What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life

by Phil Zuckerman, Paul Brion (Reading)

The author of Living the Secular Life deconstructs the arguments for a morality informed by religion, urging that major challenges like global warming and growing inequality are best approached from a framework of secular morality. In What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life, Phil Zuckerman argues that morality does not come from God. Rather, it comes from us: our brains, our evolutionary past, our ongoing cultural development, our social experiences, and our ability to reason, reflect, and be sensitive to the suffering of others. By deconstructing religious arguments for God-based morality and guiding listeners through the premises and promises of secular morality, Zuckerman argues that the major challenges facing the world today--from global warming and growing inequality to religious support for unethical political policies to gun violence and terrorism--are best approached from a nonreligious ethical framework. In short, we need to look to our fellow humans and within ourselves for moral progress and ethical action.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Religion, Atheism, Social Science, Skepticism

1 pages, Audio CD

First published September 10, 2019

About the author

Philip "Phil" Zuckerman (born June 26, 1969 in Los Angeles, California) is a professor of sociology at Pitzer College in Claremont, California. He specializes in the sociology of secularity. He is the author of several books, including Society Without God for which he won ForeWord Magazine's silver book of the year award, and Faith No More.

https://www.pitzer.edu/academics/facu...

Reviews

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

With the exception of morality, religion has lost its relevance. We now look to the natural and social sciences, history, literature, philosophy, and evolutionary psychology to not only better explain the world and our place in it but also to explain the origin of religion itself.

Morality is, therefore, truly religion’s last stand in its claim to modern relevance. But as Phil Zuckerman shows, we have better explanations for morality, too.

In the first part of the book, Zuckerman thoroughly reveals the incoherence of theistic morality. In addition to the fact that there is little to no evidence of the existence of any god—and that even if there were, we have no capacity to know anything about him/her/it/they—there is the problem of scriptural interpretation (making religion the epitome of moral relativism), the problem of evil, and the Euthyphro dilemma, which is worth elaborating on because it truly cuts to the heart of the matter.

The Euthyphro Dilemma was introduced by Plato in the Euthyphro dialogue. In it, Socrates essentially asks Euthyphro this: is an act moral because god commands it, or does god command it because it is moral? If the first, then morality is arbitrary, entirely at god’s whim, and reduces morality to mere obedience. If god tells you to murder your son, for instance, then you had better do it.

Most of us reject this definition of morality on its face. What about the second option, that an act is commanded by god because it is moral by some other standard? If that’s the case, then morality is independent of god and god becomes irrelevant in regard to moral deliberation.

And so, the dilemma shows that divine command theory leads either to arbitrary obedience to god or else to god’s irrelevance. In the 2,400 years that have passed since Plato wrote this dialogue, there have been no satisfactory answers.

Here’s how Zuckerman summarizes the emptiness of theistic morality, which is hard to argue against:

“There is no compelling evidence that God exists, and even if there were, we can’t agree on what it wills, and even if we could, then human morality would be reduced to nothing more than docile obedience—which is an abdication of moral responsibility. And even if we freely submitted to such a slave dynamic, there’s nothing to prove that what God commands is ‘moral,’ per se, other than criteria somehow existing independently of God, thereby rendering God’s relation to morality redundant.”

These are serious problems that have no answers. The best the religious are able to do lately is to claim that humanism is founded on the principles of religion, as if we require an imaginary, magical being to tell us not to inflict unnecessary harm on others, and that we couldn’t figure this out on our own. (You might ask how humanity survived for hundreds of thousands of years prior to the emergence of Christianity without any sense of pre-existing or innate morality. What is more likely is that Christianity itself was an outgrowth of our evolutionary psychology—mixed with the supernaturalism of the times.)

So where does Zuckerman think we get our morals? From a complex mixture of our biology, evolutionary history, culture, experiences, and rational reflection. Most of us don’t need to be taught how to be empathetic, sympathetic, and compassionate, and morality is simply an extension of these innate traits to a wider circle of individuals.

All religious and philosophical systems of morality share certain things in common: a recognition of the Golden Rule (found in numerous belief systems that predate Christianity), and adherence to the harm principle, which says that our actions should not inflict unnecessary harm upon others (because we would not want unnecessary harm inflicted upon us.)

