Religion, Atheism and Morality

“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I don’t believe in God. I’m an atheist.”
“Well then, how on earth can you lead a good life when you don’t believe in God?”

This is one of the most common arguments that the faithful and the believers put forward to any given atheist. To them only those people can lead morally ‘good’ life who possess an unwavering faith in God, and hence, the life-after-death and the attached praise-and-punishment package. I’m a first-hand witness of such moral inquiries so it’s quite irritating, honestly. By putting forward such questions, what they are implying is that all their goodness and morals are only and only a consequence of frightful hellfire and wrath of Lord. In other words, in the absence of the fear of punishment, all their ‘humanity’ would wither away and they would be mere blood-sucking and life-ravishing savages.

Actually a contradiction is involved in this scenario: If a person believes that in the absence of God (Let’s suppose for a moment) morality would be a null and void term, he implies that the source of his morality is God/religion. Now, either he would have to agree that if there is no fear of divine punishment, he would degenerate into a beast, or if he denies this, he’d have to consent that the source of morality is not divine. (I recently read this point in a book and it sort of struck me. There can, however, be usual lame arguments from religious torchbearers against it, which I look forward to.)

But still, the matter seems quite clear. We see that atheists usually prove to more humane (Yes, they do. Come, argue with me on this! ), which implies that in the absence of punishment, still man manages to stay a man and which further implies that the source of goodness and morality is NOT divine. Ruled out!

Further, most morals, if not all, are time and space dependent. The consensus and conscience of society keeps varying with the changing times and with respect to different places. Religion, an established religion stubbornly refusing to alter any of it’s morals and ethics, is destined to fail in a long run. An inevitable consequence is the increasing nascence of apologists on one side, and violent fundamentalists on the other. So much for religious morality. Only thing that religion delivers without any distinction of time and space is self-righteousness, arrogance, blind following…..and let’s not get me started on this!

I personally hold the view that man is neither good nor bad intrinsically. Good as well as bad instinct exist. Those nurtured prevail and predominate and the suppressed, let’s say tamed, are pushed back into sub consciousness (they don’t vanish, however). Now the ‘good Samaritan’ side of man needs no fear of punishment or greed of reward. It would act good no matter what. They problem resides with the violent side. It needs to be tamed, which mostly happens through an authority, whether religious, or social or political or whatever. In this regard, to me, the Social Contract, no matter how mechanic or devoid of emotions and spirituality it may be, seems to be the best explanation of man’s behavior and the requirement of a better society.