intricately interwoven into our societies and why it is very difficult, if not impossible, to ever eradicate it.

How is Religion Like Language?

Anthropologist David Eller, in his book Atheism Advanced, draws comparisons between language and religion.

He writes:

The very idea of language must be acquired. In this sense, religion is like language. No particular language is innate, although all humans normally do acquire one and have a capacity (some say an instinct) to acquire one. . . . Which actual language a human acquires depends on his or her social environment.

A person acquires a particular language simply by and because of being raised among others who already speak it; generally, people speak whatever language is spoken around them. . . . no speakers of a particular language would ever claim that their language is "true." The very notion that, for instance, English is true while Spanish is false is nonsensical. 

Interestingly, religion is like language in a number or ways--none of them fortunate for those who want to take religion seriously. First, while most humans end up believing some religion, no particular religion is inborn or natural. Therefore and second, there are very many particular real or potential religions . . . . Third, a person normally acquires religion simply by and because of being raised among others who already do speak it; and generally, people practice whatever religion is practiced around them. The profound difference between language and religion, however, is that all members of a religion think that their religion is true. The very notion that, for instance, a person would say, "I am a Christian, but I don't think Christianity is true" is contradictory and ridiculous (pp. 37-38).

Below I would like to list both comparisons and contrasts between religion and language, some of them from Eller, and some from my own thinking.

Points of comparison:

1. Religion like language is acquired.

2. People are born with a capacity or an instinct to acquire both language and religion.

3. People acquire whatever language or religion they are exposed to as a child.

4. People are better able to function in their culture by adopting the language of the culture and by adopting the religion of the culture.

5. Both language and religion acquisition is advantageous for a person who desires to "fit-in" in their social setting.

6. A person may acquire a second or more languages over the course of a lifetime.

7. In the evolution of language, words and grammatical forms are borrowed from one language and incorporated into another in a type of cross-fertilization. The same phenomena is seen in the evolution of religions.

Points of contrast:

1. Religions are thought to be true, whereas languages are not. A person may think of their language as "true" if it allows them to adequately communicate with other people in their society but they do not conceive of their language as being the only "true" language. If they are aware of other languages, they would acknowledge that those languages are "true" for the people in other cultures.

2. When a person acquires a new language, he does not then reject his old language.

While the analogy is certainly not perfect, I think it is useful in understanding how religion is a cultural phenomena.

The Evolution of God

How did we get to the concept of God that is currently held by evangelical Christianity?

Of course, they would say it came to us from revelation. God revealed himself to man and then inspired man to write down those revelations in documents which were subsequently identified and collated into a single book--the Bible.

Let's take another approach. We know today from neuroscience that human beings are born with a brain that seeks to identify patterns and purpose. This is sometimes called agency detection, (Pascal Boyer) which is the inclination to look for and attribute intentionality or mind or will to happenings (David Eller, Atheism Advanced, p. 93). Studies by Paul Bloom on infant reactions shows that humans, even very young humans, seem to attribute states of mind to things, including other humans and non-human objects. If there is the slightest bit of intelligible behavior, we tend to perceive intentional behavior, an act of mind or will (Eller, p. 92). It is a very small step to decide that the intentional component, which is not the same as the physical part, can exist separately from it and survive its destruction (Eller, p. 92). This is how the concept of the soul or spirit originated.

The oldest and most universal religious belief seems to be animism. Anthropologists have discovered this belief among primitive peoples the world over. Animism is the belief that many physical objects have an invisible and intelligent life force that animates them. These forces are usually called spirits and they cause certain events to take place. Primitives believed, for example, that when a volcano erupted, it was due to the spirit of the volcano that was agitated about something, usually human behavior. People also tended to believe that the life force or spirit of their ancestors survived death and perhaps hung around influencing affairs on earth. Man began to think it was necessary to try to please these spirits in order to facilitate their help or at least prevent their negative actions against them. This led to ancestor worship, offerings and sacrifices to various spirits, and so on.

As the evolution of belief continued, certain spirits or gods came to be associated with virtually every aspect of life. There were fertility gods, warrior gods, health gods,sea gods, weather gods , and so on. When one was going to take a journey on the sea, it was necessary to seek the favor of the sea god. In order to facilitate a good harvest, the fertility god must be placated. This belief in many gods is called polytheism.

