Fr.
Damianus Abun, SVD, MBA, PhD (Researcher)
Riza Cajindos, MAME (Statistician)
Introduction
Many wonder why self-confessed
religious nations such as Christian nation, Islam nations, Hinduism nation,
have not become better country in terms of morality such as corruption,
killings, gambling, cheating, abortions, and many more immoralities. Those
immoralities raise question in the mind of many people: does religion have no
influence to the moral life of people?
At the same time, some nations that claim to have no religion, they are
advanced and less corrupt. Such picture deserves to be investigated.
The question about the effect of
religion toward morality has been raised by many people. “Does religion have
any effect toward moral life of every individual?” This question might have
been triggered by the fact that there is violence in the world initiated by
persons in the name of religion. At the
same time there are so many people relentlessly trying to advance human welfare
in the name of religion. These realties raise question about the relevance of
religion if not to promote good life here on earth and even the life to
come. People assume that living a life
in the way that God wants is to live moral life. That kind of life will lead to
a happy life. It was the original purpose of ethics when it was introduced by
the ancient philosophers. For some morality is not only to lead a happy life
here on earth but also after death. That is ultimate happiness that we cannot
gain here on earth which we can achieve when we live moral life, live according
to God’s commandments. Thus, religion is somehow a way of life, a life that is
based on God’s teaching, a life which is based on morality.
The
Purpose of the Study
The
study wants to find out the role or the effect of religion toward human life,
particularly, the moral life of college students in Ilocos Sur. Many students
come from different religious communities and most parents are belonged to
religious communities. The question here is: does religion affect the morality
of College students? The results of the study will be used to reassess the
religious practices at home, and school. It can be also used by schools to revisit
ethics instructions/strategy and religious practices in the schools
Theoretical Framework, Literature and Studies
Theories on Religion and Its Role in Human Life
The
discussion on the effect of religion toward morality cannot proceed without
understanding religion and its role in human life. To understand religion, we
look into its etymology. Religion is from Latin word “religionem” (nom.
“religio”) meaning: respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,
obligation, the bond between man and the gods”. Therefore, from such
etymological meaning, we define religion as a system of belief and practice
that accepts a “binding relationship to such a being or beings”. St. Augustine
used the word, “ligare” meaning “to bind, to connect”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)
From
its etymological definition, religion is the belief in the existence of gods
(the sacred) and its bond with men. Its function is to connect men to gods and
men to men. Thus the business of religion is to worship gods, God (the sacred)
and also to unite/bond people who believe in the same gods (the sacred). From
such understanding we lead to an understanding that religion is actually a
binding relationship between men and gods, God (the sacred). Thus, gods, (the
sacred) become the centre of a religious community and its unifying factor. In
this sense, religion and life are not in separate ways. In the Eudemian
Ethics Aristotle argued that the goal of our lives is service and
contemplation of the god. As we contemplate the god, we become like what we
contemplate and so we become most like god by contemplating the god. In his
Metaphysics, Aristotle explained that the best human activity is the most
god-like namely thinking about the god and about things that do not change.
Aristotle considered god as a magnetic, drawing us by his attractive power to
live the best kind of life possible for us (Hare, 2006).
The
purpose of religion is to give a new direction to human life style, keeping in
mind the immediate future and contemporary point of view. Religion contains
many eternal values as basis of direction out of which one remained principal (Kumar, 2008). Looking into such
understanding, how can we deny the role of religion in human life? We do not
believe that human welfare was not the motive behind the establishment of
religious communities by their founders, although their scope might be limited.
Religion is committed to general human welfare. It was needed not only in the
beginning of human beings but today is also needed. It urges for unity and
cooperation to build conducive environment for all human being to stay.
The idea of religion’s involvement in human
life is further emphasized by Reza’s
definition on religion. Reza (1998)
defined religion as all around movement in the light of faith in Allah (God)
and a sense of responsibility for the formation of thought and belief, for the
promotion of high principles of human morality for the establishment of good
relations among members of the society and the elimination of undue
discrimination. This definition provides
us a clear role of religion in human life particularly human morality.
