Religion and Moral Identity

Can we be good without God?


     The question of human morality or lack thereof in relation to organized religion is convoluted at best. It is nearly impossible to create a study to determine whether or not an individual’s involvement in organized religion is the factor causing them to practice moral or immoral behavior. However, the article lists numerous studies attempting to establish that religion is indeed a barrier to crime (as shown by Beetles pages 61-92) including those by William Bainbridge, Rodney Stark and Glenn Tinder among others. The article also mentioned several studies attempting to illustrate the lack of connection between organized religion and crime rates. One study by Alfie Kohn included 700 city dwellers and found that people religious people were no more likely than those not affiliated to participate in altruistic behavior. The article also cites a study in which students were asked to identify their religious preference and then asked them questions regarding cheating and helping injured individuals. The study found that the only individuals in which the majority was least likely to cheat were non-religious individuals.
     The argument stating that humans are more likely to commit crime when not affiliated with an organized religion suggested by some early studies was refuted by several studies/arguments by Alfie Kohn and Lee Ellis. Kohn suggests that there is no connection between participating in organized religion and crime rates, while Ellis suggests a number of theories utilized by those in support of organized religion as a barrier to crime. The four most common explanations (as described by Ellis) are as follows: group solidarity, coincidental factors, the “Hell Fire” explanation, the “obedience to authority” explanation and the arousal theory. With some background in psychology, it would make sense that group solidarity would be a barrier to crime, but only if that group was behaviorally against crime. Another compelling theory states that humans are willing to submit to being told what to do and what not to/what is right and wrong. Religious institutions would denounce crime and therefore the followers would be obedient. Ellis refutes these explanations as faulty and I am in agreement. Human morals are inherited through parental, community and peer education. An individual’s values are influenced by his parents, his friends, his socio-economic status (Bainbridge’s studies show that transience is a factor influencing the probability of criminal behavior) among a myriad of other things. While church atmosphere would be a potent influence upon an individual’s moral compass, it is far from remaining the only factor.

     However, as I have made my agreement that human beings indeed can ‘be good without God’ it is important to acknowledge other viewpoints. Glenn Tinder, a professor of Political Science endeavors (in 20 pages) to illustrate the positive correlation between Christianity and human morals/values. While much of the article explains varying aspects of (his version of) Christianity, such as Christian love (agape), the exalted individual and the fallen individual, Tinder does make an interesting point when explaining the ambiguity of “being good.” He brings up the issue that while (some) Christians have a unified idea of ‘being good,’ the ideology as recognized across the human race is rather variable. Each culture and religion may retain their own viewings of ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’although many cultures/religions share values. Overall, I am as of yet unconvinced that religion is the most influential factor impeding individuals from criminal behavior. I do not think that there is enough evidence to support the claim of religion as a barrier to crime. Also, many friends and acquaintances retain no affiliation to an organized religion and I have not yet learned of any criminal behavior. Before I end the post, I would also like to add that the article by Tinder made me slightly uncomfortable, even as a Christian myself. There are many denominations of Christianity and many of his points I found unconvincing. The central theme I gleaned from his article was that Christianity is the right path to a moral life, not precisely the political meaning of Christianity.