I am about as Irreligious (not religious) as you can get.
But it occurs to me that my morality (which, if I do say so myself - is quite strong) might have been conditioned by growing up in a semi-religious environment.
I think my morals mostly match those of a quite religious person. Is religion (please forgive the following phrase) a ‘nececasry evil’, in that it maintains morality in society?
Sure there can be. You can have an entire moral system based on Evolutionary neccesity. You don’t lie, cheat and steal because that would weaken your society which reduces the chances of your survival in the long term.
In the end, I suspect that many of our religious morals are simply an efficient way to enforce such a system.
I don’t think so. While I’m an athiest my parents are both religious, and the morals that their faith promotes are some of the same morals that I hold. I, however, believe that had I grown up with no knowledge of religion that my morals would be similar to what they are now. I mostly govern my behavior by whether or not what I do harms another person. The reprocussions for harming another would be there even without religion. I’d like to ask a related question. Is one’s conscience based upon taught morals or is it inate?
I don’t think there’s a very strong correlation, if any, between religion and morals. People that don’t steal most likely do it because of one of two reasons:
They realise it is bad, or they are afraid to get caught. Religion has nothing to do with the later, and isn’t neccesarily involved in the former. Laws and most philosophies teach people it is bad to steal (most of the time) as well.
Also, there seems to be absolutely no correlation between deeply religious countries and morality. USA for example seems very religious, Sweden is extremely secular, but I don’t think the US population is more moral in general then the Swedish one.
Religion isn’t ‘neccesary’ at all, which is proven by the fact that a lot of things work fine without it.
In considering this question, I think it’s worth keeping in mind that some religions and religious sects promote things as moral that other people consider evil; by that standard, religion is clearly not a matter sufficient for maintaining morality. It can’t even establish it with any consistency.
The is my personal belief/thoughts (which is very close to the formal teachings of my own religion, actually; I can’t think of a place where it differs, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one).
There are three broad categories of moral evaluation: the individual level, the societal level, and the abstract level. These three categories all interrelate strongly, but are also somewhat independent.
A particular religious upbringing is one example of a societal moral structure. It’s not the sole possible example; in fact, I’d posit that any stable grouping of people will have its own internal etiquette and sense of what is right and wrong. That’s just one of the things that happens with social groups. Not all of those appropriate etiquettes are given the weight of ‘moral values’, but I think that’s a cultural-spin artifact rather than a true difference in kind. (Especially since miscommunication between people of different cultures on this level often comes across to at least one of them as a sign of insufficient moral behaviour.)
It makes sense that an individual raised in a particular society will use that society’s basic moral system as a starting point for establishing their individual sense of morality. I’d suspect it’s fairly unlikely that most people would differ strongly from the social system on strongly emphasised points for two reasons: first of all, unless something about the system really strikes someone as being wrong, they’re not likely to go to the effort of improving it, and secondly, because if the individuals mostly differ from the social moral system, eventually the social moral system will change to match more closely.
Religions are one category of things that act as carriers, as containers, for the moral beliefs of the surrounding society, provide a . . . touchstone? A referent point? Having touchstones or poles can provide a society a certain amount of cohesion, which is a useful (and in my faith, a moral) thing to do. They’re not the sole things that can serve as attractor points, but they’re . . . I think phrase I want here is “a popular choice”. Rules of etiquette and traditions are other popular conveyors of moral guideline.
Sometimes I wonder how there can be morality **with **religion. We atheists have to figure these things out on our own, rather than relying on others telling us what to think and do. We have to understand the principles, the reasons, behind a moral code, rather than blindly accepting the ethical precepts that we were brought up with. To many people, morality is a sort of totalitarian affair, with somone “up there” laying down the law about what’s right or wrong, and people, especially children, are rarely encouraged to question these mandates.
Even back when I was religious, I could never understand why we have to be **commanded **to lead moral lives. I think that ethics devoid of understanding and choice is a contradiction in terms.
One of the most caring and compassionate (moral) friends that I have ever had is an atheist. I think in some ways she may be even more moral than a religious person who believes in following a certain rule not matter what the circumstances are. Of course, I realize that not all religious people are quite so unbending in following religious law.
