Was religion invented to justify morality?

[sol invictus]

As a child I believed that morality could only come from religion. I was an atheist and absolutely confident that god was a lie, and it really worried me that my moral beliefs were therefore totally baseless (as I thought). I used to wonder whether I might some day "wake up" from my irrational beliefs and murder some innocent little old lady for her pocket change, or something.

Believe it or not, I really worried about that - it actually kept me awake at night.

As I grew older I more or less stopped thinking about it, not because I had found an answer, but simply because our thoughts become increasingly trivial with distance from childhood. Recently, though, a conversation with an acquaintance (a philosophy prof working on bioethics) brought me back to the topic. I had asked him The Question, whether he thought morality was possible without religion, and he said "no". That got me worried all over again.

But thinking about it again as an adult, I can see plenty of alternatives to religion. The one I like best is that morality is a very successful meme (in the sense of Dawkins). That is, it's an idea which evolved and was selected for in human society. Societies and individuals who behave in accordance with some version of it prospered; those that didn't, died. (This is rather plausible because cooperation is not a zero-sum game, to borrow the game theory term.)

I believe this idea is probably correct, and following this train of thought led to an interesting idea - if religion is not the basis for morality, perhaps morality is the basis for religion? After all, as I discovered as a child, it can be hard to convince yourself that morality is necessary if there is no punishing and rewarding force standing behind it. And so once the moral code had evolved, societies that coerced their constituents into it through the belief in a vengeful or rewarding god would prosper and do better than those that didn't. Thus religion could evolve as a prop for morality.

Thoughts?

 

[TuftedPuffin]

Eh, I think the evidence points more to religion beginning as a primitive hunting tool. While it may have adopted moral aspects later, early religions were something like "If I sacrifice to the deer god, there will be more deer next year." It didn't really work, but it seemed plausible. It does seem like the more successful ones also coopted either morality or government or both,though.

 

[six7s]

The terms moral and ethical both mean 'normal'... 'the way we do things around here'

Humans, like all 'pack animals', have rules concerning individual and collective behaviour...

Although some of the 'rules' are pretty much universal (e.g don't kill your neighbours, at least not the fertile/productive ones) other rules vary significantly from culture to culture

E.g.:

Eye contact is normally kept to a minimum between younger and older people, and people of the opposite sex. It is a sign of confrontation and disrespect if there is too much eye contact. Lowering the eyes shows respect to elders, teachers, figures of authority etc. and humbleness on the part of the person lowering the eyes.

Source

Cf trad European teacher/student interaction where it would be unsurprising to hear an irate teacher demand of a sullen youth to 'Look at me whilst I'm talking to you!'

Recently, though, a conversation with an acquaintance (a philosophy prof working on bioethics) brought me back to the topic. I had asked him The Question, whether he thought morality was possible without religion, and he said "no".

I suspect that your acquaintance doesn't interpret the term ethics like I do or has a rather different view of bio and/or maybe he/she thinks religion is universal amongst all (sentient) species

... it can be hard to convince yourself that morality is necessary if there is no punishing and rewarding force standing behind it

I think that, unless you're a hermit, having a sense of morality is not an optional attribute

I also think that, rather than religions (plural) being invented to justify morality, they were simply fashioned by 'pack leaders' to maintain the status quo

 

[Magyar]

No, I believe that religion is an invention of the immoral to gain power over the moral but frightened majority. In order to create religion you have to have a group
of people to already co-exist together. This has to be more then just immediate family members. There for some level of morality - normalcy and accepted concepts of right and wrong have had to have been in place.

I believe that as humans became self aware they needed an explanation for the unknown. They invented spirituality and mysticism.

Pure conjecture here on my part ;
But I believe that the basis for "religion" probably comes from some tragic event in the past that befell a larger group of humans. Most likely because of good intentions, the leader(s), appointed or thought of someone like the old wise woman or midwife who could come up with some story to console the people. This worked. People thought "you know she's kind of old,we better get someone young to help her and learn all the things she knows so we could help in the future" At some point these helpers
a) became the access point to the "wise one" so she wouldn't be bothered with every little thing
b) these gatekeepers realized that this control equaled power that could be used for personal gain.

