Religion & Ethics A very short introduction Dr. Bruce.docx

Religion & Ethics: A
very short introduction
Dr. Bruce Hiebert
© 2013
Used by permission. This document may be freely copied and
distributed for
academic instructional purposes.
1. A complex subject
2. The problem of religion
Hard to define
Many types
Religion and violence
3. Combining ethics and religion
Models of compromise and cooperation
Models of separation or antagonism
And then there are the different religions
4. Conclusion

1. A complex subject
While ethics is a complex subject in its own right, religion is
no
less complex an area to study. Combining the two creates a
situation where any reasonable scholar runs and hides. The
complexities are piled so high and deep that no reasonable
answers can be developed, let alone sustained in the midst of
the
conflicting claims of both fields. However, the importance of
the
subject is so great that the attempt must be made. Religious
ethics are a prominent aspect of every culture and to neglect the
interaction leaves people ill equipped to function effectively in
a
pluralistic society. So it is in the interests of providing a few
tools
to help comprehend the complexities of this normal social
situation that this essay proposes to examine in a very brief way
this extremely difficult combination of issues.
PAGE 2
Hiebert: Religion and ethics 2013-05
In order to do so, the first problem is to define religion itself.
While religion seems obvious at first glance, it turns out to be
very
difficult to pin down to any simple understanding that can then
be brought into association with ethics. Tied to that is the very
frightening problem of religious violence, an issue that by itself

seems to end the ability to examine this issue.
However, when ethics and religion are brought together it is
highly revealing regarding a number of important clashes in
contemporary Western culture. Religion flourishes within
Western culture, even though it is formally secular.
Understanding religious ethics turns out to create significant
illumination around such issues as abortion, environmental
protection, and the value of pluralism itself. That does not mean
there is any social agreement to be found. But in a pluralistic
society one of the hopes is that by understanding the parties,
solutions to the clashes can be negotiated, or if not solutions,
then reasonable compromises.
2. The problem of religion
Religion is a problem, not because of its adherents, but because
of its diversity. Human responses to life that may be called
religious run from the atheist (no gods) to the polytheist (many
gods), and include thousands of variations in between. Finding a
single definition is difficult, let alone a single frame of
reference
for that diversity. Regardless a definition needs to be attempted
if there is any hope of determining what the subject is of our
analysis.
Hard to define
One definition that offers significant analytical power is that:
A religion is a collective performance of rites, rituals and belief
systems that relate to the ultimate conditions of human
existence.
This is primarily an anthropological definition, though it is
based

upon a view of religion developed by the philosopher and
theologian, Gordon Kaufman. As Kaufman determined, religion
is
about the limit conditions of human existence, those points such
as birth, death, and human purpose, where empirical or
pragmatic understandings are inherently unable to provide
answers. As human beings explain the ultimate “why” of the
difficult questions regarding life itself, they are engaging in
religious language. This religious language becomes a religion
PAGE 3
when it is collectively organized and infused with rites, rituals
and
belief systems.
This definition is not one that is necessarily accepted by
religious
groups. This definition is hard for Western Protestant Christians
to accept since it does not recognize one of the key
understandings of their religion, which is that religion is
primarily
about individual beliefs. Some of the Eastern religious groups,
such as some types of Taoists or Buddhists, would also disagree
with this definition since they would argue that by providing a
definition the very nature of their world has been violated. But
an
anthropologist would reply that the failure of a religion to see
itself in the definition does not mean it is not a religion, merely
that in its performance of its own religion it understands itself
in a
different way than does the anthropologist. As long as the

definition allows one to understand what sets the religion apart
from other types of human behaviour, it is a reasonable
definition.
This debate shows just how hard it is to define religion since
the
religions themselves may not agree with the definition. But by
identifying a religion in the terms used here, very specific
components of human life that are normally understood to be
about religion, like worship, beliefs in God, prayers,
meditation,
ritual acts, and personal motivations to self-sacrifice, can all be
brought together. This definition also applies to wildly
divergent
groups including those who may not believe in a God or gods,
but
still collectively engage in rituals or organized beliefs about the
ultimate values in human existence. So well organized atheists
who have codified their beliefs about human meaning would
qualify as a religion. So might some political or ecological
groups
who have understood their views to represent the fundamental
nature of reality itself and ritualized or codified those
understandings. Whether this inclusion in religion is
appropriate,
and thus the definition is too broad, is still open.
Many types
What this definition already identifies is that religious groups
are
many and their behaviours and self-understandings vary in
extreme. This leads to efforts to understand the differences and
commonalities among religions. Those efforts by academics
have
proved contentious and there is nothing about any religion or