According to Reza, we need religion to provide principles of morality like
justice, peace, honesty, righteousness, brotherhood, equality, virtuousness,
tolerance, sacrifice, help the poor and others. He argues that these are the
virtues without which our lives will lose its order, normalcy and turn into
chaos. It is possible to acquire these values without religion but
certainly in the absence of firm religious belief, those values appear to lose
their meaning and become a mere piece of advice which can be accepted or
rejected. These qualities are based on internal feelings and faith and
are naturally beyond ordinary law. We believe that it is God who cultivates the
values within man and impels him to automatic righteousness and adherence to
duty. Will Durant a philosopher, in his
book, Pleasures of Philosophy, as cited by Reza says that without the backing
of religion, morality is nothing more than arithmomancy, as without it, the
sense of obligation disappears.
Supporting
the above concepts, different religions have similar teachings about the role
of religion in human lives. In India
Islam also has personal and social code of
behaviour, not only code of behaviour related to their behaviour to God but
also to human beings. In the Qur’an there are rules and regulations for virtues
like righteousness, generosity, gratitude, contentment, humility, kindness,
courtesy, purity, good speech, respect, wisdom, tolerance, justice, mercy,
dignity, courage, firmness, frankness, hope, patience, perseverance,
discipline, self-restraint, moderation, prudence, unity, frugality, sincerity,
responsibility, loyalty, trustworthiness, honesty, repentance, and spatiality
(Da’wah Group, 2010). One of the five pillars of Islam, such as Zakat
encourages Muslims to look beyond themselves and help the needy through giving
alms to the poor particularly during the month of Ramadan. (Zahid, 2010)
Christianity
is not all about God and his relations to human being and how human beings are
related to Him but it is all about love. God became human being (incarnation)
to save humankind from their sins because of love. God loves human beings, thus
He sent his only son to be a human being to save human beings. In return, human
beings must love God and his fellow human beings too which is summarized into
the greatest commandments: Love your God with all your mind, heart and soul and
love your neighbour as you love yourselves. Such commandments are the source of
inspirations on how Christians carry their live every day. Thus Christian moral
life is based on trying to live and treat others as Jesus did (Jakoblich, 2007)
Theories on Morality and Religion
Morality
is playing important role in regulating human behaviour. It is about what is
good and what is bad, right and wrong that affect others. However, this does
not mean that there is a written rule or specific codes conduct established by
society as it is defined by descriptive theory of morality but it is more on a
universal code of conduct that all rational beings would put forward for
governing the behaviour of all moral agents. These codes of conducts are not
written by society but it is based on natural law as defined by normative
theory of morality. Natural law would tell us that it is possible for any
normal adult in any society to know the general kinds of actions that morality
prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages and allows (Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, 2010). In this case, all adult rational beings everywhere
must know what is good and bad, what is right and wrong based on their reason
and informed conscience and must conduct themselves according to the command of
their conscience. Hauser (2006) said that it is possible that all normal moral
and rational agents know the truth, know what is right and wrong, good and bad.
Randall Niles (2007) further explained that this knowledge comes from one’s own
self. There is no need for certain behaviour to be taught. A person makes
decision based on his own knowledge. Lewis as cited by Niles (2007) presents
three levels of the importance of morality: first, to ensure fair play and
harmony between individuals. Second, to help make us good people in order to
have a good society, and finally, to keep us in a good relationship with the
power that created us. The last concept reminds us that our belief is critical
to our moral behaviour. Faith is prerequisite to moral behaviour. Thus, the
most significant predictor of a person’s moral behaviour may be religious
commitment.
However,
some arguments point out that source of morality is not attached to religion. The
idea of what is good and bad, right and wrong originally are not defined and
taken directly from religion but it is from natural law. Such concept of good
and bad, right and wrong grow together with human life as person grows older.
