Can we be Good without believing in God?
Can human beings be good without leaning on a god or dogma? Can we be moral without being religious? The answer to these questions is an unequivocal “Yes”. Human beings indeed do not need to believe in a deity or to belong to any religion in order to be good or to do good. The whole idea of the good-of doing good-preceded the idea of a god and religion. In fact the entity called god is alien to the equation of human goodness and morality.
We, humans, do not need to belong to any religion in order to have a sense of moral right or wrong. Moral rectitude is natural, and not predicated on supernatural faith. Morality is a product of social, not spiritual interaction. Unfortunately, the mistaken idea that humans cannot be good without professing a belief in the ‘supreme being’ or without belonging to a religion is one that is dominant in most societies across the world. This mistaken idea is largely responsible for lack of progress in those areas of human life where religions exercise moral authority.
Now how did we, humans, come about this erroneous notion that we cannot be good without believing in god? Human beings have the natural capacity to do good and evil. We are born with these inherent tendencies. They were not thrust on us from above or instilled in us as a result of whatever must have transpired in the mythical garden of Eden. We do not know about good and evil because Adam and Eve disobeyed god by eating the ‘Forbidden Fruit’.
The whole idea of doing good preceded the idea of a god. Before religions started, human beings were doing good. Human beings performed good deeds not to please god or to go to paradise as we are made to understand today. They did good for reasons unconnected with these religious injunctions. So I am deeply persuaded that humans came about the idea of god in their efforts to understand the good, explain what is good, what ought to be done and encourage what is good and doing good. Also humans came about the idea of the devil in their primitive attempts to understand what is evil, explain the problem of evil and why evil deeds exist and are committed and to discourage doing evil or harm to oneself or to others.
Generally human beings are awed and elated, they feel happy and joyous when they are at the receiving end of any act of goodness, kindness and love. And they always want to encourage such acts. Also human beings feel pain. They feel hurt and traumatized when they are at the receiving end of any act of evil, hatred or cruelty. And they always want to discourage all evil deeds. This is because what is good is good not because what is good is directed or revealed by god. And what is evil is evil not because what is evil is sanctioned by the devil.
So, in their primitive attempts to encourage what is good, humans divinized goodness. They created god and made god the epitome of the good, that is, goodness personified. They created heaven – a place for the good – where god – the epitome of goodness – resides waiting to reward all good-doers and punish eternally all evil-doers.
Also in their efforts to understand evil and explain what is evil, and discourage doing evil, humans created the devil, demonized evil and made satan the epitome of evil – evil personified. Humans created hell where they believe the devil presides along with all evil-doers burning eternally. They made heaven to look attractive and hell so scary. They instituted morality driven by fear- the fear of going to Hell. They instituted the idea of doing good for heaven’s sake.
Hence many people do good because they don’t want to burn eternally in Hell, because they want to inherit paradise when they are dead.Not really because they want to do good. Religions created myths and false stories to encourage doing good and to discourage doing evil. They created doctrines and dogmas based on these mythical origins, understanding and explanations of good and evil. Religions compiled these mythical stories into books and called them the word of god – the revealed word of god which everyone is expected to believe without doubt. That’s how religions hijacked morality. That’s how religions sacrificed humanity on the altar of divinity. That’s how the religious idea of god corrupted the human sense of the good.
Religions habitually indoctrinate and brainwash people from childhood with their primitive, parochial and mistaken sense of good and morality. Hence in most societies across the world people erroneously believe that professing a religion is necessary for one to be moral, when in actual fact this is not the case. We don’t need to believe in god to be happy and to make others happy. We don’t need to believe in god to perform any act of kindness. We do not need to be religious to care for our children, parents, family and community members, friends and the aged. People have been caring for each other since before religions started. It is not a deity that tells us to care for the needy, give to the poor or provide assistance to victims of any mishap or disaster. It is not being religious that makes us humanitarian. Doing good is natural to us humans, not supernaturally induced as many would make us understand. So people can be good without believing in god. Human beings can achieve moral excellence without belonging to any religion. Faith in god is not a moral imperative.
Thanks, Leo, for your very interesting post.
