Being Good Without G-O-D?
- Carter Montgomery
- Feb 18, 2020
- 40 min read
Updated: Apr 4, 2021
Being Good Without G-O-D?: How Religious and Non-Religious College Students Navigate Morality and “Being A Good Person."
University of North Florida
ABSTRACT
In this paper, I examine moral identity construction among religious and nonreligious college students. Underrepresented in studies, nonreligious individuals are increasing in numbers, thus significant to study as we can investigate how morality is constructed in the absence of religion and in a society that is increasingly becoming faithless. Based on 6 in-depth interviews with both religious and nonreligious college students in the South, I analyze some ways students of faith and nonfaith may utilize their experiences with religion in society to establish personal moral codes, adjust and maintain their definition of what it means to be a “good person,” and the legitimacy of religion as a moral authority. In this paper, I demonstrate how the respondents drew upon their juvenile and present-day experiences with religious and nonreligious others to cultivate their moral identities by (1) using taken-for-granted notions of morality as a mechanism for finding meaning in their lives, (2) discussing loss of religious identity or times of drifting from religion, and (3) highlighting sources of moral authority in the journey of understanding and defining what it means to be “a good person.” In conclusion, I draw out implications for understanding how nonreligious individuals craft their definitions of moral “good” and “bad” aspects of society, in relation to the development of moral character, through empathetic guidelines and societal influences rather than religion as the forefront.
Word Count: 226 Keywords: religion, morality, identity, religion change, atheist/irreligious/nonreligious, social control, moral authority
INTRODUCTION
Morality and religion often go together; however, with common empathetic themes of moral codes that exist outside of religious institutions, it is important to look at how nonreligious individuals navigate morality and what it means to be a “good person.” In this paper, I ask: how do college students navigate morality and “being a good person,” and how do these definitions compare across religious and non-religious lines? These data show religious and nonreligious college students understand morality in a fairly basic sense, reflecting taken-for-granted notions of morality, perhaps a universal set of moral concepts. They differed in terms of whether and how they accepted religion as a legitimate source of social control, as well as whether and how they modified values from religious doctrines to an ingrained sense of “goodness.”
This research is important because it illuminates the social construction of morality and the role religion plays in developing moral compass templates for its followers. The emergence of “nones”—those who do not adhere to a certain religion—is growing recently changing the fabric of society, including the sense of community and group membership (Baker and Smith 2009). This phenomenon deserves to be illuminated because religion is a large social institution of culture and agent of socialization. Religion helps some people determine how they feel about the world and themselves and without it, there are other people who still find ways to figure out their realities. This paper is a “sociological window” into the social construction of morality in society and the role religion plays in being a form of social control and how it is maintained.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Religion has historically served to regulate individual life and foster social relationships among people. Thus, this is the basis for the emergence of large-scale social structure. During the Enlightenment, there was an emphasis on acquiring the maturity to exercise moral autonomy. Skepticism and the rise of science as the authority was exemplified by Rene Descartes who said, “I think, therefore I am” in searching for proof of his own existence. Emile Durkheim described religion as “nothing other than a body of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority” (Ritzer 2011). As agents of moral authority, humans are morphed into thinking about life, society, and individual purposes through what George Herbert Mead describes as “theory of mind” through empathy and what could compare to Durkheim’s collective effervescence (Ritzer 2011). Through unlocking the powerful force of human cooperation, which most cooperative lines are segregated along religious divides, people come together to do extraordinary things; however, human cooperation is a force for both construction and destruction.
Religion was used as a tool to wage war in the creation of Christianity. Religion and war grew up together where wars over territory and resources were constant; the population of that territory rose to meet the limits and war waged once resources ran out. Durkheim explained that religion, functioned as source of a social control, producing social cohesion. Thus, better religion equates to better war bringing people together and opening up opportunities for self-transcendence. The communal outlet that is created by religion allows for an assurance of immortality that makes the moments easier as “I may fall, but I will not die” and the “real me will live on through those I’ve left behind.” As proposed by Durkheim, self-interest fades away and is replaced with a nobler, better self as we “move up.” It is adaptive for a human to overcome self-interest, which is described in Darwin’s Descent of Man, as many of our virtues and moral codes are good for groups, not individuals. The moral nature of humans have differentiated us between animals, evolved from the social instincts of humans have socialized each other with. Humans have developed laws, language, culture, and institutions that are unique to humans because of their cognitive capabilities. Language is crucial to religion because it permits the formation, transmission, and application of religion ideas which perpetuates social solidarity, where individuals are dependent upon others.
Empathy is important in the socially-adapt humans, as Mead discussed in his work, and is the essence of morality. Role-taking, by putting ourselves in other’s shoes, restrains people. Having a single goal and shared intentions, society can work together, each with their own vantage point, in a shared reality. Social solidarity is “rooted in shared moral sentiments, and the sense of obligation they evoke,” stemming from Comte’s theories (Edles, Laura Desfor, and Scott Appelrouth 2015). Religion has evolved from a world that cohesion and cooperation made you better in warfare, to a world that isn’t at war. Religion is now functioning to provide “evidence” for things that don’t have answers or cannot be explained by science. Mead also expresses his perspective that the fear of death is the motivation of religion, as it eliminates the idea of morality. Religion is a rationalized institution (Ritzer 2013; Berger & Luckman 1966) that has methods of being efficient and predictable for the followers. In describing society as a subjective reality, Berger and Luckman discussed the “immersion in and commitment to the new reality” that is seen in Fundamental Churches. There is a proponent of converting to the church where the individual is reinforced about a certain narrative of their lives, that emphasizes the bad things. Although it is not a lie per se, but these personal biographies are used to justify joining the group. The “God-shaped hole” that is emphasized is then patched up and filled with religion that is offered by the church (1966).
