You are on page 1of 9

Taj Morgan

UWRT 1103
Mrs. Thomas
20 April 2016

Morality: Do we Need God to Have it?


Morality, defined by Merriam-Webster, is the principles concerning the distinction
between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Beginning with the 42 Principles of Maat in
Egypt 4,000 years ago, most religions have a set ruling of what they believe is right and wrong.
While these may vary from religion to religion, the idea is that these rules are needed for people
to be viewed as a good man in the eyes of God. While religion is always associated with
morality, morality isnt dependent on religion. There are different systems of morality that use
different factors other than religion.
Times are beginning to change as more people are beginning to affiliate themselves with
no religion. Agnosticism and atheism, and all non- affiliating beliefs, also known as nones, are
increasing at a rapid rate with a 6.7% increase within 7 years, probably due to the advancement
of science and technology and a lowered feeling of pressure to actually be religious. Ideas of
enlightenment develop as more and more people began to question the religion they grew up
with and finding a more of a modern deism. Modern deists use more logic due to scientific
advancements to come up with a more realistic belief system.

As un-affiliation to religion continues to increase, a question has be asked. What will


happened to the morality of people without religion? Since religion gives the set rules of how to
be a good person, will we become evil? This bring us to my Thesis question: Do we actually
need God to be a good person? Is morality maintained through constant reminding and
upholding of Gods holy word? Christians and other religions may believe so but I think
morality is a separate factor from religion.
So Christians say that without God there is no foundation for reality. (Craig) They
believe that God is the basis for morality. Without God, our uniqueness as human beings is
taken away, and we would be just like any other animal But I think they forgot how alike some
animals are to us.
I believe they forget we are mammals. Mammals depend on social bonds. They are able
to show compassion and altruism. More intelligent mammals such as apes, dolphins and
elephants are able to characteristics such as emotion, empathy and fairness.
Frans De Waal, a biology professor at Emory University and director of the Living Links
Center at the Yerkes Primate Center has come to the conclusion that chimps, bonobos and other
primates clearly show empathy with others who are suffering. They have a sense of fairness, and
take care of those in need and will also share what they have with others who are less fortunate.
(Dye) There are also activities that show that apes can feel guilt and shame.
For example, there was a bonobo monkey Waals had observed, named Lody, who was
being fed some vitamins. When trying to eat the vitamins, Lody accidentally bit the finger of the
vet who was trying to feed him. After hearing the crunch of the vets finger, he looked surprised
as he saw the hand was now missing a finger. Days later, the vet returned with a bandaged hand

and as soon as Lody seen it, he ran and went to a corner and wrapped his hands around himself, a
known sign of grief. Over a decade later the vet revisited and when Lody recognized her he
began to look for the wounded hand. Once shown to him, with a finger still missing, Lody
continued to look back and forth from the hand to the vet.
De Waals believes that he was showing possibly shame or grief because the ape realized
what he had done. There are other examples of apes mourning the deaths of their companions
and for lost young. These animals are showing the beginnings of some sort of moral behavior.
They show these characteristics without being bound by morality, showing that these
things are possible.
As humans as a species developed into the complex, moral beings we are today, we
decided to let a couple of people from a probable oligarchy to pick and choose what they thought
to be right and wrong and followed them. Those rules stuck as new religions grew and people
followed.
To understand the debate between the need of God for morality, I think we need to discuss the
basis of morality for each side.
Christians get their morality from the bible. The bible has the set of rules God has
personally given for Christians to follow. In the Old Testament, there was the Ten
Commandments that God gave to Moses to share with the people of Israel. In the New
Testament, Jesus gave the Eight Beatitudes to be recorded by the gospel of Matthew. Following
all of these, along with the bible would lead a Christian to an eternal life in heaven.

Other religions may get their moral values from their own corresponding holy books.
Which in following may lead them to their eternal paradise. But what about people with no
religion? Where do they get their morality from?
Some Nones believe in the concept of harms. Walter Armstrong, an atheist who wrote
the book Morality, Without God, proposes the idea that comes from understanding that you as a
person, are aware that some type of wrongness is being done. Harm is identified as bad when
you can cause things such as pain, death, and disability to yourself or others for no reason at all.
By inflicting these harms, and making the choice to do so them, you would have to understand
that by doing so, you would be doing something immoral.
For example, we all understand that rape is immoral. Why? Because the oppressor would
first try to disable the victim, and more than likely cause physical and also emotional pain.
Causing the victim these harms proves that the act is therefore immoral.
Using the harm system of morality is very efficient because, unlike any holy book of
religion which could be biased, sexist and wrong, this able to be based off of the actions viewed
and the moral judgement from your mind.
The bible is an old book that is very outdated. It spoke in times of different people than
the society that were are today. It has a lot of things that are deemed as wrong in todays society
and has a lot of problems in it. Although Christians still make the choice to pick and choose the
rules they want to follow from it, it just isnt a reasonable thing to follow.
So being that a Christian gets its moral values from the bible, why exactly do they follow
it? Since it is a basic guideline to being a good Christian, Christians believe that following it will
get them to heaven, which is a rewarded paradise after death for following the rules of the bible.