On his On Truth (1624) Edward, Lord
Herbert of Cherbury (1582-1648) claimed that all humans have an intuitive grasp
of certain basic moral truths that show us to live. Thus Herbert rejected the
subordination of philosophy to theology, holding that religious claims in
conflict with intuitively known moral principles must be false. The idea of
Herbert was supported by the idea of Thomas Hobbes (1599-1679) and John Locke
(1632-1704). All agreed that moral laws of nature were the basic directions for
solving the problems posed by our unsociably social nature (www.Questia.com/Ethics_of_Psych) In this case; even people without
religion are capable of understanding of what is good and bad and live a moral
life because it is already in the human nature. People without religion do not
mean they are immoral but they are moral being too. Montaigne (1533-1592)
argued that we must determine for ourselves what good life is. We each have a
distinctive natural form that tells us what we need and what we cannot
tolerate. For each person that must be the supreme guide (www.Questia.com/Ethics_of_Psych).
The question why we need morality, Aristotle in
his Nicomachean
Ethics argued that the purpose of moral life is happiness. Our morality
aims at our happiness. The ancient moral philosophers thought that their task
was to determine what was required for human flourishing which is the highest
good and to show what virtues were needed in order to attain it. But such
argument has been challenged because it lacks of foundation. If our existence is accidental and life ends
with death, what is the use of living moral life if only to attain happiness?
We sacrifice to help other people, we control our self not to harm other
people’s life, and we are invited to live in love and peace with one another.
Is it worthwhile to do all those things? What are our fundamental motives to be
good?
However,
Mavrodes (1986) as cited by Ramsey (2004) challenged all those who deny the
relationship between religion and morality. He said that if there is no
fundamental basis for morality, then morality is bound to fail. He continues to
emphasize that any attempt to arrive at basis for morality that is independent
from religion is bound to fail. Secular ethics have no fundamental motive to be
good. It is too superficial. It lacks of metaphysics and a basis for values and
obligations. Thus secular ethics cannot answer the question “why be moral all
the time?” If we do not believe in life after death and salvation, then there
is no basis for morality. Our belief in life after death and salvation serves
as basis for our morality. Religion supports the feeling of obligation to that
which makes sacrifices worthwhile. Religion supports the hope in something
better or richer which is to come and makes being good and sacrificing
worthwhile. Secular morality is inadequate method for providing reasons for
people to be moral. Considering that there is no higher form of judgement and
no after life as incentives, and then there is no much reason for citizens to
be moral. Kaminer (1997) argued that
religion is essential to virtue. He claims that it is not surprising to find
faith being touted as the solution to drug abuse, teenage pregnancy and other
social ills. Such claims are not
baseless. Criminologist Byron Johnson as cited by Wayne Jackson (2010) in his
study, argued that there is a relationship between religion and moral values of
individual persons. The report said that most delinquent crimes are committed
by youngsters who have low levels of religious commitment. Children who
attended church become delinquent with far less frequency than those who do
not. Myers as cited by Jackson (2010) in his study also pointed out that most
benevolent people of our society are the ones who are involved in religious
activity.
Those
findings convince us that a person who believes in God is a better person or
moral person. Morality cannot be maintained without religion. Religion is a
necessary factor that can shape the morality of individual persons. Gandhi as
cited by Barua (2008) says that religion and morality are inseparably bound up
with each other. To Gandhi, there is no religion higher than truth and
righteousness. Morality is prized by almost all the great religions of the
world. Baier (2001) also maintains the argument on the relationship between
religion and morality. Morality is an expression of one’s faith in God. In his
book, “If you love me, keep my commandments” he argues faith in God is
requirement for morality.
Even
someone like Nietzsche who is credited with giving a major boost to the
elimination of God from Western culture, never tired of pointing out that
Christianity is a whole and one cannot give up faith in God and keep Christian
morality. Nietzsche as quoted by Lewis (1995) said:
“ when one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.
The morality is by no means
self-evident. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole. It stands
or fall with faith in God”.
Such statement indicates that Nietzsche
recognize the relationship between religion or faith and morality that both
cannot be separated. Morality stands or falls with faith in God. Lewis (1995)
further strengthened the argument that morality begins with the character of
God.