One of the key components of the foundation of sociology was a concern for morality and the moral health of society. Through collective consciousness, individuals of a society can work toward a single goal even when divided into different groups. Moral codes are seen in different religions that devote themselves to different deities, to which the question is which morality underpinning religion, does morality precede religion? As many people are leaving religion, it’s important to understand how these nonreligious individuals fit into the picture. Baker and Smith (2009) demonstrated the increase in Americans who claim no religion, aptly called “nones,” the accumulation of a diverse group of those who do not adhere to a religion/belief system or outright deny religious beliefs. It reflects the small amount of presence of “nones” in the sociology of religion, which works to understand how religions are organized and the relations of social systems and institutions to such. Iheoma (1986) argued religion and morality should be kept separate to ensure rational and independent moral agents—bringing in the idea of those who do not take part in the religion institution are doing this proposed idea in their experience; however, some religious beliefs provide strong psychological motivations to be moral and shows that morality and religion are mutually exclusive rather than concretely linked. Using in-depth interviews, (Sumerau & Cragun 2016) demonstrated that nonreligious individuals construct their moral identities by contrasting themselves to religious individuals and felt that religion was not required for moral development. The nonreligious individuals defined religion in a sense of conformity rather than morality. It is common among religions to have a set of regular rituals and set of ethical beliefs. In a society that is increasingly secular, with individuals receding from religion, and where being a “good” person is chiefly defined by the culture that surrounds the individuals, what does that mean for the future? What does it mean for those who are navigating morality without integrating the guidelines set by the religious institutions?
This paper argues that college students are influenced by peers and media, empathetic moral codes, and a form of social control, whether it create external or internal motivations in the individual. Whether or not students accept religion as a legitimate form of social control, they follow an overarching theme of standard guides motivated by understanding and socialization.
METHODOLOGY
Sample Characteristics
The sample consists of 6 undergraduate college students at a public university in the United States. The students self-identified as either deeply religious or non-religious individuals. It is important to study college individuals as it is a formative time in their lives as they are immersed in a key developmental period. In this time of individualization, college students tend to form or reform their own values and morals as they are away from their primary socialization agents (their parents). The participants were of various belief structures including, atheist (formerly Jewish), atheist/agnostic (formerly Catholic), “none” (formerly Catholic), Christian, Seventh-Day-Adventist, and Catholic. The ages ranged from 19 to 25 years old. There were 4 females and 2 males. With the exception of 1 Black participant, all the participants were White. Majors of the respondents were a range of academic majors, including sociology, accounting, and interdisciplinary. All the respondents grew up with a form of religion which was of some importance in their childhood; one participant had a Catholic and atheist set of parents.
To find these individuals, I use a combination of convenience and referral sampling (Berg 2001). I had assistance from two professor at the university who posted, on their class pages, an advertisement for the study. The advertisement invited students to contact me for inquiry about participating if they were “deeply religious” or “questioning your faith or do not adhere to a faith.” The advertisement contained details about the project, the supervisor, and the study's purpose and procedures. The participants were granted extra-credit points in the class of one of the professors who shared the advertisement; otherwise, there was no other incentive given for their involvement. The participants were chosen by the first 5 respondents, and the first participant was recruited by me as they demonstrated non-religious ideas. When only 1 religious individual responded to the advertisement through email after about 3 weeks after it was posted, I recruited a classmate in-person, who then referred the final participant. The setting for this study was at a public university, in an urban city, with about 14,500 undergraduate students. There are several religious, Christian and Catholic, organizations and clubs on campus, including an Interfaith Center, which is also geared toward religious pluralism. Pseudonyms are used to provide confidentiality for the participants.
Data Collection
Data for this study derive from in-person, semi-structured interviews that took place in a couple mutually convenient meeting areas on campus. By using in-person interviews, I was able to gauge reactions of the participants from particular questions in the structured list of questions, as well as probe for additional information when needed (Berg 2001). The interviews were audio-recorded, ranging from 22 minutes to a little over an hour, at an average length of 45 minutes. They were transcribed verbatim afterward with transcription software and edited for errors. By having 28 planned questions, I was able to capture thoughts on particular topics including some that related to religion’s role in society and in their past and present lives, their communities, and their definitions of “good” and “bad” people/actions. Probes were used to gather further details that allowed me to capture impressions, attitudes, and underlying and more specific thoughts about various subjects that drew out discussions. This method was appropriate as I was able to collect multiple perspectives and look at their answers with another perspective and uncover levels of their viewpoints. I was able to collect their various experiences and interactions, especially in terms of religion and religious influences.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed through qualitative coding techniques. Using elements of “grounded theory” (Charmaz 2006), the interviews were reviewed to find recurring themes through inductive methods. I developed a set of manifest and latent codes (Berg 2001) that allowed me to categorize responses appropriately and with deliberation. I developed 11 manifest codes, including relationship with religion, perception of “good,” and motivation for “good.” I developed 27 latent codes, including compatible with religion and conflict with religion, good: altruism and good: following religious orders, and motivations: internal and motivations: external. By creating a set of codes, I was able to go through the set questions and categorized them into the themes that captured the way the participants discussed their religion, their upbringing, their values, and the way they perceived “goodness” and “badness.” I was able to go back through the data to organize responses into categories by theme. I selected quotations that were impactful and broke each component down, to which I then used in this paper. The quotes used in this paper are slightly edited for fluid reading but retain their meaning and emphasis.
Reflections
Getting participants.
The research design was created in mind to try to understand the moral sphere of college students, while being able to gather enough participants. By having 3 participants be religious and 3 be nonreligious, the required amount was able to be recruited. When recruiting respondents, the most difficulty was with gathering respondents that self-defined as “deeply” religious. By altering the definition of “deeply religious” to just “religious” after a few weeks of only one response, a religious classmate was recruited who then referred a member of their religious club. This set a limitation to the religious views that were received. Also, with 2 formerly-Catholic nonreligious individuals and 1 Catholic individual, it narrowed the scope of religious views to investigate.
Setting times and unexpected occurrences.
To ensure that there was ample time after the meetings, the participants were requested to allow for at least 20 minutes after. This came in handy, as many of the interviews went over the estimate 30 minutes, to which the time on the informed consent sheet was altered to read “45 minutes.” The process was systematic, as the questions resulted in developed answers that correlated with other interviewee answers. All participant had exchanged phone numbers and emails with me which aided the meeting process and events that came up. One of those events was the participant had an unexpected test they had to study for and thus reschedule the meeting to be in two weeks. This resulted in moving up an interview a week, to which the participant expressed that it worked for their schedule better.
Technical issues.
