Secular self-reflection is necessary for every single human being, part two

Last week I discussed at length a column that appeared in the Alligator entitled “Religious self-reflection is necessary,” in which the author (whom I will call Mr. Editorial, as the author was unnamed) took the position that the world’s religions need to come to an understanding of the social context they were born out of. I’m paraphrasing his words, but he argued we have morally progressed since the founding of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. As an example of this progression, Mr. Editorial highlighted the instance of a British Muslim school teaching its young girls that being beaten by one’s husband is morally permissible, using this to show religions need reform and need to morally improve. It is this idea of moral progression that I want to flesh out in this column.

I think Mr. Editorial is right in condemning the moral dictates of this Muslim school. I think he is right because I believe all humans are equal, regardless of gender, race or class, and that it is morally reprehensible when a person is robbed of his or her inherent dignity. Being abused by one’s spouse is, to me, a clear instance of a person not being treated as having equal worth. It seems Mr. Editorial sees life’s moral landscape through a similar lens. Therefore, Mr. Editorial and I agree that any case in which a person is not treated with dignity and respect is well worthy of moral condemnation.

But what are the sources of our moral judgements? From where do we draw our moral intuitions? Personally, I see all of humanity as equal because I am a Christian. I believe God created all of mankind in His image, which means every person is infinitely precious in God’s sight. That is the source of my egalitarian beliefs.

I assume, on the other hand, that Mr. Editorial is a secular person, one who does not believe in a radically personal creator. I wonder, then, where Mr. Editorial derives this notion that it is morally wrong to teach young girls that abuse is permissible. It seems, at least, that the moral standard by which he condemns the Muslim school is the egalitarian ideal of universal equal rights, which the teachings of the school strongly break from.

The belief in the fundamental equality of everyone is one of the philosophical bedrocks on which Western democratic society was founded. But where is the origin of our cherished egalitarianism? The life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the Christian tradition. Luc Ferry, a prominent French philosopher and proponent of secular humanism, points this out in his “A Brief History of Thought.” Ferry says the notion of humans being of equal merit “may seem self-evident, but it was literally unheard-of at the time, and it turned an entire world-order upside down.” Because of this Christian idea, Ferry argues that “Christianity was to become the precursor of modern democracy.”

In other words, with the rapid growth of Christianity and its cultural influence came the ethic of equality and love on which the West based its very self. Historically speaking, this ethic would not have spread in a world without Christianity. The irony is, therefore, that Mr. Editorial would not be standing on an egalitarian ethical foothold, judging the imperfect religions of the world, if it were not for religion.

I am not saying Mr. Editorial is an immoral person who is dependent on Christianity for his moral intuitions. That would be a fallacy. I admire his ethics and his unwavering belief in their validity. I do think, however, that he should not ask religious believers to relax their faith without first proving God does not exist and second understanding the moral code he uses against religion is itself a religious creation.

In short, I think he needs, as we all do, to reflect a bit more on his philosophical assumptions before asking others to do the same.

Scott Stinson is a UF English and philosophy sophomore. His column usually appears on Tuesdays.