The Need for Religion in a Moral Society
Religious convictions are more than just arbitrary systems of belief
Recently I came across an online discussion between Charles Murray and Curt Doolittle about the need for religion in a moral society. After reading some additional commentary from Jon Miltimore, I couldn’t stop thinking about the following question:
Is religion necessary for a moral and functioning society?
Throughout human history, religion has played a central role in the buildup of various civilizations. Even though some civilizations were arguably more moral than others, they all needed to have some basic moral standards in order to thrive. A society could not prosper long, for instance, if theft, murder, or dishonesty were deemed acceptable.
Using the logic behind natural selection, the historical prevalence of religious societies seems to indicate that they were quite robust in comparison to secular societies. In other words, if religion is not needed for a moral society, why have successful secular societies not been more historically prevalent? This is not necessarily evidence by itself that a secular society cannot thrive. But it does show that religious societies can and do thrive, and they seem to have done more so than secular societies.
Many thinkers, influenced by Enlightenment ideals, argue that there are certain underlying attributes of a citizenry that allow a moral society to thrive.
While these attributes are necessary, religion brings with the “falsehoods” a few essentials that pure reason cannot provide.
First, religious belief typically involves acknowledgement of a greater power or divine law. This is not blind faith in some mythological power. Rather, it is a humble admission that not everything can be known or understood with our limited human faculties. Codes of moral conduct and religious traditions are considered to be of divine origin. Their validity has been proven not through reason or sense data, but through the lived experiences of prior generations.
Additionally, most religious systems encourage adherents to aspire to an eternal objective, such as heaven or Nirvana. One works toward this goal by following the divine law. An eternal objective is helpful in motivating people to lead meaningful, moral lives in cooperation with others. The hardships in life become more bearable and represent opportunities for progress along the path toward the ultimate objective. The divine law does not appear restrictive or stringent in light of the reward that awaits adherents of the law.
Religion has also played an important role throughout history in the establishment and raising of families. Though many today think of marriage as a “right” granted by the State, traditionally it is a religious practice where a man and a woman covenant with each other and with the Divine to completely devote themselves to each other and their children. Committed spouses work together to form strong, trusting families, forming the base unit of civilization. Many families then live and cooperate in proximity to each other to form communities. The religious devotion to family extends outward to the community. Responsibilities and duties are assumed not out of self interest, but out of commitment to the divine law.
Rejecting religion does not have to lead one to reject moral values. However, the total commitment of oneself and the bearing of responsibilities no longer become hallmarks of individual progression. Instead, personal appetites take precedence over duties. Rejection of the divine law opens the door to moral relativism. Marriage becomes a contract to be annulled at leisure, rather than a covenant between man, woman, and God. Children become a distraction from selfish endeavors. Scriptural wisdom becomes foolish myth. Acknowledgment that not everything can be known turns into skepticism of everything that cannot be proven.
The widespread adoption of certain Enlightenment values helped to usher in an age of unprecedented prosperity and scientific progress. But these values by themselves did not lead to such a prosperous civilization. Their implementation was so successful because it was done on top of the building blocks of civilization (families), which for centuries were fortified through religious traditions. If the building blocks crumble, the decline of civilization will soon follow.
Many people recognize the good that religion has done for society, but they don’t want to accept the “falsehoods”. They admire the strong families, the healthy marriages, and the selfless behavior, but they are uncomfortable with the belief in a God, in an afterlife, or in ancient myths. From their perspective, the positive aspects of religion have arisen despite the supposedly foolish beliefs, not because of them.
They accept the fruits of religion, but they don’t agree with how the fruit was picked.
I’m in agreement with Murray that religion is necessary to maintain a moral society. Perhaps in theory society could thrive without it, but in practice it is implausible. Recognition of a greater power or a divine law is crucial to accepting the traditional moral standards that have been passed down for generations. Hope in an eternal objective motivates individuals to abide by the law and teach it to future generations.
In rejecting religion, secularists can only hand down traditions of skepticism and relativism. Eventually, the rising generations will deduce that since there are no moral absolutes, morality is ultimately determined by those in power, thus opening the door for totalitarian ideology.
Perhaps George Washington was thinking along this line when he gave the following warning:
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.