Tag: ethics

Is it Necessary to Believe in God to be an Ethical Person?

Many Christian evangelists think that if belief in God declines, there will be social chaos, crime and disorder. Michael Gowens, in his book Ready to Answer, states that disbelief in God “produces, first of all, moral collapse and degeneracy. . . . The resulting social chaos will eventually destroy that society. Excessive violence and crime, unrestrained sexual perversion, drug addition, child abuse, abortion, and virtually every form of debauchery and decadence known to man will eat away at the foundations of life until the civilization like Ancient Rome, will crumble.” (Lexington, Ky: Sovereign Grace Publications, 2011, p. 59). A video from a Harvard professor states that “if you take away religion, you can’t hire enough police.” (https://www.huffingtonpost. com/ronald-a-lindsay/atheism-leads-to-moral-de_b_6423018.html.)

It seems important to find whether this is true because, offhand, there are many societies as well as religions that do not believe in God. Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Bhutan, for example, which have large populations of non-theistic Buddhists, have remarkably low crime rates.

A useful source to find out if such a hypothesis is true are the crime statistics of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Here are the incidences of murders in four countries that are overwhelmingly Catholic and Protestant: There are 9.84 murders per 100,000 population in the Philippines, 26.74 in Brazil, 57.15 in Venezuela, and 108.64 in El Salvador. How about countries who generally do not believe in a God, either because of atheism, agnosticism or Buddhism? The crime rate of Hongkong is just 0.3 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, while Japan has 0.31.

In 2005, an American sociologist, Phil Zuckerman, went to and stayed in Scandinavia for 14 months and made a study of the relationship between belief in God and quality of life in Denmark and Sweden. He published his findings in a book entitled Society Without God. The reason he chose Denmark and Sweden was that they were “probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world.” A 20-year old grocery clerk in Jutland, Denmark, told the author: “Young people think that religion is kind of taboo. As a young person, you don’t say, ‘I‘m a Christian and I‘m proud of it.’ If you do that, you often get picked on.” This is in spite of the fact that three-fourths of the people in Denmark nominally belong to the official Church of Denmark with is Lutheran.

The first thing that the author noticed when he came to Scandinavia was that there were no policemen anywhere. In Aarhus, the second largest city in Denmark, he saw the first cop only after 31 days of staying. “In Aarhus, the violent crime rate there is among the lowest in the world for a city of that size. For example, in 2004, the total number of murders in the city of Aarhus was one.” Compare this to cities of similar population size: Victoria, Mexico, has 293 murders in 2006, St. Louis in the US had 188, and Vitoria da Conquista in Brazil had 208.

Zuckerman listed various facets of the social condition of Denmark and Sweden as compared to the rest of the world. He wrote:

“Despite their relative secularity, Denmark and Sweden are not bastions of depravity and anarchy. In fact, they are just the opposite: impressive models of societal health.”

Based on the United Nations Human Development Index of 2006, Sweden ranked 5th among 175 countries listed, Denmark was 15th. In terms of Gross Domestic Product per capita, Denmark ranked 4th and Sweden 8th in the world. In terms of absence of corruption, Denmark is 4th and Sweden is 6th in the world. Their crime rates are among the lowest in the world. (In 2016, Denmark has a crime rate of 0.99 per 100,000 people, while Sweden has only 1.15, compared to the rates mentioned above.) How about happiness of the people? Based on a study of Erasmus University, Denmark ranked number one in happiness among 91 countries.

Zuckerman wrote: “The fact is, the majority of the most irreligious democracies are among the most prosperous and successful nations on earth.”

All these studies show that it is not necessary to believe in a God in order for a society to live peacefully and ethically.

A recent study by Pew Research Center shows a clear correlation between national economic progress and their view that belief in God is necessary for people to be ethical. Those who rank highest in the view that in order to be good, belief in God is necessary, rank lowest in terms of economic development, such as Ghana, Pakistan, Jordan, Nigeria, Uganda, Indonesia, Philippines, etc. Those who rank low in this view, that is, they believe one can be good without belief in God, are among the most progressive in the world: Australia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, Japan, etc.

Research and statistics do not therefore support the view that societies that do not believe in God or religion would fall into chaos and depravity. The opposite seems to be true. The least religious nations are the ones who rank high in important benchmarks of an ideal society: high income, low crime rate, well-established democratic institutions, high in gender equality, low in mortality rates, and high in the happiness scale.

