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 |
|
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.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2006 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
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.
2 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4001>
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 353 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
Religion has nothing to do with morality. Period. That we have been brainwashed to believe so for centuries, thats another tragic story.
Chris, Romania
July 22, 2010 5:12am
Curt:
There's no "purpose" to anything that evolved - evolution has no goal. What works better will be what gets promulgates (also erroneously called "Survival of the Fittest").
A society - even one that hasn't started to live in caves yet - in which anyone feels free to kill anyone won't survive. A society in which each looks out for the other has a much better chance of surviving. That will be the one that keeps producing young, generation after generation, living in caves, forming small villages, building cities - eventually leading to us.
That's how evolution "works".
Al Klein, Long Island, NY
August 05, 2010 8:46am
I would agree - but I went through a bad phase in my life and GOD or a supernatural entity "saved" me. I went to church high on drugs - through conviction prayed through. Felt something run throughout my body and I was sober. Clean sober. I tried the same drug over and over but never again got "high" eventually quit and now live a life with very high morals. However, I do NOT attend church because RELIGION is false. But, I would have to say that supernatural spiritual entities that can straighten us out via our faith, belief, want and need to change IS real. I felt it, it is real I no longer attend church but still feel the spirit and am "close" to GOD. I do see your point however because I know plenty of religious people that "sin" more than ME !! :) I respect you and all persons that commented. WOW you all are SMART !! But I have to say you are WRONG if you TOTALLY agree with this podcast....
Julian Peters, Merced, CA
August 18, 2010 8:04pm
I agree with the article based on the premise. However, I would claim that the premise does not understand the deeper layers of religion. The premise compares the morality of the writer, who is non-religious, with that of a generic upstanding person, independent of the religious values and conduct. However religion is not a general set of ideas. Each religion is vastly different. The writer also mentions he views God in the same light as Christians views Hindu deities and other religions.
I am a Catholic and I have great respect for peoples of other religions. But as a person on the inside of a faith, I can conclusively say that there is a great deal untouched of morality by the author.
I personally have met non-religious and agnostic (the upstanding persons in each group seem to have similar moral values) that are fine people. However, a few things they do not have. They do not have a relationship with God. They may not even see the need. However, it is analogous to a child not knowing his father. In life, if a child does not know his father and see other families with fathers, they may recognize there is a parent they lack. Or they may feel they have no need for a parent. Objectively, they do have a biological father that they do not know. This is a human reality so we can intellectually see this truth. On the higher order of things, assuming we take the Catholic view-point, this is what one who does not have a relationship with God is like. I cannot imprint my understand on others, so I am limited to this analogy.
This is the most significant moral issue. A good father can teach his child good moral values and their subtleties. Without it, you can get the main ideas or even understand much of the subtleties. God
Quang Pham, California
August 25, 2010 10:43am
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}
I agree somewhat. But it seems to me that dismissing religion as supernatural is abit of a philosophical faux-pas.
First of all, even if the tenets of a particular belief strike you as absurd or alien, people around you are organizing as if they are real.
Examples of what I mean can be a Pentacostal who thinks the world is about to end, or an elite group of occultists who believe they gain power through destruction (they all do). Even though these positions are absurd in my opinion, it doesn`t prevent the religious individuals from acting upon their beliefs, and organizing to further said beliefs.
Furthermore the tradition of Western Philosophy is founded upon the duality of good and evil, chaos and order and the premise that man is essentially a moral being. According to Plato understanding is only possible through ethical development, not through observation or physical measurements. If you don`t know how a thing is supposed to work you`ll never properly understand it is the public school version of it. Once you know, for example, that a horse is suppoosed to have 4 legs you`ll immediately notice that one with any other number of legs than this is not really a proper horse, because it can`t run anymore(with fewer legs), or runs very strangely(with more than 4 legs, presumably).
Anyway even casual study of philosophy will quickly lead you to realize that nothing is 100% certain, because perception is interpretative, and depends on metaphysical premises.
Simon Kulberg, Drammen, Norway
July 16, 2010 9:09pm