This was the moment that religion changed from spirituality and trying to find answers to question to USING spirituality to gain POWER over people.

This scenario would have played out multiple times in multiple locations and since trying to make sense of the senseless tragedy is part of the human condition it would have grown and spread probably over a fairly short period of time.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As a child I believed that morality could only come from religion. I was an atheist and absolutely confident that god was a lie, and it really worried me that my moral beliefs were therefore totally baseless (as I thought). I used to wonder whether I might some day "wake up" from my irrational beliefs and murder some innocent little old lady for her pocket change, or something.

Believe it or not, I really worried about that - it actually kept me awake at night.

As I grew older I more or less stopped thinking about it, not because I had found an answer, but simply because our thoughts become increasingly trivial with distance from childhood. Recently, though, a conversation with an acquaintance (a philosophy prof working on bioethics) brought me back to the topic. I had asked him The Question, whether he thought morality was possible without religion, and he said "no". That got me worried all over again.

But thinking about it again as an adult, I can see plenty of alternatives to religion. The one I like best is that morality is a very successful meme (in the sense of Dawkins). That is, it's an idea which evolved and was selected for in human society. Societies and individuals who behave in accordance with some version of it prospered; those that didn't, died. (This is rather plausible because cooperation is not a zero-sum game, to borrow the game theory term.)

I believe this idea is probably correct, and following this train of thought led to an interesting idea - if religion is not the basis for morality, perhaps morality is the basis for religion? After all, as I discovered as a child, it can be hard to convince yourself that morality is necessary if there is no punishing and rewarding force standing behind it. And so once the moral code had evolved, societies that coerced their constituents into it through the belief in a vengeful or rewarding god would prosper and do better than those that didn't. Thus religion could evolve as a prop for morality.

Thoughts?

Have you read any of Joseph Campbell's work on deities, gods, legends, myths, and cultures?

In a nutshell: he makes that point, religion being a justification for morality, in a round about way. (Well, that's my take on it. It's also an imprecise review of a rather large body of work.)

DR

 

[Beerina]

Eh, I think the evidence points more to religion beginning as a primitive hunting tool. While it may have adopted moral aspects later, early religions were something like "If I sacrifice to the deer god, there will be more deer next year." It didn't really work, but it seemed plausible. It does seem like the more successful ones also coopted either morality or government or both,though.

Exactly. The human mind, like the simpler animal minds before it, evolved to associate things that happened "out there", and, specifically, to associate sudden movements with danger (animals that didn't tended to not reproduce quite as much.)

When the mind grew complex enough to think as a human would, they began to presume such "sudden" dangers, etc. with not necessarily an animal, but perhaps another human, who was also capable of planning, intent, and anger.

So it would be natural to presume a danger like wind, lightning, or a drought had a mind behind it. And if that, maybe life itself too. Whatever it is, it can't be a person, since I can't seem to ever find it, so it must be some floaty ghost thingie.

In any case, if it's a human-level mind, maybe we can placate it with goodies, the way we do to each other. Maybe if we burn up some livestock, vegetables, or even baby or evil humans, it will go away temporarily. If we thus hurt what it hates, or hurt ourselves first, it will think "enough's enough, I'll stop."

The rest is just ten thousand years of "my god is tougher than yours" cultural one-upsmanship culminating in an "infinitely" powerful, "infinitely" good god who can not only beat up all other gods, but is so powerful the other gods don't even exist.

 

[Correa Neto]

Morality -if you see it as a set of rules or guidelines that avoids the integrity of a group of people to crumble- may, in principle, have appeared first. But moral codes quite possibly also evolved in paralell and closely associated with religion.

Steal Ugh's mammoth beef is a bad idea because Ugh stronger than me. But Booga is weaker than I am. So, why shouldn't I steal his beef?

Ugh is the chief because Ugh is the strongest caveman around. Why shouldn't I kill Ugh while he's asleep, steal his beef, claim his wife and become chief?

Of course, groups where killings and stealings were less frequent had better survival odds. Its easy to imagine that some codes associated with respect for hierarchy and behavior rules would be created. At a certain point, respect for rules codes and hierarchies must have been rationalized (sp?) in the form of religion.

