We constantly debate the role of religion in society. Can we envision a world without God? Would such a world be good? If there is no God, then who determines what is right or wrong?

The current battle between biology and fundamentalist Christianity is not based on evidence. One has to be blind to doubt evolution, yet evidence, as far as the religious right are concerned, is a non-starter. For those who believe in these Christian tenets, evolution is simply beyond the pale. Nevertheless, humans need – and seem to be born with – rules, behavior and morals that are independent of any celestial rule book. Anyone who relies on religious rules as the only thing to keep them from committing a wrong walks on thin ice.

Why not assume that morality – social behavior – is part of our genetic inheritance? Religion is a human invention. The oldest religion is only a few thousand years old. How about the behavior of our ancestors before they had religion? Did they have no sense of right and wrong?

To argue with facts, true believers develop such “facts” of their own, such as Mohammed receiving heavenly instruction in person or Noah navigating merrily to a landing on Mount Ararat. But creationists can never win factual arguments with science. Even pseudo intellectual structures, such as intelligent design, never last. Look at the fate of such arguments of only a few years ago as “only humans make tools” or “apes can’t think ahead.”

If we consider our species, we see a creature with a brain and basic needs that are little different from other social animals. Our physical and psychological make-up is that of a social primate. As the primatologist Frans B.M. de Waal says, “Monkeys and apes also strive for power, enjoy sex, want security and affection, kill over territory, and value trust and cooperation. Even the posturing and deal-making among the alpha males in Washington is nothing out of the ordinary.”

Religion argues that nature is 100 percent selfish. But economists and anthropologists have shown humanity to be far more cooperative and altruistic than self-interest would predict – and the tendencies underlying this morality are also shared with other primates. Our simian relatives will do each other favors even if there’s nothing in it for themselves.

Darwin believed that morality grew out of social instincts. The same is true for the altruistic impulse. It is not only humans who are capable of genuine altruism; mammals are sensitive to each other’s emotions and react to others in need. Nature equips life’s essentials – sex, eating – with gratification. But humans also feel good doing good. One study found that pleasure centers in the human brain light up when we give to charity. While the wattage of that light is doubtless minor league compared with the intensity of the delights promised by the Koran – or the streets of gold on which Billy Graham planned to walk – it is there, and it is inherited.

According to most philosophers, we reason ourselves toward a moral position. Even if we do not invoke God, it is still a process of formulating the basic principles. Would people be considerate of others if there was not a natural inclination to be so? Would it make sense to appeal to fairness and justice without heavenly rules? Do we debate the death penalty because we strive for a logically coherent answer? Are reward and punishment, from the virgins in heaven to the hell fire somewhere else, necessary to such a debate?

Over the past few years, atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins urge trust in science, and they disrespect formal religion. While popes, bishops, mega-preachers, ayatollahs and rabbis surely can be objects of derision, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and everything we have accomplished over the centuries generally developed in opposition to religion, but science cannot – and does not attempt to – spell out the meaning of life.

What would happen if we were to excise religion from society?

We would then have to create our own standards of behavior, and any framework we developed would produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own devoted followers.

In time, it would come to look like all the other religions.

Devil’s Dictionary ?quote of the week:

Religion: A convenient way of avoiding such unpleasantries as reality and independent thought.

Rodney Quinn, a former Maine secretary of state, lives in Gorham. He can be reached at rquinn@maine.rr.com.