This was originally written as a comment on The Secular Outpost.

I think morals came before religion. No matter what species of living entities you look at--whether animal, insect, other creeping, swimming, hopping, or flying things, or human--every last one of them has means by which to ensure the survival of the species. Exceptions occur in the case where unprecedented powers of the predator are exerted as when humans hunt a certain animal practically to extinction for its fur or ivory.

I find it quite easy to see a relationship between the ensurance of survival of the species and morals and religion. Human moral codes have for their basis nothing other than ensuring the survival of the species. Since there is no higher aim for humanity than to retain its species alive for one more generation, it logically follows that the principles by which survival is retained are sacred.

When something is sacred, you have to pass it on to posterity. To ensure that it is remembered and passed on, rhyme and ritual and ceremony are very helpful. Is any of this reminiscent of religion???

Of course, it helps if stories are attached to the rhymes and rituals and ceremonies--stories that drive home the absolute need to live in a certain way, stories that show what happens when humans fail to "keep the commands." I think it's far more complicated than this but it makes sense in my mind that morals pre-exist religion. And they don't die with religion, either, because--well--wouldn't we hate seeing our species head into extinction? If this is rather hard to conceptualize, just imagine that you were the youngest human being alive on planet earth and that chances for you or your generation to have kids are zero.

So that might prove the connection between morals and religion, but how do we prove that morals have as their basis the survival of the species? I'm trying to think of an example that would not lead to strife in short order and I can't think of a single one.

Whether it is to say hi when you meet a friend on the street or to drive on a specific strip of roadway, blatant and intentional violation has a pretty high potential of leading to strife on some level or another. It is probably not necessary to explain the relationship between strife and the potential annihilation of our species. Thus, religious or not, we're going to be moral.

Perhaps the nonreligious have more reason to be moral than the religious. The religious can always trust God to somehow or other prevent annihilation. Those of us who are nonreligious know what a major role we play as individuals to make this world the kind of place that is species-friendly.

The following quote comes from an article in Humanist Network News with the title More Doctors Refuse Service Based on Religion



The bolded part is what caught my attention. Many Christians claim it is their religion that makes them good people. They imply that it is impossible for nonreligious people to be good. Here you can see another discussion of this article. It seems that a person who does not believe in doing these tasks that go with being a doctor should not become a doctor.

Here's a guess on my part: Maybe becoming a doctor is one of the ways fundamentalists use to impose their values on society.

Whatever the case, this is just one more reason why the power of fundamental religion must be broken.

And becoming a politician...and a counselor...and a social worker...and a teacher...etc., etc. Any position that holds power is a chance for a fundamentalist to impose their views on others. Examples: a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for birth control or the morning after pill, because these items are considered abortificants and against his/her religious beliefs. A police officer refuses to patrol a casino because gambling is against his/her religious beleifs. A fundamentalist becomes a teacher with the specific goal of being a witness to students. Fundamentalists flood into couseling services and social work, aiming to get the poor, the needy, the disturbed to turn to Jesus. It's all happening in America.

But aren't there laws in place to prohibit that? I mean, police refusing to serve as ordered? Doctors and pharmacists refusing to serve as the law demands? How can public servants do this? This seems a perfect set-up for social chaos. And that is what the fundamentalists claim to want to avoid. As I ponder the situation, I realize that it does fit the picture. For example, how could entire states enforce the teaching of creationism if it violated the conscience of all its teachers? The teachers would strike. The fact that they obey the state ruling may be an indication of how "far gone" the professions are.

I think this is a case of religious freedom taken too far. Even their holy bible says "Let your moderation be known unto all men." They are letting extremism being known to all people--not just the men.

Just now I came across an interesting idea by Charles Hodge (1870) about God and morals.



In other words, he is saying that the human hand is normally very good with sense of touch, but something could happen to a hand that disables its ability to sense touch. He thinks that by nature we as humans are aware of God but that if we harden our hearts and become immoral we won't be aware of God.

Apparently, he equates morals with God. Today's fundamentalists think they are following Hodge's teachings. However, I don't believe Hodge would condone the out-rageous harm that is being done in God's name by today's fundies. They have confused morals with their idea of god. Hodge was not like that.

But then, few of today's fundies have the depth of thought Hodge had, nor the breadth and depth of formal learning.

As someone who has first hand experience with this I can tell you that I have witnessed pharmacists morals affecting their professional decisions. Many moons ago I worked in a pharmacy in a grocery chain in Texas. My partner, a born again xian, when asked whether the medicines would interact with alcohol would always say they did because of his beliefs.

Druggists refuse to give out pill

Personally I would rather dispense FDA approved morning after pill than add another unwanted pregnancy to the populace.

I've read far too many stories and books on what damages a person's self esteem and how this in turn hurts others and is transmitted to future generations. I cannot in good conscience support the pro-life movement. An unwanted pregnancy is sure to turn into some form of child abuse, which will damage a person's self esteem, which will be transmitted to future generations. One psychologist's study indicated that it can go on for ten generations. We are talking very seriously serious issues here. Thus, the pro-life movement seems to me a very short-sighted movement. And so far as I can make out, it's based on nothing but religious belief. Evidence seems not to be part of the picture. That bothers me very seriously.

Originally posted by Varokhar on New Forums on Aug. 10. I'm copying it over here because this seems to be where the discussion is/has been taking place.

I agree; I think it's more natural for humans to consider basic issues of right and wrong before inventing something as complex as a religion or even a philosophy to serve as a vehicle for them.

Humans are the source of ethical understanding, and humans are also the source of all religions.