It is an age-old debate in philosophy. Is mankind naturally good or naturally bad? Philosophers and theologians have made their respective cases throughout history. Some traditions such as ancient Chinese philosophies in Confucianism and Taoism assert that man is naturally good. They use the example of a child drowning in a well and how man is naturally inclined to help that child. Other traditions, like the Judeo-Christian philosophy, argues that mankind is naturally bad. If given the opportunity to be greedy, malicious, or spiteful most people will give in and do what is bad before doing what is right. It is not an easy debate to resolve because there are so many cases throughout history that favor both. There are cases of tremendous altruism, the most famous being the soldier who dives on a grenade to save the lives of his squad. There are also cases of tremendous atrocity, most notably the bloody reign of tyrants like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Caligula. It's hard to assert which state is dominant because everybody is different and there are personality and environmental factors to consider. But the question remains. Is man in his basic essance inclined to altruism or selfishness?

Philosophy can debate this, but science is shedding new light on the subject. Since the study of evolution began, it has been popular to assert that it is a selfish process highlighted by the mantra of 'survival of the fittest.' Creationists and religious zealots have condemned this method for decades. However, that mantra may be wrong and a new concept known as 'survival of the kindest' is taking hold.

Charles Darwin himself once stated that sympathy is mankind's strongest instinct. In an evolutionary context, it makes sense for man to be both selfish and altruistic. To be selfish is to ensure one's own survival, which is paramount to any species. To be altruistic is to foster cooperation, communication, and group cohesion that is equally important in an constantly changing environment. Mankind is not like other species in that an individual is strong enough to evade any predator and capture any prey, but as a group mankind functions in a way that favors the survival of not just the individual but the entire species.

A good way to picture this is to go back to the hunger/gatherer days. If an individual was selfish and malicious, he would not get much help from his peers. He would have to fend for himself, finding his own food and fight to procure his own mate. If at any point he should face danger or be unable to secure food for himself, there would be no one to help him and he would not survive. If this individual worked in a team, sacrificing selfishness in favor of group harmony he is better able to get the resources he needs to survive. If he faces those same dangers, there are mechanisms to help him. This makes getting food and securing mates much easier and these traits would be favored by natural selection. So in the grand scheme of evolution, mankind has been bred to be altruistic.

Contrast this with religious subversions that assert mankind needs a deity of some kind to watch over him and threaten him with divine retribution in order for them to be good. Some even argue there must be a threat of damnation, a hell or an underworld where the spirit suffers for their transgressions, and if there wasn't then man would naturally indulge in greed, violence, and lust. Whether it's through a deity or a threat of suffering after death, one of religion's most powerful recruiting tools is creating a supernatural judge to keep people in line. But is that judge really necessary? Aren't mankind's collective instincts enough? There appears to be evidence that no deity is needed.

Below is an article highlighting a study that shows this and sheds new light on human altruism without any need for gods and spirits of any kind.

ScienceDaily: New Studies Into Human Altruism

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2009) — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

In contrast to "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life," and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits.

They call it "survival of the kindest."

"Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others," said Keltner, co-director of UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. "Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct."

Empathy in our genes

Keltner's team is looking into how the human capacity to care and cooperate is wired into particular regions of the brain and nervous system. One recent study found compelling evidence that many of us are genetically predisposed to be empathetic.

The study, led by UC Berkeley graduate student Laura Saslow and Sarina Rodrigues of Oregon State University, found that people with a particular variation of the oxytocin gene receptor are more adept at reading the emotional state of others, and get less stressed out under tense circumstances.

Informally known as the "cuddle hormone," oxytocin is secreted into the bloodstream and the brain, where it promotes social interaction, nurturing and romantic love, among other functions.

"The tendency to be more empathetic may be influenced by a single gene," Rodrigues said.

The more you give, the more respect you get

While studies show that bonding and making social connections can make for a healthier, more meaningful life, the larger question some UC Berkeley researchers are asking is, "How do these traits ensure our survival and raise our status among our peers?"

One answer, according to UC Berkeley social psychologist and sociologist Robb Willer is that the more generous we are, the more respect and influence we wield. In one recent study, Willer and his team gave participants each a modest amount of cash and directed them to play games of varying complexity that would benefit the "public good." The results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, showed that participants who acted more generously received more gifts, respect and cooperation from their peers and wielded more influence over them.

"The findings suggest that anyone who acts only in his or her narrow self-interest will be shunned, disrespected, even hated," Willer said. "But those who behave generously with others are held in high esteem by their peers and thus rise in status."

"Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish," he added.

Cultivating the greater good

Such results validate the findings of such "positive psychology" pioneers as Martin Seligman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose research in the early 1990s shifted away from mental illness and dysfunction, delving instead into the mysteries of human resilience and optimism.

While much of the positive psychology being studied around the nation is focused on personal fulfillment and happiness, UC Berkeley researchers have narrowed their investigation into how it contributes to the greater societal good.

One outcome is the campus's Greater Good Science Center, a West Coast magnet for research on gratitude, compassion, altruism, awe and positive parenting, whose benefactors include the Metanexus Institute, Tom and Ruth Ann Hornaday and the Quality of Life Foundation.

Christine Carter, executive director of the Greater Good Science Center, is creator of the "Science for Raising Happy Kids" Web site, whose goal, among other things, is to assist in and promote the rearing of "emotionally literate" children. Carter translates rigorous research into practical parenting advice. She says many parents are turning away from materialistic or competitive activities, and rethinking what will bring their families true happiness and well-being.

"I've found that parents who start consciously cultivating gratitude and generosity in their children quickly see how much happier and more resilient their children become," said Carter, author of "Raising Happiness: 10 Simple Steps for More Joyful Kids and Happier Parents" which will be in bookstores in February 2010. "What is often surprising to parents is how much happier they themselves also become."

The sympathetic touch

As for college-goers, UC Berkeley psychologist Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton has found that cross-racial and cross-ethnic friendships can improve the social and academic experience on campuses. In one set of findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, he found that the cortisol levels of both white and Latino students dropped as they got to know each over a series of one-on-one get-togethers. Cortisol is a hormone triggered by stress and anxiety.

Meanwhile, in their investigation of the neurobiological roots of positive emotions, Keltner and his team are zeroing in on the aforementioned oxytocin as well as the vagus nerve, a uniquely mammalian system that connects to all the body's organs and regulates heart rate and breathing.

Both the vagus nerve and oxytocin play a role in communicating and calming. In one UC Berkeley study, for example, two people separated by a barrier took turns trying to communicate emotions to one another by touching one other through a hole in the barrier. For the most part, participants were able to successfully communicate sympathy, love and gratitude and even assuage major anxiety.

Researchers were able to see from activity in the threat response region of the brain that many of the female participants grew anxious as they waited to be touched. However, as soon as they felt a sympathetic touch, the vagus nerve was activated and oxytocin was released, calming them immediately.

"Sympathy is indeed wired into our brains and bodies; and it spreads from one person to another through touch," Keltner said.

The same goes for smaller mammals. UC Berkeley psychologist Darlene Francis and Michael Meaney, a professor of biological psychiatry and neurology at McGill University, found that rat pups whose mothers licked, groomed and generally nurtured them showed reduced levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, and had generally more robust immune systems.

Overall, these and other findings at UC Berkeley challenge the assumption that nice guys finish last, and instead support the hypothesis that humans, if adequately nurtured and supported, tend to err on the side of compassion.

"This new science of altruism and the physiological underpinnings of compassion is finally catching up with Darwin's observations nearly 130 years ago, that sympathy is our strongest instinct," Keltner said.

Does religion make people good or bad? It seems to be a question that has become far more pertinent in the age of global terrorism. Some argue certain religions make people more malevolent than others. A quick Google search on Islam will yield many websites arguing that it is a religion of violence. Other sites will say the same about Christianity, Judism, Hinduism, or pretty much any 'ism' for that matter. But little of this propaganda has any substance behind it. To answer the question as to whether religion makes someone good or bad, it's important to understand the factors.

First off, what determines how religious or non-religious someone is? Believers of many different faiths will give all sorts of answers. Some may say it is a tradition in their family. Some may say they had a genuine religious experience that drew them to a certain faith. Some may say their faith helps make them a better person. These are all interesting components to the argument, but it isn't evidence one way or another because it's purely anecdotal. To get a better idea of what determines one's religion, it's important to get a broader picture. As it turns out, evidence indicates that there's no godly forces driving people to particular religions. It's culture mostly that determines what religion someone follows.

