Is Religion the Source Of Good?

One of my moments of understanding about the Bush administration happened when George W. said, a year or so into his term, that religion is the source of moral behavior in society - that without religious faith, there was nothing to keep humanity from acting unethically. Implicitly, we need the threat of hell to motivate us to earn our heavenly reward.

This was one of many assumptions in the Bush years that ran absolutely counter to my worldview. I thought it absurd at the time. I continue to disagree with it. But I wonder if I understand it more.

I grew up in a decidedly non-religious household. There was no belief in God, no belief in an after-life, no faith that any reward that would come "later" for moral or ethical behavior now. However, far from discouraging ethical behavior, our family seemed to have a deep-seeded sense of right and wrong, and a powerful drive to do and be good.

I believe that, to a large degree, there is a genetic basis for ethical behavior in human beings. The simple fact that most of us can distinguish between "good" and "bad" - that we have a sense of right and wrong - suggests to me that we are intrinsically good. Otherwise, the concept would be meaningless to us - we literally would not understand what "good" meant.

But I now suspect that our family life strongly influences whether we believe good behavior comes from inside - our choice to be good, our recognition that it is in our higher self-interest - or is forced on us by the threat of punishment from the outside. There was no gift guaranteed us in the end. In fact, the human race as a whole will survive or perish in large part on the basis of the choices we made.

To me, the Democratic and Republican parties are the feminine and masculine of American politics. Neither party is a good mother or father - they divorced years ago, and have been abusing the children ever since. But Republican rhetoric tends to mimic the role of the disciplining father - the one who tells you what's morally right, who disciplines you to spend your time and money with care. Democratic rhetoric, on the other hand, tends to mimic the mother archetype - it tells us we are intrinsically good, and deserving, and that mom will do whatever she needs to do, to insure that we are well fed, housed, educated, and cared for - money is no object.

Of course, the reason to have a masculine and feminine force is that these two perspectives need each other - they are mutually dependent. We may be good, but ultimately we have to take care of ourselves - be disciplined, live within our means, choose ethical behavior. There is no "other" out there that can swoop in to save us, if we behave self-destructively.

Growing up without religion - and in a family where masculine and feminine forces were very well integrated - we were not conditioned to believe that we needed to be punished in order to do good. We were not without conflict - we three kids battled, and often did things that we knew were wrong. And we were punished, in clear but wise ways, when we did wrong.

But growing up without believing God would forgive our sins was a powerful motivator - not only to do good, but to encourage others to do so. If humanity is to survive, in an age where we have manifold ways to destroy ourselves, we have a compelling need to raise our whole civilization to a higher level. God won't do it for us, nor will He give us a pass to heaven anyway, if we screw up. It's all up to us.

That was, quite literally, a compelling early motivator for me. It propelled me into politics, activism, and business. The sense that the future of the species was in our hands - and that I had to do all in my power, to motivate others to work to secure our future - drove me to do the work I still do today.

My brother and sister grew up the same. Bob is now Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education in the Obama administration, and Soozee founded a charity to help orphans in Latin America, then adopted two children from Columbia to complete her family of five. We did not need religion to discover our desire to do and be good. It was within us, and our parents helped us bring it out.

Today, I no longer consider myself to be non-religious. I detest the hypocrisies of much institutionalized religion, just as I detest those of almost every institution. I believe that religious institutions are particularly vulnerable to corruption and abuse, because they claim the power to determine our everlasting fate.

In fact, let's face it: the most powerful forces of hate and destruction on the planet use institutions of religion to justify their acts and mobilize their forces. They abuse the role of the father, by telling us that the Father demands we destroy those who are different from us.

But, just as I believe there is an intrinsic value to being a Republican - and hence have been one all my life, despite finding few candidates I can support - I believe there is an intrinsic truth in religious belief, and that, if you take away the literal interpretations that bastardize the spirit of faith, you discover that there is, indeed, a force that is before, during, after, and beyond us, encompassing us, and that is the essence of good, and of God.

Follow Bill Shireman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Future500

Comments

[DemocraticVoter]

Morality emerges from a combination of human emotion and analytical thinking. Our experience of empathy allows humans to identify behaviors that create pain. For example, when we experience the loss of a beloved other through violence, we experience sadness, loss, and anger. Because we are capable of recognizing that violent behavior resulted in this loss and subsequent pain, we develop rules and beliefs that categorize this behavior as "bad". Considered in this way, morality was originally derived from fundamental human qualities and is sustained within human society through a continual analysis and revision of the rules deemed moral. Illogical or weak analysis results in incomprehensible and inconsistent moral rules or mores.

Many issues are complex and possess a tension between moral ideals. This is why bioethics and scientific ethicist continue to debate what and how we should progress technologically. Religion was originally a means by which to resolve and encode a set of moral rules and a way to reduce the amount of uncertainty in a seemingly chaotic world. The primary problem with religion is that it eventually becomes dogmatic or static and thus cannot resolve problems within a dynamic universe. This inability to accommodate dynamism will mean that religions will consistently fail in its attempt to answer the most pressing questions in any given society.

