The Source of Morality: Religion or Humanity Within Us

O seekers of truth! Before entering this important conversation about morality, consider a surprising fact: When the religious side talks about morality, it always completely ignores two basic things:

1. Modern science

2. Human history

You will see that it forcibly keeps turning all questions of morality only around the circle of philosophy. The reason for this is that both science and history together give a strong indication that humans can form morality by themselves, and they do not necessarily need any heavenly revelation.

Science tells us that an important part of moral tendencies is connected to our brain, hormones, and evolutionary history; history shows that in different eras, humans created high moral systems without God, such as democratic principles, the trend toward monogamy, and human rights.

Since the main claim of the religious stance is often that the real existence of morality is not possible without a heavenly God, facing these evidences from science and history becomes a challenge for this stance. Therefore, the religious side plays a trick here; it tries to entangle the debate in philosophy so that the ordinary seeker of truth falls into confusion and does not reach any final and clear conclusion.

For this purpose, the religious side traps you in two major traps of philosophy:

• First trap: Objective versus Subjective Moralities. Both of these words are pure philosophical terms; they have no existence in the practical life of an ordinary person. When you see a child crying from hunger, you do not think whether helping them is objective or subjective; your conscience immediately helps. But the religious side gets you so tangled in the definitions and differences of these two words that the main topic, which is how to reduce human suffering, is left far behind.

• Second trap: The Is and Ought Gap. This is also a pure philosophical point often presented by saying that science can only tell what is, not what ought to be. In this way, the debate is imprisoned again within the realm of philosophy.

Table of Contents:

1. How human morality is formed in the light of modern science

According to modern science, morality did not descend from the sky; instead, it emerges from the interaction of three main factors:

1. Biological natural tendencies and hormones produced as a result of evolution

2. Environmental impact

3. Human intellect

When these three work together, human morality is born.

1. Natural instincts and hormones:

Man is not a heavenly angel, but the result of millions of years of evolutionary journey. Two opposing biological tendencies exist inside us:

• Survival and personal interest: In case of danger, our body releases cortisol and adrenaline. In ancient times, this was necessary for survival; however, becoming unbridled, it becomes a cause of oppression and exploitation of others. Religion, in its story, names this sin and the devil, who incites evil.

• Empathy and mutual cooperation: Man is a social creature. Evolution gave survival to those groups that lived together. When we help someone, oxytocin and serotonin are released in the brain, making us feel the pain of others and making us ready to sacrifice for others (Source: Zak et al., 2007; Decety & Cowell, 2014). Religion, in its story, names this virtue and reward. Meanwhile, science sees it as our evolutionary mechanism. Both of these tendencies are our evolutionary heritage, not the game of any devil or angel.

2. Environmental effects

Psychological research proves that six-month-old children, without any religious training, like helping behaviors and dislike harmful behaviors. This basic sense of good and bad is natural (Source: Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom, 2007, Nature).

However, as the child grows, our environment, such as home, society, and religion, starts shaping this nature. These effects are a double-edged sword:

• Positive effect: When societal teachings and values strengthen the natural empathy inside us, such as helping the poor and speaking the truth.

• Negative effect: When religion or society fills hatred from childhood against any specific race, religion, or non-religious people, it crushes natural empathy and replaces it with ideological prejudice.

3. The role of intellect

Evolution gave humans the greatest gift of the ability to think and understand. The intellect works just like a computer processor:

• The intellect does not produce any data or information by itself.

• It gets input, meaning information, from various sources.

• It processes this information.

• And finally, it gives output, meaning the result in the form of our final decision.

The intellect mainly gets information from two sources. Interestingly, these two sources are often giving contradictory input to each other:

• Internal instincts: An internal voice coming from empathy says to help others. Another voice coming from personal interest says to think of yourself first. The intellect has to decide which voice to follow.

• Environmental effect: Home, society, and religion all tell us how to think and how to live. Sometimes they all say the same thing, and sometimes not. The intellect is forced to decide whose words to follow.

The intellect by itself is neither good nor bad; it is only a tool. If it is given wrong, prejudiced, and hateful input from childhood, it processes this same data and prepares a cruel and prejudiced person. If it gets an open, free, and humanitarian environment, it forms a great moral existence.

How is the intellect brainwashed?