Now with the idea of a reward at the end of life, Christians now have a motive to follow
all of the rules God has given. Now when they catch themselves in an immoral situation, they
can think of what God will think of that, which would deter them from that particular, immoral
action. So now they have the idea that Oh I shouldnt rape someone because God said that that
is a bad thing to do and wouldnt like that but in actuality, you shouldnt have to go to God to
believe that that is a wrong thing to do. You should be able to deduce that the action or thought of
raping someone is bad just based off of your moral judgement. Thinking of the harms, taking
advantage of someone like that is wrong.
Or for another example God says that you should treat your neighbor as you should
yourself, as human beings, we all should have the common decency to treat each person as the
human they are. To the extent that you choose to take it is your choice but you and the person
next to you breathes the same air and has the amount of hours in a day. Your life is not at a
greater value than theirs and you should never believe so.
In the article written by William Craig, a strong Christian who owns the website
Reasonable Faith, he tries to defend the idea that we do in fact need God to be a good person,
because without God there is no such thing as morality. He believes that in order for morality to
be a thing it has to be objective, coming from the perspective of God. This actually is a good
point that was very hard to defend. Craig states that without God, morality is just a human
convention and without God, actions would no longer count as good or evil. He feels that if there
is no God, we have no moral duties nor are obligated to do anything. God is the basis for
morality because he is the most absolute good, and anything that deviates from that becomes
evil. Gods own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all
actions and decisions are measured.

All the choices and actions made in life will be judged by God and have significance in
the afterlife. These would be reasons why a person would go through extreme lengths of
sacrificing their self-interest, because they know that all of the acts they do will not be
meaningless and would not go unnoticed. (Craig)
Craig then goes into saying how without Gods will, our life is basically pointless, and
that were just a biological machine controlled by sensory output and physical constitution.
But I think Craig is forgetting about every other non-Christian or non-theistic culture.
What about all of the ancient Chinese, Indian and other antediluvian societies? Before Jesus and
European colonization these societies had moral laws which they followed without the need of
God telling them what to do.
For example, the ancient Chinese followed the rules of nature, believing that everything
in the world has natural character.
Tradition and the need to live peacefully within a larger group, was the reason these
moral laws came about, not God. (Ray)
Another reason Christians may follow the bible is the fact that they fear God. This idea of
fearing someone that is supposed to be the most absolute good is a weird concept. In the bible
there are stories of what God does to people who disobey him. There are stories of in the bible
that tell of God creating a flood that killed almost everyone, ordering to kill every woman and
child and condemning people who eat shellfish. (Ray) But this God, is also someone who loves,
cares and forgives for every person who has faith in him. This gives the thought that God can be
a very ambiguous person and it seems very unclear why people would follow something with
such ambiguity.

Another problem also arises with Christians who do immoral acts. Though they are not
following Gods word, they still are able to enter the promised paradise by saving and cleansing
themselves of the impure acts they have done. A question has to be asked of what happens to a so
called Christian who has lived an immoral life by not following the rules he has listed. This
person has committed great sins such as rape, murder, etc. With their heart being as dark as coal.
Now say if this person claims to find the light in the lord, and gets saved. Its crazy to believe
how someones whole record can be swiped away and look as clean as a person who has done
very little of immoral acts to the eyes of God. It just doesnt match up. Being that of all the
things this person may have done and would still get rewarded? It would be better to not believe
there was an afterlife, since he basically cheated his way into heaven.
Christians who choose to do moral things in the name of God, are essentially good people
for God. But there are other good people who have very big hearts and are atheist. For example,
Bill Gates, one of the richest people in the world, has donated billions to various charities. Even
though he is atheist, it doesnt stop him from giving so much of what he has to people less
fortunate.
Another concern to the question of needing morality to be good people is the households
religious and non-religious people grow up in. In a religious household, most children grow up
as the religion that their parents are. Christians are sent to their Sunday schools to learn the word
of God early, instilling the fear of God into these kids by telling them they are going to hell if
they disobey their parents and not following the simple things the bible tells them to follow.
These children grow up become the God fearing adults their parents are.
In the household of a non-religious families, without God, they are still able to sustain
moral values. The households are found to have high levels of family solidarity and emotional

closeness between parents and nonreligious youth, and strong ethical standards and moral values
that had been clearly articulated as they were imparted to the next generation. Their morality is
predicated on one simple principle: empathetic reciprocity, widely known as the Golden Rule.
(Zuckerman) Through this, kids are taught rational problem solving, personal autonomy,
independence of thought, avoidance of corporal punishment, a spirit of questioning everything
and empathy.
I believe religion or God is not needed to be a moral person. It doesnt take much of the
innate ability to treat things the way that they should be treated. Maybe some people actually do
need a God to be able to focus their morality more directly, if all that they need is guidance to
help them find their way than so be it. I dont think it matters the reasons why you are moral but
it is more important that you just be the best moral being that you can be.

Works Cited
Craig, William Lane. Can We Be Good without God? Reasonable Faith. Web
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-god
Dye, Lee. Do We Need God to be Moral? ABC News. 7 April 2013. Web.
Ray, Darrel. WHERE DO ATHEISTS GET THEIR MORALITY? Teens Without God. Web
http://kidswithoutgod.com/teens/ask/where-do-atheists-get-their-morality/
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. Morality Without God. Chapter Four,Whats Wrong. Oxford
Press, 2009. Print
Zuckerman, Phil. How secular family values stack up Los Angeles Times. 14 Jan 2015. Web.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115story.html

You might also like