Religious Affiliation and Cultural Inheritance: Study of Twins

In these studies, the environment one comes up in determines a great deal what they believe. So if someone is born into a Christian community in Texas, chances are they'll be a Christian. If someone is born in a strong Muslim community in the Middle East, chances are they'll be a Muslim. If they're born into a community that is strongly Jewish, chances are they'll be Jewish. There's nothing spiritually radical about it. It's simple social dynamics.

So if religion is mostly determined by environment or culture, what does that mean for a person's morality? The next point to consider in this question involves just how religious someone is. Regardless of what religion they're brought up in, how seriously they take it is important to consider when making a reasonable discussion. If religion is supposed to make someone more moral, than those who attend church services or religious rituals should have a strong correlation with crime. But research does not support this. According to empirical research, attending religious services has no effect on deviance.

Does Religion Effect Criminality?

Again, community and culture played a large part. In communites like Mormon or tight nit religious communities in smaller more isolated areas, low levels of deviance were associated with strong social pressures and peer groups that dissuaded such activities. This is further supported by the religious affiliation of the prison population. If one religion led to more deviance than others, then it should reflect in theose in jail. But it doesn't. According to the Justice Department, the religious affiliation of inmates has no particular leanings towards one faith or another.

Prison Incarceration and Religious Affiliation

So if religion doesn't have an effect on one's morality, what does? Is there any research indicating one factor over another? As it turns out, crime rates do have a negative correlation with something: education. Various studies into crime rates have shown that the more educated a population is, the less crime there is. In America, this is well documented:

Education and Public Safety

Education as Crime Prevention

So with this knowledge in mind, what is more reasonable to promote? Religion or education? Religion, it seems, does not offer a correlative effect between how deviant a person is. Education does offer a correlative effect. So logically, education wins out. This is not to say religion has no benefits. But those promoted social demigods has no merit. It offers a much more reasonable explanation when one considers why countries in Western Europe and Japan have such a low rate of deviance. Their education level is far greater compared to that of America, which has a very inefficient government-run heavily unionized system that does not provide adaquet resources for students.

There was one other effect education had that may explain why some don't want to promote it over religion. It turns out that as one becomes more educated, they become less religious.

Education and Religion

So regardless of what one thinks about the merits of religion, it does not seem to make someone more moral and less deviant. There are other factors to consider such as socio-economic status, which often goes along with the environmental aspect that often determines religious leanings. But the research is clear. Good education makes for good people. Religion can be part of the process, but it does not pull the same weight.

Recently, a movie came out entitled "Milk." It told the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to a public office. He was a tireless advocate for gay rights and worked effortlessly to promote his cause even though many at the time were even less open to gay rights than they are today. During the 50s, 60s, and 70s it wasn't unusual for police to randomly break into gay bars and randomly arrest people and it wasn't unusual for crimes against gays to go unpunished. Just like the legal lynching of blacks in the post Civil War south, gays were the victims of unparalleled prejudice and hatred.

Hatred against homosexuality is nothing new. Up until the late 20th century, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. And a lot of hate stems from religious and cultural traditions. In the time of the Puritains gay men were castrated while gay women had their noses cut off. Some were just executed. There are several passages in the bible, most notably in Leviticus, that condemn homosexuality as an abomination and one worthy of great sin. And even today in a country where secular law, not the bible, is the law of the land, people use this 2,000 year old book as an excuse to hate, persecute, and undermine and entire group of people.

In the movie "Milk" many old broadcasts of religious figures at the time were shown decrying homosexuality, calling it a threat to the American family and a threat to morality in general. But homosexuality has been around since the beginning of civilization and will continue to be for a long time. The family has never been destroyed and seems to continue despite the presence of gays and lesbians. Yet they keep lamenting and stoking fear into the masses, saying god will kill them all and it is up to them to inflict his wrath. Such arrogance, conceit, and hatred is only paralleled by that of the Nazi's, who executed homosexuals just as they did the jews.

