Why the Bible is a Poor Guide to Being Moral

All Christians, whether religious or conservative, claim that the Bible is the best guide to morality that human beings have historically ever had. It is seen as the divinely inspired word of God, with his commands to human beings providing us with the most moral way to live. However, is this view defensible? The Bible makes many extraordinary claims, and in the words of the late great scientist Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And this evidence is not provided. In fact, modern life and sensibilities shows that Biblical morality is not actually taken seriously by those who claim to follow it. Rather, defenders simply apply their own prejudices and societal group think to Biblical morality and effectively codify some verses that are not overly offensive to everyday people, but still allow them to make supernatural claims.

A critique of this position is in order. There are three main problems with Biblical morality. The first is what is commonly called the "Euthyphro dilemma" from Plato's famous dialogue with the name. The second is that there are a plethora of verses that any individual with a developed moral sense would condemn if done today (and modern day Christians do condemn these sorts of actions). And the last problem is a lack of open-mindedness by many defenders of Biblical moral authority.

Euthyphro Dilemma

Euthyphro is a Platonic dialogue that is set in the context of Socrates just learning he has been charged with "impiety" and "corrupting the youth." Socrates meets a man named Euthyphro, and learns that Euthyphro is so confident in his own piety that he is charging his own father with murder. The whole dialogue centers around defining what exactly piety is. It goes round and round, and eventually Socrates poses a question that Euthyphro has no answer for, and Christians have still not answered satisfactory to this very day. It is famously known as the Euthyphro dilemma.

Socrates poses a deceptively simple question to Euthyphro. I will provide a portion of the actual dialogue so the reader can experience the full effect.

SOCRATES: We shall know that better in a little while, my good friend. Now consider this question. Do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because they love it?

EUTHYPHRO: I do not understand you, Socrates.

This is, in logic, what is known as a constructive dilemma. There are implications both ways, and since you must answer one or the other, you are tied into one of the implications. I am also going to slightly adjust the language to make it fit modern discussions.

If one claims that something is pious (moral) because a God says so, then morality is whatever that God commands. And this means a God could command adultery, rape, and genocide as moral behavior, while honesty, compassion, and non-violent resistance would be defined as immoral. On the other hand, if an individual asserts that a God loves piety (morality) because it is pious (moral), then the morality is not a function of the God at all. The Deity is simply recognizing the action as moral apart from itself and then saying human beings should or should not do the particular action. Therefore, we are left with only two possibilities: that morality is the arbitrary rulings of a God, or morality is completely separate from a God. I will return to this point after I have discussed some infamous Bible verses most believers like to pretend do not exist, and then explain why open-mindedness matters.

Troublesome Verses

The Bible is filled with remarkably beautiful passages, and also with such vile commands that it is difficult to believe any rational person would openly claim it was their complete moral guide to life. There are countless possibilities, but posting the entirety of them all would take up far too much space. Therefore, I will only provide some of the most especially monstrous passages.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21-"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you."

Ephesians 6:5- "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

Colossians 3:22- "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

Titus 3:9- "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive."

1 Peter 2:18- "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

It is clear that defenders of the inerrancy of the Bible or some sort of divine inspiration are engaging in, in the words of George Orwell in his day what he thought politics consisted of, "the defense of the indefensible." What type of moral authority commands slaves to obey their masters, even if they are cruel, or that a daughter given to a husband by her father is to be stoned to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? No moral person today will ever affirm these verses are "moral," even the most ardent defenders of Biblical inerrancy. There is simply smoke and mirrors talk of context, and God working in mysterious ways. Their minds are not even open to the possibility that the holy book itself could be the problem.

Lack of an Open Mind

Anytime open-mindedness is brought up, one always hears the refrain to "don't let your mind be so open your brains fall out," usually uttered by a close-minded person. A lack of open mindedness when it comes to Biblical morality is striking to the modern ear. Only in the area of religion are people allowed to affirm their allegiance to a book that commands massive genocide and promotes slavery, for religion is seen as "something private and off limits to debate." However, in the same grain the highly religious, especially on the conservative side, are very much in favor of discriminating against homosexuals and curbing women's reproductive rights, using the holy texts as a justification for their positions. These positions are called "non-negotiable," and since they are "God's word," are not up for debate, with the irony being the light of rational argumentation is needed in the public discourse now more than ever.

There comes a time when many strongly held beliefs must become part of the dustbin of history. The earth is round, not the center of the universe, and humans have evolved from a modern ancestor shared with apes. This much we know for sure, and beliefs to the contrary have been abandoned in most cases (except for evolution, which still gets ridiculous creationist challenges in public education). Having an open mind means that when evidence changes, so do beliefs. And for Biblical morality, many cannot seem to fathom that the Bible could be wrong, or have alternative interpretations from their ignorant pastor. When scientific evidence is presented that homosexuality is not a choice, or a non-believer points out atrocious verses in the Bible, the evidence is simply denied, and the belief maintained. Confirmation bias is exceptionally strong.

Conclusion

To return to Euthyphro, if one claims that morality is simply what God says, and the Bible is the word of God, then there is no way to avoid the conclusion that slavery is endorsed by God, as is killing your wife on her wedding night if your father-in-law lied about her being a virgin when he gave her to you, as though she were a piece of property. However, the alternative implication, that morality is separate from the God, allows one to examine the Biblical passages from a modern perspective, and see them as products of a primitive time in human history that we can fortunately never return to again. An open mind also allows discussions of modern moral dilemmas to be achieved in a much more productive way.