Let me start by saying that Joe Geary’s letter published in Wednesday’s edition of The Crimson White was one of the most poorly reasoned arguments I have ever read, if any degree of reasoning was employed in its creation at all. In my opinion, The Crimson White should hold a higher standard for the letters it prints, and the article should never have found its way onto a printed page. Despite the lack of logic and quality in Mr. Geary’s letter, its publication certainly warranted some form of response, particularly the assertion that those who do not believe in some god or gods lack morality. While Douglas Weathers’ letter printed in Thursday’s CW was certainly better reasoned than Mr. Geary’s, and though it did do a fairly good job of defending the existence of secular morality, I feel that it also contains certain assertions that are not conducive to a nuanced discussion about religion and morality – a sort of discussion that this campus and this world greatly need.
My primary objection to Mr. Weathers’ letter is his apparent determination to portray secular morality and its justification as inherently superior to that of religious people. While it is true that some religious people do not carefully contemplate the reasoning behind their personal ethics, there are many religious people who study the questions of ethics as intensely as the most thoughtful atheist or agnostic. Similarly, there is an abundance of nonreligious people who have focused little contemplation on these issues. Lack of careful thought on either side is just as harmful.
The fundamental question of how to live one’s life is not exclusive to the religious or the nonreligious. People of every background have struggled to find the best way to live their lives. In the process of this struggle, some have come to believe that there is some sort of higher power responsible for the world’s workings and has set out an ideal way in which to conduct oneself towards others. Some have not come to this conclusion, but still find reasons to behave in a particular manner that they view as better than others. Whether or not one feels there is a god responsible for the way one behaves is largely irrelevant, as it deals with a question that is impossible to definitively answer. What matters are the actual moral principles that one decides to implement in his or her life.
While Mr. Weathers is correct that the actions some have taken as a result of their religious principles have been atrocious and should be sternly condemned, religious moral convictions have lead to positive outcomes in the world as well. The fire of the civil rights movement was largely stoked in the congregation of Christian churches. Many socially positive charities and organizations have been established that have tangibly improved the quality of people’s lives without actively attempting to convert the people they help to a particular belief system. Religious belief can lead one to both positive and negative courses of action. This is true of non-religious systems of thought. Whether an action is carried out because of a belief that involves the existence of a god or does not is irrelevant to the value of the action or the morality of the notions that lead to it.
A continued argument over whether moral systems involving a god or not involving a god are superior are unproductive and mostly useless to society. Focus should instead be placed on determining the ways in which one should behave that are most beneficial to the world regardless of one’s belief about a god’s role or lack of role in the universe. This is the way that humanity can move forward. Asserting that either religious or secular views are inherently not valuable to this discussion is essentially a form of fundamentalism that should be discouraged on both sides.
Stephen Cheek is a senior majoring in psychology.
