Religion is Needed for Morality...

...But isn't it often said that god is needed for morality, not religion itself? Even the christian authors David Marshall and David Aikman have said in their books this is the case.

From Aikman's book (pg. 100):

"The point that needs to be made about the role of atheism in the depravities of twentieth-century secular totalitarian dictatorships is this: Simply put, atheism sets mankind at the center of the universe. That is, atheism makes the assumption that there is no authority for rightness or wrongness of human behavior outside of human beings themselves."

Marshall, from his book The Truth Behind the New Atheism, page 190:

"What have atheism and Darwinian ethics done for the human race in general? Are there signs that, once freed from the 'delusions' our ancestors suffered under, the human race will breath a big sigh of relief and finally make progress? Or does the 'death of god' mean, as Dostoevsky warned, that 'everything [including Gulags] is lawful?'" [emphasis mine]

This retarded christian apologist claims that religion itself is what produced the moral values in the Eastern countries (from his blog: http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/atheist-defense-of-zuckerman-is-not.html):


The second silly argument in the above screenshot is the following, which this post will address:

"(2) you don't say anyting to refute the argument that the religious traditon laid down the values. you have left that compeltely untouched."


This is the argument that even Zuckerman intended to refute since he says the following on page 6 of his book Society Without god:

"I mention this [the absence of police in Aarhus and the low crime rates] because many people assume that religion is what keeps people moral." Here is where he alerts you to a note in the back of the book and quotes Keith Ward:

"Our whole understanding of morality really does depend upon the existence of god, upon seeing human conduct in the context of a wider spiritual realm, if it is to make sense."

It seems from this that Zuckerman defines religion for his purposes as a belief in a god and not just religion in the general sense.

Since Phil Zuckerman has handily put this claim to rest with his research into the most irreligious countries in the world, many theists are changing their argument in saying that because there is still some religious belief in these cultures and they still participate in many religious ceremonies and celebrations (during Zuckerman's interviews with people they did not believe in god at at, but still liked the celebrations, had their children baptized, were married in and sometimes go to church, etc.), their morality was still influenced by christianity!

I think the theists are using a bait and switch tactic here. First they said that god is needed for morality, then they turn around and claim it was the influence of religion (christianity in particular) that influenced the morality. But aren't religion and god two separate things? I would say "yes" because a person can be religious and study a "godless" religion such as buddhism and still be considered religious.

It may be a fact that religious beliefs influenced some places with it's teachings (though many of these teachings were probably borrowed from religions that came before christianity. For example, the idea of turning the other cheek and do unto others... are both expressed within buddhist teachings long before christianity, so should christianity really be given credit for these teachings on morality? I'd say no) but my point is that christianity isn't the source of these morals to begin with; that morality existed before religion.

I say this because our moral sense doesn't depend upon religion because it's been shown through several experiments that some of our closest relatives help others, even other monkeys and humans, they don't even know. Therefore it can be argued that natural selection crafted some kind of moral rules for our species and those most closely related to us. This makes sense that some kind of morality would evolve because we are all social creatures and being in groups is the best way to survive, but in order to be in groups there must be rules of conduct of how to treat one another. There have even been experiments (see Frans de Waal's Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved for examples) showing how reciprocal behavior could easily evolve and overtake selfish behavior and spread throughout a population.

Put simply, my argument is that morality is not needed by religion in any way because morality existed before religion since it appears to be genetically based at some level.

Besides, where do christians and other theists get their morality? I think the flaw in their thinking would be readily seen if the question was posed back at them. I would say they get their morality from their biology and society in general. This can be easily seen when you look at the idea of christianity and slavery.

First of all, true there were some christians who disavowed slavery, but I'd say a majority felt it was sanctioned by god and was commanded in the bible. Now, if morality was truly because of religion, then why the discrepancy on whether or not slavery is moral? They're all christians, correct, so why can't they agree on what is moral? If their religion is truly where they got their moral beliefs from why such disagreements? This same problem can be seen even today, with many christians following their bibles and feeling that homosexuals should be put to death and others wanting to show compassion and tolerance.

An issue that I brought up in my review of David Marshall's book is the very logical fact that the bible is the guide for christians! Because this is supposedly the book written (or at least inspired) by god (and christians can't even agree on that!) which set down his rules that his people should follow, shouldn't christians follow it?

Many have accused me of a strawman argument and having a lack of understanding of christianity because I say that christians should follow the bible if they are to follow christianity. They argue that not all christians see the bible as the word of god, and some christians see very little importance in it, if any at all, but this again is another discrepancy, and that's the entire point that I'm getting at!

The reason I say this is simple. There is no proof of any god or anything supernatural so there is no proof that any god is dictating the rules and the only source of information christians have on what god supposedly wants is their bible. Therefore, christians should follow what is written, but this doesn't happen (with most christians, but not all obviously). They go along with their culture and condemn slavery, embrace homosexuals, and tolerate non believers, which the bible commands to dislike and discriminate against (2 John 10:11: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching [of jesus'], do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." [NIV]). Even jesus seems to have abided by this:

Luke 12:51-53: "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (NIV)

In Matthew 25:31-46 jesus explains how anyone who does not follow him should "depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" [NIV] (Source: Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence, by Hector Avalos, page 78).

So, my argument is simply stated, that christians can't and don't follow christian teachings because:

1. The bible is a jumble of "good" and "bad" verses, so which do they choose?
2. There is no evidence of any god so that cannot be a source of morality.
3. christians follow along with what the society they live in deems moral. As the culture changes, so do christian beliefs on morality.

Putting my arguments aside, according to the research by Zuckerman (see the sixth chapter of his book Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment), it seems that christianity may not have ever been very important to the Danes or Swedes to begin with. It may just be that christianity was forced upon the masses by those in power, and to avoid punishment, went along with the rituals, etc., but didn't truly believe "in their hearts and minds."

According to Zuckerman, other than a brief period in Denmark where there was much religious fundamentalism and very "heartfelt" belief which occurred in the late 1700's and 1800's, religious belief/belief in god has never really taken hold upon the population very strongly at all.

It's clear that this is debatable on how much influence christianity did have and how much the population in the European counties truly believed, but I don't think it's debatable that belief in god/religion is not the cornerstone of morality for the reasons I set forth. At the very least christianity could be counted out as a reason because of the borrowed beliefs.

Given these facts I argue that even religious people, in reality, will get their beliefs from where everyone else does: from their biology, upbringing, and their culture. Religion and god have nothing to do with it.