Religion and Morality: An Introduction

Rating:
Summary: Pluralism is shifting sand for morality
Review: In Religion and Morality, Diener seeks to promote the idea that religion and morality interact in complex ways that are overlooked by most religions and philosophical ethicists. His method involves recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of both the separability and inseparability views of religion and morality; he finds both wanting. He develops his alternative, relational view, primarily on the grounds that 1) recent advances in human knowledge emphasize the interrelatedness of all things and that 2) the survey he does throughout the book leads him to the conclusion that "neither religion nor morality is completely autonomous" (p73). He urges a civil dialogue among belief systems that acknowledges and utilizes the value of each to construct a common morality that can address the moral crises of our day, many of which relate to religious conflict. Diener believes the solution lies in cooperation and compromise among religious believers and secularists, not in spiritual transformation guided by a single belief system that is universal in scope and power.

There is a very logical progression of seven chapters in Religion and Morality and I found myself agreeing with many secondary points while being informed by the author's extensive knowledge of philosophical ethics. However, apart from these merits, the book suffers from two primary flaws. First, and most importantly, Diener's commitment to pluralism ignores the moral impact of doctrinal distinctives in religions. Specific doctrines lead to specific controversial moral actions even though general principles of morality are shared across religions. Second, Diener's choice of Biodiversity as the test application of his relational approach does not adequately exercise the differences among belief systems. Does any popular belief system say it doesn't care if species are lost? If not, then where is there a conflict to be resolved by the relational approach Diener feels is superior? More interesting applications could have been selected from sanctity of life or sexual behavior topics.

Contrary to Diener's relational thesis, religion and morality actually are inseparable. Morality depends upon religion with or without our awareness. As an illustration of the importance specific doctrines make in moral behavior consider the following scenario, which has all too many parallels in human history. A remote tribe holds a general moral principle 1) It is right to return property to it's rightful owner (do not steal or withhold). The tribe also holds a specific doctrine 2) deformed babies belong to the hippo god in the pond. Leading to the rational conclusion and action 3) Deformed babies are to be thrown into the pond to the hippo god when he appears. Almost anyone will agree with premise 1 in principle. Most will even agree with the pure logic of the conclusion. What is in dispute is the specific doctrinal belief in premise 2. Consider another case 1) It is morally good to oppose what is morally evil. 2) Non-Muslims are evil unbelievers who must be cut apart (Koran 8:12-13) therefore 3) Cut apart non-Muslims to promote goodness. Premise 2 is a fundamentalist position, but it's not just held by a small band of extremists when millions sympathize and support it. Again, specific doctrine is profound in cultural and personal ethics.

Diener does not explicitly disclose his personal belief system in one place, but it is clearly pluralistic with at least the following elements: Christian background, Taoism (which he favors repeatedly) and a high regard for natural law and Hegelian philosophy (p11,15,58,74,79,88,108). Chapter 1 defines religion broadly enough to include every popular worldview no matter how mutually contradictory. The Christian statement of proper religion (James 1:27) that encourages care for the needy and inner purity in the sight of God easily falls in line along with practically any other benevolent teaching, no matter its specific content.

Diener's pluralism ignores Christian doctrines that are profoundly important. In fact, his understanding of the central Christian doctrine is incorrect. On page 12 the central doctrine of Christianity is said to be the incarnation. This disagrees with the apostles Peter (Acts 2:24), Paul (Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15:16ff) and the Lord Jesus (Luke 9:22) who all saw the resurrection as central. It is true there would be no resurrection without an incarnation, but moreover there would be no Christianity to proclaim the incarnation without the resurrection.

The Christian doctrines of the fall of man and the presence of real evil are not factors in Diener's pluralism. Diener briefly mentions the fall as a doctrine, but fails to take it seriously in his system. If men cannot reason about morality correctly apart from divine revelation, and a corrective divine revelation has been given, and there is real evil in the world misconstruing that message, then pluralism is a false spiritual teaching that should be challenged (Matthew 7:15). Pluralism overlooks these critical points when it insists upon the piecemeal syncretism of contradictory systems.

Most pluralists are actually exclusivists disguised in tolerant speech but Diener shows he has a mind of his own by encouraging pluralists to not be intellectually lazy in the name of tolerance; he genuinely wants to dialogue towards a better world. He is also correct in saying that reason alone will not lead to morality because worldview presuppositions are vital. This agrees with Jesus' great commandment that the spiritual heart and reasoning mind must both be engaged (Mark 12:33). I agree with Diener on many of these principles, but I think he fails to see the gravity of specific doctrines in moral choices.

If general moral principles, not specific doctrines, were the true basis for ethical progress, why not start the dialogue in favor of pluralistic ethics in an Islamic culture? They share the same general moral principles of other worldviews. Fortunately, thinking people, especially Diener, are too smart to even try that. His admirable ideal of kindness to adversaries actually flows from a distinctively Christian system of ethics, not a generalized plurality of conflicting worldviews and doctrines. Specific Christian doctrines have conditioned his morality, for the good, more than he seems to be aware. He shouldn't let pluralism taint the unique beliefs that birthed that higher morality.

