In a world threatened by terrorist attacks, political wars and economic instability, more and more people turn to religion, accepting God as the source of all the good in the world, the only basis for morality and their only chance at inner peace. While it is obvious that religion encourages moral and responsible behavior, it seems a little too much to assume that, without God, there is no basis for morality.
Of course, there are arguments both in favor and against this thesis, some of which will be revised in the following lines. However, it is unjustified, cruel, and pessimistic to label humanity as immoral in the absence of God.
We cannot conclude that all moral values in this world, any trace of goodness, respect or altruism depend on a supernatural being or power whose existence has yet to be proven and can only be known through the stories and interpretations of some mediocre people, passed from one generation to the next.
Accepting God as the only basis for morality means deeming all those who do not believe in God as a lost cause, but time will reveal if this tendency is justified or not, as statistics show a decrease in the number of believers and an increase in the number of religion-related crimes.
In the meantime, more and more studies bring evidence that even animals show signs of morality, goodness, compassion, and these qualities are innate, maybe shaped, but certainly not determined by religion in general and belief in God in particular.
Statistics show that, slowly but surely, religion is losing grip on the masses, especially in the United States. For example, a report published by the University of Chicago shows that the number of religious believers has declined in most of the thirty countries covered (Smith).
Another report, published by the American Bible Society, shows that, while an average of over 70% of Americans believe that morality is declining in their country, only about 30% of them blame this decline on the lack of Bible reading.
When asked to assess their knowledge of the Bible, most subjects labeled themselves as "somewhat knowledgeable" and declared themselves frustrated for not having enough time to read the Bible.
These people claim to believe in God, but they are only somewhat knowledgeable of his teachings and lack the time to read and improve their knowledge. Is their claim enough to support their morality and condemn those that do not believe in God as immoral?
In the meantime, bad behavior rooted in religion is becoming a worldwide phenomenon, covering anything from blasphemy deaths and claiming to spot religious figures in various objects, to mass murder and terrorist attacks (Magee).
From the Necessity of God for Morality to the Social Contract
Many philosophers have tried to explain the role of divinity in the apparition and evolution of the human race, in reason, as a source of knowledge and a basis for morality. Kant was among the few who approached the subject from a scientific point of view only to reach a surprising conclusion – the existence of God is necessary for the existence and evolution of humanity.
In Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, Kant supports the existence of a divine energy, of an omnipotent God governing the universe (pp. 14 and 153), while in New Exposition of the First Principles of Metaphysical Knowledge, he warns that the existence of God is a necessary condition for all possibilities (pp. 224-225).
God is presented as the unconditioned condition for all possibilities again, in The One Possible Basis for a Demonstration of the Existence of God, being referred to as the Supreme Being that is absolutely necessary for human existence and progress, the ground of all possibilities, unique, simple, eternal, immutable, a spirit and yet the highest reality.
After analyzing theoretical proofs possible for the existence of God and finding them inconclusive or based on possibility, Kant concludes that humans should be convinced that God exists and demonstrating this existence is not necessary.
In Enquiry concerning the Clarity of the Principles of Natural Theology and Ethics, Kant reasserts his confidence that metaphysical knowledge, even that identifying God as a necessary existence can be reached through rational argumentation (pp. 14-30). According to Kant, the existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of anything related to humanity, including morality.
While Kant and others before him rushed into attributing humanity's virtues to God, there were also philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau who saw man as something more than just a toy in the hands of divinity, lacking morality and knowledge.
Rousseau criticized Hobbes' assumption that man in his natural state has no idea of goodness, is naturally wicked and knows no virtue, arguing that humans, in their natural state, have “uncorrupted morals“, not a developed morality, but rather a primitive morality, uncorrupted yet by society.
In their natural state, humans are self-sufficient, free and peaceful, capable of compassion. They all share a natural goodness, but, under the influence of society, there is no way of telling that they will not become ferocious fighters.
Rousseau differentiates nature given qualities, like compassion, love for oneself, and simple basic needs, and potential qualities, attributes that can only be activated and developed in society. Some of these attributes are positive, helpful, like language and culture, while others are negative, like the thirst for wealth and power, jealousy, and some other needs determined by culture.
