Religious Morality vs Religious Egoism

RELIGIOUS MORALITY

VS RELIGIOUS EGOISM

Religious standards, rules, and morality create religiously egoistical believers. These believers wear their achievements and obedience as a badge of honor, and those who fail to uphold those standards are looked down upon. While presenting various positive outcomes of being religiously moral, this paper will argue that using those morals as standards to judge others and present themselves as members of an elite super-moral group, ultimately turns into religious egoism, which causes damage to Christian and non-Christian alike.

Moral standards are taught from a very young age. Parents train their children in the ways they follow or the ways they think should be followed. This happens in all circles, religious or not, which shapes a child with biases and standards dependent on their teachings. Some are taught moral absolution, which simply means certain actions are absolutely right or wrong no matter what the circumstance. Most grow up with respect for the law and its enforcement and hold those standards in high regard. Along with these basic teachings, many children are taught some kind of religious morality, be it the ways of Allah, Buddha, Yahweh, or no God at all. Molding happens by the influence of parents/guardians, and later, peers. This is the groundwork for religious egoism.

The term ‘morality’ can be descriptively used to refer to the codes of conduct put forward by a group, such as a religion.  Most religions have a particular set of rules or codes they have constituted with an expectation that the members of that group will do their best to abide by them. These expectations can include women not allowed to wear pants, tithing, no drinking alcohol, and attending church every Sunday, as well as many more. Christian denominations use the Bible as the basis for their moral code, therefore enforcing the Ten Commandments as a high priority to live by. Religiously moral people are those who adopt the morals of their religion as their own code of conduct and work hard at upholding those codes on a daily basis.

Religious morality, in and of itself, is not a dangerous activity. In fact, there are many positive results to holding religious moral standards. Three of these are in the physical, the social, and the emotional levels. Johnson gives a description of the physical benefits;

“The studies on organic religion overwhelmingly indicate that greater involvement in religious practices is associated with reduced hypertension, longevity, reduced depression, lower levels of alcohol and drug consumption, less engagement in risky sexual behavior, reduced risk of suicide, reduced delinquency, and reduced criminal activity... higher levels of religious involvement provide protective factors that generally reduce deleterious social outcomes.”

Because the person described here has morality and involvement in religious activity, their physical body reaps the benefits of it.

Not only does religious morality affect the flesh, it is also beneficial to the social aspect of the religious moralist (R.M.). Pichon remarks on a study that was done regarding the social conduct of those who read religious material in comparison to those who didn’t. She said, “the impact of positive religion on prosociality is probably ascribable to the combination of valence with religious ideals and norms, thus making positive religion a powerful inciter of prosociality.” Moralism betters your relationships with others.

When it comes to the emotional level, the positive outcomes of being an R.M. are significant, as Johnson explains; “.... greater involvement in religious practices conveys the sense of well-being, purpose, meaning, and educational attainment. Thus, religious involvement is associated with promoting prosocial behaviors and enhancing positive outcomes.” Having religious moral standards gives a person a sense of who they are. They grow up with their lives being shaped by the virtues they have learned, and they have clear separation between right and wrong. An R.M. has a faith foundation that is grounded and unshakable. They know what they believe and the values they hold on to, they are not easily pulled to the right or to the left, and they are not easily distracted by evil (Proverbs 4:27).

A religious egoist (R.E.) on the other hand takes their morality to a conceited level where they believe that their religious standards are the absolute. They impose on others, both verbally and not, their ideal criteria for proper living and judge those who fail to live up to their specifications. One of the complications with the R.E. is that they most often fail to admit their judgments of others for fear of appearing in violation of their own dogma.

The R.E. presents him/her self in different ways. Some hold that their religion (a supernatural power and its institutionalized set of beliefs) is the “right” and only way. They reason that all other religions are wrong, therefore elevating themselves. This kind of egoism is evidenced by their refusal to even consider another religious way as having any truth, or to fail to research other religions because they are convinced that their beliefs are the final say. Evans suggests that “it is surely a mistake to regard either prevailing scientific theories or one’s preferred logical system as automatically “trumping” the other, without need for further, careful consideration.” An R.E. fails to take any other belief possibilities into account because they are convinced their way is faultless.

Others use their religion as a standard for all, and those who don’t line up to what they believe as true, is lesser of a person and not even in the same category as they are. Evans sums up a critique by Nietzsche, a 19th century German philosopher, this way:

“Nietzsche exposes the way that Judeo-Christian religion, in particular, with its ostensive glorification of humility, justice and love for one’s neighbour, may be used as a front for a kind of power grab, with its true motivations lying in weakness, envy and a desire for revenge. His critique reveals the way that true religion so quickly becomes Pharisaism, in which religion is used to separate people into categories of “us” (the good, the righteous, those favoured by God) and “them” (the evil ones, the sinners, those destined for judgement), in order to elevate ourselves, both in our own eyes and in the eyes of other people.”

Things are the same now as they were then. Religion brings separation between people because of different morals, standards and practices of each belief system. Some religions allow their children to befriend only children within their sect. Other groups maintain such close-knit communities that they rarely even interact with the “outside” world. Some Christians do the same with the different denominations within their religion. Some refuse to attend a church of another denomination because they understand them to be lesser of a Christian by not believing and practicing the same things as they do. These “same things” could be liturgy, baptism or gifts of the Spirit. Some grow up believing that their doctrine is correct, their denomination is the only way to Heaven, and that all other church-goers still need to get saved into their particular church.