Bertrand
Russel (1957) acknowledged the influence of religion toward morality; however
its influence is not only good but also bad aspect. However such bad influence
is caused by the wrong teaching. He accused the clergymen as the cause of such
problem. Thomas Dixon (2008) further pointed out that many today argue that
religious beliefs are necessary to provide moral guidance and standards of
virtuous conduct in an otherwise corrupt, materialistic, and degenerate world.
In the same vein Christian Theologian Ron Rhodes (2010) has remarked that “it
is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has infinite point which
is absolutely good. In supporting such
argument,
Kelley, et.al (2008) conducted a study on the
interactive effects of religion and deterrence on patterns of drinking among
college students. As indicators of different aspects of religion, they include
religiosity, a belief in biblical literalness and a belief in drinking is sin.
The study found that there is an interactive effect for religion with
deterrence efforts drinking in campus.
Along the same interest, Desmond, Purpura,
Elizabeth and Sarah (2010) studied on the effect of religion toward morality.
They concluded that although religiosity is a strong predictor of moral
beliefs, however, the study found out that the correlation is not perfect. In
other words, individuals may frequently attend church, and report that religion
is an important part of their lives, without adopting all of the moral
standards that are promoted by religious groups.
Study on religion and tolerance for crime was
conducted by Corcoran, Pettinicchio, Robbins, (2009). They found that
individuals who are members of religious communities and those who attend
church more often are more likely to be intolerant of crime and the magnitude
of these effects are larger in non-modern countries. Thus they use tolerance of crime as a
potential mechanism explaining variation in violent crime across a large sample
of countries.
The
effect of religion toward tolerance of same sex marriage was also examined by
Powell-Williams, et.al, (2007). They examined both direct and indirect effects
of religiosity and tolerance of same sex marriage. The study found that beliefs
regarding morality and family are significant intervening factors influencing
the effects of religion and tolerance of same sex marriages. In line with such comparison, another
comparative study on moral values between Theists and Atheists were made by
Deem (2005). He surveyed 1,600 Canadian and asked them what their beliefs about
God were and what moral values they considered to be very important. The result
of the study showed that Theists got higher moral values than the Atheists in
all indicators.
However, it does not also mean that Atheists
have no moral values. Morality exists to a certain degree even without
religion. This opinion is supported by the study of Hauser (2006). The study
pointed out that when it comes to unfamiliar moral dilemmas, atheists and those
with religious background show no difference in their moral judgments. It
suggested that our intuitive judgment of right and wrong operate independently
from our religious beliefs but religion strengthens and improve our moral
life.
Arguments against the Relationship between Religion
and Morality
Realities
may challenge those arguments supporting the relationship between religion and
morality. Many people who claim to be religious and yet, in reality they are
far from godliness as one can be. Marc
Hauser and Peter Singer, (2005) argued that religion is separable from
morality. They claim that there is no connection between religion and morality.
There are millions of people who participate in no religion who live moral
lives. This indicates that it is possible to live a moral life without
participating in any religion. Thus religion is not absolutely necessary to
live moral life. Harris (2006)
argued that there is no evidence to support that there is a relationship
between religion and morality. If religion were necessary for morality, there
should be some evidences that atheists are less moral than believers. He
concluded that there is no difference in moral thinking and moral behaviours of
religious and non-religious people. Further he said that religious societies
are not more moral than those that are more secular in their cast.
The
argument of Hauser and Singer might have been influenced by the argument of
positive atheism argument as represented by Cohen. Cohen (1868-1954) argued
that there is no relationship between religion and morality. We quote his
statement:
“Are we
to believe that if we had never received revelations from God or even if there
were no belief in God, a mother would have never learned to love her child, men
and women would never have love each other, men would never have placed any
value upon honesty, truthfulness or loyalty? After all we have seen an animal
mother caring for its young, even to the extent of risking its life for it. We
have seen animals defend each other from common enemy and join together in
running down prey for a common meal.
The argument of Cohen is related to the
previous argument of Leibniz as promoted by Christian Wolff (1679-1754).
Christian Wolff argued that we are obligated to do what will make us and our
condition, or that of others, more perfect and this is the law of nature that
would be binding on us even if God did not exist. He further pointed out that
even Confucius already knew by reason all that mattered about morality, even though
he did not know anything about Christ.
Such argument is followed by Baron d’Holbach 91723-1789) argued that
morality did not need religion especially Christianity.
Indeed
religion is not always associated with morality. Philosopher, David Hume stated
that “the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, to be compatible
with a superstitious piety and devotion; hence it is justly regarded as unsafe
to draw any inference in favour of a man’s morals, from the fervour or
strictness of his religious exercise, even though he believe them sincerely”
(Hitchen, 2007) Farrell Till (1994)
further argued that we have not proven the existence of God. If we have not
proven the existence of God, how we can talk about morality? Morality is
possible without God, without religion. He argued that gentiles where St. Paul
was sent, has discovered morality on their own even before they know God and
before they know the Bible.
Michael
Wang (1997) conducted a study on the relationship between religious beliefs and
ethical behaviour. The study concluded that religious beliefs have no
correlation with ethical behaviour. The ethical behaviour of people who say
“religion is essential” to their life is often no distinguishable ratings from
the behaviour of those who describe religion as unimportant factor in their
life. Such finding seems to confirm the idea of Atheist, George H. Smith as
cited by Till (1994) in his book, “Atheism:
The Case against God” that religion is not connected to morality. Hauser
(2005) argued that if religion were necessary for morality, there should be
some evidence that Atheists are less moral than the believers. According to
him, some more secularized society may be less violent.
Amid
such controversy, in the Philippine contexts, we are challenged to find out
really in real life, if there is a relationship or no relationship between
religion and morality. Thus, we have to go down to the reality of life and ask
people how religion affects their moral life or no affect at all. The summarized aforementioned ideas and
studies served as initial ideas from which the researcher derived insights to
conduct this study.
Statement of the Problems
The study was aimed to determine the effect of
religion toward moral values of college students in Ilocos Sur, Philippines.
Specifically the study answers the following questions:
1. What is the level of religious awareness and
practices of college students in Ilocos Sur?
2. What
is the level of moral values of college students in Ilocos Sur?
3. Is there any significant relationship
between religion and morality?
4. Is there any significant relationship
between religious awareness and morality?
5. To what extent does religious awareness
affect the morality?
6. To what extent does religion affect the
moral values of college students in Ilocos Sur?
Hypotheses
Based on the statement of the problems, the
study is guided by the following hypothesis:
1. There is no significant relationship between
religion and morality.
2. There is no significant difference between
religions and morality.
3. There is no significant relationship between
religious awareness and morality
4. There is no effect of religious awareness
toward morality.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
The study was conducted to fourth year college
students in Ilocos Sur particularly in Vigan City and Vigan- Bantay who are
currently enrolling. Two schools were located inside Vigan City and two schools
were located at Bantay, a town that is close or attached to Vigan City. It will be limited to measure the effect of
religious awareness toward their moral lives and to what extent religious
awareness affect morality.
Method of Research
Research Design
The research utilized the descriptive method of
research. This method is considered appropriate because it seek to determine
the religious beliefs and practices of students and their moral values and how
far religion affects the morality of students.
Research Instruments
Two sets of questionnaires were used to gather
the data, the questionnaires on religious belief and practices and the moral
values of the students. The questionnaire is consisted of three parts: Part I:
solicited the data of demographic profiles of students such as school, gender
and religion where they belong. Part II was made of questions to identify the
extent of religious awareness and practices of students. Part III was made of
questions to identify the level of the moral values of college students in
Ilocos Sur.
Scale Descriptive Interpretations
1
Strongly Disagree
2.
Somewhat disagree
3 Disagree
4.
Agree
5.
Strongly agree
To answer questionnaires along moral values of
the students, the following scale was used:
Scale Descriptive Interpretations
1
Not very relevant
2
Somewhat relevant
3
Relevant
4
Very relevant
5
Extremely very relevant
To interpret the average score on each
dimension on the religious belief and practices of college students, the
following norms were used:
Range of Scores
Descriptive Interpretations
4.21-5.00
Strongly Disagree.
