The Ethics of Religion

Four years ago, I had the unique experience of visiting the Alfred Nobel museum in Sweden. Alfred Nobel was a scientist and engineer who invented dynamite. While he died in 1895, the story goes that in 1888, a mistake was made in a French newspaper, which erroneously published Nobel’s premature obituary. It was very critical of Nobel, calling him the “merchant of death,” and saying he “became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before…”

This premature obituary apparently was very trying on Nobel’s conscience, and he vowed to leave a more constructive legacy after his death. He is now famous for having donated the bulk of his sizeable estate to the Nobel Prize program.

Learning about Alfred Nobel made me consider the concept of ethics. In every discipline, there is an ethical code. While there may be some grey area in the debate over the location of the ethical fulcrum, there are some practices which are always seen as unethical. Things like life, property, etc., are generally universally respected.

Business has a code of ethics. Giving bribes, stealing patents, and false advertising are examples of ethical breaches. Science has a code of ethics. Doing research on subjects without consent, destroying the environment, or other life-destroying research practices are looked down upon. Religion definitely has a code of ethics, though it is often not spoken of as such.

I have met many people who have said that they are not religious because “religion is the cause of so much bad in the world.” In the same way that one might cut corners or cook the books in the name of business, or one might test a nuclear weapon in the name of science, a person might declare war, discriminate, or otherwise harm people in the name of religion.

In Nobel’s case, he invented something which was ultimately used by many for ill. Nevertheless, dynamite has been used for many useful purposes. Nobel himself didn’t use his creation to take the lives of others, yet in the wrong hands, it has been very dangerous. In the case of religion, its purpose isn’t to destroy, yet misused and in the wrong hands, it has caused a lot of sorrow throughout history. Unethical indeed.

The fact that unethical behavior is found in every discipline leads me to conclude that religion itself is not the actual cause of all the wrong which is done in the name of religion. Rather, it is just another example of a breach in the ethical code that is such a part of our human nature.

Like science, business, and other disciplines, religion can rightfully be used for good when properly and ethically applied. Alfred Nobel’s purpose as an inventor was to create something that would benefit the advancement of humankind, and not to contribute to the loss of many human lives. Most would argue that the true purpose of religion is to promote good in the world. If somebody takes religion and unethically applies it, does it make the entire discipline worthless?

Focusing on all the bad that has been done in religion’s name, it is easy to see how so many have become disenchanted with the idea of religion in general. However, is the legacy of religion one of destruction? As was the case with the French newspaper and Nobel, has a premature obituary been written for religion, labeling it as a force of evil, because it has been misused by many? Or, will the legacy of religion be one that honors acts of creation, advancement, and peace, like the Nobel Prize?

Science and Religion – BFFs

During this past week, our good friend Charles Darwin turned 200 years old. While he isn’t exactly a figure in Mormonism, his work has affected nearly every part of humanity. Incidentally, his revolutionary discoveries were being made in the same time period that the Church of Jesus Christ was being restored to the earth. So, in honor of the famous scientist, I would like to discuss the idea of science and religion, and why they are such good friends.

Of course, I am not a scientist, and therefore will not pretend to have a deep understanding of concepts such as evolution. The purpose of this blog is religious in nature, so discussing a topic such as this may seem to make little sense. But, as you all know, evolution often gets used as a chess piece the pseudo-competition between science and religion.

First and foremost, let me say that I think that this so-called battle between science in religion is non-existent and even rather stupid. Sometimes I like to imagine science and religion as two neighbors living in the suburbs. I see them having barbeques together, watching college basketball games, and doing all of the things that good neighbors do. However, because they both have such strong personalities, the other neighbors start gossiping about what they see as differences in opinion. The idea spreads that “religion and science will never get along.” However, in reality, they get along just fine. In fact, they even compliment each other in many ways. The combination of their individual strengths makes the entire community a better place.

As a religious person, I can honestly say that I have never felt the slightest bit threatened by scientific research or ideas. Mormon doctrine at times refers to the “mysteries of godliness,” meaning those things which pertain to our existence that we currently have limited or no understanding of. Any good scientist will also admit that there are unlimited “mysteries of the universe,” that is to say, those things which aren’t currently understood. In fact, science exists as a discipline to study and try and understand these mysteries.