Modern psychological and scientific research shows that while processing information, the human intellect gives more importance to those sources with which we have a relationship of fear, reverence, or love, such as parents, teachers, and religious leaders.

In ancient times, trusting the words of elders without question for survival inside a tribe was an evolutionary necessity; but this same necessity becomes the cause of suspending the intellect in the modern era:

• In a state of fear, hormones like cortisol and adrenaline paralyze the logical part of the brain, which is the prefrontal cortex.

• In a state of devotion and love, a high amount of oxytocin and serotonin slows down that part of the brain which points out contradiction or deception.

The result in both cases comes out the same: the analyzing part of the intellect gets switched off because the brain switches off this part to save energy. This is the exact point where the brainwashing of belief begins.

When we see that big educated people and scientists etcetera also have blind faith in their respective religious gods despite thousands of evils, the reason for this is that fear and devotion have closed the switch of the analyzing part of their human intellects.

2. Evidence from human history that gods are not needed for morality

1. Confucius and Buddha

If you look at personalities like Confucius and Buddha, the ultimate proof becomes completely clear; history shows that humans were making morality by themselves, and they did not need any heavenly god for this.

Neither of these two claimed any inspired revelation; neither of them said that an angel brought a sacred book of moral laws from a heavenly god. Instead, both taught that the source of their wisdom was human empathy for others and then thinking through human reason.

For example, Buddha challenged the religious morality of his time without any heavenly god; his sense of humanity and his human reason were enough to know that the religious caste system was against morality and a severe injustice.

Religious people claim that morality came only from a heavenly god, and non-religious systems only "copied" morality from religions afterwards. But tell us, when Buddha was protesting against the caste system of Hinduism, which religion was he copying? Copying requires an "original" to exist first, but before Buddha, no religious "original" existed, and he was making a completely "new" morality solely from his sense of humanity, empathy, and human reason.

What Buddha did was not a "copy" of religious morality; instead, it was a "rebellion" against it.

2. Ancient Rome (Establishment of Monogamy and Republic systems without God)

If humans really learn morality from their gods, Romans should have believed in polygamy and dictatorship; because their gods showed them exactly this pattern.

Jupiter, who was merged with the Greek god Zeus and was the king of Roman gods, was famous for his numerous affairs and deceit. Other Roman and Greek gods were also often shown involved in jealousy, revenge, deception, violence, and sexual immorality; their mythological stories are full of incidents of adultery, revenge, favoritism, and oppression. Their heavenly world was not a republic, but a monarchy where Jupiter ruled over the remaining minor gods. If Romans copied their gods on earth, they would have gotten a monarchy, never a republic.

However, Romans actually did two things completely opposite to the morality of their gods: they made monogamy a mandatory legal standard, and they established a republic system.

Therefore, the question is: if this morality was copied from a religious "original", where is that original? Copying requires an original to exist first, but in both these matters, no such example or command existed from religious gods.

Romans acted completely contrary to their gods; this is not copying, this is rebellion against their gods.

The custom of one wife in Rome was not created under any divine command; instead, it was initially a purely human solution to a human problem, which means protecting lineage, securing inheritance, and strengthening families to make the foundation of the state strong.

In the beginning, this system was not complete either; a man could have one legal wife, but along with that, he could also keep relations with multiple concubines from whom he had more children. Over time, Rome improved this system further and ended relations with concubines.

The credit for this reform largely goes to later Stoic philosophers, especially Musonius Rufus, who clearly argued that a husband should maintain as much loyalty as he demands from his wife; marriage should be a partnership based on equality and loyalty on both sides, and husbands should not have relations with other women. This argument was not given on the command of a heavenly god; rather, it was derived from human reason and the sense of justice.

Similarly, according to Roman history, Romans deposed their tyrant king and went against the religious system, creating the world's first republic using only human reason; in this system, two consuls were appointed instead of a king, with a one-year term and a mutual veto power, alongside the establishment of the senate. After some time (in 494 BCE), as a result of the struggle of the common people, the office of the tribune also came into existence to protect ordinary citizens.

The systems of republic and democracy prevailing in the world today trace their roots back to this very Rome; it was a system formed by rejecting the morality of their own gods and building upon human reason.