For the interview that was moved up, there was a technical issue that occurred. Using a cellular device to audio-record the interviews, the recording stopped at 60 minutes, although the interview proceeded past that time. Without awareness of the time limit of the audio file, the dialogue past 60 minutes was lost. To alleviate this issue, a message was sent to the individual to which they agreed to respond to the questions that were lost. These answers correlated to the in-person interview answers from the best of my memory.
Legitimacy of answers.
Interviewing individuals about whether they feel certain things are “good” or “bad” is delicate as sometimes the words individuals speak do not match their actions; however, their answers are the only ones received unless there were observations taken place to in the day-to-day events. This limits the legitimacy of the results as it is the “truth” of the individual, yet it provides insight into their constructions or mental categories of moral guidelines and the differences between “good” and “bad.”
Keeping the questions consistent and probing hinderance.
There was a difficulty of digging deeper into respondent’s answers that weren’t already set probe questions. The interviews with the most difficulty in this issue were the first and last ones. Not in any pattern, there were a few interviews in which speaking as an interviewer was difficult, whether it was distraction on my part or lack of connection, which may have played a part in holding back on the “digging.” Each interview had the same systematic process where respondents would be handed an informed consent sheet after a polite, informal conversation, usually about classes and professors to establish rapport. Then after agreeing, the recorder would be turned on and consent would be asked again to which the interview would start henceforth. Each question was asked in the first four interviews and then a few questions were cut if they did not hold significant sociological relevance, although the answers could be found between the words and in informal conversations with the participants. By keeping the beginning of the interviews consistent, I eliminated any particular influence of the process from impeding the development of the conversation.
Awareness of subjectivity.
Subjectivity is the biases that I brought to the interview, including the assumption I held that religious individuals would have a stricter view of morally “good” and morally “bad” and non-religious individuals would contrast starkly. This assumption was challenged in the interview as there were many themes and phrases that were shared between many interviews that cross religious lines. I conducted this research as a white, low-income female college student with no adherence to religion. I share the status as a college student with all the participants. As I shared at least one class with each participant, I was able to establish rapport through mutual thoughts about classes and professors. Some participants I had more developed more friendly relationships with, which allowed me to dig deeper into their explanations and thoughts without significant hesitation. I shared a nonadherence to religion with three of the participants, whereas the other three were religious/spiritual. As I did not grow up with any type of religion, this may have hindered me in understanding certain terms and jargon of the religious individuals (and sometimes the nonreligious when talking about their past religions). On the other hand, all respondents were responsive when I asked them to describe things in more details, both in the interviews as well as before and after. For the nonreligious individuals, I may have had slight “blinders” when they described a phenomenon or event in their life leading me to cut their description short as I understood it. I did become aware of this and worked to have the respondents divulge to their fullest capability.
Being mindfulness of how my identity influenced the participants responses and the interview process, practicing reflexivity helps to show the not just the strengths, but the weaknesses and the problems that occurred in striving toward honesty and explaining the subjectivity that occurs in qualitative research (Lareau 2000). During the research process, my identity helped me relate to the nonreligious individuals on a more significant level and allowed me to be approachable, friendly, and relatable to all participants. Interviewing four females, I had a sense that they asked for feedback on their answers more often than the males, expressing a sense of uncertainty; however, the sample size does not justify any generalizations or significance.
FINDINGS
Research has been plentiful in the realm of religion and moral development within religious institution, but exploratory research is important in the realm of nonreligious individuals. As an under-researched population, nonreligious individuals are becoming higher in numbers and thus becoming more important to investigate how they develop definitions of right and wrong, good and bad, in the absence of religion. It is also important to look at religious individuals in comparison, as they are sharing a pluralistic culture with nonreligious individuals. College students understand morality in a similar moral sense rooted in empathy, diverging mostly on the significance and authority they place on social institutions such as religious establishments.
To Faith or Not to Faith? Assessing Students Doubts and Loss of Religion
Individuals who are religious, or faithful, often have significant or meaningful relationships with the religion or the god(s) of their religion. When faced with dilemmas and hard times, these individuals can turn to their (religious and secular) community, their faith, and their object of devotion. Their religion can foster a sense of belonging or solidity and inter-connectedness. On the other hand, individuals who stray away from faith or do not adhere to faith often find other ways to cope with adversities. They also turn to their communities and often other modes of managing stress and emotions, often media or music. It is important to investigate the influences of college students that prompt them to either adhere or avoid religion.
Two of the religious college students, Aaliyah and Britney were not fond of the term “religion,” rather opting for “a relationship” and a “spiritual” form. The inherent worth of religion is decreasing, given the importance it has lost in society. Religion has been on the forefront of negative events in history and often some denominations of religious groups perform in ways that are socially unacceptable or inappropriate in a pluralistic society. Britney taps into the concept of religion being used in a negative way when she says: “[The campus preachers] give such a bad view of Christianity. They’re yelling damnation and spreading hate. As a Christian, it hurts me to see that because we’re called to love everyone, and they’re not doing that.” Campus preachers are a group of individuals of a type of Christian faith who set up stations on campus, preaching their messages, often interacting with passerby’s, mentioning certain things, often offensive, about the individuals to entice religious conversation. In turn, Britney and Aaliyah emphasize the cultivation of their relationship with God, rather than with the religion and forcing it unto others. This forced "religionization" is explicitly described a form of regulator by Aaliyah who adds: “It [religion] is a control because people use it to manipulate certain things that they want and if they use it right, they get the certain thing that they want it. So, religion is a control. Spiritually, it's not a control—it's a will.” Aaliyah and Britney illuminate the manipulative actions of religious leaders, the hierarchy of politics and religion. In this moment, she described religion as a form of social control and the infiltration of religious influence in and above politics. These moments help highlight the role (and control) of religion in modern society, politically and personally, and the resources that people are exposed to that guide their journey of understanding and creating their form of morality. These moments also show the controlling nature of religion that may dissuade people to adhere and chose religion for their lives. Aaliyah, a Seventh-Day Adventist, explains that sometimes she wishes to stray away from her religion, but not her faith. She explains: “A desire not to be religious? Yeah. Like, to not to follow rules and stuff, we all do. To be honest, we all do. I try not to, I try to be so strong, but there's times that we all do. So yeah. Sadly.” Faith is the manifestation of religion, which can stand independent from a religious institution. Faith is the motivation that religion instills in an individual; it acts as the internal motivator whereas religion is the external motivator. Religion is the rules and guidelines set by the founders and the leaders in the religion.
