Do we need religion to act morally?

Question

"Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are."

from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?r=3&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Answer 1

HI
God created us and now that we are imperfect from the sin that Adam and eve created we are imperfect so God left the bible his instruction book to teach us because he knows that the state we are in that we need it, some people maybe more morally fit than others but just the same we all need improvement through God's word
LAmmy

Answer 2

Some people do, some don't.

It is a reasonable question to ask who is truly more moral ... someone who acts morally because of promise of reward or threat of punishment that comes from religion, or someone who acts morally because they feel it is the right thing to do?

...

Also (while we're at it) ... which creature is more moral? The ones that salvage their companions while in captivity, or something that would put chimps in zoos surrounded by a dangerous moat, or apply electric shock to a monkey to see if another monkey will starve itself? How moral is that?

Answer 3

No, we don't need it.

In fact, many religious people these days are FAR from moral so the fact that a person follows a religion doesn't even make you a moral person. I even feel that people fall on religions as a crutch to feel better about being an immoral person. What other religions do you know that offer amnesty for all of your sins by simply accepting their god and confessing those sins?

If you can commit any crime and use religion to save your soul..... there is no morality there.

Answer 4

To answer your question, Absolutely.

I haven't read the article link you've left, but I'm guessing you've chosen your question incorrectly... what you refer to from the article is an animal living by 'instinct', such as how it's sensitivity to save other animals... that's all by 'instinct' which has nothing to do w/ morale (believe it or not).

We have instincts too as humans and we use them whereas we will not always use our morale. Morale comes from having choices. If we were to give a Monkey a decision between killing a man and saving a man, which would it choose? By instinct it will react first, it will kill. If it were to think first, it wouldn't. Animals live by instinct, not by morale.

If we don't live by morale, we are killers (or animals). That's just common sense. Indeed, some people are not human. I've enough experience to know first hand (unfortunately, by the actions of another).

Religion is a consideration. It should always be a consideration. When we don't consider, we don't acknowledge and we don't care. Religion is a set of rules that one has to appreciate, one has to want to be w/ morale and live by moral. It's meant to be appreciated, but also to be respected. Just as one should respect drugs and not abuse them, not use them.

Answer 5

As it was said above, "First off, it's the New York times. If it's controversial, they're going to report it regardless of accuracy."

The truth is, we don’t see it in animals! Oh, they sometimes act nice to each other, but even that is subjective (it could have been misinterpreted) and a far cry from what we see in humans. A dog doesn’t feel guilt from stealing another dog’s bone. Apes don’t sit down and talk about morals and ethics. If an ox gores a man to death, it is not arrested, tried, and condemned to the electric chair. We recognize its inability to make moral judgments and so we might just confine it in a sturdier pen and warn people to stay away. If we evolved from animals, how did we come to be moral creatures?

This is no trivial, insignificant question. If there is no God, then there is no Supreme Being to which we must give an account—no Judgment Day, no heaven or hell. There is no right or wrong, no good or evil. We should live by the saying, “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” If this is just a great cosmic accident, then there is no such thing as "morality."

But if there is a God—well, that’s a different story. Are we an accident, or the image of God? Are we without purpose, or have an eternal goal? Do we live like an animal, or like a child of God? In the end, is it dust, or eternity?

There is an interesting anthropological argument that is known as the “moral argument” that is connected to this. The argument is this: Man has within him a moral nature, a sense of “oughtness”; where did it come from?

You see, there arises in all of us, in any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Wherever you go, people in every place and every walk of life, say things like: “That’s not fair.” “How would you like it if someone did that to you?” “That’s my seat, I was there first.” “Come on, you promised.” When people say things like that, they are appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which they expect the other person to know.

The other person doesn’t say, “forget your standard,” but almost always tries to make an excuse to show that they really didn’t go against the standard. As C.S. Lewis said about this standard, “...the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm.” You know, there are reasons why you should be let off the hook. That time you were unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money came when you were very hard-up. You never would have promised that if you would have known how busy you were going to be. And then comes the argument between these two people. It is clear that they both believe in a standard or they couldn’t argue about it. You can’t argue that a football player committed a foul unless there is some agreement about the rules of football.

If morality is simply something learned from our culture, as they want us to believe, then why are the moral teachings of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Indians, Greeks and Romans so very similar? C. S. Lewis talked a lot about this. Has there ever been a culture where people were admired for running away in battle? Or admired for being selfish (even though they might differ about who you should be unselfish to)? Men have differed on things like whether you should have one wife or four, but they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. In the words of Thomas C. Mayberry, “There is broad agreement that lying, promise breaking, killing, and so on are generally wrong.”

And whenever you find someone who says they don’t believe in right or wrong, you will find them going back on it a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you break one to him, he will immediately be complaining “It’s not fair!” Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. As it has been said, “If there is no God, no atheist can object on moral grounds if I want to kill him.”

I had an atheist friend some years back that I would always argue creation/evolution with. One day he came in and told me how mad he got from watching a documentary on the Holocaust. I can’t remember exactly what I said, but I thought, “Why are you so mad; it’s just survival of the fittest, right? You don’t even believe there is such a thing as right and wrong.” You see, no matter how much he denies it, he feels that standard as well as I do.

Could non-moral matter combined with time and chance be an adequate cause for this? If people are merely products of physical evolution and “survival of the fittest,” why do we sacrifice for each other? Where does courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty, and compassion come from? This seems to be the opposite of what evolution would produce; in a struggle for survival, will the existence of a conscience help or hinder survival? As John Adam has said, “...according to the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest, a loving human with a conscience is at a great disadvantage and would be unlikely to have survived the evolutionary process.”

Answer 6

No. Morality may be pursued,practiced and even meet or exceed the expectations of the most demanding of conservatives.

However,righteousness is a different story and in God's eyes and plan may only be attained through the redemptive power of the Cross and acceptance of the Son of God.

Answer 7

First off, it's the New York times. If it's controversial, they're going to report it regardless of accuracy. They'll even report military secrets, etc.

Also, we don't know if these Chimps do have a religion. But to answer your question, I do believe that people can have good morals and a good sense of right and wrong without Religion. However, they are seen together more often than not.

Answer 8

Morals unfortunately are in the eye of the beholder....so your question is vague.....I think abortion is immoral....others may not (why I dont know, but some people think that way) religious people I do believe have a higher standard upon which they judge themselves and others, but dont necessarily live out their morals any better than a non religious person.

www.disguiseddisciple.com

Answer 9

I think that we would know "right" from "wrong" with religion, or without it. The golden rule applies. You know how it feels to be hit, so you consider hitting "wrong". You know you would rather not be dead, so you consider killing "wrong", etc. Experience alone should be sufficient to determine a basic moral code. I do think religion has a place in our lives in other ways though.

Answer 10

It's an R word but I think what's more important is RESPECT, respect for others AND respect for ourselves. Nothing can teach you that, doesn't matter how you are brought up it's the way you want to be treated that determines what you become and hopefully with MORALS to boot!

Answer 11

i believe that practically, morality should be most important to people who don't believe in an afterlife. we have nothing left after this life, so we are to make it as good as it can be.
for christians, the only motivation is to be good so they can get into heaven.
athiests believe that we only have one life to live, and we had better not waste it.
i don't think we need religion to be moral, just reason.