3.41-4.20
somewhat disagree
2.61-3.40 Disagree
1.81-2.60
Agree
1.00-1.80
Strongly Agree
To interpret the average score on each
dimension on the moral values of students, the following norms were used:
Range of Scores
Descriptive Interpretations
4.21-5.00 Not very
relevant
3.41-4.20
slightly relevant
2.61-3.40
Somewhat Relevant
1.81-2.60 Very relevant
1.00-1.80
Very relevant
Population
The population of the study were composed of
fourth year college students who are taking up college education in Vigan City
and Vigan Bantay Ilocos Sur and only those who are taking up elementary and
secondary education course. To determine the sample size, the Slovin’s formula
was used where:
n= (1+Ne2)
Where:
n=sample size
N=Population size
e=desired margin error (percent allowance for
non-precision because of the use of the sample instead of the population).
Data Gathering Procedures
In the pursuit of the objective of the study,
the researcher asked the permission of the Presidents of different colleges in
Vigan City and Vigan Bantay. After given the permission, the researcher then
distributed questionnaires to different colleges/university and retrieved those
questionnaires after the students filled them up.
Statistical Treatment of Data
To enable the researcher present and summarize
the data in accordance with the objectives set in this study, the following
statistical treatment were used:
1. The weighted mean was used to determine the
level of religious awareness and practices and moral values of the students.
2. The One-way of Analysis of F-test (ANOVA)
was used to determine the differences on the effect of religion on morality between
religions.
3. The Pearson’s r was used to determine the
correlation between religion and morality, religious awareness and
morality.
4. Multiple regression analysis was used the
effect and the magnitude of the effect of religion and religious awareness
toward morality.
Results/ Findings
Problem 1: What is the level of religious awareness and
practices of college students in Ilocos Sur?
This question was to measures the level of
their religious awareness as indicated by their mean ratings.
As indicated by
their mean ratings, the findings show that all students are high along their
level of religious awareness and practice. Thus, we can conclude that all students in
Ilocos Sur are religious.
Problem 2: What is the level of
moral values of college students in Ilocos Sur?
This problem was to measure the level of
moral awareness of the students. Based on their overall mean rating, it was
found that all students from different religions and schools live a high moral
values such love (concern for others and society), purity, kindness, and
honesty.
Problems 3: Is there any significant relationship between
religion and morality?
This was to find
out whether there is a relationship between religion and morality or not. In
other words, it is to find out whether religion does affect morality of the
students from those schools taken in the study.
Result
of Correlation Coefficient Showing the Relationship between Religion and
Morality
Variable
|
College/University
|
||||
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
As
a Whole
|
|
Religion
|
0.2597*
p<0.05
|
0.0206
p>0.05
|
0.0412
p>0.05
|
0.0291
p>0.05
|
0.1234*
p<0.05
|
Legend: * significant @ 0.05 level of
significance
It shows that
there is a relationship between religion and morality as indicated by its
correlation coefficient of 0.1234 which has a probability level lower or
smaller than 0.05 ( p<0.05) which attained 0.05 significant levels. It
really confirms that there is a relationship between religion and morality, one
does affect the other.
Problem 4: Is there any significant relationship between religious
awareness and morality?
This problem was to measure the relationship
between religious awareness and morality. It is found that there is a
relationship between religious awareness and morality of the students as
indicated by its correlation coefficient of 0.2594 which have a probability
level lower than 0.05 or p<0.05 at significant levels. It concludes that religious
awareness affects the morality of the students
Result of Correlation Coefficient Showing the Relationship between
Religious Awareness and Morality
College/University
|
|||||
Variable
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
As a Whole
|
Religious Awareness
|
0.2597*
p<0.05
|
0.3421*
P<0.05
|
0.0691
p>0.05
|
0.4151*
P<0.05
|
0.2594*
P<0.05
|
Legend: * significant @ 0.05
level of significance
Problem 5: To what extent does religious awareness affect the
morality?
