‘In tune with the mysterious forces of the cosmos that believe there is nothing like millions of frustrating trial and error to give a species a moral fibre, in some cases even a backbone.’
Reaper Man by Terry Pratchett.
One of the biggest points of contention in the theist-atheist debate is morality. Both sides accept that we are moral creatures, but the debate rages over where we get our moral compass.
Theists claim people are, deep down, flawed, sinful, evil, and a necessary divine authority is around to give that moral compass. Atheists reject this saying a naturalistic viewpoint is enough to explain our moral intuitions.
My views lean towards naturalism and Buddhism.
The toxic idea of Sin
One of the worst aspects I see of theists’ faith is that we are all cursed from the moment we’re bornāthe concept of Original Sin. Original Sin that gives rise to ideas like Thomas Hobbes’ ‘Nasty, brutish and short’ ancestors. Or Fyodor Dostoevsky’s notion that ‘If there’s no God, all is permitted.’
The church convinces people they are flawed and sinful and then upsells them the solution of salvation through God. But it’s still spreading fear and doubt to sell them something. Artist Graham Higgins paints a picture: ‘Such is our nature; they argue that we need an all-powerful authority, a god that rewards and punishments to keep up a more ethical path. These believers seem baffled that only some hold to their understanding towards human nature. Without laws or anyone with the power to back them up, you, like everyone else, would steal and murder when necessary.
To me, the idea of Sin is a cause of suffering. It’s a way of fostering dependency and an excellent way of creating power for yourself. How appalling to exploit people’s fears with unsubstantiated claims. Where is the evidence sin exists, more than the mere idea? The solution to suffering and immoral acts is not in salvation but in no longer believing in Sin. ‘Solve the problem at the source and the rest will fix itself.‘
Sin can be dismissed because it’s based upon the idea of a self, a soul. Buddhists don’t accept there is a fixed, perpetuating Self or soul, so where is the Sin? No sin means no corrupted nature and no need for a saviour. We are not evil inside, at heart; some people are incorruptible because there is no essence, no soul, no sin to grow and flower in the wrong circumstances. For some Buddhists, who follow the idea of a ‘Buddha-Nature’ what we truely are uncorrupted; it’s a belief shared by some other eastern philosophies.Ā Such religions reject the theists’ worldview of sin, the duality of good vs evil, and us vs them.
Also, where is the evidence that followers of God are more moral than non-believers? Where is the proof atheists commit more crimes than the general population? Evidence shows we are generally good most of the time. Adam Smith’s book The Theory of Moral Sentiments states that we have morals and care for each other. Also, how would one measure moral activity, and by what metric?
Good moral behaviour needs no advocate
We didn’t invent morality, but the language about morality.
The moral argument goes nowhere because it assumes good deeds have to be justified. We’re altruistic, compassionate, and empathic by our nature. We don’t need an ink-on-a-page or an ultimate authority to tell us to do good. We need to find reasons not to. Justifying good behaviour is not a burden Buddhists and many atheists have. No one gets dragged in front of a judge to justify good behaviour, only our bad behaviour.
So, where does our morality come from? A big chunk is from our cultural norms but also our evolutionary past. We all agree on what is good; we don’t need ink on a page to tell us. There is a ‘Survival of of the Friendliest‘ in anthropology history, are appraisal of the knowledge and wisdom of tribal cultures. In Plato’s Ring of Gyes, he argues (through Socrates) that people are good.
Religion doesn’t prescribe morality; it tries to describe it. We evolved a moral compass, and then religion came along and ‘hung words in it. ‘ (See Below). Written moral codes are part of the culture we create to express or attempt to describe our moral intuitions.
If we define our morals according to what’s written down, we are on a slippery slope because anyone can justify any act, regardless of how horrifying, just as long as there’s ink on a page. What happens if all those books are destroyed? Does our moral compass disappear? Morality like this becomes based on whatever prejudice the authors codify.
It’s the same argument with myths and legends, they’re not the source of our morals, but the source of the language we use to talk about morals. We don’t have morals because of stories. We have stories because we want to talk about morals.
Religion doesn’t prescribe all of our ethics. Different cultures have different ethics, but what we do agree on is formed way before religion and culture. Our Moral compass is our nature, but a toxic society and ego can create appalling behaviour.
Do we need religion? One could also ask what was the religion of Jesus or the Buddha? They didn’t follow a religion, but they were moral. It goes back again to ink on pages, authorities, rituals; We don’t need any of that to treat each other well. Confucius created a successful moral system without a creator god. Interestingly, oneĀ Japanese Youtuber, Shogo, says the Japanese don’t consider themselves religious.Ā
Maybe we should trust ourselves more instead of trusting paper, ink, and imagery. We know it is right to care for children; we don’t need a scripture to tell us this.
Evil is lazy thinking
‘We have jurisprudence because morality and laws are messy, each case taken on it’s merits.’
Evil and the attitude of believers seem more about demonising others, puffing ourselves up by putting down others. We have an overinflated opinion of ourselves, our morality and our skills. Evil then becomes a way to protect our fragile ego from admitting an uncomfortable truth – that we have something in common with these people we label ‘evil’.
Furthermore, the label evil needs to explain something. It just permits our laziness. It’s a cop-out; it falls into stereotypes and sweeping generalisations. A way to ignore a more in-depth nuanced understandingāavoiding the challenging task of finding out the truth. It’s also used as an excuse to cleanse the world of ‘undesirables’āa way to justify pre-emptive violence against those who disagree with us.
Also, what use is evil?! No one calls themselves evil and honestly means it. Evil is always the other guy. The worst people in history thought they were doing the right thing.
