Religion and Morality
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Psychological Bulletin © 2014 The Author(s) 2015, Vol. 141, No. 2, 447-473 0033-2909/15/$ 12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038455 Religion and Morality Ryan McKay Harvey Whitehouse Royal Holloway, University of London University of Oxford The relationship between religion and morality has long been hotly debated. Does religion make us more moral? Is it necessary for morality? Do moral inclinations emerge independently of religious intuitions? These debates, which nowadays rumble on in scientific journals as well as in public life, have frequently been marred by a series of conceptual confusions and limitations. Many scientific investigations have failed to decompose “religion” and “morality” into theoretically grounded elements; have adopted parochial conceptions of key concepts—in particular, sanitized conceptions of “prosocial” behavior; and have neglected to consider the complex interplay between cognition and culture. We argue that to make progress, the categories “religion” and “morality” must be fractionated into a set of biologically and psychologically cogent traits, revealing the cognitive foundations that shape and constrain relevant cultural variants. We adopt this fractionating strategy, setting out an encompassing evolutionary framework within which to situate and evaluate relevant evidence. Our goals are twofold: to produce a detailed picture of the current state of the field, and to provide a road map for future research on the relationship between religion and morality. Keywords: cognitive science of religion, moral foundations theory, prosocial behavior, cultural evolution It is simply impossible for people to be moral without religion or God. the former proposal, many others have argued that morality is dictated —Laura Schlessinger (quoted in Zuckerman, 2008) by—and indeed unthinkable without—God: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted” (Dostoevsky, 1880/1990).1 Echoing this re Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong. frain, conservatives like to claim that “declining moral standards” are —Richard Dawkins (2006, p. 348) at least partly attributable to the rise of secularism and the decline of organized religion (see Zuckerman, 2008). The question of whether or not morality requires religion is both The notion that religion is a precondition for morality is wide topical and ancient. In the Euthyphro, Socrates famously asked spread and deeply ingrained. More than half of Americans share whether goodness is loved by the gods because it is good, or whether Laura Schlessinger’s belief that morality is impossible without goodness is good because it is loved by the gods. Although he favored belief in God (Pew Research Center, 2007), and in many countries this attitude is far more prevalent (see Figure 1). In a series of compelling recent studies, Gervais and colleagues (Gervais, Shar- This article was published Online First December 22, 2014. iff, & Norenzayan, 2011; see also Gervais, 2011, 2013a, 2014a; Ryan McKay, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Gervais & Norenzayan, 2012b, 2013) have demonstrated strong Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London; Har im plicit associations of atheists with immorality. Although these vey Whitehouse, Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, associations are stronger in people who themselves believe in God, School of Anthropology, University of Oxford. even atheist participants intuitively view acts such as serial mur Thanks to Sir Robert Hinde, Dr. Oliver Curry, and three anonymous der, incest, and necrobestiality as more representative of atheists reviewers for commenting on earlier drafts of this article. Special thanks to than of other religious, ethnic, or cultural groups (Gervais, Professor Maureen Callanan for valuable advice and assistance. The work 2014a).2 Unsurprisingly, atheists explicitly disavow this connec of both authors on this article was supported by a Large Grant from the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (REF RES-060-25-0085) tion, with some even suggesting that atheists are “the moral back entitled “Ritual, Community, and Conflict” and a STREP grant from the bone of the nation . tak[ing] their civic duties seriously precisely European Commission’s Sixth Framework Programme (project no. 043225) entitled “Explaining Religion.” This article has been published under the terms of the Creative Com 1 Here we conflate two different senses in which morality may require mons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by/3.0/), God. On the one hand, morality may require God in the sense that the very which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any me notion of morality is incoherent without God (i.e., without God, there is no dium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright for basis for ethics). This is what Socrates had in mind (and disputed). On the this article