Although our modern societies have arisen from Judeo-Christian, eastern religion, and ancient philosophical influences, it is still entirely possible for an individual to abstain from dogmatic belief structures and moral systems, in order to discover the truths of such systems in his own experience, with evidence driven from experience. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he will discover values that are separate from those instantiated on society by our religious foundation, but it means that one can have evidence and good reason to hold such values with a lack of a faith-based moral system. Rather than looking to scripture, to religious organizations, or to traditional family values, one can, in an entirely secular way, seek to develop one’s morals and beliefs in a way that aligns with reality, and be just as useful or more useful than the system expounded by our forefathers. In many cases this means stepping on the heads of those who came before us, in order to reach new heights, but simultaneously I think we should look for the causal connectivity of value systems into how and why they are beneficial to us, based on our own self-introspection and experiences.

For the majority of people who do not endeavor to spend their lives contemplating a moral code, and discovering truth for themselves and how best to live, religion is useful in informing them of a moral system, which, in most cases, is more beneficial than a lack of a structured one. This means there is some functionality of religion and it has a use that is beneficial to most people, but it is not necessary, nor the most beneficial, and by no means infallible, in producing a good person who has a good grasp on reality. The use of reason is sufficient enough to discover the benefits that many religions claim to be exclusive to their supernatural beliefs. For example, most religions claim their followers to be on a level higher than all other religions, and certainly nonbelievers, in their understanding of reality and morality, and for those who do not follow their supernatural claims, to be destined for hell or not able to understand basic truths of life, and they make this distinction solely based upon stating that you are not a member of their ranks. This is simply not true, anyone, no matter their race, religion, political view, or gender, any functionally conscious human is able to discover any real existing truth about the world through sufficient reason, and dependent on causes that are not exclusive to those who believe in any supernatural occurrence. I would claim the opposite. While one person may perform an act of charity because it is dogmatically passed down as being pleasing to God, and another may perform the same act because they have systematically explored how it would increase the wellbeing of another, the two acts are surely not on the same footing, from my point of view. Intentionality truly matters in these cases.

If you perform an action with the intent of eternal life in heaven, your action pales in comparison to the person who does it based on an understanding of alleviating suffering in the experience of another person. The sameness in the action distorts the causal web that leads from such actions. It initially appears that if the same action proceeds from different intentions, it truly doesn’t matter how we get the goal as long as the goal is equal. This is a fallacy and short sighted. There are implications that range into the future beyond solely the same action. The individual who does it for God, does not grow in virtue and habitual good-will that the secular individual does, thus producing a less capable person to perform beneficial deeds in the future. Not only does the rationale which connects us to our actions influence ourselves in a way that can be more or less beneficial to our own wellbeing and thus further development, it also has an effect upon our expanded circle of influence, i.e. in those we have a connection to in some way or another. To him who discovers the evidence of psychological wellbeing based upon doing the right thing in a philosophically sound method which aims to be moral through the alleviation of suffering and increase of wellbeing, he gains confidence in the methodology and further evidence towards the claim that such actions are indeed beneficial and useful. His conviction and his ability to share such knowledge, for other people to improve themselves and carry out meaningful actions using a similar methodology, also improves, with a causal implication of being more beneficial to the lives of other people through their implementation of similar intentionality. The God fearing individual who performs the action, does not gain in his conviction, nor in his ability to influence others in a positive way through the same action, the proof that his action is or is not pleasing to God, and the framework from which it stems from, that of dogmatically imposed “this is the moral law”, is not confirmed or denied in his experience, it is merely carried out. The reason why the action was performed, is not strengthened by the data of the result of the action, and this further limits the range of beneficial effect the individual may have in affecting his expanded circle of influence. The individual who does something merely because it is right, and is honest in his ego driven benefit, as we all truly act from desire, proves to reinforce itself through the proven result of the action, in aiding the other person, in providing wellbeing for the agent, and in following the philosophically sound moral system of moral realism, proving that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, not based upon the dictation of a higher power, but based upon experience and evidence. To continue acting in a way which stems from convictions that aren’t based upon a rationale that is valid, might be the method for those who have less time to contemplate, or are less intellectually gifted to continue doing beneficial actions, but isn’t optimal towards the growth of the individual, nor is it optimal in influencing further generations to do the same. While religious language, stories, and laws, surely have been beneficial and useful to people for thousands of years, the influence of a better scientific and philosophical methodology is becoming prevalent, and religion is waning in its position of being the most optimal framework from which to act on. How can I make such a claim, it seems opinionated right? Well if we all accept that wellbeing is good, and suffering is bad, and that there are better and worse ways to achieve wellbeing and reduce suffering, than we must accept that the methodology which produces actions in accordance with these goals, more so than other methods, surely is the right methodology in which to follow.

