There is a continuing debate regarding the wisdom of grounding morality in religion. While some atheists oppose this notion, numerous individuals assert that religion and belief in God are crucial for morality, justice, and a democratic society. Detractors contend that secularism lacks the transcendent principles that can solely be obtained through religious rituals and a connection with the divine.
Despite having had ample time to demonstrate their ability to create a just, ethical, and democratic society, religions and various forms of theism have not been successful. It is surprising that this widespread belief persists as religion often becomes associated with immorality, injustice, and political oppression.
Although the mentioned failures in this text do not serve as evidence that religion cannot contribute to morality, justice, and democracy, they demonstrate that these values are not inherently derived from religion. It is crucial because it should dissuade individuals from believing in an inherent connection between these values and either religion in general or their own particular religious beliefs. The inquiry into whether gods are indispensable for morality remains unanswered, lacking persuasive reasoning to substantiate such a belief.
If we assume the existence of a god with traditional qualities of classical, philosophical theism, there are no specific moral values that can be derived from this premise. Can human morality exist without religion? There is not a simple “yes” or “no” answer to this question.
The Chambers Dictionary defines morality as relating to character or conduct considered good or evil; ethical; adhering to what is right. This raises the question of determining what is good or evil, right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable.
The individual perspective argues that acceptability is based on personal beliefs, meaning there is no objective criterion. What may be wrong or unacceptable for one person could be right or acceptable for another. However, this view poses challenges as it could potentially allow for anything and make laws unenforceable.
It would provide a rationale for individuals who commit acts such as rape, murder, or child abuse, actions that are universally condemned by most people. Another perspective held by some is that the concept of right and wrong is established by what benefits the orderly functioning of society. These individuals believe in the necessity of an objective moral code. As a result, laws prohibiting murder, theft, and rape may be derived from principles found in religious scripts, yet their importance lies in their promotion of harmony, peace, and stability. In essence, a religious foundation is not essential for these moral codes.
The opposing viewpoint to this argument is that certain societies have committed actions that are widely considered morally wrong. An example of this can be seen in the legal actions carried out by the Nazis against marginalized groups, including Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and individuals with mental disabilities. This raises questions about whether actions should be considered morally acceptable simply because they are legal and intended to create a safe and stable society as seen in these cases. Additionally, it questions whether the current laws in some Arab states that restrict women’s freedom and subordinate them to men can be morally justified if they aim for societal harmony. Supporters of faith argue that relying solely on personal preference for morality leads to selfishness and social chaos.
When a specific society’s beliefs are the sole foundation for morality, it becomes equivalent to legality. This implies that an action might be considered morally acceptable in one country but reprehensible in another, resulting in inconsistency and the application of non-universal principles. Some individuals perceive this perspective as flawed because they believe that morality originates from God. Hence, those who have faith often adhere to an external moral code found in sacred texts such as the Bible or Curran, which ideally align with secular laws. Additionally, certain religious groups like Catholics and Orthodox believers also rely on an internal moral guide called Natural Law alongside this external code. Natural Law encompasses values like the sanctity of life and a predisposition towards fairness, goodness, and cooperation that are ingrained within every individual.
The belief that all human beings are made in God’s image and likeness forms the foundation of morality for believers. This belief highlights the interconnectedness of individuals. Christ’s teachings reinforce this idea by stating that whatever is done to his least brothers and sisters is also done to him. John also emphasizes love as a way to demonstrate being a child of God. Therefore, faith recognizes that every individual has an inherent presence of God through Natural Law, even without explicit acknowledgement of God. Morality, in this sense, extends beyond establishing a just and harmonious society; it acknowledges the sacredness of each person and their shared connection through creation.
The challenge to the view is that religious individuals have often been weak and have frequently failed to live according to the moral guidelines they believe are from God. Additionally, some individuals have used Scripture to justify immoral behavior, taking passages out of context. Moreover, those who have faith must also face the fact that certain passages in sacred texts depict a God who supports the destruction of innocent people. Non-believers may find the response that these passages were written by individuals from a specific era and influenced by the thinking and moral standards of that time period to be unconvincing.
In my opinion, basing morality on religion is beneficial because religion inherently possesses moral principles. By aligning morals with religion, individuals can gain a clear understanding of right and wrong through the principles outlined in their religious teachings. As a Muslim, I consider the consumption of alcohol forbidden. This represents an absolute moral value that I will adhere to throughout my life. While some may argue that Muslims do not require guidance from the Quran, I concur that the Quran is a divine testament and serves as a guidebook for humanity.
When considering the connection between malaria and religion, it raises awareness of how your decisions may impact you in the afterlife. By examining quotes from the Quran, we can see that the almighty discusses the effects and consequences of alcohol: 1. People ask about wine and gambling. Say, “In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit” (Surah Al-Baqarah; 2:219). 2. And from the fruits of date-palms and grapevines, you take intoxicant and good provision. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who reason (Surah An-Nahl; 16:67). 3. O you who have believed!
The text emphasizes the importance of avoiding intoxicants and gambling, as they are considered abominations. The message attributes these vices to the work of Satan, whose plan is to incite enmity and hinder individuals from remembering God and praying. The passages highlight the negative effects of alcohol and urge people to refrain from consuming it in order to prosper. It is clear from these verses that the almighty warns about the impact of alcohol on individuals and advises against its consumption.
The Quern illustrates how God and religion serve as guiding forces in leading us towards the correct path and helping us distinguish between right and wrong. Ultimately, it is apparent in our everyday lives that atheists can also uphold moral values, although their ethical framework typically extends beyond self-interest alone. The morality of an atheist often derives from societal values upheld by fellow citizens and regulated by the government.
When an atheist who is also a pacifist lives in a state that enacts an unjust law, such as military conscription during war, they face a dilemma. How can they justify rejecting this law if their moral code comes from the beliefs of the state’s people? This situation leads one to consider the stance of either the Catholic or Orthodox interpretation of Natural Law. However, the atheistic individual with moral convictions cannot accept either position and therefore needs to find a way to express their objection without aligning with either group.
