Most Americans answered no, however, responses to this question differ dramatically depending on whether Americans see religion as important in their lives. Here are some excerpts from the report:
Roughly nine-in-ten who say religion is not too or not at all important to them believe it is possible to be moral without believing in God, compared with only about half of Americans to whom religion is very or somewhat important (92% vs. 51%).There's more data from this survey at the link, but I'd like to ask those who think morality is independent of belief in God what they base their moral principles upon. Is it their conscience? Their reason? The social consensus?
Catholics are also more likely than Protestants to hold this view (63% vs. 49%), though views vary across Protestant groups.
There are also divisions along political lines: Democrats and those who lean Democratic are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral (71% vs. 59%).
Liberal Democrats are particularly likely to say this (84%), whereas only about half of conservative Republicans (53%) say the same.
In addition, Americans under 50 are somewhat more likely than older adults to say that believing in God is not necessary to have good values (71% vs. 59%).
Those with a college degree or higher are also more likely to believe this than those with a high school education or less (76% vs. 58%).
If morality is a matter of individual conscience then how can anyone say that anyone else's conscience is depraved? If everyone's morality is determined by what their conscience condones then if someone's conscience condones sexually abusing little girls how can anyone else condemn that behavior?
In order to do so we'd have to appeal to a higher standard than individual conscience.
If reason is the arbiter of moral values then the person whose reason leads them to live by the Golden Rule and the person whose reason leads them to live by the rule that he should put his interests ahead of everyone else's are both living by their reason. So who's right? Why is it irrational to just live for oneself?
If morality is a function of the social consensus then if the consensus is that we should practice chattel slavery, infant sacrifice, genocide or take away from women the right to vote then those things would all be morally proper. How can we say that burning witches at the stake was wrong if such horrors were part of the social consensus of the time?
However, the folks in the Pew survey who reported their view that people don't have to believe in God to be moral are partly correct. Anyone, whether a believer or unbeliever, can be kind, honest and generous, but the point is that unless there's some objective standard of morality that establishes these behaviors as moral duties the contrary choice to be cruel, dishonest or selfish would not be morally wrong, it would just be different.
Unless there exists a perfectly good moral authority who can hold us ultimately accountable for how we live, i.e. a God, then there can be no objective standard of morality, and if there's no objective standard of right and wrong we can't say what the term "morally wrong" would even mean.
The respondents who opined that you don't have to believe in God to be moral are actually implying that morality is just a matter of each person's arbitrary feelings, that "right" is what someone likes and "wrong" is what that individual doesn't like, but if that's so there are really no moral obligations at all.
This five minute video featuring Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft does a good job of explaining why God is the only adequate foundation for moral duties and, by extension, why those respondents in the Pew survey need to think a little more deeply into this matter than they evidently have: