Compassion is so salient in so
many religions that it is natural to assume that religious conduct is moral,
which is to say that it issues in ethical conduct. Yet, as Kierkegaard
emphasizes in Fear and Trembling, the divine decree that Abraham
receives in the Book of Genesis translates into murder on the (universally
accessible) level of ethics. In being almost going through with sacrificing his
only son, Isaac, Abraham is guilty of attempted murder, which is unethical.
Abraham’s faith in the validity of the divine decree can thus be
distinguished from morality. Unlike ethics, religion is sourced beyond the
limits of human cognition, perception, and emotions, and is the domain is thus
transcendent even as it is also immanent in the world. Even though ethical
principles and faith can dovetail, as in five of the Ten Commandments, it is
important that the two domains—morality and religion—are regarded as distinct,
and thus with their own distinctive bases and criteria owing to the respective
natures of each domain. In his book, A Brief History of Everything, Ken
Wilber attempts a mega-synthesis of many fields of knowledge. Such a broad
project carries with it the pitfall of making conjectures that draw on or
involve domains of knowledge outside of one’s own. I think the risk of such
over-stepping is significant coming from both vantage-points in morality and
religion (i.e., ethics and theology) when the two domains are mingled or
intertwined without due recognition of how they are sui generis, of
their own genus (type). Wilber even conflates a third domain, that of
psychology, with those of ethics and religion. I begin by looking at morals and
religion in general, holding off psychology until I address Wilber’s theory
specifically.
The full essay is at "Religion, Ethics, and Psychology."
