Morality Without Religion
Jared Rice
REL/134
The question has been asked several times throughout history, “can there be
morality without religion?” To answer the question, we must understand it in depth, and we
must also understand the religion in question. Only then can there be a solution.
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and
Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of
Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these
firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens… And let us with caution indulge the
supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be
conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason
and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion
of religious principle.- George Washington’s Farewell Address
Can there be morality without religion? What is morality? Webster’s Dictionary defines
morality as a doctrine or system of conduct; a virtuous conduct of character, if you will. Let us
look at examples of morality, such as knowing the difference between right, or wrong. As a
child, have you ever stolen from the toy store? Was it right, or wrong? The law, and morality
tell us it is wrong, yet you may have done it anyways. Most know that murder is wrong, so we
refrain from committing it. But why is it wrong? Is it wrong because of religion, or is it wrong
because we do not want the same to happen to us?
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people
doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, in an address at the Conference on
Cosmic Design, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington,
D.C., April 1999
Let us look at our primate relatives, and try to help answer this question with some
more controversy. Our mammal cousins have a unique social order, as with some canine and
feline groups. A social hierarchy that relates specifically to right and wrong, such as theft.
Primates do not allow unfair acts like theft to occur, and they will punish their kind for doing so.
What is missing from this picture? The only primates who have religion are humans. In a recent
study, researchers made food-related exchanges with brown capuchin monkeys. The subjects
refused previously acceptable rewards (cucumbers) if they witnessed their partners receiving
higher-value rewards (grapes) for equal or less work. This does not show morality necessarily,
but it shows that primates have a sense of fairness. This also shows that since their sense of
fairness is instinct, then perhaps they have a sense of morality instilled in their DNA, thus the
chicken has come before the egg.
The Euthyphro Dilemma written by Plato, where Socrates asks Euthyphro, “is the pious
loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” This
question is answered later in the writings, stating that if they are both true, then it would
create a paradoxical circle, which means only one thing. What is moral, is moral, and what is
loved by the gods, is moral as well.
It was Colin McGin, a British philosopher who quoted Socrates, and explained it in a
more understandable way. He gives an example about theft. It is wrong to steal, but why?
Because god says it is. Is it actually wrong because god says it is so, or is it wrong because
intrinsically, it is a sound moral. Let’s say for example it is OK to murder. Why is it OK? Because
god says it is. You would begin to question that idea. Just because god says it is OK, does not
make it so. That would make him wrong, and since god cannot be wrong, he would have to say
that already, and intrinsically moral things are good. Morals cannot be given legitimacy from an
external command, unless it is already a sound moral. This shows that god has appropriated our
spontaneous and indigenous values, and it is reflected back on him, which in turn somewhat
validates the belief in him. Richard Dawkins, a biologist and successful author writes that
morality does not originate from the Bible, rather our moral progress informs what part of the
Bible Christians accept and what they now dismiss
Looking at the Muslim model of morality, there are some contrasts between the three
major monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In Islam, it is morally correct to
stone a woman to death if she is seen without a male escort, and her skin fully covered. Now is
this because of the divine, or has it been affected by cultural disillusions? By understanding the
basics of Islam, and its relation to the other two monotheistic power houses, we can better
understand its moral standards.
Muslims worship the same god that Christians and Jews worship. Historically, Abraham
had two sons, Isaac, who is the father of the Hebrews, and Ishmael, who is the father of the
Muslims. Muslims were bastardized by Abraham, thus making them isolated and shunned. Up
until year zero, their basic outline of religion was the same, and when Jesus was born,
Christianity had been in the works. Islam recognized Christ, but only as a prophet, whereas Jews
saw Jesus as a liar, and not the messiah promised by god. After Christ’s death, the prophet
Mohammed came to children of Ishmael, and spoke to them about god. Showing them the Five
Pillars; one of them saying there is no god but Allah (Yahweh) and Mohammed is his prophet.
