On Religion

One irritant that I wish to put aside before proceeding is the common error of mistaking religion and morality as if they are near synonyms. While I may touch or comment on religion, as it is relevant to the discussion, we must dispense immediately with the confusion of the two. Morality is not the exclusive domain of religion, and if we must depend on religious feeling to lead a moral life then we are deeply in trouble in this age of secularism. This is not meant to be a religious blog, but rather to undertake the classic debate between Socrates and Thrasymachus on what it means to lead a good life and furthermore to ask further how, or if, this question has changed in the modern and technological world.

We would however be remiss to sweep religion so quickly under the carpet for its role in the formation and preservation of morality has been paramount. And I have heard too many people abandon religion because they disagree with the moral position of religion as if its domain is purely the moral care of the soul. The proper domain of religion, in my view, is the spiritual care of the soul and to abandon it for moral reasons seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. To reject religion on spiritual grounds may be valid, everyone must decide this for themselves, but for moral reasons alone it seems absurd. To abandon the care of one's soul in order to make a moral point seems foolhardy. To abandon belief in one's soul is something I can not speak to.

So why then has religion become so tied up with moral questions if as I suggest it ought to be concerned with only the spirit. I think there are a many reasons for this, including its role in the past as the centre or hub of communities, since morality is highly concerned with how we treat one another it was logical for these questions to be asked and answered by the local church. Another reason which concerns me more here, is that while it is possible to lead a moral life with out a spiritual one, it is not possible to lead a spiritual life without leading a moral life. A moral life is a precursor to a spiritual one. But that does mean that religion must be the arbiter of the moral life.

I recently read Tess of the D'Urbervilles and in the note at the beginning of my edition it describes the backdrop in which the book was written and the description that has stood out for me was how Thomas Hardy was considered dangerous for his religious views mostly because he was a highly virtuous and moral man who attended church for spiritual and emotional reasons. I think this captures well the view I have tried to describe here. And while I could probably write a blog on religion I hope I have sufficiently  been able to set aside the issue for now to continue on my original question.

In my next post I will describe why I have chosen the title for this blog.