Can we have morals without religion, or have morals developed solely through religion, or been given directly by God? What would we expect the world to look like, regarding morals, if there was no god – or if there was one? Are atheists less moral people?

There are many reasons why believers fear atheism and atheists. Some are merely threatened by differing world views, some have been indoctrinated to such a degree as to believe that atheists are pawns of Satan, and some are somehow worried about being tempted “down a sinful path” or to waver in their faith. All of these fears are self-centered and are not concerned with the greater good of the human species. One fear, that many believers share is, however, concerned with all of us and our common future. If morals stem from God and can only exist with God as the enforcer, what will our society become if God is removed from the picture? If we assume there is no divine judgement in the end and act accordingly?

There are several aspects to this discussion, and I must admit (as I probably will in many posts) that I cannot treat the subject in full depth, nor can I hope to include all views and arguments on the matter. I can only try and make the subject engaging for anyone who has not thought about it before or maybe bring some new arguments forth.

There are 4 questions to consider in this discussion:

1) Did morals come from God? Or the belief in God?

2) Could morals appear without the belief in God?

3) Are our modern moral values based on the religion with which we grew up?

4) Can we, as individuals, have morals without God or the belief in God?

In the following I will try to touch upon each of these issues, but I will not be able to thoroughly discuss them. I aim only to give food for thought, and where necessary some references to more material.

1) There can be no doubt that in most societies, morals and dictated social behavior are closely linked to religion. The Abrahamic religions have the ten commandments in the Old Testament of the Bible as a very clear example, and the Quran has many passages explicitly describing laws. Examples can also be found in non-Abrahamic religions, such as the concepts of dharma and kharma in Hinduism. Some, more ancient, societies did not interweave morals and religion. The Greeks went to the underworld no matter what, and the Nordic tribes kept their moral values as a part of the social agreement, not related to their religion. What is striking is the general agreement in moral values across almost all cultures and religions, whether based on honor, avoidance of sin and divine punishment, social punishment or bad kharma, most agree on what is “good” and “evil”. Most agree that you should not steal or lie or kill (though the latter is subject to the circumstances in most cases). The so-called pagan religions were (are) often based more on a greater harmony (which in many regards are quite analogous to the atheistic view on morals) than on fear of a divine spanking. To me this suggests first of all that the existence of God is not needed for moral values to appear in a society (Some may argue that the similarity is because God ‘gave us all an innate sense of morality’, but I will return to this in the next section). After all hinduists do not fear the biblical hell, but are in stead worried about bad kharma and being reborn as a dung beetle or another such ‘charming’ existence. Thus, it may just require a belief in a god or supernatural system. A belief that there will be some sort of unavoidable judgement in the end. But looking at the pagan religions, where the punishment for not adhering to the social norms is first of all instantaneous, and more importantly, earthly or non-divine and thus fallable. If you believe that God sees all, you know that you will be caught when you steal your neighbor’s apple pie, but if the moral enforcer is only human, you might get away with it. But this did not prevent the Nordic (or other pagan) tribes to develop norms and morals, that are not too far from those taught in the Bible.

I realize that this is a rather superficial treatment of the first question, but I do not feel this is the most important of the four questions posed in the beginning. I would (as with all I write) be open to other views or just more input in this field, but for now this treatment will have to do.

2) Many people argue that since nature is completely neutral and selfish, there can be no morals in nature and no morals if man is just an animal. If man has evolved through evolution and natural selection as posed by neo darwinists, the selection is based on selfish genes, to use Richard Dawkin’s expression. Therefore there should be no reason to care about others. But Dawkin’s himself treats this subject in his book “The Selfish Gene” and shows how altruism may very well have evolved to perpetuate the selfish gene. A simple argument for altruism towards family is that you are likely to share genes with your family. Thus, if a gene codes for altruistic behavior towards family members, this gene will become more numerous in nature because of this obvious advantage. This can be extended to small groups of animals, such as lion prides or groups of monkeys, where there is a large possibility of individuals to share genes. Even though all individuals may not be blood relatives, there are still good odds for it and thus it is beneficiary for the selfish gene to code for altruism within the group. According to Michael Shermer, several characteristics are shared by humans and the great apes, such as:

attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.

(Michael Shermer (2004) “The Science of Good and Evil”, New York: Times Books. p.16. ISBN 0-8050-7520-8)

Albeit not strictly morals, this evolutionary basis for altruism can be a pointer that even if we are nothing but evolved apes (and how can you doubt this if you’ve ever seen a fraternity party or a company Christmas party?) concepts of “good” and “evil” based on the well-being of others may evolve without the need for a heavenly father to say: “keep thy paws off thy neighbor’s property, you damn dirty ape!” Ants and bees are other great examples of how societies may develop that aim to help the well-being of the whole, without divine intervention. Had it not been for God (or the belief in such), the exact moral code that we abide by today may indeed not have developed. But I’m fairly sure we would be very close. And who knows – we might even have been more moral, at peace with each other and in agreement on what good morals entail.

TO BE CONTINUED…