The Most Fundamental Attack on Our Essential Integrity

It bears repeating, again and again, that human morality and ethics predate all religious sects and philosophical schools. They are innate characteristics of Homo sapiens; their root can be seen in the reciprocity practiced by other primate species. The often-repeated epithet that we are incapable of behaving ethically without subscribing to a particular belief system should never stand unchallenged. It is the most fundamental and ubiquitous attack on our essential integrity as human beings.

Those of us who are of a secular mindset have to deal with this form of libel on an almost daily basis. Of course, serious students of philosophy know that the argument that nonbelievers are incapable of ethical behavior was decisively laid to rest by philosophers centuries ago. With the Socratic question, "Is it right because the gods approve it, or do the gods approve it because it is right?" Classical philosophy broke religion's hegemony on morality. It continues to be proven false by the many ethical humanists and atheists taking significant social action today; nevertheless, it persists. Unfortunately, in too many parts of the contemporary American landscape, such specious judgments are culturally reinforced in a powerful way.

I can't help but wonder if the people stating such views have ever thought them through to their logical conclusions. Essentially, they are saying that without an invigilating celestial entity, the vast majority of human beings in general would behave like sociopaths. On the contrary, ours is a cooperative primate species; we have to depend on one another for survival. Had we not enforced cultural taboos on behaviors like murder, rape, theft, and perjury, we most likely would have become extinct long ago. Indeed, societies that fail to observe the universal taboos do tend to die out fairly quickly.

People who argue this way make secularists distinctly nervous. In effect, they are telling us that, absent a cosmic Big Brother looking over their shoulders, they would act like the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world. I sometimes have the unsettling suspicion that there may well be some latent sociopaths and psychopaths among them, a very small group who are restrained from antisocial behavior only by fear of punishment. For society’s sake, let’s hope these few outliers hold fast to their religion!

Another strong antithesis to this concept comes from societies whose majority religions have traditionally been non-theistic. Think of the Asian societies in which Buddhism and Confucianism were regnant: they did not produce more than their share of sociopaths and psychopaths. An apologist for compulsory religion might fall back on the argument that “Well, at least they had some form of religion.” That’s fine as far as it goes, but it ignores other clear facts. Today, some of the countries with the lowest crime rates in the world also happen to be the least religious. Sweden, for instance, has a remarkably low incidence of crime, with homicide rates lower than 0.1 per 100,000 citizens. Yet, according to a 2010 Eurobarometer Poll, fewer than 18% of Swedish citizens believe in a personal god. And in the United States, the states with the highest rates of violent crime, pornography consumption and child abuse are found in what is known as the Bible Belt.

Of course, it would be intellectually dishonest to assert that religiosity is the sole determinant of violence and crime in a society; coincidence does not necessarily indicate causation. Many other elements come into play: existential security, geopolitical significance to neighboring countries, available resources, and income disparity are all powerful determinants of a country’s crime rates. Nonetheless, the specific argument at issue, that without a god, Homo homini lupus ("man is wolf to man"), crumbles when one looks at the facts with a clear eye.

I am not inherently hostile toward religion. I consider it a significant anthropological and cultural phenomenon; it can serve societal cohesion, help (some) people find peace of mind, and encourage them to live according to the universal treat-others-as-you-wish-to-be-treated dictum. But like any other human institution, it can go terribly wrong. On any given day, one cannot open a newspaper or watch broadcast news without seeing that sectarian conflicts -- driven largely by religious differences -- are causing slaughter and mayhem around the world. While it’s fortunately true (although counterintuitive) that violence is actually declining around the world, the Pew Research Center recently reported that

“Violence and discrimination against religious groups by governments and rival faiths have reached new highs in all regions of the world except the Americas.” (Reuters, January 14, 2014)

Another coffin nail for the religious hegemony argument.

Mohandas Gandhi famously said that “In reality there are as many religions as there are individuals.” Add the words “and/or philosophies” to that statement, and I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps it’s time for the question about morality and religion to be turned on its head: how can human beings live ethically with the global profusion of god-concepts -- and the violence they inevitably seem to generate?