If I don't kill Ugh and don't steal from Booga, I will be somehow rewarded -or not punished- by the Spirit of the Serpent. Clans that do not follow His rules don't last through the winter...

And moral code/hierarchy-religion feedback cycles started. New behavior codes, new moral and ethical standards could then be created solely or mostly based on religion.

 

[sol invictus]

Have you read any of Joseph Campbell's work on deities, gods, legends, myths, and cultures?

In a nutshell: he makes that point, religion being a justification for morality, in a round about way. (Well, that's my take on it. It's also an imprecise review of a rather large body of work.)

Interesting - a long time ago I read Hero with a Thousand Faces. I remember some things from it pretty well, but nothing that bears directly on this question. What did you have in mind?

And moral code/hierarchy-religion feedback cycles started. New behavior codes, new moral and ethical standards could then be created solely or mostly based on religion.

Yeah, so you're saying it's more complicated, that there is some feedback... which I'm sure is the case. It's never clear how to separate cause and effect in things like this.

But still, I think one could argue that it's really the moral code that gives an advantage, and not the religious belief per se. That is, cooperation is advantageous, but I doubt it matters much for that whether you cooperate because you think God will smite you if you don't, or simply because you were taught as a child it's the right thing. So I think I can argue that while god may be a convenient way to coerce people, it's really subsidiary to the moral code, which is the actual effective thing that confers the advantage.

 

[boloboffin]

Another patented boloboffin oversimplification:

Morality is to religion like astronomy is to astrology.

 

[Roboramma]

I had asked him The Question, whether he thought morality was possible without religion, and he said "no". That got me worried all over again.

Did you also ask him whether morality was possible with religion? I don't see how religion can bare on the question at all - if there is no morality without it, how can there be morality with it?

Personaly, I find it a different question - "what should I do?". Of course, there are practical considerations: if I want to eat tomorrow I should work to make money today, for instance.
And there are some practical uses for "morality" in the sense that going along with socially acceptable behaviours is often beneficial. But what about when it's not?
There are times when I could cheat people and get away with it. There are times when I could do something that I think would have a detrimental effect on humanity and yet not only get away with it, but even be admired for it. At the least, there are many people who do just that, and I don't want to be one of them.

Why not? Why don't I do those things? Is there a good reason not to?

For the religious, they have one more practical incentive not to do so - because god will reward you if you don't, or punish you if you do. But is there any reason aside from punishment or reward to do "good" things, or not to do "bad" things?

Personally, I think so. I could go in to my justification for that. It comes down to a utilitarian ethics. But, the truth is, it's really just a justification for the way I want to act, and for being the sort of person that I want to be.
For me, personally, the justification for morality, then, comes from wanting to be a "good" person more than wanting to be happy. Though, clearly the two come in to conflict sometimes and clearly the desire for happiness can win out sometimes.
Whether or not others consider that a reasonable goal in life is up to them, but there is no rational justification for decrying it.

(That is, because there's no objective measure that we can use to determine what we should care about, each of us can make that determination for him/herself.)

 

[Radrook]

I don't think that morality needs religious justification. Many persons today are atheists and yet abide by moral stipulations which make them model citizens. Morality, in such cases is logically founded on expediency. Or practicality-if you will. So it doesn't necessarily follow. Not to say, however, that humans are impervious to inventing religious beliefs in order to justify their behavior--especially if that behavior is materially profitable. Take the Greeks, for example. Their gods were pictured as bickering, raping, stealing, lying and doing all things which the Greeks themselves did. Of course if the gods did it then why should they refrain? So yes it can happen, but not necessarily so.

 

[Henners]

Steal Ugh's mammoth beef is a bad idea because Ugh stronger than me. But Booga is weaker than I am. So, why shouldn't I steal his beef?

Because when you stole Booga's beef, his whole family came around in the middle of the night and, with that high moral justification that starving people have, killed your whole family.

Think of it as evolution in action.

Non-collaborative behaviour is selected against.

Actually, a far more realistic situation is that Booga killed a deer thereby creating a glut in the high-quality protein market. As this glut also has a short shelf-life, Booga gave most of it away to his friends and neighbours.

This act cost Booga bugger-all for the uneaten meat would have gone off anyway. However, Booga's friends and neighbours now feel obligated to be nice to Booga in return.

