Does morality exist because of the fundamental tenets of adherence to a deity, or did that very adherence simply give our pre-existing moral tendencies the kind of context it required for people of simple minds to be able to internalize it?
Proponents of the former might find their position emboldened by quotes from the first president of the United States, George Washington. In his 1789 Thanksgiving proclamation, he wrote: "It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."
3 View gallery
Portrait of George Washington - Believed morality stemmed from God
(Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
This quote couldn't possibly be more declarative and decisive. It directly ties benefits, protection and favors, all of which could be argued as descendants from morality, to the belief in God and even more so to the idea of forever celebrating his presumed existence.
To be an opponent of this stand, or to simply ask questions about it, means being asked questions such as "how can you know what's right and what's wrong without the guiding hand of God?" or "how can you presume to be instilled with a sense of morality while simultaneously being disengaged from any theological standpoint?"
In other words, if the guiding and comforting hand of religion (the same religion that gives you structure, company, context and a sense of community engagement) is not there, how else can you understand what morality even is, or aspire to acquire it?
With the Jewish and Christian faiths always having been somewhat intertwined, which is exemplified by how the Jewish and Christian bible are called the "old" and "new" testament, you will often hear that Judeo-Christian values are what founded America. They believe in the same Abrahamic God.
On the other hand, proponents of morality that lives independently of religious influence, rely on the opinions of thought leaders such as Bertrand Russell, a 19th and 20th-century Philosopher, who said: "The more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs."
Russell directly ties the degree of religious adherence in any given tribe, community of government, to the degree of the damage caused to the same because of it.
The link he makes between the two can be amplified by another quote from Henry Louis Mencken, an American journalist and cultural critic, who said "Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right."
Mencken is suggesting that the relationship between what is religious and what is right is incidental at best and contradictory at worst.
3 View gallery
Bertrand Russell - Religion and morality are often contradictory
(Photo: Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
In order to start weighing in regarding which side you find yourself gravitating more towards, we need to establish what morality even is. The most encompassing-yet-brief definition I could find in several dictionaries is "a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right and honest".
The problem with that is the question of what is right, in any particular situation, will almost never receive 100% approval. One of the most common theoretical questions posed in the debate over what is right is the question of baby Hitler.
If you went back in time and were put in the room where 6-months old baby Adolf Hitler is sleeping in his room and you only had two options: Kill him or leave him alone, which would you pick?
Many would say that killing a baby, regardless of who he may be, is a monstrous, unforgivable act. Fair enough.
But leaving him alone effectively means condemning millions to slaughter in a few decades. How are you a moral person if you can stop it and choose not to?
Okay, that was a difficult one. Let's go with something easier. You're walking down the street and hear a whimper from an alleyway. As you venture deeper toward the source, you discover a puppy. It is neglected, starving and devoid of any parental attention. It needs your help to survive. Surely helping it would not sentence millions to death, correct?
Assuming there's agreement that giving even just basic assistance to the puppy so it can have a chance of a reasonable life is the moral thing to do, the question that pertains to this discussion is simple - Would it be possible for someone who rejects the belief in God to provide assistance to the puppy? After all, how would he even come to the decision that this is the right thing to do if he lacks a theological code of conduct?
Is it possible that wanting to provide assistance or support for those in need is innate within our DNA, or can it only come alive within a religious framework?
To pierce right through the heart of the latter argument, let's turn to animals again. One of the most incredible clips that can be viewed on Youtube, captured on a low-res recorder, shows a wildebeest going out of its way to help a turtle that accidentally rolled on its back to flip back on its legs. It did not give up until the turtle was upright and able to walk.
Another clip shows a dog helping another dog who fell into a ditch and was unable to climb out. The dog carried a rope in its mouth and dropped one end to his fellow canine, and pulled him out by its teeth.
Those are just two of over 50 examples I found of animals helping other animals, and that was from a very superficial search that required next to no effort. Keep in mind, the animals in the clip had no reason to help. Obviously, there was no money or any sort of benefit promised. They just helped because they could. Because something inside propelled them to help someone else in need.
There is no imaginable religious argument that can be injected here. Animals do not understand what God or religion even is, nor can it possibly be explained to them.
The only explanation is that there's something innate within living beings, human or otherwise, that drives them not to hurt those who are in a disadvantageous position, but help. The truth is simple - The feeling of needing to help others, or to at the very least avoid hurting them, has existed since the dawn of time. In later stages of humanity, it has been labeled as "morality".
Religion came afterward. The oldest religion known to man is Hinduism, with roots spanning back about 4,000 years. Humanity, in whatever shape or form, has existed far longer than that. If moral tendencies hadn't existed before religion, humanity would never have reached the chronological point in time where the first religion was founded, because it would have died out on its own.
Humanity lasted that long because even the earliest human forms saw fit to do the moral thing, even if it hadn't occurred to them to label it as "morality". Then came religion.