(Qur’an, Shahadah)
Now, in Islam, it is believed that men are allowed to have more than one wife. However,
it is clearly stated in the Old Testament, the Torah, and in the New Testament, the Bible, that
adultery is immoral, and a sin. So now there are fine lines between what is OK based on what
religion we are talking about, and what is moral based on which “good book” is being quoted.
This is an example of the divine morality. On the other hand, we have cultural intervention with
morality, such as child marriage, and Jewish genocide. Things are written in a book, the Qur’an
to be specific, and these things are translated in many different ways. Let’s look at Jihad for
example. Now, most Americans shiver, shake with anger, or even explode into a tirade when
they hear the word, Jihad, but unbeknownst to outsiders, Jihad is just a word. It literally
translates into struggle, and is more commonly associated by Muslims to be a struggle from
within. Staying on the path if you will. However, many Muslims translate their struggle into
forcing others, otherwise known as Infidels, to convert, or die. Some call it a Holy War, and it is
unfortunate that many have died in this pointless Holy War.
Now, given the Muslim model of morality, both cultural and divine, should the question
be, “can there be morality with religion?” Let us not slam the beliefs of Islam, considering we
have only just touched upon its many practices. There are of course many other religions, with
practices just as “absurd” and immoral. However, keep in mind that some of these things are
not the actual word of the sacred writings of these religions, but a translation of them into
action. The Crusades, for example, can definitely put a blemish on the Christian track record,
and the Westboro Church protests do not help the image any more than Holocaust did for
Germans. More to the point, a very charismatic leader, and a great war strategist once said in
an address to his nation,
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to
revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend
those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the
foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
This leader was Adolf Hitler. He was raised by a skeptic father, and a Catholic mother.
Hitler was a Roman Catholic follower. Aryanism can also be related to cultural translation of the
divine, and the morality of Aryan thought shines through with a blinding light of hatred. It was
Hitler who believed that god created the Aryan race, and it would be a sin to not purge the
world of its atrocities [non-whites] (Hitler, Mein Kampf). The genocide of millions of Jews,
homosexuals, communists, the deformed, and the mentally ill became the moral duty of the
Nazi Christian. Is this moral?
Arguments against the theory of morality without religion would be the drastic
examples of the Soviet Union. The Soviets were the first nation to completely remove religion
from government, but it did not stop there. They not only barred it from government, as
Americans do in the United States, but the Soviets actually banned religion from the country.
Vladimir Lenin believed that religion was the opium of man. He believed that religion was a
superstition, unscientific, and used to stupefy the working man. Soviets would charge into
churches, arrest spiritual leaders, and often times, kill them. This, again, is an example taken
out of context. To begin with, Marxists in the area were an unruly and agitated group of
people. Of course, they would begin doing things that are considered immoral, with or without
religion. The same could be said about Nazi Germany, and their immoral actions. This still does
not answer our question in its entirety. To do so, one would have to create a study, complete
with controls, and catalysts. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to do so without decades of
research, so, a theory will have to suffice.
Since we already have the knowledge of the existence of religion, let us assume that
there is a group of people living on an island surrounded by miles of oceanic water that know
nothing of it. These people live without the knowledge of religion, and yet they survive
peacefully with each other. How is it possible? There are three main reasons that they do in this
theory. One is simply because it is easier to survive as a team, then as an individual. Animals
practice this method of survival all the time. Wolves have a hierarchy with an alpha male at the
top, and the others work together as a pack to feed each other, and to grow offspring. Another
reason is what is more commonly known as The Golden Rule, which states, “do unto others, as
you wish to be done unto you”. This is not to be confused with religion, however. It is simply
because of experience. It is through the experience of witnessing a horrible act committed on
another person or on themselves that got people thinking, “Hey, I wouldn’t want that to
happen to me, (or happen to me again) so I’m not going to do that to anyone.” Another reason,
very similar to the latter, would be that people did not want those horrible acts committed on
their loved ones, their children and spouses. These are morals, and it would appear to be
embedded in our DNA as humans.