God simply doesn’t factor into the equation; morality has entirely to do with concern for the well-being of people, right here, right now, on this planet, and with the type of society we all want to inhabit and the type of people we all want to become. Religion only muddies the waters, divides humanity, and impinges upon our natural empathy.

What I like about Zuckerman’s approach here—in contrast to someone like Sam Harris—is that he doesn’t pretend that morality has to be grounded in something objective. It doesn’t, and it’s not. Morality is a social construction, but that doesn’t mean that anything goes. We all have the responsibility to justify our actions to each other, and out of this reciprocal justification emerges a morality based on interchangeable perspectives and recognition of universal rights. This is the basis of secular morality, and as long as it is allowed to function without hindrance based on archaic notions of tribal morality, progress should continue.

My only complaint is with the subtitle of the book, which reads “Why Religion is Not Necessary For Living an Ethical Life.” As Zuckerman successfully demonstrates, it is often the case that religion gets in the way of living an ethical life. He shows how the least religious parts of the world and the United States are the least violent, in addition to the numerous ways in which religion has been used historically for unimaginable levels of oppression and suffering. Yes, some religious people are genuinely good people that do great things in the world, but we always praise them for their moderation, or, to put it in another way, for how secular they are in their interpretation of scripture.

Overall, I see this book as being invaluable in two regards. First, it can act as an eye-opener to any religious individual that cannot understand how anyone can be moral without god. They will see the emptiness and contradictions of theistic morality, in addition to gaining an understanding of how morality far outdates organized religion and how morality is in our biology and based on what amounts to fairly simple principles.

Second, secularists will find a fresh alternative to the scientism espoused by the likes of Sam Harris and others, who ultimately succumb to the religious argument that if morality is not based on something objective and certain, it can mean nothing at all. As Zuckerman shows, science can certainly inform morality, but it is the fluid nature of morality that we should celebrate and embrace; for it is in the deliberation and discussion among rational beings regarding deeply complex issues that non-violent moral compromise and progress can be achieved at all.

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

(3.5) Zuckerman’s central argument is that humanism and free choice can fuel ethical behavior; since there’s no proof of God’s existence and theists have such a wide range of beliefs, it’s absurd to slap a “because God says so” label on our subjective judgments. Morals maintain the small communities our primate ancestors evolved into, with specific views (such as on homosexuality) a result of our socialization. Alas, the in-group/out-group thinking from our evolutionary heritage is what can lead to genocide. Instead of thinking in terms of ‘evil’, though, Zuckerman prefers Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen’s term, “empathy erosion.”

To tackle violent crime, Zuckerman contends, we need a more equal society, with the Scandinavian countries a model of how to achieve that through higher taxes, social services and the rehabilitation of prisoners. He uses a lot of relatable examples from history and from his own experience, as well as theoretical situations, to think through practical morality. I found his indictment of American Christianity accurate – how does it make sense for people who say they follow the way of Jesus to fight against equality, tolerance and scientific advances and instead advocate guns, the death penalty and Trump? Well, indeed.

Zuckerman’s work overlaps a fair bit with another I’ve read on the topic, Richard Holloway’s Godless Morality – even a bishop agrees we needn’t take our societal ethics straight from the Bible! I can’t go along fully with Zuckerman because I think progressive religion has been and can continue to be a force for good, but I would agree that atheists can be just as moral as people of faith – and often more so.

With thanks to Counterpoint Press for sending a proof copy for review.

Originally published on my blog, Bookish Beck.

[Book Shark · Rating 5 out of 5]

What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life by Phil Zuckerman

“What It Means to Be Moral” is an excellent book that examines why religion isn’t necessary to be moral and in fact a morality based in God is one based on untrue premises and actually limits our capacity for empathy and compassion. Phil Zuckerman a professor of sociology at Pitzer College and author of some very fine books including one of my personal favorites Society Without God provide readers with a provocative look at the superiority of secular morality. This persuasive 395-page book includes twelve chapters broken out into the following three parts: 1. Why Morality Cannot be Based on Faith in God, 2. The Fundamentals of Secular Morality, and 3. Challenges to Secular Morality.

Positives:
1. Well-written and well-reasoned book. I like Zuckerman’s writing style.
2. An interesting topic, the superiority of secular morality. “Whereas God-based morality is ultimately founded upon obedience, human-based morality is founded upon empathy and compassion.”
3. Good reading rhythm, Zuckerman does a great job of making persuasive statements backed by science and sound logic.
4. Defines morality. “I generally use the term “moral” to refer to personal values and behaviors that increase the well-being of sentient beings, while “ethical” signifies principles and orientations that aim to increase justice and fairness in society.”
5. The naturalistic worldview. “The scientific method, empiricism, rationalism, materialism, evidence-based beliefs, and accepting what actually is true, rather than what we wish were true—these are the smooth, strong pillars of a naturalistic worldview.”
6. The failure of God-based morality. “The manifest failure of God-based morality is that its underlying basis, its central pillar, its muscle, its heart, its engine, its raison d’être—God—has never been shown to actually be real.” “As American philosopher Michael Martin has argued, “unless the concept of God is shown to be coherent, theism cannot possibly be thought to be an ontological foundation of morality.””
7. Explains why obedience is not morality. “For if our sole obligation is to dutifully obey God’s commands, then we are no longer acting as autonomous moral agents who look inward, using our own hearts and minds as our guides.”
8. Provides three reasons why theistic morality is untenable. ““God” is an indefinable, incomprehensible entity that has never been proven to exist”
9. Provides the fundamentals of secular morality. “It is good news that morality, as something we humans create, is a never-ending process, evolving and changing as we grow and develop, ever expanding in such a way as to limit pain, curtail suffering, bolster well-being, and strengthen equality and justice.”
10. Explains where we get our morals. “There are four: 1) our long history as social primates, evolving within a group context of necessary cooperation; 2) our earliest experiences as infants and toddlers being cared for by a mother, father, or other immediate caregivers…”
11. The seven secular virtues. “The underlying principle of freethought is simple: people ought to be able to think anything, wonder about anything, question anything, investigate anything, and learn about anything.”
12. Fascinating conclusions. “Or consider a massive meta-analysis conducted in 2009 by Duke University professor Deborah Hall, who analyzed fifty-five separate studies teasing out the relationship between religion and racism. Her conclusion: strongly religious Americans exhibit the highest levels of racism, while atheist and agnostics exhibit the lowest levels.”
13. A personal relationship with reality. “The secular tendency to live in reality helps us to accept things for how they really are—not how we wish or hope them to be. This means that we don’t rely on prayer or other such magical thinking to alleviate suffering. We have to take thoughtful and deliberate action—and be attentive to those practices and policies that are actually effective in alleviating suffering.”
14. Examines immorality at an individual level. “Several researchers have found a strong correlative link between violent criminal behavior and serotonin levels in the brain. As Irish biopsychologist Nigel Barber recounts, “this link is so strong, in fact, that if you measure the level of serotonin turnover in a violent criminal’s brain . . . you can predict their future criminal violence with greater confidence than by all other methods combined . . . in one study, re-offense was predicted with 84 percent accuracy alone.””
15. A look at genocide. “Third, during every genocide in the twentieth century, millions and millions of people—from Armenia to Poland, Guatemala to Rwanda, and the Ukraine to Nanjing—prayed desperately to God for help, protection, deliverance. And yet God didn’t help, protect, or deliver them, so he doesn’t appear all that efficacious.”
16. The superiority of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
17. Secular solutions to immorality. “In his estimation, the answer to lowering crime is fairly straightforward: prevent child abuse and neglect, enhance children’s social and intellectual development, provide support and guidance to vulnerable teens, and work closely and therapeutically with juvenile offenders. Do this—as Currie’s extensive research shows—and you’ll reduce overall crime significantly.”
18. A look at the Scandinavian model. “As of this writing, the most successful attempt at establishing such a society is the contemporary Scandinavian model, which combines favorable aspects of capitalism—innovation, competition, and profit motive—with a robust, progressively tax-subsidized welfare state that keeps poverty at a minimum, ensures a healthy level of equality, and provides all citizens with their basic human needs.”
19. Moral relativism. “And as we participate in this process of moral negotiation, we rely only upon ourselves and our ability to understand—rather than passively and prudently cower in obedience to some magical otherworldly moral authority that doesn’t even exist.”
20. Notes and bibliography included.

Negatives:
1. Lack of visual supplementary material.
2. Some repetition.

