INTRODUCTION
This blog is dedicated to a simple idea: Belief is not a virtue—and asking questions is not a sin.
If you’ve ever found yourself whispering your doubts or biting your tongue in church, you’re not alone.
Here at The God Question, we don’t preach—we probe. We examine what’s claimed, compare it to what’s actually known, and ask what best explains the difference.
You don’t need certainty to be curious. You don’t need faith to care about truth.
All you need is a mind willing to think, a heart willing to feel, and the courage to ask the next honest question.
Do We Need God to Be Good?
A Response to the Claim That Evolution Can’t Explain Morality
Can evolution explain why we care for others? Why we risk our lives for strangers? Why we feel revulsion at racism or injustice? According to many theists, including the author of The Problem of God, the answer is no. In a section titled “Is There an Evolutionary Explanation?” the argument goes like this:
- Evolutionary morality is just “selfish genes” dressing up as altruism.
- Darwinian logic led to eugenics and even the Holocaust.
- If morality came from nature alone, we wouldn’t feel strongly against racism, injustice, or cruelty.
It’s a powerful emotional case. But does it hold up?
Let’s explore this claim using The God Question’s Core Philosophy:
What is claimed? What is actually known? And what best explains the difference between the two?
1. What Is Claimed?
The book argues that:
- Morality rooted in evolution is not “real” morality—it’s utilitarian at best, dangerous at worst.
- Natural selection cannot explain true altruism or our revulsion at cruelty.
- Because of this, moral law must come from God—a transcendent being who has “stitched” love and goodness into our souls.
2. What Is Actually Known?
Here’s what science, anthropology, and evolutionary psychology suggest instead:
- Reciprocal altruism is a well-documented evolutionary strategy found in many species, including humans. It helps social groups survive—not because it’s “fake,” but because cooperation works.
- Genuine empathy is observable even in infants and some non-human primates. While its origins are biological, the experience is real. You don’t have to believe in God to feel compassion.
- Group morality evolves and matures culturally. Over time, human societies have expanded their moral circles—from tribal kinship to universal human rights—not because of divine command, but because of growing awareness and reasoned reflection.
- The horrors of eugenics and Nazi ideology weren’t inevitable results of evolution—they were corruptions of Darwinian ideas, shaped by political, religious, and racial ideologies. Blaming Darwin for Hitler is as misleading as blaming Jesus for the Inquisition.
3. What Best Explains the Difference?
The problem here is a false dichotomy: either morality comes from God, or it’s meaningless. But that’s simply not true.
Morality can—and does—emerge naturally from our shared humanity:
- From our evolved capacity to feel,
- From our reason to reflect,
- From our experience of suffering and joy.
We don’t need a divine lawgiver to recognize that cruelty is wrong or that compassion matters. We only need to be conscious, to listen honestly to what it feels like to be hurt, to be helped, and to help others.
The impulse to lay down one’s life for a stranger isn’t proof of God—it’s proof of the depth of our shared connection.
🚫 A Final Word on “Favoured Races”
The book also points to Darwin’s subtitle—The Preservation of Favoured Races—to suggest that evolution is inherently racist. But this is a dishonest reading. In the 19th century, “races” often meant varieties or subspecies, not ethnic groups. Darwin opposed slavery, and his work undermined the idea that humans were specially created in racial hierarchies. Using his book to justify racism is both historically and morally wrong.
So, is there an evolutionary explanation for morality?
Yes—one rooted in connection, compassion, and consciousness.
And that’s not just “good enough.”
It’s actually beautiful.
God or Delusion? 