The Source of Morality: Religion or Humanity Within Us

Religious people argue that morality comes entirely from religion. They claim that even secular or Western societies are quietly borrowing their moral values from religious traditions. The implication is straightforward, i.e., take away religion, and people lose their moral compass entirely.

But modern science tells a different story. Research in neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and psychology suggests that our moral instincts are rooted in brain chemistry and hormones, and not in divine commandments.

Before we dive into what science says, it helps to understand the religious argument on its own terms. Two things need to be clear:

1. What religious thinkers actually mean when they talk about morality,

2. And what their main objection is to any moral system that leaves God out of the picture.

The Religious Argument: Morality Needs God to Be Real

Most religious thinkers start with a straightforward claim, i.e., without God, morality cannot truly exist. This is not a fringe view. It sits at the center of how many religious scholars approach ethics.

To make this argument stick, they draw a sharp distinction between two types of morality.

Objective morality, in their framing, exists independently of what any person wants or prefers. It does not bend to personal taste, culture, or circumstance. It is simply true, like a mathematical fact.

Subjective morality, by contrast, is just personal opinion dressed up as ethics. It reflects what a person or culture happens to like or dislike, nothing more.

The religious argument then follows a clean logical path, i.e., only God can be the source of objective morality, because only God stands completely outside of human preference and history. Without God, all that remains is subjective morality, which they argue is no real morality at all.

How This Argument Gets Used in Practice

The Islamic commentator Daniel Haqiqatjou, who runs the widely read website MuslimSkeptic, lays this out bluntly. Writing about atheism and morality, he argues: (link):

The vast majority of atheist "criticism" directed at Islam and religion in general rests on moral claims. Yet there is no justification for this from a thinking person. How can people who have no moral foundation of their own dare to make moral arguments? Simply put, there is objective morality and there is subjective morality. You can see that atheists have no objective morality whatsoever. Atheism can only produce subjective (personal) morality. "Subjective" means personal opinion. "Objective" means reality. There is no third option. For example, "red is the best color" is a subjective opinion, while "2+2=4" is an objective fact. In other words, atheists are criticizing Islam based purely on their own personal, subjective views. So when they say "I hate Islam because Muslims like green and I prefer blue," it is no different from the nonsense they already say.

His point is that atheists have no right to make moral criticisms of religion, because without God, their moral judgments carry no more weight than aesthetic preferences. Saying "this religious practice is cruel" is, in his view, logically equivalent to saying "I prefer blue over green."

A Key Confusion: Objective Morality vs. Absolute Morality

Religious thinkers make a critical mistake. Whether deliberately or unknowingly, they conflate two very different concepts: objective morality and absolute morality. Then they use this conflation to justify their religious worldview.

When a religious person says, "Without God, there is no objective morality," what they actually mean is, "Without God, there is no absolute morality." These are not the same thing.

What Is Absolute Morality?

Absolute morality refers to a moral system that remains exactly the same:

• in every era

• in every place

• in every society

• under every circumstance

It would be 100 percent correct, complete, and unchanging. No revision would ever be needed.

When religious thinkers say "without God there is no objective morality," they have quietly swapped "absolute" for "objective," hoping no one notices.

But here is the problem, i.e., even on their own terms, the religious claim to absolute morality falls apart immediately. Different religions have different absolute moralities that directly contradict each other. And within a single religion, different scholars, different schools of thought, and different historical periods have produced wildly different moral conclusions. If absolute morality exists and comes from God, whose God? Which version? Which interpretation?

The honest answer is that absolute morality, as religious thinkers define it, does not exist anywhere in practice. It is a philosophical claim that evaporates the moment you look at the real world.

What Is Objective Morality?

Objective morality is different entirely. It simply means:

• a moral framework that is not just personal opinion

• one that is grounded in something beyond individual preference

• that can be examined, tested, argued about, and refined

It does not have to be perfect or eternal. It just has to be more than "I personally feel like it."

And here is the key insight that religious thinkers work very hard to avoid: human beings can build objective morality without God.

A limited, close to perfection, and genuinely real objective morality can be constructed from human nature, human reason, human empathy, and the shared experience of living together.

Religious Morality Is Not Objective. It Is Authoritarian.

There is a second problem with the religious version of morality that rarely gets named directly. Religious morality is not really objective at all. It is authoritarian.

The reason you are told not to do something is not because it causes harm or undermines human dignity. The reason is simply because God said so. That is obedience to power, not moral reasoning. Dressing it up in the language of objectivity does not change what it actually is.

What Modern Science Says About the Origins of Morality

So if morality does not come from God, where does it come from?

Modern science, particularly evolutionary biology and neuroscience, has been answering this question for decades. The short answer is this that our moral instincts are biological. They evolved. They are real, powerful, and existed long before any religion gave them names.

Why Evolution Built a Moral Sense

Early humans could not survive alone. They lived in groups, and the groups that cooperated, shared resources, and looked after one another were the ones that survived. Over millions of years, individuals who felt empathy, who experienced discomfort when they harmed others, and who were capable of trust and connection were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Those instincts became part of our biological inheritance.

But survival also required self-interest. You needed to protect yourself, your children, and your closest allies, sometimes at the expense of others. That instinct became part of us too.

This is why human beings are not simply good or simply selfish. We are both, and we always have been. The tension between caring for others and looking after ourselves is not a moral failure. It is our evolutionary inheritance.

The Biological Foundations: Hormones and Our Dual Nature

Human beings did not descend from heaven as angels. We are biological creatures shaped by millions of years of evolution. Our bodies developed complex hormonal systems to ensure survival. These biological signals create the raw material for our moral behaviour.

The Drive for Self-Preservation

This instinct is fundamental to evolution. It protects the individual and their immediate kin. In the face of danger, it prioritizes immediate reaction, aggression, and self-interest.

At a biological level, this is governed by:

• Cortisol and Adrenaline: These hormones trigger the "fight-or-flight" response. They do not dictate morality. They activate survival instincts that put the self first.

When left unchecked by reason or empathy, this instinct can manifest as oppression, exploitation, and the willingness to sacrifice others for personal gain.

The Drive for Empathy and Cooperation

Evolution also prioritized the survival of the group. Because humans are social creatures who cannot thrive alone, we developed the capacity for love, cooperation, and sacrifice.

This pro-social side of our nature is fuelled by specific neurochemicals:

• Oxytocin and Serotonin: These hormones foster trust, long-term attachment, and emotional connection. While they do not create morality by themselves, they make possible the empathetic tendencies we call compassion or humanity.

This drive inclines us to feel the pain of others and, in many cases, to sacrifice our own comfort for the good of the community.

What Hormones Can and Cannot Do

What hormones provide:

• Oxytocin enables empathy in all human beings.

• Seeing pain produces a sense of compassion in nearly everyone.

• These are universal biological responses. This is one form of objectivity.

What hormones do not provide:

• Hormone levels vary from person to person.

• Some people are naturally more empathetic, others less so.

• Social conditioning modifies these biological responses.

The conclusion is this that hormones bring us closer to objective morality, but they do not deliver absolute morality. No biological system can. And that is fine, because absolute morality is not something humans actually need.

The Role of External Social Influences

Research suggests that human beings possess basic moral instincts from very early in life. Even without formal education, babies show preferences for helpful behaviour over harmful behaviour. A child naturally reaches out to a loving figure and mirrors the distress of their mother, crying in response to her suffering. These are primal, untaught emotional responses.

As we mature, external factors begin to shape these raw instincts into practical moral behaviour. Through trial and error, making mistakes, and facing consequences, individuals gradually refine their moral judgment.

Family, society, education, and religion all play a role in defining right and wrong. These external influences are a double-edged sword, as they can sharpen and expand human compassion, but they can just as easily limit or suppress it.

The Role of Reason: 

If human morality were only subject to hormones, then humans would be nothing more than biological robots.

Similarly, if human morality were only subject to external social influences, then humans would be nothing more than biological zombies. 

But humans are not merely slaves to instincts or external social influences. Rather, evolution has granted us, along with instincts, a higher degree of reason.

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

• And also analyse the external social influence for good and bad. 

Thus, morality is actually an ongoing dialogue between instincts/external influences and reason, and not some static heavenly command. With our reason, we can control our human instincts and can challenge external social influences. 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.

Reason: The Final "Decision-Maker" about Our Behaviours

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.

From instincts, 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 and we should not use our limited reason to challenge His wisdom. 

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 person is afraid, the logical part of the brain (the prefrontal cortex) becomes paralyzed and the survival instinct takes over. But fear is not alone in doing this. Intense devotion, and even love, can bypass or paralyze the prefrontal cortex in the same way that fear does.

When a person is in a state of "reverence" toward a great being, power, or idea, the part of the brain that governs the sense of self becomes quiet. When the self grows small, a person loses the ability to ask questions, because asking questions requires an independent self to exist.

When you accept a being as "perfect" or "sacred," the brain unconsciously decides that there is no longer any need for "analysis." The brain then switches off logic as a way of conserving energy.

In fear, stress hormones like adrenaline and cortisol are at work. In reverence and love, a flood of oxytocin and dopamine arrives. Oxytocin compels a person toward trust. When this hormone is present in very large quantities, the part of the brain that detects deception or error (the part of the amygdala that senses danger) slows down. In both cases, the result is the same: the paralysis of reason.

Reason is not a permanent slave to hormones or upbringing.

Through neuroplasticity, we can consciously rewire our neural pathways and escape "brainwashing."

A powerful example of this conscious override is seen in the Judicial System. A judge’s primary duty is to achieve "Judicial Neutrality." To do this, they must:

• Recognize Bias: Acknowledge their own upbringing, personal ideologies, and instinctive feelings.

• Intentional Filtering: Deliberately set aside personal feelings to process only the legal evidence provided.

Just as a judge trains themselves to be a "neutral arbiter," any individual can use reason to audit their own internal data and decide which "inputs" are valid and which are merely the echoes of biology or environment.

Important Lesson:

Without God, a human being does not become an angel, but neither do they become a beast.

Complete Absolute Morality is not possible in this imperfect world. Not within religion, and not within secular systems either.

Secular systems do not claim complete Absolute Morality to begin with, and that is their strength, because we live in an imperfect world where 100 percent perfection is impossible to achieve. And humanity does not need 100 percent perfect morality in order to survive.

Hormones and reason together bring us closer to Objective Morality. This is the best instrument nature has given us, and one we can continue to refine.

In the end, do not be afraid to doubt. That is the path of humanity.

Religious People's Argument: Why Should Humans Sacrifice Their Desires Without Any "Accountability"

The 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 this claim, morality never feels like a "pointless burden" to most people. Showing empathy and helping others does not only benefit the receiver. It benefits the giver as well. It brings peace and happiness. This peace and happiness is immediate and real, not a promise for after death.

When we commit a wrong in private, our conscience still holds us accountable. We carry the weight of that wrongdoing. We do not need a divine judge to feel guilt. Guilt is built into us.

What Prison Statistics Tell Us

If fear of hell were the primary driver of moral behavior, then religious people should be dramatically overrepresented among the most law-abiding citizens. But the evidence suggests the opposite.

Prison surveys tell an interesting story. In the United States:

• 85 to 90 percent of prisoners identify as religious.

• Atheists account for less than 1 percent of the prison population.

This is striking because atheists make up a considerably higher percentage of the general American population (around 4 to 7 percent, depending on the survey).

These numbers do not prove that religion causes crime. That would be a false conclusion. But they do seriously undermine the claim that fear of hell is necessary for moral behavior. If hell's terror were the main thing keeping people in line, prisons would be full of atheists. They are not. They are full of religious people.

• Reference: Are Prisoners Less Likely To Be Atheists? - FiveThirtyEight

Religious People's Argument: The Problem of "Is" and "Ought"

The third and final argument of religious people is:

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, i.e., 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.

A Real-World Answer: Japan

The is-ought problem sounds abstract. But real human societies answer it every day.

Consider Japan. Most Japanese people are not religious. They do not believe in hell or paradise. Yet Tokyo is known worldwide for its honesty. Every year, citizens hand over millions of dollars in lost cash and countless lost items to the police. Tourists regularly get their forgotten belongings back  (news link).

Why? Not because of fear of God. Because of good education, strong cultural values, and a shared sense of social responsibility. Japanese children are taught honesty from a young age, and that teaching shapes their natural capacity for empathy into consistent moral behaviour.

The "ought" does not need a divine commander. It emerges from who we are (biology) and how we are raised (culture). Japan is living proof.

Gautama Buddha: A Non-Religious Moral Revolution Without Any "Heavenly God"

If morality truly requires a divine commander, then a tradition like Buddhism, which has no creator God, should have no moral framework at all. But that is not true. History offers us a powerful counterexample.

Gautama Buddha did not believe in a creator God. He never claimed that an angel brought him divine revelation. Instead, he rooted his teachings entirely in his own inner suffering, his empathy for others, human reason, and deep contemplation.

In his time, the dominant religious morality was Hinduism, which treated the caste system as sacred and eternal. Buddha challenged this directly. He demonstrated that the humanity within a person, not divine command, is sufficient to distinguish good from evil.

Were Buddha's ethics 100 percent perfect? No. The cultural influences of his era left their mark on him. But that is precisely the point. These imperfect moral principles, rooted in human conscience, exposed the contradictions of "sacred" religious moralities that for centuries gave divine cover to slavery, caste discrimination, and other atrocities.

Remember that 100 percent absolute morality does not exist in this world, because we do not live in a 100 percent perfect world. Religion's claim that its morality is 100 percent perfect is not honesty. It is illusion and deception.

Here are a few direct questions for those who insist that morality cannot exist without God:

1. Do you accept that Gautama Buddha was a person of high moral stature? Or do you claim that Buddhism has no moral framework at all, simply because its followers do not believe in a divine being?

2. Do you accept that Buddha had the right to criticize the prevailing religious morality of Hinduism, including the caste system, on the basis of his own humanity and reason?

If your answer to both questions is "yes," then how does it become wrong to criticize Islamic morality on the basis of human reason?

Why this double standard? Buddha is given the right to examine the Vedas and the caste system through his own reason. But a modern atheist or thinker is denied that same right to question Islam's rulings on apostasy, slavery, and the taking of female captives.

This attitude is hypocrisy and double standards at their worst. If human reason can be the measure by which Hinduism is examined, it is equally capable of examining Islam or any other religion. There is no special exemption.

Closing Words

Religious morality is, in truth, created by human beings themselves. It has simply been given a "sacred" label so that it cannot be questioned. But everything can be questioned. Everything should be questioned.

Let us briefly summarize what we have covered:

• Religious thinkers confuse absolute morality (which does not exist) with objective morality (which humans can build).

• Our moral instincts are rooted in evolution and hormones, not divine command.

• Reason, upbringing, and culture shape these raw instincts into practical ethics.

• Fear of hell does not reliably produce moral behaviour, as prison statistics show.

• The is-ought problem is answered by real-world examples like Japan, where non-religious citizens demonstrate exceptional honesty.

• Buddha, with no creator God and no revelation, built a moral framework that challenged the injustices of his time.

The appeal, in the end, is this that please do not strangle your own humanity and reason for the sake of religious honor or what is called divine wisdom. The path of seeking truth is difficult. It asks us to question what we were taught as children. It asks us to sit with uncertainty. But it is the path that leads us out of the city of fear and into the light of awareness.

Please remember that humanity precedes all religions. Our own reason is our greatest guide. Trust it.