Morality Originates in Religion...Not

A spate of magazine articles, cable TV shouting matches and debates among pundits this week have raised to prominence the question of whether the United States is a Christian nation. President Obama claims we are not, as we should not be. The majority of the public, ignorant of our history, believes otherwise. The arguments will rage on. But the current contretemps misses a central point about religiosity in general by focusing on Christianity specifically. More important than the degree to which the United States is Christian is the deeper but virtually unquestioned assumption in this debate that morality is derived from religion. The assumption is false and dangerous.

Traits that we view as moral are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness, kindness to others, and reciprocity are probably primeval characteristics that helped our ancestors survive. In a world of dangerous predators, early man could likely thrive only in cooperative groups. Good behavior would almost certainly strengthen the tribal bonds that were essential to survival. We can reasonably postulate that what we now call morality is really a suite of behaviors favored by natural selection in an animal weak alone but strong in numbers. Morality is our biological destiny, not a gift from god.

Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, human beings are inherently moral creatures, as our sociality would demand. Our inherent good, however, has been corrupted by the false morality of religion. For millennia religious doctrine has manipulated us with divine carrots and sticks. If we misbehave, we are threatened with the hot flames of hell. If we please god, we are promised the comforting embrace of eternal peace. Under the burden of religion, morality has become nothing but a response to bribery and fear. We have forsaken our biological heritage in exchange for coupons to heaven.

Faith has triumphed over reason, and we have suffered terribly as a result. In much of the world, humanity endures crowded poverty, taught that contraception is an affront to god. We rape our environment, told in Genesis that the earth's resources were put here for our exploitation and pleasure. Millions have perished in wars fought in the name of some great god. Genocide, torture, and holocausts are perpetrated in the cause of a loving father in heaven. This vengeful, wrathful, jealous, petty, bloodthirsty deity is not an appropriate guiding light on moral values.

Popular and brilliant authors such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris understand the inherent danger of religion's false promise. All are eloquent and fully justified in their respective and beautifully written diatribes against god. But in some ways these authors have life easy. Religion is so deeply flawed that bashing god makes for poor sport. The target is too easy, like fish in a barrel, deer in the headlights, or flightless quail on a Dick Cheney hunt.

Tearing down religion is useful only if a viable alternative is offered. We need to take the next step of suggesting solutions to humanity's most pressing problems in a world absent any god. We can do so by returning to core values based on our own evolutionary history, derived from our biological legacy free from myth and fable. We can move beyond faith and god to a life more complete.

There exists for those willing to see a new perspective a deeply satisfying purpose and meaning to life free from any divine influence. To glimpse this world, imagine for a moment that there is no invisible man in the sky using magical powers in "mysterious ways" to control our fate. Imagine that we can toss away the crutch of false hope and bad myth to walk unhindered down the path of personal responsibility. Without the burden of a wrathful god, we have the power to create our own meaning, our own sense of purpose, our own destiny. By rejecting the false premises of religion we are free to move beyond the random hand we are dealt at birth to pave our own road to a better life.

With freedom of course comes the obligation to act wisely and responsibly. We fulfill this duty first by taking a more modest view of our place in the world. When we see that humans are a natural part of the ecosystem, not above or separate from the environment, we will protect the resources that sustain us. When we reject the hubris and conceit of religion, we will redefine our relationship with each other without calling upon god to smite our enemies. When we understand that true morality is independent of religious doctrine, we will create a path toward a just society. We each have the power to create a life in which we no longer accept the arbitrary and destructive constraints of divine interference.

The need to move beyond religion has never been more urgent. Our Earth is in crisis. Religion corrupts our relationship with the environment, fosters extremism that threatens our security at home and abroad, and breeds outlandish hypocrisy in personal behavior and public policy. A meaningful alternative exists for the millions of people unsatisfied with this status quo, for those who want to shed the yoke of tired rituals no longer relevant to modern life and who reject religious dogma that for too long has suppressed our inherent good. Morality without religion encourages sound environmental stewardship, offers a new approach to social ethics, and promotes and strengthens our better side. For those willing to consider a new path, shedding the constraining cloaks of religion leads to a life more fulfilled through personal responsibility and a morality based in fact instead of myth.

