A Crash Course In Non-Equivalence

May 22nd, 2009 by Oskar Kennedy

I’d like to introduce you to our good friend the synonym. A synonym is a word that means something nearly the same as another word. For instance, take the word “prick.” It can mean an eensy-weensy stab wound, or a slang term for male genitalia. And “jerk,” which can mean an abrupt pulling motion, or a delicious way to prepare chicken. In the correct context, both of these words can mean something approximating “obnoxious asshole.” That meaning shared between the words makes them synonyms. (And they are both, in turn, synonymous with “Dick Cheney.”)*

Synonyms, used appropriately, can make writing more interesting by allowing a writer to express a concept in slightly different ways. Instead of saying that something is “good,” you can describe it as “wonderful,” splendid,” “awesome,” or “made of WIN.” Instead of “creationism,” you can call theology masquerading as science “intelligent design,” or “teaching the controversy.”

I’m flogging this fifth grade English lesson because of a comment PZ Myers made at the end of a recent post. He was writing about an investigation into awful, systematic abuses perpetrated by the Irish Catholic Church. After a quick rundown of the findings – sexual abuse, ritualized beatings and serial pedophiles protected from justice by the church – Myers asks a question that I wanted to expand on:

Can we stop equating religion and morality now? They never seem to have much to do with one another.

It should be self-evident that “religious” is not a synonym of “moral.” The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the attacks on 9/11 were all conceived and carried out by people who were devoutly religious. All of those atrocities were faith-based initiatives.

And yet, religion isn’t antithetical to morality, either. Apologists aren’t entirely wrong when they point out that the mainstream version of pretty much any modern faith makes a big deal out of moral lessons. The Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Those are all Christian examples, but you can find parallels in just about any religious framework.

Most modern religions flog these moral lessons over and over, while mostly ignoring or dismissing the less savory bits – death for apostasy, discrimination against women – until some fundamentalist critic recommends questions them. They concentrate on teaching good behavior, and sprinkle outrageous judgments and condemnation of outsiders around the margins.

Except – and this is the important bit – hearing about something, even studying it seriously, doesn’t guarantee that you’ve learned a damn thing. How many kids study a language for four years of high school, and by their fifth reunion can’t remember anything but the curse words? If a creationist can get a degree in molecular biology without accepting the truth of what’s being taught, then a priest can preach love and mercy on Sunday while touching little boys in the rectory on Saturday afternoon.

It’s probably also important to note the human brain’s capacity to insulate itself from cognitive dissonance. Televangelists preach against adultery, then get caught with prostitutes. This happens so often that it’s not even surprising. But it is hysterically funny.

Pedophile priests, mullahs allowing middle-aged men to marry nine-year-old girls, TV preachers snorting meth off the washboard stomachs of male prostitutes, devout believers blowing themselves up in crowded markets. These are modern examples of a long history of immoral behavior by folks who had more faith than goodness. Believers don’t have a monopoly on evil – non-committal religionists and atheists do bad things all the time – but faith also hasn’t cornered the market on good deeds, compassion or empathy.

It’s time for us as a culture to recognize that “religious” and “moral” aren’t synonyms. “Religious” speaks of one’s devotion to a particular belief system; “moral” means you try your best to treat other people well. Whether you’re doing it because the bible tells you so, or because you’re just a decent fucking human being, moral behavior is separate and distinct from your supernatural beliefs. One of them is about what you believe. The other is about how you act. While some kinds of belief can beget good acts, it isn’t guaranteed. They are ≠, as the mathematically inclined would say. Maybe if we get past the blinkered assumption that devotion to a deity is a prescription for goodness, maybe we can finally talk about other kinds of equality, like respect for, and civil rights of, those of us who opt out of worshipping an invisible sky-grandpa.

* Casey Luskin, Ben Stein, Don McElroy, Michele Bachmann, everyone at Fox News, and my fifth-grade math teacher, who once made me stand at the chalkboard until I peed in my pants.

spread the panic!
[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Fark] [Google] [Mixx] [MySpace] [Newsvine] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [Sphere] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Friday, May 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 pm and is filed under Panic!. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.


Discussion (3)¬

  1. catgirl says:
    May 26, 2009 at 10:14 am

    In reality, I think that even the most religious people don’t base their morality on the Bible, and I don’t just mean that there are a lot of hypocrites. I think that if the threat of Hell were removed, most religious people still would not murder, rape, and steal. My mom is pretty religious, and I’m sure that she doesn’t do those things because she actually cares about other people, and not just because the Bible says not to murder. The problem is when religious people don’t have enough self-awareness to realize that their own morality is not based on threat of Hell or promise of Heaven, but on basic empathy for other people. They use religious rules only to justify the views they already have. Whenever you talk to someone who insists that religion is the key morality, just ask them, “Would you murder me if you were guaranteed to still go to heaven?” Most people really wouldn’t do it regardless of external punishment.

    • Oskar Kennedy says:
      May 26, 2009 at 12:28 pm

      I agree that they probably don’t base their moral actions on their holy text, but a lot of them assume that their moral compass is dictated by their god and their faith. The reason they’re stumped by your question is because they’ve never thought about what they would do without the threat of damnation hanging over their heads.

  2. wapy says:
    June 2, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    This makes me remember the late Philosophy classes I used to have. One of the subjects was exactly Moral and Ethics. And the first thing I was questioned with (for those classes did not provide answers, just questions) was if there was a way to base human morality in something but a God. If humans could have a sense of morality without having the big Grampa deciding what’s good and bad for them.

    And my answer is yes :3 Why not? Just like you said there, there’s nothing that connects morality with religion – ok, a part of religion is the moral, but if we think about it, that doesn’t really mean a part of morality is religion ;3 – and using the old old excuse of ‘but it’s God Who says this is right’ is not going to save anyone (in my opinion) from their own guilt.