Booga's witch-doctor wrote down these moral codes, pretended that God told him about them, and has started handing round a collection bowl.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...Yeah, so you're saying it's more complicated, that there is some feedback... which I'm sure is the case. It's never clear how to separate cause and effect in things like this.

But still, I think one could argue that it's really the moral code that gives an advantage, and not the religious belief per se. That is, cooperation is advantageous, but I doubt it matters much for that whether you cooperate because you think God will smite you if you don't, or simply because you were taught as a child it's the right thing. So I think I can argue that while god may be a convenient way to coerce people, it's really subsidiary to the moral code, which is the actual effective thing that confers the advantage.

Yes, cooperative groups will have an edge. But I think religion was an important reinforcement, a factor that gave some groups an extra advantage. A religion that brings the expectation of a reward and somehow tightens the group, for example, surely would help a tribe through hard times.

A tribe whose religion and moral codes are more warlike and exclusive ("we are the real people, chosen ones, those who know how to worship the spirits, those who follow ther real spirits, etc."), will eventually overtake tribe B, provinding both tribes have roughly the same technology level and population numbers.

Regarding our current (Western) society, I think, religions most likely are obstacles instead of advantages. Quite often they create obstacles for the advance of science and incentive prejudices.

...snip...Think of it as evolution in action.

Non-collaborative behaviour is selected against.
...snip...

Well, that's what I'm trying to say...

 

[Lothian]

Religion was invented to hide ignorance*. It hasn’t changed much.



*God makes the sun come up, makes hunts successful etc. Morality came much much later.

 

[sol invictus]

*God makes the sun come up, makes hunts successful etc. Morality came much much later.

You really think that? I would say chimpanzees for example have a kind of moral code, but I very much doubt they have a religion.

Morality seems to me a much more basic (and useful) concept than religion.

 

[sol invictus]

...
Booga's witch-doctor wrote down these moral codes, pretended that God told him about them, and has started handing round a collection bowl.

That's exactly what I had in mind. Well said.

Yes, cooperative groups will have an edge. But I think religion was an important reinforcement, a factor that gave some groups an extra advantage. A religion that brings the expectation of a reward and somehow tightens the group, for example, surely would help a tribe through hard times.

OK, but there religion is acting as a prop for moral codes such as social cohesion and cooperation. So yes, it confers an advantage, but indirectly - I think it's useful to describe religion as a tool to enforce morality, but regard the moral code and behavior itself as the directly effective technique. But I freely admit that the distinction is a bit fuzzy.

 

[Lothian]

You really think that? I would say chimpanzees for example have a kind of moral code, but I very much doubt they have a religion..

I think morality is something that comes after the necessities. I think early man was more concerned with staying alive than whether what they did to stay alive was morally right.

I am also fairly sure that they believed in a higher power.

Morality seems to me a much more basic (and useful) concept than religion.

Certainly.

 

[Henners]

Take the Greeks, for example. Their gods were pictured as bickering, raping, stealing, lying and doing all things which the Greeks themselves did.

But that was two thousand years ago and we've seen none of that type of behaviour since. Thank goodness.

 

[Roboramma]

I think morality is something that comes after the necessities. I think early man was more concerned with staying alive than whether what they did to stay alive was morally right.

Most of morality has to do with how we should treat each other. And most of 'early man's' life would have centered around other people. The question of how to treat them, and how he/she was treated by them, would have been a major one.

 

[Correa Neto]

OK, but there religion is acting as a prop for moral codes such as social cohesion and cooperation. So yes, it confers an advantage, but indirectly - I think it's useful to describe religion as a tool to enforce morality, but regard the moral code and behavior itself as the directly effective technique. But I freely admit that the distinction is a bit fuzzy.

Yes, its very fuzzy. Specially when we think about some religious rules or rites that at least at a first glance are nothing but waste of resources. OK, they may somehow contribute to keep the status quo and business as usual. But I digress.

The ethical codes are usually the core; I agree. However, I think there are many occasions where religious motivations took the center of the stage. Or were used as reasons... Fuzzy, very fuzzy...

Gets fuzzier when we look to the past... Hopefully, in the future, our society will keep the trend towards decreasing the role of religion when it comes to dictating rules of behavior.