I would like to make what seems to me an important point: that when people are doing something which we perceive as “good” they are usually so involved in the act itself that god isn’t a consideration, or perhaps is no more than an accompanying idea or association. I mean, people who do something “good” do it because they care about it, about a certain act which is perceived to be in some way necessary for them to do. It’s the necessity of the action that matters, it isn’t what “someone” or “god” might think. In the latter case, we wouldn’t regard it as truly a “good act” even if it has a good outcome. So good acts happen without “god”. We think of a “good person” as someone who is liable to act in this way. We might think that a person has done a good act even if that person is seen as not being in the habit of doing good acts.
Doers of good may well take their chief inspiration in life from some belief about god, but it could as well be their membership of the Woodland Folk or the memory of their kind old granny. The real question, it seems to me, is: if god did not exist, would there be any kind of goodness? Suppose atheists who are good are only good because god exists and in some way this fact – of the existence of god – causes goodness to appear in human attitudes and leads to good human acts. This would mean that if god did not exist, any goodness in our actions must be the result of some tendency of our own – say, the fact of our being a social species, the facts of self-awareness and empathy, of blood-ties, fellow-feeling, or awareness of suffering in a sentient being.I’m not completely sure that your history of religious development in humans is exactly right, though I do agree that something like your scenario is probable. (I think that our habit of personifying things, and the imperatives of hostile natural forces, added to the fact that once religion has started it has its own imperatives, are better explanations: but I don’t want to go on about that here). However, I don’t agree that “many people do good because they don’t want to burn eternally in Hell” (etc) because I don’t think that what they do under such duress really qualifies as “good”, whatever the outcome. I would say the same about people who “do good” out of some sense that it is expected of them by others, or some personal sense of guilt. Real goodness is something else altogether. I don’t think that this is reduced in any way if it turns out that a good person is prompted by some evolved mechanism, because it must be obvious that what we do is an expression of our nature. It confirms that we are good “by nature”. (For that matter, to say that god is good is to say something about the nature of god which clearly cannot be changed).
I think that it is we ourselves who judge the rightness or wrongness of an action, just as it is we who act. A person might believe that some ethereal godhead is sitting on a sapphire-coloured throne watching and weighing all that we do, but for them, as for all of us, it is the immediate situation that calls forth our best efforts. So in the last resort, whether there is a god or not counts for nothing.
Sorry, Woodcraft, not Woodland.
Your post assumes that there is something universal about “Goodness.” Put another way, you are loathe to say that moral systems are relative. To say humans are naturally or inherently bent toward Goodness without further explication is to throw a tarp over the elephant in the room: How do we know what is “Good”?
“Moral rectitude is natural, and not predicated on supernatural faith. Morality is a product of social, not spiritual interaction.”
Which is it, natural or social product? Can’t be both. Unless all things social are natural, in which case the latter term has no meaning.
The religious faithful have solved (sic) this conundrum by declaring that Goodness comes from God (or is a “reflection” of Him). Secularists can only talk about what is, not what ought be. At the very least we must admit that what ‘ought be’ is limited to cultural contexts: there is no universal “Good.”
I think it safer to assume that the word “good” is shorthand for things of which we approve. Thus the Pope and Frattini etc can use it of their own nasty doctrines, and we can say that, on the contrary, their doctrines are “bad” because they are are corrupting and poisonous as well as unreasonable and stupid, thereby defining some of the things that we think of as “good”.
Furthermore, in making these assertions we are contrasting a position founded on the assumption that mere faith is an absolute good with a position based on testable reason, or reasons. That is, the contrast is between what is simply believed to be true without question and what is tested and found to be the case.
Nothing, of course, is perfect, but I think that by and large most people think of such things as kindness and consideration and caring as “good”, not to mention reasonableness and rationality and truthfulness, and the point that we can be all of these things without God, and in fact are better able or more likely to be them in a god-free environment, is the one being made.
Regarding the word as shorthand in this way avoids the metaphysical aspect while allowing us to establish a usage which seems to cover most cases, if not all.