In summary, I really enjoyed this book. Zuckerman is becoming one of my favorite authors. I loved Society Without God and there is much to like about this one too. Zuckerman makes the compelling case that human-based morality is vastly superior to a God-based morality. In fact, he clearly shows that a theistic morality actually thwarts societal progress. An excellent read, I highly recommend it!

Further suggestions: “Society Without God” by Phil Zuckerman, “The Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris, “What the Biological Sciences Can and Cannot Contribute to Ethics” by Francisco Ayala, “The Science of Evil” by Simon Baron-Cohen, “A Manual for Creating Atheists” by Peter Boghossian, “Sense and Goodness Without God” by Richard Carrier, “The Bonobo and the Atheist” by Frans De Waal, “Natural Atheism” by David Eller, “Good Without God” by Greg Epstein, “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt, and “Think” by Guy Harrison.

[Jan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This well-written and researched book encapsulates how I feel right now- he lays out in a very plain and clear-headed way why secularism is on the rise worldwide and why it makes so much more sense that theism. Highly recommend if you are a free thinker and open to looking at things from a non-religious perspective.

[Francis Bezooyen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, this book is truly excellent, but I do have one major criticism of it. Namely, that the author's argument that one set of ideas about what is moral cannot be objectively shown to be better than any other is vulnerable to precisely the same argument by which he shows that a morality which is based on nothing other than the preferences of a God is utterly arbitrary and meaningless. So too is it with any measure of what is moral that supposedly has no more grounding than the preferences of any individual or culture.

In my opinion, Sam Harris really does address the dilemma of moral relativism sufficiently in his book, The Moral Landscape. But, like a surprising number of other people, Zuckerman seems to have only partially understood Sam's arguments in that book. While he says that he appreciates and shares "Harris' emphasis on the well-being of conscious creatures as a solid moral guide" he goes on to confront Sam's argument for a _principle_ by which we might judge what is moral with, essentially, an argument from ignorance or incredulity, confusing the principle that Sam argues for with the reach of those tools of science that we presently possess (a big part of the problem is that he doesn't understand how broadly Sam's use of the word "science" goes. Additionally, he doesn't seem to have registered the fact that Sam agrees that the fundamental value of "well being" is not one that is or can be derived a priori from some more fundamental fact or principle), incorrectly concluding that our inability to apply the principle perfectly in some case, due to insufficient information about the relevant variables on which the principle must work, somehow falsifies Sam's argument. It doesn't. And, meanwhile, Zuckerman demonstrates repeatedly throughout this book that, in practice, he does not actually hold to that disagreement. If he did, he would have no basis for claiming as he does that the state in which humanity finds itself today, with its relatively low levels of murder, rape, and other cruelties, along with the principles and values which have led to that change, should be regarded as any more moral than the conditions and values of former generations. He clearly believes that our present circumstances are more moral, but if we accept his argument that there is no objective way to judge the moral views of one culture to be better than another then we must reject the central argument of his book - that we need not God to be moral - not because God is necessary or even sufficient, but rather, because there could be no such thing as real morality in the first place - it would all be merely the arbitrary preferences of they who have been sufficiently strong to impose their will (Actually, I believe that is a dimension of our actual circumstances, but...).

Anyway - despite this criticism, the book is well-worth reading.

[Roo Phillips · Rating 4 out of 5]

Justice Scalia said disbelief in God "certainly favors the devil's desires" (2013). According to a 2014 Pew study 56 percent of Americans believe that it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral. Our current AG Barr declared that social problems…are the direct result of a “moral crisis” perpetuated by the “secularists of today.” Psalm 14 of the Old Testament says, those who don’t believe in God are not only fools (“morally deficient”), they are not only corrupt, but they are incapable of doing good. Is this all true? What It Means to Be Moral seeks to objectively address this prevalent mindset.

Obviously, anyone (God fearing or not) is capable of being morally bankrupt. But does not believing in a higher authority automatically preclude one from certain moral ability? Is it easier or more natural for theists to be ethical in general? If you think so, then this might be a book worth reading. Zuckerman does a decent job addressing the many relevant studies and data, as well as the philosophical conundrums associated with these debates.