cluster of religions upon which all academics would agree, let
alone the specific religious groups involved.
PAGE 4
Generally religions are divided by academics into two groups,
Eastern religions and Western religions. Sometimes a third type
is
added related to indigenous religions, religions of specific tribal
peoples rooted in specific geographical locales. Then there are
academics who object to this set of descriptors, noting that
differences within each of these groups may be greater than the
differences between some of the religions within different
groups, and that there are marked affinities around common
ideas that cross one or more major group boundaries. Finally,
there are those few scholars who argue that all religions are
manifestations of the same basic religious impulse and
experience and should not be divided.
The Eastern Religions are typically identified as Hinduism,
Buddhism, and Taoism. What these religions share is a cyclical
view of time, a commitment to harmony or oneness of all
existence, and a belief that material existence is fundamentally
illusory. They differ radically on how these conditions are to
be
managed in terms that are meaningful for human beings on a
day-to-day basis.
The Western Religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
What these religions share is the oneness and transcendence of
God, a linear view of time, the need for human salvation
through

non-human agency, the importance of scripture, and material
existence as the site of a cosmic struggle between good and
evil.
They differ radically on how these conditions are to be managed
in terms that are meaningful for human beings on a day-to-day
basis.
There are a number of other major religious traditions that do
not
tidily fall into these two groups. These include Sikhism, Shinto,
Jainism, Confucism, and traditional Chinese religion, as well as
many larger African religions.
All of these religions have well developed traditions about how
human limit conditions are to be understand and the correct way
in which to interact with them. The also have rites and rituals
that are usually performed in similar ways regardless of the
social
and geographic location of the adherent.
What all these religions share, and make them vitally important
to the issue of ethics, is a sense of lived justice or right
relationships (which may be the same thing). Every religion has
a
way of moving from the rites, rituals, and beliefs about the
ultimate conditions of human life to how life is to be lived
rightly,
or in balance, or justly on a day-to-day basis. That makes these
PAGE 5
religions the most powerful sources of morality in human

history
or contemporary existence.
Religion and violence
The very power of religion to shape morality raises the serious
problem of violence. Every religion, either historically or
currently, has sub-groups that idealize violence against other
human beings. These violent religious groups see violence as an
important part of how to make human existence just or properly
balanced. These are typically fringe groups, but sometimes they
become central or even dominant as historical circumstances
make that specific way of being religious more popular with
ordinary religious people or useful in terms of social
interaction.
In the context of a growing global awareness of the evil of
violence, this can lead to the marking of specific religions or all
religions with the taint of evil.
This taint is exacerbated by the standard trait of violent people
in
human political life to call upon the gods to bless their political
violence and the subsequent willingness of religious leaders to
do
just that. It is very hard to find a war in human existence where
religious leaders have not blessed the armed forces of one side
or
another. (In the 20th century it has often been the same religion
blessing forces on opposed sides, claiming each to be the carrier
of divine favour, Christianity in Europe or Islam in the Middle
East.) However, what needs to be stressed is that these claims to
divine favour, and even of Holy War, are not intrinsic to the
religion but intrinsic to the political units that claim divine
favour
for themselves. The war is declared before the religious
affirmation is called for, and the war is planned in the offices of

the politically powerful and the wealthy, not in the churches,
temples, mosques, synagogues, and religious sites of the
religions. The political leaders then call upon the religious
leaders
to help them sell their war to the people who must do the
suffering, and religious leaders are usually enthusiastic in their
willingness to do just that. However, typically (but not always)
the
strongest opponents of the war come from among the most
devout religious adherents of those very religions that are
embracing the war.
All religions seek harmony between the divine or ultimate
realities and human existence. For the most part this harmony is
found in peaceful coexistence, even a desire to help strangers
with acts of altruism. It is the very rare circumstance where
violence itself is seen as reflective of the divine or ultimate
reality.
PAGE 6
When it does happen it is usually under circumstances of rapid
social change or new oppression, social conditions that feel
intrinsically violent. From a historical or anthropological point
of
view it is certainly correct to identify the reality of religious
violence, but it is just as important to name these events as
typically rarer or situationally dependent conditions. Religious
morality tends to pursue harmony rather than violence, and is
generally found supporting actions that lead to human collective
prosperity. Violence is a human problem, not a religious
problem, and religions as human constructs share that

