Religion as a Moral Center
Is religion necessary to a good moral center?
Filed under Religion
| Skeptoid #02 October 11, 2006 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe Also available in Japanese |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode
02 , October 11, 2006
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/
4001
Today we pull open the drawer in the motel bureau and face the need to have a Moral Center, that core set of behaviors and ethics that governs the way we conduct ourselves and live our lives.
It may shock you to learn this, but I am non-religious. I do not believe that supernatural deities exist. There's nothing evil or wrong about that. I view the Christian God in the same way that the average Christian views Shiva, Athena, or Thetans. There's nothing evil or wrong about doubting the actual divinity of those characters either. Yet a common generalization made by some religious people is that the non-religious lack a moral center. More than once, in late night bull sessions with religious friends, I've been told that faith is a necessary component for developing a sound moral center. The implication is that religious beliefs play an important role in the development of a normal, healthy system of ethics and personal conduct. Without religious faith, one is less likely to become a "moral" person. Thus, one of many reasons that people of faith want to reach out to the non-religious is to help them to find a Moral Center, so we don't have a bunch of naked godless pagans running around wreaking havoc and mayhem.
My response to the religious people — after thanking them for the assumption that I am an unethical person — is to compare our Moral Centers and see where these supposed differences lie. If you knew me personally, you would probably find me to be a generally upstanding person, like yourself, who stays out of trouble, brushes his teeth, walks his kids to school, and tries not to shout too much in the library.
Like you, I am generally an honest person. I don't cheat people in business. I don't steal or commit crimes any worse than speeding on the freeway. I lie all the time, but only when the lie is a helpful one: "Yes, you look great in those parachute pants."
Like you, I play fair in sports, even against unfair opponents. I try to be a gracious loser, and occasionally even a gracious winner.
Like you, my family is the most important thing in my life. Preserving the love, trust, and happiness in my family absolutely outweighs all other priorities in my life.
Like you, I have a clear sense of right and wrong. Generally, behavior that injures someone else is wrong, and most of us avoid doing that whenever possible.
Like you, if I see a complete stranger drop their wallet — even if they're a different race and speak a different language — I'll spring into action like Batman to return it to them. It would never occur to either you or I to keep it or expect a reward for returning it.
If I see an elderly woman, I don't run over, punch her in the face and steal her purse; and neither does a religious person. But note that no religious person ever says "I would love to punch out that old woman, but I can't because God told me not to." Nobody is going to do something like that, because it's so obviously wrong. Rarely or never does a basically good person — and that's most of us — need religious commandments to stop them from doing something wrong.
In summary, my Moral Center is essentially the same as yours. It comes from the basic goodness of human nature, and my own sense of right and wrong that is universally shared among all people. It does not stem from having read any particular set of religious commandments, or from fear of punishment from a deity. Since I formed this ethical system in the lack of a religious context, how could my Moral Center be so similar to that of the average Christian or Buddhist? I argue that everyone's basic Moral Center comes from human nature, the nurture of societal interaction, and the sense of right and wrong. Since everyone already has these things, the need to credit religion as an additional source is redundant and thus wholly unnecessary.
A common retort from religious people is that God gave me those things: common sense, and the ability to tell right from wrong. If that's so, and everyone (atheists included) has been gifted with all the fundamentals needed to develop a Moral Center, then we're still left at the same place. A religious upbringing is still superfluous.
Religion is an important and favored part of life for most people. Its practice brings them satisfaction in many ways. But religion is absolutely not necessary to become a good person, or to have a sound Moral Center. Philanthropists, educators, doctors, emergency workers, and Nobel laureates have the same general breakdown of religious affiliation (including no religion) as the population at large, because they are the population at large.
© 2006 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Boyer, Pascal. Religion Explained. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
Clear, T. R. Clear, Stout, B.D. "Does Involvement in Religion Help Prisoners Adjust to Prison?" National Criminal Justice Reference Service. U.S. Department of Justice, 1 Nov. 1992. Web. 1 Sep. 2006. <http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/Search/Abstracts.aspx?id=151513>
Curlin, Farr A, Lantos, John D et al. "Religious Characteristics of U.S. Physicians." J Gen Intern Med. 1 Jul. 2005, Volume 20, Number 7: 629–634.
de Waal, Frans. Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.
