They say morality requires God. How can anything be good if there is no objective morality grounded in God? This is a perfectly reasonable question, yet it cuts both ways.
Religion, when viewed through the lens of history, has undeniably contributed to Western culture and its modern moral standards. The Judeo-Christian “WEIRD” culture has been profoundly shaped by religious influence.
But should we attribute all these partially positive developments merely to religion itself? I believe not!
Christianity, for instance, lays out rules on how to keep slaves (Exodus 21:2-6), how to plunder and enslave nations outside Israel (Deuteronomy 20:10-15), and even prescribes when and how to kill (Leviticus 20:9-16). Yet, these aspects of Christianity were eventually abolished, not through divine revelation, but through sheer disregard. Why?
It appears that we possess the ability to choose between moral and immoral actions at will. Many peaceful and widely accepted as “good” verses have been preserved and practiced, while others, deemed “bad” by modern Christians, have been abandoned. Or rather, the clergy often argues that the “bad” aspects of scripture are merely misinterpretations. But why not apply the same reasoning to the “good” aspects (they were always interpreted correctly)? Because we already know what is good.
We seem to intuitively integrate the Bible into our moral compass, not because morality is God-given, but because morality is a human construct. Our sense of right and wrong likely emerged from our evolutionary biology. Humans are social creatures, and our survival has depended on the cohesion and cooperation of our groups. Krebs (2008, 2011) supports this view, arguing that moral codes evolved to promote group well-being. Traits such as fairness, reciprocity, and empathy likely emerged because they strengthened social bonds, therefore increasing the chances of survival. By fostering cooperation and reducing conflict, these moral principles provided an evolutionary advantage, shaping human behavior over time.
Neuroscientific research also shows that morality is deeply rooted in brain function and shaped by evolutionary pressures. For example, Fumagalli and Priori (2012) highlight how specific brain regions regulate moral decision-making. The prefrontal cortex regulates emotional centres, supervising moral decisions, while the temporal lobe, crucial for theory of mind, is often impaired in psychopathy. The cingulate cortex mediates the balance between emotion and reason in moral reasoning.
Beyond the cortex, subcortical structures such as the amygdala, hippocampus, and basal ganglia further contribute to moral processing. Lesion studies show that damage to these regions disrupts moral behaviour, reinforcing that morality is biologically ingrained (Fumagalli & Priori, 2012). Genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors also shape moral cognition, with genetic polymorphisms linked to aggression and violence, suggesting an innate predisposition towards moral conduct (Fumagalli & Priori, 2012, Greene et al., 2004). These biological underpinnings strongly suggest that moral cognition is not merely learned but has innate components wired into our neural architecture, reflecting the evolutionary importance of moral behavior for human social functioning.
Understanding these neural mechanisms provides insights into how moral values and behaviors are shaped and regulated. Of course, it doesn’t state what is wrong and what is right. The belief that what is “natural” or biologically evolved is inherently “good” or “right” is a flawed assumption in moral reasoning. But what it tells us is that morality emerged through biological constraints and social interaction; it is not an objective truth.
This is why we are capable of acting morally without religion and why we can reinterpret aspects once seen as “God’s will” as “no longer God’s will.” Not because they were misunderstood, but because we inherently recognize what is good and what is not.
God is merely a moral template onto which we inscribe our morality. The danger of religiously imposed morality is clear: it is seemingly objective, unquestionable, and thus can lead to impenetrable fanaticism.
As a side note: I personally subscribe to ethical emotivism. Thus, I believe morality is not an objective truth but an expression of emotions and personal attitudes. In other words, what feels good is right. And this very feeling or attitude arises through our evolution.
Then how do we find what is good? Through our development, discourse, and scientific achievement. It will come to us, like it always has.
Some might be dissatisfied with this view, but I believe it is sufficient.
In conclusion, I think we do not derive our morality from God’s word; rather, we use our moral compass to select from his word what aligns with our current moral values. We always have, and we always will.
References:
Fumagalli, M., & Priori, A. (2012). Functional and clinical neuroanatomy of morality. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 135(7), 2006-2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awr334
Greene, J., Nystrom, L., Engell, A., Darley, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027
Krebs, D. (2008). Morality: An Evolutionary Account. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 149-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00072.x
Krebs, D. (2011). The Origins of Morality: An Evolutionary Account. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199778232.001.0001
Bible References:
Deuteronomy 20:10-15
Exodus 21:2-6
Leviticus 20:9-16
I appreciate this discussion. It is important, because fundamentally outsourcing moral formation to a religious body deprives the individual of ethical agency. This implies the institutions of faith are granted unchallenged dictatorship on human conduct. History and contemporary times clearly reveal the danger of this. It devoices critical reflection and discourages ethical evolution when necessary. An institute cannot allow for dynamic context as we meet the changes of time.
My humble view was reflected in your article. Human beings survive via interdependent tribal formation. The preservation of one's homeostasis relies on the active involvement of the other person. Therefore, as I am acutely aware of my own pathos, I may project and anticipate that pathos in other members of the tribe. I must be involved in the alleviation of their suffering, so that they will also be involved in mine. When I break the chain of interdependence, I shall consequently receive societal neglect. This is a biologically enforced empathy.
Now, as an "esoteric atheist" (a simple peaceful meditating man), I do believe a human being has a higher nature in addition to merely his primal aspect. I can at present not argue well for it, though. It remains but an intuited experience so far.
Great essay! The endless chasm of right and wrong, good and evil—shifting depending on where one stands, and what one chooses to see, or search for.