Dependence of morality on religion

According to the perceptions of the people, morality comes from religion. Atheists suffer from deep concerns regarding the presence of morality in their religious sentiments.  According to Christianity, the source of morality is religion. The contents of religion projects their individual perceptions about sacred values (Wainwright, 2017). Etymological origin of these aspects is the Bible, which is complex, as it consists of conflicting religious views. This essay attempts to present the philosophical views on the relationship between religion and morality. 

Critics are divided on the reality behind the dependence of morality on religion. According to Ivan Karamoazov, non-existence of God makes everything permissible. This statement aligns with the assumptions related to moral nihilism. Ethical theories clarifies the doubts of the readers regarding the development of autonomous thesis. According to these theories, the source of morality is not with the God, the Creator (George, 2014). Along with this, the theories also states that right and wrong actions depends on the will of God, the Almighty. There are three ways in which independent actions can be exposed. This is in alliance with the God’s will.

Philosopher Kant negates any kind of difference between God and humanity. This is for respecting and following the religious principles and guidelines. In his arguments, the aspect of Categorical Imperative finds significant position. This concept involves the perceptions regarding the good practices as the good will of the humans. As per the Ethical Code of Conduct, God and immorality are the two important components (Rosemont, 2015). The humans are ought to follow the principles and assess the impact on their personality, if they can. Philosopher Kant opines that the humans need to reach moral perfection. Countering this, this is not possible in terms of the obstacles, which aggravates the complexities towards fulfilling the identified goals and objectives. According to the principles of Creation, provision of universal justice assures the humans of the universality within the aspect of Justice.

Pondering on the views of Bertrand Russell, the thought process of the humans is entrapped within the concept of free will. Russell is also of the view that humans are at liberty to create, live and expose commitment to the religious ideals. Meaning of life is the perceptions, which the people attach to it. According to Allison, (2018), adherence to the religious principles adds morality into the meaningful life. However, James Rachel believes that when people worship God, they expose their autonomy. This is because, their identities merge with God, the Supreme Power, which enhances their personal entity. Here, contentment is an important aspect regarding the infantile nature of religious morality. Authority within this morality is assistance in terms of exposing the religious sentiments according to the postulates and the principles.

Philosophical views on religion and morality

Philosophers like Kant and Russell belief in impartiality, which is a vital component of moral reasoning. Golden rule in this aspect states the significance of consistency within the actions, where reciprocation is the main theme. This recriprocation involves the cause and effect, enhancing the aspect of judgmental rationality within decision-making for religious sentiments (Phillips, 2016). Within this, mention can be made of the beliefs, which leads to moral retribution. Here, thoughts related to recompensation are important in terms of assessing the important of undertaking good or bad actions. Philosophers relate the aspect of Karma or Punishment for indulging in bad actions. Punishments align with religious sentiments, making the people aware of the dire consequences, which they might face upon violating the moral values. These punishments compel the humans to seek ways for overcoming these situations. This is the stage, when they are in need of assistance, guidance and support from a strong and flexible source. In the opinions of Christian, (2015), God, the Creator is that supreme source, which fulfils the need of providing proper guidance to the humans regarding authentic religious guidelines. These guidelines is appropriate in terms of safeguarding the humans from violating the moral and religious sentiments.

Summum Bonum or cosmic justice stands for the fact that happiness is proportional to virtue. As per the arguments of philosopher Kant, presence of God is vital in terms of increasing the possibility of aligning the proportion of virtue into happiness. On the other hand, Aquinas is of the view that humans desire to attain happiness. This aligns with their true nature. Along with this, he is also of the view that happiness is inversely proportional to free will (Hanley, 2015). As a matter of specification, Aquinas enhanced the clarity about the vision of reality. This belief includes the beatific vision of God, which is necessary if there is compulsion towards fulfilling the requirements according to the nature of the religious sentiments.

On the other hand, philosopher Thomas concentrated on the human desires and aims, which does not necessitates the presence of God. However, the critics counter argue by favouring the existence of God for fulfilment of the human desires and will. Countering this, will is dependent of the needs of the humans. As per the arguments of Angier, (2016), Humans are the creation of God, therefore, their wills and desires are controlled by God, the Supreme Power. These aspects lay strong foundation for the existence of God. For example, The Myth of Sisyphus projected the absurd meaning of life due to the absence of God. Sisyphus failed to assert his will, which compelled him to let go of his desires. This absurdity indicates the failure in terms of seeking remedies for the thwarted desires.

Religious morality

As per the arguments of philosophers James and Royce, presence of God results in overpowering good over evil. This aspect nullifies the concept of individual struggles for existence. Kantian views on reiteration of cosmic justice finds an important position in this context in terms of the existence of God. Reality and validity of theistic values overpowers the non-moral reasons. This aspect indicates the blessings, which God bestows on the humans, enhancing the aspect of equality (Christian, 2015).

The Divine Command Theory states that an action is morally required to be just in case if God commands us to do it and it is morally wrong if God forbids to do it (Danaher, 2017). Furthermore, it is also to note that an action is said to be permissible if God neither forbids nor commands it. It has been widely claimed by many scholars that the moral rightness is equal to the willed by God. One of such religious theories is that- God has created nature as well as if laws of nature are in accordance with the plan of God. It is God who rules everything and it is in his hands to conduct everything in this nature. The natural law is universal and also it is the same for all the human beings. Such moral laws of nature could be discovered by the human beings. Hence, these are the guidelines to the human moral action.

However, there are several problems in relation to this. The counter examples to nature is disease and good self-interest. It gets confused with “is” and “ought”. It is also to note in this context that the conflicts with the notion of nature and the concept proposed by the science-not moral, purposive but it is effect and cause. Furthermore, as per Berlin (2017), “the only purpose a man can have and also the only worthwhile thing a man can do is to become as good a man as possible.” This is something that one could become by cultivating his aesthetic, social, moral and cognitive powers. It is completely humanity at its best. Hence, it is to state that the notion that religion is a precondition for the morality is deeply ingrained and is widespread. There are many people who think or believe that morality comes from their religion and the deeply religion ones often seen to be wondering how the atheists could have morality at all.

Conclusion

The relationship in between morality and religion has long been highly debated. From the above analysis, it has been concluded that in order to make significant progress, the categories of morality and religion needs to be fractionated into a set of psychologically and biologically cogent traits while revealing the cognitive foundations which constrain and shape the relevant cultural variants. It is simply impossible for the people to be moral without God or religion. The question of whether or not morality requires religion is both topical and ancient.  

References

Allison, H. E. (2018). Lessing and the Enlightenment: his philosophy of religion and its relation to eighteenth-century thought. SUNY Press.

Angier, T. P. (2016). Either Kierkegaard/or Nietzsche: Moral philosophy in a new key. Routledge.

Berlin, I. (2017). Two concepts of liberty. In Liberty Reader(pp. 33-57).

Christian Jr, W. A. (2015). Meaning and truth in religion (Vol. 2265). Princeton University Press.

Danaher, J. (2017). In Defence of the Epistemological Objection to Divine Command Theory. Sophia, 1-20.

George, R. P. (2014). The clash of orthodoxies: Law, religion, and morality in crisis. Open Road Media.

Hanley, R. P. (2015). Adam Smith on the ‘Natural Principles of Religion’. Journal of Scottish Philosophy, 13(1), 37-53.

Phillips, D. Z. (Ed.). (2016). Religion and morality. Springer.

Rosemont Jr, H. (2015). Against individualism: A Confucian rethinking of the foundations of morality, politics, family, and religion. Lexington Books.

Wainwright, W. J. (2017). Religion and morality. Routledge.