Ashley, a former Catholic who was abandoned by her religious community and attacked by individuals who were religious when her sexuality came into question, explains:
I just didn't believe in a lot of the things they were saying. …. [and] deep down that's not really what I believed in. … For the majority of my life, I was hiding who I truly was. Especially [with] Catholicism, I had days where I battled with depression and mental health issues, and anxiety and just because I wanted to be who I was. And [my identities were] mutually exclusive; it just was either/or, and I couldn't integrate both of my identities. So it definitely was easier for me to give the religious aspect up, once people started to like, abandon me in that sense. So yeah, I would say that I am happy to not be back with that. And I am who I am truly without religion.
Ashley articulates the “clash of religion and sexuality [that] may play a part in the growing number of ‘nones.’” With religious doctrines used to attack certain lifestyles and people, it’s no wonder that people are straying away from the institute of religion, opting for lesser constricting and nonaccepting forms of faith or just nonfaith, at the end of the day. Often, those who leave religion are the ones who are suffocated by religious rules and conservative natures, electing to follow their faith and/or morality through a different medium. Karissa, who had a best friend in high school who revealed their sexuality and was rejected by the religion, explains her drift from religion:
[At Christian and Catholic events, I felt] alienated by the people I was around. They were so conservative, and they were very hateful towards people that felt differently. … It just didn’t feel accepting. ... I remember talking to my mom and saying, “I don’t feel like these teachings are in line with my values.” And then she said they’re not for her either. I said, “So, how can you come to terms with that?” And she said, “… because I can ignore that and I don’t have to believe everything that they say. For a while I went with that. … Then after [my best friend coming out as gay and not being accepted and the Pro-Life Marches], I couldn’t ignore it anymore. Now that I feel so strongly, like socially responsible, to stand up for things that mattered, like to be an LGBTQ advocate, to stand up for women’s rights, I felt like I couldn’t be Catholic in the way I was and also be an advocate. And some people are able to juggle those things, I know people who are, but I couldn’t do it, so that’s when I broke away from it.
Both individuals had a hard time assimilating their religious self and their social self, especially in a moral sense. Karissa’s mother, a Catholic, tells her that she doesn’t follow all the beliefs the church maintains, opting for just the ones that are compatible with her personal grasp of morality and what it means to be a “good” person to her. This dependence on other authorities, especially parents, seems to fade away when what we hear does not sit right. Ashley explains her idea on why religion is becoming less and less a part of people’s lives: “I would say that people, for the lack of a better word, wake up and maybe question instead of just adhering to what their parents and friends are doing.” Rather than solely dependent on others to advise them what to believe, many college students start developing their identities away from their primary socialization agents. By creating a sense of individual social responsibility, the participants established a sense of regulating that mixes parents, peers, and personal views. Ashley describes her idea of the afterlife and hits on this regulatory process:
I'm pretty okay with it [the afterlife]. I don't really like the whole idea of death, it kind of freaks me out. But also, I'm not personally living in fear that I'm going to be judged at the end of my life. I'm being judged through society my entire life, and then to die and then be judged again. I don't worry about that. And I live happier and lighter knowing that that's not gonna happen.
Without religion’s direct influence in her life, Ashley shares a common sentiment of being more free without religion that is shared among “nones” (Mueller 2012; Sumerau & Cragun 2016). Ashley goes on to explain religion’s purpose from her perspective:
People sometimes tend to use [religion] as a crutch, or to use it to kind of like, bring hope and community together. … Sometimes religion is that push-starter for people to become good people. … I think religion sometimes gives people that hope and that start to become what they think is a good person. So, whether that’s helping other people, and they just can’t do that without religion, like, I’m not going to judge them. … You would like to think religion creates good vibes and life, and community, but sometimes that doesn’t happen.
With the negative relationship Ashley had with religion during her upbringing, she describes the use of religion as a crutch for people to help them form relationships and to motivate moral behaviors. She demonstrates the common thread of non-judgement on those who need it, but ultimately points out the negativity that often comes from religious institutions and individuals who claim religion. This concept of assistance religion can provide, Aaliyah supports too, in a more religious sense, with guiding someone down the “right” (religious) path:
I have no right to judge them. The only thing I can do, personally, is to walk with them. … When your brother is going on the wrong path, you don’t leave them there, you take them to church … even if they don’t do to church, you can always spread that good vibe to them. And they're probably gonna be like "Why are you so happy? Why are you so like this?" and I'd be like, "It's all on God." Like, if something ever happens, I know, I'll be fine, you know, it's just your faith.
Describing “good vibes” and no judgement on others, Ashley and Aaliyah both touch on the positive aspect of religion. Aaliyah, the Seventh-Day Adventist, illuminates the role religion plays in supporting others and being kind by “spread[ing] that good vibe.” Ashley takes on a different perspective, as she has had negative experiences with religion, and so for her “sometimes that doesn’t happen.” A time that it didn’t happen for Ashley was when she was “outed” as a member of the LGBTQ+ community:
I got dropped from the [theatre] company along with all of my “best friends” that were a part of my company, they dropped me. They said they didn't agree with my lifestyle. They would try to use religion against me and quote scriptures, and my mother would as well. Religion came out of nowhere to go against me. It just made me feel very, very isolated and alone, when religion is supposed to, kind of, bring you together. So I had that bad experience.
As Ashley talks about her feelings when religion was used against her during/after her “coming out,” she articulated the abandonment and use of religion in attacking certain lifestyles. This highlight the role of religion in relation to being social glue and acts as a social segregation people are exposed to throughout their lives that guide their journey of understanding and creating their version of morality. Brad describes the destigmatized nonreligious stances: “People have that option [now] of not being [religious] which hasn’t always been the case. It hasn’t always been socially acceptable to not be religious, and now it really is, especially with our generation. … There’s not a stigma behind not being religious necessarily in most communities.” As ability to choose faith or nonfaith grows, so does the increase in fluctuation of religions importance. Religion, according to all the respondents, plays a large role in society; however, the importance of such role is where they differed in opinions.