Nielsen, Kai. Ethics Without God. New York: Prometheus Books, 1990.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"Religion as a Moral Center." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
11 Oct 2006. Web.
4 Feb 2012. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4001>
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 823 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
Sorry no game on that one Illy especially not back on your subjective/objective jag
Paragraph two of your post is a straw man argument attacking me for what I did not say
Para three is incomprehensible
In para four you are trying to control the argument by ordering your supposed opponent around according to your weird rules
In para five you are deliberately mangling what I have said
Para six you are trying to get back to subjective objective crap again - forget it. If you can't do better than that
Para seven is a straw man argument again
I'm not wasting more time on your post than that. Read Black and post colonial writers
"Every time I hear a political speech or I read those of our leaders, I am horrified at having, for years, heard nothing which sounded human. It is always the same words telling the same lies. And the fact that men accept this, that the people’s anger has not destroyed these hollow clowns, strikes me as proof that men attribute no importance to the way they are governed; that they gamble – yes, gamble – with a whole part of their life and their so called 'vital interests."
— Albert Camus
Regards
Phi, Sydney
March 27, 2011 1:09am
I can see your point illuminatus. Each example that phi has offered (first morality comes from action, with disaster response as an example), then anarchy (even if phi acknowledges the term it is what she describes) and her "de facto" morality can be applied to a dubious event. No bodywould consider, for example, the great Pogroms of russia as a thoroughly moral event. But given the example of "de facto morality" phi offered we would have to assume it was; thousands of people ignored the law and took a united stance against what they considered a dangerous and immoral law. In that case it was a law about jews living in houses and not DVD copywrite, but by the yardstick Phi offers,wehave to assume it was a "good" thing as it represented the will of the majority and had a direct impact on legislation.
It also had an impact on "moraly bankrupt" religions, so they probably get bonus points.
Unfortunately morality is subjective. Those commiting the pogrom thought they were in the right. Those seeking refuge in Whitechappel considered themselves victims. Phi may not like the example, but they are as valid examples of morality as any others. Even if it is not the morality you happen to share.
We could equally apply the same yard sticks to any given genocide or disaster. Phi liking something does not make it moral in the eyes of everybody. And the yardsticks provided by phi are flawed to uselessness.
Tom H, Kent UK
March 27, 2011 6:17am
I agree, religion isn't the foundation of moral ethics, nor is a belief in God. I am a very spiritual person, so I am not speaking from the perspective of an atheist or an agnostic. I see people who claim to be devout do bad things all of the time which are clearly against the moral codes described in their beliefs. And I see people who have no religion do good things even when it isn't to their benefit. The world is a better place when people try to do the right thing and maybe that is the underlying cause of morality-- quality of life.
Old School, Dutch Harbor, Alaska
January 22, 2012 3:49pm
The Theory of Evolution is like throwing TNT into a metal scrap yard and expecting a Boeing 747 to "evolve". Doesnt work...will never happen...with how detailed creation is with so many species of animal, plant, sealife and minerals all designed for a purpose with NO evidence of continual "mutation", The only question is, who designed all this...With that said, a moral compass MUST come from that same designer, because design always has a purpose. Have you noticed our social moral compass disolving over time? You take out the designer and you get flaws...that is the concept if SIN (seperation from God) Sin is not a condition of low morals but simply a term to refer to "missing the mark".When we are without God, we miss the mark...we have sinned...
Tim, Queensland
January 30, 2012 3:52pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Phi, instead of talking about delusions, straw men and elitism, just for a few seconds try to discuss something that remotely ressembles the point Tom made;
If morality comes from any of the methods you mentioned; our actions, "direct democracy", the civil rights movements, oranything else; what makes those MORE moral than religion, philosophy or the church?
As by any yardstick we could declare all kinds of nasty things as moral. "Oh yeah Dr Doom was fine, he overthrew a morally bankrupt religion, had popular support and took a direct action. And nobody (else) is allowed that much money. If it wasnt for the giant robots I would be happy,but i blame posh folks for those."
You have told us why you think it is better.you have told us why you don't like things. But stop and take a deep breath. Could that be because those actions were morally right, according to you, BEFORE the action was taken?
Could it be you got it back to front and think morality comes from those actions, when infact people were acting upon morals they formed first?
Oh "and there is no moral centre", so you think morality is subjective? You just like arguing against people who use the right word? Because being errodite is elitest too perhaps?
Your arguments are flawed phi, pretending tom is talking in pure theoretical terms wont change that. You know why the printing press changed the world; because people read. Then talk. THEN talk more. Then the idea, the moral, BECOMES an action.
Daft ninny.
Illuminatus, reptoid mountain
March 27, 2011 12:26am