Atheist Revolution

We're the Immoral Ones?

2009-07-31T04:56:00.000-05:00

Image by ruSSeLL hiGGs via Flickr

Christians are fond of reminding atheists that we are immoral because their god provides the basis for all morality. I wonder how many atheist parents hit their children in the head with concrete for refusing to attend church? How many atheists decapitate their 3-year-olds because a "devil" made them do it? How common is it for atheists to kill their diabetic daughters by praying instead of seeking medical attention?

And yet, we are the immoral ones. Why? Because we dare to criticize this absurd religion?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

"If You Don't Believe in an Afterlife, Why Be Moral?"

2009-06-24T05:25:00.000-05:00

Questions about morality are among the most common atheists receive from Christians. There are many variations, but the common element is the notion that some sort of gods (and often the Christian god in particular) is somehow required for moral behavior. As many times as this claim has been debunked, it continues to surface. The version I most often hear asks what incentive one who rejects any sort of afterlife could have for moral behavior in this life. Here is an example from a comment on another post made by Vance:

Dear sirs you have a lot of knowledge my question is if we die and there is nothing after death why not just be the evilest you can be.To me it does not make sense to help my so-called fellow man and have a temporary life and love people if in the end it means nothing. I want it all and all the evil I could do and try to get away with it without the authorities catching me. What do I care about anything or anyone if in the end it does not matter what I do in this temporary life if in the end I am nothingness it does not make sense to be good and it makes a lot more sense to be evil, no consequences when death comes. Isnt that the bottom line in atheism nothing really matters we die and that is it. What are your comments and thank you.

The crux of the question is quite clear: If I do not believe in an afterlife where I will be rewarded or punished for my behavior, why should I behave myself in this life?

Empathy for Others

The first thing I would say to Vance and others asking this question is that human empathy and perspective-taking (i.e., the ability to put oneself in the shoes of another and relate to them on an emotional level) are not dependent on any sort of supernatural entities or planes of existence. Independent of earthly consequences (e.g., incarceration), we tend to engage in moral behavior because we are able to empathize with others.

When I have to take a toy away from a small child because the pieces are small enough that I have to worry about choking, I can recognize that the child does not want to surrender the toy. Even though I know I am doing the right thing (i.e., removing a potential choking hazard), I recognize the child's unhappiness and may try to do something to relieve it (e.g., offering a safe toy as an alternative).

When a Christian tells me that I am going to spend eternity burning in the Christian hell, I refrain from knocking his teeth out as much as I might want to do so. Why? Because I remember being like him. I know what it is like to hold that worldview and to be convinced that I am somehow helping others by threatening them with hell. As much as I may now dislike this Christian and what he represents, I am still able to empathize with him.

The "Golden Rule"

Another powerful reason for moral behavior the notion that I should treat others the way I would like to be treated. Many Christians mistakenly believe that this "rule" came from their bible. It did not. It predated their bible by a large margin.

The idea here is simple but powerful. I do my best to treat others the way I would like to be treated, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with rewards or punishments. It is simply the right thing to do. How do I know? Because it makes good intuitive sense and helps maintain a desirable social structure.

Moral Development

The statement that one would commit all sorts of atrocities if one stopped believing in heaven and hell reflects a primitive but not unusual stage of moral development. In fact, it represents the very first stage of moral development in Kohlberg's six-stage model.

Most of us, including most Christians, continue to develop and pass through at least some of the other stages. Although this is a gross oversimplification, one could say that someone who grows into adulthood while remaining in this initial stage is a sociopath.

So another response to the initial question is that most adults progress to higher levels of morality that do not rest on mere rewards and punishments. Most adults, Christians included, are not moral because of what they believe about any sort of afterlife.

When Vance asks, "What do I care about anything or anyone if in the end it does not matter what I do in this temporary life if in the end I am nothingness it does not make sense to be good and it makes a lot more sense to be evil, no consequences when death comes," it appears that he is firmly fixed in the first stage of what Kohlberg refers to as preconventional morality.

A Question for the Christians

For all those Christians questioning why anyone would be good without the promise of heaven, I offer the following from Michael Shermer:

What would you do if there were no God? Would you commit robbery, rape, and murder, or would you continue being a good and moral person? Either way the question is a debate stopper. If the answer is that you would soon turn to robbery, rape, or murder, then this is a moral indictment of your character, indicating you are not to be trusted because if, for any reason, you were to turn away from your belief in God, your true immoral nature would emerge…If the answer is that you would continue being good and moral, then apparently you can be good without God. QED. [Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil, pp. 154-155].

