I have been thinking a long to write about my thought process in multiple diversified fields yet i failed for a mere attempt to hit my fingers on the keyboard, today as internalizing as the world is dying off tomorrow the process is coming to the actualization of it. Content of this piece are my personal opinions inspired by empirical evidences, observations, theoretical reading of the philosophy and multi-faceted arguments on the topic. I am still not on my best mind to think about in well-articulated manner yet will attempt to conclude. The following writing won't follow the criticism and arguments to prove the non-existence of some divine creator rather the purpose is to centralize my standpoint on the issue and clarify the internal pathways. I would also declare that exceptions do exist in all forms and in all fields precisely the consideration of generalization is based on majoritarian views with critical analysis, reasoning, rational utility and scrutiny shall produce fine results if not ideal. Majority can be wrong? - Yes, indeed it can be but utility is determined solely by that and it can incline towards more objective wellness by the given per-requisites as discussed before.
GOD or THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOTIVATION?
Let aside the perks of the religious beliefs and afterlife concept, why do you need a god? for me the answer is quite simple for the sense of community. To believe in a god is to shelter yourself from the upcoming harsh realities, truths, terrifying contingencies and mutability of our own existence in this terrestrial world. Religions have become the inseparable part of the identity for the masses and in a fine volume of the population their whole identity, you take out the religious framework from a person born and raised in a household with proper orientation of the religious belief system, their hypothesis of the world, their existence, integration with purpose of existence, a mechanism to subsist themselves with the hardships of the naked world around them. What's reality here? When I am using the term «Reality» meaning that the world of chaos, challenges, criticism, ruthlessness, destitution, prostitution, moral corruption, ethical rapes, traumatic and most importantly inevitably raw as well ingrained with humanity, kindness, love (abstract concept), innocence, absolute optimism, empathetic and supportive.
RELIGIONS and MORALITY
During my informal discussions with the peers and social circles, one of the argument for believing in the religion was that «Religion preserves and set the fundamentals for the morality in the world» So with that, it is fine to dissect that if a person 'X isn't religious will not be moral and a person 'Y' who is an ardent believer of 'Z' religion must be the paragon of the morals? Religion = Morality in short. is it the case in our world? General Corruption let's take out the stats. All of these nations ( according to corruption perception index 2025) are prevalent and profoundly religious states of different kind and on the contrast to the least ones are mostly non-religions, agnostic, atheistic states. If you are associating yourself ardently with your religious faith while providing the defense mechanism of saving pennies for your wife and kids at home for the better education and living standards. These who are the hypocrites of the highest order, the framed definitions for the irony, who are aligned to reality and takes out cherry picked version of their religion while throwing out incompatibility entirely meanwhile propagating themselves as immaculate figures and paragons of their religious systems.
Before talking about Morality and Ethics , I must therefore compile the difference between both of them. These are intertwined subjects yet one can be moral but not ethical or vice versa. for an example - Consider a well-known hospital in tier II city which in internally degrading it's operational capabilities. You are working as an assistant for the patients and accompany them for the operations and check-ups. Ethical Codes are designed for specialized cultures or stream actually to set a correlated behaviors and actions for a centralized goal and so in this hospital to get more patients admitted for the profit is a general and obvious ethical code, here goes the hypothetical situation- A person named A (from middle class family) wants his son suffering from critical and highly sensitive disease to be admitted in the hospital immediately and he encounters you in that process, here hits the dilemma, if you don't admit his son ( because you are well-aware of the internal system and capabilities of the hospital), you are being unethical if you don't you are putting life of an innocent life which is immoral at least in a majoritarian perspective.
Morality Beyond Religion
Euthyphro dilemma posed by Plato questions whether actions are moral because God commands them or if God commands them because they are inherently moral. During the Socratic times this dilemma was asked to Euthyphro who was a believer of Greek gods ( Christianity came much after that period) is one of the strongest argument against religious morality. for simple understanding, let's take an example-First Horn of Dilemma: «X» is good because god loves him is arbitrary. Second Horn: God loves «X» because he is good is already pointing to independent of God's hand rather the quality of «X». for further analysis i won't name any religious belief because personally i respect theological structures if people are inclined to them ( to be honest, Naa, actually it's dangerous to name it, you will be tagged as some … phobic and can suffer further bitterly). Even within the different religions, there is merely attached objectivity for an example - being kind, being helpful, being courageous,etc.. which in definitions differ and differ in the origin and context of it. Religion Y says that one must be courageous to defend themselves and force retaliations towards the non-believers while religion Z says that one must accompany with the courage to accumulate spiritual energy in life. One religion's morality is based on the holiness of that one animal, others eat them. Hence, moral relativism is profound even in the believers.
My issue with the people who advocate for religion isn't that they follow theological foundations of Morality there can be some rational fine code of conduct written in their scriptures rather their statement that Morality isn't possible without religion.
Research suggests humans developed moral instincts to enhance group survival. For example, studies on primates (e.g., Frans de Waal’s work) show behaviors like reciprocity and fairness in chimpanzees, who lack religion. Also the child shows proto-moral behaviour
Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development indicate that people progress from self-interest to societal norms to universal principles, often independent of religion. For instance, a child might avoid stealing candy because they fear punishment (pre-conventional), later because it’s against the law (conventional), and eventually because they understand stealing violates fairness (post-conventional). Non-religious individuals often reach this highest stage, as seen in secular humanists who advocate for global human rights.
A pragamatic cultural morality is that of Japan with their «giri» named culturally ingrained morality independent of religion, a population where around 80% don't believe in religious belief system, yet social cohesion is high, with low crime and strong community ethics and it is self-evident and also including the example of 2011 Fukushima disaster, citizens organized aid and maintained order without widespread looting, driven by secular social norms.
An individual who is non-religious, who risks their life to save a stranger in a car accident is stem from the empathy rather some gods said so. Personally, I have observed that more the person is ardent believer of their religion are actually the really corrupt individuals when masked off, while secularists, non-religious, agnostic and atheists are tend to follow a societal moral paradigm both inwardly and outwardly perhaps as they recognize I need to be good not because some authority commands me strictly or perform my actions in certain way rather understanding the «Human Responsibility» which he/she gets inculcated by mostly family upbringing, psycho-philosophical development of that person in the cultural value system, rational thought process on why should i? what should i? How should i?
One must do good because i think it is what a strong person of morality acts like, it takes no courage to destroy but a whole lot of effort to create a painting. Weaks are the ones of low and cheap morality. Objective morality is a lie that some philosophers have endorsed to us but this isn't not the excuse for us to become immoral giants rather to prove that we can be rationally moral and will further attempt to reach for a wellness of society.
GOD IS DEAD and Existentialism
I am not going to describe and discuss all the three concepts and sub-concepts of Philosophy rather my alignment with them. God is dead emphasizes to me the circumstances the world without god and how the humans will cooperate and stabilize the morality. GOD IS DEAD indeed a proclamation what will you do now without your god(s)/goddesses. Who are you without your religion? What is your identity? If i take strip it out from your head and the body then are you capable of purposeful, moral and meaningful life? «Men Shall never be responsible so long as the gods exist» Eliminate the god and take the responsibility of your character.
Existence precedes essence - Jean Paul Sartre (1945)
First the man exists then and only then the essence of a person shall be created rather than some divine had destiny or fate. We exist for ourselves as self-making or self-defining beings, and we are always in the process of making or defining ourselves through the situated choices we make as our lives unfold. I shall take the responsibilities for the decision i will make, I had involved in and the consequences of it independent of any GOD and with such precursors comes the emotion of «I am the legislator of the Humanity» which will incorporate responsibility for me and the society around. Men are condemned to be free rather than being the puppet of devine element or even of any other who define the morality of arbitrary nature. I am the creator of my own.