The Paradox of Progress: Keeping Morality Up to Date

The New Morality I speak of here has nothing to do with the New Morality of the 1960s. Instead, it speaks to the very progress succeeds: secularism. The Industrial Revolution demonstrated a greater power to provide wealth to a greater number of people than any religion;most religions had splintered into so many sects they no longer held political clout; the Roman Church was the mercy of the political tides of the time. By the 1850s, no matter what side of the economic wealth spectrum a citizen happened to land, people could see the power of secularism in the form of railroads that laced many regions around the world. The benefits of the progress based on science and technology continued spectacular growth in the last half of the 19^th Century, growth increasingly evident in developments such as telegraphy, electric trams, followed by the telephone, electric light, horseless carriages and steam-powered ships that confidently no longer needed sails as emergency fallback. And then came Darwin. And Nietzsche. These developments made many question how religion benefits society. The debate continues down to our time.

What role does role religion play in secular societies? Who decides moral correctness? On whose authority? Is religion necessary when science and technology helps provide all we need?

This survey leaves those questions for others or another time because the answers to these queries likely will raise as many questions as answers. Reality, however, points to the conclusion that no matter what religion or the topic, most, if not all, do not stand ready to provide meaningful guidance to many of the complex issues progress presents. What religion stands at the vanguard of climate change? The overfishing of our oceans? Outsourcing and downsizing? Women make up more than half of the population and increasingly serve as the chief wage earner for the family, yet very few religions allow female priests or preachers? How can a man truly know the issues, moral or otherwise, a woman faces?

Progress has dramatically altered the role women now play in our world. Nonetheless, for many reasons the issues women face often take second place to other ones. Until the second half of the 19^th Century, women served as "baby factories", but now citizens in all developed nations prefer smaller families. While this obviously helps free women. I do not recall much conversation to this topic. Along the same lines, some nations provide women greater freedom than others. Do emancipated women have an obligation to free women everywhere? Should western women address Islamic traditions concerning women behavior or dress? How about in places like France and the United Kingdom where a sizable Muslim population resides? How about in the United States?

Reproductive freedoms and issues also arise out of our relationship with progress. In vitro fertilization raises issues I doubt any religion has thoroughly addressed. Are "designer babies" ethical? At what age should a doctor refuse to inseminate? Those who provide the service do so to make a profit. Who should enforce or regulate their industry? In whose authority? If one state or nation enforces strict restrictions to in vitro services, what is to keep the consumer from going somewhere with less oversight?

OK. Enough rhetorical questions. Except these. The real issues surrounds two central questions: Who now decides our morality? And why? Governments? Churches? Community Boards?

What I see as the real issue is that, until now, progress has us moving into a new world so quickly, few have had the time to answer the queries. I also feel that religions, as presently structured, have neither the credibility or the capacity to answer what are essentially secular questions. If you object to secularism, how do you claim the authority to deal with secular issues? Please do not mistake my intention. I do not advocate disbanding religions or discourage worship. I simply want to raise the point that the farther we go down the road of progress, the more acute the issues raised above become. Is it not better to address them now, rather than later?