Marc Hauser of Harvard University and Ilkka Pyysiäinen of the University of Helsinki have published an opinion piece in Trends in Cognitive Sciences that looks at the link between morality and religion.
As I have seen news of this study looking at the relationship between religion and morality, I thought I’d link to it for anyone that’s interested.
Most of the headlines I have seen have been trumpeting the fact that the non-religious also have the capacity for morality, we’ll I’ll be, what a surprise. Here’s one from the Telegraph today:-
Atheists are the first to throw this fact at the religious world, as if all Christians believe that non-Christians are utterly incapable of morality. Of course this is nonsense, however, I would still maintain that a sense of morality is hard-wired in the human heart, by the designer, as a ‘restraining grace’ in all folks, regardless of belief. It is of course possible to deaden this sense of morality, by repeated acts of immorality, but in general and given the propensity for humans to perpetrate evil, this ‘restraining grace’ of morality is needed to stop the world degenerating into chaos and anarchy.
This is how Science and Religion Today introduce the study:-
Did morality appear before religion?
Marc Hauser of Harvard University and Ilkka Pyysiäinen of the University of Helsinki have published an opinion piece in Trends in Cognitive Sciences that looks at the link between morality and religion.
They point out that several psychological studies (many conducted using the Moral Sense Test) have shown that when it comes to unfamiliar moral dilemmas, atheists and those with a religious background show no difference in their moral judgments—suggesting that our intuitive judgments of right and wrong operate independently from our religious beliefs. Experiments did show that people with a religious background were more likely to sacrifice their own lives to save the greatest number of others, but the researchers argue that “religious pressures might lead people to offer this judgment because they believe it is the morally appropriate answer. What religion can do, and what political and legal institutions can do as well, is alter local and highly specific cases. And yet, they appear to have no influence at all on the intuitive system that operates more generally, and for unfamiliar cases.”
Here’s a good example to illustrate the point:
In a wide variety of studies, using different methods and populations, subjects consistently judge actions that cause harm as worse than omissions causing the same harm—a distinction referred to as the omission bias. In some studies, and in some populations, specific examples might not reveal the omission bias, but rarely does one observe a reversal such that omissions are judged more harshly than actions. For example, although the Netherlands passed a bill in 2001 making both active euthanasia (administering an overdose to an individual who is suffering) and passive euthanasia (allowing to die by terminating life support) legally permissible, the Dutch show as strong an omission bias as American subjects, despite the fact that in the USA, active euthanasia is illegal. This reveals that the law, as a formal moral system, can only provide specific guidelines for specific actions, but such knowledge fails to penetrate or alter our folk moral intuitions. According to this view, and as noted above, explicit religious commitment seems to be comparable to law, providing specific guidelines for specific actions, but dissociated from the system that mediates moral intuitions.
The authors hope we can use their paper as a jumping-off point to further explore the complex relationship between religion and morality, concluding:
It seems that in many cultures religious concepts and beliefs have become the standard way of conceptualizing moral intuitions. Although, as we have discussed, this link is not a necessary one, many people have become so accustomed to using it, that criticism targeted at religion is experienced as a fundamental threat to our moral existence.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
I think you’ve really hit the nail on the head. Whether atheists are more or less moral than believers is surely not the right question.
The question is whether that innate sense of morality is God given or not. This is where we differ, but I do appreciate your wise words, as always.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Thanks Jim.
February 10th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
jim
for many religions, scripture comes from god. but scripture can’t explain the pattern of judgments observed among either atheists or people with religious backgrounds. so, if you reject that god provides scripture, that won’t be a happy conclusion for many. but let’s grant that move. then we have god giving us the initial sense of right and wrong, versus biology giving it to us. of course, that is no longer a testable hypothesis to a large extent. but since different religions have different views of god and the divine, the biology perspective gains some ground: despite the differences between religions in the nature of god, judgments don’t differ.
-marc
February 11th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Hi Marc
I was intrigued by your opinion piece. I find myself wondering if anyone is really surprised by your findings.
I do struggle with the idea that religion provides us with a sense of right and wrong. How then do we explain the moral behaviour of those who have no knowledge of scripture, or those who lived before coherent dissemination? Can we say that they lacked morality? Anthropological evidence would suggest not.
I would add that I don’ think there is a conflict between God and biology as the source of moral behaviour. A belief in God surely presumes that biology is within His influence.
Ultimately the argument regarding the origin of moral behaviour surely rests simply on Faith. You can create a logical argument for either side of the fence, but it takes Faith to believe the version that assumes God.
February 11th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Lovely comment Jim as usual.
February 11th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
jim
let me respond briefly here. i hope you won’t mind if i don’t continue. i am not a blogger.
you ask about surprise. that depends. for those who think that our moral judgments are shaped by our cultural backgrounds, including religion, i suppose they should be surprised. Religious background simply plays no role. And neither does gender, age, or education. What surprises people depends to a great extent on their prior assumptions.
you question about morality in the absence of knowledge of scripture is precisely the point! that is, children, people living in regions without scripture, and people who know scripture but have different versions of it (islam vs catholic), generate similar judgments. so there is clearly a moral sense that is detached from scripture. so right, they absolutely HAD morality. In essence, you are making our point. And you don’t even need the anthropological evidence for this.
There is a conflict between biological perspectives like mine and the God perspective (for want of a better phrase). Unless you want to reject the idea the idea that scripture comes from God, you are forced to recognize that the source can’t be God.
That it takes Faith to believe in the God version is true, but circular. To be clear, nothing i have written or said is aimed at taking away from those who derive meaning from their religious faith or the communities that they engage in. For those who find hope in their religious faith, I have nothing negative or positive to say. That is a choice. But for those who argue that our moral sense comes from religion, I reject this view entirely. The argument does not, as you suggest, rest on Faith. It is, as I have argued, a testable hypothesis regarding what drives our sense of right or wrong. So if you reject the relationship between scripture and God, and say that God created our moral sense, the parts that are universal, then it is true that we have more of a stalemate. But if you do reject this relationship, that will be troubling for all those who believe that religious scripture is handed down from God, and of course, depending on the religion, different Gods and different scripture.
thanks
marc