That being said, we all lie upon a spectrum of intellectual ability, and environmental circumstances, which limit or support our ability and time available to develop a moral system. While we are in differing places as to the practicality of developing and working towards a philosophical system that is in accordance with our self-uncovered value system, I believe those that are capable of such inquiry, ought to pursue it, with the admission that many people are not in the right place in life in order to shed off their supernatural beliefs. This is okay! It is not a moral imperative that everyone ought to shed their religious beliefs for a philosophical / scientific worldview. We must admit that given the certain circumstances many people find themselves in, whether it by physically, mentally, or circumstantially, that for many people it is actually more optimal for their wellbeing for them to not shed religious systems. Moral Philosophers must not be arrogant in their claims that it would be better for everyone to pursue this kind of inquiry and development, and must remain truthful to the practical nature of human existence, that for many people the optimal course of development does not lie upon changing their worldview, but merely optimizing other situational factors in contributing to their wellbeing.  

Regardless of the millions of factors that make up who we are, most people are able to logically come to the reasons behind good morality on their own, without religion, whether they choose to do so or not. Someone is morally superior due to their actions, their speech, and their intentions, in the effect they have upon the lives of sentient being’s experience. To say that any religion, philosopher, or individual has a monopoly on the truth, on wisdom, and outside of their confines it is not achievable, is surely a fallacy. No matter which perspective we look at the world from, no matter which system we have underlying our actions, every individual lies upon a spectrum of moral value, and the quantification of morality and the peaks it is capable to achieve are not owned or restricted to any one group. No matter the course we lie on, differing degrees of understanding in our truth claims is available, different heights and improvement to our moral decisions are possible, and we all can grow to become the potential person that we ought to strive to be. We can all become better, and in relation to everyone else, we all ought to encourage the growth in both truth-seeking and moral action. A rising tide surely lifts all boats, and to demoralize and sink other boats, is not the method we ought to impose. We ought to attempt to raise ourselves, encourage others to do the same, and seek optimal solutions to novel problems as they so arise, and in doing so improve the quality of life for everyone within our influence, which turns out to be a lot larger number than originally intuitable! Schisms between sects, religious feuds, philosophical battles, all shouldn’t be eradicated, but should be predicated on good-will for others involved, and carried out with an open mind and the intention of learning something from those we disagree with. As we move from thesis, to antithesis, we necessarily transcend our current knowledge in the integration of both in to a larger worldview. As we strive to heights of knowledge, as we seek correct answers to moral situations, we become better prepared for the slangs and arrows of misfortune, and we are better able to aide other people in their journey to improve their own wellbeing and reduce suffering. Evidence for truth is conversant, explainable, and evident in the lives of those who have grasped it, and cannot be shrugged off to a nonbeliever as being something they simply couldn’t understand due to their religious position. Religion is useful in providing people a key to becoming a good person that would have taken a large effort to gain independently, but it is less valuable than discovering that morality for yourself, without faith, based on your experience and rationality. Yes, our current values and way of thinking has ancient roots in religious doctrine and its thinkers and expounders, but it is not the only cause of our current state, and to give it any more credit than solely being an influence among others would be categorically untrue. Even biology and evolution has played a part in the development of compassion and cooperation, key tenets of good morality. It’s evident that those who did not cooperate with groups, or aide others, eventual died without their genes being spread, and those that did lived in larger numbers and populated more, so even the deep evolutionary drive to good morality has been proven by evolutionary biologists as being a factor long before any human made religion was invented and gained ground in affecting society. As the meme of God has been the most popular unit of cultural heredity, I believe it is time for the meme of moral realism to make its head-space, as I believe it to be more valuable unit towards the beneficiality of all the members of our species. The God meme has done its role in getting us to this point, more or less, and for those with “little dust on their eyes” it is well past the time when we should look for alternative, more useful, more beneficial systems towards that aide us in the uncovering of the true nature of reality, and aide us in our moral decisions.