Your mind always displays itself. You give to others only what you are. Givineness is the basis of all living. Greatness offers itself to you. Life seeks in every way to inspire your mind. It wants you to have more and more of all good things. It knows no lack , limitation nor impossibility, it Knows no defeat.
I believe that the ‘moral’ sense of our species originates in something akin to our instinctive understanding about what is ‘fair’ or ‘not-fair’ that we display as children at a very young age. Even if no prophet ever stepped foot upon the earth, there would still be communities with morals built upon a simple and easy code of fairness. Certainly, murder was always a taboo, as it is the most unfair act imaginable. Theft is unfair too, as is taking one’s mate or offspring. Generally, things that feel pleasurable are ‘good’ and things that feel painful are ‘bad’. That’s why we evolved nerve endings…to inform us of this fact. That was fine when we were still on the savanna, but with a complex civilization we are now endlessly confused with things that feel pleasurable that are supposedly ‘bad’ and things that are painful that are supposedly ‘good’ for us. This leads to a society of constantly confused and tempted ‘sinners’ that need to be ‘controlled’. And so the strongman and the shaman, government and religion…and God. Natural morality came first; religion came along to negotiate with the gods to mitigate the effects of natural forces. Religion was a survival tool; morality a social tool. So religion did not invent morality; it just ‘manages’ it.
I commend the author for the courage to express his thoughts as posted. However not more than a few readers will agree that humans are so naturally equipped to achieve moral excellence that they do not need aid outside of themselves or to say that religion is responsible for ‘lack of progress’ in area of moral rectitude’. Perhaps humans should not go to school at all or attend things like enlightenment programs or even seek medical aid when ill if what nature provides them is sufficient. A case example is found in his other article titled ‘Witchcraft accusations in Akwa Ibom State’. The author highlights how he and his team mounted anti witchcraft and awareness campaign at Akwa Ibom and how they dramatized their teaching. I am wondering why this was done since he believes people including those in that state are equipped by nature to handle their moral issues without aid. Having a sense of moral right or wrong or natural capacity to do good and evil does not necessarily guarantee the doing of it. That we are born with these tendencies does not mean every one can excel in them unaided. It must be recalled that we also are born with the seed of intelligence, beauty and other talents, yet as we grow up, we are aided by parental guidance, school/education and of course by the entire society to develop these potentials.There are some tough moral issues we cannot handle on our own unaided. Since it is nature that provides both capacity for good and evil to the same person; and man is caught up in the middle not sure of which of these he should do; and taking into account moral relativism in which evil masks itself putting on the clothing of good and becoming easier and more attractive; and captivating his heart , who is going to tell man which one to do- good or evil?. Is it the same nature or another person. Obviously not the same nature that gave him both. There is need to study and investigate why the same person is endowed with the capacity for good and evil at the same time filling the whole society with atrocities and crimes of high magnitude. From within themselves alone Humans cannot offer any idea why they are both good and evil at the same time if not aided. If a criminal is left to do good, he is at the mercy of nature that holds him captive. How can he come to believe that he is on the wrong path? Who is going to tell him that?. The will of man plays major role in his behavior. These two are presented to him and he willfully makes his choice. How will he know his choice is wrong. If he does not receive any enlightenment, his conscience will not even be able to lead him to the right path. In all these religion comes to help. Moral excellence would include- rectitude, integrity, rightness, righteousness, propriety, justice, fair play, fairness, decency, probity, uprightness etc. These and others are not easy to practice without external aid.I suppose awareness campaign in Akwa Ibom State is an attempt to aid the people to practice moral excellence including justice. Does it then matter if any other force outside, call it religion or whatever name, do the same enlightenment? To say that people do good because they don’t want to burn in hell is an assumption that cannot be substantiated. If this is the case what motivates others who do not even believe in hell to do their own good? . To say humans preexisted religions or God cannot be substantiated either. Humans did not make themselves nor can they explain their entire life and origin without enlightenment. I encourage the author to do more studies on the history of humanity and traditional regions to learn that these religious values are as old as humanity itself. As for religion itself or God, the author may not be comfortable here, hence his hash criticism of religion and belief in God. I think the issue of religion is a different matter he may want to write on instead of bringing it here as an obstacle to moral excellence. Humanity itself is naturally religious and was born with the innate spiritual power to transcend nature. They are intrinsically religious in the sense that according to Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus,”they naturally believe in a superhuman controlling power” ; a scenario I would like to compare with electricity and power generator. Some one may forget to realize that the current giving light in his room does not actually come from the same room but from some where else whose location he may not even know. Some people may enjoy what nature provides without knowing the hidden source of it. For humans this power source moving things around may be given any name including a god, God, whatever that means to individuals.. Humans have revered the land calling it “mother earth” because it is responsible for their life and survival but yet they look beyond mother earth to appreciate the force behind it. Being religious is not limited to traditional and modern forms of religion or affirming supreme being. It even includes atheistic mindset. People also profess natural religion as opposed to supernatural, Philanthropic religion or religion of secular humanism where morality is replaced with ethical values, being nice or good replaces moral obligations.Whatever a person holds as of highest value, himself or something else is his god. If God does not exist, then man becomes his own god being the center of all things since he does not accept any power outside of himself. So, he assumes all things flow from him. This kind of mindset ‘pantheism’ places man above every other being and this is misleading.. Goodness /morality and religion are not necessarily opposed.They are complementary to each other.
My position in this article is that we all can achieve moral excellence but not without external aid at least for most people. Man is not an island. He is not self sufficient.We all need each other to develop our potentials. We support each other in doing good by teaching it, praising it ,encouraging it and helping to prevent evil. Hell is not necessarily a dogma to instill fear. It is rather an awareness that as evil actions have their consequences (prizes) awaiting the perpetrators, deliberate rejection of God and external aid choosing to go one’s own way may be an issue involving a tough prize. That prize may have different names including hell. It is not a fair assessment that millions who profess religion or believe in deities, God included are stupid holding that the only one who is right is the one not doing so. Religious stories may seem mythological because they are ancient or too old. What is important in them is not necessarily the literal sense of the story but the message conveyed. Most Nigerian folk tells are told for moral lessons and these lessons become a part of external aid to healthy moral upbringing.
Religion and Myth: Is Religion a Myth? When some one describes religion as a myth, he needs to say what he means. If by myth he means something negative or senseless, he will know that the word myth means a variety of things and is not necessarily negative in meaning. The content of myth includes story, fairy tells and folklore. A story is used to communicate some information. Often it is a narration of a historical fact. Even when not historical, it has some fundamental truth to communicate to it´s audience. Fairy tell which often begins with ´once upon a time´ is based not on a particular time (none historical) but considered in time in a general sense. Though not necessarily historical, it is intended to pass on some moral lessons. In all stories, the essence is the message it is intended to pass on. If myth is created by human thoughts, then free and independent thinkers are part of it. Many mythologists, historians, anthropologists and philosophers have studied extensively this subject of myth.It is a wide subject beyond the scope of this page. Let me narrow it to Greek mythology and philosophy. There is a contrast in Plato and Aristotle between Logos as account of some transcendent truth. For them the myth of poets and tells of story tellers are not necessarily equal in veracity with expression of Logos.So, in classical Greek philosophy, Logos dominated as an account of truth setting the stage for the meaning of truth within the Western traditions. Free or independent thinkers also would like to claim some truth in their thinking. But what is the truth?. If truth is a transcendental reality(logos) an objective concept which no one can claim monopoly of, then there is some thing greater that the thinker.. To contrast truth with falsehood, would lead to a definition of truth. If free thinkers or atheists or humanists claim some truth, then religions even claim more of it. Whether humanist, free thinker, or atheist, there is some truth the communicator is trying to express. Religion is about truth and communicates truth by narration or story.
