Ethics Battle: Believers vs. Non-Believers

by rabbifink on May 16, 2011 · 5 comments

One of the confusing things about the Bible is the different names attributed to God. To Bible critics this is an indication that more than one God or more than one version of God or simply more than one author is present in the Bible.

Talmudic Judaism has a different approach. God, the One God, has more than one name (see yesterday’s Rambam class: Rambam Class 5/15/11). Since God is infinite and cannot be limited to one “mood” or “characteristic” therefore different names are used when God is Acting in a specific way. That specific way cannot define God because it would limit God. Instead, the Torah uses different names to identify the character of God in that Act, commandment, prophecy. The Ineffable name of God, יהוה, refers to God’s mercy. The other commonly found name in the Bible is אלוהים. This name refers to God’s precise Judgment.

The two Names play off each other. Without mercy, the judgment would be too harsh and without the judgment, the mercy would be too forgiving. There is a balance. A Perfect balance.

God is both our Father and our King. God loves us and we are expected to love God back. God also metes out punishment and we are expected to fear God.

This is all very nice, but why talk it about it today?

Because of  a (fairly) recent article in LA Times.

A couple weeks ago the LA Times reported on a study that determined the willingness of diffferent kinds of people to cheat on a test. Three very interesting things arose from the peer reviewed and published study.

First, that there is no difference between the ethical behavior of atheists and believers. This is surprising to believers because there is a lot of rhetoric directed against non-believers. The rhetoric often claims that non-believers prefer not to believe to give them license to act immorally. After all, if there is no God, why act morally? This study debunks that assumption. There is a better, more precise argument about the difference between the morality of atheists and believers. That is, the believer’s source of morality is a Creator. The Creator can better establish the baseline of morality than humans. An atheist’s version of morality is subject to the ideas of flawed people. (Of course the counter argument is that the word of God is subject to interpretation. To which the counter to that counter is that the interpretations of a specific religious sect are claimed to be Divine as well. And so on and so one…)

The second was that 95% of americans believe in God. Which does skew the perception that God is losing and falling out of the collective american soul. But those 95% have many very different views of God. Some believe God is very involved in the daily lives of humans and others believe God created the world and took a vacation. Others believe that God will render judgment in the afterlife and others do not. The point is that while 95% agree God exists, who that God is, is still very much in debate. But also, I believe the significantly smaller sample size of atheists does affect the results of the this study in some way. I am just not certain how.

The third, even more interesting part of the study demonstrated that there is a difference in the ethical decisions of believers in a punitive God and belief in a compassionate God. Turns out that believers in a punitive God were less likely to cheat than believers in a compassionate God. At first glance, this is not surprising. But it is discouraging. It seems to me that the believers in a compassionate God are able to excuse unethical behavior on account of the belief that God will forgive their sins. Even if God does forgive their sins, isn’t it important to be honest and moral anyway? I believe it is.

Talmudic Judaism accounts for both of these versions of God. We believe that God is compassionate and God is perfectly just. There exists a balance and perhaps this would serve as a correction for those who focus on the compassion of God. This balance is important and upsetting the balance appaers to threaten to affect the morality of believers.

To me, this study affirms the wisdom of the Torah and Talmudic tradition by including both of these aspects of God and not the exclusion of the other.

Source: LA Times

HT: BT

Related posts:

  1. Atheists and Believers LA Times Smackdown
  2. Law School and Learning Ethics
  3. Kosher Supervision and Ethics Supervision

Tagged as: atheism, ethics, God, LA Times, morality, religion

  • http://twitter.com/kishmirintukis martin garfield

    I see god as a superego in those who think that god  is compassionate or just.  There are those of us who believe that god exists, but he is not a micromanager who gets involved in the actions of people.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_M5TFA2LNGNXLLMLJJ6GVEK23BQ Willbe

    “The rhetoric often claims that non-believers prefer not to believe to give them license to act immorally.”

    I would phrase this differently.

    Those who claim not to believe in G-d, and yet continue to act according to Biblical morality most of the time
    (even when not bound to do so by secular law), are lying to themselves.

    They obviously recognize that there is a Creator.

    They simply fool themselves into thinking otherwise, so as to justify a few practices that are either
    socially convenient or for which they have an overwhelming physical desire.

    If there is no (seemingly) insurmountable obstacle, such as social pressure or great physical desire,
    the “moral atheist” will follow G-d’s laws, even when there is gain to be had from violation.

    In the specific case of religiously educated Jews, this is why a Jewish “atheist” will often 
    refrain from improper (but legal) business practices.   He will likely do large favors for others, and give good amounts of charity (even though it causes him a loss of time and resources).

     In fact, this “atheist” will fulfill EVEN MORE of the commandments that he doesn’t have a strong societal or physical desire to break! 

     All of this is illogical. If there is no G-d, then just follow secular law. “Good” and “evil” are definitions given to actions by the Torah.   If the Torah is work of fiction, then the labels of “good” on charity and “evil” on taking revenge are fictional as well.

    Since we find that the vast majority of self-avowed Jewish atheists continue to follow many mitzvot, we must conclude that they secretly still  know and understand that “Hashem Hu Elo-heem”.
     
     
     

    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

       I was referring to atheists. Like actual atheists who think the Torah is bunk and don’t believe or keep a word of it. Not orthoprax.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_M5TFA2LNGNXLLMLJJ6GVEK23BQ Willbe

        I used off-the-derech (NOT Orthoprax) as a specific example above, but the point is valid with regard to all atheists who behave in a “moral” or “ethical” way.

        It is illogical to denounce the Bible as fiction, and continue to follow many biblical principles. The conclusion that I have reached is that these atheists really do have a connection with G-d, even if they choose not to admit it to themselves.

        Anytime I hear an atheist excuse his moral behavior with “it’s just the right thing to do”, I know that he has just experienced shecheenah. He might be so inundated with atheistic messages that he can’t verbalize that inner knowing (daat) as a connection to Hashem – but that’s what it is.
        You claim that “…there is no difference between the ethical behavior of atheists and believers” I’m explaining why that is so.
         

      • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

         I agree with part of what you say.

        I don’t think it is a metaphysical, inner daat or anything like that. It is much more simple. The world has been “tainted” (in a good way) by believers. The morality has been set on some Divine standard. Any subsequent moral standard is based on Divine Law. Even if it deviates, it still begins with the Divine.

Previous post:

Next post: