close
Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Mar;141(2):447-73.
doi: 10.1037/a0038455. Epub 2014 Dec 22.

Religion and morality

Affiliations
Review

Religion and morality

Ryan McKay et al. Psychol Bull. 2015 Mar.

Abstract

The relationship between religion and morality has long been hotly debated. Does religion make us more moral? Is it necessary for morality? Do moral inclinations emerge independently of religious intuitions? These debates, which nowadays rumble on in scientific journals as well as in public life, have frequently been marred by a series of conceptual confusions and limitations. Many scientific investigations have failed to decompose "religion" and "morality" into theoretically grounded elements; have adopted parochial conceptions of key concepts-in particular, sanitized conceptions of "prosocial" behavior; and have neglected to consider the complex interplay between cognition and culture. We argue that to make progress, the categories "religion" and "morality" must be fractionated into a set of biologically and psychologically cogent traits, revealing the cognitive foundations that shape and constrain relevant cultural variants. We adopt this fractionating strategy, setting out an encompassing evolutionary framework within which to situate and evaluate relevant evidence. Our goals are twofold: to produce a detailed picture of the current state of the field, and to provide a road map for future research on the relationship between religion and morality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Views of religion and morality (Pew Research Center, 2007; reprinted with permission). See the online article for the color version of this figure.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cultural representations (e.g., propositions, prescriptions, and practices [ovals; green]) are triggered and constrained (arrows; blue) by foundational cognitive systems (“religious foundations” in blue [on the y axis] boxes and “moral foundations” in pink [on the x axis] boxes). For instance, the proposition that “God will punish homosexuals” may resonate with intuitions of observing, intentional agents, and concerns about harm and purity. The relations depicted here are intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. See the online article for the color version of this figure.

References

    1. Ahmed A., & Hammarstedt M. (2011). The effect of subtle religious representations on cooperation. International Journal of Social Economics, 38, 900–910 10.1108/03068291111171405 - DOI
    1. Ahmed A., & Salas O. (2011). Implicit influences of Christian religious representations on dictator and prisoner’s dilemma game decisions. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 242–246 10.1016/j.socec.2010.12.013 - DOI
    1. Alighieri D. (2002). Dante’s inferno. (Hollander R. J., Trans.) New York, NY: Anchor Books; (Original work published 1472)
    1. Asad T. (1983). Anthropological conceptions of religion: Reflections on Geertz. Man (n.s.), 18, 237–259 10.2307/2801433 - DOI
    1. Astuti R., & Harris P. L. (2008). Understanding mortality and the life of the ancestors in rural Madagascar. Cognitive Science, 32, 713–740 10.1080/03640210802066907 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types