Comments

[elmerfude]

I like your article a great deal. After 60 years of being involved with religion, I got theophobia. I find the sacredness in nature through direct experience in nature, science, poetry and art. The last place I would ever look for the sacred again is in a church. But in the 60 years I was in the church, I actually read the Bible several times. There is great poetry in the Bible including four different poetic creation stories, but the Old Testament God is not worthy of being a moral example for anyone or anything. "He" either committed or ordered every sort of genocide, sexual and violent perversion known to man or beast at one time or another. Jesus on the other hand is a different story. I am very fond of him particularly as revealed in some of the gospels that did not make it into the Bible like the Gospel of Thomas. An interesting new book on all of this is by Chet Raymo--When God is Gone Everything is Holy.

[ArthurTwoShedsJackson]

Jeff:

Your article could be published almost verbatim as a call to join and support the Unitarian Universalist church. I hope you accept that as a very high compliment.

Rather than elaborate I respectfully urge you and everyone finding truth in your fine article to visit www.uua.org. I think you will like what you see. I am also honored to mention that the late Randy Pausch, author and presenter of The Last Lecture was a UU. Enjoy a new spiritual life (which is mutually exclusive from a "religious" one IMO) with others of authentic goodwill within the UUA.

[elaina12345]

You claim that people are biologically inclined towards cooperation. Today, it seems selfishness rules the day. Do you not believe that humans are innately selfish, self-centered creatures? I can say from my own personal experience that I regularly choose to put myself first, and that it inevitably does not bring me greater joy or satisfaction. When I choose to care for others and give of myself rather than doing the easier and selfish thing, I feel more fulfilled, I feel a wholer sense of joy and feel more alive. However, it is often hard for me to choose these things. I would argue that it isn't in our nature to cooperate or give to others, and that the very things that fulfill and satisfy us the most are not the things we naturally choose to pursue.

Perhaps you so easily bash and dismiss God because you have never fully understood or experienced Him yourself, I can't say. That is easy to understand and to forgive in the overly materialist society and psychological paradigm that we live in today.

[wondering]

Try this thought experiment (it will be difficult) : If you woke up tomorrow having lost your faith, what would you do? Would you run out and cause harm to the first passerby you saw? Of course not.

But why not? Even the most evil of our species do not go around killing and maiming and stealing on a continuous, 24-7 basis. You might argue that the truly evil among us usually obey laws out of self-preservation (not wanting to go to jail and the like), but how is that different from obeying a god's laws in order to avoid a supernatural spanking?

In fact, all human beings have an innate capacity for morality - we just fail at it sometimes.

.

[CJWebber]

elaina, I would argue that it IS in our nature to cooperate and give to others.

We are social animals. One of the reasons going to church is so popular is because it is a social gathering; one for any age, any gender, any I.Q. You don't have to be a chess champion to go. We know that killing and stealing is not going to make us popular with the rest of the pack and we avoid to because it is in our best interests to do so.

If morality came from religion, then it should be commonplace for children to kill other people. After all, tlhey haven't had the advantage of time to learn religion and thus morality. Yet crimes done by children are shocking. Conversely, adults who have been steeped in religion, including religious figures such as priests and televangelists, should have 'learned' morality by now. It should be unusual to hear of crimes done by this group. But it isn't.

This could go on and on. But if you have been taught that religion = morality by your parents, and your parents by their parents, etc, then you will probably never consider any else and we will always disagree.

[ddoc701]

If you claim to be a person of faith, you are suspending rationial thought and judgement because you believe a book of fables written by animal/human sacrificing primitives. And if you admit to that, then any of your opinions should never be taken seriously, ESPECIALLY if it involves risking human lives. (George W Bush claiming that his faith guided his foreign policy and 4000 and counting Americans have died in vain in Iraq). Religion has to end if we want this earth to go on far into the future. If you want prove there is a God, stop talking about ALL the evidence of your imaginary friend. Just show the world ONE piece of evidence. I guarantee you will never find any. I have personally wasted 22 years of my life believing in that empty promise filled book of crap, and its time for it to end.

[Zanti]

I love the way you back up your claims, such as this one: "Our inherent good, however, has been corrupted by the false morality of religion."

As a person of faith, I'll try to learn from your example and back up all my claims with hard, compelling evidence. And I'll never, ever, assume that I'm correct simply because I'm arguing from a perspective I consider to be valid, and for the simple fact that all claims carry a burden of proof, regardless of their hipness (or lack thereof).

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

In spite of the sarcasm, you make a good point. We should rely on claims only supported by compelling evidence. I would be happy to debate the merits of religion and secularism in human history, and the impacts of both using verifiable objective data.

I have spent many years studying the Bible, so the first place I would like to start is with your source document. Let us go through that and pull out everywhere that the Bible discusses morality or moral behavior -- in black and white, objective evidence in hand. We could move right on to the World Trade Center, but that would skip 2000 years of hundreds of examples from history where religion has been corrupting.

