The most obvious problem with the above view is the sheer multiplicity of views on what constitutes being a good person. Democrats, communists, libertarians, and many others with no direct connection to religion have widely diverging opinions and have even fought wars over whose ethical system is right.
Another problem is that knowing which actions will do the most good for the most people requires a thorough knowledge of cause and effect. If there indeed is such a thing as a soul, this means understanding how the physical and spiritual worlds interact. Since our senses can only perceive the physical world, this is impossible without revealed wisdom. It's no longer so simple to say that I'm not hurting anybody when I eat pork. I don't see anybody being hurt - but without prophecy, who knows?
The above principle is borne out strongly regarding the debate over abortion. Without getting into what Judaism says about the issue, it is clear that any attempt to settle the question must include a determination of when exactly a fetus goes from being potential life to actual life. However, since we have no way of detecting when the soul enters the unborn body, secular ethics cannot even approach the question.
Then there are the advances modern medicine has made. It is well documented that circumcision results in lower rates of cervical cancer for wives, as well as other health benefits. No one, of course, knew that nearly 4,000 years ago, when the commandment was first given to Abraham. Circumcision must have been perceived by Abraham's contemporaries as a "meaningless ritual". Perhaps other "meaningless rituals" will yet be shown to have tangible benefits.
Secular ethical systems also lack a key factor, that of self-discipline. One of my childhood friends, who in general was honest, justified shoplifting from major chain stores because "they're rich and wouldn't miss it anyway". Even someone who tries to live a moral life can, in times of temptation, be blinded by a subconscious wish to believe that the act in question is permitted. A religious system, by contrast - with its "meaningless rituals", which remind us that we don't know all the reasons for the commandments - impresses upon us that the commandments have no exceptions, unless the religion's holy book spells out exceptions explicitly. The person is thus more likely to live a morally pure lifestyle even in situations where s/he would never be caught. (This, of course, does not negate free will, and there have indeed been religious people [including Jews] who have done horrible things. But so also have there been secular ethics professors whose private lives left something to be desired.)
It is often objected that many wars have been fought in the name of religion, with millions of innocents slaughtered for believing differently. However, if this is a strike against religion per se, then what of the millions slaughtered by the Soviets and Red China in the name of atheism? Also, nearly all the religious wars have been initiated by the Catholic Church, mainline Protestant denominations during the Reformation, and Islam. I'll let members of these faiths be the ones to speak in their defense. Jews, by contrast, for the most part just want to be left alone and fight only in self-defense. In fact, it is agreed by all authorities today that one should violate the Sabbath, if necessary, to save the life of a non-Jew. Even during the Canaanite wars, when we first came out of Egypt, we didn't begin the fighting; rather, we asked the Amorites for safe passage through their land to our territory (Abraham had purchased Hebron and Be'er Sheva, Isaac had purchased Rehovot, and Jacob had purchased Shechem, from their Canaanite owners). The Amorites, rather than simply refuse (as the Edomites had done), attacked us, and thus began the Canaanite wars (see the last few chapters of the Book of Numbers). Yes, I know history is written by the victors; but as far as I know, there is nothing in the archaeology to contradict the biblical account.
Return to Tuvya Zahav's Homepage