The message of Harvey Milk is simple. If you can take away the rights of one group of people you can take away the rights of any group of people. You cease to live in a free society and are at the mercy of the tyranny of the majority. Recently, a right was taken away from homosexuals in California. Prop 8 banned them from being able to form marital unions, a right that heterosexual couples have. It wasn't imposing the union on anybody, it was just giving the gay community a basic right that other groups have. But in a decision that can only be described as a crime against human rights, that right was stripped away. And it's not just California. In Arkansas, a measure passed banning unwed couples from adopting children. But even the makers of the bill flat out admitted it was just a measure to keep gays from adopting. That's another basic right taken away from a group of people.

There is no excuse. Taking away the rights of a group of people is a violation of the very principles of the American Republic. The free society guarentees that all citizens have equal rights and protections under the law. And yet gays are being denied those rights. It is tyranny, plain and simple, motivated by bigotry and prejudice. If you can do this to gays, you can do this to anybody. Today it's gays, but one day it may be another groups. Jews and muslims might start getting marginalized. Or maybe atheists, a group I belong to, will start getting denied basic rights. Or maybe another group will emerge that the majority decides they don't like and start oppressing. And history shows that whenever a group is oppressed, it creates conflict and hurts all sides.

Some say opposing gay rights is a moral imperitive. But the greatest atrocities in the history of mankind all started off as moral imperatives. The holocaust was seen by the Nazi's as a moral imperative. Genocide in Amenia and Sudan was seen as a moral imperative by the instigators. Any atrocity can start off as good intentions, but when one steps back to look at just what is being done it should be clear. Atrocities are never moral and the atrocities committed against the gay community are without justification.

On a personal matter, after having seen the movie "Milk" I was so disgusted with the hatred displayed in that movie that I was sickened. As an atheist, it did affect me because I have been condemned for my beliefs, sometimes by my own family. I have always maintained a respect for people of faith, but for those devout Christians who simply decry homosexuality because the bible says so I have no respect. Tolerance should not tolerate such intolerance. If someone doesn't like something, that's okay. But when they start actively working to take away the rights of an entire group of people, they become tyrants and they have no place in a free society.

The American Republic was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness guarenteed to all men and women. Harvey Milk spent his life trying to convey a message that all people deserve to be protected from having these rights stripped away. And he lost his life in the process. Nobody, conservative or liberal, can justify taking away someone else's rights. It is a front to the free society and everybody, regardless of religious or political affiliations, has an obligation to defend the principles of freedom.

Religion has always been a base for morality. Many will object to something they consider immoral on religious terms. Some of the things religious people may object to include pornography, abortion, illicit drugs, alcohol, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality. These things are not like other morals such as war, killing, and theft. Many cultures, religious or not, consider those immoral already. But religion takes it a step further by finding something they don't like and using it as a rallying cry to get more converts, generate solidarity, and gain influence. There's nothing practical about wanting to abolish abortion, drugs, etc. It's purely symbolic. Even though banning it makes the problem worse (as it did with alcohol prohibition) they still rally behind it. And as passionate as religous people are about these morals, they have no right to impose them in a free society.

Take for instance the war on pornography and sex. Many in the Christian Right seek to ban it along with some femanists. They claim it leads men to see women as objects and will make them prone to rape and sexual violence. But this claim is not backed up by evidence. According to the Department of Justice, the rape rate since the 1970s has declined significantly (see chart here). Even though the prevalance and availability of pornography has gone up since the 1990s, it has no correlation with rape rates. Yet despite this evidence, groups like the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council try to push their agenda in banning it. And that just isn't reasonable in a free society. You can't just ban something because you don't like it.

So why do they do it? It goes back to the idea of a symbolic gesture in the name of morality. There's nothing practical about banning porn or drugs or anything else of that nature. It won't make it go away. It'll just push it underground, clog the courts, and clog prisons (as the war on drugs has done). These are things that have always been a part of society going all the way back to ancient times. No society in the history of civilization has managed to eradicate these things no matter how strict or authortative. But despite this they keep trying for that symbolic gesture that generates solidarity and rallies people to a cause.

Recently, the issue of gay marriage has been a big rallying cry. Religous figures claim that to allow gays to get married would degrade marriage and insult their faith. But practically speaking, it wouldn't do either. On a purely bureaucratic level it would allow gay couples to establish themselves as legitmate partners in the eyes of the state and entile them to the same benefits. That in no way affects other marriages. It just adds something different. It's a change and many, religious or otherwise, do not embrace change easily. But like with other issues, in a free society just not liking it isn't enough to ban it.