The socialization process leaves its print on man’s natural qualities, creating morality favoring the development of rationality (pp. 12). These being said, it is safe to conclude that, at least according to Rousseau, morality is based on some primitive, natural state qualities and on the influence of society, no role being assigned to divinity at this point.
Evolution and Genetics as the Basis of Morality
As religious rulers took it upon their God and their belief to ensure morality, more and more philosophers and scientists focused on proving that morality has nothing to do with religion and may very well exist in its absence. Some chose to support their points of view by criticizing any opposing opinions, but others embraced a more scientific approach.
In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin focused on the way morality fits the animal-human continuum, arguing that any animal endowed with social instincts I bound to acquire a moral sense or a conscience when its intellectual powers reach a development level comparable to that of man (pp. 71-72).
His ideas were taken further by primatologists, who set out to prove that primates, too, share some of the tendencies underlying human morality: after a confrontation, chimpanzee male opponents help one another up and embrace, companions offer one another access to food, even if this means losing part of the food, etc. (de Waal).
Some may claim that altruistic behavior in primates is just a quest for the advantages it provides, but this does not make it selfish. Animals rarely act with future benefits in mind. For example, both animals and humans engage in sex without considering its reproductive consequences, without concerning themselves with the reason why sex exists.
Altruistic impulses never take into account evolutionary consequences. And not only humans are capable of altruism, animals are, too, and Frans de Waal provides several documented examples from the studies conducted through his career: chimpanzee females helping their companion suffering from arthritis to climb and walk and bringing water to her, juvenile chimpanzees comfort adult males after losing fights, mammals comforting one another.
As Waal points out, mammals find pleasure in helping one another just as humans find pleasure in doing good, and there are studies showing that human brain pleasure centers light up when the subject donates to charity. Of course, this pleasure is not enough to deem donating to charity as a selfish act.
But animals do not show just altruistic tendencies, they also show aversion to inequity, and so do humans. These findings have interesting implications in terms of morality. Many philosophers claim that humans reason themselves towards a particular moral position. Even when they do not invoke God, formulating moral principles and imposing them on their conduct is a top-down process.
It would be unrealistic to ask humans to be considerate of those around them if they had no innate inclination in this sense. It would make no sense appealing to justice and fairness without any reactions to their absence.
Waal concludes that humans start out with moral intuitions rooted in their background as social animals, and build their morality on them, rather than from scratch, or receiving it already developed by some supreme being.
They use their intuitions to build logically coherent systems, debating over what is right and wrong, seeking answers and solutions and judging actions that do not necessarily concern them.
Human morality is based on moral emotions, which are disconnected from one’s immediate situation, dealing with the notions of good and bad or right and wrong at an abstract, disinterested level. Human morality is characterized by aspirations towards universal standards, towards a complex system of monitoring, justification, and punishment (de Waal).
Leaving evolution aside, Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer are just as prominent and convincing in their attempt to prove that morality is not dependent on divinity, but is an innate, primary human quality.
When The Selfish Gene was published, many believed that its basic idea was that humanity has no other option but acting selfishly. Leaving the title aside, the author argues that humans have the responsibility to act as moral agents disregarding the evolutionary processes that led them to where they are.
He supports this idea by explaining that even though genes function with the ultimate goal of maximizing their replication chances, the organism containing them can altruistically, this behavior being a way for the genes to optimize their survival chances.
His examples are quite common and self-explanatory: mammals have shown great altruism in the relationship with their offspring, flowers and bees help one another through pollination, etc.. This mutually beneficial relation also increases the survival chances for the genes of each category.
Dawkins then moves on suggesting that, since the human sexual instinct cannot be resumed to reproduction only, humans have the capacity to think of those around them and help even those who are not their kin and have nothing to offer them.
Through his considerations, Dawkins dismisses the idea that humans are always driven by narrow self-interest considerations and morality is unnatural to their evolutionary makeup, arguing that they have an innate interest to help others and morality is part of their nature.
On the contrary, Dawkins shows that it is just as built-in for mammals such as ourselves to act in the interest of others. Morality is part of our nature, and he uses Singer and Hauser's moral dilemmas to prove it.
The first one refers to a railway truck out of control, about to kill 5 people, but which can be diverted by the onlooker to kill only one person. Obviously, most people chose to sacrifice one person in order to save five.