Rome also permitted slavery and other atrocities; this is the dark side of their history. However, their journey towards democratic principles and monogamy shows that moral progress was possible even without religious models. The second important point is the difference between the Roman state and Roman Stoic philosophers.

3. Ancient Greece (Formation of morality through human philosophy instead of gods)

Did Greek gods teach reason, virtue, and self-control? No; just read their stories. Zeus cannot control his lust; Ares is merely a creature of anger; Poseidon destroys cities in anger. If you live a life like the gods of Olympus, you would be in prison in the modern era.

So where did reason, virtue, and self-control come from? They came from human philosophers who stopped looking at their gods and started looking at human nature.

Socrates shifted the focus of discussion from the stories of gods to human character. According to him, the real question was how a human becomes a good person, not what a specific deity did.

Aristotle wrote a book on morality named "Nicomachean Morality", which is one of the greatest books ever written on this subject; it does not say anywhere that "Zeus commanded this", not even once. He based his entire morality on these things:

• Human flourishing (eudaimonia)

• Virtues

• Habit

• Rationality

• Practical wisdom

Here too, there are no inspired commands; instead, this morality is being built solely on the foundation of human empathy and human reason.

4. Morality of today's modern world

Today in the West, every single country is forming morality on non-religious foundations, solely based on human empathy and reason, without gods. Because of this very morality, the violation of the honor of conquered women after wars ended, slave markets ended, weak people and minorities were given human rights at an equal level, women were recognized as equal human beings, and even animals are being given rights for the first time in human history.

However, instead of acknowledging this, the religious side is still stuck on its claim that today's modern non-religious civilized world is only "copying" past "religious morality", because humans cannot create morality without God.

Yet the point remains the same: copying also requires an "original" to exist first, and such an "original" for these things does not exist in thousands of years of religious morality.

Religious excuse: God placed morality in the human heart

When the religious side fails to show that "original" in its religion which secular non-religious morality could copy, it brings a new excuse and says: The original does not mean any book; rather, God placed morality in the human heart, and Buddha just listened to that voice of the heart.

In response, we submit that if God placed morality in the heart, why did the "original" of slavery, relations with concubines, and the caste system remain present in religious books for thousands of years, and why did religious humans not fix it themselves?

Therefore, why is the "original" of today's non-religious morality (such as the abolition of slavery, equality of women, rights of minorities, and animal rights) not found in any religious book?

The only difference was that religion gave an open license to these evils, and the human intellect of religious people could not rebel against their gods; therefore, they could not end them.

In contrast, secular non-religious societies successfully ended these religious evils because their human intellect was no longer enslaved to those gods.

3. Why non-religious morality appears to give better results in some matters

The reason for this is extremely basic; in a secular system, evil has only one root: human selfishness, lust, or oppression. When secular morality fights an evil, it only has to face the dark aspects of human nature. The argument there is simple: "This action causes human suffering, so it must end."

In contrast, in a religious system, evil gets two roots:

1. The first root is human selfishness and lust.

2. The second and deadlier root is divine sanction; meaning the religious command that not only declares this oppression permissible, but also makes it sacred and obligatory to obey.

When you have to fight evil in a secular system, you only have to fight humans and their interests. But in a religious system, you have to fight humans along with God Himself and His sacred texts, which gave a license of "halal" to this evil. This becomes a system where reform becomes impossible or extremely difficult.

Let us understand this through historical examples:

First example: Sexual exploitation of captive women in religion and no criticism of it

History is witness that even centuries before Islam, conquerors fighting wars considered the enemy's women as spoils of war and sexually exploited them. This was the result of the human lust of the "powerful man". However, as human consciousness evolved, the Enlightenment in Europe and Secular Humanism raised voices against this evil and ran powerful movements against it.

The challenge in front of these secular moral movements was only how to stop human lust and oppression; and finally, they succeeded by criminalizing the exploitation of prisoners of war through international laws such as the Geneva Conventions.

In contrast, look at the tragedy of Islamic history: in the name of Milk Yameen (concubines and prisoners of war), not only were the women and children of opponents permitted to be enslaved, but sexual relations with these innocent captive women were explicitly declared lawful.

Now, the problem was no longer just the "sexual lust" of the man; rather, religion also granted a sacred license to this lust known as a divine license.

Throughout the 14 centuries of Islamic history, no voice was raised against this, no rebellion happened, no movement ran, and no reform took place.

The reason was not that empathy was missing from individuals; rather, the reason was that opposing this action meant directly calling God's command immoral, which becomes outright apostasy within a religious framework.

This is why the end of this evil in the Islamic world did not happen as a result of any internal moral movement or religious awakening. This reform was imposed externally during the 19th and 20th centuries after intense pressure from powerful secular countries and international agencies. However, when this ban was placed, traditional scholars of that era opposed it by saying that the English are making something unlawful that Allah has made lawful.

Therefore, this was not any "internal" reform; instead, it was only an "external" reform brought from outside and forcibly applied, dragging the religious world into the standards of modern human rights.

Second example: Sexual exploitation of a captive woman by multiple men in "temporary" sexual relations

Islam also gives the man the license that after having sexual relations with a captive or concubine woman, when he gets bored of her or for commercial benefits, he can sell her in slave markets after a "temporary" sexual relationship, and buy new and young concubines for himself.

Thus, a continuous cycle of "temporary" sexual exploitation of these oppressed women would begin, never ending; one owner would sell her to another, the second to the third, and thus these women remained the target of sexual lust of multiple men throughout their lives.

All of this was made lawful not under any "necessity", but solely for the man's sexual lust and commercial profit.

This terrifying situation becomes clear in this hadith: Sahih Muslim, Book of Marriage, Chapter on the Ruling of Azl, and Sahih Bukhari, Book of Fate, and Sahih Bukhari, Book of Oneness:

Companion Abu Said Al-Khudri says that after a war, some beautiful Arab women fell into their possession, and the companions desired them because they were away from their wives. At the same time, the companions wanted to sell these concubine women for a ransom to get a good price for them. Therefore, the companions practiced azl (meaning pulling out the male organ during sex and discharging outside so that those women would not get pregnant and they could get a good price upon selling them). Then they asked the Messenger of Allah about it, and the Messenger of Allah replied: Yes, azl is permitted; but if a soul is to be created, it will be created anyway (meaning pregnancy can happen despite azl).

Just ponder over this scenario: followers of a "heavenly religion" are viewing human women merely as "commercial goods", and are worried that their getting pregnant might decrease their price. And the alleged "revelation" does not defend human rights, the self-respect of women, or the natural right to motherhood; instead, it provides protection to this commercial interest.

Throughout the 14 centuries of Islamic history, no "reform" took place in this matter; no voice was raised, no movement started, no rebellion happened, and these markets of slavery and exploitation by multiple men in temporary relations continued as they were.

Islam versus Roman Stoic Philosophers

If this moral structure of Islam is compared with other intellectual systems of the ancient world, the contradiction becomes even more prominent: For example, 500 years before Islam, the Roman Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus was teaching monogamy based purely on humanity and his human reason, without any sexual relation with a prostitute, captive woman, or concubine. Musonius Rufus argued that all humans are made of the same substance and soul, so looking down on slaves or having sexual relations with concubines is against human morality.

In his teachings, those two evils were absent which you read above regarding the moral system of Islam (meaning the sexual exploitation of captive or concubine women and temporary sexual relations).

Due to his teachings, monogamy spread gradually, and today monogamy is found almost all over the world.

This was a step toward reform of which the Islamic world could not give an example throughout its 14 centuries of long history.

Remember that Stoic philosophy brought this moral system on "non-religious secular" foundations.

Islam versus Mosaic Law (Jews and Christians)

More interestingly, thousands of years before Islam, Jews and Christians had already banned "temporary" sexual relations with captive women. Look at the Bible where commands regarding a female slave are stated: Bible, Deuteronomy, Chapter 21:

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her and would take her as your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the captive's garb, remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her at all for money, neither shall you treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.

Therefore, although the Bible still permitted sexual relations with a captive woman (which is morally a crime), the morality of the Bible was still better than Islam in these aspects:

• It sets a condition of formal marriage with the captive woman, whereas in Islam, sexual relations with a concubine are based solely on ownership without marriage.

• It allows the captive woman to mourn her relatives killed in war for 30 days. But in Islam, there is no such concept of giving these captive women any time to mourn; they are virgins, or as soon as they finish menstrual blood, Muslim men establish sexual relations with them.

• The Bible ends "temporary" sexual relations; once married, their status becomes like a free wife who cannot be sold further, but can only be freed.

The backward journey of Islamic morality: From bad to worse

The question is: what was the reason that Islamic law abandoned Mosaic law (meaning relatively soft laws such as one month of grief and the prohibition of selling a female slave), and instead made those pre-Islamic Arabian tribal laws part of Islamic law? The answer is that the reasons were:

• Compared to Mosaic law, Arabian laws provided more opportunities for the fulfillment of a man's sexual lust.

• And Arabian laws offered multiple times more commercial profit for men.

Therefore, the question is: if every new religious moral system comes to take humanity forward and make it more complete, why did this journey of morality go backward (regressive) instead of moving forward? For a seeker of truth, its logical conclusion is completely clear: these commands were not reflections of a heavenly moral standard, but were subordinate to the economic and sexual interests of seventh-century Arabian tribal society.

Stalin and Mao fallacy (Their use as whataboutism)

Whenever dark and inhuman aspects of religious morality are raised (such as the exploitation of concubines in temporary relations or slave markets), Islamic apologists immediately resort to whataboutism instead of giving a direct answer. They immediately start mentioning the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Zedong to try to change the topic. Alas! However, their comparison is also not correct, because: Certainly, it is a historical fact that severe atrocities were also committed under communist or colonial secular systems. But the most important difference is that secular and human rights-based morality never considered these atrocities "sacred"; rather, they declared them "crimes against humanity". The modern secular world freely criticizes Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, rejects their ideologies, knocks down their statues, rebels against them, and detaches itself from them. The result then comes in the form of today's secular Western world, which stands as far away from the systems imposed by Hitler and Stalin as the earth is from the sky.

But is it possible for Muslims to similarly criticize their Islamic system, prophet, and Allah, declare "rebellion" against them, and detach themselves from them? No, they cannot do that. For this reason, there is only sacred stagnation in a religious system and reform is impossible or extremely difficult, or reform comes only in the form of external pressure.

This is why whenever bans were placed on slavery or the system of concubines in the religious world, they were not implemented as a result of any internal moral awakening, but externally after intense pressure from international secular laws.

4. The first trick of the religious side: trapping in the philosophical fallacy of objective versus subjective morality

Religious circles have always insisted that the real existence of morality is not possible without God; to prove this stance, they divide morality into two parts:

• Objective Morality: Those moral principles that are completely free from human personal desires, likes, and dislikes, and are based on reality.

• Subjective Morality: That morality which is based solely on human personal opinion and likes and dislikes.

The website of the famous Islamic preacher Daniel Haqiqatjou writes:

"There is no existence of morality in atheism: The vast majority of criticism by atheist gentlemen against religion and Islam in general is based on moral claims. However, for an intelligent person, there is no justification for this. Those people (meaning atheist gentlemen) who have no moral foundation of their own, how can they dare to make moral arguments?"

In short, there is one "Objective Morality" and another "Subjective Morality". You can see that atheist gentlemen do not have any objective morality at all; atheism can only produce subjective (personal/internal) morality.

"Subjective" means only "personal opinion", while "objective" means "reality", and apart from these, there is no third option. For example: "Red color is the best" is a subjective opinion, but "2+2=4" is an objective reality.

In other words, atheist gentlemen are criticizing Islam solely on the basis of their personal and subjective opinions; therefore, their saying "I hate Islam because Muslims like green color while my favorite color is blue" is not different at all from their current nonsensical talks.

However, this religious claim is based on fallacies; let us examine these fallacies.

The first fallacy of the religious side: presenting absolute morality as objective morality

The religious side gives the first fallacy to the public by presenting "Absolute Morality" to the public as "Objective", whereas in reality, these are two completely different things.

Therefore, when a religious preacher says:

"If there is no God, then objective morality does not exist either."

In reality, he is saying:

"If there is no God, then absolute morality does not exist either."

And this is the exact place where the whole debate gets tangled.

What is Absolute Morality?

Absolute morality refers to a moral system that is:

1. Uniform in every era

2. Uniform in every society

3. Uniform in every condition

4. In which there is no room for any kind of change, reform, or revision, because they are from an all-knowing and wise God, while our human intellects are limited and cannot encompass His wisdom.

Therefore, for humans, challenging absolute morality or changing it is impossible. Religious morality makes this same claim about itself; since this morality has come from God, it is considered complete, eternal, and unchangeable.

What is Objective Morality?

Objective morality does not mean that morality descended from the sky, or that it is one hundred percent perfect and unreformable. Instead, it only means that moral principles are higher than an individual's personal desire, personal interest, or temporary likes and dislikes.

For example, if a person wants to exploit weak people solely for their own benefit, objective morality has the capacity to say that their personal benefit does not make this action right. The claim of objective morality is not that it cannot make mistakes; rather, it is that it can test its decisions on the scales of reason, experience, observation, and human welfare, and improve them over time.

Evolution has created the ability inside humans to feel the pain of others, cooperate, and show empathy. Modern psychology and biology tell us that in the vast majority of humans, the ability to feel empathy, conscience, and response to the suffering of others exists.

The important point is that this is not just like personal likes and dislikes. Just as pain is a real human experience, similarly, the feeling of empathy and humanity is also a real human reality.

However, this feeling itself does not give any complete moral code; rather, it only provides raw material. And then, the actual role of making morality from this raw material is played by human intellect afterwards, which once again, due to evolution, has reached this high degree only in humans.

The intellect analyzes this human experience, compares different results, and tries to check which actions promote human welfare and which actions create unnecessary harm. This is the exact place where the feeling of humanity and human intellect together provide a basic yet real framework of objective morality.

Therefore, this objective morality:

• Is not based on the desire and personal interest of a single person;

• Can be tested by reason and evidence;

• Can be improved over time;

• But does not declare itself innocent or complete, and keeps room for change and improvement in itself.

This is the reason why being objective and being absolute are two completely different things; meaning it is entirely possible that a moral principle is objective, but not absolute. This is the exact point that many religious critics ignore, and for this reason, they consider non-religious morality equal to a personal opinion like "I like blue color", whereas both things are fundamentally different.

The real problem with religious morality is not that it claims to be objective; rather, its darkest aspect is that religious absolute morality:

• Is based on authority;

• Is declared beyond questioning, and criticizing it is considered a sin.

A religious person does not say: "This action is wrong because it causes harm"; instead, he says: "This is wrong because God forbade it". And this is not morality, but obedience.

Therefore, if God commands tomorrow that lying is halal, a religious person will consider it moral too, because the scale of his morality is not human welfare, but divine command. In contrast, in human morality, an action is good because it benefits humans, not because someone commanded it.

Religious objection: Empathy leads only to subjective morality, not objective, for example, the issue of abortion

Here religious gentlemen raise this objection:

"You say that empathy or humanity is the foundation of objective morality. But this same empathy makes one person support abortion and another oppose it. Two contradictory results from the same source. Is this not proof that this is merely a personal opinion (subjective) and not objective?"

First point:

No, this proves the exact opposite. People from both sides involved in the abortion debate are not discussing in a way like one person says "I like blue color" and another says "I like red color". They are not discussing any personal taste or personal hobby.

Instead, they are discussing while remaining inside a basic objective framework. Both sides are trying to balance two real and competing interests: namely, the woman's bodily autonomy and welfare, and the moral status of the embryo.

Their disagreement is not on their personal interests, but only on the "method of weighing" these interests against each other at the time of danger, and on a fact-based question: at what point do the embryo's interests gain significant moral weight over the mother's autonomy and welfare?

Therefore, this is not a denial of this basic objective framework; rather, this world is non-perfect, and no system here can be one hundred percent perfect. Not just in abortion, but objective disagreement works in exactly the same way everywhere.

For example, two economists can look at the same objective data and models and reach contradictory results regarding policy because one gives more importance to economic growth and the other to equality. No one concludes from this disagreement that economics is merely a "personal opinion".

Similarly, two judges of a court can reach two different decisions while having the same basic legal framework. So should the entire law be denied and declared subjective on this basis? This world is non-perfect, and no system here can be one hundred percent perfect.

Therefore, the occurrence of disagreement in the final decision reached as a result of a basic framework does not prove that no framework exists. If this were the case, science, medicine, and law would all become "subjective".

The religious side cheats here and quietly defines objective as "always one hundred percent correct, agreed upon, and absolute". No human field can fulfill this standard. We do not need absolute morality; we need objective morality, meaning a system that can be wrong, but can also be corrected.

Second point: The "Grey Area"

Practically, a very large part of moral questions consists of matters where basic principles provide relatively clear guidance, while a limited part consists of complex matters that we call grey areas.

Disagreement happens only in the limited part that we call the "grey area". These are those complex situations where two or more "objective values" clash with each other, such as a mother's life versus an embryo's life, or national security versus individual freedom. Here the disagreement is not of anyone's "personal taste", but of the "weighing of priorities" as to which human interest should be given more weight in this specific condition.

And the trick of the religious side is that you will see it keeping the entire debate wrapped in this limited grey area, and then finally, based on it, denying all remaining objectivity and making it subjective too.

5. The second trick of the religious side: trapping in the philosophical fallacy of the is and ought gap

In this debate, the biggest weapon of the religious side is that famous principle of philosophy known as Hume's "Is/Ought Gap" (meaning the difference between "what is" and "what ought to be"). Their argument goes something like this:

"Science or reason can only tell us what is happening in the world (is); it can never tell us what ought to be morally (ought); therefore, the existence of morality is not possible without God."

However, the reality is that some things are completely outside this philosophical field of questions. The philosophical question of the is/ought gap cannot be applied to them because their root is not in any "logical principle" of abstract philosophy; instead, their roots are in our human nature, our hormones, and the chemical reactions happening inside our bodies. The biological facts cannot be answered by the logic of abstract philosophy.

Let us understand this through three practical examples:

1. Everyday human experience

When an ordinary person sees a child in pain, the sentences "the child is in pain (is)" and "this pain should stop (ought)" do not form into two separate and complex philosophical sentences in their mind; they are two aspects of a single human experience. They do not think that "the child is in pain and I am feeling empathy, but why logically should I help them?"; rather, their body and conscience immediately push them toward help. Can the religious side now answer this immediate human behavior with this logical principle of philosophy?

2. Behavior of animals

Even animals, when they see their babies in pain, do not have to cross this philosophical is/ought gap. Despite their limited intellect, they immediately start trying to save their babies. Did animals get any heavenly book in which morality is written for them? No! So where did this "ought" come from inside them? This thing is completely outside the field of philosophy; it is purely the field of biology and nature.

Just ponder over this famous biological experiment: When you hatch a duckling from an egg, the first moving thing it sees after coming out of the egg (whether it is you, an animal, or a machine), it considers its "mother" and then keeps running behind it everywhere.

Now the question is: can religious people answer this behavior with the logical principle of the is/ought gap in philosophy? Can they explain that: "the duckling sees that something is moving (is), and then philosophically thinks that I ought to run behind it"? Or will they say that: "a heavenly book ordered the duckling to run behind the first thing it sees"?

No! They cannot say that. The truth is that this behavior is completely outside the field of philosophy; it is part of the duckling's nature, its DNA, and its evolutionary programming. Its brain and nervous system are designed in such a way that it undergoes "imprinting" on the first moving thing and runs behind it.

This same thing applies to human morality as well! When we see someone in pain and feel empathy, this is not some philosophical "ought" that we derived logically. It is our biological programming, part of our evolutionary heritage. Inside our brains, there are "mirror neurons" built to feel the pain of others. This is not any "philosophical choice", but a "biological reality".

The trick of the religious side is that it detaches the connection of "human empathy" from "human nature" and attaches it to the "logical principles of philosophy".

So why do religious apologists make a fuss about the is/ought gap for no reason? They do so because they know that if the seeker of truth understands that morality comes from biology rather than any heavenly god or philosophy, their entire religious structure will fall. They want you to stay tangled in philosophical debates so that you cannot see that:

• Empathy is a chemical reaction of our brain;

• Justice is our evolutionary benefit;

• Cooperation is the guarantee of our survival.

All these things are before philosophy, before religion, and before heavenly books. They are our nature, and nature does not need any philosophical "validation".

Therefore, when any apologist raises the question of the is/ought gap, ask them: "Does a duckling learn from philosophy whom it ought to run behind? Or is it its nature? And if it is nature, then why cannot human empathy and morality be a part of nature?"

3. Strong evidence from human history

Compared to abstract philosophy, we get strong evidence from human history that humans continue to form their morality without getting stuck in any is/ought philosophical question:

• Confucius presented a complete moral system without any heavenly revelation, solely based on human empathy (ren), which about 1.5 billion people in the world still practice today.

• Buddhism derived a connected philosophy of morality from the very facts of life's sufferings (is).

In history, no one waited for an "ought" to descend from the sky. Therefore, this philosophical question of the is/ought gap can never answer the challenge of how humans charted this journey of morality in practical life. How can the religious side reject this direct evidence where humans, not only without any god, but solely on the basis of human empathy and reason, have built a moral system and have been practicing it for thousands of years?

Science clearly answers the is/ought gap compared to philosophy

The trick of the religious side is that, like human history, it completely ignores science here and keeps turning the matter only within the circle of philosophy. However, compared to philosophy, science clearly and explicitly answers this is/ought gap, explaining why humans travel from this "is" to the "ought" while forming morality.

Science explains that while in animals this is merely an instinctive response, in practical life when forming morality, humans do not rely only on instinct; according to science, they go through a three-tier process:

1. First stage: Evolutionary results and biological reward According to science, due to evolution, seeing others in trouble produces two kinds of hormones inside humans: seeing others in trouble or suffering generates feelings of empathy and hormones inside us; helping them and pulling them out of suffering causes our own brain to release hormones like oxytocin, serotonin, and dopamine as a reward, giving us happiness and satisfaction. Therefore, from realities such as empathy, cooperation, feeling the pain of others, and the necessity of social life, it is natural for the feeling of "something should be done" (ought) to arise in humans, because it gives us personal happiness and satisfaction as a reward. To get this very reward, humans form morality by traveling from this is to the ought. Morality is not a "meaningless burden"; rather, this biological happiness and peace received upon sacrificing for others is its foundation.

2. Second stage: Human intellect When humans see that helping others also benefits themselves, the intellect starts thinking about how to make rules and systems so that maximum people benefit, and as a result, maximum happiness and peace are achieved for oneself as well.

3. Third stage: Human experience The path shown by the intellect is tested, checked, and corrected by experience. Some rules work, and some prove harmful. This continuous testing and correction is what moves the system forward. This self-correction process is the real strength of secular morality.

6. Analysis of religious objections

When religious apologists are cornered with these historical and scientific facts, they usually present a few common objections. Let us examine them briefly:

1. "If there is no God, where do human rights come from?"

• The answer: Human rights do not come from heavenly texts; instead, they are born from shared human suffering and mutual empathy. History proves that as long as rights were tied solely to religion, evils like slavery and the subjugation of women remained protected. Human progress began only when humanity started prioritizing well-being over divine commands.

2. "Without God, why should anyone be moral?"

• The answer: This assumes humans are naturally wicked and only behave out of fear of hell or greed for heaven. Science and reality disprove this; our brain's mirror neurons, natural empathy, and the practical need for social harmony drive us to care for one another without requiring a cosmic police force.

3. "What about the atrocities of atheist regimes like the Soviet Union?"

• The answer: As noted earlier, political dogmas and totalitarian cults caused those tragedies—not the absence of belief in God. The crucial difference is that the modern secular world openly condemns figures like Stalin and Mao, whereas religious systems often struggle to reject ancient injustices because those acts were backed by sacred texts.

Final Word: The choice before the seeker of truth

O seeker of truth! The question of whether God is necessary for morality is not a complex philosophical puzzle; it is a matter of opening our eyes to reality:

• Science reveals that morality is rooted in our evolutionary history, brain chemistry, and natural empathy.

• History shows that humans built great moral systems and human rights without heavenly revelation—often by rebelling against the immoral commands of their own gods.

• Secular morality proves superior because its sole focus is human welfare, supported by the capacity to self-correct and evolve.

The illusion created by religious apologists shatters against these facts. Morality does not need a divine master; it needs a human heart. It does not arise from fear of punishment, but from love, empathy, and the shared pain of humanity.

The choice is yours: remain trapped in philosophical loops, or look at science and history and accept the liberating reality that humanity carries the light of morality within itself.