Religion and Morality: Can You Be Good Without God?

I think you’ve got that question backward.

I’ve been some form of nonbeliever since I was about 12. I got diagnosed with a mental illness in sixth grade and decided that no kind and loving god would do this to its creation. It was a half-step to atheism from there.

I’ve received a lot of pushback from people over the years I’ve been without religion. It’s just a phase. I’m destined for hell. I’m an amoral sinner.

I take issue with that last one. Well, half of it, anyway.

I’m not some amoral monster that prowls the streets assaulting and murdering my way across town. I don’t steal candy from children — I don’t steal anything, honestly. I lie about as much as any of us do, which is to say sometimes but rarely.

Just because I lack religion doesn’t mean I’m dripping with sin. By many religion standards, I’m doing pretty well.

I am in a committed relationship with my wife. We have four cats that we spoil. I have dedicated the past decade or so of my life to literally working for charity — my career path is almost exclusively focused on nonprofits. I also throw money at a variety of them as well.

I treat people well and by and large get paid back with excessive kindness.

So what about that is amoral?

Most of the major religions have some sort of code of ethics that you must follow to be a good whatever. The ten commandments. The eightfold path. Whatever. They’re all same-but-different stuff: don’t kill, don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t slander, yadda yadda yadda.

There’s a lot of nuances between different religions and even between different sects, but the main players are all there.

And, for whatever reason, unless you prescribe to a particular religion’s set of rules, you’re obviously amoral scum.

There are two parts to this that I’d like to address. First off, the list of rules is strikingly similar between religions. I hit several of the key players a few paragraphs back. Ultimately, I don’t see why we get so hung up on nuance between religions. They’ve all got rules, and they’re all mostly the same, so why sweat the details?

The second and more sinister part of this is the premise that you are required to be religious to be moral. I disagree. Not only that, but I think that it’s a dangerous assertion to make.

To me, I don’t hear that religion keeps us on the straight-and-narrow. I hear the belief that humans are immoral, amoral creatures of lust, lies, and murder, and the only thing keeping us from total anarchy is some invisible dude in the sky.

Don’t break the commandments or you won’t get into heaven. God is always watching you.

To some, the premise that somebody can be a good person without god is foreign and strange. Belief in god is what makes us moral creatures, right?

This comes to the core belief of a lot of religions: humans are basically bad, but belief allows us to become good. We are born sinners and must work to become saints.

Way to shortchange the entire human race.

That’s a really depressing viewpoint to me. The thought that the only thing keeping my neighbors from murdering me and taking my stuff is regular church attendance is really, really bleak. The only thing that makes me feel worse than thinking of that is thinking of the people who believe it.

What does it say about you if you think that praying every night is the only thing keeping you on the straight-and-narrow? What kind of faith do you have in yourself?

This thought process takes away the premise of self-control and self-direction and opens the door to a lot of questionable stuff.

I wouldn’t have killed that man if I had just believed a little harder.

We can bring her away from sin and back to god if we just force her to go to church every day.

Yes, I abuse my son, but god absolves me of my sins every Sunday.

Sure he beats his wife, but it’s only because she doesn’t make him go to church.

When you tell me that you can’t be moral without religion, that says more about you than it does about me.

Let me throw one glimmering hope out there for this bleak article. I talked about the whole same-but-different aspect of the religious rules. There’s one that shows up in a remarkable number of places: the Golden Rule.

Treat others how you’d want to be treated. Pretty much every major religion has a form of it. That’s why it’s golden, after all.

To me, that’s what it all boils down to. Be good to other people. That’s it. Lying, cheating, stealing, hurting and killing, all of these are treating others poorly. Don’t do them.

There are hairs to split, sure. Is it wrong to do bad things to an evil person to keep them from doing worse things to others? Should you do bad things to a small number of people so a larger number can benefit? We can debate these things forever, but the core rule remains for general daily use.

To me, the Golden Rule is evidence that people are inherently good, moral beings. There are so many religions in the world, and who’s to say who has it right. Maybe they’re all riffs on the same cosmic chord. Who knows?

What I do know is that the same basic rules, including that golden one, show up all over the place. What that says to me is that people, by and large, want to be good to other people. Greed and wrath and lust and all the other sins are core parts of being human, but deep down, we just want to treat each other well.

So, when all these religions were being created, the rules all came out more-or-less the same. Whether that’s divine influence or just the influence of the people writing them is up to you to decide.

However, as a species, we want to follow those rules. Most people treat each other well. Most people follow the rules for the most part. We all have bad days, but we are all doing our best most of the time.

I believe that this inherent desire to be good to each other drove the writing of so many similar rules, including the Golden Rule. That’s why it’s all over the place. I think that people are inherently good and want to be good to each other.

What do I know, though. I’m just a godless amoral sinner.