I now realize that, when I was a theist I falsely judged others’ ethical motivations on occasion. As an atheist, I have likewise been inaccurately judged. Learning and understanding both sides of belief has helped me appreciate how easy it is for one to speciously judge another’s moral predisposition. Zuckerman shows that, while belief in God can be one conduit to moral/ethical behavior, it is not required. There are other avenues leading to moral behavior as well. Humanity’s improving moral aptitude can actually be traced through our religious, social, biological, and psychological histories. In my religious circle I know and see regularly that moral behavior can abound among theists. However, reading this book, as well as personal experience, has helped me look at the growing population of non-religious people in the world with hope for a rising moral society, not its disintegration (see Ben Shapiro). No one group or enterprise has the monopoly on moral behavior or capability. As Zuckerman argues, it is relative.

[Chris Osantowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredibly helpful and well written summary of secular thought and morality

[Dan Graser · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is one of the most healthy exercises, at least in my experience, to constantly be reading and challenging what it means to be ethical and/or moral, and to scrutinize your own innate biases and predilections as relates to both areas. Thus, this work from Phil Zuckerman is a pleasure to read as he very thoroughly makes the case that the source of development in ethics and morality should be sought from the same places in which we have always advanced our abilities to act and think in better ethical/moral terms: secular human discourse and rational thought.

Though this is an area that frequently, even to this day, is identified as one in which religion is thought to play perhaps the largest part (a ridiculous notion), when people's own "religious" morality and ethics are examined you quickly see that much if not all of what they have to say about their supposed sacred morals actually spring not from some objective arbiter in the sky but from their upbringing, daily experience, and (all too limited) reading, and the couching in religious terms happens as a final step. Plato would be truly heartened to know that his Euthyphro dilemma from the Socratic dialogues is still a dilemma 2500 years later. A thorough analysis of just how morally relativistic the supposedly objective moral teachings of various all-powerful deities rounds out this section nicely.

At the core of Zuckerman's premise of secular morality and ethics are what he terms the Secular Seven:
Freethinking
Living in Reality
Here-and-Nowness
Acceptance of Existential Mystery
Scientific Empiricism
Cosmopolitanism
Empathy/Compassion

For some, those are loaded words, however their universal applicability is well detailed as are challenges to the very notion of secular morality. In his traversal of moral relativism he doesn't quite understand some of Sam Harris' central points and as such leaves some portions of that discussion unresolved when I can guarantee you there would have been definitive answers to his questions, however that is a minor critique of an otherwise great chapter. And yes, those who are currently thinking of a quote from a book they haven't read by an author they genuinely don't understand (The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky) there really have been several great and complete responses to that soundbite and you really should read the whole work.

Anyway, a fine traversal of what secular morality does currently and should eventually look like without many cheap shots but displaying a firm conviction of where it is that we should ultimately be seeking answers to moral and ethical questions of our time.

[T.A. · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars rounded up
This was a really interesting read on morality from a secular perspective and really valuable to me as I'm deconstructing my rigid religious upbringing. The arguments for more secular-based morality really resonated with me and helped me to better understand why so many aspects of my religion didn't resonate with me or feel right. At times I felt the book was maybe a little....condescending of religion/religious people? I'm not sure if that's the right word for it or if other people would feel the same, but that did stick out to me, especially in the earlier sections of the book. Which I guess is just a shame because I do wish more religious people would pick up and read a book like this, but I fear the tone would be off-putting, if I put myself back in the shoes of the person I was 4 or 5 years ago.

The first 2/3 of the book were pretty slow and tedious in places. There were a lot of examples given for the various points he was trying to make, which was helpful, but I felt like the examples got repetitive and there were just too many of them for my liking. Part of that I think is because of my own educational background and already knowing some of the information presented, so I wanted the author to move along and get to the next point quicker, but that's probably just my own impatience. The last 1/3 or so worked better for me and was more what I was interested in, looking at how society influences morality and vice versa. All in all it was a valuable read and raised some thought-provoking considerations.

[Kent Winward · Rating 4 out of 5]

The source of "morality" has always intrigued me. Religion certainly feels inadequate in defining what a moral life can be and I find the secular approach better, but it also feels to be lacking. Certainly as Zuckerman points out morality arises out of our social institutions and social interactions, culture and society make defining morality claustrophobic.

For example, the golden rule has for a long time felt like a bad idea to me. Do unto others, not as you want, but as they want, seems better, but the tension and paradoxes arise when what is wanted by the other isn't something you feel is worthwhile. Zuckerman gives the example of an Amazonian tribe that has the practice of killing off one a pair of twins. Letting the baby die wouldn't be following the golden rule, unless of course you believed that twins were an evil omen portending doom. The flip side would be that a member of the same Amazonian tribe in the hospital following the golden rule would undoubtedly feel compelled to bump off one of every twin born in a hospital.

