Like most things, the truth is probably in the middle - both.<quoted text>
Nature vs Nurture again. Sociobiologists vs the social scientists.
When they find a gene that expresses morality, I will be more impressed with the former perspective. Until then, I am more sympathetic to the latter.
How many other animals can learn right or wrong, good or bad, or reason? To what extent?
If a child is raised by Fagin (think Oliver Twist), then well, you know.
So clearly it's both, but the neurological framework/wiring needs to be present.
The point was I believe that we don't need religion to teach morality or ethics and clearly this is true as well.
Even if one were to show a positive correlation between atheism and, say crime - this would only show correlation and not causation.
It could just be that criminals don't tend to make time to go to church or temple.