fundamental human problem.
Understood in this way it becomes clear that in exploring the
problem of violence in religion it is first imperative to
understand
the problem of violence among human beings. Obtaining that
understanding is some distance off, despite much energy and
academic attention. Once understanding has been achieved,
human beings must still search for solutions. In that search
religions hold as much hope for wisdom as they are
representative of the problem. The moral force of religion can
inspire world peace every bit as much, or even more than, it can
drive people to hatred.
3. Combining ethics and religion
From examining the relationship of religion and violence it is
easy to see that religions have significant moral implications.
Thus they have a relationship to ethics. The difficulty is in
determining what that relationship is, or what that relationship
should be. The two questions are not the same, and depending
on which one one starts with, the answers are quite different. If
one starts from what the relationship is, one moves to questions
of overlap between religious and ethical systems and from there
to models of compromise and cooperation between
philosophical
and religious ethics. However, if one starts from what the
relationship should be, one examines the points of difference
between them, and therefore moves to models of separation or
antagonism. Historians, sociologists and anthropologists
typically
start from the former. Theologians and philosophers typically
start from the latter. The result is that bringing ethics and
religion
together leads to wildly divergent academic responses.

Models of compromise and cooperation
Historically or anthropologically, religious convictions of how
human beings should behave have typically overlapped with
PAGE 7
cultural norms for human behaviour. This means that what the
religion suggests people should do for religious reasons
typically
is close to what the culture suggests people should do for
traditional, social, or political reasons. Since very often the
culture and religion have grown up together, this is not
surprising.
However, it also happens that when a new religion or a new
culture meet each other, both tend to change in order to
accommodate one another. Generally the religion changes more
than the culture, but both will change to find room to work
together in relative harmony. This may mean making exceptions
in the laws, or creating social patterns of ignoring specific
religious behaviours that are seen as crazy or impolite, or even
changing the social framework to make the religion easier to
perform.
But these patterns of compromise can shift to clear cooperation.
It is not uncommon for political or social bodies or their
representatives to call upon religious leaders for assistance in
developing or promulgating social policy. Similarly, religious
leaders will often call upon political or social bodies to
recommend social changes or to ask for assistance in managing
the affairs of the religion. In pluralist states, such as western
nations, this cooperation is often covert, sometimes only visible

by accident or long after the fact as archives are opened to
reveal
documentation related to the cooperation.
In democratic states it is very common for adherents of
religious
groups to be elected to government office. From there they can
seek the development or transformation of laws and policies to
match their religious points of view. If the nominal or devout
adherents of a specific religion dominate the elected
representatives this can create a situation of defacto theocracy,
of rule by a religion. However, the complexity of governing and
normal human desires for reasonable compromise typically
mean
that nominally theocratic governments tend to seek social
objectives that are broadly shared across religious groups and
with non-religious members of the culture.
Models of separation or antagonism
While politically and historically, cooperation and compromise
are the norm, this is not the perspective of those who approach
the issues of religion and ethics from a more theoretical point of
view. (And there are also important historical examples of
antagonism, persecution and hatred between religions and other
social groups or cultural forms.) Scholars, whether religious or
PAGE 8
secular, tend to see the ethics of religion as either separate from
or antagonistic to the values and behaviours of the non-
religious.

This is due to the intent of scholars to explore the ultimate or
most fine points of existence on both sides, and in doing so the
real gaps between the two groups become intellectual chasms.
It is not uncommon for religious scholars, especially theological
ethicists, to find that pluralist cultures are incompatible with
religious perspectives on what life means and how it is to be
practiced. Liberal democracy places its faith in the will of
voters
acting in their own (selfish) interests. Religions normally place
their source of values in edicts or truths that come from the
divine
and confront normal human behaviour with demands for change.
The result is a foundational opposition between the two, even if
the practical outcomes (what the voters and the religions want)
is
the same.
It is also not uncommon for scientists to argue that scientific
knowledge is incompatible with religious perspectives regarding
what life means and how it is to be practiced. Again, rather than
looking at the way religion motivates scientists (or historically
is
tied to foundational scientific approaches), the emphasis is on
the
foundational premises of scientific research that require
material
explanations for all observed behaviour. More liberal
theologians
and scientists suggest that rather than antagonism, the proper
approach for each group is to accept unique and separate areas
of
expertise. Neither will attempt to rule on the specific expertise
of
the other. Regardless, they argue that science and religion are
separate if not opposed.

