My philosophy of religion professor a while back gave his students a packet of several arguments in the philosophy of, well, religion. One of those arguments is “The Law Maker Argument against Religious Books” which can be found here. We did not cover it so I wanted to take a crack at it.

I think the argument goes something like this:

Religious books are said to contain eternal truths that we are to live by (laws).
If religious books contain eternal truths that we are to live by, they are religious law books.
Religious books are law books. (2,3 MP)
If law books are not continually updated to keep up with advancements in technology, human knowledge, and loopholes, then they are irrelevant.
Religious books have not been updated to keep up with advancements in technology, human knowledge, and loopholes.
Religious books are irrelevant. (4,5 MP)

This argument appears to conflate religious law with religious teaching in general. I object to premise 2 on this basis. To explain:

Yes, there are religious laws in texts like the Holy Bible or the Qur’an or any number of texts. Since I am more familiar with the Chrisitan Bible and do not believe I could adequately elaborate on other texts, I will use the Bible for my examples. One example of a religious law comes from Leviticus 17: 10 (NIV), “I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.” This is a clear law regarding how God’s people ought to conduct their daily lives, not unlike a modern law requiring restaurants to inlcude that little warning about rare and uncooked meats on their menus. It is a clear prescription.

But what about Mark 12: 30-31? “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’There is no commandment greater than these.” Here we are provided two rules clearly labeled “commandments,” but where are their modern law book counterparts? It was never illegal to call my brother “stupid” growing up, especially when my parents were not aroudn to hear me do it, but most of the time I refrained from the taunting because I recalled this verse from Sunday School. It provided me a relational paradigm, a sort of social rulebook for how to interact with others.

Now, there are many interpretations of the Bible and these social codes, but one it seems cannot deny that religious texts provide a relational guide for many people that is outside the realm of most laws today. It is not illegal to be selfish or to be mean to our siblings or many things like that, but our religious texts provide many examples of how to navigate relationships outside of what is strictly outlined by our laws. (And hey, the Bible even agrees with our laws when many relational laws coincide with more formal laws: looking at you “thou shall not murder.”)

While we can argue on a separate thread over whether or not morality can be discerned independent of any religious text, we cannot deny their relevance, at least in terms of their relational codes. Those at the very least are not laws in the modern sense of the word implied by the argument. They are separate and perhaps even eternal truths.