In a word, no. More to the point, morality cannot exist without a conception of God.
Most religious traditions place suffering at the core of the nature of Being. That is, Being cannot exist without suffering, limitation, dissatisfaction, and death. This problem of suffering demands a solution (since none of us are inclined to abide in our suffering). Ultimately, Being can be viewed, fundamentally, as a series of problems to be solved.
How will we stay warm? How will we get food? How will we protect ourselves from nature (both within and without)?
At every level, our orientation is to identify and solve problems with the goal of reducing the suffering in our lives. Pain is arguably the most motivating factor in human life and our brain is naturally oriented towards problem solving (i.e. the alleviation of suffering). Our technological advancement is an effort to constrain nature. Our culture traditions are aimed at resolving societal problems.
So with that in mind, let’s start by taking a look at the language used in the problem solving arena. The first ideas that come to mind are the concepts of “right” and “wrong.” We conceptualize a problem and aim at resolution for that problem. We use the ideas of right and wrong to evaluate solutions to said problem and determine a path forward. Right and wrong are not moral terms because at this level, we are not dealing with moral problems.
Let’s take the problem of navigating from point A to point B as an example. This isn’t a moral issue, at least under typical circumstances. It is simply a process of evaluating optional paths to get you to where you want to be. If a choice moves you closer to point B, then it is right. If it doesn’t, then it is wrong. The terms “right” and “wrong” are sufficient to evaluate these sorts of problems.
But as we elevated the height of our problems, we tend also to expand the base language that we use to navigate the problem. Let’s call these ethical problems. In the ethical realm we tend towards terms like “good” and “bad.” Here we can frame solutions as “values.” Values including those like fairness, beauty, justice, autonomy, and responsibility.
These are abstractions, unmoored from any specific case or narrow problem. They operate at a higher conceptual level and thus cover a broader range of problems in our lives. These are also problems that are far more complex, typically without simple solutions. These are the types of problems that cannot simply take a binary right/wrong approach. They deal in more ambiguity and have solutions which are better (more good) and worse (more bad) but often with a mix of good and bad. The simple binary language of right and wrong is no longer fit to the task. The value, in turn, is also not so clear.
But what of the ultimate problem? What of THE problem of Being. This is a problem so abstracted that it covers the whole of life, all elements, over all time, for ourselves, our ancestors, and all generations to come. As we aim higher, we must broaden the concepts of right and wrong (good and bad) into the ultimate edge of the spectrum, the final word that lies at the base of this orientation. At this level we cannot help but use religious language, that of “Evil” and “Righteousness.”
And what is the ultimate solution to the ultimate problem? This is God. God is the orientation towards the highest of values. Transcendent value. Universal value. Timeless value. The specific symbols and manifestations of God may differ from person to person but the ultimate reality of God exists in each one of us, regardless of our invocation of a deity.
When we speak of morality, we speak of a transcendent ethic. One that is not easily defined and cannot follow a simple set of rules or rote procedures. This transcendent ethic must be oriented towards a transcendent value, that is, oriented towards God. I imagine this as a triumvirate, a hierarchical form, a direction and goal oriented form, with the base comprised of the spectrum of positive and negative language on which this value structure stands. It is as though you cannot reach the conceptual level of God, without widening the base of the concepts which we use to speak about God.
At this level things become so abstracted as to become paradoxical, ineffable, and persistently mysterious. Let’s take the Semitic perspective of God as an example. What is the solution to the problem of Being? Being. Literally as encapsulated in the translation of Yahweh, “the one who is, the existing”; “to be”; “to become”. What is the solution to the suffering of life then? To be. To become.
Highly correlated is the Daoist concept of the Way. The Way is a process - a path - and walking the path is the goal. Being and becoming are the goal. And how do we know if we on the Path, aligned with the Way, properly Becoming? It is only in reference to the Evil and Righteousness in our lives. Simple concepts of Right and Wrong are not sufficient. They are not expansive enough and they limit our thinking. We need transcendent language. The type of language that is as paradoxical, ineffable, and mysterious as the concept of God itself.
What is Evil? Impossible to say but we know it when we see it.
What is God? Impossible to say but we know it when we see it.