The Origin of Good Will

As an Atheist one of my key doubts as to the negativity of religion lies with the assumption that people need a motive to be good towards others, that they need some kind of system of threat and reward to maintain basic moral principles. As religion provides this system for so many, I have to ask the question: why fight something that does so much to maintain a civilised society?

But there are flaws to this assumption. Many years ago, when religious belief was consensus and unquestioned, there was still crime, worse then than now. Despite ‘knowing’ that they would go to hell, people still stole, lied, raped and murdered. Similarly Atheists are not a notoriously uncivilised bunch. I don’t feel the need to be unpleasant and selfish just because there is no omnipotent threat of reprisal nor omnipresent system for reward.

I believe this is because good will is not powered by motive, but generated by an inner drive that only exists when the spiritual wellbeing (I use the term metaphorically) of the individual is at a peak. Think about it. We feel generous when we are well off, we are friendly when we are cheerful and we are good willed when we are happy. When our mood is good we glow and this spreads to others. More or less, the happier we are the happier those around us are.

Drive from the midst of a city out into the countryside and you will find that the people, in general, get more and more cheerful and good willed. This is because they are less materialistic than city people, and therefore are closer to their goals, making them happier and therefore more generous. North Wales is generally more cheerful than South Wales. South West England is generally happier than the South East. Compare the looks of commuters on an underground train with the looks of villagers at a bus stop. The villagers are happier, and therefore friendlier. The difference is more or less quality of life.

This fundamental misunderstanding as to the root of good will is one of the reasons why religion doesn’t always work. I believe that religions are conceived by visionaries who are paranoid about the uncivilised nature of the dimwits that surround them. So they invent a boogie man to inspire in their peers the same sense of right and wrong, albeit motivated by fear, that occurs naturally in themselves to ensure a good future. However problems come when these visionaries turn out to be wrong. Most of the prophets of the Abrahamic religions appear to share all the character traits of a modern day fascist cab driver. They hate homosexuals, so a few thousand years later, so does a large chunk of the population. There is currently conflict within the Christian church over whether or not to allow gay priests. Those against it argue that the Bible is anti-gay. But if you were to take their Biblical knowledge out of the equation and rely on simple good will, they would have no problem with homosexuality. Two people love each other and want to be together, so what’s the problem? Religious teachings often act as rails that we simply do not need. Some of the advice is good, but the supernatural mumbo-jumbo isn’t.

Also endorsing the living of life by a set of pre determined rules can be dangerous. It is innately obvious to most people that killing equals bad. But if you’re the kind of thick person who abides by rules that other people have created, and as a result you don’t properly understand them, you may find a loophole through which to do wrong and your morality won’t stop you because it lies dormant in lieu of a specific text. Take extremist Islam for example. The Koran forbids suicide, yet praises the martyr. That way the former is lost in favour of the latter. If these people had been happier and worked it out for themselves, they would have realised that martyrdom only applies when death is circumstantial. Engineer the outcome to get a quick reward obviously defeats the original purpose, yet blind believers do not see this.

Never mind motive. The influence on good will to others is good vibes within ourselves. Socio-economic factors are better at explaining the quality of the innate morality of a population far better than religious convictions ever could. There is no need to force others to do good when they could just as well do good of their own free will.

I appreciate that there are exceptions to this rule. The greedy, the selfish and the downright nasty are unpleasant no matter what their mood. But they are a minority, or at least I hope they are.