Does Morality Depend on Religion?

I was recently asked this question, “Can a person have a morality without a religion?”

It is indeed possible for an atheist or agnostic person to have a moral code that they follow without the guidance of any religion. Atheists can have certain moral principles that they uphold and do so with consistency, believing that there is good to be done and evil to be avoided. Some may not use the terms "good" or "evil," but "human" or "inhumane" or other equivalents. There are in fact many atheists and agnostics who are more morally upright and disciplined than many baptized Christians. So it is possible to have a morality without any kind of religion.

The question though is what is the foundation for an atheist’s morality? From an atheistic point of view the world as we know it and everything in it came into existence by happenstance and all life evolved from lower life forms due to the biological processes of evolution. There is no ultimate purpose, order, or meaning to the universe, it all just happened.  And if there is no ultimate purpose, order, or Orderer that brings forth some kind of spiritual and moral order to these biological processes, doesn't it become a lot harder to ground one’s morality rationally and consistently

Problem 1 Determinism: if there is no spiritual component to human persons, who are only the result of the biological and chemical processes of evolution, this means that every action that is made by a human person is only the result of animal instinct, acting and reacting to certain stimuli without any real moral choice. Moral reasoning is only chemicals acting and reacting to external or internal stimuli in the body that cause it to act. This eliminates choice. If there is no choice, how can actions be good or evil if everyone must do what their own biological make-up decides for them? Or is there an explanation for how human persons developed the ability to make moral choices?

Problem 2 Survival of the Fittest: if we are all the result of an anomaly in nature and we developed due to evolution by means of the survival of the fittest, could this mean then that some humans or groups of humans may be more evolutionarily advanced than others with varying thoughts or worldviews of how we are best to evolve and adapt as a species to our world situation? Would enslaving or getting rid of humans who are less evolutionarily advanced be a way of ensuring the survival of the fittest? Or is there something that makes every human life objectively good that would suggest this kind of behavior is wrong or evil? Is "good," "evil," "human," or "inhumane," just the current majority's position now, but there is no overall basis in reality for what makes these actions really good or really bad?

Problem 3 Rational Animals but still Animals: If humans evolved from animals without anything else besides their rational ability to give them any more dignity or worth than any other animal, why then would it be wrong for a man to kill children of another family?  Male lions kill the cubs of a new pride they join, but we do not have a moral problem with that. Is there a difference in actions qualitatively from other animals or are they essentially the same? Why or why not?

This obviously does not fully show the extent of an atheist's argument for why they believe there is a morality, nor does it give them the chance to respond to these questions, which they may have reasonable responses to. It's just meant to scratch the surface to some of the issues that could stem from having a morality not based in any type of religion.

From a Catholic perspective we would propose that God has written the natural law on every person’s law so that we can know generally what actions are good and what actions are evil. This does not automatically mean that God exists, it just means that our morality is based on something other than simply human thought and so is grounded in something more eternal than current social standards.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.

1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

For Catholics, the moral law is rooted in an eternal Lawgiver who made humans in His own image and desires that they fulfill the good for which they were created so that they can share in His happiness.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.

1955 The "divine and natural" law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation

The Problem with Polemics in the Immigration Debate, Part I

If you’re going to start a blog, why not start with the most controversial thing that everybody is talking about?! Actually I was asked a question about this and ever since then it’s been on my heart and mind to write about the topic of immigration. It breaks my heart to see the situation that is going on and also to see how it has led to tearing others apart. It’s a difficult topic and I don’t expect to answer every question or to allay every concern. I don’t desire to stir the pot, but rather help defuse the tension.

Since it’s a complicated issue, it’s going to take more than one post.

Part I is going to be just a basic Introduction to the issue of immigration.

Part II will be about my own very limited lived experiences of immigration.

Part III will be about what role the Church plays in adding confusion or clarity

Part IV will be about the importance of distinctions in dialogue.

I am not an expert on these topics, but if I can help one person think about these issues even just a little bit deeper, I will have succeeded. Let’s get started…

A lot of us have recently seen, have been told or have used these phrases in the past week,

 You’re not pro-life, you’re pro-birth because you don’t care about the poor, the needy, the immigrants, and the refugees. 

A Christian builds bridges not walls. If you build walls you are not a Christian.