Rating:
Summary: Pluralism is shifting sand for morality
Review: In Religion and Morality, Diener seeks to promote the idea that religion and morality interact in complex ways that are overlooked by most religions and philosophical ethicists. His method involves recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of both the separability and inseparability views of religion and morality; he finds both wanting. He develops his alternative, relational view, primarily on the grounds that 1) recent advances in human knowledge emphasize the interrelatedness of all things and that 2) the survey he does throughout the book leads him to the conclusion that "neither religion nor morality is completely autonomous" (p73). He urges a civil dialogue among belief systems that acknowledges and utilizes the value of each to construct a common morality that can address the moral crises of our day, many of which relate to religious conflict. Diener believes the solution lies in cooperation and compromise among religious believers and secularists, not in spiritual transformation guided by a single belief system that is universal in scope and power.

There is a very logical progression of seven chapters in Religion and Morality and I found myself agreeing with many secondary points while being informed by the author's extensive knowledge of philosophical ethics. However, apart from these merits, the book suffers from two primary flaws. First, and most importantly, Diener's commitment to pluralism ignores the moral impact of doctrinal distinctives in religions. Specific doctrines lead to specific controversial moral actions even though general principles of morality are shared across religions. Second, Diener's choice of Biodiversity as the test application of his relational approach does not adequately exercise the differences among belief systems. Does any popular belief system say it doesn't care if species are lost? If not, then where is there a conflict to be resolved by the relational approach Diener feels is superior? More interesting applications could have been selected from sanctity of life or sexual behavior topics.

Contrary to Diener's relational thesis, religion and morality actually are inseparable. Morality depends upon religion with or without our awareness. As an illustration of the importance specific doctrines make in moral behavior consider the following scenario, which has all too many parallels in human history. A remote tribe holds a general moral principle 1) It is right to return property to it's rightful owner (do not steal or withhold). The tribe also holds a specific doctrine 2) deformed babies belong to the hippo god in the pond. Leading to the rational conclusion and action 3) Deformed babies are to be thrown into the pond to the hippo god when he appears. Almost anyone will agree with premise 1 in principle. Most will even agree with the pure logic of the conclusion. What is in dispute is the specific doctrinal belief in premise 2. Consider another case 1) It is morally good to oppose what is morally evil. 2) Non-Muslims are evil unbelievers who must be cut apart (Koran 8:12-13) therefore 3) Cut apart non-Muslims to promote goodness. Premise 2 is a fundamentalist position, but it's not just held by a small band of extremists when millions sympathize and support it. Again, specific doctrine is profound in cultural and personal ethics.

Diener does not explicitly disclose his personal belief system in one place, but it is clearly pluralistic with at least the following elements: Christian background, Taoism (which he favors repeatedly) and a high regard for natural law and Hegelian philosophy (p11,15,58,74,79,88,108). Chapter 1 defines religion broadly enough to include every popular worldview no matter how mutually contradictory. The Christian statement of proper religion (James 1:27) that encourages care for the needy and inner purity in the sight of God easily falls in line along with practically any other benevolent teaching, no matter its specific content.

Diener's pluralism ignores Christian doctrines that are profoundly important. In fact, his understanding of the central Christian doctrine is incorrect. On page 12 the central doctrine of Christianity is said to be the incarnation. This disagrees with the apostles Peter (Acts 2:24), Paul (Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15:16ff) and the Lord Jesus (Luke 9:22) who all saw the resurrection as central. It is true there would be no resurrection without an incarnation, but moreover there would be no Christianity to proclaim the incarnation without the resurrection.

The Christian doctrines of the fall of man and the presence of real evil are not factors in Diener's pluralism. Diener briefly mentions the fall as a doctrine, but fails to take it seriously in his system. If men cannot reason about morality correctly apart from divine revelation, and a corrective divine revelation has been given, and there is real evil in the world misconstruing that message, then pluralism is a false spiritual teaching that should be challenged (Matthew 7:15). Pluralism overlooks these critical points when it insists upon the piecemeal syncretism of contradictory systems.

Most pluralists are actually exclusivists disguised in tolerant speech but Diener shows he has a mind of his own by encouraging pluralists to not be intellectually lazy in the name of tolerance; he genuinely wants to dialogue towards a better world. He is also correct in saying that reason alone will not lead to morality because worldview presuppositions are vital. This agrees with Jesus' great commandment that the spiritual heart and reasoning mind must both be engaged (Mark 12:33). I agree with Diener on many of these principles, but I think he fails to see the gravity of specific doctrines in moral choices.

If general moral principles, not specific doctrines, were the true basis for ethical progress, why not start the dialogue in favor of pluralistic ethics in an Islamic culture? They share the same general moral principles of other worldviews. Fortunately, thinking people, especially Diener, are too smart to even try that. His admirable ideal of kindness to adversaries actually flows from a distinctively Christian system of ethics, not a generalized plurality of conflicting worldviews and doctrines. Specific Christian doctrines have conditioned his morality, for the good, more than he seems to be aware. He shouldn't let pluralism taint the unique beliefs that birthed that higher morality.