If you want to go objective, and I agree that is a good idea, let's start with that.

[Zanti]

My source document? As in, the text I take orders from? Like many others I know, I'm not a Bible literalist nor an order taker.

Another problem, imo, is that prior to the Reformation, the Catholic Church was in charge, and, as a rule, the doctrines, etc. of the Church had little to do with the Bible. (Not to offend any Catholics, but I think it's true.) And you have the fact that most people couldn't read.

In short, what relationship can we presume to exist or have existed between scripture and behavior? Should we even start from such a presumption? A lot of things seem perfectly obvious when we take for granted that a given relationship exists, especially an absolute relationship, instead of setting out to prove it.

As a believer, I'm told again and again that the Bible is nonsense, that religion is irrational, and that I'm irrational by extension. It seems unfair to allow your side to thoroughly and unequivocally denounce my "source document" and then, in the same debate, use it as a reference point. This is akin to James Randi discussing the merits of Nessie folklore. Rather, Randi's job is to show there are no merits to same.

If Randi wants to demonstrate that belief in Nessie, in and of itself, is harmful, then he has to move beyond the "text" of Nessie to do so.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Gotcha! You rely on source documents. I make it up as I go along.

[ArthurTwoShedsJackson]

I'd like to chime in briefly here that there are indeed some very serious flaws with the source document of Christianity, all well known in Biblical scholar circles and routinely ignored by rank and file Christians. They are made crystal clear by Bart Ehrman, most recently in his book "Jesus, Interrupted." Ehrman, once a supremely self-confident evangelical Christian certain the Bible was the inerrant word of God, had to renounce that position based on the facts in his subsequent Biblical studies. Eventually, he lost faith in the Bible as the literal word of God. He now describes himself as an agnostic.

I suggest that "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" Christians had better avoid Ehrman's books even more fervently than those of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al. Christianity simply does not hold up well to careful study and research.

[iRideSnow]

Although not definitive, WNYC's RadioLab had an excellent broadcast on the origins of morality some time ago which was just rebroadcast this past weekend. I encourage you to give it a listen. You can find it on their blog page here:

http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/02/09/morality-rebroadcast/

There's a link to download the mp3 file on that page.

If you're an iTunes user, it should also be available as an iTunes Podcast, at least it was when it was originally broadcast.

[Pedro Timóteo]

While this article sounds a bit optimistic about our "innate morality", it does make sense if we think about it in the terms of the moral zeitgeist (see Wikipedia).

In other words: as religion is man-made, what's in the holy books is nothing but a "snapshot" of the morality of the times they were written. However, morality evolves (think about slavery, women as property of their husbands, and so on), but the holy books don't change, so religion always provides the greatest resistance to moral progress ("but the Bible says women should obey their husbands!").

Therefore, yes, religion is holding morality back, and has been for centuries. Nope, we wouldn't be perfect right now without it (I wouldn't want to force the "enlightened" morality we have right now on future generations either, for exactly the same reasons), but we'd be better -- perhaps at Star Trek levels (no poverty, no discrimination, etc.), or close.

[bismillah001]

To me, the beautiful thing about religion (and also its Achilles' Heel) is that it remains constantly open to different readings in an ever-changing world. Like any other set of ideas, however, religion can be interpreted in such a way to suit peoples' materialistic desires and political ambitions. Most practitioners, though, don't view their faith as a historical "snapshot"; they see it as something very dynamic. People use religious arguments to advocate for and against "modern" values such as human rights, religious pluralism, women's rights, environmental sustainability, democracy, and so on. Unfortunately people tend to dwell on the reactionary elements within religions, partially because they often scream the loudest, and partially because our media's representation of things is driven by fear and sensationalism.

[lesterbud]

An interesting sales pitch, but does not come close to holding water.
Religion is entirely NOT about being "open" to different readings. Wars have been raged and factions violently broken off for the slightest of differences in interpretation. Religions, in order to compete, have to hold their flock very closely against new ideas. Heck - churches are today still debating the role of women, blacks, gays in their congregations, let alone management. Religious "dynamics" lag centuries behind positions adopted by secular, progressive societies. Children are indoctrinated into a certain set of dogma very early, using even stronger marketing tactics than cigarette companies or fast food restaurants. They demand sacrifices and tithes to lock people in. They resist marriage outside of their franchise (either directly by decree or indirectly through counseling). They foment violence against rivals and excuse violence by allies.
The beautiful thing about some churches is the opportunity to assist unfortunate people and do good charitable works. But this can be done through the boy scouts, 4-H, or any number of clubs or organizations - without the rhetoric and dogma.
The beautiful thing about religion - impressive buildings with lots of stained glass. I like stained glass.

