A question that always bothered me but I never got to put to my tutorial group (shame): Why is God prepared to show Himself to Paul on the road to Damascus but I have to take it on faith? I would be quite prepared to believe if He revealed Himself to me with an accompanying stairway to heaven filled with angels. Interested to hear responses by both believers and non-believers…

AV, I’m presuming you haven’t been hit by a lightning bolt. Yet.

I went to Catholic schools. My Year 11 RE teacher once asked the class if any of us were atheists, and I raised my hand. (As I recall, I was the only one to raise my hand.) My RE teacher told me that God would one day make me have an “accident” (a la bolt of lightning), and then I would become a believer.

He was also a science teacher–I daresay someone who was able to compartmentalise his mind into reasonable and unreasonable spheres.

A miracle!

Anyway, I have too many opinions on this to justify the time that I could spend on it.

That said, I these days profess myself to be an atheist. That doesn’t mean I don’t have “beliefs”. I believe in a great deal of what Jesus stood for. I believe in many principles found in various faiths. I believe in wonder and creativity, and humility. I belief in continuing to doubt myself and explore ways of being.

As for morality, I like the idea of morality and spirituality being grounded in the here and now; in people, creatures, science and imagination; in the known and unknown; and not in any books, laws or scriptures of dubious origin. Religion provides no real morality - only a set of rules. Real morality is about choosing empathy and humanity over the needs of the self.

As for the afterlife? I like Bob Geldof’s theory: “after death, there is simply blessed oblivion.”

There seems to be a vein of ‘fundamentalist’ rationalists emerging in the last few years - it’s an intriguing development.

That’s why they say philosophers are just like children
(Or is it the other way around?)

The problem with mixing religion and law is that religion involves faith, which can lead to a lack of questioning and inquiry.

My thoughts exactly.

To my mind, laws are in place because we need them to have a peaceful and stable society, and to regulate transactions and interactions so that we have some idea of what to expect when we make a contract or buy a house or get married, or whatever. Historically, laws as explained in religious texts may have had an influence on our law, but God has no place in the law today.

I was thinking about the way in which parents try to teach their children what is right and wrong.

Sometimes, parents say, “Don’t do that!” to their children. When the child asks “Why?” the parent answers, “Because I say so.” Religious laws can be like that. The problem with mixing religion and law is that religion involves faith, which can lead to a lack of questioning and inquiry. I’ve never found “because I say so” to be a particularly satisfying response. It’s likely to make me want to disobey (I am naturally contra-suggestible).

Sometimes parents explain why a certain course of action is not advisable: “Because you’ll hurt yourself” or “Because it isn’t nice to other people to do that” etc, etc. I was far more likely to obey my parents where there was a reason behind a particular stricture they put on me. I think the same applies to the law.

As do I. The dichotomy I’m talking about is that between reason and unreason as a guide to moral decision-making, or more importantly, a guide to what a society should deem lawful or unlawful.

Take “Thou shalt not kill.” The reasoning behind this is that it is not desirable to have civilians killing each other whenever they want to. Disputes should be resolved in other ways in a civilised society. But it is easier to enforce if the lawmaker says, “You have to refrain from doing this because God says that you can’t do it, and He will send you to hell if you break the law.”

I find this disturbing. Why should a law be more difficult to enforce if there are reasonable grounds for having it? The theological ad baculum might be a powerful motivator, but it depends upon acceptance of the theology. What happens when the people stop believing in God?

I think the dichotomy between reason and morality is a false one. Morality is essentially a question of what kind of behaviour is “good” behaviour. This process must involve some kind of reason.

Religious morality often has some kind of reason behind it. It may not be a reason that we find acceptable or appropriate in this day and age, but it is still there. Take “Thou shalt not kill.” The reasoning behind this is that it is not desirable to have civilians killing each other whenever they want to. Disputes should be resolved in other ways in a civilised society. But it is easier to enforce if the lawmaker says, “You have to refrain from doing this because God says that you can’t do it, and He will send you to hell if you break the law.”

I don’t find the “God says so” argument convincing. I require reason behind morality, and a consideration of opposing arguments and exceptions to the rule.

Often with “gut feelings” of unfairness, there is also reason behind it when we look closely. Equity in Anglo-Australian law is the closest we get “gut feeling”. But, quite properly, it has a structure and a reason to it. You can’t just overrule something because you think it’s “not fair”. You have to give proper reasons, and apply certain doctrines to identified factual circumstances. Otherwise the law becomes impossibly unpredictable.

I should confess here that I specialise in Equity and the like. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he contrasts law with equity. Law is universal, and applies to everyone regardless of circumstance. Aristotle says that equity is “a rectification of law where the law falls short by reason of its universality”. There are always exceptions to the rule. And so there should be.

LE