For more on the subject of atheist morality, I encourage you to read the following:

Photo credit: jurvetson

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

This is Christian Morality?

2009-06-16T06:11:00.000-05:00

Image by photobunny via Flickr

One of the most pervasive myths about atheism is that atheists are immoral because gods are somehow required for good behavior. Of course, the person making such an accusation tends to have a particular god in mind and to disqualify all others without any justification. I think I'll steer clear of that tangent for now. Instead, I'd like to stick with the idea that a particular god - or at least belief in a particular god - is the only thing standing between a person and bad behavior. This appears to be a core tenet of the sort of Christian "morality" practiced by fundamentalists and extremists.

When a Christian makes the claim that atheists are necessarily immoral because of their lack of belief in the Christian's preferred god, the atheist typically retorts by asking if god-belief is the only thing preventing the Christian from running wild in the streets. Some Christians will answer in the affirmative; others will recognize the worrisome implications of this and activate their reality-distortion field to escape the question.

Once in awhile, a Christian making such a claim might experience a moment of terrifying honesty. Austin Cline reports on just such an occurrence from Jeff Allen who tweeted the following (including the spelling error):

Dear liberals and athiests, My religion is the only thing that keeps me from killing you, are you sure you want me to give it up? #tcot

If you believe Mr. Allen, it appears that he would be a murderer without his god-belief. I agree completely with Austin Cline when he says:

If the only thing preventing Jeff Allen from going on a psychotic killing spree is his religion, then perhaps everyone else is better off if he keeps his religion. Contrary to what Allen might imagine, though, he's hardly offering a positive argument in defense of religion.

I should also note that Jeff Allen left the following comment on Austin's blog:

I am only commenting to say that whoever tweeted that is not me. I am a Christ follower who couldn’t disagree with the tweeter in this article more. May God have mercy on his soul. Blessings to all you skeptics.

Maybe someone hijacked his Twitter account. Then again, maybe he was temporarily possessed by demons. In the world of fundamentalist Christians, one never knows for sure.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Another Problem with Rooting Morality in God

2009-06-09T05:33:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Regardless of their favored argument for believing in their particular god, many Christians seem particularly fond of criticizing atheists on moral grounds. Such Christians often believe that all atheists seek the complete eradication of their religion and are likely to oppose this primarily on moral grounds. Specifically, such Christians claim that moral order is somehow dependent upon their god, or at least upon continued belief in their god. Of course, making such a claim requires them to dismiss or simply ignore evidence that predominately secular societies are not necessarily dysfunctional, but we can set that aside for now to examine an often neglected counterargument. As we will see, insisting that morality comes from their god creates an important philosophical problem for Christians.

Most of you are at least somewhat familiar with Plato and Socrates, even if only by name. Students of Western philosophy may even recall Euthyphro's dilemma from Plato's dialog Euthyphro. Plato presents the following dialog between Socrates and Euthyphro where Socrates is trying to understand a critical implication of that has become a central plank in the contemporary Christian worldview:

Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?

Euthyphro: Certainly.

Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?

Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.

Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?

In essence, Euthyphro's dilemma is this: Is something good simply because god(s) say so, or does god(s) say something is good because of some other quality?

Using Euthyphro's dilemma as a starting point, Bertrand Russell presents us with the following in Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects:

If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.

Add this to the many difficulties involved in the common Christian claim that human morality is somehow rooted in their particular god.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Morality: Belief Over Behavior

2009-01-28T05:41:00.000-06:00

Image by Getty Images via DaylifeChristianity is quite diverse, with many different sects holding what are sometimes very different beliefs. In this post on Christian morality, I'd like to focus on the group of Christians who describe themselves as "born again" or "saved." I'd like to examine the core of their view of morality and consider some interesting implications of holding such a view.

I believe that the essence of morality for this group of Christians can be effectively summarized as follows: How one behaves is less important than what one believes.

First, the group of Christians to which I am referring here frequently preaches that the path to salvation lies in belief rather than in deeds. Good deeds are encouraged too. I am not denying this. However, the key to salvation is assumed to lie through accepting Jesus into one's life (i.e., belief).

Second, we see these Christians willing to forgive even the most despicable acts as long as one ceases the bad behavior and embraces the belief system. Stopping the bad behavior alone is insufficient. The belief is necessary in order to receive forgiveness.

Third, these Christians insist that even the best behaved atheist imaginable is bound for hell. Without the belief, the number of positive acts matters little to the god of such Christians. Unlike Santa Claus, who is depicted as keeping track of good deeds and bad deeds, the god of the "born again" Christians cares less about deeds than about beliefs.

Finally, and this may be the most difficult to grasp, these Christians have elevated thought to the level of behavior. That is, impure thoughts are not distinguished from impure acts. Cursing one's god in thought is equally bad as doing so aloud. Again, this helps to elevate belief to the highest level.

Some of the implications of this sort of morality:

The incentive to behave well is weakened by the "get out of sin free" card such Christians believe they can obtain from belief. Regardless of one's bad acts, all will be forgiven if one ceases to engage in the bad acts and accepts Jesus as one's savior.
Because there is no valid way to determine the sincerity of one's professed beliefs, these Christians are highly vulnerable to exploitation. Perhaps this has something to do with the number and type of crimes committed by their clergy.
The system is structured to maintain belief, even at the expense of good behavior. Is it any wonder why the belief system is so resistant to change?

It is not my intention in this post to argue that any particular form of secular morality is superior to the morality of "born again" Christians I describe here. However, I think it should be apparent that this version of morality, one where belief has primacy over behavior, is seriously flawed.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Morality and Hell

2008-10-10T07:32:00.002-05:00

Image by ruSSeLL hiGGs via FlickrAmong the many accusations some Christians direct toward atheists is the notion that we are immoral. Without belief in their god and their bible, they argue, we have no moral foundation. And yet, a belief system which includes the expectation that the majority of the world's population will suffer the horrors of their hell while a select few are magically transported to some sort of heaven is considered morally just. If this is their idea of morality, I'd suggest that we are better off finding our moral grounding elsewhere.

To be fair, some Christians have jettisoned this concept of hell from their dogma. They realize that it is not possible to reconcile the forgiveness they want to preach with eternal damnation. Sadly, they seem to be in a small minority. For many Christians, hell is a central part of their belief system (and it shows).

Christians are quick to explain that their god provides everyone with a choice. Their hell can be avoided by conforming to the will of their god. But how is this choice - do what I say or suffer for all eternity - a moral exemplar? I am reminded of an abusive parent and see little evidence of love here.

Most of all, I am concerned about what Christians' hell-belief does to their interactions with nonbelievers in the present. How can I expect to be treated as an equal, worthy of respect and dignity, when interacting with someone who is convinced that I am destined for the worst sort of punishment they can imagine? And not only am I destined for this fate, but I am assumed to deserve it!

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Good Without God

2007-10-25T05:37:00.001-05:00

There is a great article by Dan Gardner in The Ottawa Citizen that I encourage you to read. This is precisely the sort of pro-atheist article we need to get out more frequently. Gardner not only dispels one of the most important myths about atheists but he also shows how the Christians who condemn us have to keep revising their criticism as it proves erroneous.

The whole article is worth a read, but I can't resist highlighting my favorite part:

No, they say, we cannot be good without believing in an invisible spirit who, like Santa Claus, knows when we've been bad or good. No invisible spirit, no reward or punishment. No reward or punishment, and moral codes become empty words. Inevitably, atheists must conclude that morality is for suckers -- and so believers are, ipso facto, better people than non-believers.

Gardner notes that religion has been viewed as being necessary for morality for centuries but that believers are increasingly forced to confront the falsehood of this view as the atheist movement grows.

This has complicated the issue considerably because now everyone knows a few atheists who are not lying, thieving, murderous wretches. They work. They pay taxes. They have kids and don't beat them or sell them for medical experiments. How can this be?

An answer comes from the godless science of evolutionary psychology. "People have gut feelings that give them emphatic moral convictions," writes Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, "and they struggle to rationalize the convictions after the fact." Those "gut feelings" are not the result of what we learned in Sunday school. "They arise from the neurobiological and evolutionary design of the organs we call moral emotions."

As Gardner notes, those believers who are at least partially connected with reality have been forced to adopt a much weaker position regarding the relationship between religion and morality.

This has led believers to a subtler attack. "People who don't believe in God can be good," writes Reginald Bibby, a theist and University of Lethbridge sociologist. "But people who believe in God are more likely to value being good, enhancing the chances that they will be good."

So religion is no longer viewed as being required for morality but as merely being facilitative of moral behavior. Gardner shoots that claim down too, noting that some of the nations scoring at the top on a list of various indicators of morality happen to be among the least religious.

Tags: religion, belief, atheism, morality, morals