At the end of the day, symbolic gestures in the name of religion are only as effective as people think they are. It requires people to ignore facts and not think about the practical aspects of what they're doing. And in the long run it could cause more harm than good, but that doesn't bother them in the slightest because they actually believe what they're doing is right in the name of their diety. This has prevailed a great deal over the years, but in a free society it has no place. People are free to talk about these issues and rant about them. People like Ann Coulter and the Westboro Baptist Church (the god hates fags crowd) have a right to say whatever they want no matter how hateful or absurd it may be. But when they start trying to legislate their beliefs, that crosses a line. It's okay to not like something, but just because you believe your god says it's wrong doesn't give you the right to impose it. That's what freedom truly is.

Last year there was a study done by the Barna Group, a religious polling firm, that estimated there were around 5 million atheists living in the United States. That number swells to 20 million if agnostics or people who do not identify with any religion are included. So in a country where Christianity dominates, there are 20 million people who do not believe in a god or deity. Even in a country of 300 million that is a significant number and many believe it's higher than that because there are those who will not identify themselves as non-religious out of fear of scrutiny or discrimination. This is difficult to prove, but even if it isn't true it does reflect the unreasonable power religion is given in this country.

When the American republic was first established, America was the most secular nation in the world. It was rare for a country of that time not to have an official religion or a state sponsored church. The founding fathers saw it fit to ensure there was a clause in the constitution that stated explicitly that no official religion would be established and there could be no litmus test for public officials that could deny them office based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof. And yet few politicians or officials can survive these days without professing their faith in a higher power. All presidential candidates, even the fringe candidates, are careful to express their faith in god so as not to alienate voters. They believe that faith in god is a value. But that is entirely false.

There is no value or moral superiority in those who believe in god. It is a belief and nothing more. There is even evidence that non-religious societies may be less deviant. A study done by the Journal of Religion and Society in 2005 studies religious groups in America and other industrialized nations and found consistently that "data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular
democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution
America performs poorly."

That's not to say that there religion by default is bad for society. Other studies show that on a small community level, religion can reduce deviance and encourage people to make charitable contributions to society. But again, this can be coupled with more prevelance in bigotry, racism, and intolerance.

Atheism is a minority in America, but it is a significant minority. Few atheists wish to force people to abandon their religious beliefs, but the kind of power and influence sought by groups within the Christian Right are highly detrimental to a free society. Groups like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition would have it so homosexuality is illegal, pornography is illegal, all pre-marital sex is illegal, and all public officials must adhere to so called Judeo-Christian values. This completely defeats the purpose that the Founding Father's intended. This is actively flying in the face of the establishment clause and favoring one religious doctrine over many others.

As an atheist, I am often disturbed by how many Christian groups pursue agendas to impose their worldview on others. I have no problem with them believing in something, but when they try to legislate their beliefs that is when they cross the line. I believe in the constitution and I believe in the fundemental principles our founding fathers set up when they formed this nation and I have no desire to see it become corrupted by religious groups of any kind. Atheists are no less American than devout Christians and it's time people understood that.

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, states on his organization's website that "This ministry is therefore based upon six guiding philosophies that are apparent at every level throughout the organization. These "pillars" are drawn from the wisdom of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian ethic, rather than from the humanistic notions of today's theorists." Throughout his site, he evokes passages of the bible as justification for the morals that he and his organization promote that include opposing gay marriage, teaching creationism along with evolution, and banning abortion. He, like many Christians, believe that the bible is the ultimate authority for morality because it is inspired by god and if the bible says it than it must be true.

But like so many religious organizations before them, they pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to believe because it supports their agenda. The way they see it, if their beliefs are justified by scripture then they are inherently right and immune from moral scrutiny. This way of thinking is dangerous because it opens the door to promoting all sorts of morally questionable ideas and in the past it has been used to justify many that modern society would find atrocious today. It is equally troubling when the bible itself states that it is infallible and that includes both the Old and New Testament. One such passages is 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 which states as follows:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

So even though both testaments were assembled at different times and different eras by different people they were still divinely inspired. This paints a clear and ominous picture. If everything in the bible is right, then ALL of it must be followed and not just the parts that people like. And some of the morals of their time are entirely incompatible with the morals of the free society. One clear example is the concept of genocide. In all civilized society, genocide is regarded as the most immoral and dispicable acts imaginable yet in several instances god himself carries out or condones acts of genocide.