Since views of separation or antagonism are usually developed
by
intellectual or social elites, these are typically the views that
dominate popular discourse. However, the reality of separation
and antagonism is usually minimal, even in cultures where
actual
separation or antagonism is practiced.
And then there are the different religions
Of course each religion has its own understanding of how social
ethics and religion are to be combined. This particularity must
not
be neglected. Religious groups can work to change society to
match their perspectives or carve off a space within a society
where their values and perspectives become central to social
behaviour. It is also extremely common for religions to spin off
or
foster extremist groups determined to pursue religious
behaviour
without compromise. These groups usually exist as networks of
PAGE 9
cloisters, small cells living within strongly bounded
communities,
cut off from routine interaction with the society. However, these
cloisters are often centers of religious imagination, education,
and outreach. They have been the source of transformative
social
programs, medical care, and schools. They rarely maintain

permanent or rigid boundaries and may be deeply influential of
or
influenced by the dominant society and general religious
conditions.
It is rare, but not unheard of, for religious groups to call for
social
disobedience or violation of the laws and customs of a social
group. Typically these occurrences take place in the context of
specific issues that are seen as running counter to core religious
values or beliefs. The outcomes of such protests can be
substantial, even leading to the overthrow of governments and
complete transformations of society. In the most extreme cases
these become the foundation of religious terror groups.
From time to time a religion will be so socially powerful that it
is
the central organizing force within a society. In the long-term
this
is typically destructive of the religion since the compromises
inherent in governing destroy the legitimacy of the religion.
However, the “long-term” is sometimes measured in centuries
and during that period the religion will shape all the laws and
regulations of society and define normative human practices at
all levels. Such societies are often highly oppressive of the non-
religious and religious minorities. They typically run into
conflict
with indigenous economic elites who find that religious
proscriptions make business practices difficult and the
enjoyment
of wealth objectionable.
It is very common for religious groups to be noticeable within a
society, not for their disobedience, but for their peculiarity.
What
is usually most remarked upon are differences related to dress,

language, or marital practices. However, demographic analysis
can reveal many more subtle differences in social practices
based
on generalized religious norms. So some religious groups are
less
likely than the norm to marry outside their religion, rigorously
restrict family size, watch television, or vote. These impacts are
hard to see and typically have minimal social consequences.
Regardless, religions do operate from their own ethical premises
and in keeping with their moral traditions in ways both visible
and
invisible within cultures.
PAGE 10
4. Conclusion
On a day-to-day basis in pluralist cultures, religious ethics
interpenetrate and co-exist with non-religious ethics. In every
cultural and political situation they are joined together,
operating
more and less comfortably to create the conditions within which
everyone negotiates their personal moral behaviour. In extreme
cases various religions and non-religious social groups find
themselves in an antagonistic relationship. More often the two
interact without even noticing that there are differences. It does
not matter on a day-to-day basis if one engages in a specific
behaviour for religious or non-religious reasons, or some mix
thereof.
Where the problems become evident is typically under
conditions

of rapid social change when the traditional religious and social
compromises break-down or specific religious groups find
themselves under unique or specific pressure. Then both sides
can become aware of each other in antagonistic ways leading to
possibilities of social or religious transformation or oppression.
In
the context of a planet undergoing massive cultural changes,
there is always some place where these clashes are taking place.
The vast majority of religious moralities and secular moralities
work together in relative harmony. Where they occasionally
conflict it is typical for the two to come to a working
compromise.
In both cases there are changes, with secular moralities
changing
to accommodate religious moralities and religious moralities
changing to accommodate secular moralities. While
philosophers
and theologians bemoan the infinite gap between them, most
people, from the religiously devout to the completely secular,
just
try to get along and create a world of mutual prosperity.
---
Dr. Bruce Hiebert is a historical theological ethicist and
member
of the Mennonite sect of Christianity. He studies neurological
aspects of ethical behaviour, particularly how trauma and
cultural
change transform innate perspectives regarding correct religious
behaviour.

Religion & Ethics A very short introduction Dr. Bruce.docx

Religion & Ethics A very short introduction Dr. Bruce.docx

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Religion & Ethics A very short introduction Dr. Bruce.docx

Similaire à Religion & Ethics A very short introduction Dr. Bruce.docx (15)

Plus de debishakespeare

Plus de debishakespeare (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Religion & Ethics A very short introduction Dr. Bruce.docx