Albert Einstein wrote: “A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

Author J. K. Rowling similarly wrote: “It is perfectly possible to live a very moral life without a belief in God, and I think it’s perfectly possible to live a life peppered with ill-doing and believe in God.”

Pope Francis has similarly stated that even atheists can go to heaven provided that they are good or ethical persons.

Never Lie to Children

Children, starting from the moment that they begin to understand words, have no concept about lying or untruthfulness. Whatever is told to them is taken as fact. The parents or elders are the absolute authorities about understanding the world. When this authoritativeness is not destroyed by lying, then parents will have no problem about making their children follow what they are told. But the moment the children discover that their parents lie to them, then this image of credibility is shattered. The parents’ authority is eroded. Every time that the parents say anything to the children, the kids will wonder whether it is true or not. In effect, respect for one’s parents is lost, and the consequences can be tragic, both to the family and to the child. During times that the parents truthfully and wisely tell their child not to do something, the child may no longer believe them and thus may fall into disastrous circumstances.

Some parents think that it is not possible to be always truthful to their children. So in seminars that I conduct, I ask people to give me examples where they find it difficult to be truthful to their children.

For example, when six or seven-year-old kids ask where they came from or how they were born, many parents would give them fantastic but untruthful explanations. One mother told her child, “Anak, hulog ka ng langit” (You fell from heaven or the sky.) How would a child take this? That he or she actually fell from the sky and caught by the mother? Why can’t parents say the simple biological facts about reproduction even if the child does not understand half of it? They find it difficult to explain truthfully because many parents think that it is taboo to talk about these things. But children will not be scandalized by any such truth. They would not think that there is anything wrong with facts. It’s the adults’ minds that have this problem.

How about stories about Santa Claus?

My strong suggestion is that parents should not lie to children about Santa Claus. One teacher told me about her experience. When she was a child, her father told her that if she wrote a letter to Santa Claus before Christmas, Santa would bring what she asked for on Christmas Eve. She believed this unquestioningly. Then one Christmas Eve, she wanted to see Santa Claus so she hid herself in the living room and waited for Santa to bring the gift. Indeed, the gifts arrived, but who brought them? It was her father.

The next day, she deliberately told a big lie to her father expecting that it would be discovered. When the father found about the lie, he scolded her and asked her why she lied to him. Then she looked at his father and said angrily, “Why did you lie to me about Santa Claus?” The reason why she was so angry was because, a few days before, she was told by her classmate that Santa Claus did not exist and that it was her parents who brought the gifts. But since her father told her that Santa Claus really brought the gifts, she quarreled with her classmate and defended her father. It was a costly lie by the father, and the daughter never forgot about it.

How about children who were adopted? Should parents tell them about it?

It is very difficult to hide from a child the fact that he or she was adopted. Many people usually know about it — uncles, aunties, neighbors and family friends — and they cannot be prevented from talking about it. So my view is that the parents should tell the child at some point, but on one condition: that the child should feel that he or she is loved by their adoptive parents before saying it. If the child feels loved, then the child would not mind very much if he or she adopted. If such children don’t feel loved, then telling them will be like a double rejection: that the reason why they are not loved is because they are adopted, and that they were also rejected by their biological parents. In addition, they would feel that they were deceived by their adoptive parents.

Parents usually find it difficult to tell the truth because they did not learn how to make truthful but assertive communication. Suppose a child is asking money from the mother to buy something unimportant, and the mother does not think that they should buy it. Some parents will just say, “I don’t have money” hoping that it will quickly end the discussion. But when the child discovers that the mother actually has money, then the child will feel deceived. Instead of lying, let the mother discuss about priorities in expenses and why it is not advisable to spend money on things unimportant. When the child has a high level of trust towards the parent, the child will accept it. The child may feel disappointed, but will not be resentful. It is alright for children to be disappointed, but it is dangerous when they begin to resent the parents.

When someone calls by phone looking for a parent, and the parent does not want to talk with that person, the parent may whisper: “Tell her that I am not around.” When children witness this, then they may think that deception is acceptable, and later will do such lying towards their parents and other people. In such cases, trust at home will gradually disintegrate. Instead of lying, tell the child, “I will just call later”; or answer the phone and assertively turn down what is being requested; or if there had been hurt feelings on a previous day, the parent may tell the child, “Please tell her that, sorry, I am not yet ready to talk; perhaps later.”

Never lie to children, under any circumstance. The consequences are not worth the convenience gained from lying. On the other hand, there is so much advantage when children retain high trust on the parents.