Who’s the Moral Authority? Assessing the Legitimacy of Religion as a Social Control
With separation of church and state such an impactful stance in politics in the United States, deciding who the moral authority is has great importance. On the ground level, religion is important in some individuals lives whereas in other it is merely a nuisance and insignificant. The authority and legitimacy of religion as a form of social control are different levels among religion respondents, as well as in comparison with nonreligious respondents. Religious respondents place more impact and trust in religion and religious institutions, whereas nonreligious respondents place more trust in their own sense of morality and influence of society and their culture. Illustrating the lessening significance of religion in society, Brad says:
I think religion has become a lesser part of importance in society, in terms of its role that it plays in dictating our education system and our politics. … There’s been a separation of it recently, in terms of human history. And there’s a growing understanding of science that helps explain things that were otherwise inexplainable.
In terms of separation of church and state, there are differing ideas that accompany the participant’s ideas. Jose states:
Obviously religion plays [a role significantly] in our history and for good or bad, and I think it played a big role back then. Obviously, that was the norms. Now it's called separation of church and state. That kind of has sort of influence in the way that people do things because that's the way it's been since always. So, people, grandmas, mothers, sons everything they can like pass it on. “Don't do this” because common things. But I don't think is as much of an influence on like, everyday life because people say, "Oh, church did this," but honestly, doesn't really have that much of an influence, if you don't believe in that kind of stuff.
In this moment, they articulate the influences of different aspects of society have on how society sets standards. These moments help highlight the role (and control) of religion in modern society, politically and personally, and the resources that people are exposed to that guide their journey of understanding and creating their form of morality. Ashley parallels the same idea when she states:
I would say that [religion] plays a little too much [of a role in society]. I think that, in politics, separation of church and state is non-existent, as it should be more existence. It plays a big part, in shaping who we are, whether you grew up with it, whether you didn't grow up with it, or just personally in the LGBT community, or being disabled; it doesn't matter if you're different. Usually religion can try to explain that for you or, people try to push that on to you to make you feel better. And I honestly just, it's probably rude and blunt, but I just think it gets in the way of a lot of things. And [religion] should be something that people can choose and not be pushed on.
In several instances, there seems to be an uncertainty of trusting religion, especially when integrating into secular settings. Learning “pseudoscience” and discovering later that the “science was like blatantly wrong,” within the nonreligious participant’s answers lays a distrust toward religion and religious officials. Brad described religious leaders showing a form of corruption that sometimes infiltrates religion: “I feel like there’s good and bad people in religion. But it’s like, if you look at the high-ups at the church, they’re just trying to make a bunch of money in the end. And they use words like “God,” “heaven,” and “hell” to manipulate other people.” This highlights the idea that religion, the practices, and the use of motivation for a positive afterlife is a form of social control that can be used to manipulate people and systems to act in certain ways that may benefit some and disadvantage others, when the perpetrators are not who most would classify as truly “good.” On that topic, Karissa explains:
People tend to be more cynical towards religion than previous generations, and I think often rightfully so. I also think [religion] is a defense mechanism, if you believe yourself a good person in absence of religion, then it wouldn’t be a stretch to quality it by also stating religious people are putting on a show. But, I don’t believe that is the case mostly. I believe most people feel genuine connection to their religion.
Perhaps the sense that there are people in religious institutions that use religion to look “good,” whereby doing things that benefit themselves, is generalized and superficially true, there are individuals who truly take haven in their faith. Their faith helps them cope with the unknown, or a form of closure to exist with the idea of death and the afterlife, which by most accounts guides them to be a “good” person. As Brad states:
Death is really scary. … I used to be really uncomfortable saying it and like, it's still really weird to say, but I have come to terms that that it like, “blackout you're done, like, game over,” but a lot of people don't like that reality. So, I feel like it's [religion/heaven] more believable, or more— it's like a drug in a way. It makes the pain not hurt as much when you think about death, or when other people die. It's really nice to think, "You know what, I'll see them again someday" or "You know what? They were a good person. So, I know they're in a better place." It's really uncomfortable to say something like, "Well, they died. They're done. It's just a body decomposing in the ground, seven feet under, nothing left to do.” ... So that's why I think people still really cling on to religion is just fear of the unknown.
Brad provides insight into how religion helps qualm fears. If the idea of death scares an individual, and they are granted peace with the afterlife through religion, they are rationally going to take it and the side effects that come with it. Brad goes onto explain religion’s use in the past:
I think religion was used in the Dark Ages, as a way to control other people who didn't understand death. Death is really scary and if you can be the only person to read and say, “This book, I read in it if you do all these things, that benefit me, you will have a better afterlife with everyone that's died that you know, which would be a lot of people, and it sounds great, but as long as you're a good and do what I say and this book, that you can't read, says you will ascend to this beautiful afterlife, which is better than your current life.” … Before monotheism, [they] were using it to explain like scientific phenomenon like fire, lightning, the oceans. And then they threw in a little bit of like the afterlife.
Brad explains the manipulation of religion as a source of social control, especially in terms of teaching the masses who are illiterate, which often happened throughout history. By giving society a way of coping, religion has a full-size advantage and source of attraction to a set of “answers” to believe in. Jose describes:
Well sometimes there are things you can't explain, like why they happen, like why you're here and sometimes science doesn't provide like an answer to it. Religion does it, it fills up that void. In your heart, sometimes it does. Like, at least, the Bible says that we're here to spread God's love and the word and that sometimes something like science can't really explain. It can't say why we're here because of certain things that happen before you. Yeah, but after that, it's like this blank space.
Religion is the link some people use between science and the unknown. By giving a sense of peace, it helps them deal with the discomfort. Religion also allows them to have a sense of community. Karissa, whose mother is Catholic, but brother and father are atheist, explains:
On a personal level, I know that it [religion] was very meaningful for me and my family for a really long time, and still is for my family. So, at the same time, it's like a very enriching thing to have that. You know people like to have a schedule of every week they go and have a sense of community with other people and they're able to you know, be around other people with similar values. So, it's has positive thing in people's lives too, but it also, you know, has historically done a lot of bad.
