Morality Beyond Belief

By UNIFI member and guest blogger Joe Enabnit

A common charge pressed against the atheist or agnostic is that they lack morality. "What makes murder bad then?" asks the religious person. "What morality can be had if it is not taken from God?" These are probably the most common questions I find myself asked by religious people.

I'm not going to argue about the origins of morality here (there are plenty of books and videos concerning it's natural origins). Rather, I will compare religious (dogmatic) morality to non-religious morality. The goal is to show my belief that individual, non-religious morality is just as if not more solid than morality built on religion. I encourage open debate in the comments.

First, lets compare the purpose for each type of morality. Religious morality is followed because it is believed to be the divine command of a god. While the individual probably agrees with many of the tenets of their ascribed dogma, they must obey even what they don't want to for fear of punishment. The overall purpose of living morally according to religious doctrine is to glorify or respect a deity for fear of punishment and in hopes of rewards.

I would argue that non-religious morality is naturally more selfless because it does not assume any super-natural rewards. The only rewards a moral atheist hopes for is to be perceived as a good person by others. In the more personal sense, an atheist acts morally because he or she feels that certain things are right and wrong. They do not need to be commanded not to murder, steal, or rape. They don't do these things because they believe that they are wrong and wouldn't want to have them inflicted on themselves or anyone. They have decided of their own will not to act immorally according to their own views or lifestyles, and are not otherwise coerced into being decent human beings.

A religious person might argue that morality built on religious foundation is more likely to be followed because it is followed in fear and respect to a god, and that individual morality is unreliable because it gives no incentive to obey. I would disagree, for it seems to me that when one makes moral decisions based on their own opinions, feelings, and experiences, they are more likely to live by them. Real conviction comes from the personal level, not from outside sources. A person acting morally in fear of a deity could easily, in the heat of the moment, fall out of their moral line. A person who is convinced on the individual level to act morally is more likely to make moral decisions even when the choice isn't easy because they are more likely to follow their own sense of right and wrong. The fact that less than one half of one percent of the prison population is atheist would support this.

Dogmatic morality must be obeyed as it is written. In other words, religious morality starts with conclusions about right and wrong and tries to apply them to every situation. This method obviously has limits, because not every possible moral question is addressed in any religious text. There is nothing in the Bible about transvestites, abortion, stem cells, etc. Furthermore, there are undoubtedly religious individuals who don't agree with their religion's decisions on some moral issues, yet they must obey and find some way to come to terms with it. This is shaky at best in terms of sturdiness in the individuals decision making, not to mention it forces them to act in ways that they may feel are unjust. Religion also demands that people ignore new evidence that contradicts what it says, or corrupt either the evidence or the religion to make things fit.

Non-religious morality is limitless. It is not based on precedent or on commands, but rather on individual decisions and experience. Because of this, individuals can make moral decisions when they come up based on how they feel, rather than having to find out what their religious doctrine says about it. Furthermore, non-religious morality never conflicts with what the individual thinks is right and wrong because the individual decides what is right and wrong. Non-religious morality is based on the individuals own reasoning and not on dogma, so it is always open to be corrected in the face of new evidence.

All people live with some sense of morality. Whether or not somebody is religious, all people make individual decision about morality about one point or another. I would argue that non-religious, individual, personal morality is always superior to morality brought about by fear and defined by unchangeable dogma. Non-dogmatic belief allows for infinite, unfettered morality that is based on experience and is open to change. It is unforced, naturally selfless, and unlimited in it's capacity to do good and create a better world.

Stay human.


We strongly encourage reader-generated content! Remember that if you want to write something for our blog, you can tag Uni Freethought in a facebook note, or you can email it to contact@unifreethought.com.