The second one depicts a bridge with a fat man on it and five people about to lose their lives. Saving them would require the killing of the fat man, and most people agreed that throwing that man in front of the bus would be unacceptable.
Peter Singer is the one to draws the conclusions, and he focuses on the fact that the moral judgments of people have more in common than one would think, they all inhabit a moral realm that they can recognize as such.
Is There a Basis for Morality in the Absence of God?
Dostoevsky's Karamazov and Sartre believed that in the absence of God, everything is allowed, no matter the impact on the others. Many others, like Dawkins and Singer disagree, and it seems justified to believe that morality belongs to humanity, not to some mysterious divinity. A society without a religious basis could collapse, but could very well move forward and build its own set of rules and moral values.
Religion is subject to interpretation and the best proof in this sense are the extremists killing people around the world. No matter if you praise God, Allah or some other supreme authority, as long as your morality is based entirely on your religion, someone may come along and convince you that your God wants you to do certain things, and examples can be given from both the Bible and the Quoran, to justify crusades and extermination of non-believers.
Throughout the years, people have killed, tortured and tormented their siblings for not sharing their views on religion, and no moral values can be attributed to such actions. They are maybe the best proof that the existence of God is no guarantee of morality.
If one does not have the power to see beyond certain actions and their immediate purpose, to make one's own decisions, fully aware of their consequences and implications, based on one's own set of values, lives could be at stake, children could be left orphans and the peace of entire communities and of oneself could be destroyed as well.
How is the existence of God the basis of morality when such actions are possible? Religious people have already been found guilty of slagging off moralities without a real faith basis. Nowadays, religion is widely criticised for preventing people to act with moral maturity, for pushing them into believing without doubting or questioning.
This comes in times when the world is confronted with a crisis of moral values, or, better said, it is in a state of confusion when people everywhere have a hard time discerning which values are worth keeping and pursuing and which are not.
If humanity will cease to exist, it will not be due to the absence of God, but rather due to human's inability to refrain from behaving selfishly, to adopt a moral and altruistic behavior, to learn from their mistakes, and take responsibility for their actions.
Unfortunately, responsibility also means accepting one's faults and fighting to correct them, and the truth is that we, humans, are vulnerable. We are often better off being told what to do than left to decide our own path, and, from this point of view, religion may play an important part, involving centuries-old traditions and values transmitted from one generation to the other.
Many non-believers will live their lives governed by the teachings of their parents, who were fervent believers, simply because they grew up in a certain environment and were inoculated their parents' set of values, consciously or not. Can they be considered Godless if part of their behavior and moral values derive from their parents' religion?
While it would be ideal for humanity to be able to live morally in a Godless universe, hopefully, people will be able to find their path using the best of both worlds: the guidance provided by religion and the freedom and responsibility granted by the lack of it.
The power to tolerate ideas and behaviors that do not match one's set of values and the will to continuously improve oneself should also weigh heavy on one's path towards a sustainable future, no matter if religion is a part of it or not.
Works Cited
Barna Group,. THE STATE OF THE BIBLE, 2013. New York: American Bible Society, 2013. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
Darwin, Charles. The Descent Of Man. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1998. Print.
de Waal, Frans. 'Morals Without God?'. New York Times 2010. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
Kant, Immanuel, and Gordon Treash. The One Possible Basis For A Demonstration Of The Existence Of God. Lincoln [Neb.]: University of Nebraska Press, 1994. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, and Ian C Johnston. Universal Natural History And Theory Of The Heavens. Arlington, VA: Richer Resources Publications, 2009. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, W Hastie, and Willy Ley. Kant's Cosmogony. New York: Greenwood Pub. Corp, 1968. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, Selected Pre-Critical Writings and Correspondence with Beck, trans. G. B. Kerford and D. E. Walford (called “Writings”). Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968. Print.
Magee, Brian. 'The State of Religion: Declining Belief in God Worldwide'. The American Humanist Association April 2012 (2012): n. pag. Web.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. On The Social Contract. North Chelmsford: Courier Corporation, 2012. Print.
Singer, Peter. 'Godless Morality'. Project Syndicate - The World's Opinion Page 2006. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
Smith, Tom W. "Beliefs" About "God" Across "Time" And "Countries". Chicago: University of Chicago, 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment