Morality & God

Guide Rating -

For much of human history, there has been the perception that morality is largely or wholly dependent upon religion. Thus, people have argued that a person simply cannot be good without a religious belief system and, more importantly, a belief in some god. But is this perception accurate? Is it perhaps arguable that ignoring the existence of any gods might actually be preferable?

The relationship between morality and theism is the principle theme behind Robert Buckman's recent book "Can We Be Good Without God?" Although many such books might spend a lot of time on the question of whether God exists, Buckman leaves that aside entirely; he himself is an atheist, but his arguments don't require that any gods do or do not exist. Instead, he is more concerned with the biological basis for what people believe, why they believe, and how those beliefs translate into behavior - especially moral behavior.

There is, of course, the expected discussion about how gods are used by people to explain the mysteries of nature which they cannot otherwise comprehend. At one time, gods were invoked to explain just about everything; over time, however, their role has become more and more restricted as the natural sciences have become more successful in helping us understand the universe we live in. Arguments for animism and shamanism have been widely supplanted by arguments for a "Prime Mover" creator God, responsible for the existence of the universe but perhaps not much more.

Of much greater interest, I think, is Buckman's explanation and discussion of the research into the neurophysiological basis for beliefs and for religious experiences. He goes on at some length telling readers about the fascinating work being done by Wilder Penfield and Michael Persinger, both of whom have helped show that the brain can be readily and deliberately caused to experience things like well-being or even religious visions. It all centers around the right temporal lobe - the more sensitive a person's temporal lobe is, the more likely they are to report things like visions, mystical experiences, paranormal experiences, communication with God, feeling at one with God, stronger religious beliefs, and more.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that such experiences do not have an objective and external reality. It does, however, indicate that there is a biological basis for such experiences and experiments prove that it is very possible to have such experiences through wholly mechanical means. The burden then shifts to believers to explain why their experiences are different and what reason there might be to think that they reflect some external reality rather than simply the chemical process of their brain.

Also of interest is the fact that people with a sensitive right temporal lobe are not only more likely to have stronger religious experiences and beliefs, but they are also much more likely to act on those experiences and beliefs. This isn't a trivial observation because studies have shown a consistent percentage of people, most of whom have had sensitive temporal lobes, are willing to kill if they believe that God wants them to.

Unfortunately, this portion of the book seems to have caused confusion for some readers. I have read more than once where people have come away from Buckman's book with the impression that he argues that violence is caused by religion or belief in God. I can only assume that they did not read very closely because Buckman takes the time to state explicitly that he is not arguing that at all. Instead, he believes that exists a common denominator behind certain types of violence and certain types of religious beliefs or experiences:

...these results do not suggest that religion itself is a cause of the tendency to kill. Rather, they suggest that both the tendency to have religious experiences and the predisposition to kill if told to by God are associated with an increased sensitivity of the temporal lobe. The low threshold of the temporal lobe is - as it were - the original culprit, and both the increased religious observances / experiences and the predisposition to kill are manifestations of it.

People who also imagine that Buckman is hostile towards religion are simply ignoring his discussions of all the value which religion can does provide people. Religious beliefs can provide comfort in difficult times, can provide an enduring social structure which preserves values and traditions, and can provide inspiration to people on a wide variety of levels. That does not mean, however, that Buckman regards religion as necessarily better than irreligion, much less that it is necessary for morality.

Instead, Buckman argues that it may in fact be better to behave as if there were no God when debating our moral principles and our responses to moral problems. Rather than insist that morality is a question of good vs. evil and divine punishment, we should focus on human values which encourage constructiveness and discourage destructiveness. Morals don't need to be divinely inspired to be worth following.