In several instances god himself carries out acts of genocide. The most glaring and well-known is in Genesis 6:5-9 where it clearly states as follows:

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

But there are plenty others. The following list documents and justifies just a few acts of genocide:

Deuteronomy 7:1-2:

"... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

Joshua 6:21:

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and donkey, with the edge of the sword."

Joshua 10:40-41:

"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."

But it doesn't stop at genocide. The bible promotes a wide range of morally questionable acts that are but not limited to the following:

Animal cruelty - Joshua 11:6, 2 Samuel 8:4

Incest - Genesis 4; 9:1; 19:30-38; 20:11-12, 2 Samuel 13:1-15

Slavery - Numbers 31:31-35, Leviticus 25:44-45, Exodus 21:2-7, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2

Abuse of Slaves - Exodus 21:7, Luke 12:47-48

Spousal Abuse - Numbers 5:5-31, Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 28-29

Child Abuse - Genesis 22, Deuteronomy 21:18-21; 23:2, Proverbs 13:10; 20:30; 22:15; 23:13-14, Psalm 137:9

Abortion - Amos 1:13, 2 Kings 15:16, Hosea 9:11-16; 13:16, Numbers 5:5-31

Pillage - Genesis 34:13-29, Deuteronomy 20:13-14, Numbers 31:7-12

Murder - Exodus 2:12, Judges 9:5; 11:29-39; 14:19, 2 Samuel 18:15, 1 Kings 2:24-25, 29-34, 46, 9:27, 10:7, 2 Chronicles 21:4, Ezekiel 20:26

Cannibalism - Leviticus 26:29, Deuteronomy 28:53, Isaiah 49:26, Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:8-10, 2 Kings 6:29

The bible also promotes extreme prejudice against groups such as:

Race - Exodus 23:23; 28, Numbers 21:35, Deuteronomy 3:6; 7:1, Matthew 15:22-28

Nationality - Leviticus 25:46, Joshua 6:21-27, Matthew 11:21-24,

Religion - 2 Kings 10:19-27 (although it is throughout the bible, this passage is especially glaring)

Sex - Genesis 38:16-24, Judges 9:53-59; 19:22-29; 21:10-12, Deuteronomy 21:10-14; 22:23-24; 28-29; 25:11-12, Zechariah 14:1-2, Leviticus 12:1-8; 14; 15:19-30; 18:19; 19:20; 21:9; 27:3-7, Numbers 1:2; 20:13-15; 30:3-16; 31:14-18

Sexual Orientation - Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22-23; 20:13

None of these morals have ANY place in a free society. Those that claim the bible is infallible and must be followed absolutely have no excuse. You can't claim everything in the bible is true and then just ignore the parts you don't like. That is being dishonest and groups like Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, and the Family Research Council are all guilty of it because they all claim to use the bible as a source and as justification for their beliefs. They pick and choose according to whatever promotes their social agenda and in a society that champions liberty and justice for all these morals should be kept within the books themselves and NEVER used as a moral guide for any moral decision let alone law.

Now I focus on the bible because I am a former Christian. I have nothing against other Christians or people of faith in general. I understand that there are plenty of good passages in the bible such as love thy neighbor and forgiving those who have done wrong, but I find it very disturbing when people who claim to have a superior moral sense because of their faith. They use scripture to justify their beliefs and sometimes their actions when acts of violence and prejudice are carried out in the name of their beliefs. Believing is one thing, but acting on them is crossing a major line and in a free society there is no justification for such acts. Whether it is lynching blacks or killing gay teenagers like Matthew Shepard, the morality of the bible should NOT be part of a modern, civilized society. It has a place, but not in the law or the government. Religion is religion and belief is belief. And it should not be used to impose morality or immorality on anybody in a free society.

As an atheist, I often get asked by Christians and other religious people where I get my morality. They claim that without a just and merciful god, mankind cannot be good because there is no reason for them to be good. I often say my morality comes from my experience and upbringing. My parents taught my sense of right and wrong and while not strict atheists, they didn't use gods to justify why something was wrong. When I was a boy my grandma often used Santa Clause as a reason for being good. She would tell me "Aww, Santa Clause won't be bringing you any presents this Christmas if you act like that." Looking back on it I see she could have easily replaced Santa Clause with a god and the message would be the same.

