Summary: The text begins by asking whether religion is necessary for morality. This question is significant because if we answer affirmatively, it implies that without religious influence or fear of divine judgment, we would behave immorally.

Explanation: For instance, without the religious principle of "Thou shalt not steal", would we all become thieves? This is a simplified perspective, of course, but it captures the essence of the debate.

Summary: Alternatively, the text suggests that humans might have an inherent moral compass that operates independently of religion, which brings up the question of where this morality originates.

Explanation: Imagine a secular community that values honesty, compassion, and fairness. They uphold these values not because a deity commands them to, but because they believe these principles make for a just society. This illustrates the concept of morality existing outside of a religious context.

Summary: Critics of religion, particularly anti-theists, argue that religion doesn't guarantee moral behavior. They point to instances where religion has justified immoral acts such as slavery, terrorism, and oppression.

Explanation: A historical example would be the Crusades, where religion was used as a justification for violent conflicts.