For centuries now, theists and creationists have been running out of room to maneuver as phenomena that traditionally required supernatural explanations become lucidly explained in the domain of science. Consequently, creationists and theists have realized that they can never win factual arguments with scientists, thus they have changed tactics. Instead of using God to explain natural phenomena, creationists have construed their science-like universe referred to as the intelligence design, which they use to argue that religion, thus God is indispensible in morality (Sinnott-Armstrong 21). Conversely, scientists have continually insisted that God, or any other supernatural being is not a precondition for morality, and that morality is innate, being fashioned by human experience over time. These significantly different viewpoints have fueled a heated debate between the creationists and scientists pertinent to the role of God in dictating morality among human beings, as well as different works exploring the subject (Sinnott-Armstrong 38). But can there be morality without God?
The article, “Morality without God” by Franz de Waal explores the case for morality without God. According to Waal, the debate of morality with/without God is centuries old. Waal notes that morality with/without God was the main subject of debate during the times of Hieronymous Bosch, and ranges on to date (Waal). Waal explains the creationists’ view that God is a precondition for morality, and cites creationists such as Reverend Al Sharpton and Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov, who argued that there has to be a force that helps human to distinguish between right and wrong. However, is of a different opinion, that humanity, including self control is built into us, thus we human beings do not require a deity in order to be moral. According to Waal, humans must have worried about the functioning of their societies long before the current religions arose, thus humans did not and do not need religion or a God to be moral (Waal). Further, Waal explores the principles of social cohesiveness among our closest relatives and ancestors, the primates, who have a similar albeit smaller brain structure as human beings. The author notes that the primates, like human beings have genuine altruism and empathy and genuinely help their kind even when there is no forthcoming reward. Further, using the inequity aversion theory, the author explains how an animal will refuse to accept a deal that oppresses its fellow, showing that even animals will have a sense of fairness. Using these explanations, the author explains that morality in human beings is built into them through a top-down process of experience in his social setting over time. As such, human morality is an elaborate system of justification, monitoring and punishment, thus does not necessarily require God to function (Waal).
Since the beginning of Abrahamic faiths, religion and morality have been closely intertwined. This present entry will not seek to enter into the confines of this debate, but rather will expound on the fundamental reasoning that fuels this debate. As such, the main question that need to be asked pertinent to this issue is whether man can be moral without God. This question will help in exploring the importance (or lack thereof) of God in establishing morality in human beings. This will help explore whether man can be moral without God, thus help establishing whether God is a pre-condition for morality (Sinnott-Armstrong 63).
Morality include the principles that determines the extent to which an action is right or wrong, or a certain behavior is good or bad. Creationists and theists argue that principles of morality are universally ordered; thus, there has to be a force that ordered morality. Accordingly, there cannot be morality if there is no superior force to order morality; thus no morality without God (Sinnott-Armstrong 61). Theists and proponent of the argument that there God is a pre-condition for morality argue that ethics and morality is developed from the divine commands of God, most notably, the Ten commandments, which define the ways that men should live with each others. Consequently without God, the divine commandments could not have been established, thus there would be nothing immoral. These cite the different cases where atheist have erred and argued that their immoral nature is due to their failures to believe in God, the supreme force that dictates human morals. Conversely atheists among others argue that morality, like other social behaviors are natured or innate, thus God is not a precondition for morality. Waat, using explained that is natured through experience and not subject to God or religion, just like apathy and altruism. This is evidenced through the behaviors animals such as the primates and other warm blooded animals. This argument is used to explain the fact that our ancestors led moral lives even before the advent of modern religion (Sinnott-Armstrong 68).
The case for morality with or without god has been analyzed from different perspectives. The first viewpoint is the “commandment needs a commander” argument. Morality is a universal set of commands that each individual must observe while dealing with another. According to the proponents of the argument that God is a precondition for morality, these commands need to have a commander, who is God. Thus, God is a precondition for morality as he establishes the rules that ascertain morality (Sinnott-Armstrong 73). This is refuted by the According to the opponents of the argument, who claim that some laws are common and do not require a commander, and morality is an example of commands that do not need a commander. Another viewpoint used in the argument is seeks to establish or disapprove the existence of God. The proponents of the argument that God is a pre condition for morality acknowledge God’s existence and supremacy over human beings such that he is able to dictate to them what is moral or immoral. Conversely, those in favor of the argument that God is not a precondition for morality seeks to disapprove of his existence, and then argue that if he does not exist, he surely cannot dictate human morals. Consequently, these argue that morals have evolved as man co-existed in his social setups (Sinnott-Armstrong 89).
In retrospection, it is evident that the role (or lack thereof) of God as a precondition for morality is centuries old and will continue to fuel one of the most heated debate throughout the world. From the different viewpoints of analyzing the topic, it is evident that the most crucial issue that largely dictate the position taken by the majority is the existence of God, and his power over mankind. A majority of the proponents of the argument that God is a precondition for morality agree to the existence of a God who commands morals on human beings, while the opponents disagree on the existence of God, or question his power in establishing and dictating his power over human beings. Until the issue of the existence of God or (lack thereof) is solved, the debate on morality and God ranges on.
Works Cited
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. Morality Without God? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print
Waal, Franz. Morals Without God? The New York Times. October 17, 2010. Internet source
