Religious people generally claim that religion is the sole source of morality, and that today's secular or Western societies actually borrow their ethics from religions. According to this claim, without religion, humans would become morally unbridled.
However, modern science, particularly evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and psychology, has seriously challenged this notion. In the light of these sciences, it becomes clear that morality is not a heavenly gift, but rather the result of mutual interaction between innate human tendencies, mental capacities, and social experiences.
Internal Sources of Moral Behavior: Two Contradictory Evolutionary Tendencies
The foundation of human morality rests on two tendencies that appear to oppose each other, but both have been equally necessary for evolution.
1. The Tendency for Self-Preservation and Selfishness
This tendency is a fundamental requirement of human evolution. Its purpose is to protect the individual and their close kin. In the face of danger, this very tendency prompts humans toward immediate reaction, aggression, and prioritizing the self.
At the biological level, hormones like cortisol and adrenaline activate this tendency, bringing humans into a fight-or-flight state. These hormones don't create morality, but rather activate those natural tendencies related to survival on which reason later works.
If this tendency becomes uncontrolled, this very survival instinct takes forms like oppression, exploitation, and "sacrificing" others for one's own benefit.
2. The Tendency for Empathy and Social Cooperation
In contrast, there is another tendency that is connected to the survival of the group rather than the individual. Humans cannot survive alone, which is why evolution has given us the capacity for empathy, love, cooperation, and sacrifice.
Neurochemicals like oxytocin and serotonin promote trust, attachment, and connection. These hormones also don't create morality, but rather enable that empathetic tendency which we commonly call humanity.
This tendency makes us feel another's pain and sometimes motivates us to "sacrifice" our own interests for the betterment of others.
Human Instinct:
If we speak in the language of religion (that is, good and evil), the conclusion that emerges is this: Humans are not instinctively perfect. While on one hand goodness exists within them (feeling others' pain), on the other hand self-interest (the sense of seeking one's own benefit) also exists instinctively.
(Note: The role of neurochemical hormones is much more complex, and there are many more emotional complexities such as love, anger, fear, shame, curiosity, etc., which play a role in moral decisions. But here we are temporarily ignoring them for ease of discussion because the basic point of debate is whether the morality of good and evil came from religion or from humans.)
The Role of Reason and Consciousness
If human morality were only subject to hormones, then humans would be nothing more than biological robots. But humans are not merely slaves to instincts. Rather, evolution has granted us, along with instincts, a higher degree of reason and consciousness.
This very reason gives us the capacity to:
- Learn from our experiences
- Estimate possible future consequences
- Limit or use our selfish instinct in the right direction
- And prevent empathy from becoming blind sacrifice
Thus, morality is actually an ongoing dialogue between instincts and reason, not some static heavenly command. With our reason and consciousness, we can control our human instincts and tendencies. This very thing distinguishes us from animals.
Neuroscience research has proven that specific parts of the brain become active during moral decision-making. The brain's emotional part (limbic system) and logical part (prefrontal cortex) compete with each other. That is, moral decision-making is not a heavenly command but rather the result of biological and logical struggle occurring in the brain.
External Influences: Society and Religion
Research on young children has shown that even before receiving any religious education, they can distinguish between justice and injustice. When a child sees a loving being, they naturally extend their arms lovingly toward them. The same child, if they see their mother crying or in pain, becomes distressed and starts crying. No one taught them this.
But as humans grow, external factors begin to influence their internal tendencies, which take the form of practical moral behaviors. For example:
Personal Experience:
Humans make mistakes, bear their consequences, learn lessons from them, and gradually form their own moral decisions.
Social and Religious Education
After emerging from childhood and growing up, family, society, and religion begin to exert influence and tell humans what is right and what is wrong. This education sometimes refines human empathy and sometimes limits or suppresses it.
Here one point is essential to understand. Religions are not the natural source of morality; rather, they organized, codified, and institutionalized pre-existing human moral tendencies. This was a historical necessity for social survival.
But in this very process, empathy was often limited only to one's own group, and moral sensitivity and empathy for outsiders weakened.
Reason as a Measure
Human reason gives us the capacity to "test" every external (that is, social and religious) command and teaching. The natural sense of justice and empathy within us works as a measure by which we can distinguish between good and bad.
That's why when any command goes against basic human empathy or justice, an internal resistance arises within many humans. This very resistance indicates that the source of morality exists beyond any book or tradition, within humanity's own instinctive structure.
My Personal Journey: When Humanity and Religion Came Face to Face
I am an ex-Muslim. When I was a Muslim and sincerely believed in Allah, even then something inside me made me uneasy.
For example:
- The death penalty for apostasy - this was against my inner sense of justice
- The sexual exploitation of women prisoners of war - this too
I was not alone. I think many Muslims feel this unease inside.
But this tendency of empathy was suppressed by the "teaching/brainwashing" given by religious society that Allah is the greatest knower, wise, and all-knowing, and that our human "limited minds" cannot encompass His wisdom.
Yes, at that time too I (that is, my reason) had pondered and compared "the voice of humanity" and "the argument of societal teaching (Allah's wisdom)" and then, based on reason, had decided that Allah's wisdom takes precedence over the tendency of empathy. Thus, through this rational argument, I had "calmed" myself even while going against the voice of humanity within me.
The mistake was not of my reason, but rather at that time my reason was operating on the assumption that Allah truly existed in the heavens and that He was far wiser than my limited mind.
The Moment of Change: This thing began to change when my reason started to directly challenge the very existence of Allah. And when the concept of God's existence crumbled, then other concepts connected to this concept also automatically began to collapse, and my moral behaviors began to change.
Reason and the Use of Reason: A Psychological Struggle
An important lesson we should remember is that "reason" is a capacity, while "the use of reason" is a voluntary action. Nature has entrusted reason to every human, but social conditioning and religious teachings cast thick veils over it and blind it.
The only way to dispel this mental darkness is through continuous use of reason, a barrage of questions, and cultivating the courage to 'doubt.' But this process is not so simple; it is an internal war.
You can only raise these questions when you learn to overcome the biological pressure (Hormonal Pressure) arising from emotions like "fear" and "blind reverence" within you. As long as your brain remains afflicted by fear of punishment or the awe of sacred beings, reason will remain paralyzed. [Note: In scientific language, religion often controls the human brain's amygdala and dopamine system through "fear" (hell) and "greed" (paradise).]
For the true use of reason, it is necessary that you bring your "sense of justice" to prevail over fear and give it enough strength that it can challenge prevailing social and religious structures.
Ultimately, these very courageous questions become the cause of breaking the centuries-old shackles of society and religion.
Conclusion: The Search for Balance
In practical life, humans must always establish balance between the selfishness of survival and the sacrifice of empathy.
Too much empathy can put one's own existence in danger of annihilation, while too much selfishness can make a person oppressive toward others.
The source of morality actually lies in the perpetual search for that balance arising from the mutual action of these three factors (contradictory biological tendencies, free reason and consciousness, and social teaching), which provides a balanced path between individual survival and social responsibility.
Religions: Human-Made Systems
When we view religions in the light of humanity, we see both goodness and evil in religions. The reason for this is that humans created religions, so they reflect humans' flaws and virtues. In religions:
- Goodness exists because humans tried to understand and spread moral values.
- Evil exists because humans also used religions for their own self-interest, power, and control.
Therefore, humans don't need religion as a guide to learn morality; rather, the study of religions is needed for the purpose of gaining knowledge.
Lessons should be learned from religions, not slavery to them.
Do Hormones Give Us Objective Morality?
No, hormones are neither morality themselves, nor do they lead us completely toward objective morality.
