Morality Without Religion: An in-depth look at why one needs no religion to hold good morals.
By: LeAnn Jones (Modesty)
The morals and values of Western man derive from religious beliefs that he is ceasing to hold. He therefore needs to reevaluate his values. Friedrich Nietzsche
Since the beginning of time, man has done good and bad according to his own will, and through the ages, he has learned on a trial and error basis what works for some and what is offending to others; that which we call morals. These morals were the actions and reactions of man to certain situations in his daily life. Nowadays, morals are considered to be a fixed set of rules that each individual tries to live their life by, and that everyone can agree upon, but not all of society abides by these rules which ends up in disagreements, arguments, mis-communication, and in turn ending up in murder, rape, battery, sodomy, and all other forms or immoral actions and behavior. When the very first man walked earth, there was no structured religion, yet by his errors and downfalls, future generations have learned what is correct and what isn't. It was mans common sense and his own experiments that taught us fire is hot when you touch it, you die if you jump off a cliff, water is safe to drink, rattlesnakes are poisonous, and certain animals will kill you. Although most religions place strong emphasis on practicing good morals, our common sense, education, and feeling of what is right and wrong are the keys to morality and prove that religion is not the cause, nor has it ever been, for moral standards.
The worlds major religions teach that what is written in their holy book is sacred. Each holy book contains a set of morals (The Ten Commandments for example) in which we are raised to follow with our heart and soul, for if we ever do not abide by these rules we shall surely go to Hell. But we fail to realize that each of these holy books was written by men, not God. And just as man has written these books for specific religions, he has also created the religions and the faith, which show that morality and morals come from people, not religion.
There is a rise of morality throughout religion, due to a rise in the number of religious followers. No one ever said this was a bad thing in fact its quite nice, because religion does instill good moral practices in people, but religion is not responsible for these morals.
My grandmother on my fathers side, who recently passed away, has been religious all her life and was a hardcore Pentecostal woman. She wore no make-up, no jewelry, watched no TV, wore dresses only, read her bible faithfully every night, and attended church twice a week. She has also smoked cigarettes her entire life (which is part of what killed her). I remember that she would always tell me that you body is a temple because it is part of the Lord Jesus. I would ask her if this is true, then why does she smoke? Why does she fill her body with dirty substances that will desecrate her temple? She, of course, said it was a bad habit. But is smoking morally right? Is it morally right that she smokes but tells others not to? Is that hypocritical? Is it morally okay in a sympathetic way for her to tell others not to smoke, which is trying to save their lives, while she is destroying hers? Is addiction a good or bad moral? Usually when teens experiment with smoking, some of them go on to try marijuana and even the harder drugs after that. The fact that out of her nine children, five of them smoke, and two of them I know have done more, is grounds to question if religion really does teach good morals, or is it the people behind the religion whom are responsible for the good or ill behavior and actions of their offspring growing up?
In a debate between Alan Keyes and Alan Dershowitz, the topic of skeptics practicing morality came up. The answer was, Yes. But their morality in and of itself, is not defensible. (Christian Courier: Penpoints, Religion and Morality: The Connection by Wayne Jackson) Since when does morality have to defend itself? It does not, and should not matter what religion you are, your morals are no less valid or important than the next person, religious or not. In the world of morals, anything is possible, that is why we have good and bad morals.
It is true that statistics have shown that those who attend church have low crime rates, but this is largely due to the fact that while they are raised, they are told they'll go to Hell, so they fear this damnation where their soul will burn eternally. The only difference between people who believe in God and those who don't are not the validity of their morals but, the fact one believes in God and the other doesn't. His morals are not failed because of disbelief.
Non-religious people are not driven by a fear of Hell and punishment if they do wrong, but a fear of doing wrong, period. Therefore, non-religious people are more caring of themselves and others because their morals are done out of the good of themselves and not the fear of some unseen force or congregation. The fear of being immoral is not out of fear of God, but of fear of what we will suffer through society for our deeds.
Religion does not make morals it just emphasizes the good practice of them. What about the bible? God flooded the earth and killed all humans, animals, and plants, destroying everything in his path (except Noah and two of every animal of course) because he was dissatisfied by their behavior and immoral actions. Was it morally okay for a supreme being to demolish everything living? Is it morally okay for a child to throw a temper tantrum and break all of his toys because his mom wont give him an ice cream? God is supposed to be good, the creator of all, an omnipotent, omniscient being, yet he allows bad things to happen. But good and evil do compliment each other. One cannot be without the other, therefore religion echos bad morals also.
What about Christian parents who raise their child, teach them right from wrong, and watch them blossom into Christianity, a full-fledged, caring, and responsible adult? Years later this child becomes an atheist. Does this mean he does not still hold the same morals or his morals mean less or they don't hold the same relevance or validity then when he was Christian? Now turn the tables around. You have an atheist family who teaches their child the same morals that the Christian family taught their child, and their child grows up the same way, as a caring responsible adult and years later, converts to Christianity. His morals will still be with him because they came from home, through the love of others, his parents, not religion.
A belief in no God does not make you an immoral person. It simply makes you a believer of nothing, no supreme being, no unseen entity, and while man is imperfect and makes mistakes, even in Christianity, the morals handed down to us by our parents and teachers are common sense, and are not followed strictly to the T in any society.
Since God is not perceivable with any of the five senses, how do we know Heaven exists? If we say faith, then what is the difference between a religious and non-religious persons morals? No matter the religion, if you have faith in your morals, regardless of if you are religious or not, then they stand strongly, and no one, not any religion, can tell you otherwise. If religions of the world believe God is for pleasure and not pain, then why is sex forbidden in certain religions and considered immoral before marriage in others? Sex is pleasurable to all, and without it, there would be no creation of new life.
Would I commit a crime? Its possible that I could if I weren't thinking straight, but if you ask anyone why they would or wouldn't commit a crime, the likely response will be because they'll go to jail. Rarely does anyone ever say because it is wrong.
People who are religious do good because they are taught they will go to Hell, so they live their life doing good but only to satisfy their religion, not out of the good of themselves. These people are selfish. People with truly good morals do things because they want to do them. If a person has faith in them that their morals are true and caring of others, as well as themselves, then that is true religion in and of itself. One doesn't need a structured religion to teach this, man can distinguish this by his own feelings of what is right and wrong.
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. George Washington
as for certain truth, no man has known it,
Nor shall he know it, neither of the gods
Nor yet of all things of which I speak,
For even if by chance he were to utter
The final truth, he would himself not know it:
For all is but a woven web of guesses.
-Xenophanes-
Woks Cited:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
Arthur, John; Morality and Moral Controversies: readings in Moral, Social, and Political Philosophy; 6th edition; Prentice Hall 2002
Kolak, Daniel and Martin, Raymond; The Experience of Philosophy; 3rdedition;
Kolak, Daniel and Martin, Raymond; Wisdom Without Answers: A Brief Introduction to Philosophy; 3rd edition; Wadsworth Publishing Company 1996
Magee, Bryan; The Story of Thought: The Essential Guide to the History of Western Philosophy; DK Publishing 1998
No comments:
Post a Comment