INTRODUCTION
The discipline of  Psychology of Religion has made some interesting researches. One of the areas of research finding is of our interest. Research has proved that people with strong religious belief have “more stringent and exacting moral beliefs than non believers, they judge more actions wrong, judge them more wrong”. Daniel Batson in his book, “The Religious Experience”, gives a list of research findings in the same lines from which we can safely conclude that one’s religiosity and moral standards are directly proportional to one another. With this as the backdrop this essay will discuss the topic “Are people moral because they are religious or religious because they are moral?”

 

THE ROLE OF RELIGION
In the primitive civilisations incest was almost universally forbidden. The reason why it became a taboo was that people feared that it invited catastrophes of nature. They believed such a behaviour disturbed their deities in some way or the other. If such an act is discovered the community intervened and took the person involved into task. J.Goetz, writes in such a situation the community, “does not act to punish the guilty member but to suppress a danger.” Such an intervention of the community assured reduced occurrences of incest. Does it mean that the morality of the people is improving? Even if the answer is “Yes”, what effects such an improvement?


As people grow and civilisations grow they become more refined and they renounce brutal and instinctive behaviour and engage themselves in reflexive behaviour. There is an evolution in the culture and in the civilisation. However this takes a long period of time in the history. But before the culture/s and civilisation/s could become more moral and more refined, the process had to start somewhere. Religion serves as the starting point. As W.W. Meissner points out, “religion [serves] as the main foundation of morality…most courageous and splendid ethical progress could happen only in terms of religion”.

Religion in order to instil values in the community uses certain means such as
1. Fear
2. Love
The study of the History of Religion has proved that more than love it is fear that religion uses as an effective means. As Bertrand Russell puts it, “Fear is the basis of religious dogma.” The fear aspect in turn uses the dynamics of punishment and reward or sanctions as its tool.

THE DYNAMICS BETWEEN RELIGION AND MORALITY
Human beings have to face at least once in their life time questions like, “Who am I?”, “Where am I?" and “What I ought to do?” The question “What I ought to do?” leads us to the realm of morality.
Why should one be moral at all? Raymond Cattell says, “A coherent morality requires a coherent world view.” It demands a clear perception or better understanding of life. It depends on one’s understanding of meaning and goal of human life. This is where religion plays a major role. Religion gives one the frame of reference to one’s life, meaning and goal and purpose of human life. It helps one to situate oneself in this world by providing with a world view. Religion answers the questions, “Who am I?”, “Where did I come from?”, “Where I am going to?”
Secondly, religion does not stop there it also tells what one ought to do and plays as an authority in providing moral rules for its believers to obey. Abiding by the rules procures reward failure to keep them brings punishment and disaster. The ‘oughts’ prescribed by religion takes the value of imperatives because its authority is attributed to God who is considered to be the Supreme Judge.
Thirdly, most often the individual or the society is introduced to morals through religion. Religion provides motivation and reason to be moral, either it be through love or through fear. The more serious one is about one’s religion the more serious will she or he be about morality. Because religion prescribes as its goal and as goal of life - self perfection, goodness, happiness, liberation, self realisation, etc. All these goals without any exception are intrinsically related to moral goodness. “There is an intrinsic relation between piety and morality, between the practice of one’s devotion to God and service to his neighbour.”
Finally, the words of Richard McCormick are very relevant to our discussion, “moral convictions do not originate from rational analyses and arguments”. He gives the example of slavery. According to him with reason alone we cannot arrive at the conclusion that all human beings are equal and hence to treat someone as a slave is unjust. James Gustafson says that the knowledge of God is essential for morality. “With the loss of the ‘Transcendent’ the love and quality of morality becomes more fragile, persons become means rather than end. Sin is viewed as a breach of moral rule rather than denial of God.”

CONCLUSION
In view of all the points discussed above it is logical to conclude that people are moral because they are religious. But the drawback of this stand would be how could we explain the moral behaviour of an atheist who does not believe neither in God nor in religion? For a non believer, what is the motivating factor to lead a morally good life? Bentham would say it is the “enlightened self-interest” because such a person always acted with view to his maximum satisfaction in the long run and hence always acts rightly. This view too can be criticised as did Bertrand Russell who attributed good life to ‘love and knowledge’.
The other possibility that one is religious because he or she is moral, does not do justice for people who do not believe in God or to those who do not believe in any religion. A morally upright atheist may not like to identify himself or herself as a believer. The third possibility arises if we take it for granted that one wants to be moral because he or she wants to be religious. With such a possibility we could argue that ‘If one wants to be moral because they want to be religious they are already religious in the first place for such a disposition.’
In conclusion considering all the possibilities though we cannot conclude with hundred percent certainty, we would be more closer to the truth by saying people are moral because they are religious.

Religion and Morality Books used:

ARGYLE, M., (et.al), The Social Psychology Of Religion, Routledge And Kegan Paul, LONDON, 1975.

BATSON, C.D., (et.al), The Religious Experience, Oxford University Press, NEW YORK, 1982.

CATTELL, R.B., A New Morality From Science: Beyondism, Pergmann Press Inc., NEW YORK, 1972.

COX, J.L., Expressing The Sacred, University of Zimbabwe, HARARE, 1992.

GOETZ, J., “RELIGION AND MORALITY” in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, VOL. 12, McGraw Hill, NEW YORK, 1967.

GUSTAFSON, J. M., “SPIRITUAL LIFE AND MORAL LIFE” in Introduction To Christian Ethics, Paulist Press, NEW YORK, 1989.

McCORMICK, R. A., “DOES RELIGIOUS FAITH ADD TO ETHICAL PERCEPTION?” in Introduction To Christian Ethics, Paulist Press, NEW YORK, 1989.

MEISSNER, W.W., Psychoanalysis And Religious Experience, Yale University Press, LONDON, 1984.

RUSSELL, B., Why I Am Not A Christian, Unwin Books, LONDON, 1970.

End Notes from religion and morality books

1 ARGYLE, M (et.al), THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION, LONDON, 1975, p.122.
2 BATSON, C.D., THE RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, NEW YORK, 1982, pp. 284 -285.
3 GOETZ. J., “RELIGION AND MORALITY” IN THE NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, VOL.12. LONDON, 1967, p.271.
4 MEISSNER. W.W., PSYCHOANALYSIS AND RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, LONDON, 1984, p.98.
5 RUSSSELL, B., “WHAT I BELIEVE” in WHY I AM NOT A Christian, LONDON, 1970, P.48.
6 CATTELL, R., A NEW MORALITY FROM SCIENCE: BEYONDISM, NEW YORK, 1972, p.71.
7 COX, J., EXPRESSING THE SACRED, HARARE, 1992, p.50.
8 GUSTAFSON, J.M., “SPIRITUAL LIFE AND MORAL LIFE” in INTRODUCTION TO Christian ETHICS, NEW YORK, 1989, p.163.
9 McCORMICK, R. A., “DOES RELIGIOUS FAITH ADD TO ETHICAL PERCEPTION” in the INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN ETHICS, NEW YORK, 1989.
10 GUSTAFSON, J.M., “SPIRITUAL LIFE AND MORAL LIFE” in INTRODUCTION TO Christian ETHICS, p.164.
11 RUSSELL, B., p.51.