Karissa explicitly describes religion as source of social control, both good and bad, which highlights the role (and control) of religion in modern society, politically and personally, and the resources that people are exposed to that guide their journey of understanding and creating their form of morality. As a rationalized institution (Berger 1966; Ritzer 2013), it allows for the followers to have predictability and efficiency in their lives. Religion gives them a schedule to practice their faith and the efficiency of “being good” and “going to heaven.” On the other hand, with such a large institution in the world, and with so many varieties of religion that have different roles, it’s important to discuss the role of being a moral authority has. Karissa explains:
Yeah, I do think there's moral authority that's pushed on people [with religion]… [which is] not necessarily a good thing that we have this one moral one force that tells us what, what is to be good or bad. I mean, I'm not saying that I think we should all run free and just do whatever we want and just live by our own moral codes. But I do think like most people want to do the right thing. I don't think people need that kind of sense of strong social control to do the right thing.
In this moment, Karissa describes “crutch” Ashley brings up, with people using religion to make themselves feel better and to have a set of rules that will dictate whether they are “good” and “going to heaven” and “bad” and “going to hell.” As the number of people who adhere to religion decreases, the moral authority of whatever is driving the nonreligious individuals, whether it’s internal or external motivators. Media has always been influential on society, and it may make the list of moral authorities that people derive their definitions pertaining to morality from.
Many films and television shows have become influential and effect how people view themselves. Wicked, based on the antagonist of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, is an example of one of these depictions of a “bad person.” Elphaba, started as young woman who was alienated, because the color of her skin, by her family and her peers. As she led her life, trying to do the right thing, standing up for oppressed. She had not succumb to manifestations of her dream to work with the Wizard of Oz that, when he asks her to do magic that would cause harm and misfortune to the suppressed animals, was villainous. Word was then spread that Elphaba is the root of all the bad things happened, even though it was really the Wizard that had caused them. To lure Elphaba out of hiding, the true antagonists created a tornado that landed on Elphaba’s sister, leaving only her pair of ruby slippers. Dorothy, the protagonist of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, flies in with the tornado and takes possession of these shoes, unaware of the original owner’s story. Elphaba, now seen as a “bad” person because the untrue stories spread about her and the kidnapping of Dorothy to get her sister’s last item, is “killed” thereby “saving” everyone from her “wickedness.” The moral of the story is (1) the people around you can help you on your journey to being a good person, but also move you down a path of being “bad” or looking like a “bad” person and (2) there are histories attached to people’s stories that we should take into account before we see them as “good” or “bad.” In relation to the media aspect, Brad talked about the “Scooby-Doo” theory, where he likes to “stay away from what [he] calls Scooby-Doo shit, like if you get in trouble for doing it in a Scooby Doo episode.” In this moment, he articulated both the modern representations of good and bad in the media that is fed to children at a young age. This highlights the role of “symbolic” resources (Ritzer 2011) that people are exposed to throughout their lives that guide their journey of understanding and creating their version of morality and the role media plays in connecting themselves more with their religion. Aaliyah describes her experience with a preacher who lives in South Carolina, who uploads his sermons online to which helps her be more connected to her faith which reveals the influence that media plays especially regarding religious influences: “It's [media] powerful and it's manipulating sometimes. Sometimes it actually strengthens religion.” Brad describes his thoughts on the media’s influence on society:
[It] depends on how the algorithm wants to influence other people. I just luckily searched the right things. And got recommended the right things to look up. … [There are people who are] hardcore Trump supporters, when we used to be friends. … So yeah, I guess media influences things greatly.
In a comparable agreement, Karissa describes the influence of media:
The internet, and like social media, definitely [are other influences of morality that could replace religion]. That’s a different part of life and it is new for the world, to have such a connection to their phones. So, I mean, social control: we’re always on our phones. It definitely effects how we view ourselves, how we view other people, what we view is important or not. I think we’re all very consumer-driven. … I don’t know if it’s replacing [religion or if it’s a good replacement for], but it’s definitely becoming a greater importance to people.
Jose thirds this notion when he explains: “I wouldn't say like, it's a god, but it's like something they're heavily influenced by. Yes, like status, money, what other people think about me.” The respondents describe that process through socializing each other in person, in groups, through media, the definitions of “good” and “bad” are being demonstrated and adopted in all social interactions. Whether or not media will take over as the most influential form of morality is a question that is important to discuss.
Universal Principles: Assessing the Construction and Development of the Moral Identity
The construction of the moral concepts and identity is developed according to external and/or internal factors. The underlying theme of religious practices consist of objective, universal moral codes, including basics such as kindness, empathy, and not killing. There is a sense that there’s no room to judge someone’s religious choice, to say whether it is right or wrong. As an old Taoist story, framing unfortunate things in a positive or progressive light, repeats the message, “who knows what is good and what is bad” (Rasheta 2015). Throughout the interview, participants were asked about their ideas of good and bad. Examples of good people and their values are: “somebody who does things without mal-intent;” “empathetic;” trustworthy and reliable; caring; “selfless;” “cognizant of how [they] affect other people;” “[tries] help others and no matter in what way [they] can. … It’s just time and effort.”
Karissa Holley, a formerly-Catholic, nonreligious college student, provided a more nuanced insight:
To be a good person, it doesn’t necessarily mean to possess a certain set of moral values. To be a good person, to me, you don’t have to have the exact same moral values that I have. This means that there is more room to be a person. I'm not the gatekeeper of moral authority.
Here, Karissa draws the connection that the definition of being a good person to one individual may be different than another’s idea; neither definition is worse or better, just different. By expressing the individualization that occurs in moral development, Karissa implies that moral identities are determined by a series of different elements, including upbringing, life experiences, personal beliefs, and the culture they are set in. She elaborates that “things I still believe today I learned from Catholicism growing up in my religion” and “my religion that I grew up in shapes my feelings.” Because of this, it is recognized that values differ from person to person, originating in various aspects of life. These internalized values are personal guidelines rather the a unanimous set of guidelines that all must adhere to defining what it means to be a good person, Ashley, another formerly-Catholic individual who identifies as an “atheist but [doesn’t] have the authority to question, so also agnostic,” shared the sentiment of not being the holder of authority in terms of morality and what people should believe and hold true, when she said, “It's just the values that I was taught. I think that being a good person is just, at least for me, to be something that comes naturally and not forced and not [have] an afterlife [that] has to always be there, for you to be good.” When Ashley mentioned the “naturally” developed sense of being a good person, she expounds on the internal mechanisms of the mind that produce empathy and motivations for social cohesion and cooperation. This is what is often seen in the nonreligious college students responses.