Morality must be grounded in both empathy and sound analytical reasoning.

[wondering]

A morality based on the fear of a supernatural spanking (or promise of heavenly reward) AND which relies on an external moral source, is no morality at all. It is, at best, behavior modification.

If you are familiar with any of the hierarchies of moral development (Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, et al.), then you know that they share at least one common feature - they all emphasize the passage of one's moral source from external to internal. Until you internalize your morality, you are a child. Religion insists on keeping us children.

Consider the Golden Rule - it does not say, "Do unto others as God would have you do." It is, in fact, totally secular and universal. And if you require such things, it can be argued to be based entirely on self interest (it ensures mutual cooperation among members of a highly social species). And yet, it serves as a perfectly good base on which to build a fine, secular morality.
.

[Bill Shireman - Huffpost Blogger]

I absolutely agree. If morality does not come from within you, then morality is not your compass - external force is.

[Liberal Angel]

Religion is Man's response to God. Good is what we say it is. Good and evil are concepts that can't apply to God. People need to grow up in their concept of "God". I don't see how anyone can claim to say God does or doesn't exist. People and rocks and quasars exist, God has to be understood as Existance itself. As Being itself. It's just impossible for people to say a subjective experience isn't real, which experience of God is. Do miracles ever happen? Who has all the facts to say they don't? Is religion the source of good? Good can stem from a religious base, but how can you say it comes from there? What we define as good, are conditions and events that occur, and we like them. I believe in good, and I have knowlegde of God. Neither of them comes from religion. I see and do good because I'm a good person. I know God because I've experienced His presence, not because I belong to the Christian faith. We have beliefs about God. God is independent of our thoughts of Him. We believe or disbelieve in different notions about God. God Himself is something you either accept or don't.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"I know God because I've experienced His presence"

Good & evil don't apply to your god, but gender apparently does. What a joke. People do indeed need to grow up in their concept of "God".

[Bill Shireman - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree that God is best interpreted as Existence Itself. John is too literally interpreting the use of a gender indicator. Because we can't possibly conceive of what "Existence Itself" is, we all make references that help us to understand some aspect of it. John may call it "it" or "God" or "nothingness" or "him" or "Her" or "Scam" - but "it" still is. Existence is.

[SocBeat]

Given that there is no god, but there is good in the world, I can't see how religion could possibly be the source of good. Or, for that matter, given that there are myriad religions with completely different belief systems, and good people in every one of them, I don't see how any specific religion could take credit for the goodness of its followers.

Even if you argue that you don't actually need a real god for the religious to believe in and do good as a result, I'll argue that there's something inherently good in the creators of the religion that made them write the good behaviour stuff into it, and in the subsequent believers to want to follow it.

The good is in the people; the religion is a convenient framework onto which to hang their good principles.

[Billious]

Religion is no more than an excuse for unethical, prejudiced behaviour and is not an ethical basis for public morality . Without it, where is the rational basis for all the petty, vindictive and fearful prejudices people hold? It is an abdication of our responsibility to ourselves and the rest of the human race. Dawkins and others are right to tackle the deference that even self-confessed atheists can show towards religious authority. They have to be challenged at every turn, every religious assertion challenged and questioned. Good work.

[William Shireman]

That's true - people do seem to jump to religion as the most untouchable source of justification for bigotry and hate. The anger and hatred that some in the religious right express toward homosexuality, where they profess to "love" the person yet seem consumed by their denunciations of them - religion gives them free license to immerse themselves in their prejudice, without giving it second thought, and taking personal responsibility for it.

[Whatevah]

I suspect that only a tiny minority of people are affected by religion the way you endorse.

Overall, religion is the source of far more evil than good. At it's core is the idea that there is some ultimate truth that trumps the evidence of our senses. That strikes me as silly.

[Bill Shireman - Huffpost Blogger]

It's certainly been the source of (or rationale for) a tremendous amount of evil. The institutions of religion in particular, as I say. Yes, it's silly to imagine that an ultimate truth trumps our senses - and this results in extraordinary harm, as people deny the obvious. But it's also silly to imagine that our senses bring us complete knowledge, or anything close to it. After 5 billion years of evolution, with ever greater levels of awareness emerging at each step, over huge expanses of time, it would be an unjustified article of faith to believe we've reached the end of the line - that our five senses (and their imperfect abilities) make everything comprehensible. There is more than meets the eye, ear, nose, mouth, or skin.

[Whatevah]

Absolutely true. There is far more unknown than known.

My point is that religion is not a reliable way to seek the unknown. So much of religion is so demonstrably false that I think it's naive to believe religion can ever be more help than hindrance.

