Conscience, Morality and an Argument for the Existence of God

 I wrote this piece several months ago while going through yet another wrestling session with questions of faith.  It is just one aspect of this continuous debate.

The Enlightenment sparked a firestorm of intellectual debate about religion.  A Newtonian universe did not seem reconcilable with the miracles and myths of ancient religions and many began to question whether traditional religious dogma could be believed.  A profound confidence in man’s ability to reason caused many to view theology through the prism of rational thought and to acknowledge a belief in some sort of Deity, but not in the institutions of any religion.

American thinkers like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, and later Ralph Waldo Emerson and many others, were strong adherents of this ‘Deist’ wave of thought.  Jefferson famously cut out all of the so-called mythical parts of the New Testament to create a ‘Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth’ that was in his view a masterful expression of ethics and morality, but not a story about the son of God.  Jefferson and the others did not appear, though, to reject the notion of God, but merely the dogma of the church.

This skepticism about religion was sent into warp drive by the 19^th century development of the theory of evolution and discoveries about geological aging that seemed to preclude any literal interpretation of creation events.  As the impact of ‘Darwinism’ made its way into the intellectual landscape, many abandoned any belief in God at all and defined themselves as atheists.

This trend of intellectual rejection of God has continued to the present day.  It is probably safe to say that the majority of college professors and scientists are at least agnostic, if not defiantly atheistic.  But once one leaves the lofty domain of the intellectual the religious question is much murkier.  In the western world, church attendance has continuously diminished over time.  Yet the percentage of people that believe in some sort of God and heaven is still fairly high (typically greater than 50% and often as high as 75-90%), even in Europe where church attendance is almost non-existent.  This may be due in some cases to a ‘hedge your bet’ or ‘wishful thinking’ attitude rather than a thoughtful consideration of the arguments pro and con, but it is an interesting statistic nonetheless.

The Question of a Non-Religious Morality

One of the most basic characteristics of religion or theology is a set of moral precepts.  It is often stated that the biggest area of similarity in the world’s religions is their morality.  To be sure, there are plenty of gray areas, and ethicists make a good living exploring the nuances of moral and ethical laws, but the similarities are indeed striking and the basic moral structure is clear.

When one rejects God and religion, then morality and ethics become an interesting puzzle.  How does one derive a moral structure in a completely material world with no higher authority dictating it?  Is there a morality among the plants, or the animals, or the planets or the cosmos?  Is morality whatever we as humans define it to be?

Perhaps we should derive our morality from the laws of nature and the theory of evolution?  If we do this, how would it differ from what is generally accepted as moral behavior today?  We often cite Darwinism as ‘survival of the fittest’, a moniker that is probably not really completely accurate.  But there is certainly an element of truth in it. If the universe’s morality is based upon whatever causes it to become more efficient or more complex or more optimized or more highly developed, then certainly we must be willing to make some fairly hard-hearted decisions.

This logical train of thought is what actually occurred in the latter part of the 19^th century and into the middle of the 20^th century.  It included Nietzsche’s Superman and his belittling of the Christian ‘slave morality’ or morality of the weak.  It included the strong interest in eugenics to allow for a pruning of the human race to eliminate the weak-minded or physically impaired so as not to hinder the rapid progress of humanity.  It included the economic and quasi-philosophic (a la Ayn Rand) theories that celebrated (and still do!) the entrepreneur and the fabulously wealthy tycoons over the lowly worker, and argued for total free markets to propel the human race to ever higher achievements.  This morality was a morality of the strong, because the strong dictated the pace of development and progress.

Some of this morality took on nightmarish forms in the 20^th century – the Nazis and their eugenic holocaust for one - and became discredited.  But it can be argued that its logic is still incontrovertible if one believes only in a material world, perhaps just less dramatically or arbitrarily applied.

When one rejects the notion of a higher authority dictating morals, then the question of conscience becomes very interesting.  Why do we recoil at the thought of sterilizing the handicapped or the mentally deficient?  Why are we reluctant to kill others to get their food or possessions?  Is it because our conscience will not allow us to consider it?  And what is this conscience and where does it come from if not from some sort of higher authority?  Is it a product of evolution?  Why would we evolve to have such a conscience?  The animals don’t appear to be troubled by such concerns.  When they are hungry they eat another animal without the slightest bit of remorse!

Now we can argue that our higher evolved state has developed a conscience to allow us to form a more complex society to achieve ever more wonderful states of being.  This is certainly feasible where it concerns certain parts of the moral code – killing and stealing for example – that would otherwise cause society to unravel and create a less ideal situation for all.

But what about our compassion for the mentally deranged or the physically malformed or the developmentally disabled?  Or even those who appear not to have much motivation to work or contribute?  What a huge drain they are on our society!  We could develop our perfect world much more rapidly without dragging that part of the gene pool along with us!  Surely the part of our morality that prevents us from finding a quiet ‘solution’ for the infirm is a relic from the silly old religious times and ought to be jettisoned!

But our hearts ache for the weak, the sick and the downtrodden; for the mentally ill and the dispirited.  We continue to find powerful inspiration in acts of mercy, love and charity.  What imbues us with these emotions and feelings?

I find the argument that our consciences and moral pre-disposition are totally a result of evolution and its psycho/biological mechanics a weak one.  The logical path would be for human evolution to develop a very pragmatic moral code – to optimize the gene pool and focus attention and energy on the strong and successful.  But our hearts (souls?) will not accept that pragmatism, even when we do not embrace a spiritual belief system.

What is going on here?  Can it be that we all really do have a God-given conscience from some higher authority that is somehow innate and a part of some sort of soul or spirit?  Can our consciences and morality be interpreted or explained without including an external influence?

So in the end it is somewhat ironic that many of our most vociferous protectors of the weak and the downtrodden also claim to be atheists. Why do so many ardent advocates of social justice and moral behavior choose to totally deny any possibility of the divine?  For many it is a sincere belief that there is no valid evidence for any kind of spiritual phenomena.  For others it is a profound distaste for the human expressions of religious dogma.

The argument can be made that the fashionable intellectual rejection of God and religion is a combination of intellectual hubris and a very understandable reaction to the ills of institutional religion.  Intellectual hubris is the notion that anyone can truly categorically state that God exists or does not exist – an all-too-human example of pride.  To doubt is eminently reasonable, but to be certain is arrogance. 

Defiant atheism is surely a type of intellectual bravado, an affectation that feels good in the moment (or for many years) but probably does not have quite the same zest when contemplated on one’s deathbed.  Who in their final moment would not agree to continue to exist (or be resurrected) in some blissful form or another?  Only a stubborn fool would reject such an offer!

The other side of the atheistic trend is perfectly understandable as a reaction against the innumerable crimes perpetrated in the name of God by the world’s religions.  Is it any wonder that so many flock to the banner of non-belief when one considers the persecutions, wars, hatred, intolerance and enslavement in which religion has played a role?

So this is my modest attempt to demonstrate that the stubborn resilience of compassion could be an indication that we are indeed linked to something more than just the material world; that the divine, or God, fills our hearts with this compassion in the face of all logical and philosophical arguments against it.  For me, it is a comforting thought.