So maybe you can help me understand where the conflict lies? Are those who use religion to refute science simply afraid that life might have too many hidden complexities to handle, and therefore want to use the simplified version of religious belief to explain everything? That doesn’t make sense to me, because religion has been nothing but bottomless and complex to me as I have studied. I learn something new from religion nearly every day.

And what about those who use science to refute religion? I can understand the agnostic approach, saying that there is no conclusive scientific proof to verify many religious beliefs. But, using that same logic, there is also a lack of proof to discredit these same ideas. How do some then try to claim science is an adequate “proof” that religious beliefs are false?

Now, for many people, the conflict between science and religion has long subsided. But, every once in a while, you hear somebody bringing it up again. A couple of years ago, I recall a Sunday School teacher telling of how he recently saw some amazing animal (I think it was an Elephant Seal), and how he “didn’t understand how people could accept the doctrine of ‘Darwinism.’” Or in another case, I remember watching a documentary where a scientist who discovered the body of a pre-historic human ancestor said that his discovery would lead religious people to “get off the fence” and admit that they are wrong.

Maybe we will eventually recognize that religion and science are not enemies at all, just two great parts of our existence that both play very important and necessary roles. But for now, let’s thank the great minds in religion and science alike. Mr. Darwin, this one’s for you.

"Excuse Me, You Seem to Have Spilled some Religion on Your Sleeve"

I recently read a book in which Orson Scott Card, a well-known Mormon author, referred to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a “surprisingly secular religion.” I really like this simple observation he offered for our religion, and think it says a lot about how the religion is reflected in the lives of the church members.

At first glance, using the word “secular” may seem to be an oxymoron, as it is not a commonly used adjective when describing a religious group. Sure, you will hear people talk of “secular Muslims” in Turkey or the UAE (meaning they do not have a religiously-tied government), or “secular Jews” (sometimes used to describe the Jewish community which ethnically Jewish but do not practice and/or believe in Jewish doctrines). However, a “secular Mormon” to me, means something very different.

While the interpretations of the meaning may vary, I believe that this refers to a somewhat atypical phenomenon that isn’t witnessed as much in other religions. Many Mormons have seemingly found a way to balance living a highly religious (and even peculiar) lifestyle, while remaining fully engaged in secular affairs. Indeed, Mormons have long been counseled by their leaders to “live in the world, but not be of the world.” They are encouraged to participate in nearly all sectors of public life, including business, education, politics, the military, and so forth.

While this is what is taught, it certainly isn’t always the practice. Some become secular Mormons in the sense that while they are Mormons by birth and/or culture, they do not accept the doctrines of the Church to be true. At the other end of the spectrum, there are Mormons who would never want to be associated with the word “secular,” and who very readily wear their religion on their sleeve.

In an effort to understand the proper balance, I will offer some scripture to compare and contrast. Jesus taught: “Ye are the light of the world…Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:14-16). Just one chapter later, He gives another teaching: “…when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray…that they may be seen of men…when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and pray unto thy Father which is in secret;” (Matthew 6:5-6).

Is it possible to “let our light shine before men,” while at the same time worshiping in secret? I think so.

Now, I don’t mean to say that worshiping in secret means to hide our religion. On the contrary, I think one can and should be completely open and honest about who they are, in terms of religion. They just shouldn’t feel the need to advertise who they are at first glance. It is important to learn to demonstrate one’s Mormon-ness in the proper context.

Those who like wear their religion on their sleeve often find that the practice becomes habitual. Such people tend to have a hard time talking about something that isn’t related to their religion. While this isn’t the worst habit one might have, I think that we should all strive for a better balance. We can find our way of worshiping in secret, while still letting our light shine so that others may see.

For everybody this process may be different. Where we live, the number of Mormons in our community, and other factors may affect this balance. For those that are Mormons, what are some suggestions you have for being balanced in representing your religion, while not becoming overzealous? For those who are non-religious, former-Mormons, or followers of another religion or belief-system, what are some of your observations and/or suggestions?