This question measures the effect of religious
awareness on morality. As it is gleaned from the table and based on the
computed Mult R of 0.2567, indicating a relationship between religious
awareness and morality. It means that in general, the higher the level of
religious awareness, the higher the level of morality prevalent to the
students.
Result of Multiple Regression Analysis of Religious Awareness on
Morality
Variable
|
beta
|
t-value
|
t-prob
|
Religious Awareness
|
0.0843
|
4.4846*
|
0.000
|
Mult R
= 0.2567
R sq = 0.0659
F-ratio = 20.1112
F-prob = .000(p<0.05)
Looking at the variable, the table shows that
religious awareness significantly influence the level of morality (f-ratio=20.1112,
p<0.05). It means that the level of morality depends on the level of
religious awareness of the students.
Problem 7: To what extent does religion affect the moral values of
college students in Ilocos Sur?
This question measures the effect of religion
toward morality. Based on the result of the data, the computed Mult R of 0.1234
suggests a relationship between religion and morality.
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Religion on Morality
Value
|
beta
|
t-value
|
t-prob
|
Religion
|
3.578334
|
34.46316
|
0.000
|
Mult
R = 0.1234
R sq = 0.0152
F-ratio = 4.4236
F-prob = 0.036319(p<0.05)
Looking at the figures shown in the table, the
variable considered in the study yielded a significant influence on the level
of morality of the respondents as backed up by F-ratio of 4.42, p<0.05. This
means that the level of morality is influenced by the religion.
Discussion
The main objective of the study is to find out
the effect of religion toward morality. After tracing the related literatures and
studies taken in this study, it is found that the result of studies have no
common agreement as to whether religion affects morality or not. On one hand,
several authors/researchers claimed that religion affect the morality, and on
the other hand, others claim that religion and morality have no connection,
even they claim that morality comes ahead of religion.
Through the use of research methodology and
statistical tools employed in this study, the study determines the relationship
between religion and morality. It concludes that religion, religious awareness
and morality are connected and both religion and religious awareness affect the
level of the morality of the students. It further concludes that the more
religious students are, the higher their moralities are. It then understands that all religions help
the development of morality of students. In other words, religion enhances or
increases moral awareness of the students and religion is important for moral
development in the Philippines context.
Thus, the question that is raised in the
background of the study has been answered that religion is necessary to the
formation of moral behaviour of an individual. Besides, the finding of the
study really confirms the role of religion in human life as a unifying factor
between God and men and between men. The relationship between the two is
necessary.
Therefore,
the hypotheses in the study that there is no significant relationship between
religion and morality, no significant relationship between religious awareness
and morality and there is no effect of religious awareness toward morality are
denied. There is really a relationship between religion, religious awareness
and morality.
However, the hypothesis of “no significant
difference between religion and morality” is accepted. No matter what religion we belong to, we all
have the same moral values and it does not make one religion is better than the
other. In other words, all religions and their practices promote moral values.
However, religion alone without religious
awareness will not increase the level of morality. Even though morality can
exists without religion; however, religion and religious awareness improve the
level of moral awareness of students. Further, religion provides a deeper
reason why someone has to be moral all the time.
The
researcher would like to support the claim that religion is necessary to
enhance morality by the following study done by Deem (2005). He surveyed 1,600
Canadian and asked them what their beliefs about God were and what moral values
they considered to be very important. The result of the study showed that
Theists got higher moral values than the Atheists in all indicators. Following
are the results
Moral Values
|
Theists
|
Atheists
|
honesty
|
94%
|
89%
|
Kindness
|
88%
|
75%
|
Family Life
|
88%
|
65%
|
Being loved
|
86%
|
70%
|
Friendship
|
85%
|
74%
|
Courtesy
|
81%
|
71%
|
Concern for others
|
82%
|
63%
|
Forgiveness
|
84%
|
52%
|
Politeness
|
77%
|
65%
|
Friendliness
|
79%
|
66%
|
Patience
|
72%
|
32%
|
Generousity
|
67%
|
37%
|
Recommendations:
The recommendations are emanated from the
study. These recommendations are
addressed to the parents, school and students themselves.
