The question I ask you is simple, given the choice to rob a man, would I be more hindered if I were a believer of god or if somebody were watching me? Are my actions dictated by my belief in god, solely, or are their other factors? If we agree for a minute that god exists, does that make the believer a better person? It seems, on deeper thinking that the existence of god has little if anything to do with the idea of committing evil. We have seen believers of god commit the most heinous crimes in the world. 9/11, the crusades, the Serbian massacre, Shiite genocides in Pakistan are all events that were not only committed by believers of god, but they also find their root in that very same belief. On the other hand atheists and agnostics have their fair share of ‘villainistic endeavors’. However, I think we can agree that some people might be affected by what god wants but as a general rule, morality and the existence of god are two mutually exclusive entities with little or no overlap! Furthermore, in most cases, the actions of an individual are determined by his free will and how society sees those actions and in many cases, the belief in god can actually extend the boundaries of what is permitted in life by justifying an action as ‘the will of god’.
A more valid question would be to see the trade-off between will and the supposed laws of god. If god forbids it, does it mean anything? Most people would agree that the answer to that is subjective. Many things come into play and if we establish that they do, then by nature of cause and effect, those factors are the sources of morality and not the ‘law of gods. It would seem that the greatest determinant of human behavior has always been and will always be social norms. The idea is that the reason why a person doesn’t go out and commit murder has little to do with ‘final’ judgment but more to do with ‘wordly’ judgment. At the end of the day, it is what society thinks that matters. Even though the argument that society’s judgments are based on god’s will may apply to certain societies, on a broader canvas, the rule doesn’t apply. Even where the rule does apply, religion is not the sole factor dictating societal norms. Almost always, culture and perceptions of the society and individuals themselves plays a huge role in setting the boundary between right and wrong!
In fact, most of what religion tries to establish stems from the culture from where it originated. Islam for example takes a much of its principles from what was already established in the arab society at the time when Islam emerged. In a lot of ways, religion is the product of societal norms and thus, the independent entity within the paradigm of morality is society and its perception and god merely adopts it. This leads us to a more important question which is where morality does, then, actually stem from. The answer perhaps lies in the social contract.
The question then arises, what is the source of morality. We can perhaps cite two sources to morality. The first is what can be termed ‘intuitive morality’. It is what religious circles call ‘conscience’. Every individual, on the virtue of being human realizes that certain actions may not be desirable. This can be observed in even the most remote societies on Earth. Aborigines tribe, the natives of Australia have no sense of clothing or privacy yet, at the same time murder is considered criminal act which goes to show that even tribes which have no interaction with god do have a sense of morality which proves that morality is not dependent on god.
The second source is what can be called ‘social morality’. Each individual, within a society, enters into a sort of sacred contract with every other individual which basically distinguishes right from wrong in the context of that society. That contract which develops naturally with the development of society is institutionalized and a sort of legal code develops which provides for what is allowed and not. We can prove this by looking at societies whose social contract is significantly different from what is conventionally seen as permitted. The ‘mosuo tribe’ tribe believes in a matriarchy where women play the dominant role in all economic and social life. To make matters more interesting, a woman may choose to have as many partners as she wishes and it is common for a child to not know who his/her father is. This illustrates that what is permitted is determined by society and what individuals collectively agree upon!
Within the question of morality, we have to realize that an individual’s choice plays a huge role. Despite the fact that something may or may not be allowed, at the end of the day it is the individual that decides what he wants to do. And since we have established that morality stems from society, the existence of god has little to with what is permitted and what is forbidden. An individual is as viable to break the laws of god as he is to break the laws of humanity.
In a lot of situations, believe in the supreme authority of god can enlarge the boundaries of what is allowed. First, in the series of problems is the fact that the most updated monotheistic religion is 1400 years old! Secondly, even at the time when the religion was supposedly being released to the world, the commandments of god were highly ambiguous. These two problems combine to create a situation in which practically everything can be allowed based on the argument that ‘God wants it’ which is something we have seen throughout history. The same god has promoted fundamentalism and modernity! In the history of ideas, there has been no conflict bigger than the conflict about what god wants. In essence, there is no autonomous rule given by god and as such, humans are free to interpret god’s will and make everything permitted or prohibited and sadly, they have done so!
Despite everything, we have to accept that some people are actually affected by what they think god demands of them because their belief in god is so strong. It can be considered a sort of ‘placebo effect’. They want to act a certain way and the idea of god simply reinforces their action. But this does not, at any level mean that without the idea of god; we would break into anarchy and chaos. And clearly, despite waves and waves of atheistic belief, the morality and conscience of the world at large is increasing. Things like racism and discrimination which were completely allowed only a few years earlier are now seen as heinous crimes. This is not because suddenly god has willed differently, but because humans have now understood the negative effects of such actions and have evolved their morality as they have done for centuries.
Are humans inherently so evil that without the sword of god hanging over their shoulders they would descent into all sorts of bigotry? I believe not. Human beings have always been social animals and together, as a society have always lived in some sort of harmony irrespective of their belief in god. A human understands that he has to act morally, not to please his supposed creator, but to live. The ‘emergence of god’ may have only solidified what we already knew and thus, at least in this regard, the brilliance of Dostoyevsky has suffered from the curse of orthodoxy.