As time went on, and stories were told about these gods, they took on many human characteristics (anthropomorphisms). They were seen as interacting with each other and sometimes fighting each other. There developed a hierarchy among these gods. Some were higher than others and one was usually seen as the most high." Another development was for each individual people group to have a tribal god--a god that was in some sense attached to their group. This was the beginning of monolatry or henotheism. This was the idea that only one god should be worshipped even though there were other gods. This idea seem evident in many passages in the OT. It appears that Moses was a henotheist. As the religion of the Hebrews continued to evolve, they adopted monotheism, the notion that there was really only one true God who was the creator and ruler of the whole earth and all other deities were not real. This one, true god continued to have many human characteristics, for example, emotions like love, anger, and jealousy and the ability to repent or change his mind. But this god also had characteristics and powers that were far above man's. He was immortal, very powerful (not necessarily all powerful), perfectly just or righteous and always faithful (Deut. 32:4). The god of the Hebrews also needed to be placated and thus sacrifices were offered to him.

As Christianity came on the scene and adapted many Hellenistic ideas into their concept of this one true god, he took on perfections--omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. While some of these characteristics are seen in the Hebrew scriptures, they tend to be expanded human capabilities not idealized perfections as in Greek thought. This brought us to the concept of god that has become standard in evangelical Christianity (as well as most versions of conservative Christianity). This concept is best defined by Richard Swinburne: There exists necessarily a person without a body (i.e. a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient , perfectly good, and the creator of all things. (The Existence of God, p. 7). In Christian theology, this god had been once and for all placated through the sacrifice of his own son. No longer was it necessary to offer sacrifices to this god. What was required now was for the follower to offer himself as a living sacrifice to the deity (Romans 12:1-2). Thus, the practice of monasticism with its correlate of celibacy originated.

The description of the Christian god continues to undergo modification because its Hellenized character is in many ways contradictory to the god described in the Hebrew-Christian scriptures as well as contradictory to human reason. For example, problems reconciling this concept of god with human free will and the existence of evil in the world has resulted in a new concept of god sometimes called open theism. Of course, evangelicals, for the most part, oppose any modifications to their description of god; but, nevertheless, it illustrates the continuing evolution of the idea of god.

So, I think the evangelical Christian concept of god can be understood as a natural evolution arising from man's need to ascribe pattern and purpose in nature. Beginning with animism, moving through ancestor worship and the attributing of human characteristics to deities all the way to a single perfect deity.

What is the True Enemy?

As a result of reading David Eller's chapters in The Christian Delusion, I decided to read a book that was on my shelf by him entitled, Atheism Advanced. I have read about 1/3 of it this morning and I am extremely impressed. I have some new insights into what the real problem is. It's not Christianity, it's not theism, it's not even religion, it's superstition. What is superstition? According to Webster, it is: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation. All religions are manifestations of superstition. Why are people incurably religious? I think it is because we are hard-wired by evolution to look for meaning and explanation in our world. What man cannot explain with his current empirical knowledge, he explains using superstition. The lack of certainty, as shown in a previous post, creates anxiety and fear. In order to avoid these negative feelings and in order to be able to function well in the world, man seeks explanations for what he doesn't understand. Superstitions fulfill a real psychological need. That is why religions are so attractive. They offer simple and definitive answers for the unexplained or unknown. Religions are based on the stories (superstitions) that various cultures have developed to explain what they don't understand. Historically, each culture has invented their own stories and myths. Most are never written down but the ones that are get incorporated into holy books and become the basis for the religion. Religions then evolve over the course of time as unexplained phenomena becomes understood and the influence of other culture's superstitions are incorporated.

Of course, most people will never admit their religion is based on supersitition. They will freely admit that others are but not their's. How do you combat this ethnocentrism? Not very easily, but I think as Loftus has argued, the key is something like his Outsider Test of Faith. How is the best way to get someone to do this? I think from reading Eller that it is to require in our educational system, courses in history of religions, comparative religions, and the pscyhology of religion. Perhaps this is where we should be focusing our attention rather than on just critiquing evangelical Christianity? I am very interested in my reader's comments on this point.

The Christian Delusion: Chapter One--The Cultures of Christianity

Today, I begin my trek through The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails (ed. John W. Loftus). In my overview yesterday, I indicated that in my opinion this is the single best volume available today to debunk evangelical Christianity.