Yes, however, hormones do point to some degree of biological objectivity:
- Oxytocin works for empathy in all humans
- Seeing pain creates a feeling of empathy in almost everyone
- These are universal biological responses
Subjective Aspects:
- Hormone levels differ in each person
- Some people are naturally more empathetic, some less
- Social training modifies these biological responses
Is the Role of "Reason" Objective or Subjective?
Apparently, decisions made on the basis of reason appear to be subjective.
For example, different people reach different conclusions on the same issue, even though all are using reason.
The basic function of reason is like data processing. Reason doesn't generate data on its own. Rather, it receives input, processes it, and then gives output.
Now the question is, where does reason get its input from? There are two sources.
First Source: Our Internal Instinctive Tendencies
These are various instinctive tendencies within us that are subject to hormones. For example, they include:
- The tendency of empathy
- The tendency of survival and selfishness
- Other feelings like love, anger, fear, shame, curiosity, etc.
All of these play a role in moral decisions.
Important point to note: From here, reason can receive "contradictory" input. For example, the tendency of empathy says to help others, while the tendency of selfishness says to look out for your own benefit. Reason must now decide which input to prioritize.
Second Source: External Environment, Training, and Religion
This is input received from our training, environment, society, family, and religion, etc. The important thing is that here too reason can receive "contradictory" input. For example:
- Our close ones (for example, family members) tell us from childhood that Allah exists
- Later from society, this input is also received that according to some distant people, Allah does not exist
Now the question is, how will reason process these two contradictory inputs?
Here hormones play a role again. We trust more those people who:
- Are close to us (family, friends)
- Are in positions of authority (parents, teachers, religious scholars)
- With whom we have emotional connections
- Whose words we hear repeatedly
This was necessary for evolutionary survival. Trusting close relatives was important for survival. Therefore, reason will give more "weight" to the words of close and trusted people in the input data received from society.
This is not reason's mistake. It is working in the way evolution designed it.
This becomes clear from my own experience. When I was a Muslim, at that time my reason was receiving these inputs:
- My close ones were saying that Allah exists
- My environment was saying that Islam is true
- I was taught repeatedly that Allah's wisdom is unlimited
At that time, I had decided based on reason that:
- Killing an apostate is correct
- Slavery is permissible
- Because Allah exists and His wisdom is far superior to my limited mind
Note: This was also reason's decision. I thought, contemplated, and concluded.
But later when reason, breaking free from emotions like "fear" and "reverence", began to question Allah and the "words" of close relatives themselves, then the situation changed. Now my reason was receiving new inputs:
- Questions about Allah's existence itself
- Contradictions in Islamic teachings
- Different perspectives from other people
Now this same reason processed the data differently than before, and concluded that:
- Killing an innocent human in the name of apostasy is wrong
- Slavery is an insult to humanity
When a human is fearful, the logical part of the brain (Prefrontal Cortex) becomes paralyzed and the survival instinct takes control.
Not only fear, but intense devotion and even love can also "bypass" or paralyze the prefrontal cortex in the same way fear does.
When a human is in "reverence" of some very great being, power, or concept, the part of the brain that controls our "ego" becomes silent. When the ego becomes small, humans lose the ability to raise questions because raising questions requires an "autonomous existence."
When you consider a being "perfect" or "sacred," the brain subconsciously decides that there is no longer a need to "analyze." In this way, the brain switches off logic to save energy.
In fear, stress hormones called "adrenaline" and "cortisol" work, while in reverence and love, a flood of hormones called oxytocin and dopamine comes.
Oxytocin forces humans toward "trust." When the amount of this hormone becomes very high, the part of the brain that identifies "deception" or "error" (the part of the amygdala that senses danger) slows down. In both cases, the result is the same: the suspension of reason.
Therefore, the results appear to emerge as follows:
- Reason is fundamentally subjective.
- Reason is not completely free from the influence of hormones, but reason can also override hormones.
- "Brainwashing" of reason due to environment is also a reality, but reason can also override this environmental brainwashing.
Also, when religious people say that "objective morality only comes from God," we should ask them these questions:
- Which among the different commandments of different religions is "objective"? Who will decide?
