Correspondents miss the main point on moral standards
Jack Teh ('Faulty logical analysis in reference to two main pillars of religion', July 1) and Mike Pitcher ('Morality not solely for Christians', July 1) have obviously misunderstood a main point my wife, Karen Rees, was making in her letter ('A better world if we scrapped all religion?', June 24).
This point can be summarised in the childish response: 'Who says?' My wife was not saying that the moral standards of atheists are necessarily inferior to those of religious believers. Her point was that Christians have a moral standard that comes from outside themselves. People who do not believe in a God may have 'high' moral standards, but these are purely arbitrary, based only on 'society norms'.
Mr Teh criticises the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades. If there is no standard outside of society norms, what gives him the right to judge another society of another time? Mr Teh defines his standard: '. . . individuals should be free to do whatever they like, as long as they do not bring harm to anyone else.' Who says? Who says either that they should have that freedom or that they should not harm anyone else? In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill promoted 'Utilitarianism' - that what is good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number.
The corollary is that the few may be sacrificed for the good of the many. Hitler and his supporters believed that the extermination of the Jews was for the good of German society as a whole.
If there is no standard higher than individuals and society, 'who says' any standard of morality is 'higher' than any other? To someone who does not believe in God, religious standards may appear equally arbitrary.
But if one believes that there is a God who can and does communicate with His creation, it makes sense to look to Him as the source of ultimate moral standards.