The first chapter is by Dr. David Eller, Professor of Anthropology at The Community College of Denver in Colorado. He is the author of six books: Cultural Anthropology: Global Forces, Local Lives ; Introducing Anthropology of Religion: Culture to the Ultimate;  Violence and Culture: A Cross-Cultural and Interdisciplinary Approach; Natural Atheism; From Culture to Ethnicity to Conflict: An Anthropological Perspective on Ethnic Conflict ; and Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker.

In the chapter entitled, "The Culture of Christianities" (pp. 25-46), Eller begins by saying: One of the great mysteries is why, despite the best arguments against it, religion survives . His answer is that religions, including Christianity, survive because they are integrally interwoven into the culture. What is culture?

It is the label anthropologists give to the structured customs and underlying worldview assumptions by which people govern their lives. Culture is a people's way of life, their design for living, their way of coping with their biological, physical, and social environment. It consists of learned, patterned assumptions, concepts and behaviors, plus the resulting artifacts (Charles Kraft cited by Eller, p. 27).

Eller writes:

Christianity, like any religion, is a part of culture. It is learned and shared, and it is integrated with the other systems of the culture, including its economics, its kinship, and its politics (p. 28). It organizes the lives and experiences of its followers--literally provides the terms in and through which they live and experience--and is seldom questioned by them (p. 29). He continues: the United States and the wider Western world are heavily saturated with Christianity throughout their many large and small cultural arrangements. Whether or not they know it--and it is more insidious if they do not know it--non-Christians living in Christian-dominated societies live a life permeated with Christian assumptions and premises. Christian and non-Christian alike are literally immersed in Christian cultural waters, and like fish they take for granted the water they swim in (p. 33).

Eller (pp. 33-38) shows that religion, and specifically Christianity in the United States, becomes intertwined into every aspect of life--vocabulary in the language, important life events such as births, deaths, and marriages, foods, children's names, clothing, institutions, holidays, and so on. It is literally part of almost every aspect of daily life.

Eller also points out that culture is a two-way street:

culture adapts to and is suffused with religion, but religion also adapts to and is suffused with culture (emphasis his). In other words, not only does religion replicate itself through the many parts of culture, but culture replicates itself through the religion, recasting a religion like Christianity in the culture's own image. . . . Since its inception, Christianity has accommodated itself to its cultural surroundings--and necessarily so, since a religion that is incompatible with its cultural context would be unintelligible and therefore unappealing to the people of that society. The consequence is that there is no such thing as a single, unified, global Christianity but instead many, different, local "Christianities," which often do not recognize each other, accept each other, or even comprehend each other (p. 39).

Christianity has been evolving from the beginning. As Eller points out, Christianity itself began as a modification and reinterpretation of Judaism. As it spread out through the Hellenistic world, it evolved further. When it became the official religion of the Roman empire more assimilations and modifications took place. As it has moved into other parts of the world, it has adapted itself to those cultures. American Christianity is thus not unique in its history of innovation, diffusion, loss, reinterpretatiion, syncretism, and schism . . . (p. 41). The freedom of religion in the United States has resulted in even greater innovation as multiple new sects of Christianity have been born (e.g., Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on). Christianity has shown a nearly infinite capacity to multiply and morph to fit its environment, it can accommodate or integrate almost any influence (p. 42). It has manifested itself in such diverse forms as the Ku Klux Klan and the Civil Rights Movement, the Prosperity Gospel and the Amish. Eller says there as many as 38,000 sects and denominations of Christianity in the world. Thus, there is really no such thing as Christianity but rather "Christianities."

Will the Christian underpinnings ever be removed from American or Western culture? Possibly, but it will be a very long and slow process. Its more likely that Christianity will keep reinventing itself to accommodate the changes within culture.

Why can't people see the fallacies involved in their religion and forsake them? Eller's answer is that

Like a pair of glasses, humans see with culture, but they do not usually see culture. Computers do not know they are running a program, they simply follow the instructions. Seeing your glasses, recognizing your program, is a rare thing, acheived by few individuals in even fewer societies. . . . culture provides us with a set of "frames" or "scenarios" with familiar and predictable patterns and outcomes. These frames or scenarios get the average person through the average life with little uncertainty . . . (p. 44).