- If your reason is deciding which religion is correct, then why isn't reason the fundamental authority?
- If your reason can "test" God's commandments and interpret them, then why don't you admit that the real source of morality is human reason and empathy?
The reality is that religious "objective morality" is actually "authoritarian morality." And this is dishonesty because:
- The decision to accept this authority was itself subjective
- The interpretation of this authority is also subjective
- Different people accept different authorities
Summary:
Complete objective morality is not possible. Neither in religion nor in non-religious systems.
Yes, religions may claim complete objective morality all they want, but their claim is not correct.
Whereas non-religious systems don't claim complete objective morality in the first place because we know that we are living in a non-perfect world where achieving 100% perfection is impossible. And we (humanity) don't need 100% perfect morality to survive.
Finally, don't be afraid to doubt. This is the path of humanity.
Analysis of Religious Thinkers' Claim that Morality is Impossible Without God
Religious thinkers claim that without God, there can be no solid foundation for morality.
In defense of this claim, religious people present the following 3 arguments:
- Subjective vs Objective Morality (Religious people's claim that without God, everything becomes subjective)
- The Need for Accountability (that is, the greed for paradise and fear of hell in the afterlife makes you a morally better person)
- The Is vs Ought Problem (that is, science can only tell us what humans "are," but it cannot tell us what they "should be")
Religious People's First Argument: Subjective vs Objective Morality
According to religious thinkers, without God, morality becomes merely "human opinion" (Subjective Morality). If God has not called murder evil, then it is only our preference or dislike whether we consider murder good or bad. What is "evil" for one person may be "good" for another. If the majority decides that killing a particular group is correct, then in a non-religious system (atheist society), there will be no "ultimate measure" to prove it wrong. Therefore, only an absolute being (God) can give us that standard of objective morality that remains the same in all times and places.
Our Answer:
When we see someone in pain, the same parts of our brain become active that become active in our own pain.
Evolutionarily, our human species has survived precisely because it has a much greater instinctive tendency for empathy and feeling the pain of other humans than selfishness or any other tendency that causes pain to others. Human groups in which cooperation and empathy were greater were more successful and their generations progressed. If this were not the case, our human species would have ended during evolution itself.
Our "reason" became the means by which we distinguished ourselves from animals and our chances of survival increased far more than all other animals. That is, our reason gave much more superiority to our instinctive tendency of empathy over the tendency to cause pain to others, because our survival was linked to it.
The second point is that religious people are merely fabricating a tale of a "hypothetical world" that has no connection with the conditions and events of our "practical world." Yes, they are creating such a hypothetical world where atheists will start calling murder good from tomorrow.
Thousands of years of human history testify that in every society (whether religious or non-religious), moral standards have always remained nearly the same with only minor differences. Therefore, there is no example in all of human history where religious societies are completely eliminating murder while non-religious societies are completely continuing murder. And the reason for this uniformity in morality is that morality never descended from the heavens; rather, humans have always created it themselves, whether in religious or non-religious societies.
Rather, the opposite has been observed: that in some non-religious societies (such as Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, etc.), the standard of humanity has been much higher compared to religious societies.
Therefore, when religious people present such an impression in their claim that, as if without some god and religion, non-religious societies become completely like animals, they are merely presenting a hypothesis to deceive people that has no connection with our practical world, and empirical history has already completely refuted it.
"Morality attributed to God" has itself justified the worst atrocities in history. For example, the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, brought 100% destruction upon his opponents.
- He would kill all the men of his opponents, or enslave them.
- And he would make all their women slave concubines, and then make their sexual exploitation permissible for his companions. Even though these women had no fault in the wars.
- And he would not spare their small children either and would enslave all the children for life, even though their small children had no role in the wars and they were innocent.
- And then Muhammad would loot all the land, property, and wealth of his opponents and would not leave even a penny.
Therefore, this is complete destruction and perhaps no non-religious society could bring more destruction than this.