But morality is a tricky topic because it is so subjective. That is why science has usually ceded these concepts to philosophy and religion. However, modern science has made strides in recent decades and is beginning to unlock the roots of our morality. As it turns out it may not have been my personal experiences after all that gave me a sense of right and wrong. It may very well be that much of our moral sense is written in our genes and our biology.

Newsweek recently did a feature on the biological roots of human morality, citing research done by psychologists and biologists to give an insight into what gives us our sense of right and wrong. They used classical moral dilemmas to get a feel for how people judge a situation. They call it a moral sense test and they painted the following scenarios:

Would you drive your boat faster to save the lives of five drowning people knowing that a person in your boat will fall off and drown?

Would you fail to give a drug to a terminally ill patient knowing that he will die without it but his organs could be used to save three other patients?

Would you suffocate your screaming baby if it would prevent enemy soldiers from finding and killing you both, along with the eight others hiding out with you?

These situations have no clear cut answer, but when scientists gave these questions people responded with remarkable consistancy. The article stated"What is remarkable is that people with different backgrounds, including atheists and those of faith, respond in the same way. Moreover, when asked why they make their decisions, most people are clueless, but confident in their choices."

Further studies tried to see if emotions were tied into our sense of morality. And even studying patients with brains with damaged connections between the planning and emotion systems, their answers were consistant. This suggests that emotions are not linked to our morality. They do, however, play a role in our actions. Emotions may make us act in ways that we know are immoral, but that is where the concept of guilt comes in.

This leads to another point religious people often make when I debate them. How do you justify the lack of morality for atheists like Pol Pot and Stalin (Hitler doesn't count because he was a confessed Catholic and admitted creationist)? The article goes on to offer insight into that as well:

"New, preliminary studies suggest that clinically diagnosed psychopaths do recognize right from wrong, as evidenced by their responses to moral dilemmas. What is different is their behavior. While all of us can become angry and have violent thoughts, our emotions typically restrain our violent tendencies. In contrast, psychopaths are free of such emotional restraints. They act violently even though they know it is wrong because they are without remorse, guilt or shame."

In other words, they may know what they are doing is wrong, but they just don't feel guilty about it. Or they find some way to justify it in their twisted and skewwed psyche. Theists and atheists can agree that what these men did was vile and wrong. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they believed in gods or religion. By the same token, religous authorities have committed similar atrocities over the centuries that include genocides, wars, and prejudice. Millions have been put to death at the hands of religion through witch hunts, ethnic clensing, wars, human sacrifice, and inquisitions. Studies show that such blind faith in any ideology whether it be religon or personality cults like facism and communism may psychologically condition people to ignore the wrong they feel about taking a life. It's not about faith or lack thereof. It is about psychological pre-disposition.

But then why are those that are good continue being good? Well the article states that "studies suggest that nature handed us a moral grammar that fuels our intuitive judgments of right and wrong. Emotions play their strongest role in influencing our actions—reinforcing acts of virtue and punishing acts of vice. We generally do not commit wrong acts because we recognize that they are wrong and because we do not want to pay the emotional price of doing something we perceive as wrong." It is a simple matter of reinforcement. Good gets reinforced more than bad and that is why people do good. Most people get no pleasure out of hurting or killing people. We do get a sense of satisfaction when we do something good though. There's nothing supernatural about it. It is basic psychology.

So going back to the question I get asked of where do humans get their morals, I would now answer it is part of our individual and collective psychology. Cognitive and behavioral systems within and among us, coupled with aspects of our social nature, work within a biological grammar that instills an innate sense of right and wrong among human beings. Or more simply put, it is part of our nature.

I find it demeaning in a sense that some religions paint humans as naturally immoral or tained by sin or kharma and the only way to repent is to proclaim blind faith in an invisible, intangible force and make sacrifices in its name through religous authorities. That is just playing of our natural tendancy to avoid guilt. People can be good without gods. They can be good with religion too. One shouldn't place itself higher over the other. So using this research and my general understanding I have formulated two 'commandments' for morality among both religious and non-religious people. And they are as follows.

1. Try not to hurt anybody.
2. Try to be nice to people.

Link to Article