[Zanti]

Exactly. Mainline religion doesn't make a good, loud, exciting story. Besides, the media has hours and hours of special-effects footage depicting angels, doors with bright light showing through, end-of-tunnel lights, people waving and swaying, etc.

They paid good money for that stock footage and they intend to use it!

[Barbara Drescher]

That was beautiful. Well written. Well said.

[MarsAmbassador]

Another way to look at it is:
Religion isn't the problem. People are the problem.

[bismillah001]

Exactly!! Wow, I really need to learn how to be that concise! hahaha

[islandchris]

Since religions are invented by people, I guess you're right - all we need to do is remind people they are free to dump religion.

[JohnFromCensornati]

So, it's a lot like an assault weapon.

[MarsAmbassador]

I abide by a Live And Let Live mentality, but unfortunately most religious people do not. And when it becomes a matter of concern for all of us, then we must strive to remove religion from politics. Point in case being someone like Michelle Bachmann. She is angry about people talking about global warming, because, as she said, it goes against God for humans to think we can save the planet, because, as she said, Jesus already saved the planet. Ummmmmmmm...Christians say he died for the sins of humanity, not to save the planet from ecological disaster. Then you have Sarah Palin who thinks Alaska will become a Holy Refuge during End Times due to the global warming that is a part of that plan. To try to stop global warming is to fight against God bringing about the Rapture. And to her that's evil, brought about by the demons who inhabit liberals. Read up on Joel's Army. That's the mentality we're up against here with people like these two. They have sworn to free the world of these geographically inhabiting demons, which is why she was blessed by that witch doctor. Plus you can't ignore the demon of education or the demon of philosophy. Pure evil, they are...

[wazzat4u]

Good article.
We get so caught up in messing with the symptoms of what religion has become that we miss the background noise....which is the powerful urge to be 'right' or 'in the right.' Having a 'god' on one's side gives one so much more leverage! We constantly interpret the intentions of that god to win our own arguments.(or wars)
Attempting to argue for religion by denigrating the deeds of the non-religious misses the point that we are first of all, humans of no religious affiliation. Somewhere along the line we chose up sides by joining, or being forced to join those movements, probably giving ourselves the 'right' to the property of others.
Yeah, I forced my children to go to church, like I was forced. But it became obvious that 'do not steal or you'll go to hell' became so much less real than 'it just doesn't work as fellow humans, for folks to steal each other's stuff.' While religions fundamentally separate us, we need to transcend them and create real communities. Sorry but suggesting we 'preach religious tolerance' creates more division.

[Dave24]

Spot on, Mr Schweitzer.

And Christopher Hitchens, as usual, extends the theme of your article quite nicely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaGqVbAzjng

[No Longer Quivering]

As a former fundamentalist Christian and publisher of a right-wing "pro-life, pro-family" newspaper for 15 years ~ I was absolutely sure that without religion, morality is impossible. After a year-long email correspondence with my atheist uncle ~ I no longer call myself a Christian and I don't actually believe in God anymore. BUT ~ I find that I'm still a moral person. Here's a link to the blog where I'm processing it all: http://2spb.blogspot.com/ ~ I actually just brought up the topic of morality without religion and there's already a pretty interesting conversation going on between theists and atheists.

[Jen Beaven]

Well said!

The only reason to require that other people follow some external source for morality is if you're afraid that people don't have an inherent sense of right and wrong. And the only person you can really know that about is yourself. So I can see why some people might be terrified of a world without a Cosmic Enforcer; they fear that their own deepest impulses are destructive.

That belief isn't valid in most cases; but for marketing purposes for organized religion? It's golden...

[Reighben Labilles]

However, it is especially hard to convince originally religious people to break away from their beliefs. A great number of us are so bound to the practice because of our upbringing. And if the religious upbringing involved bigotry to the different which then caused a deep sense of xenophobia, conversion to a path of reason is especially hard. But it is not religion itself that is flawed. it is the values, assumptions, and cultures attached to it, and how people then interpret it.

I am a Deist. God for me is Reason and Love most high. With that, he is above our prejudices and tyrannical tendencies. He does not punish--Only Loves and Understands. God, for all religions, is the greatest of everything possible. So why would he be like us, like many of us, who hurt, discriminate, kill and destroy just because of differences? God, in my view, is beyond that. He is balance. And Evil serves the purpose of teaching us what the truly Good is.