All the respondents expressed a universal sense of moral codes. Jose and Aaliyah, both religious individuals, then added extra layers of rules that dictate whether they saw “good” or “bad” in people based on the teachings of religious doctrines. Aaliyah, who is surrounded by family and her partner who follow the Word closely, expressed:
I think a person who [doesn’t] put themselves before anybody else is a great person. … Someone who follows God. If you know the rules of God— not like saying you follow the rules strictly—but if you know the rules, and you know what God expects for you and you seek the kingdom, you want to do everything in your power to show the glory of God. So, to show the glory of God, you want to just make sure everybody sees God in you. And the way you could have God in you is by representing him in the best light, you know, because we are the light we're here to spread the message. … God will bring the ones that are significant up to heaven and leave the rest … to experience a very cast down world.
Aaliyah starts out with the typical answer to what a good person is, but then adds the layer of religious rules that differentiates “good people" who don’t have religion, and the “significant,” who do have religion. The latter will go to heaven on the Judgement Day, and the former will experience the “cast down world.” Jose, who is surrounded by a devoted Catholic family and peers in a Catholic club, supports this same concept. He expressed that if the “good" people don't follow the 10 Commandments, then they “go to hell. That's where your soul goes, I guess.” In the sense of motivation to be good, Aaliyah explains: “At the end of the day, a wrong is wrong, like a sin is a sin. Like if you lie that sin is equal to if you kill somebody. it all counts towards you as doing something wrong.” These descriptions illustrate the control that religion plays in keeping the followers in line, to avoid bad experiences after death. The consequences of being immoral in life shows in these religious individuals’ responses and perspectives on the afterlife.
The view of the afterlife is much less structured in the view of the nonreligious individuals, but perhaps more bleak. Brad, a self-defined “Jew-ish" atheist, explaining his identity of being culturally Jewish and religiously atheist, explains:
I feel like this is like, the only life that you have. So use it to your best interest. [After is] nothing and that's why you should be as good of a person today, and tomorrow, and until you die because the only thing left when you die is your memory in other people. And after those people are gone, you're gone.
In this sense, Brad is explaining the motivation to be good isn’t a certain afterlife experience, rather the impressions you leave while one is still alive. This is significant as it is, in this sense, the social control of peers and presentation of self that inspire moral behaviors and concepts. Ashley is curious about the possibility of reincarnation. This illuminates a possible sense of wanting there to be something more, perhaps the good one does in life has some pay off in a type of afterlife, but she ultimately determines that the motivation to be good isn’t “doing it for a greater purpose.” This provides a nuanced sense of the empathetic and cooperative nature that is emphasized in nonreligious individuals that is often capitalized on by religious institutes. Britney describes a phenomenon of needing something to have faith in to cope with the ideas of death, especially of people who she deems as “good,” especially when they do not have faith in the god religious individuals do: “They [religious leaders] obviously, like teach on heaven and like, but we have no idea what that looks like. But for me, it's hard to believe that there's not nothing after. And I don't know, like, I mean, they say like you need faith. But like for me, it's like, “Yeah, that is like the case,” but it hurts to think about like people that are super awesome people, but they don't believe in God. So I don't necessarily know what happens because I'm not God. But it's crazy to think about.” Significance in the social construction of good and bad that the college students express suggests the universality of morals. By adding the religious addition on top also adds a layer of hope, community, and a way to cope with the unknown. Britney describes the fact that there are people who are good, motivated by internal or nonreligious motivations, that according to religious doctrine will spend afterlife in torturous environments. Her need for a “good place” in the afterlife when people die illuminates the injustice that religion can create in terms of faith and nonfaith, no matter the intentions and good deeds of people in their life. This moment also illuminates the needlessness of religion in shaping how people behave in “good” and “bad” ways. This highlights the lesser or non-existent role of religion in relation to finding, navigating, and understanding morality in other aspects of college students lives, rather than mainly from religion.
In the construction of what it means to be bad, many college students reflect the notion that “bad people” and “bad actions” are not the same thing. This is evident in how Britney states: “I don’t think one act can make someone a bad person.” Brad offered the same comment adding that “it’s a fine line.” He goes on to explain that “you can be good and do bad things.” Bad people were described as “someone who judges someone over something they can’t control,” “murder,” “[puts] other people in danger,” “brings a lot of hurt,” “vandalizes school property,” and “[tries] to portray a message, when in reality, religion really shouldn’t be about critiquing other people just based of what they can’t [afford].” The distinction between the idea of “bad people” and “bad actions” is most evident in the words of Karissa:
To be a bad person, I feel like, is to be someone who's struggling with themselves, their sense of place in the world. They're dealing with some kind of trauma or some sort of illness or difficulty in their life and maybe they're lashing out towards other people because of this sense of discontentment in themselves. … I think it all fluctuates. … Sometimes someone who's lashing out at other people in a really negative way, they could be hurting and harmful to other people. Like are they being a good person? No, but are they being a bad person? Are they doing the best that they can with the tools that they have and this trauma that they have too?
Karissa emphasizes the differences between bad people and bad actions in the face of morality. When individuals are faced with traumatic or influential life events or experiences, they can act in certain ways that are deemed “bad.” There was a consistent demonstration by the college students of similar insights to “I don’t understand or know their life experiences that led them to” do certain things. These forms of non-judgement toward others, whether it was toward other religious or nonreligious individuals, demonstrates the universality of being “good” which is accepted by all, even without the element of religion thrown into the mix. By sympathizing with the hardships individuals face, rather than the actual “bad” actions they participated in, the respondents generally disclose the complexity in the binary of good and bad as well as the differentiation of actions versus people. The common theme that dictate what “good” is revealed in that this “goodness” is what creates social cohesion and harmony.