For example, for the sake of obtaining war booty, Muslims attacked the tribe of Banu Mustaliq in 5 AH while they were completely in a state of negligence.
Sahih Bukhari, 2541 and Sahih Muslim 1730a:
Ibn Awn says that he wrote to Nafi asking whether it is necessary to invite the disbelievers to Islam before attacking them. In response, Nafi replied that this was the practice in early Islam, but later the Messenger attacked Banu al-Mustaliq in a state of complete negligence (that is, no invitation was given) and their cattle were drinking water. Their fighting men were killed and all the women and children were taken prisoner (enslaved).
قَالَ مَرَّ بِيَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِالأَبْوَاءِ ـ أَوْ بِوَدَّانَ ـ وَسُئِلَ عَنْ أَهْلِ الدَّارِ يُبَيَّتُونَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ، فَيُصَابُ مِنْ نِسَائِهِمْ وَذَرَارِيِّهِمْ قَالَ " هُمْ مِنْهُمْ ". وَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ " لاَ حِمَى إِلاَّ لِلَّهِ وَلِرَسُولِهِ
Sa'b bin Jathama narrated that the Prophet passed by me at Abwa or Waddan, and he was asked about the polytheists whose children and women are killed in night raids. He said: They are from them. Then he said that "protected pastures (Arabic: hima)" belong only to Allah and His Messenger.
"Hima" (protected pasture) in ancient Arab tribal economy was not just a pasture, but a symbol of power. "Hima" referred to those protected pastures and areas that tribes reserved exclusively for their livestock. Occupying another tribe's "hima" or expanding one's own "hima" was a clear political declaration that the occupying tribe was now more powerful and influential.
Muhammad's attack on the fertile lands of Banu Mustaliq and occupation of their "hima" (pastures) was implementing the same law of the jungle (Might is Right) of the ancient age of ignorance, but Muhammad gave this law of war only this religious color that attacking and occupying the lands and "hima" of non-Muslims is permissible because all pastures are the property of Allah and His Messenger.
Therefore, you can see that morality remained exactly the same: that attacking others for personal benefit is correct, but the only difference was that murder, plunder, and looting for personal benefit were made permissible here by giving them a religious color.
Also, America today conducts drone strikes on Taliban terrorists and declares the innocent people who die with the terrorists as 'collateral damage.' But Islamist gentlemen do not accept America's 'collateral damage' theory. But can these same Islamist gentlemen also reject their Prophet's same collateral damage theory?
Or will the Islamist gentlemen call the killing of women and children in their Prophet's case collateral damage, and the murder and plunder for occupation of pastures "morality"?
Religious People's Second Argument: Why Should Humans Sacrifice Their Desires Without Any "Accountability"
The next argument of religious people is that if there is no life after death and no system of reward and punishment, then a person has no solid reason to become "good" by sacrificing their desires. If an oppressor enjoys life in this world and dies, and an oppressed person suffers and dies, and ultimately both become dust, then morality seems like a "meaningless burden". According to religion, the fear of God for "accountability" is the only power that prevents humans from evil even "in solitude".
Our Answer:
Contrary to the claim of religious people, morality never seems like a "meaningless burden" because showing empathy for others and helping them does not only benefit others, but also benefits us and gives us "peace and happiness." This peace and happiness is immediate and real, not a promise after death.
And we receive this "peace and happiness" even when we are "in solitude." Therefore, if we commit a crime even in solitude (or secretly) that harms others, then even on this solitary crime, our conscience is reproaching us and there is a "burden" on us.
Research shows that those who have more "fear of hell" are not necessarily more moral. For example, look at surveys of prisoners in jails:
- The proportion of religious people is higher than non-religious people
- In America, 85-90% of prisoners are religious, while atheists are less than even 1% (whereas the proportion of atheists in America's population is much higher than this)
Reference: Are Prisoners Less Likely To Be Atheists? - FiveThirtyEight
Religious People's Third Argument: The Problem of "Is" and "Ought"
The third and final argument of religious people is that science and evolution can tell us what humans "are" (Is), but they can never tell us what humans "should be" (Ought). Evolution can tell us that compassion strengthens the tribe, but it cannot prove that showing compassion is a "moral duty." Religion claims that this "duty" or "command" can only come from an exalted being (God) who is beyond matter.
