Rational anarchism recognizes the right of all individuals to hold and practice their beliefs. Freedom of philosophy is a central theme in the rational anarchist movement. It is natural that some will wonder what position rational anarchism takes on existing religions. To understand the position of rational anarchism, one need only to examine the foundation of rational anarchist ethics.
Rational anarchist ethics is neo-kantian. The rational anarchist believes that ethical principles are universal. This is not to imply that rational anarchists believe that there is a simple formula for valid ethical judgment. Moreover, rational anarchism acknowledges that in the complexity of existence ethical principles may come into conflict. It is in the conflict between ethical principles that religion may find a role in rational anarchism.
Consider the God of Abraham. If we examine what has been written about this God in sacred texts, we find that this God is said to describe Himself as jealous, vengeful, spiteful, and wrathful. The human is written to have been created in the image of this God. Judging from the behavior of many Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans this seems quite possible. Jews celebrate a wrathful God murdering the first child of every Egyptian family as punishment against their Pharaoh for decisions he made when this same God is claimed to have intentionally "hardened his heart." The Egyptians did not elect their Pharaoh. The application of such a penalty on innocent children can not be seen to be ethical. Christians on many occasions have invaded foreign lands and slaughtered non-believers. Muslims have waged many a bloody campaign against infidels for the glory of this God.
On further examination, perhaps these accounts of the God referred to are false. Not all humans are jealous, vengeful, spiteful, and wrathful. Many humans are loving, caring, helpful, and rational. If humans were made in the image of God, just which humans bear this image? Could it be that God is more like these more ethical humans? Rational anarchism does not have an answer to this question. Instead, rational anarchism posits the following argument.
What kind of God is worthy of respect? The rational anarchist respects that which is ethical. Ethics cannot exist without reason. A God worthy of respect, therefore, must be a rational God. Reason, however, is not enough. To be an ethical agent, a rational agent must practice ethics. Practicing ethics requires the rational application of ethical principles to governance of one's actions. Therefore, a God worthy of respect is an ethical God. Such a God governs his or her actions by the application of reason to ethical principles. Since ethical principles are universal, an ethical God is guided by the same principles as any other ethical agent. If such a God exists, then all ethical agents are created in the image of such a God.
If we discount the evil attributions made to the God of Abraham and assume that this God is an ethical agent, then we must consider, as well, the implications of those powers attributed to Him in the light of the world as it exists. The God of Abraham is asserted to be omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omnipresent (everywhere), and perfect. An omniscient God is certainly aware of the evil that exists in the world. The lack of ethical practice cannot be hidden from an omniscient God. An omnipotent God has the power, by definition, to right all injustice. An omnipresent God is never out of reach and, thus, never too far away to interfere. One would expect, then, that such a God would put an end to evil and injustice. However, evil and injustice abound. This leaves us with the following options:
- Such a God is not omnipotent.
- Such a God is not omnipresent.
- Such a God is not omniscient.
- All of the above.
- Such a God does not exist.
A God that is not omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient, but which is an ethical agent is certainly deserving of respect qua ethical agent. However, let us consider the possibility that a perfect God, while omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient acknowledges the freedom of each individual to live according to his or her own ethical standards. That is, let us suppose that God has created us in his own image, but as an image, we are less than omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Such a God would expect us to attempt, to the best of our abilities, to fulfill our nature qua ethical agent. It then stands to reason that such a God is a rational anarchist. Such a God is a rational anarchist because he or she values the rational application of ethics to behavior and does not sanction the use of force (intervention) to interfere with the freedom of individuals to fulfill their nature.
We conclude, therefore, that either God does not exist (in which case we should not worship him or her), God is imperfect (in which case he or she deserves our respect but not our worship), or God is perfect (in which case he or she is a rational anarchist deserving of our respect). Since we are rational, capable of ethical conduct, and ethical principles are independent of God, God is not only irrelevant (we should behave as we do with our without God), but a perfect God, if he or she exists, would approve of our decision to live ethically. Thus the rational anarchist does not concern himself or herself with God.
There are times, however, when a belief in a God can bring comfort to individuals. As we mentioned earlier, there are times in the course of existence where ethical principles may conflict and one is forced to choose one principle over another. Such conditions place one in a state of existential angst. Those who do not acknowledge the existence of God or who believe that God has nothing to offer, with regard to resolving such conflicts, must live with the burden of the choices they make. An ethical agent who finds himself or herself in such a conflict realizes that a personal choice must be made which carries the torturous responsibility of living in an imperfect world. The religious rational anarchist may choose to abrogate his or her responsibility to the template of religious belief. Some believe that this is a higher ethical stand. Others, such as myself, believe that this is merely a crutch to avoid personal responsibility. The choice, in all cases, is one's own.
We conclude by noting that rational anarchism itself is neutral on the question of the existence of a God or Gods. Rational anarchism derives, through reason, that even if a God or Gods do exist, such God or Gods are not relevant to the practice of rational anarchism. Religious belief, provided it is based upon ethical Gods (or an ethical God) is not incompatible with rational anarchism. The rational anarchist accepts, as a fundamental principle, the rights of all individuals to hold and practice their own beliefs.
|