[RickLannoye]

Bill, you make some excellent points about why we don't need the threat of Hell to be ethical.
I would, however, go a bit further--basing morality on the threat of punishment actually retards morality!
I've actually written an entire book on this topic--"Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell," (for anyone interested, you can get a free Ecopy of my book at my website: www.ricklannoye.com), but let me share just one of the many points I make to illustrate why.
For so many people, teaching our young right from wrong boils down to something like this--"You better not drive on the wrong side of the road, because if you do, the cops will get ya!" What, then, are a lot of young drivers likely to do at some point if the fear of getting caught and punished is all that's stopping them from driving on the left (here in the States) instead of the right? Well, just as soon as one thinks no one is watching, they're going to try it!
But when we instill a deep sense of morality by explaining that it's purpose is not to placate some easily angered Cosmic Cop, as it were, but because our MUTUAL SELF INTEREST IS BEST SERVED when we all agree to limit our behavior to a reasonable degree, then one chooses to drive on the correct side of the road no matter Who is or is not watching!

[Bill Shireman - Huffpost Blogger]

I absolutely agree - right on target.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"George W. said, a year or so into his term, that religion is the source of moral behavior in society - that without religious faith, there was nothing to keep humanity from acting unethically."

...and then he went about proving that religion doesn't prevent humanity from acting unethically.

"if you take away the literal interpretations that bastardize the spirit of faith, you discover that there is, indeed, a force that is before, during, after, and beyond us, encompassing us, and that is the essence of good, and of God."

No, I don't discover god by doing that.
BTW - How will you "take away" the literal interpretations?

[Bill Shireman - Huffpost Blogger]

You're being too literal. "God" doesn't have to be the cartoon character of popular religion, or someone we talk to and hang with on Sundays. God is an idea that people use to stand for a complex reality that is beyond our current knowledge, and I believe is likely unknowable by us. I describe this as "a force that is before, during, after, and beyond us, encompassing us." By that I mean that there is a continuity of development that started long before we were born, continues during our lives, and stretches far after. Do you disagree with this?

I go further to suggest that this is the essence of good, because without this developmental process - without the evolution of matter, life, thought - there would be no order beyond the ultimate static order of death. "Bad" is in this view the destruction of order, the annihilation of it, toward total neutrality, or death.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"God is an idea that people use to stand for a complex reality that is beyond our current knowledge, and I believe is likely unknowable by us. I describe this as "a force that is before, during, after, and beyond us, encompassing us." By that I mean that there is a continuity of development that started long before we were born, continues during our lives, and stretches far after. Do you disagree with this?"

Yes, I do.
Tell me why you decided to call "a force that is before, during, after, and beyond us, encompassing us" god. Why not call it "the universe" or "dog" or "the force"?

[BusGreg]

No!

[William Shireman]

Clear, concise, and stated with the certainty of a fundamentalist.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Typical. When all else fails, call the atheist a fundy. LOL.

[ckdogs]

You seem to have dicotomous values. You say that you are a Republican - though their current incarnation seems to be the opposite of all that you stand for. And you were raised in a home that taught that kindness, and love for one's fellow man, is not engendered by fear of a hellish afterlife.
Then, you conclude that "God is good", without explaining how you arrived at this epiphany. Your views would seem hypocritical. If Republicans have become the party of guns, fundamentalist religion, and no taxes to support schools & health care - citing "death panels" et.al., why would you support them? And while organized religion may espouse appropriate values, it also discriminates, has fought wars in God's name, and basically tries to control people's lives with fear and threats. Why can't you be "a good person" without this free floating supernatural being - as your own family was?

[Bill Shireman - Huffpost Blogger]

What makes you think I support the twisted bastardization of Republican values championed by the last president, or by the hate-mongers who now seem to control the party? When I disagreed with the President, I didn't cease to be an American - in fact, I made it very clear that America is not what he contended. Same with the Republican Party - the party that once stood against the Democratic party as the party for civil rights, progressive politics, limited government, freedom, and suspicion of the military-industrial complex. I can do far more good as a Republican than as a Democrat. I sincerely believe I am a real Republican, and that Rush and Glenn and Sean are demagogues and charlatans.

As for the "free-floating supernatural being" - I don't personify God that way. That's a device people use to be able to relate to an ultimate reality beyond our ability to know.

[Mikimiki]

Down through recorded history, organized religions have been the primary obstacle in the spiritual evolution of humanity. No organization can retain its structure and authority without the element of control originating from the top. This is accomplished through rules, regulations and dogma. In every age, an avatar appears with a simple message for humanity's advancement. This gift is used and abused by the subsequent adherents in their effort to continue control over the believers. Without the pressures from overpowering authority, organized religious structure will begin to dissemble. As there is no religion higher than Truth, in time, Truth will replace the fractured vehicles we presently use to justify whatever beliefs systems we maintain. Prayer for the most part is a form of stylized begging. Faith is a form of wishful thinking. As long as humanity depends upon these insubstantial belief patterns, religion as we know it will continue to maintain a grip on the human psyche.

[Bill Shireman - Huffpost Blogger]

Very well said.