Nielsen's Argument Against Religion as the Only Means of Learning Morality

Nielsen argues that even if morality originated from religion, every person has the ability to be moral and guide themselves to happiness without the guidance of god.

Nielsen finds a middle ground with the arguments presented before him. His idea of secular morality provides a detailed explanation of how we as humans should properly go about life in unity. He starts off by bringing up the idea of a godless world, and makes the argument that even if God is dead, it ultimately has no effect on life.

Neilson follows that by discussing the meaning of happiness. He acknowledges that we cannot define what happiness is, but we do know what it feels like and the things that bring us this ineffable feeling. In order to achieve this without religion, a man needs to find the little things that provide an adequate picture of a good life. He names a few main sources, such as: human love and companionship, security and emotional peace, art, sex, and music.

Get quality help now

Sweet V

Verified writer

Proficient in: Philosophy

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

All of which can exist and retain their beauty and importance in a Godless world.

He continues his argument by saying humans can replace god with creative employment and meaningful work to give our lives purpose, filling in the void that religion often times helped fill. He then states that if we all collectively put our efforts in to it, we can alleviate the suffering of those who look to god and religion for help, and stop the hate and depression, and all other negative parts of life.

Nielsen later goes on to give his opinion on those who subscribe to a religion, specifically those of the Christian faith. He argues that Christian ethics have not given us a sounder ground for respecting others than with that of a purely secular morality. He believes the punitive nature and the prospect of rewards (such as being sent to Heaven or Hell) in the religion contribute to the popularity of psychological egoism and ethical egoism. He concludes his piece with the simple statement that if God is dead, it does not actually matter.

Nielsen crafts a captivating argument that provides several strong ideas to support his overarching theme and provoke the thought of the reader, opening up a new, and not greatly glamorized thought of a world without religion.

Nielsen constructs a well rounded argument that highlights a few main ideas to underline his belief that humans can survive and prosper without religion, and that religion is not essential whatsoever in order for people to have good morals. I think his best argument is how we can live a happy and fulfilling life without God because of how he started off by talking about how there is no way to describe happiness, but we can do things that make us happy. He transitions smoothly into the main concepts that do just that, making his argument clear and easily relatable to the individual reading this piece.

He concludes this first argument just as strongly as he started it by answering the questions religious moralists might ask to argue against him. The only weak part to his argument is when he calls for complete selflessness from every single person. He says it is necessary for everyone to make sacrifices and give up their wealth to help others so we can all live in unity. Although this is a welcoming idea, it's not realistic enough; it is something you would read about in a fantasy utopian society. It is in our human nature to think about yourself before others, it goes back to your primitive instincts deep inside your brain to survive in the wild.

There will always be a little selfishness in our brain, it is just how we function as a species. So there is a little bit of ignorance in his request to give up everything to help others. I think you can take this idea, and form a more feasible and realistic idea on helping everyone achieve ultimate happiness. All in all, Nielsen presents a valid and thought provoking argument as to why it is realistic to believe we can live in a society without religion.

I found Nielsen's argument very thought provoking and agreed with what he had to say on the topic. I myself am not a believer in God, so I enjoyed this read thoroughly. I particularly appreciated the section on happiness at the beginning of his piece. He talked about the main components to happiness in a persons life, security and emotional peace, human love and companionship. Nielsen says about love and companionship, "We prize them, and a life without them is most surely an impoverished life, a life that no man, if he would take the matter to heart, would desire”(76). I have grown up hearing that love is the most powerful force known to man, and reading this made me realize how important something like that is. In an era where many people are too materialistic, hearing this is refreshing.

This argument about happiness makes me realize how important it is to find the great things in life that I enjoy, and stick with them for the rest of my life. That is something that I have struggled with before, and is something that every young adult my age has struggled with at some point. I have seen people who do not know what they want to do with their life struggle to find happiness, and on the contrary I have seen people who have everything figured about and who are put together very well seemingly living in paradise. So in conclusion, I agree strongly with Nielsens argument against the need for religion in life.