 You’re not Catholic if you do not welcome refugees. Jesus said to welcome the stranger

 It’s hypocrisy to call yourself a Christian and chase away a refugee or someone seeking help, someone who is hungry or thirsty, toss out someone who is in need of my help  ~Pope Francis. 

I don’t understand how someone can call themselves a Christian if they are against refugees coming into the United States.

 Maybe you think that you have a right to refuse a person in need. And that you have the right to protect yourself. Well, we do have the right of self-protection. But refusing the one in need because you want to protect yourself, especially when the other is in desperate need and obvious danger, is not what Christianity is about. ~Fr. James Martin, SJ

If people have said these phrases to you, let me begin with: I don’t judge you. And let me also say if you have used any of these phrases to explain your position to someone else: I don’t judge you either.

When it comes to the policies, procedures, politics, and implications of decisions about immigration, illegal immigrants, refugees, national security, naturalization, or the effect that these things have on the well-being of one’s own country and other countries, let me be the first to admit: I do not know how any of it works. I am probably the least knowledgable person on what actually happens with policies and implementation concerning immigration. I am completely ignorant as to how the process works and what it means for citizens of the welcoming country and for immigrants.

Yet as this crazy past week progressed, I have continually seen the phrases above said and re-said and something just did not sit right with me, but I was not sure what. But I’ve thought about it and I think I understand what it is.

I know amazing Christ-centered, poor-serving, stranger-welcoming, generous, and loving Catholics on both sides of the debate and those stuck somewhere in between. And I know if refugees, immigrants, or the poor knocked on their door asking for help or some kind of assistance, the majority of them would do something to help them. Invite them in for a meal. Offer them a place to stay. Help them find housing or an organization that would be able to assist them. These people are not only pro-birth, they are emphatically pro-life. None of these people are against immigrants, against refugees, or the poor. The problem is when one’s involvement with immigration is not direct and it becomes a process two-or-twenty-or-thirty steps removed from the person’s daily life. If I am honest, and I say this to no discredit to the majority of families, but I don’t think most families have any idea of how immigration actually works or should work. If it came down to themselves as individuals being asked to take care of a refugee family, the majority of Catholics I know would do something. They would see the faces, they would know their names, they would be directly responsible for what happens. They would feed the hungry. Give drink to the thirsty. Shelter the homeless. Welcome the stranger. They would do what the Gospel asks them to do.

Now imagine if a homeless man with no known background asked to stay the night at your house. Many people I know would be willing to put their own lives at risk in order to serve them, and they should be commended for doing that. But some would not feel comfortable doing that, not necessarily because of their own safety, but because of the safety of their children or spouse. The question then becomes, should they feel the need to the put the ones they love and are responsible for at risk? And I think that’s where a lot of the difficulty comes. I do not think there is an easy answer to that question. And the answer may be different for different people and different families. This is a tension that pastors in different countries may face for confronting drug cartels, for accepting Muslim converts, or for preaching on controversial topics. Many pastors in those situations would be willing to live the Gospel radically and die for their faith, but some are much more apprehensive about putting the lives of their own flock at risk. There does not seem to be an easy answer. (See the movie Silence to understand that angst). And this is the difficulty with allowing refugees into the country. Are most probably harmless? My guess is yes. But what about the possibility that there is one who is not? Are you willing to risk your own life to find out? What about the lives of your siblings, parents, children, nieces, nephews? I am not trying to scare anyone out of thinking they should help immigrants or refugees, I simply want others to know about the real tension that exists in the lives of people who are concerned and are really working through these issues as we all are working through them.

And when it comes to policies, procedures, governments, and agencies it becomes more complicated and it enters the complex world of politics, a thing most people aren’t familiar with and aren’t comfortable with. And I think it’s important to remember that. It’s important to remember that these matters are complicated. They are complex. The future is unknown. And I think it’s important to remember if the future is unknown, we must be honest, we do not really know the implications of welcoming refugees or immigrants, if it will be helpful or hurtful for our country simply because one does not know the future. We know we should help them, but do really know the absolute best way how? One could definitely say it would be a good deed to welcome refugees and immigrants, but one does not know what the welcoming of refugees and immigrants will actually effect – the economy? job security? public safety? family life? a loss of culture? the lives of the ones we love? And people fear the unknown, and that’s okay. Fear is natural. It’s human.  This fear does not mean people then should not welcome the refugee or immigrant. But it also does not mean that people who are afraid of or concerned about the consequences of a more open policy on immigration are anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, Islamaphobes, anti-Mexican, only pro-birth, or not Chistian.

