Irrelevant Canons

Religion appears increasingly tongue-tied as the Bible and the Quran find little to say about today’s most important moral issues. What do these books tell us about: wars - which ones are morally justifiable; economic priorities – how to slice the economic pie fairly; genocide – how can it be morally combated; child abuse – how should morality deal with the epidemic in child molestation;  education – what are the moral implications of denying quality education to the neediest citizens; political corruption – does morality offer a way to curb the damage done by out-of-control politicians; well being – how is it achieved by the greatest number of people (the core issue of morality?); genetics – what are the moral implications of using genetics as a tool to eliminate inherited diseases; terrorism – can the canons be revised to eliminate the rationale religion provides for some who wish to slaughter themselves and others? This is but a tiny sample of the vast range of moral issues unaddressed by allegedly infallible books authored with assistance from Higher Authorities.

While the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) Web site says that  “Abortion, moral relativism and mistreatment of others are the top moral issues facing America,” and the Pope echoes these thoughts, it seems to me that even if those issues were resolved, we would still have to deal with those in my longer list and many more besides. In part our religious and political splits exist because believers see these books as listing or hinting at nearly all truths worth knowing. Closer analysis reveals that a few of these topics are mentioned in passing, most not at all.

.

What is becoming ever clearer is that science and receptive minds trained in critical thinking have more to offer than religious dogma in solving the moral dilemmas we face today.  Perhaps those problems persevere because religion – arguably the most powerful influence in our society - remains so focused on safeguarding its power. Absolutism, endorsed by all churches all the time,  has little to offer in dealing with issues that can’t be solved by proclamation. Yet these matters demand our attention because while they remain unresolved, our view of the world around us remains morally blurred. 

So why are the canonical texts inadequate? Simply because when they were written, running water was an inconceivable technology, as were the complex problems that the future would bring.  Religion has dealt with this embarrassment by using strategies that could have appeared on Moses’ tablets in the form of “Thou shalt not kill, unless your government tells you it’s o.k.”; or “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless they are hostile, then you may torture them.” Such wholesale revisionism has forestalled the disappearance of the church, yet it falls short of providing the moral clarity so desperately needed.

Could we look to science to help answer moral questions?  Thoughtful people around the world are beginning to consider this possibility.  By discarding dogma we free our minds to explore solutions that religion-based doctrines assert we’re not allowed to think about.  We’ve gained some important insights in the past 2000 years about how to think rigorously.  Why not put that knowledge to work to improve a dusty moral code that seems so limited and  provides both solace to scoundrels and levers for manipulating the superstitious..