Our answer is the same as we stated above: that the tendencies arising from the hormones produced in our bodies as a result of evolution and our reason together not only tell us what we humans "are," but they also go further and guide us toward what we "should be" so that we receive "inner peace and happiness," and what we "should not be" so that we face the remorse and reproach of the humanity (conscience) within us.
Gautama Buddha: A Non-Religious Moral Revolution Without Any "Heavenly God"
Islam faces significant moral criticisms, which atheists often highlight. In response, Islamists argue that atheists lack the moral foundation to criticize Islam, claiming that without a belief system, atheism has no basis for moral judgment. For example, the MuslimSkeptic Website, which belongs to famous Islamic apologist Daniel Haqiqatjou, writes (link):
Atheism Has No Morality: The overwhelming majority of atheist “criticism” against Islam and religion in general are moral claims. Yet to an intelligent person this does not make sense. How do people without any moral foundation have the audacity to make moral arguments in the first place? In short there is “objective morality” and then there is “subjective morality.” You see, atheists do not have any objective morality in the first place. What atheism can only do is create subjective morality. Subjective = opinion, whereas objective = fact (there is no 3rd one).e.g: “Red is the best color” is subjective, but “2+2=4” is objective. In other words, atheists are criticizing Islam based on their own subjective personal opinions. They might as well say, “I hate Islam because Muslims like the color green, but my favorite color is blue,” and it be no different than the garbage they say currently.
Contrary to the propaganda of the religious class that "morality is impossible without God," history tells us that the sense of humanity is much more ancient and prior than the concept of all religions and deities (including Allah). The brightest example of this is the personality of Gautama Buddha.
Buddha did not believe in a creator God. He never claimed that any angel came to him with heavenly revelation. Rather, he made his inner suffering, empathy, and his human reason and contemplation the source of all his teachings.
Buddha challenged the so-called "sacred and eternal morality" of Hinduism at that time, which declared the inhuman system of 'caste' as the very essence of religion. He proved that the "humanity" within humans is sufficient for distinguishing between good and evil.
Were Buddha's ethics one hundred percent perfect? Certainly not, because the cultural influences of his era were present on him. But the real point is that these "imperfect" moral principles based on human conscience have always exposed the contradictions of those "sacred" religious moralities that for centuries have justified atrocities like slavery and class discrimination by cloaking them in divine garb.
Remember that the existence of 100% objective morality in this world is not even possible because we are not living in a 100% perfect world. Religion's claim that its morality is 100% perfect is nothing but a mirage and deception.
Here we place a few questions before Muslim preachers:
- Do you acknowledge that Gautama Buddha possessed a high moral system? Or do you claim that Buddhism has no moral framework at all because they do not believe in any divine being?
- Do you accept that Buddha had the right to criticize the "prevailing religious morality" of Hinduism based on his humanity and reason?
If your answer is "yes," then how did criticizing Islamic morality based on human reason become "wrong"?
Why is there this contradiction that Buddha should be given the right to examine the Vedas and the caste system with his reason, but a modern atheist or thinker should not be given the right to question Islam's commandments on apostasy, slavery, and the concept of concubines based on the same human reason?
This attitude is the worst example of "double standards." If human reason can be a measure to examine Hinduism, then it is equally empowered to examine Islam or any other religion.
Final Word
Do not strangle your humanity and reason for the sake of religious sanctity and Allah's "alleged wisdom." The path to seeking truth is certainly difficult, but this is the very path that brings us out from the settlement of fear into the light of consciousness. Remember, humanity is prior to all religions and our own reason is our greatest guide.
Hassan Radwan