It simply means it is a scary thing when a person has no control over others making decisions for them and their family, not knowing what consequences will result from those decisions.
 

This is the fear of refugees. This is the fear of welcoming countries. This is the fear of a father who loses his job and doesn’t know how to support his family. This is the fear of a newly wed mother realizing she’s pregnant when she doesn’t feel ready. This is the fear that some people felt when Obama was elected. This is the fear some people feel now knowing that Trump is president. This is the fear of a person who discovers they have cancer and entrusts themselves to their doctors. It is a fear I face in my vocation with obedience knowing that I will one day be sent somewhere and I have seemingly no control over how that decision will go. Sometimes legitimate fear can help one make more prudential decisions, but fear can also stop one from doing the good that they should do. We must take other peoples’ fears into consideration when we talk with them, when we walk with them.

Wherever one falls on the spectrum on this topic, if a person has a good reason for what policies they think are most consistent with the Christian faith, explain them tenderly, back up your opinion with evidence, acknowledge the complexity of the situation, relate with peoples’ fears and concerns, don’t accuse, don’t assume, listen to others’ perspective. “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.” (Proverbs 18:2) 

If we cannot in charity lump all refugees and immigrants into one category and write them off, neither can we in charity lump all people who are cautious about refugees and immigrants into one category and write them off.

We must listen. We must be calm. We can be passionate, but we must listen. 

Serving the poor, living in Belize, working in Mexico, serving Mexican immigrants in Detroit, meeting Chaldean Christians with Iraqi heritage, driving through Dearborn, Michigan and traveling to Israel and Palestine have given me a new perspective on this… Stay tuned to Part II to hear about it…

Blogging - Let the Fun Begin!

Why Blog? 
I’ve thought a lot about doing a blog before because I really enjoy writing and I really enjoy teaching, but that wasn’t the motivation I was looking for. I was unsure of what I could really offer to the ever-growing blogosphere. After some closer examination and encouragement from other people, I realized that a lot of people have said in the past they benefited from something I had written or said that was unique or said clearer than others had explained it before. That was enough for me. If I can teach and write and help others learn, then why would I hold back? I hope this helps at least one other person.

   

How It’ll All Go Down 
Consistency has never been my strong suit, so a daily blog is out of the question. So I’ve decide to limit it to at least a weekly/bi-weekly blog. Not on what I want to talk about, but whatever you want to talk about on the things of faith and life, how to integrate spirituality into one’s daily life, how to come to a deeper understanding of who Christ is, how to discern, what are the teachings of the Church, social doctrine, what are my experiences and what have they taught me about the world and how it all relates back to Jesus and His Church. If you have any questions that you think would be interesting for me to cover, feel free to leave them in the comment box below or feel free to message me. 

Disclaimer 
What I am writing are my own thoughts and these thoughts are coming from a 30 year old religious brother who has lived on only a small section of planet earth from 1986 until present. I grew up a Catholic white male in Maryland and have moved around quite a bit ever since college, but am currently residing in Detroit. What this means is that I have a limited point of view. I haven’t experienced all that life has to offer and so I don’t know everything about everything nor everyone. My answers will be limited just as my experience is limited. I want to try to answer all questions in the context of the Church’s teachings and stay true to them as best as I know how, because while I may be only 30 years old, the Church has been around all over the world a lot longer, so sticking to her teachings expands and universalizes my knowledge over a larger span of time and places than I would ever be able to on my own. If I am wrong in anything I have said, I defer to the teachings of the Church and her judgment. I apologize ahead of time for any mistakes I may make and for any generalizations that don’t ring true to your experience. I will try to be clear when I am making a generalization and when I am trying to be more specific. Also know that there are experts, theologians, philosophers, scholars, and researchers who know a lot more than I do, and they are worth consulting or researching. There’s no need to take what I say as the ultimate authority. What I write is only a proposal, an invitation, to see things the way I see the Catholic Church proposes its teachings. I do not want to impose my beliefs on anyone or to say that it is the only way to see things. These are just the best answers I have come up with. If anyone disagrees with what I have said or finds an error in anything I have said, please point it out. I will try to correct any errors as quickly as possible. I thank you for your patience and I hope you enjoy the ride as much as I do.