Another way that religious people separate themselves from others is in their virtues. Using the bias’ they’ve learned from family, peers and church, the R.E. will judge others based on their actions and when those actions don’t line up with theirs, they pride themselves with the statement, “I don’t do that because I’m a Christian.” They use their religion, when it’s convenient for them, to get out of doing something, while at the same time, making the person engaging in the activity feel inferior to them. Let’s take for example a friend from work who asks the R.E. to go to the Tavern and have wings with them. In response to their proposal the R.E. says, “No, I don’t go to the bar or drink because I’m a Christian.” What has the R.E. just done? They’ve brought condemnation to the co-worker and closed the door for relationship and all possibilities of them ever having the freedom to talk to them about their religion. The co- worker will never feel “good enough” to the R.E.

By making others feel inferior, the R.E. hopes to boost their own self-value. They learn to base their worth on how well they uphold their moral law. Schaeffer clearly states the reason that people can find no real value in themselves or others. He said they reject that all men are made in the image of God, so “he downgrades the value of other men and produces the horrible thing we face today – a sick culture in which men treat men as inhuman, as machines.”

Some religious believers use their morality as a judging and condemning tool against others in their own particular affiliation. As they enter the church building on a Sunday morning, they sneer at the lady smoking, mumble under their breath about the girl wearing a short skirt, and put on a fake smile for the man they saw having coffee with a lady that wasn’t his wife. Then, later on that day, they go for a drive with their friend only to gossip about the imperfections of the church people not realizing they are in violation of the Bible because of their words and judgment. James 1:26 reads, “Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.” According to this verse, it is pointless for the R.E. who gossips and slanders others to be involved in any kind of religious activity, because the damage they do with their tongues far outweighs any good that might come from upholding their other morals. The R.E. will shoot their wounded (like shunning a woman who left her abusive husband, while tolerating the father who violently disciplined his children), and take every opportunity to talk about others who are not meeting their moral obligations. Even those who grow up in the same denomination, and perhaps the same church as the R.E., will be quickly cast aside and looked down upon at the slightest hint, or even rumour of, a moral infraction. They reason that they have the right to point a finger at them for the speck in their eye, unable to see the three fingers pointing back at the R.E. due to the plank in their own eye (Matthew 7:4).

Finally, there are those who use their religious deity as a personal elevation tactic to make others believe that what they say or do is coming as anointed orders from their announced deity. Schowengerdt suggests when writing about the war in Iraq that Christian leaders let their religious egotism get in the way of rational judgement. He writes, “George Bush publicly stated that his God told him America should invade Iraq.”  These are the ones who go around saying things like the recent false predicament concerning the return of Christ.  They believe they have special insight from God Himself to know things that even the Son of God doesn’t know because their moral lives put them higher on the holiness scale, therefore making them closer to and more in tune with God.

Although the temptation to allow moralism to turn into egoism crouches at every door, the benefits to being a religious moralist are high. It is good for physical, social and emotional health. The problem arises when those morals are held in such high regard that they are used as judgment tools for those who don’t hold to those same standards as they do. When people consider themselves and their religion to be the ultimate in morality and authority, therefore giving them the right to look down upon anyone who violates those morals, it ultimately leads them into being a religious egoist. The R.E. has little to no regard for the feelings or beliefs of others. If people are not doing what the R.E. reasons they should be, judgment and condemnation begin to flow quickly and freely though their minds, and oftentimes their mouths and actions.

Religious morality encourages religious egoism by presenting the idea that because they have standards and abide by them that they are somehow better than those who have few morals. The R.E. lets themself feel the pride of their moral achievements to the point where it becomes damaging and hurtful to others. They elevate their religion over others because they are firm it holds the absolute truth. The R.E. gossips about and put down members of their own congregation when they appear to fail in a certain area, they separate themselves from non- Christians by pulling the “holier than thou” card by turning down an opportunity to socialize with them on their turf, and they appear to be closer to God when they voice ideas that “God told them to do.” The good news is that it’s doesn’t have to get that far. Religious believers can hold their morals in high regard and never reach the egoist level by remembering that God created all of us the same. And, He died for the whole world. [2317 words + the picture’s worth a 1000 words ;)]

Bibliography:

About.com, http://atheism.about.com/od/liberationatheology/ig/Unapologetics- Posters/Unapologetics--Arrogance-.htm

Evans, C. Stephen, and Manis, R. Zachary, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith. Illinois: IVP Academic, 2009.

Johnson, Byron R., Tompkins, Ralph Brett and Webb, Derek. “Objective Hope: Assessing the Effectiveness of Faith-Based Organizations: A Review of the Literature.” Abstract. NCJRS Library collection (2003), https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=202135.

Pichon, Isabelle, Boccato, Giulio and Saroglou, Vassilis, “Nonconscious influences of religion on prosociality: a priming study,” European Journal of Social Psychology (2007): 1032-45. Doi: 10.1002/ejsp.416

Schaeffer, Francis A., The Mark of a Christian (InterVarsity Press, 2007) 15, 16, http://books.google.ca/books? id=6b2BzkJqEfYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+mark+of+the+christian&hl=en&ei=SRNwTrS tO4Hj0QGYypGaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v= onepage&q&f=false

Schowengerdt, Carl G., “The Religious Subversion of Democracy”, (2008): 61, http://books.google.ca/books? id=2nhEj3oak4QC&pg=PA61&dq=religious+egotism&hl=en&ei=GIRqTrv3Jufw0gHUvfDcBA &sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=religious %20egotism&f=false.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Morality”, last modified March 14, 2011, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/.

Wikipedia. “Moral Absolution”, last modified July 29, 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism.

Woodall, Angela, “Doomsday herald Harold Camping's show goes off the air at the end of the month,” The Orange County Register, June 22, 2011, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail? vid=4&hid=111&sid=e50776e7-5a11-41a0-ae96- b5ed932f5791%40sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d %3d#db=bwh&AN=2W63112555254