So the golden rule isn't really a basis for morality, yet it gets paraded out first in almost every discussion of what do we deem as moral.

Morality I suppose has become a lot like Justice Potter's definition of pornography for me: "I know it when I see it."

[Mars Cheung · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious? Or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" - The Euthyphro Dilemna

As of late, I've been reading many books to answer many questions I have about morality. Are all moral claims valid? Is religion the source of morality or do first principles exist from which moral values are derived or corrupted? This was a very well written and well-argued book in the invalidity of the former and the superiority of the latter. The book takes the reader on the beginnings of moral behaviors via our biological and evolutionary impulses, how socialization/internationalization calibrates those behaviors and how reason alters them as we pass through life. Judging what consequences to others result of how we choose to live causes us to evaluate our ways of life carefully in favor of a more just and compassionate world.

I didn't give the book five stars because I felt the book at times unnecessarily touched upon politics, which could turn people off from what is otherwise an absolutely fascinating read. Also, I wasn't entirely a fan of the arguments made in favor of moral relativism. Throughout the book, the author makes the point that blind obedience to divine command can cause harm and also states the socialization of people towards certain cultural norms can cause enormous harm and is therefore immoral, but by doing so, by default he presupposes certain qualities are moral (life being preferable to death, health desirable instead of sickness, etc) implying in the end that there are clear objective goals as to what morality is and is not. I 'think' what the author was trying to say is that there is clearly an objective quality to 'good' and 'evil' in the overall grand scheme of things in terms of well-being and experience, but as they become harder to define in the minutiae, they inevitably retain a relativistic aspect.

I read this book in conjunction with Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle and Sam Harris' Moral Landscape which fleshed out the ideas in this book in greater detail and expanded on them. Definitely worth the read along with these two other excellent books.

[Jon-David · Rating 3 out of 5]

An author I'd love to get lunch with to challenge some of his arguments in a productive dialogue. It would certainly be intellectually stimulating. Despite a few main arguments I didn't find persuasive, he does present compelling arguments people of faith must grapple with.

It would be a much more compelling argument if it weren't sandwiched in-between a political manifesto at the beginning and end, where, although he ties the issues discussed into his political discussion at the end, the purpose of such discussion seems more to be to prove to the reader that the author is politically on the left. If his goal is to only speak to religious liberals and those who already agree with him, then maybe it's just him trying to connect with the reader on their common beliefs so they'll be more likely to consider his other arguments. But for those who don't buy into the effectiveness of leftist policies, it serves more as a a distraction from his main thesis.

He goes back several times to a theme that a defining difference between secularists and believers in God, is the former's trust in science and the scientific method. The problem left unaddressed is how many people, when they are no longer religious, seem to treat certain other beliefs similarly to how he describes people of faith doing. What came to mind is namely the rising popularity of critical theories that reject science in exchange for a hierarchical dogma where the person/group who can claim having the most victim-group intersectionalities is correct, and should have their voice elevated above others (unless it doesn't fit the activist narrative - in which case it can be disregarded), regardless of the scientific rigor of their position. Any secular fundamentalist devoid of science and reason in their zealous adherence to ideology suffers from the same problems attributed to people of faith.

[Bookworm · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting concept but not for me. I grew up without religion and am often drawn to books that discuss why a lack of religion is necessary/okay/up to you, etc. Definitely not with the likes of people say like Richard Dakwins but all the same I was intrigued by this title and was wondering what it had to say.

The author takes through what the title says. The source of morality, where it comes from, why religion isn't necessary to be moral, why it's a mistake to believe so, etc. I suppose I found it useful when looking back in retrospect. I was never a troublemaker but I suspect I puzzled friends of mine who were particularly religious because I might not have fit with their perceptions of nonbelievers...except I didn't believe in God.

But overall I think the negative reviews are right. The book can get repetitive. It's not for everyone. There will be people who will insist that religion is more important and that is why we are on the path that we are on because people don't have a set of codes for guidance, etc.

So if you're one of those types, this isn't for you. For me it was an okay read, but not particularly compelling. Back to the library.

[Aaron Clover · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good look at morality from a secular perspective. It occasionally uses more of a polemical tone than I would prefer, but other than that I really liked it.

I think the strongest section was the part about the "secular seven," a list of seven virtues that seem to be common among and important to secular people.

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fine, well-written review of the relevant arguments plus a smattering of anecdotes on how religions make people less moral. Great for those of us already in the camp of non-believers.

[Heidi · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a great well thought out book. Not only did it give me a lot to ponder but also to defend myself from those around me that are religious.

[Leanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is such a mind-opening book.

It can be difficult for many of us who were raised in a strong religious tradition to imagine that religion is not a required ingredient for goodness and morality. For many people, the fact that so many around the world are leaving organized religion can sound downright scary. In this book, Zuckerman takes on those fears and examines why we can count on a future society with a strong moral and ethical foundation. I found his reasoning sound and his argument hopeful.

If you do decide to pick this work up, be prepared to get through the first couple of chapters which may feel too political. He doesn't stay in that tone for long, and I think he is setting up the contrast between how Americans see themselves vs the reality that numbers prove--if that makes sense. It is sobering.

I wish I was in a book club that wanted to take on this book. It would make for fascinating discussions!

[Ashley R · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was hoping that this would be a good introduction to secular morality, and it absolutely was. This book is written in a way that is simultaneously academic, but not pedantic enough to make it hard to understand; it covers a lot of ground and a broad range of topics, but does so in an intuitive order and fashion.
As someone who grew up very religious and is now very much not, this provided a good starting understanding of the ways that morality can and does exist outside the confines of religion.
I would honestly recommend this to anyone, regardless of religious inclination or lack thereof. Even if you don't agree with Zuckerman's take on morality (I didn't fully agree with everything he said, either), it's a well written and fairly comprehensive look at secular morality.
I feel more equipped now to address religious grievances with morality not based in religion, and I will more than likely be reading this again sometime in the future. Would recommend.

[Tweeting · Rating 3 out of 5]

Contained a good argument for humans being more cooperative and altruistic than we give ourselves credit for, but dropped the ball a bit on moral relativism.
I'm taking off one star because for some reason the author felt the need to state the nationality of everyone he quoted. EVERY SINGLE PERSON. Once I noticed, it started to become really obtrusive, and I found myself losing concentration as soon as a quote came up.

[Andi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Where does our morality come from? What does religion have to do with it? What about the culture we were raised in and operate in as adults? It may seem simple until you start delving into human behavior, individually and in groups, and how it has evolved through time. Not many situations are purely black or white; right or wrong. Read it with an open mind and you will find new ways of looking at the world and its inhabitants.

[Tricia Hooper · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book eloquently advocates for humanism, and demonstrates all the ills that organized religion has brought into the world. I decided to skip the thru some of the sections (like genocide) because they were so upsetting to listen to — you go the point very early on without having to listen to the litany of horrors. But overall a very well researched and well written read on the ethics of atheism!

[Wayne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Zuckerman's discussion of Moral Relativism is not helpful to his views of secular morality. It reduces morality to cultural norms and customs. He tries to mitigate the relativistic view by endorsing a larger, more cosmopolitan perspective that provides criteria for judging those customs, but allowing for a morally relativistic viewpoint weakens those criteria.

[Scott Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't think the book was great and I'm glad I didn't feel the need to argue his point. I feel like philosophers have been using the idea of human morality as a way to justify not having to go to church for a long time. He sounds like Diderot just less eloquent. Hey, if you want to sin, just sin, you don't need to justify it to me.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really well-researched defense of humanism, though only two chapters of this are really about "what it means to be moral." The rest is about either how religion is not necessarily moral, and listing human rights abuses and genocides.

[Daniel Dacombe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview of the arguments in favour of a secular morality.

[Tyler Barber · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book providing insight into secularism vs religiosity. A thorough review of multiple applicable concepts making it a great starting point for those questioning religious beliefs.

[Eileen · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars

[Natasha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating research that gave me more questions than answers. Also, a vital argument and defense for the atheist and non-religious.

[Eden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Addresses the issues of morality in relation to religion and secularity, from a secular perspective. A quick, simple read (with some rather minor issues), this is a valuable book that I would consider an essential read for anybody.

[Joe Sampson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written, detailed arguments in favour of humanist ethics.