If judging is wrong, then God won't judge... right?

Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty (a show I admittedly have never watched), has once again waded into controversy with the following statement (taken from this link):

“I’ll make a bet with you. Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him and then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of ‘em and then shoot him and they take his wife and decapitate her head off in from of him. And then they can look at him and say isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged … there’s no right or wrong … and then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say wouldn’t it be something if this was something wrong with this, but you’re the one who says there's no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong…. so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head. Have a nice day.”

Of course, atheists are quickly shouting that this is a "straw man" argument... that no one is advocating these practices, and that this example is outrageous and argumentative.

I know a couple atheists, and I have definitely never heard anything to make me think that they would advocate such behavior.  In fact, I frequently see these people advocating for kindness and benevolence, and often for individuals who are disadvantaged... quite different from the hypothetical antagonists in Phil Robertson's example.

General advocacy for benevolence seems to be prevalent, even as religious devotion seems to wane.  I have frequently seen memes and articles that decry exclusion, bullying, and the practice of judging others... many of which are quite clever.  I saw a meme that said "don't judge me because I sin differently from you" (apparently President Uchtdorf saw something similar).  Certainly this thought is not reserved as a slogan for agnostics; it definitely resonates with Christians.  Jesus himself said "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)

I myself have been accused of being excessively judgmental, and in spite of the irony that individuals have judged me as being so, there is certainly room for me to improve.

That having been said, all the "hold hands and sing kumbaya" sentiment can distract from legitimate problems that exist in society.  While the vast majority of people would never break into a home and perform violent acts for entertainment, there exist some that would and do.  The media has shared stories of people who have killed dozens in schools and theaters.  Enemies in foreign lands share their own videos of brutal executions with knives or with fire.  There exist areas of the world where even innocent children are exploited as slaves to slake the lust of adults.  There are few people who would suggest that such deeds are "right" or that the perpetrators of such crimes should not be judged because they "sin differently."

Additionally, there exist people that believe they are justified in committing acts that society at large considers atrocious.  Consider the example of Nehor from the Book of Mormon.  He was a large and mighty man that preached the "judge not" brand of religion:

"And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life." (Alma 1:4)

This idea was popular, and Nehor boldly went preaching against the church of God, which advocated not only righteous living, but also repentance for sinners.  In other words, the church taught that bad men should become good, and good men should become better.  They judged unrighteousness as being bad.

In the process of "educating" these "ignorant" Christians, Nehor sought them out for argument and debate.  On one such occasion, he found an elderly man named Gideon who resisted Nehor's teachings.  Anger led to violence.  Nehor slew Gideon.

Instead of admitting that what he had done was wrong, he actually held to his doctrine of universal salvation.  He defended himself boldly, and insisted that what he had done was not wrong.  Of course, the law saw it otherwise, and Nehor was executed for his crimes.

Of course, Nehor is not the first one to become confused as to what is right and what is wrong... and that is the real question that Phil Robertson was illustrating in his example... How do you know what is right and what is wrong?

Those that embrace atheism may be quick to shout "straw man," but for a group of people that claim to espouse reason, there is no consensus about how to answer this question.  Without an answer to this question, how does one answer the question "why not murder, rape, and steal?"  It cannot be answered by "because these practices are wrong" without the existence of universal right and wrong.  I suppose it could be answered by "because these practices are illegal" but in many places, gay marriage is illegal, and most atheists I know are in favor of legalizing this practice.  So if morality cannot be coupled to the law, then what?  Harm?  What if a society does not recognize something as harmful... or cannot currently prove that something is harmful?  Who will do the study on whether intimate relationships between humans and animals is harmful?  Are there some applications of eugenics that have a net positive effect on society?  Who can prove otherwise?

Also, to whom must something be proven?  What if someone performs an act without knowing it could be harmful (a lobotomy for example, which is now considered harmful)?  And if not knowing something is harmful makes it unethical, can ignorance excuse unethical behaviors such as robbery, murder, rape, etc...?

While evolutionary biology has become popular in classrooms and creationism has fallen into controversy, the ethical implications of saying that people are "intelligent animals" are rarely considered.  If evolutionary fitness is the means by which humans became the dominant species on the planet, then are we on equal moral standing as cattle?  Certainly there are some humans who would like to criminalize the slaughter of pigs, cattle, chickens, and other animals for human consumption... but does that also mean we should prosecute lions, hyenas, leopards, wolves, and other predators for murder?  Is there a moral difference in killing a human, a dog, a rat, or a cockroach?  If so, what causes this difference?

Even though these ethical questions can be difficult to answer, there seems to be a general understanding that is common to most humans.  The feeling of guilt for doing something that a parent has forbidden is present even in very young children.  The sense of happiness that comes from helping another is also found in young children.  There is something intangible that is present in all humans that steers us toward goodness and virtue, and repels us from evil and vice.  Of course, its intangibility, as well as a number of other factors, can cause this to diminish or even disappear for some... Nehor was a clear example of this.

Ultimately, this intangible force is to help us to recognize other things beyond our immediate perception.  This is precisely why Jesus taught:

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:14, emphasis added)

The ability to recognize right can also lead us to recognize our God.  Honing this spiritual awareness is a fundamental purpose to the mortal experience.

While it may be popular to say "judge not," or that "judging is wrong," it is important to know that these thoughts do not remove the personal responsibility of each individual.  Ignorance, popularity, available proof, empirical evidence, or evolutionary biology will not be sufficient defenses on that day when a man stands before God to be judged.  This is not to say that there is no mercy... the power of Jesus Christ is available to those that have faith, repent, and live as he taught.

Yes, Jesus did condemn hypocritical judgment.  Yes, Christ said "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her..." (John 8:7)  But he also said "go, and sin no more..." and "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20)  Vital to following Christ is changing our lives to better.  Vital to salvation is learning and doing good.  (James 1:22)

Also, if all judgement were wrong... then Christ would not be a judge himself.  Consider this passage:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23, emphasis added)  In the end, though right and wrong are nearly impossible to comprehend alone, the man that truly follows Christ can be confident that he is doing right.

People can say what they may about Phil Robertson's example, his show, and his facial hair... but in the end there is definitely value in understanding the importance of God as a source of goodness, authority, and judgement.

The Ethical Dilemmas of Godlessness

I recently saw an argument presented by a group of self-proclaimed atheists indicating persuading citizens to decry the practices of some political representatives to argue about the laws of God, and that they should instead embrace "reason."

The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort.  Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.

Atheist or agnostic persons can do good.  Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God. 

It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely.  In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement.  Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.

Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them.  Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices.  Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.

There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices.  A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions.  Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."  (Matthew 7:12)

The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers.  One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals.  If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule.  Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule.  This is similar to the generalization philosophy.  This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable.  The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.

Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice.  For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment.  The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him.  If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?

Other individuals base their actions on happiness.  They try and do things that generate happiness.  Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.

The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion.  "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence.  Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars.  Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars.  In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.

More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral.  What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral?  Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals?  If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?

In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism.  The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong.  The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency.  For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society.  Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior.  Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.

Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law.  People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.

The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear.  "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason.  With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense.  Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.

The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however.  In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe.  Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.

Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions.  Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world.  Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration.  In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught.  A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset.  If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.

Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong.  It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life.  It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy.  It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences. 

More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good.  In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.

While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place.  Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next.  Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general.  Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.