Richard Dawkins on Morality without God
Dawkins argues that secular morality is not only possible but demonstrably superior to morality derived from scripture.
Dawkins contends that morality without God is not only viable but inevitable — since no one, including believers, actually derives their morals from scripture. Christians do not stone adulterers or execute disobedient children, despite clear biblical mandates to do so. They use an independent moral sense to select which scriptural commands to follow, which proves that the moral sense comes first.
He points to the 'moral Zeitgeist' — a broadly advancing consensus that expands the circle of moral concern over time. This progress is driven by secular forces: philosophical argument, empathy, education, and cross-cultural contact. Religion typically resists these advances and only catches up once the surrounding culture has already changed.
Dawkins also addresses the fear that without God, people would have no reason to be good. He finds this both empirically false (secular democracies have lower crime rates than religious ones) and morally alarming — if the only thing preventing someone from committing murder is fear of divine punishment, that person is not moral but merely prudent.
“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward? That's not morality, that's just sucking up.”