1. Recommendation
to the parents. Parents should promote religious awareness to their
children at home by regularly praying together, attending worship, listening to
spiritual reflections and reading the bible and other religious activities.
2. Recommendation
to school. It is not enough to teach religion subject but to live it is
important. Thus, the school should promote religious awareness by introducing
religious activities in the school campus such as prayer, worship, bible
reading and meditations and other religious activities that increase religious
awareness of the students. Schools also need to have religion subjects,
whatever religion in which students belong to. Religion subject is not only for
private schools but also for public schools or government owned schools
3. Recommendation
to the students. Religious awareness is not something that only comes from
outside but it should come from within. To improve their religious awareness,
they should practice and strengthen their faith by prayer, worshiping,
attending worship regularly and reading the bible as a source spiritual
inspiration for daily living.
4. Ethical environment in which students/children are growing should be given attention by the
parents and the school. Home where students spend most of their time should be
the first place where students learn how to behave ethically, learn how to love
other people, to be kind, and to be honest. School should establish ethical
environment by initiating ethical activities to promote and increase moral
awareness of the students.
Acknowledgment
The researcher would like to express sincere
thanks to all President of four schools namely Fr. Cyrilo Ortega, SVD, Dr.
Gilbert Arce, Dr. Carmencita Paz, and Sr. Tessie Bayona, SPC for allowing the
researcher to conduct his study in their school.
Special thanks to research director of Divine
Word College of Vigan who helped the researcher to distribute the
questionnaires to all schools and the statistician, Riza Cajindos, who
patiently worked on the statistical computation.
References
Baier, C.J. & Wright, B.R. 2001. If You
Love me, Keep my Commandments: A Metaanalysis of the Effect of Religion on
Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Deliqiency. www.religionandmorality.com
Chapman, Steve. 1999. Praise the Lord, Chicago
Chapman, Cohen. 1995. Morality Without God.
Positive Atheism Magazine (PAM). http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/cohen02.htm
Corcoran, Katie, Petticchio, David, and
Robbins, Blaine
David Hume, “The Natural History of Religion”.
In Hitchen’s Christopher (2007). The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for
the Non Believers. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press.
Deem, Rich. 2005. Are Atheists and Theists
Morally Equivalent?. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_theists-morality.html
Dixon, Thomas. 2008. Science and Religion: A very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hare, J. 2006. God and Morality, a Philosophical History. Oxford:
Blackwell
Hauser, Marc. 2005. Trends in Cognitive
Science. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/mnkylab/publications/recent/HauserSingerMoralRelig05.pdf
Jackson, Wayne
Kaminer, Wendy. 1997. Pro & Con: Atheists can Be Moral Too. http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/4991-1.html
Knoll, Benjamin. 2008. And Who is My Neighbor? Religion and Attitude Toward Immigration Policy. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p268926_index.html
Kumar. Ravindra. 2008. Role of Religion in
Human Life. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/48503
Mavrodes, George. 1986. Religion and the
Queerness of Morality: Rationality, Religious Beliefs and Moral Commitment:
Essays in the Philosophy of Religion. Ithaca Cornel University
Powell-William, Melissa, Sherkat, Darren and
Madox, Gregory. 2007. Examining the Direct and Indirect Effects of Religiosity
on Tolerance of same sex Marriage. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p184706_index.html
Ramsay, Meghan. 2004. Secular Morality. http://www2.sunnysufolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/PHIL_of
RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_9_MORALITY_VALUES/Secular_Morality_Inferior.htm
Rhodes, Ron. Strategies for Distinguishing with
Atheists”. Reasoning from Scriptures Ministries. http://home.earthlink.net/-ronrhodes/Atheism.html. Retrieved, February 8, 2012.
Russell, Beltrand. 1957. Why I am not A
Christian.New York: Goerge Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Till, Farrel. 1994. No Morality Without the
Bible? http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1front94.htm
Wang, Michael.1997. More Research Concerning
Atheist Morality. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-morality.html
Zahid, Ishaq. 2010. Five Pillars of Islam. http://islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html
No comments:
Post a Comment