“The God Delusion” and the question of morality
For those of you who have not read Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” I highly recommend that you run (don’t walk) to the nearest bookstore and buy the book. (In my personal opinion, it should be required reading in all schools.)
A rather amusing issue that Dawkins brings to the surface in his book is a common belief among theists that those who have no belief in God are morally delinquent, and that religious faith is the foundation for good, moral conduct. If this is so, then we must also believe that if a person were to lose his faith he would presumably go on a mad, sociopathic sinning-spree.
“If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would ‘commit robbery, rape, and murder’, you reveal yourself as an immoral person, ‘and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you.’ If, on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good.” - Richard Dawkins
It was discovered recently that the venerable Mother Theressa’s faith waned for quite a long period of time -yet, this did not interfere with her philanthropic work. Let us imagine the more typical, average religious person who accredits his virtuous behavior to his faith, and let us imagine him lose his faith for a day or so -or even a moment (a very common occurrence). What would this faithless person do when he suddenly finds himself without those religious restraints? Was his dedication to God the essential key to keeping his behavior in check? Did those religious restraints keep him from raping his daughter and snorting cocaine with the downtown prostitutes for all those years? Should we fear such a person as this when his faith turns shaky? Yes, we most certainly should fear such a person.
But, casual observation tells me that the typical faithless (whether temporarily or permanently) person does not set out to commit a crime or behave differently from the faithful in any significant way. At worst: he slips down a tunnel of self-loathing, which is the fault of his religious indoctrination that encourages self-loathing every Sunday, despite the integrity of its’ congregations’ faith.
As we have seen in the daily news (and in our experiences with others), religion most definitely does not prevent one from misbehaving or committing unlawful acts if they are already compelled to do so. We behave in the way we are compelled to, with or without religious convictions.
So, if moral behavior is not guided by religion, where do moral guidelines come from?
There are many theories about why mankind has moral sense and where these moral codes come from. I don’t believe it is all that complicated. “Do unto others as you would have done unto you,” “Scratch my back and i’ll scratch yours.” We know what makes us feel unhappy, fearful, violated, etc. and it only makes sense that we would make an effort to behave ourselves properly in our communities with the hope -and intent- that in return, those we interact with will give us the same courtesy. In a sense, our moral guidelines are “formulas” for the selfish purpose of living peaceably among others and for self-preservation. I say “selfish” because it all does boil down to selfishness. As with all animals, we are selfish in nature as a necessary trait for survival.
Be selfish.
Be good. 
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://moralheathen.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/the-god-delusion-and-the-question-of-morality/trackback/
I certainly agree with your statements about religious faith not being the deciding factor in whether someone is “moral” or not (”morality” itself is a pretty tricky word.) I assume you are moral sir, because of the title of your blog and because of the tone of what you write, so I’m not questioning that. It’s only that I don’t think it’s really a fair argument now, because the “moral” values originally brought forth be religion are pretty much engrained in our society. At the end of your post, you mention “do unto others as you would have done unto you,” an abbreviation of an extremely well known statement from the Bible. As your knowledge of this statement shows, it’s an incredibly obvious “common sense” moral law, so really, you’re following a code of conduct first set down by religion, it’s only that you reject the dogmatic, supernatural part of it.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I don’t think being a Christian or a “moral person” is as much about believing that a guy who died came back to life, or any “miracles” for that matter, I’m just saying that the phenomenon of “the Moral Heathen” might be more recent than we sometimes think.
Dane, correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds as if you believe morality did not exist in human culture until biblical times (or after)?
The quote I chose to use may have appeared in the Bible, but as you pointed out, it is nothing more than mere common sense. It is not the invention of the Bible, any more than is the concept of a “god”. If it had not been written in the Bible, it would have appeared elsewhere in one form or another. More likely, it *had* already been written (or passed on verbally) long before appearing in the pages of the Bible.
Scholars have discovered that the stories and myths printed in the Bible are essentially mere duplicates of myths that had appeared in religious texts predating Christianity. Everything from the “Great Flood,” the crucifixion and the resurrection story: all are the same stories from earlier religions with only slight variations.
The striking similarities of what we call “pagan” religions (particularly those from BCE eras) and Christianity is quite eye-opening. It is clear that the writers of the Bible had merely copied stories from their predecessors. (I will go over this topic at more length another time.)
Back to the point in question: Civilizations in the BCE eras most certainly had moral codes. Of course, as with most other aspects of society, morals were less refined or “expressed” as they are today. (And, when in the absence of an organized government and law enforcement: even more so.) But they most certainly did have moral codes.
Until the scientific era, civilizations tried to grasp and explain the many mysteries of life. It is only natural that humans would invent supernatural gods, myths and religions in order to explain the unexplainable. Moral codes were then incorporated into these religions or myths. Some “moral codes” were integrated into religion for governmental control; to govern the people by instilling fear in them.
Technically? Yes, it would be fair to say that most moral codes originated in religion.
Could moral codes have arisen without religion? Yes, most definitely.
Would these moral codes have been different without religious influence? There are a few so-called “morals” that some religious groups still cling to today, which I earnestly do not believe would exist had it not been for religion.
**I say “so-called” as I, personally, would not refer to them as “morals” in any way, shape, or form. (Yes, here is where we run into trouble: defining “morals.” :-))