My being religious and spiritual does not at all hinder my capacity to reason. I am a liberal who seeks peace and harmony and equality in all humanity regardless of who or what they are. I do not adhere to the backwards, evil, and bigoted beliefs of many organized religions today.

If only the faithful think this way, then religion would not be such a destructive, divisive and hindering force in Human Civilization.

[bismillah001]

You can't compare the worst of religion with the best of science and act like your argument is valid.

1) Do you remember the 20th century? More people died in wars during that century than in any previous eras. What was WWI about? (Nationalism) How about WWII? (Fascism) The Cold Wars? (Communism). W.T.F. is all this nonsense about religion being the scourge of the earth, seriously?

2) Science has no inherent value system. We've made enormous advances in supplying energy to people... and in destroying them. Look at all the horrible and grotesque things done in the name of science and reason during the 20th century - eugenics, race classification, etc. We are STILL dealing with the psychological fallout of these things to this day. And if you'd like to argue that that wasn't "real" science, then the same argument should be applicable to heinous acts done in the name of religion. Yet you like to pigeonhole religion as the worst of what is done in its name.

3) Your argument that morality is an evolutionary necessity might hold true if this were a few thousand years ago, but in today's society we don't live in communal villages where our interdependency is laid bare before us. We live isolated, fragmented lives in a culture that values individualism and consumerism. Those have become our "Gods".

[bismillah001]

4) As for your contention that religion is the cause of overcrowdedness / overpopulation in already-poor areas. This is such a load of cr@p. Is that why China suffers such population problems? The reason why impoverished families have more children is because it actually is rational for them economically. At around the age of seven, children can become "net producers" for their families, and having several children increases the likelihood of economic security in old age. The question of fertility rate has more to do with issues of female education level and economic development than anything else. That is why Italy, home of the Vatican - ground zero for anti-birth control ideology, has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world. My God (haha no pun intended) what an unscientific analysis of the fertility issue you've presented!

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

I refer you to the policies of the Catholic Church in sub-Saharan Africa on condom distribution, family planning, and contraception. Working for years at USAID, I can tell you that most women want the choice to control and minimize the number of children they have. The the "net producers" argument sounds great if you are economist, but not so great if you have to give birth to that potentially positive asset in a field somewhere or carrying water back home -- because you have to work in the field and get the water right up to delivery. It would be an odd argument to make if you are saying that the Church's position on contraception has no impact on population.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Science does not, and is not meant to, have an inherent value system. The moral constraints on science properly come from the society supporting the science. Science does not promote a moral code, or one moral code over the other; that is not the mandate of that enterprise, any more than we would look to a symphony orchestra for moral guidance; religion however does promote one moral code ove another and is responsible for the death and destruction done in its name. Nothing about religion establishes it as a viable source code for moral guidance; we need to look elsewhere, and that is within. Our evolutionary history yielded an animal with an inherent moral capacity, which has been masked by religion. We need to go back to our basic values inhereted as a consequence of our sociality and evolutionary history, and reclaim our rightful moral core.

[bismillah001]

I'm so sick of people scapegoating religion for universal human problems. It would have been encouraging if you'd written a piece arguing for the existence moral values on irreligious grounds, but you couldn't resist going a step further and insulting the beliefs and values of those you might consider "irrational" (read: "intellectually deficient") or "superstitious", and on very weak grounds, I might add.. And NO more people have NOT died over religion than anything else. Pleassseee refer to a 20th century history textbook when you get the chance.

When humans get their hands on any system of thought, be it religion or political ideology, they find ways to twist it around and brutally oppress others. This is evident with a simple reading of history.

This is a tired discussion.

Next time come with something positive and stop trying to tear down others to support your own underdeveloped theories. It would have far more instructive to read a post about the theory that morality is an evolutionary adaptation. Instead it meandered into all this religion-bashing incoherence.

[radmin]

To say that "science does not promote a moral code, or one moral code over the other" is, in and of itself, the statement of a value system. It suggest, of course, that there are no absolute values and that if those in the surrounding society approve, science may do anything it likes without assuming responsibility for its actions. Why would one allow this for science but not for religion? Your position allows science to act irresponsibly by your own definitions and descriptions. Were not the irreprehensible actions of religion often condoned by "...the society supporting..." the religion?

"We need to go back to our basic values inherited as a consequence of our sociality and evolutionary history, and reclaim our rightful moral core." Which part, exactly do we go back to? The part where the strong devoured the weak, perhaps? Would you argue these moments to be the backbone of our moral code? If so, the destruction of a weaker ethnic tribe by a stronger one is now defined as "moral," is it not?