I don’t remember the name but a well known thinker once said “If there is no God, I can do anything.” That seems quite palatable for all the proponents of the existence of the God. Why one should be good or generous if there is not any God, not any one who can give you reward for your virtues or sins. We try to be (at least some of us) good or virtuous because we fear God, like a person in general won’t rob anyone because he fears Policemen or laws. Same is the case for most of the believers in God. So discipline and goodness doesn’t come from within but comes from the fear to be punished by GOD. Such is the base of all the religions without a single exception, “FEAR”. Why should atheists have morals and be kind, generous or good because he doesn’t believe in GOD (and by the same reason it is widely believed that atheists are immoral)? The reasons are many I present the soundest one. As we have learned in those boring school text books that man is a”social animal”. Right from the birth a child is constantly in the warmth of society, throughout his childhood, throughout his adolescence he remains in the safety sphere of society where no one can come and kill him, no one can come and eat him. This factors are not seen in animals they kill each other, they eat the flesh of their own siblings because they have one and only thing to consider, ‘survival’, whereas humans do not need to worry about his survival because that is assured by the society and that’s the essence of human society. So if a person is alive till he dies without ferocious efforts like animals, it implicitly mean that he is obliged to the society for the vaccination he had been given, for the cerelac he had been fed with. And also, nothing comes free in this world. Here applies a simple business rule “give something in order to get something”. In order to savour fruits of that society you also have to maintain that society very well by not robbing others, by not killing others, by not eating others, by supporting others and that’s the precise definition of the morals for atheists. So whosoever said the sentence quoted at the beginning of the article is dead wrong.
(comparing morals defined by religons over the morals defined by individual on basis of reason)Now the concept has taken 180 degree turn. First in case of GOD based morals it is fear that convinces people that they should be good, in second case it is also the fear. But there is a vital difference, in the former case the GOD is a third party who decides the morals but in the latter case it is a person itself who decides individually or the entire society collectively, what the morals are. Don’t both the cases give the same result? No there is a fatal flaw in the former case(wherein we consider the god as a regulatory element), which is that the concept of GOD is not intuitive, a child learn that concept eventually from the parents(or rather say religion), parents (or religion) may teach the wrong definition of the GOD and his rules ( so is the case when it was believed that a widow has to be burnt alive with the corpse of his dead husband otherwise GOD would get angry or in case of Islam one must not portray GOD otherwise he would punish) and the child even after growing mature can’t change those wrong definitions because it is based on the wisdom of a few persons who died thousands years ago and not on the wisdom of the contemporary men who are according to Charles Darwin far more intelligent and sensible. Whereas the morals based on reasons can be changed eventually and can not be wrong as often as it would have been in the GOD’s case. Morals or ethics based on the GOD(or religion) is unchanging, static but the morals deducted from reasons may be changed when need be(like drinking may be immoral in east as it is addictive but in the west with freezing cold drinking it must be moral). Religion and morals can not be considered synonyms instead they are often contradictory.
"It is very beautiful over there!" -Thomas Alva Edison (considered to have been told by him in his last days)