Simple Good vs Evil is lazy thinking; it is a simplistic duality that is a world of complexity and nuance. It works in entertainment, as the good guys vs the bad guys, but in our lived existence, it fails to capture the messiness of life.
Illusion of Separation
Insecurity and Egotism are the problems of today, not a ‘lack of god’. A self-obsessed, self-absorbed attitude is particular to the West. Believing in a separate self does not foster such Egotism and insecurity.
All this is based upon the delusion (Moha; Sanskrit) of the separate, alone, unchanging essence or Self. Morality is still wedded to the idea we have a soul buried somewhere inside, an uncuttable, unchanging Self that exists within. It’s a reductionist attitude, like the atom of science; this Self has properties we can discoverāa set of rules that govern our behaviour. Further, theism thinks the Self is irrevocably tarnished; therefore, a God must keep us in line.
The problem is we’re not the separate entities that theism thinks we are. Realty is changing and interconnected, as scientists have discovered. No uncuttable Object-Self like an atom can be described through fundamental laws, only interconnection and webs of relationships.
Because of this interconnectedness, we evolved a moral compass; our ethical decisions are affected, mediated, and influenced by surrounding factors to survive and further thrive. We are not blank slates but are affected by our evolutionary past and the culture we live within.
The solution is to liberate us not to cling to a ‘Self’ or soul but to free us from that illusion.
Evolution shapes our goodness
Stress is contagious, so is happiness
We need to ask how our species managed to survive this long. The idea hominids are nasty and brutish without religion has no basis, in fact, but is a cultural myth we need to let go of. It’s also a way to demean tribal people whilst elevating civilised people.
Before we developed language, our species had to learn how to live in the world and with each other. There were no laws, but those who transgressed unwritten taboos were ostracised or even killed; they had limited opportunities to procreate. Therefore, natural selection ensures that those tribal members who lived in harmony were the tribes more likely to have children than those who did not. We are the descendants of those survivors; our minds are skewed towards thriving and survival, which involves sociability and community.
Our existence rests upon a moral framework before language and organised religion existed. We have well-developed social skills that allow us to create a social order because we need to get along with each other. To be part of a tribe is safety, security, shelter, food, and polite conversation. Conformity is reassuring; we feel safer in the herd; to be ostracised is to be alone, insecure, unsafe, and uncomfortable. We move towards comfort and away from pain, so our moral compass is part of what we areāa drive towards conformity and the tribe. We mostly treat each other well because we don’t want to be alone. Even young children and chimps show a moral compass and a sense of fair play. (Just trying to look for their holy book).
From a biological view, we see it in Oxytocin, the cuddle chemical, mirror neurons that help us feel others’ emotions, as in psychology, empathy, sympathy, and stress. Problems like social anxiety, loneliness and depression underscore just how much we are herding animals and how much we don’t like to feel isolated.
We evolved to need others; we are successful because of others; we are happy because of others; that’s why morals were necessary before we learned to speak.
Are morals objective or subjective?
The question assumes it’s one or the other. I see it as both. One, it’s a feeling and intuition that something is wrong or right, that’s the subjective part.
The other is objective because we are all human, so our morality is similar across cultures. It’s not written into the fabric of reality, as some have argued. There is no reason to think a meteor landing on your head is due to malice of the cosmos.
Closing thoughts
Being human doesn’t just mean having opposable thumbs, it also means having moral compass, intuitions.
The greatest tragedy of the world is not lack of food, but the the belief we’re broken. Some believe that if we give up on cultural identity, such as religion, we lose our morality. I disagree; our morality is not bound up in ink on page, our evolutionary past has given us our eyes and our moral compass; we are always irrevocably human.
Our moral codes are outward expressions of an evolutionary necessity to live and live well. It is in our evolved nature to value our existence and our friends and family. We feel emotions that help us create social bonds. Nature does explains altruism, ideas like ‘don’t be an so nasty to each other ‘ and ‘do unto others…’ are important parts of any society, with or without religion.
We seek out what benefits our survival and avoid that which threatens it. We have an ethical and moral ‘arrow’ that’s part of our nature. There’s a natural selection of morality and ethics. Rejecting the idea we’re merely a blank slate. This arrow of morality points towards survive and thrive.
The poisonous side of society convinces us were worthless at heart. We hear such voices so often that we end up believing them. But where is the proof we are all sinful, where’s this essence that is separated from God? Theists need to show us this essence, but the baton of self-hatred is passed on. You can’t sell a God like the Abrahamic God when people don’t hate themselves.
We don’t need laws, or ink on a page or a philosophy to explain our good behaviour Ā There is no sins, evil, or flaw, we’re not broken and neither is the world. We need to wake up. Yes, people make mistakes, but it’s not because you’re broken or sinful but because you’re unskilled.
Our biological past casts a longer shadow than any faith or creed. Yet faith and religion erroneously gets much of the credit. Religion didn’t invent morality by it did invent the words and stories for it. We see in theism a rather tawdry attitude of claiming a monopoly on morals, despite the fact that non-theistic morals systems exist, like Buddhism who see morals, and behaviour differently.
I don’t think believer and many non believers understand just how different their paradigms are from each other. This arguing hinges on the ignorance of both theists and atheists. If there is any value to be had here, it is the recognition we’re the same, a shared kinship, a recognition of our common humanity.
Many of the problem of the world will be resolved when we let go go the Self, and accept we are moral creatures. Solve the problem at the source and the rest will fix itself. We are not broken and this world is not fallen.
References
Moral Animals. Behaving like animals: The Bonobo and the Atheist. Tessa Kendall reviews Frans de Waal’s new book, The Bonobo and the Atheist. How much of our humanist behaviour do we owe to our cousins in the animal kingdom?