is retained by the author(s). Author(s) grant(s) the American other hand, morality may require God in the sense that (belief in) God is Psychological Association the exclusive right to publish the article and needed to enforce moral behavior. This is what Dostoevsky meant. Partly identify itself as the original publisher. for rhetorical effect, here we have presented the Socrates view and the Dostoevsky view as opposing, but strictly speaking, they could both be Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ryan valid—for example, it could be that the notion of morality is coherent McKay, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, De without God (Socrates), but that the threat of God’s punishment is required partment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham for anybody to actually act morally (Dostoevsky). Hill, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United Kingdom. E-mail: ryantmckay@ 2 At the same time, atheists and believers alike view good deeds as less mac.com moral if they are performed for religious reasons (Gervais, 2014b). 447 448 McKAY AND WH1TEH0USE Must Believe in God to b e Moral? because they don’t trust God to save humanity from its follies” (Dennett, 2003). Other nontheists have taken a softer line, arguing ■ No ■ Yes that moral inclinations are deeply embedded in our evolved psy chology, flourishing quite naturally in the absence of religious United States indoctrination (Pyysiainen & Hauser, 2010). Canada Although there is no shortage of lively polemic, scientific investi gations of the connection between religion and morality have so far B razt produced mixed results. The interpretive difficulties are exacerbated V e n e z u e la by imprecise conceptions both of “religion” and “morality.” It is not Bolivia clear that these terms are used in the same ways by those between, or P eru even within, seemingly opposing camps. To make progress on this M e x ic o issue, we require a more precise specification of which human virtues ( M e are under consideration and which features of religion might be A rg e n tin a thought to influence their expression. Our aim in what follows will be to sort out some of the conceptual confusions and to provide a clear G erm an y evolutionary framework within which to situate and evaluate relevant Spain evidence. Italy We begin by highlighting a set of conceptual limitations ham B ritain pering contemporary academic discourse on this topic. In our F ra n c e view, many current investigations suffer from (a) a failure to Sw eden fractionate “religion” and “morality” into theoretically grounded units; (b) ethnocentric conceptions of religion and morality; in U kraine particular, (c) sanitized conceptions of prosocial behavior, and (d) Slovakia a tendency to conceptualize morality or religion as clusters of Poland either cognitively or culturally evolved features rather than both. Russia To circumvent these problems, we advocate a cross-culturally Bulgaria encompassing approach that fractionates both religion and moral Czech Rep. ity while carefully distinguishing cognition from culture. A thor oughgoing exploration of the religion-morality relationship must Egypt 0| 99 seek to establish the evolved cognitive systems that underpin the Jo rd an 0 97 astonishing diversity of cultural concepts, norms, and behaviors K uw ait 12 ■ 87 that are labeled (perhaps arbitrarily) “religion” and “morality.” Palest, ter. 84 §(g ’] Accordingly, drawing on moral foundations theory (MFT; e.g., T u rk e y « ■ wSEm Graham et al., 2013), we outline sets of cognitive systems com Lebanon 66 KEI monly associated with these concepts and consider whether their Israel 43 mam evolutionary histories might be somehow entwined. We go on to Indonesia ij 98 consider the quite separate question of whether the evolution of B angadesh H90 religions as cultural systems has selectively favored moral values Pakistan 9 I 88 of various kinds. In the process, we provide a comprehensive M alaysia 1 2 | 86 review of research on the religion-morality relationship. India 66 South Korea —fn 56 Conceptual Lacunae and Confusions in the Religion Japan warn 33 and Morality Debate China r 72 17 Despite the confident claims of many contemporary commentators, Senegal i; 91 §§g we believe the relationship between religion and morality is poorly Tanzania "J 89 understood. In our view, this is because debates about religion and morality are marred by a set of interrelated conceptual lacunae and Uganda 13 ■ 87 N ig eria Q3 82 confusions. Our aim in this section is to enumerate these shortcomings K enya p i 81 and to highlight some of their serious consequences. M ali IQ 81 Ivory Coast m 78 Astrologizing E thiopia 1 3 76 South Africa m 74 History can be written at any magnification. One can write the history G h an a 73 of the universe on a single page, or the life cycle of a mayfly in 40 aa volumes. —Norman Davies (1997, p. 1) Figure 1. Views of religion and morality (Pew Research Center, 2007; reprinted with permission).