Many atheists have morals, not all of course, just as not all believers are moral and just.
Yet these people who have no belief in god or the afterlife, nor its rewards and punishments
system built around its morals, still have morality. They raise their children to show respect to
elders, simply because the elderly have experienced life, and have wisdom to teach. These
same atheists do not murder, not because it is illegal on their little island, but simply because
there is no need for it. Let us not forget the Commandment, “Thou shall not kill,” yet “an eye
for an eye.” So killing is OK, as long as it is justified, just not murder.
The very same atheists on this island see a sick woman struggling to carry her harvest
into her home, and they rush to her aid, not because a god told them to, but because they
would appreciate the same kindness in return. Unfortunately, we would not actually know how
the people on this island live, and if they have morality or not, simply because our minds are
tainted from the pre-existing knowledge of religion.
There are other models throughout the world that may be able to shed some light on
this theory. The University of Arizona, and Washington State have come together to conduct a
study. The study was about the quality of living, and it measured things like mortality rate,
divorce, birth, crime, freedoms, test scores, suicide rate, food supply and many, many others.
Belgium came out on top, followed closely by France, Denmark, Spain, and Germany. The U.S.
was seventh, and the U.K. was eleventh. Surprisingly, the least religious countries are the ones
who had a better quality of life. The least religious of these nations are more democratic, more
peaceful, have less corruption, have less inequality, do better at science, and are generally less
dysfunctional (Rahman, Mittelhammer,& Wandschneider).
These theories and studies show that even with a lacking religious foundation, human
morality can still exist. This of course is being based off of what we can control. Although these
places are not a righteous as say Israel, their laws may have been derived from a religious
parable. Let us look at some laws, official in government decisions, executive and judicial.
In the United States alone, there are several laws that can be linked to religion. There
are laws such as gay marriage, polygamy, and of course murder and theft. These things are
illegal federally and are also against the laws of the three major monotheistic religions. Are they
illegal because of religious commands, or because they are a sound investment to human life?
Disregarding murder, and theft, which is obviously a bad idea, let’s put the focus on marriage
laws. Is it moral to be gay? Religiously, no, it is not. “Thou shall not lay with another man as if
he were a woman” (Holy Bible). However, is it OK to disregard the union between same sex
members legally? This is of high debate lately. Since the Constitution clearly states separation
of church and state, even though there are people who state, “it means keeping politics out of
religion”, or vice versa, it is not OK to legally say no to gay marriage. Again, the statement is
“separation of church and state.” Which means separate. This shows that religion has affected
this law, and the people who are for it being illegal solely use religious reasons to debate it.
Now that we can see laws are affected by religion, is it possible that other laws, which appear
to be moral, are affected as well? Of course it is! But, again, the question is are the morals
moral because it is righteously divine, or is it righteously divine because it is moral? Now, are
the laws good laws because they come from the righteously divine sense of morality or because
they are already moral? Unfortunately, as stated before, we will never truly know if laws are
laws because of the divine, since our minds are already used to the knowledge of religious
existence.
So in a sense, basic religious morals, i.e. do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal
etc. are good basic decisions. Others, such as do not be homosexual, and do not be jealous are
not humanly possible for a lot of people, therefore, are not necessarily sound morals. Humans
have morals out of their basic instinct of compassion. We are able to have emotions expressing
love, and sympathy, and a sense of fairness instinctually. So is it possible for our morals to stem
from this, and not religion? Can there be morality without religion?
References
Gomes, C. M. Sceincedaily.com. Retrieved from http://sciencedaily.com
Atheism tapes. [Television series]. London, England: BBC.
Epiphnom.fieldofscience.com. Retrieved from http://Epiphnom.fieldofscience.com
Hitler. Mein Kampf, Munich: Franz Eher Nachfolger, 1930
The Holy Bible, KJV
The Holy Qur’an
