The Evidence from Guilt Argument
Without any guilt I suspect we wouldn't have any religion at all. Each religion even adds to our guilt by providing a list of "sins" to avoid and commands to be obeyed, or beliefs we must act upon (the "faith without works is dead" variety). This is viciously circular though, and obviously so. The more guilt that religion produces then the more religion is perceived to be needed.
The fact is that a society of sociopaths who feel no guilt would not be a society at all. We have evolved as conscious human beings who realize that being a part of a community of people is better than not doing so. Communities of people help each other. Without them life would be much more difficult. That's why sociopaths cannot survive and community minded people do. So guilt evolved within us, and when it did, so did religion (or it evolved hand-in-hand together). It's that simple people. The Evidence from Guilt Argument (as I call it) does not work. It's even based on an logical fallacy known as “the fallacy of affirming the consequent”:
- If there is a God behind the moral law within us, then it must make itself known within us.
- We find this moral law within us.
- Therefore, there is a God behind the moral law within us.
Someone might want to argue this instead:
- If we find a moral law within us then there is a God behind the moral law within us.
- We find a moral law within us.
- Therefore, there is a God behind the moral law within us.