A Response to Criticism of Religions: Are Religious Stories false? To claim that this is the case is not only to be hostile to religions but even more to relegate history and human experience. Religious stories are not just religious alone. They have also to do with the people’s history. If you take Judaism which is the religion of the Jews as an example and it is from it that Christianity emerged, you will see that it is a tale of two realities of history and religion. Rooted in this history as every one knows is the tradition of generations of the Jews having Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as their great grand ancestors. Other key figures like Moses, the judges,the priests, the kings, the prophets and a host of others played major role in this history. But remember that these figures are tied to their two inseparable experiences of religion and history. To deny both is to deny Israel itself, for there is no Israel without their ancestral heritage. To say the history of their religious experience is false is the same as saying their history is false. This uproots the tradition which defines the Jewish people. The same is true with other nations including Nigeria. Christianity has also a history of its origin and more than 2000 years of religious experience. The history of Christianity is a verifiable fact and not myth or non sense or false. Jesus, the founder and leader of Christianity is a historical figure. That is to say he actually existed. The story about his life and ministry, all he did, the Good News he proclaimed, the miracles he worked, that drew crowds to him(the Gospel message) are well documented by eye witnesses. The Bible is not a book of false stories called the Word of God as suggested by a Free thinker. Because God created the world and all in it he interacts with the world to save it from extinction.To none religious persons, the stories may not seem to make sense but they do make sense to believers. We read secular history or stories reported in news papers and we believe they are true even when some of them are not verifiable, yet a free thinker holds religious stories as false. In a situation where a free thinker dismisses all religious stories as false but accepts most secular or humanistic stories as true, one may ask if the person’s manner of thinking is correct at all. Some people see modern religions as some thing forced on Africans and advocate rejecting them and going back to traditional religion. If we buy this opinion, then we have to give up not only religion but in fact everything that came to Africa from outside including clothing. This means we will even be going at least half naked. Why do we want to enjoy good life and it’s amenities we know come from outside but religion is the only thing we want o reject? If religions created myths and false stories to encourage doing good and avoiding doing evil,what do they gain and what do they want to achieve? If religions are not true but pursuing falsehood, what is the purpose? Christianity has survived the test of time for over 2000 years a midst persecution and heroic acts of its members along its history but still strong today. Would falsehood worth such sacrifices made? Compare it with communism of the Old Soviet Bloc that could not survive more than 50 years.Non belief in the existence of God and living in denial does not make the reality none and void. It would be like a child who says “I never had either father or mother”.This denial doe snot nullify the fact that his parents did exist some time if not now otherwise he or she will explain how he came to be. Religious people believe that good moral behavior has its reward not only here after but even here and now. Being good and doing good just to earn a reward is irrelevant to the fact that people will be praised for doing good. In the same way as the saying goes, “the evil that men do goes or lives after them’, people will be blamed or even punished for the sufferings they inflict on others. There is nothing wrong with this thinking or belief. Even here in our world, people are rewarded in may things and punished in many things too. But because of the transcendental nature of religion, good and evil have also transcendental aspects.As a result people have to know that death is not the end of what we do here. When we die we carry over our life’s report card. We musts repent of any evil we have done here and now in order to obtain God’s mercy and forgiveness.Living in denial of God is not an option for anybody. If you deny God, you deny your soul and if you deny your soul, you deny yourself; for there is no person without a soul or life giving spirit. In a case where an atheist says the power that moves the universe comes from mother nature, he or she needs to tell us where the human sou/spirit comes from. Is it mother nature or parents? being wise in one’s own eyes is not being wise at all. The problem with a free thinker is that he thinks that whatever he thinks is always correct. This is nothing but intellectual pride and a distortion of knowledge leading to self deceit. Knowledge is like an ocean of water. No one can fetch the entire water. All you do is to take your small bucket and fetch a little at time while the ocean remains as if nothing has gone out of it. A wise man without knowledge may even be better than a learned person with out wisdom. To be a balanced free thinker, one needs wisdom that comes from above to back it up.One needs also to listen to others who may know more than him or her. Here is a story to illustrate this point. The reader does not have to take it literally but watch out for the message it conveys. There was an agnostic who doubted every religious faith and experience. He went around the world to see the wisest person on earth.. He went to a certain learned man who had many degrees and who adorned his library with so many books including the ones he published. The agnostic said to him, ” you are the most learned man I have ever seen; tell me, of all that you know, which is the most important to you?” The learned man answered him saying, “they are that I am the greatest sinner and Jesus is the most merciful and compassionate forgiver.