Can there be morality without religion? Well, there’s no shortage of immorality with it…
OTOH, some people (including myself, but excluding Webster’s) make a technical distinction between “morality” and “ethics.” Harlan Ellison, in one interview, said that he has a strong ethical grounding but no moral grounding at all. Morality, in his construct, has to do with what pleases mainstream churchgoers, whereas ethics has to do with being fair and equitable to other people, even those of different religions, tribes, etc. from you.
Joining a restricted country club would, in this view, be morally acceptable but ethically unacceptable. Wife-swapping (between consenting adults) would be perfectly ethical, but totally immoral. So in a sense, yeah, you need religion to be moral, but can live a perfectly ethical life without it.
The primary question is “Can there be morality?” Once we’ve answered that, then we can figure out whether religion is a necessary component.
Not every religion can be correct; in fact, many hold that only one religion (their own) is the correct one. In other words, other religions are not divinely inspired but are rather entirely human creations. And yet thousands of societies across the globe have managed to function and thrive despite practicing a code of ethics and morality that lacks any divine guidance. Ergo, religion is unnecessary for morality.
That’s a common argument, but it only amounts to being honest when it suits one’s purposes. By that logic, if one could get away with dishonesty, then there’s no reason not to resort to cheating and theft.
In other words, why not let society suffer for the sake of one’s own personal gain? If you manage to work out a means by which you can get away with it, then why not exploit one’s fellow man for the sake of personal advancement?
Of course you can be moral without religion. As a matter of fact, I would argue that any morality which is rooted solely in the fear of a deity is illegitimate and insincere.
I nominate The Golden Rule as exhibit A in the demonstration of religion-free morality.
Pack animals, like wolves have a kind of morality. Of course, the dominant male is the first to choose a share of the hunting and to impregnate the females, but being the stronger does not make him to kill the other wolves.
Without this moral code, the life in a pack would be impossible, so evolution allowed it to develop. The same is true for humans.
Nothing wrong with a topic appearing more than once, of course, but this has been done before. The most recent time that I know of was a month ago, here.
If we follow the distinction that Krokodil (or Harlan Ellis) makes, then morality without religion can’t exist, since it is strictly a religious concept. But if we’re just talking about being good to each other, then of course that can happen without religion. I suspect that religion was formed partly as a way to illustrate, teach, and enforce ethical behavior (or what was considered ethical behavior at a particular time and place), and that the concept of ethical behavior was here first. I also think that religion has become a monster, the source of more bad than good, and that without it, we would be nicer to each other.
I still like the way Einstein said it. I like it so much, I’ll paste a couple of quotes from the linked thread:
Empathy is the fundamental human basis of morality. I see no necessary connection between religion and morality.
Moral are merely the axioms that societies justify their rules by. There are other ways to create axioms than by evoking God.
Secular society has its axioms, its “self-evident”, … “all men are created equal” and so on. In cases these have origins in religious morality, in cases not, and many would claim that religious morality in turn has its origins in evolutionary biology.
Morality, for me, is defined as the good, as revealed by God. you can follow moral principles without believing, but you can only have ethics.
In response to the question “can there be morality without religion,” my main response is “I certainly hope so,” since this is how I plan to raise my children.
I was raised in a very religious household and had a strong sense of morality drilled into my skull from an early age. I now consider myselfr an atheist, however, and one of the things I’ve been struggling with is determining how much of my sense of “right” and “wrong” is innate, how much of it is simply because it is what I was told to believe, and how much of it is because I have carefully thought about the subject. I believe I’ve come to the point where most of my “moral” decisions are based on what I feel are the best logical and philosophical reasons, and this is what I hope to instill in my children (once I have some, of course).
My wife, on the other hand, was raised in an atheist family in an atheist community in a (largely) atheist society. Her father taught her from an early age the importance of being a “good” person, which including such things as having a strong work ethic and treating people with repect. She is, as far as I can tell, a very good and moral person, in spite of the fact that she was raised with no religious beliefs.
I suppose one could play semantic games and define “morailty” as being religous-based in the first place, and then conclude that it cannot, therefore, exist without religion. I don’t agree that morality has to be so narrowly defined, though, and I do think that there is a key distinction between morality and simple “ethics”.
Barry
I think it’s worth pointing out that “moral” doesn’t necessarily mean “not lying, cheating, stealing, or killing”. A moral system can easily allow all of those behaviors, or even actively promote them.
All a system must be to be considered ‘moral’ is a set of culturally-sanctioned rules of behavior.