Imagine a stranger stopping to help an injured person on a deserted road. They ask for nothing in return, expect no recognition, and may never meet the person again. Now imagine discovering that this Good Samaritan does not believe in God. Would that change how you view the act?
We often associate good hearts, good deeds, and goodness in people with God. But is that really the case?
“It isn’t religion or the lack of one that leads to moral responsibility. It is having a good heart and clear mind,” says Arthur Dobrin, the New York based Leader Emeritus of the Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island and Professor Emeritus at Hofstra University.
“Educating for empathy, benevolence, responsibility, and humility—universally held values—creates the framework for a good life,” he adds.
Yet, for many, morality remains inseparable from religion. God provides a moral compass, sacred teachings distinguish right from wrong, and divine justice offers a reason to choose good over evil.
Without faith, some wonder, what stops a person from serving only their own interests?
“A religion forms boundaries regarding who belongs and who doesn’t, insiders and outsiders. This often means that religions reinforce the idea that their members are better than others, that they have the right knowledge, and others are ignorant. Such attitudes can go very wrong, as we see historically and to this day, when the outsider is demonized,” argues Dobrin.
Yet millions of nonbelievers lead purposeful lives, care for strangers, fight injustice, and work for the welfare of others. Their lives challenge the assumption that belief in God is a prerequisite for goodness.
Self-described atheist and author of fiction and non-fiction books including his most recent book, ‘The Wisdom of Being Flawed and Fragmented, Random Reminiscences’, Mumbai based P.S. Wasu offers another perspective: “What we call ‘good deeds’ are often just actions that fit the comfort of the moment. The moral compass people speak of points wherever upbringing, culture, and convenience push it.”
The question, then, is not simply whether one can be good without God, but what shapes our moral choices and whether goodness depends on religious belief.
“I’ll quote Rumi: ‘Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there.’ That field is where I prefer to stand. It is a place of openness and presence, before the mind slices the world into verdicts and judgments,” explains Wasu.
The atheist and the moral question
Atheists have long faced the perception that without religious belief, they lack a moral compass and are more likely to be self-interested.
“Atheism is just the absence of belief in God, not a fresh gospel. Swapping one set of imposed commandments for another, even with a secular label, hardly amounts to liberation,” says Wasu.
This prejudice has also been documented by research. A study published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, involving 3,256 participants across 13 countries, found widespread intuitive moral prejudice against atheists. In most countries studied, participants were more likely to associate extreme moral violations with atheists than with religious believers.
Dobrin believes such perceptions stem partly from religious exclusivity. “It isn’t surprising that many of those who strongly identify with their religion as the only truth see those who are different as bad. Since humanists bracket a concern for God and live their lives without looking for supernatural guidance and support, religious fundamentalists see this as corrupt, bad or even evil.”
But does the absence of belief necessarily imply an absence of conscience?
“True believers conclude that anyone who doesn’t believe as they do, without the rules they accept, must be lacking a moral compass,” says Dorbin.
It would not be wrong to say that a person’s worldview alone does not determine whether they are compassionate, honest, or generous. Likewise, religious identity does not guarantee integrity.
What makes us do good?
In ‘Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe,’ Greg M. Epstein explores how people can lead meaningful, ethical lives without belief in a supernatural power. Humanism places ethics, human welfare, and shared responsibility at the center of life.
Empathy, conscience, and an awareness of our shared vulnerability can inspire people to help others, challenge injustice, and act responsibly, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Yet, the extent to which empathy is valued in the current world has itself become a point of division.
A survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) points to a widening empathy gap in the United States, a nation shaped by cultural diversity and often regarded as a model of pluralism.
The 2026 PRRI American Values Survey (see chart) reveals significant differences across religious groups in their views on empathy as a foundation of morality. This belief is strongest among religiously unaffiliated Americans (83%), followed by adherents of non-Christian religions (80%) and Jewish Americans (77%).
Majorities of mainline Protestants, Hispanic Catholics, Hispanic Protestants, Black Protestants, White Catholics, and Latter-day Saints also view empathy as foundational, with percentages ranging from 73% down to 65%.
In contrast, White evangelical Protestants report the lowest level of agreement by a wide margin, at only 42%.
Dobrin, however, cautions against confusing morality with social conventions.
“A misconception is that morality is the same as social conventions. It is not. Another misconception is that all ethical questions can be settled as a matter of principle. They cannot.
“Context matters. Just as a physician can know all that is in a medical textbook, they still have an individual patient in front of them and sometimes need to make a choice to treat one illness while neglecting another,” he explains.
Consider two people donating food to a family in need. One sees it as seva, or service to God; the other believes no one should go hungry when others can help. Their motivations differ, but the outcome is the same: someone receives food.
For a believer, service may arise from devotion; for a nonbeliever, from human solidarity. Both can represent sincere moral commitments.
Goodness, reward, and self-interest
The question becomes more complicated when motivation enters the picture. If someone does good out of fear of divine punishment or hope of heavenly reward, is the act entirely selfless? And is someone who helps because it brings personal satisfaction any less generous?
Human motivation is rarely straightforward. Kindness can bring emotional fulfillment and a sense of belonging, but personal satisfaction does not necessarily diminish compassion. Perhaps the most revealing test is whether we are willing to act ethically when doing so is inconvenient, unrewarded, or costly.
Dobrin draws on his own experiences to make the point: “I’ve encountered awful people who were believers, those who were atheists, and those who didn’t give this question any thought.
“And I’ve known wonderful people who were pillars of their church, those who were as sure that there is no God as those who are certain there is and those who find the question about God’s existence as irrelevant.
“The decent, kind, generous, responsible, and humble people I’ve known all believe in people,” he says.
His observation brings the discussion back to human conduct. Faith can inspire extraordinary generosity, just as religious identity can coexist with hypocrisy. Similarly, secular convictions can motivate selfless service, while nonbelievers, too, can act selfishly. Neither group has a monopoly on virtue.
Can goodness unite humanity?
The relationship between God and morality has occupied philosophers for centuries.
Religion offers communities, moral teachings, and spiritual discipline. For many believers, goodness is a response to a sacred understanding of life. Yet human suffering, injustice, and cruelty can also be recognized as moral concerns without invoking divine authority.
Perhaps the greater challenge today is finding common ground in a world increasingly divided by religious identities and competing claims to truth.
Can people with different beliefs—or none at all—cultivate a shared sense of goodness that unites rather than separates them?
Wasu, however, offers a more guarded view: “Every effort to cultivate shared goodness is just a temporary truce, a pause in the rhythm rather than a resolution. I don’t find that despairing. It is simply the way things move, and I would rather watch it with clear eyes than pin my hopes on a final, lasting harmony.”
Perhaps goodness does not require uniformity of belief or even agreement on the existence of God. What matters is whether we can recognize one another’s humanity, respect our differences, and take responsibility for the lives our actions touch.
Ultimately, the question is not whether religious people or atheists are better human beings. It is whether our beliefs, whatever they may be, make us more honest, compassionate, and responsible. When someone reaches out to help another human being, the hand offered may tell us more about their character than the label they carry.
Leave a Reply