The rules of religion have positive properties in guiding followers to being a “good” person in the religious sense, which overlaps partially with the nonreligious subjective “good.” Jose states that a “bad” person if they “break one of the rules.” It also creates a sense of unworthiness and innate sense of imperfectability. Aaliyah, a devoted religious individual states; “I think it [religion] gathers people to realize how imperfect they are.” Britney describes: “We’re all sinful people. It’s just what we’re told all the time.” Jose says: “Obviously the Pope and the people, and they're not perfect. They just try to do what the Bible tells them.” When asked to describe “good people,” Jose also repeated the perfectibility element in regard to their parents and grandparents, he mentions: “Obviously they're not perfect by any means, but there's some of the best people I know. They got good hearts and good intentions.” When answering the request to give an example of a bad person, Jose who was quieter and more reserved than the other participants answers:
I guess me, in a way. I'm sometimes a bad person. … Like, you know you, you're supposed to skate in the hallways or like, in the crossroads or something, they have [signs that say] "Don't skate." You just kind of go over it real quick. Doesn't really matter but you know, you're breaking the law. Even if it's stupid, you're still breaking it. … [But] I think there’s different levels of bad.
Jose establishes the role religion and law plays in one’s reflection of self. With an emphasis on rules, religious individuals can be more critical of themselves in the times they break rules. If a Catholic individual breaks a rule, or one of the 10 Commandments, they would have to go through a long process of atonement and forgiveness among other actions. Being “bad,” to Jose is breaking the law, both secular and religious. This illuminates the force of religion on the theory of morality and the self-image of individuals.
A layer that can be added to the dimensions of “badness” is niceness. As Brad states, “You can have bad people that are nice. Of course, it’s not real niceness.” Ashley supports this claim adding, “Nice is kind of kind of like a façade sometimes, so you can be nice to someone and still not be a good person. … Sometimes I feel like they can go hand in hand, you can be both, but doesn't always [correlate] necessarily.” These ideas establish the difference between internal and external barometers and indicators of “goodness” that someone can have. Karissa gives us an example of another dimension of the questionable binary of good versus bad. Karissa discusses her father and her aunt, who are atheist and Catholic respectively, and explains that there is sometimes a disconnect between what someone would vote versus what they believe, even though she sees them both “good.” Karissa talked about the differences she felt “good people” have in their faith and their actions, especially regarding politics and voting. In this moment, she articulated both infiltration of religious influence in politics and the idea of straight-ticket voting. She goes on to mention the confusing concept that someone could “have discriminating political beliefs, who [doesn’t] go out and discriminate against people in their day to day life.” By having such a complex identity as humans, there are many layers of what makes someone “good” or “bad” or somewhere not adhering an axis of good/evil. As mentioned by Jose, there are levels of being a bad person, but does that mean to someone could be “all bad” indefinitely? Britney goes on to discuss this question as followed:
I would say so [that bad people can reclaim their goodness]. I mean, it depends on why they were bad person or like, some— I would say that some people are just bad people. I think everyone has the opportunity to change. You can look in the world and be like, “Okay, some people really just suck.” I feel like if they really they wanted to, they could change but it'd be harder for some than others. … It’s amazing how people don’t suck more if they don’t have something— not that it has to be religion, but something— that holds them back from just doing anything they want.
Here Britney draws connection to the complex multi-dimensional identities that are human’s moral selves. Good and bad are seem in fairly simple terms that we have been socialized to know since we enter the world, whether we are religious or not. With religion, individuals are guided through teachings and sermons. Without, we are still affected by the religions of those around us and the teachings (anticipatory socialization?) of those around us, especially in our family and peer groups. Morality has been seen to develop in individuals without religion in more intense as well as less intense levels of involvement in social interactions. As seen by this phenomenon, there are internally motivated (e.g. “it's kind of a feeling,” “a vibe”) and externally motivated (e.g. “the rules of God”) to be good. There is a common theme, as socially-adept creatures, that humans check each other through socialization and policing.
CONCLUSION
Religion is a part of our lives, even if we don’t subscribe to it. The importance of the religion is really where the conversation is significant. Often people derivate from practicing religion due to conflicts with core values of the religion, or find the form of social control too controlling and manipulative, or feel a disconnect due to negative experiences with religion or religious leaders. There are people who are religious because it’s what they grew up with and they have found comfort in such, or the necessity of an answer or some kind of moral justice, or they had a positive experience with religion that hardened their faith. In this paper, it is argued that religious and nonreligious college students understand morality notions of morality rooted in simple empathy, differing in terms of the acceptance or rejection of religion as an authentic source of social control, and the path of developing personal values and moral codes and concepts of what it means to “be a good person.”
Sociological research in the area of moral development in nonreligious individuals is important as nonreligious individuals do not originate their values and beliefs from a religious doctrine or a Sunday sermon, rather from an internally motivated place or externally motivated by social relationships and peer influence, even from media and music. It would be insightful to investigate the role nonreligious individuals place on media in their lives as main sources of social control and the implications of using art representations as a source of moral guidelines.
Future research could assess the impact of religious individuals view on nonreligious individual’s navigation of morality and the validity religious individuals place on the methods used. If a similar study were done, it could be perceptive to collect individual’s perceptions on the other religious ideologies or nonreligious ideologies and the impact that part of the population have on their faith and possibilities of doubt.
REFERENCES
Baker, J. O., & Smith, B. G. 2009. “The Nones: Social Characteristics of the Religiously Unaffiliated.” Social Forces, 87(3), 1251–1263. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40345160
Berg, Bruce L. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckman. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.
Charmaz, Kathy C. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darwin, Charles. 2011. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London, UK: Penguin Classics.
Edles, Laura Desfor, and Scott Appelrouth. 2015. Sociological Theory in the Classical Era: Text and Readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Iheoma, E. O. 1986. “The Role of Religion in Moral Education.” Journal of Moral Education, 15(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724860150205
Lareau, Annette. 2000. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Mueller, John A. 2012. “Understanding the Atheist College Student: A Qualitative Examination.” Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49:3, 249-266, https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2012-6439
Rasheta, Noah. 2015. “Who Knows What Is Good and What Is Bad.” Secular Buddhism Podcast. Retrieved from https://secularbuddhism.com/who-knows-what-is-good-and-what-is-bad/.
Ritzer, George. 2011. Sociological theory. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Ritzer, George. 2013. The McDonaldization of Society. 20th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sumerau, J. E. and Ryan T. Cragun. 2016. “‘I Think Some People Need Religion’: The Social Construction of Nonreligious Moral Identities.” Sociology of Religion 77(4):386–407.
Comments