I don’t get morality without God, therefore I don’t like secularists
Hugo Rifkind for the Times outlines the recent Cherie Booth QC case (she suspended an attacker’s sentence because he was religious, or so “the story goes” says Rifkind, as if to cast doubt on events which are a matter of court record and widely quoted). But even though, on the face of it, it seems that a protestation of having religious morality is enough to get you off a prison sentence, what annoys Rifkind more is not so much injustice or legal inconsistency, but the fact that he personally can’t conceive of morality without God, therefore he is annoyed.
There’s no such thing as abstract morality. It doesn’t even make any sense. If God isn’t the ultimate answer, what is?
This is precisely why secularists are always even more annoying that religious people. Often they’re even more annoying than Cherie Booth. It’s because they’re insincere. Sooner or later, I always think, secularists are going to have to bite the bullet, ditch “morality” and “fairness” and all that Goddish guff, and start talking about convenience. Crimes are wrong, because they are inconvenient. Value systems are good, because they make life nicer. Murder is a hassle. It’ll never be stirring stuff, but at least it’s honest.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/hugo_rifkind/article7015690.ece
Oh you poor poor thing! If you really are unable to conceive of morality based on simple humanity my heart goes out to you and your family. Since religious faith is founded either on fear – of divine retribution, or on expectation – of eternal life, any morality based on religious faith has to be inferior than one which exists for the sake of our fellow human beings, rather than because we may have something to gain (ultimately) from it.
Indeed the concept of “forgiveness” and “absolution” has always baffled me. It seems like a get out of jail free card – which conveniently does away with the idea of independent thought, conscience, and yes… morality.
“If God isn’t the ultimate answer, what is?” Why does Mr Rifkind need an “ultimate answer”? Is it that he cannot deal with the uncertainties of existence and unanswered questions it brings? How little he must think of humanity.